1976 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 31st 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)

TUESDAY, JUNE 15, 1976

Night Sitting

[ Page

2653 ]

CONTENTS

Statement

Mount Stephen property. Hon. Mr. Curtis — 2653

Mr. Barber — 2655

Mr. Gibson — 2656

Mr. Wallace — 2656

Routine proceedings

Home Purchase Assistance Act (Bill 49) Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Curtis — 2657

Mr. Nicolson — 2659

Mr. Lauk — 2662

Mr. Shelford — 2663

Ms. Brown — 2664

Mr. Bawlf — 2667

Mr. Barrett — 2668

Mr. Levi — 2671

Mr. Davidson — 2674

Mr. Wallace — 2674

TUESDAY, JUNE 15, 1976

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

HON. H.A. CURTIS (Minister of Municipal Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make a statement.

Leave granted.

MOUNT STEPHEN PROPERTY

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, on Thursday last the hon.

second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) asked about property in the

city of Victoria which has been the subject of lengthy negotiations

with the Mount Stephen Co-operative Society. This was followed on

Monday by a further question from the hon. member for Oak Bay (Mr.

Wallace). I'm sorry he's not in his seat. There were supplementaries

today.

Because of the apparent misunderstanding on the part of some hon.

members regarding this land and recent statements attributed to the

mayor of Victoria, I believe it is important to set down in the record

the situation as I understand it. I ask for the indulgence of the

members of the House while I develop a fairly lengthy statement.

First, I have reason to believe that the former Minister of Housing,

the hon. member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson), has some knowledge

of the protracted negotiations between the Department of Housing,

Central Mortgage and Housing Corp., the city of Victoria and

representatives of the Mount Stephen cooperative Society. Further, he

must also be aware of the frustration associated with this project

which has been experienced in the department that he headed under the

former government. The chronology of the lack of progress on this site

goes back to at least March 15, 1974, when Mr. Rafuse of the Mount

Stephen Co-operative Society wrote to the former minister requesting 90

days for his group to prepare a feasibility study and proposal as to

the use of the land. So much, Mr. Speaker, for the Mount Stephen

Co-operative Society for the moment.

The question of provincial purchase of land from the city of

Victoria dates back well before 1974. It was the subject of

correspondence between the city and the former Minister of Municipal

Affairs, Mr. Lorimer, in at least March and April, 1973. It was then,

in the spring of 1973, that the property was purchased for a total of

$200,000 minus one lot which the city did not own. It appears this was

subsequently purchased by the province for $10,000 to complete the land

assembly. It is to be emphasized, Mr. Speaker, that this amount

represents market value as independently appraised at that time.

To return to the Mount Stephen Co-operative, Mr. Speaker, the

Department of Housing files show — this is one of the reasons it has

taken since Thursday to thoroughly research this matter — negotiations

and voluminous correspondence which stretch regrettably from the period

March 15, 1974, until May 18 of this year. The dates on which this

subject was dealt with include June 18, 1974, June 28, October — no

date, December 20, January 25, 1975, May 7, May 14, May 16, July 7,

October 9, October 27, November 3, November 5, November 21, December 5

and December 18 — all in 1975. I will not take the time of the House to

catalogue each occurrence through that period of almost two years

except to say that it appears that the essence of the problem clearly

appears to be the stubborn refusal of the Mount Stephen Co-operative

Society to meet the densities which would be acceptable to CMHC and the

provincial Department of Housing under the former minister.

At no time, Mr. Speaker, has CMHC found the co-op proposal to be

acceptable for loan purposes. The impasse between the former government

and the Mount Stephen group appears to have come to a crisis point on

October 27 last, 1975, when J.L. McKinnon, the administrative assistant

to the Deputy Minister of Housing, wrote to the Mount Stephen group

indicating that if the co-op was unable to receive CMHC approvals for

financing by November 30, over one month later, the property would no

longer be allocated to the Mount Stephen group.

Now rather than quote from a note from the file, Mr. Speaker, I will

table a memorandum at about this time — November 5, 1975 — from a

Department of Housing architect, Neil Jackson, to the Associate Deputy

Minister of Housing, Mr. Chatterton. It sets out in considerable detail

the frustration being experienced by the department at that time before

the last provincial election. I think one sentence or two might be

helpful. Mr. Jackson gave the opinion that if the society was prepared

to compromise, the project would be able to proceed within three or

four weeks. Despite this, Mr. Rafuse refused to compromise on anything

and expressed his intention to continue the fight. It is a report on a

meeting which took place on Friday, October 31 last, between Mr.

Jackson and Mr. Rafuse.

In other words, Mr. Speaker, this government is not alone in

experiencing difficulty and frustration with the Mount Stephen

Co-operative Society. I am informed by the former Deputy Minister of

Housing, Mr. Begg, that this was the subject of a number of discussions

with the former minister, the hon. member for Nelson-Creston. I have to

believe that the former minister experienced the same degree of

frustration over this project as I have, although his experience with

it would cover many more months than in my case.

[ Page 2654 ]

I regret, Mr. Speaker, that the previous administration was unable

to see this property developed when its market value appraised was

still $200,000. If they had, families now seeking homes would still be

living there. I believe the former government tried. This particular

co-operative group has applied pressure tactics on the Department of

Housing through two ministers and two governments. I am not prepared to

let the department continue to be exposed to this degree of harassment.

It continues even now with a letter dated June 14, 1976, addressed to

the Premier, demanding, among other things, the resignation of the

Associate Deputy Minister of Housing.

Now with respect to the increase in the cost of land, I regret — as

I believe the former minister (Mr. Nicolson) and the hon. second member

for Victoria (Mr. Barber) regret — the escalation in the value of this

land in the more than three years since it was sold by the city to the

provincial government. However, Mr. Speaker, surely all members of this

House would agree that to sell it at far less than present market value

— at far less, I emphasize — would confer an enormous windfall profit

to the new owners. This we are not prepared to do. The second member

for Victoria should know, as I am sure the former minister knows, that

the proceeds from any sale of this land will go not to consolidated

revenue of the province, but back into the Department of Housing

revolving fund to provide more housing in the city of Victoria and

elsewhere in British Columbia.

The list of housing projects presently underway in greater Victoria

is impressive, Mr. Speaker: Wilderness Park Co-op at Jackson and

Summit, 38 townhouses — high-impact grant, $162,000; Washington Co-op,

381 Burnside Road, 60 townhouses, apartments — high-impact grant,

$125,090; neighbourhood improvement programme, James Bay and Victoria

West — provincial contribution, $500,000; James Bay co-op on Dallas

Road, approximately 25 to 27 units — the land cost $303,000. Not all of

these were started by the former government, incidentally, Mr. Speaker.

Lest the hon. member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) feels that nothing has

happened since that time, a great deal has: the Dome Co-op at Toronto

and Simcoe Streets, 35 units — $295,000 land cost; neighbourhood

improvement programme in Springridge — provincial contribution,

$250,000; the Daon project on Menzies Street, 47 garden apartments in a

three-storey building — contract price, $1.6 million, land price,

$420,000; and the Collinson and Rupert Streets project, just approved

very, very recently, Victoria Senior Citizens Housing Society, 99

self-contained units — land cost, $182,000.

As to the statements attributed to the mayor of Victoria (Mr. Young)

in recent days, Mr. Speaker, I must point out that in the city of

Victoria at least two aldermen, Messrs. Hood and Glazier, and the

director of planning, have been involved in recent months in

discussions surrounding a proposal call, so it should come as no

surprise to the mayor of the city of Victoria. In fact, I understand it

was generally agreed at one meeting with the city that in order to

avoid windfall profits the province would have to sell the land at

close to market value.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, it may interest some members of the House, and

the mayor of Victoria as well, to know that the proposal call design

criteria, which has been debated in recent days and is now the subject

of some controversy, were drafted from the city's point of view by a

senior staff member of the city of Victoria. These terms appear in the

proposal call. The Department of Housing will judge the proposal, all

proposals, on the basis of the proponent's ability to create affordable

housing.

I emphasize for the members opposite: the extent to which present

appraised value obtains will depend upon the suitability of the

proposal; that is, it will be based on the sale — the proposal that

comes in. It will be the basis for the sale.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I have taken more time than I would have wished —

considerable time — but the members opposite have shown such keen

interest in this matter, and have been urging me to make a statement

and to explain the situation as I see it. That is what I am doing. The

time I take, however, pales in comparison with the time and the costs

and the frustration expended in over three years and, again, through

two governments.

For the Mount Stephen site the Department of Housing seeks

thoughtful and productive response, and we are receiving very

interested response right now. We expect to see moderate or affordable

housing built on the land at the earliest possible time. We welcome

proposals for rental or ownership. We invite the Mount Stephen Co-op to

submit its proposal as well, along with any others. We shall then move

with all possible speed to see this unfortunate and protracted matter

resolved.

I will soon be announcing a programme of providing land for

affordable housing throughout this province. We look forward to

offering land capable of accommodating 1,500 homes. The Mount Stephen

site and one in Williams Lake will be the first of many. I may say in

addition, Mr. Speaker, that if the response to the very limited

advertisement — which did appear inadvertently and prior to the deputy

minister consulting with me, and to his regret as well as mine — is any

indication, then I think we can look forward to this programme with

great success.

With respect to the latest question today concerning the possibility

of a park: again, the city of Victoria is in ultimate control of the

development of that site. Its guidelines will attain. Thank you, Mr.

[ Page 2655 ]

Speaker.

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): May I have leave to reply, Mr. Speaker?

Leave granted.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's the child actor.

MR. BARBER: There are three really very crucial issues here. None

of them have been touched on by the Minister this evening. In the first place,

the city of Victoria believes that an agreement made between the city and

the Department of Housing has been broken.

An agreement to provide low-cost housing on the site at Mount Stephen has

been broken by this government's determination to sell those public-housing lands to a private developer.

The second issue is that the city, and indeed many of its citizens,

feel that they've been cheated out of $400,000. The difference between

the original purchase price and the present selling price, $200,000 and

$600,000, is $400,000. They feel that they've lost that money because

they made an agreement in good faith that those lands would be turned

over for public housing and low-cost housing purposes. They made that

agreement in good faith and that agreement has been broken. They're not

happy at all, Mr. Speaker. I know that for a fact; I've spoken with

them.

Thirdly, what we've also learned is that by tripling the land costs and

by obviously allowing, as should be the case in other development, a private

developer to make a profit by tripling the land costs and by seeing that the

developer would make a profit, low-cost housing can no longer be constructed

on that site. So people of Victoria are missing five- to six-dozen units of

housing because of this determination to sell to a private developer, at three

times the original land costs, those 4.36 acres.

I'm still very concerned, Mr. Speaker, why such an advertisement should

be published on June 7 in the Journal of Commerce in Vancouver and then withdrawn.

How could it have been published inadvertently? This is a $600,000 deal, Mr.

Speaker. This is more than half a million dollars, This is a matter of significant

concern. The minister did not tell us who ordered the ad placed, who ordered

it withdrawn and how it should have been placed inadvertently at all. The

minister did not tell us why the proposal call itself has not been available

since I first raised this question in the House. I've requested it from

the department and it has not been made available now, why that ad was placed

by mistake, whose mistake it was and what such a mistake means when we look

at the proper handling of the Mount Stephen properties.

Thirdly, another question was not answered by his minister. The director of

development and planning for the city of Victoria this morning, in a memo to

Committee B of the city of Victoria meeting in council, informed the city that

he found it objectionable that in the proposal call there should be suggestion

that the developer, required to set aside half an acre for park and play space,

should then expect to be able to go back to the city and have the city construct

it and maintain it for him. Indeed, the director drafted a memo, a copy of which

I will produce if you wish — the minister may already have it — in which he suggested:

"I think the Department of Housing should be disabused of this notion."

This is not consistent with the theory that the city of Victoria supports this

in any substantial way. Quite to the contrary, the mayor, Alderman Tindall and

the director of planning do not. They were offended, Mr. Speaker. Not only have

they lost $400,000, not only have they lost five- to six-dozen units of low-cost

housing, but they are now expected in the terms of the proposal call to pay for

the cost and the maintenance of the park. That's like asking you or me,

Mr. Speaker, to get the city to pay for our backyard maintenance. It makes as

much sense in terms of the design for the land. It makes as little sense when

we look at the proper economies here.

Finally, I think it's important to point out to this House, Mr.

Speaker, that the minister has taken only one of several choices

available to him. He tells us at because the Mount Stephen people have

been unable to reach an agreement with the Department of Housing — and

I'm well aware of that, as I have in fact consulted with the former

Minister of Housing (Mr. Nicolson) — the only other choice is to sell

the land to a private developer. He didn't explore the other choices,

Mr. Speaker. There are other co-operatives that could be formed to

handle the land. The Department of Housing could undertake he project

itself; Dunhill could undertake it itself. The city of Victoria could

be given the land back. The city could undertake the project itself.

Failing that, the city of Victoria at least could be recompensed in the

amount of $400,000, which it feels it has lost in this deal. If the

city had not been so good and exercised such good faith as to sell the

land in the first place, they could put it on the market for $600,000

today. They could be $400,000 the richer.

The minister has tried to tell us, Mr. Speaker, that the only choice

he has in the face of this interregnum in development at Mount Stephen

is to sell it to a private developer through an inadvertent ad. That is

not the only choice. Another co-op could do it, the department could do

it, Dunhill could do it, or the city itself could pay the money back.

You could give them the title back and they could develop it themselves.

The minister has, Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I

[ Page 2656 ]

believe not answered the questions which I've

raised in this House. The minister has not told us of the other

choices, of the alternate methods of construction that would be

available on the site to five or six dozen units constructed

immediately. I'm disappointed, Mr. Speaker, that the minister has not

covered all the ground or answered all the questions. I hope that in

his next statement he might do that.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): I'll be very

brief, but in listening to the statements made by the Minister of

Housing and the hon. second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) there's a

certain fishy atmosphere surrounding this business.

The minister in his statement referred to documentations on several

dates, stretching back, I think, to 1974. He did table one document

dated November 5, 1975. I wonder if he could undertake to table the

rest of the documentation in order that we can better understand the

history that has surrounded the complexity leading to the

unavoidability....

Interjection.

MR. S. BAWLF (Victoria): What profit?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The hon. member for North Vancouver–Capilano has the floor.

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: Next I would have to say that there is something

basically wrong with a senior level of government profiting to the tune

of $400,000 with respect to a junior government. As a very minimum, if

this land is not to be used for the purposes for which it was acquired,

it should be either returned to the city, or the profits thereon

returned to the city.

I was astonished to hear the minister say that his department had

been exposed — and I hope I have the right words here — to a degree of

harassment. This, I assume, was harassment by the postman as he brought

the letters each morning, beating the deputy minister about the head

with registered mail. (Laughter.) This is a novel reason indeed for

backing away from a project. I'm afraid it just won't wash.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please! The hon. member for North

Vancouver–Capilano has the floor on a reply to a ministerial statement.

Would you give him the courtesy of the floor in his reply?

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): That means you, Phillips!

MR. GIBSON: We were finally told, Mr. Speaker, at the

conclusion of the statement, that the land was to be used for

affordable housing when the value of it is to be tripled by the

incipient sale. It's obviously less affordable housing than it would

have been otherwise, and I can only hope, when the minister tells us

that he will soon be offering a general programme on affordable land

throughout the province, that it will represent something less than a

tripling of the original cost of the lands for the programme.

(Laughter.)

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, it was very interesting that the

minister should choose to make his statement this evening. I'm sorry

that I missed the first part of his statement because I was busy at

home looking at some of his ads that talk about the "affordable

home...and how we're helping it to happen." We're helping it to happen

by making a quick $400,000 profit on a piece of land.

I heard the first member for Victoria (Mr. Bawlf) interject: "What

profit?" I thought that when you bought something for $200,000 and sold

it for $600,000 you made a $400,000 profit. This whole issue, Mr.

Speaker comes very strange in the light of this government, which in

opposition so bitterly complained about the actions of the NDP

government in the Inner Harbour, when in fact, in that same context,

the proper and best, wisest use of land was very much the centre of the

issue. In that case again the city of Victoria was treated in a very

shabby manner — or so this party said at that time — by the government

of the day.

Now we find that land acquired by this government for a clearly

stated, specific purpose, namely to create low-cost housing, in fact

will not be fulfilled, and the cost of whatever housing is created on

that site must inevitably be much higher than it would otherwise be if

the government operated on the basis of the original purchase price.

I particularly associate myself with the remarks of the second

member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) when he states that the government has

not made any mention of options open to it to make the development

available at the original price, so that in fact the lowest possible

cost of housing would be attained for the subsequent occupants of that

site. I agree with the minister that it would make no sense to give a

so-called "windfall" profit to a private developer under the light of

these recent events. Nobody would deny that it's unfortunate if there

has been a great delay in reaching some kind of final decision about

the ultimate disposition of the land. I agree with that entirely, but

to suggest that because the original plan cannot be implemented as

intended the only other thing to do is to boost the price of the land

by $400,000 and sell it to a private developer is totally unacceptable.

As I say, Mr. Speaker, the whole issue of

[ Page 2657 ]

affordable accommodation is indeed a challenge

facing this government, as it faced the former government. It's a

little bit like the assertion we had from the minister this afternoon

that we create rental accommodation by renting condominiums that

probably start at $500 a month, which is hardly low-cost housing, Mr.

Speaker.

I just find the explanation by the minister to be full of holes,

unacceptable and unreasonable. I think it does little to add to the

image of this government on the basic kinds of concepts from which it

sought the confidence of the voters in December last year. I hope, in

accordance with the Liberal leader's (Mr. Gibson'

s) suggestion, that

the minister will table all the documents so that we can have a more

accurate and effective study of exactly what has gone on since the

government first acquired the land.

Orders of the day.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): By leave, Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill 49.

Leave granted.

HOME PURCHASE ASSISTANCE ACT

HON. H.A. CURTIS (Minister of Housing): In moving second reading on Bill 49, the Home Purchase Assistance Act, I'd like to take some time to discuss with members...

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. minister has the floor.

HON. MR. CURTIS: ...not only the objectives of the

legislation, but some background which may be of help to them. I might

say at the outset that we're very pleased, Mr. Speaker, with the

initial reaction which has come in from municipalities, from those in

the construction industry, from those in many parts of the province who

see the programmes which are so closely interwoven with federal

programmes as a significant step forward in providing housing in

British Columbia.

The purpose of the bill, simply put, is to revise the programme

presently operated under the Provincial Home Acquisition Act to provide

more selective assistance to be co-ordinated with other provincial

programmes and the forms of assistance available under the National

Housing Act of Canada.

In 1967 the first Act was passed, providing for a grant of $500,

increasing at $25 a year up to $625 for any home purchased in the

province. This was retroactive if the home was purchased on or after

April 1, 1966.

In 1968 the Act was amended to provide for a grant of $ 1,000 or a

second mortgage loan of $ 5,000 on new houses, and the previous Act was

repealed with a period of grace for applications to be made up to the

end of June, 1968.

In 1970 the Act was again amended to provide for a grant of $500 or

a second mortgage loan of $ 2,500 on an older home to persons who had

been renting for at least two years before the date of purchase.

Since the end of 1974, Mr. Speaker, the federal government has been

offering its assisted home ownership programme which is designed to

help lower-income purchasers to acquire reasonably priced homes. The

province is now taking

part in this programme so as to enlarge its

scope by allowing lower-income families to purchase...as an example, in

the Vancouver area, an income of $10,000 being sufficient to purchase a

$47,000 home, and I use the word "home" in its broad sense. It might be

a single-family dwelling; it could be almost any other form of housing

unit for purchase.

The provisions of the bill include: (1) simplified residential

requirements. Any person or spouse who has two years continuous

residence in British Columbia immediately prior to purchase, or any

person or spouse who is a Canadian citizen at the time of application

and was born in British Columbia, or has ordinarily resided in British

Columbia for a continuous period of five years at any time, may apply

for assistance. I digress for a moment to point out that we are trying

to assist those individuals who moved out of the province for one

reason or another but essentially consider British Columbia to be their

home base.

(2) The assistance available: (a) $ 1,000 grant on new homes where the applicant

is the first occupant, or (b) $5,000 second mortgage to eligible applicants

on new or older homes. Under the present Provincial Home Acquisition Act, the

assistance is a grant of $1,000 on a new home less previous annual homeowner

grants, and $500 on an older home; and in second mortgages, $5,000 on a new

home and $2,500 on an older home where the applicant has been renting for two

years. For those purchasing an older home, we have doubled the amount of the

second mortgage from $2,500 to $5,000. I think most people will agree that the

$500 grant on older homes has become irrelevant with inflation, and it is therefore

being eliminated. The practice of deduction of the annual homeowner grant from

the $ 1,000 grant will be discontinued, so the full $ 1,000 will be payable.

(3) The third point to be made this evening is eligible residences. To qualify

for assistance, the home purchased will be required to meet the guidelines as

to cost established by regulation, and I emphasize for the members, Mr. Speaker,

that these guidelines do not come into full effect until after

[ Page 2658 ]

November 30 of this year in order that applicants

may choose to use the old Act if it is to their benefit to do so. In

the meantime we are canvassing the views of the development industry

through its associations.

The intention is that the guidelines will conform to those used in

the federal assisted home ownership programme, with which the province

is assisting, and will vary in different parts of the province. As

examples of the figures, the cost of the homes will probably be as

follows — and I note that all figures are maximums and may be reduced,

depending on the market value of the land involved: in greater

Victoria, $45,000; the balance of Vancouver Island, $38,000; Vancouver,

obviously the highest at $47,000; Kamloops, which includes Lytton and

north to 150 Mile House, Merritt, Chase, Ashcroft, Clearwater, $34,000;

I should point out that we have the same price, $34,000, for the

Kelowna area, including Revelstoke south and Princeton; Cranbrook,

$33,000; Prince George, also Fort St. John, Fort Nelson, Williams Lake,

Chetwynd, Mackenzie, Granisle, and so on, $36,000; and Prince Rupert,

which includes the Queen Charlottes, Masset, et cetera, $39,000.

These guidelines apply whether the home is a new home or an older

home and whether a grant or a second mortgage is requested. Our main

concern, Mr. Speaker, in restricting price limitations has been to stop

people who do not need it from taking advantage of relatively

inexpensive provincial money.

As an example, a $5,000 first mortgage, 20 years at 12 per cent,

relates to $54.05 a month and a second mortgage, 7.5 per cent over the

same 20-year term, $39.95. So the difference is $14.10 a month. It can

be seen from this that people who reduce their first mortgage by $5,000

are able to receive from this government a $169.20 per year subsidy. In

addition, the province, out of the public purse, must find the $5,000

capital.

In a year of restraint, Mr. Speaker, we should not be giving this

sort of benefit to people purchasing $75,000 or $80,000 houses, and we

have on record — as the former government must have as well — cases of

people who have borrowed from the provincial authorities when they've

purchased a home in excess of $80,000. Three such cases are: a $5,000

second mortgage issued on a $116,000, 2,935-sq.-ft. home. The first

mortgage was for $50,000. Another example is that a $500 grant was

given on a $90,000 home. And thirdly, a $5,000 second mortgage was

approved — pending submission of standard documents by the applicant —

on a $240,000, 5,000-sq.-ft. home. The first mortgage was for only

$55,000.

Mr. Speaker, this is intolerable. I cannot believe that the NDP

permitted this to happen while they were in government, this kind of

provincial money going to homes of this size and cost. It will stop. It

is fair to say that from a social viewpoint these are examples of

inappropriate expenditure of public funds, and they're the type of

cases which have prompted the proposed changes to the home acquisition

programme.

To go on with further comments, the home must be occupied by the

owner as his ordinary place of residence at the time of application or

application must be made within one year after such occupation. This is

to ensure that the assistance goes to the owner-occupier or to the

person who intends to be the owner-occupier. The owner must have an

equity in the home of at least 5 per cent of its cost, although

admittedly this can be changed by regulation.

Now to touch briefly on circumstances in which assistance is not

available, to ensure that the best possible use is made of provincial

funds, no assistance will be granted in cases where the applicant is

obtaining financing under the assisted home ownership programme, the

rural and remote programme or other programmes under the National

Housing Act of Canada as defined in regulations.

For those purchasing a home under AHOP, the overall benefits are not

reduced. They are, in fact, much more substantial. A 95 per cent

mortgage is available and the assistance with payments which will be

provided by both the federal government and ourselves ensures that home

ownership will be possible for families of very low incomes. This

assistance is based on need and it is extended over a number of years.

In order to meet the modest down payment required under AHOP, the

federal government tax-free registered home ownership plan provides the

means, or, secondly, as an alternative to (

a) above, the applicant or

spouse has previously had assistance under this Act or the Provincial

Home Acquisition Act, or by way of a leasehold mortgage under the

Leasehold and Conversion Mortgage Loan Act, or has previously obtained

assistance from the province in connection with a home purchased under

NHA programmes as I've indicated a few moments ago.... The rationale is

that if we have helped a person once, it should not be necessary to

help that person again.

(5) The fifth point to be noted by members in debating this, I feel, is interest

charges on second mortgages. These interest charges will normally be equivalent

to the interest charged on NHA-insured loans at the date of application. However,

if the applicant can show that total payments on the first mortgage, our second

mortgage and his or her taxes result in expenditure of more than 25 per cent

of the family income, the payments on the second mortgage may be reduced by

way of an interest-free loan. The regulations will provide that the actual payment

to be made on the second mortgage — the provincial second mortgage, and where

low incomes require it — will not be less than if it had been advertised at

8 per cent per year.

The rationale for this: it is not reasonable that

[ Page 2659 ]

public funds should be used to subsidize those who

do not need those funds. The interest-free loan will be repayable if

the property is sold or if the mortgagor wishes to refinance upwards.

An exception may be made to this rule where the eligibility committee,

which I believe most members know of, decides that the refinancing will

improve the security of provincial funds. We reason here that an

individual should not be allowed to make a capital gain from publicly

provided subsidies.

(6) The repayment of grants: because this programme channels funds

to areas of real need, provision has been made to allow home-purchase

assistance grants to be earned. Previously, it will be realized, grants

had to be repaid if within five years of occupation the home was sold

or no longer occupied by the applicant. Under this bill, a deduction of

20 per cent of the original grant is allowed for each complete year of

occupation. So if there is to be no second chance, then it would not be

fair to require repayment of the full $ 1,000 if the person owned the

property for, say, only one year.

There are some miscellaneous provisions. The bill — also makes space or provides

for the creation of a three-member eligibility committee to be appointed by

the minister. However, the minister does have the right to make final determination

on cases, the procedures to be adopted in the case of bad debts arising, the

making of rules and regulations by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, procedures

in the a land registry office to protect the provincial funds that are described

in the bill.

The effective date: Mr. Speaker, the provisions of the bill will apply to

homes purchased on or after the date on which the Act comes into force. But

again I emphasize this transitional period: the bill makes provision to

amend the Provincial Home Acquisition Act so that no new applications under

that Act will be accepted after November 30, 1976. It is emphasized, and I

think it is important to note, that loans and grants will continue to be made

under the Provincial Home Acquisition Act after November 30 until all eligible

applications received before that date have been processed. Again, we are trying

to make the changeover period as easy and as smooth as possible.

Mr. Speaker, there will be a number of comments to be noted by those members

who wish to speak. I look forward to closing the debate later and then dealing

with the bill in committee. I move second reading.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Mr. Speaker, this bill is an interesting

one. It has quite a s few facets to it. There are some rather simple and straightforward

things to it to which I think anyone in this House could subscribe — the provision

of $500 grants to municipalities for affordable housing units that are created.

But I don't see how one can support legislation such as this when it is tied

in so closely with the programmes of Central Mortgage and Housing which I think

are not realistic programmes in the province of British Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, may I just interrupt you long enough to ask if you are the....

MR. NICOLSON: Did I say anything unparliamentary, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: No, no...just ask if you are the designated speaker so we know for the benefit of Hansard .

MR. NICOLSON: I believe so, Mr. Speaker. If someone else wants to speak for that length of time, fine.

The situation we see here is a programme where, first of all, the minister

has questioned why an NDP government didn't change a programme which afforded

some financial assistance to persons who were buying obviously very expensive

homes — a $200,000 home was one of the exceptional cases that the minister pointed

out. But I am sure he had at his disposal a report by his deputy minister, as

of May, 1975, which was prepared for me.

I too was concerned about this. But when I looked at some of the statistics

and the incidents — the average selling price of units, the amounts that were

actually involved in various transactions — there is a breakoff point where the

cost of policing that programme doesn't justify setting up a massive bureaucracy

to police certain limitations. However, possibly some form of a limitation might

be reasonable. But I think what the minister has done creates several problems.

One of the questions that comes to my mind, Mr. Speaker, is what

happens in the case of self-built homes where a person puts in his own

labour, where a person builds rather diligently under the old

Provincial Home Acquisition Act when the home is ready for occupancy. A

person might build himself a home that might be appraised as a very

rich home and yet he might build it at rather an affordable price.

What happens in the case where, maybe through the family, a piece of

land is perhaps subdivided from larger parcel in the country — maybe as

a wedding gift to a young family? They have a piece of land without any

real appraised value. They start building and they mix their own

cement. One couple I know in Nelson, a husband and wife, joined

together and spent all of their spare time building their own home.

I am sure if that home were to be appraised it would certainly go in

excess of the $33,000 that would apply in the Cranbrook area. The

Cranbrook district, I assume, serves Nelson as part of the Kootenays.

Yet

[ Page 2660 ]

I would submit that this young couple living on one

salary — a beginning teacher's wages with one or two years' teaching

experience — would be in need of some assistance. That is one of the

problems.

If one looks at the percentage distribution of applicants by income

and by programme, one can look at the income per month and find that

there were really four different programmes. There were programmes for

the new homes and programmes for existing homes. There were programmes

for people who opted for $1,000 grants on new homes, those who took

$5,000 mortgages on new homes, and those who, on an existing older home

that had the qualification of having been renting and not having

collected enough provincial homeowner grants to exceed the grant or who

qualified, had been renting and applied for the mortgage that they

might pick up that mortgage. The median income for those going for the

$1,000 grant on a new home was $950 at the time the study was made. The

median income for those applying for a $5,000 mortgage on a new home

was $1,250. The highest-priced median of any of the four options for

the mortgage on a new home was $42,000, so he had a median income of

$1,250 and a median purchase price of $42,000. Since that time, of

course, I would think that both factors have gone up, particularly the

purchase price.

The median purchase price for the $1,000 grant was, surprisingly,

only $22,000. I can only assume that would be due to the purchase of a

great number of mobile homes and that people who got mobile homes could

not qualify for the $5,000 mortgage by virtue of the fact that we

didn't have, at that time, a mobile-home registry, which we felt was

necessary in order to secure the Crown's interest against such a

mortgage on what would otherwise be a chattel.

On existing homes we find that the median income is $970 for those

opting for the grant and $1,120 for the price of homes at $30,000 to

$35,000. If we look at the number of people over $2,000 per month —

that is, over $24,000-a-year income — opting for the $1,000 grant, 2.6

per cent opting for the $5,000 mortgage of the total numbers applying

for that option...11.8 per cent and for the older home, 5 per cent and

5.4 per cent. If we look at all of those then we see the people who are

getting amounts in excess of $2,000 and over are certainly fewer than

10 per cent. One has to wonder at the cost of setting up such an

elaborate system.

Now where are we going to find $47,000 homes for families in

Vancouver? Some of these might be three-storey walk-up apartments. I

suppose they qualify as units and I suppose that hard-pressed families

could buy a condominium unit in a three-storey walk-up. But I would

submit, Mr. Speaker, that about the only place in Vancouver that the

Department of Housing is going to find such units is going to be in the

units that had already been planned as rental housing units and were to

be taken over by the B.C. Housing Management Commission. I refer to

MacInnes Place in Burnaby and maybe NcNeil Place. I haven't had a clear

answer on the intentions for McNeil Place in North Vancouver — and many

of the other units which were being built by or were under proposal

call to come to the Department of Housing.

Now I know that units probably in MacInnes Place or in the Simon

Fraser Hills project, which was supposed to be a co-operative, and

other projects, would have average purchase prices of under $47,000. I

think the department could sell them at very close to cost — at that

kind of a figure. But beyond that, what kind of a programme does the

department have in order to create this very rare beast, a $47,000 home

in Vancouver which is affordable and which is suitable for some type of

family living? Certainly it's not going to be single-family housing,

Mr. Speaker.

Of course, with the programme of AHOP, what are the ramifications?

Does this mean that the only places where such units can be built are

perhaps out in Langley or Cloverdale, or maybe out in Aldergrove? Are

we going to encourage and put greater strains on mass transit? Are we

going to encourage more suburban development? Is there a time-bomb

that's going to go off in terms of demand for massive transit as

opposed to perhaps have programmes of building co-operative housing in

which people don't begrudge people being given some sort of subsidy?

Because there aren't going to be any capital gains if a person buys a

co-operative.

I think that is one of the problems, Mr. Speaker — this is tying

themselves to what I consider to be an institution that is a proven

failure. One of the major portions of this legislation is going to be

to tie in to the assisted home ownership programme, and the assisted

home ownership programme has had mixed success in British Columbia. It

has had success in certain areas, but the minister should be advised

that in a lot of those areas the Department of Housing played a very

direct or indirect role in making sure that those affordable units

could be built within the price strictures set down by CMHC.

For instance, in Penticton...and just the other day at the

convention, I took a nostalgic little trip down to a project in

Penticton which we built in co-operation with the city of Penticton. It

was in August of 1973 — no it must have been August of 1974. We were

able to....

Interjections.

MR. NICOLSON: Yes, takes me back to the days, Mr. Member for

Coquitlam (Mr. Kerster), when I was Minister of Housing, when we cut

the ribbon out there and all those people were buying home ownership

outright — not leasehold home ownership

[ Page 2661 ]

or anything else. This was in Penticton. The

assisted home ownership programme was brought out. The mayor of

Penticton said that if we would interim fund a project, he knew of some

available land which was quite reasonable and that we'd have the full

co-operation of the City of Penticton. Within about nine months we went

from raw land to fully serviced land and built it. Those units are very

modest units; I think they were maybe the last units of really

affordable housing built in British Columbia, and it took an all-out

effort and all-out co-operation between the municipality, the

government at both levels and CMHC, as well as the provincial

government Department of Housing.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

Going by memory, those units, the lower-priced attached two-bedroom units

— although each one of them has its own individual space; they are sort of staggered,

but they are attached side-by-side — sold for something like $21,000 or $22,000.

The larger three- or four-bedroom duplex and single units sold in the neighbourhood

of $27,000. Now already that was a couple of years ago, and that was with the

utmost co-operation. I wouldn't be surprised that the city of Penticton

absorbed a few hidden costs within that project as part of their contribution

to making that work. The larger units in that project — and, really, they

were just average-type units — cost about some $27,000.

Now how are we going to have a profit margin and, with recent inflation, be

able to provide decent accommodation in areas such as the Kamloops area at

$34,000, or in the Penticton area? I think this programme will save this provincial

government a great deal of money because they're not going to be able

to find units at this price after the supply of units built by the Department

of Housing for rentals and for co-operatives is exhausted and runs dry — already units have been held off the market.

I don't want to allude to another bill, because I know I'd be out

of order, but it's rather strange when one hears about the need for providing

for the shortage of rental units, when in fact we have hundreds of rental units

available at MacInnes Place ready for occupancy, and they've been held off

the market now for about four or five months. They could have been occupied

for rental.

I might make one suggestion, in all constructive sincerity, to the minister

— I'm sure he's listening out of one ear — and that is that if he perhaps

keeps the proposal call housing programme going, if he's determined to

go this way, it was our experience that we were able to purchase some townhouse

units in the Vancouver area at very reasonable prices, units that could come

in very close to these units, and that means, Mr. Speaker, that the Department

of Housing would have to continue to be involved in interim funding and cost-plus

contracts, or a fixed percentage rate of return to developers under the strict

control of the proposal call housing programme. I don't see how the private

sector is going to respond to these price limits, and when I look at the price

of a very average second-hand house in Nelson today, I don't see how people

who are going to be looking for a used housing unit are going to be able to qualify

in terms of the purchase price.

I think that one has to look at reality — and just take an extract,

for instance, from the Block Bros. annual report. They've extracted

some information, I think, from the real estate institute. They're

looking at average selling prices of properties — a

summary of prices

of property sold through multiple listing services across Canada.

According to a survey done by the Canadian Real Estate Association of

sales through multiple listing, the average price for all of British

Columbia in 1975 was $50,000.

I don't think you're going to legislate affordable housing by this

measure. You have to take direct action to guarantee these units are

going to exist, and while some amendment might have been in order, I

think the minister, if he were to look at the record of the previous

government, would see that when we introduced new programmes we did not

eliminate programmes such as the home-acquisition programme. When we

brought in conversion mortgage loans, when we brought in leasehold

mortgage loans, we didn't eliminate these.

I think what this government should be doing is creating a mortgage corporation.

They should be creating opportunities so that people in this province can invest

in this mortgage corporation, and they won't be tied to the whims of Central

Mortgage and Housing. I'll give a warning to this minister: Central Mortgage

and Housing is constantly changing its mind and constantly changing its programmes,

and if you're going to tie yourself in with Central Mortgage and Housing,

you're going to tie yourself in with a proven failure. They've been failing

for years and years and years.

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, you should hear what my friend, Mr.

Fitzgerald, from Nova Scotia says about me, and a few other colleagues;

I wouldn't be surprised about some things that might come from Central

Mortgage and Housing. But I went out and I fought to get realistic

levels set for programmes here British Columbia. Oh, yes, I know they

say our rental housing was fat-cat housing. They called it "fat-cat"

housing. That's how some of the officials of Central Mortgage and

Housing characterized such projects as the Burnaby MacInnes Place. If

that's fat-cat housing, if that's too good for the people of

[ Page 2662 ]

British Columbia, then Lord help the people of

British Columbia if we tie ourselves in with Central Mortgage and

Housing. Lord help us!

There are discussions taking place about cost-shared programmes,

and, really, Central Mortgage and Housing is one of those ways of

cost-sharing and trying to get money back into British Columbia.

There's only one good reason for co-operating with Central Mortgage and

Housing, and that is to make sure that we do get our fair share of

dollars in terms of our Elderly Citizens' Housing Aid Act programmes,

our

section 40 and 43 programmes, co-operative housing; we must make

sure that we get our fair share of those cost-shared programmes and

subsidy programmes. But as far as those programmes are concerned, if

the money could be sent here in block funding and if he had the.... But

the minister should admit that he would be much better prepared to

carry out his programmes if he was block-funded by CMHC, something that

seems to exist to a very great deal in Quebec, but for some reason or

other the federal government has not seen to extend it to that degree

to other provinces.

As for the programmes of Central Mortgage and Housing, the

programmes that are relevant to Prince Edward Island or relevant to

Newfoundland are not necessarily the programmes that work in British

Columbia, and the government of the day in British Columbia is

certainly not the same as the government of the day in some of these

other provinces in their philosophy.

I think it's hamstringing housing, and I cannot support this in the

degree that you've tied yourself in with Central Mortgage and Housing,

with the strictures of their programmes. Of course, we recognize the

problem of financing a capital gain, but there is an alternative, and

that is not to impede Central Mortgage and Housing and what they might

want to do in this province, but to encourage programmes such as

co-operative housing and rental housing, which are also needed in this

province, in such a manner as could be done and without paying such

blind allegiance to the total concept of home ownership. In some parts

of the province this is the way to go, but I cannot see it working in a

great number of areas, simply because Central Mortgage and Housing will

continue to drag its feet as it has done in the past.

If you don't believe that, just talk to some developers who built

limited-dividend housing a few years ago. That was the big programme to

solve the housing crisis in Canada — limited dividend housing in which

subsidies were given to private developers to build rental housing at

low rates of interest from Central Mortgage and Housing. Then, of

course, they didn't allow them to put their rates up at a reasonable

rate. They were too slow in reviewing those things and people were

turned off on that. Then they restructured that. They brought it back

again.

I think the concept of introducing not only price limits, but

classes of dwellings — and I don't understand what is meant by classes

of dwellings that you might prescribe — regions within the

province...this is the core of this bill. This has the stamp of Central

Mortgage and Housing on it. I cannot support the bill as it is so

restricted. I don't know what the home acquisition fund stands at

today, but it must be somewhere in the neighbourhood of $200 million. I

can see that the home acquisition fund is a revolving fund. There are

mortgages out there being paid off. There's a great deal of money being

returned from those mortgages, even though they are at a modest rate of

interest. I can see through this bill the possibility of the recapture

by that Finance department of this fund and that it will not be used

for the purposes that it was intended for. Lord knows it could be used

better than it could under the straight home acquisition fund. Anyone

knows that it could be improved, but I don't think that this is the

right direction.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): In a near empty House the

faithful Social Credit coalition back bench is waiting to fall upon

every word that I have to utter to the Minister of Housing.

AN HON. MEMBER: Speak to the press gallery, Gary.

MR. LAUK: Oh, they're listening. They always check the Blues whenever I speak.

Mr. Speaker, earlier this evening the Minister of Housing read a

lengthy but rather thin statement desperately trying to extricate

himself from a very embarrassing situation. I suppose this bill is even

a better example of how the minister, insofar as his duties in housing

are concerned, has taken two giant steps backward. Taking two giant

steps backward is not original for that government, but nevertheless

that's what the minister has done.

Bill 49 is a step away from helping anyone in British Columbia in

buying a house. You know, it can be said that people who are looking

for housing, Mr. Speaker, have no constituency. They have no real

representative at any political level. Municipal politicians say:

"Well, if they don't reside in my constituency and they're looking for

a house, my interest is to protect the integrity of the community."

You've heard that expression before. They keep out halfway houses, they

keep away from ethnic community centres and so on. Civic politicians,

by and large, protect the residents who are there at the time. It's a

natural tendency for them to do so, because those residents are the

voters and people looking for houses aren't voters yet.

At the provincial level, the historical, stable voter

[ Page 2663 ]

is the one who has a residence, who has settled down and a home and

so on, so that doesn't give any constituency pressure on governments to

help to assist people in finding homes.

What does this Act do? We waited for several months after the new

administration took office for a new programme. All across the country,

particularly in Montreal and Vancouver, politicians, economists and

experts have said there is a housing crisis. It's going to require a

massive infusion of money, but not money alone. It's going to require a

bit of social engineering and a bit of political engineering between

the levels of government to get rid of the red tape and, with the

federal government, to clean up that national disgrace, that mess, CMHC

— a mechanism that was established by the federal government to assist.

What it does is prevent the facilitation of increased housing in the

three major cities of Canada through red tape.

We could build the houses in Vancouver, Montreal and Toronto, if we

weren't constantly roadblocked — and by "we" I mean Canadians — by the

tremendous body of red tape, the bureaucracy of the CMHC, which this

minister, I regret to say, is hiding behind. He's taken a provincial

programme that had the opportunity to go on its own direction and to

provide real assistance to people who need housing in this province,

and he's hidden behind the federal bureaucracy. What a joke it is. What

a joke this bill is, Mr. Speaker.

I looked at the statistics of available houses with respect to what

I think is described as the AHOP ceiling of $47,000 in Vancouver. I

thought, "Well, maybe this isn't too bad," so I phoned the Real Estate

Board of Greater Vancouver and they said that in the greater Vancouver

area only 5 per cent of the detached homes are at $47,000 or below. I

said: "How many houses would that represent?" We're talking about not

only Vancouver but the greater Vancouver area. He said — 250 houses —

detached homes." That's 250 houses in the greater Vancouver area. This

is the big deal of this bill. This is the kind of assistance that is

being provided by this government. It's a sham, as so many things

involved with that government are.

The hon. Minister of Housing is an honourable man and a municipal

politician of many years' standing, a successful businessman....

MR. D. BARRETT (Vancouver East): What party is he from?

MR. LAUK: All of them, except one.

AN HON. MEMBER: A political tourist!

MR. LAUK: Yes, he was a political tourist. He was a visiting

anthropologist. (Laughter.) He was in the Liberals and the Tories and

the Social Credit and now the coalition.

Who knows? Someone said the other day he got a book on Karl Marx out of

the library. I'm a little bit puzzled about that.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Oh, no!

MR. LAUK: Yes!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think, Hon. Member, we are dealing with Bill 49.

MR. LAUK: I don't ever want to be accused of dealing with the point, Mr. Speaker.

Now 250 detached homes are eligible for assistance under this Act.

Does it sound familiar, Mr. Speaker? Doesn't it sound like the time in

1971-72, under the previous Social Credit administration, where they

said that old-age pensioners in this province received $196 a month? We

found out yes — about 1,000 of them. And they hold up this Act, Mr.

Speaker, and they say: "We're assisting the home buyers and we're

assisting people to buy homes all over this province." Two hundred and

fifty of them are eligible for assistance and 250 probably won't need

it.

MR. BARRETT: But their MLAs will be able to sell it.

MR. LAUK: The average home cost in the city of Vancouver is over $64,000, and yet, they've frozen the price here at $47,000. It's a joke.

I won't spend much more time on that except to say there are

answers. The answers are not contained in this bill. The answers are:

to make better use of the land available; to cut through the red tape

at the municipal and federal levels; and to put pressure on the federal

government to do something about that abominable mortgage rate. There

are these answers, but the answers are not incorporated in the statute,

and should be opposed.

MR. C.M. SHELFORD (Skeena): Mr. Speaker, I wish to say just a

very few words on Bill 49. I think it is a very good start, but I also

think we also have a long way to go.

During the Premier's estimates I spoke on the need of a special

committee on economic planning to search out new goals and economic

policies. I just think it is interesting to look back. I don't take too

long, Mr. Speaker, but after World War II, when I came out of the army,

the federal government at that time came out with a housing scheme

under Veterans Affairs whereby veterans could buy homes and pay 4 per

cent mortgage. Half of the interest was forgiven if the payments were

kept up. It was the best housing scheme, I would say, that Canada ever

had. Another

[ Page 2664 ]

interesting point is the fact that, I am told, it not only carried itself, but it actually made a small amount.

It it also interesting to note — in research that I did back in 1970

— that since World War II, which is just about 30 years ago, I guess —

it makes me feel old — Canadians have borrowed $31 billion for housing.

That's an awful lot of money. Based on 9.5 per cent mortgage money —

which is low, I suppose, in today's standards — they will have to pay

back $96,937,000. In other words, $64 billion is interest alone.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's capitalism,

MR. SHELFORD: I'll get to you in a minute. (Laughter.)

Labour, material and land, which, of course, we all consider

expensive, only amount to one-third of the total price of a home if you

base it on a number of years. Of course, one of the greatest causes of

inflation....

Since 1945, following a federal worn-out economic policy and

tremendous imagination, we have become the most ingenious,

well-educated people on earth. How could we possibly devise a scheme in

a country with an abundance of land, a supply of building materials so

plentiful we could build every one of our citizens 10 homes and still

have enough left over to supply 50 nations in the world...? With all

of this we actually managed to create a housing shortage for our people

— with all of these surpluses — and made it impossible for our young

people to be able to get into a home. It just staggers the imagination

at the ability of man to achieve something of this nature. I would say

there just has to be a better solution, and I have mentioned it on many

occasions.

I even went as far as to suggest it to the former Minister of

Housing (Mr. Nicolson) when he visited Terrace. I'm not saying he

wasn't impressed — maybe I'm not impressing anyone here tonight either.

But it seems to me there just has to be a better way to build homes

when even the Indians and the settlers in the north country as far back

as 1900 could build homes, could build skating rinks, could build

churches and halls, and end up at the end of a year without owing one

cent. I guess back before the 1900s it was actually an offence in

France to be able to charge interest. Maybe we should go back a few

hundred years; we might be able to do what we did a few hundred years

ago.

I would say....

MR. LAUK: I love your speeches.

Interjections.

MR. SHELFORD: You may love my speeches, but I wish you had done something about it when you were there, but you didn't.

I would say we should take a look at some of these VLA-scheme

programmes that were brought in by the national government 30 years

ago. I suggested this to Iona Campagnolo just a week or so ago. She

promised me faithfully that she would go back to Ottawa and take a look

back 30 years and at least see if we could come in with a better scheme

than we had to that time.

AN HON. MEMBER: Beautiful!

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, this has

really been a very memorable day. Indeed this afternoon I heard the

first member for Victoria (Mr. Bawlf) railing against the evils of the

private market. Tonight I heard the member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford)

again railing against the same private market which he says sees us in

a country with enough wood and land to build each of us 10 homes, and

we still manage somehow to make housing not arrive.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Not even available. Right! Housing isn't even

available for half of the people living in this country. I don't know

what to make of those two socialist members sitting over there, Mr.

Speaker. They really are confusing me. But I guess by the time the

session is over the entire back bench is going to be in such a state of

confusion that I don't know how we'll get around to having any more

sessions in this House.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, that's good. I think it shows they have been

listening to some of the statements made by members on this side of the

House, and maybe it's finally beginning to seep through to them that

there is something wrong with that system which they have been

supporting and perpetuating all of these years. When the member for

Skeena can get up and criticize the very system that his own minister

is involved in — where on one piece of land he is making $400,000 in

profit....

That's the kind of reason, Mr. Member for Skeena, why with all the

land and all the lumber we have in this country, as well as only

one-third of the cost of it going in labour, it is still not possible

to supply housing to everyone who lives here.

But I want to talk about a couple of sections of the bill without

going into detail — if the Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Curtis) is

listening — then I'll go into the principle of the bill afterwards.

I'm a little bit concerned, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker,

that in three different sections of this bill — sections 6, 14 and the

final section, 22(c)

[ Page 2665 ]

— there is a s tatement made concerning the spouse. I am wondering,

in writing this particular

section where you said that grants and loans

should not be given to a person whose spouse had previously received

one, and again when you said that the loan and the grant was not

entitled to someone whose spouse had previously received one, and in

the final instance where you said assistance was not going to be

allowed to the person whose spouse had received one, whether you had

taken into account two particular instances that I can think of. One is

in the event of a divorce and a remarriage. Does this apply if the

spouse involved is no longer married to the original spouse who had

received the grant? Does this mean that the person is still being

penalized because the previous spouse...? No, no, the first spouse had

received it and the marriage has been terminated and this person wants

to secure a loan, for example, in his own right or her own right. Does

this mean that this person is not eligible even though the marriage is

no longer in existence?

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Okay. That's the first case where it ends up as a

one-parent family, once the marriage is terminated, wanting to secure

assistance. Again, if the person should remarry, would that person be

penalized because the previous spouse had received assistance on this?

So I am wondering, Mr. Speaker....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Member, I believe you are dealing with items that could be better dealt with in committee.

MS. BROWN: No, no, this is a principle I am dealing with. I

am dealing with a principle, Mr. Speaker, which says: why is it that in

this piece of legislation the

minister has in three different sections chosen to penalize the spouse?

And in this instance I really don't care whether the spouse is a male

or a female. But it's the principle of tying the spouse into the

legislation that I am questioning. I will bring it up again when we

deal with the sections of the bill, but I did think that maybe when the

minister was closing debate he would like an opportunity to say

something about it.

My other point earlier this afternoon, when I asked about the

instance of a condominium first being rented and then going on the open

market, was whether the person purchasing that unit would be eligible

for everything which is allowed under Bill 49. The minister assured me

that this was so. I just wanted to draw his attention without going

into detail to

section 12(2) where it very clearly states that the

person is not eligible, because the grant for a new home only applies

where that residence has never been occupied before. So in fact this

bill contradicts the one that went earlier.

But what I really want to follow up on, Mr. Speaker, is the issue

raised by the other members in terms of the ceiling of $47,000 for the

city of Vancouver. I am going to confine my remarks specifically to the

city of Vancouver and to the riding which I represent. When this bill

was first brought down, I asked a number of people living in the riding

who are concerned with housing — some of the rental agencies, the

information service RUSH and various other groups — to do some

investigation for me and see if they could let us have a general idea

of how many houses would be available for $47,000. In the part of the

city known as Kitsilano they found one. There was only one house in

that whole neighbourhood of Kitsilano that was on the market for

$47,000.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: In fact, the house was not for sale. It was the

land that was for sale for $47,000 because the house had been

abandoned. The walls were beginning to cave in and the roof was falling

down. It was the land that was valued at $47,000. So what I am saying

to the minister is that this great generous Act of his which is to make

affordable housing open to a number of people really does not apply if

one uses it in the city of Vancouver. I cannot understand why he has

tied himself to the federal programme which, when it was brought down,

a number of people at the municipal level made it absolutely clear that

it had no relevance to Vancouver at all.

AN HON. MEMBER: He knows it won't cost him any money.

MS. BROWN: He knows it won't cost him any money. But I can't

believe that the minister would involve himself in something like that.

As a matter of fact, I have here a letter which was written by Alderman

Harcourt, who is the head of the housing committee for the city of

Vancouver, to Mr. Barney Danson, pointing out to him that the whole

issue of the ceiling made the existing funding programmes available

through CMHC inappropriate. He said it was inappropriate for the city

of Vancouver because, in fact, there was almost no housing available at

the level of $45,000.

As further proof of this, when I checked with the CMHC to find out

how many people in 1975 were actually able to take advantage of the

AHOP programme, the answer given was 100. In the whole city of

Vancouver only 100 people were able to take advantage of the AHOP

programme, which is the one that this is tied to with the ceiling of

$47,000 or $45,000. So it really is totally irrelevant, and when

[ Page 2666 ]

the minister has in the bill a

section — and again I'm not going to

go into detail, Mr. Speaker, and give you the section...but certainly

section 16(

a) states very clearly that the minister, with the consent

of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, can fix the maximum....

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Can't you? Yes. So with that kind of option, maybe

when the minister is closing the debate he will let us know whether now

that it has been brought to his attention by a number of MLAs from the

Vancouver riding that the ceiling which the federal government uses is

totally inappropriate, totally irrelevant and of absolutely no use to

anyone interested in securing single-family housing in the city, maybe

he will change the ceiling, since the bill will give him that kind of

power.

Now I know it is true, certainly if one looks at condominium

housing, that it is still possible to find in the city of Vancouver a

few units — I think something like 250 units — that fall within the

purview of between $45,000 and $47,000. I didn't write the exact

figures down, but it doesn't apply at all, anywhere, when one looks at

single-family dwellings. But even if, Mr. Speaker, in the event there

really did exist this house at the mythical price of $45,000 under the

terms of the mortgage market today it still would call for an income of

approximately $13,000, and again I'm quoting from the figures which

came out of the Vancouver city hall, out of the Department of Housing —

Alderman Harcourt's figures. It would require a minimum income of

$13,300 to service the mortgage payments. Now that's fine, except that

the average income in Vancouver is between $8,000 and $9,999 for the

Kitsilano area, and up to $11,000 for the rest of the city. So we're

obviously not talking about average....

MR. S. BAWLF (Victoria): Family income?

MS. BROWN: Yes, family income. For some reason or another,

Kitsilano is a little bit lower than the average for the city, which

goes up to $11,000, but the top for Kitsilano is between $8,000 and

$9,999. So even in the event that we could find this house at $45,000,

we still find that the family with an average income residing in that

area would not be able to afford their house under this plan.

It is because the bill is irrelevant, Mr. Speaker, to the city of

Vancouver that I really am asking the minister when he is either

closing debate or in third reading, hopefully introducing amendments,

that he adjust the bill in some way — either raise the ceiling or do

something — to make it within reach of people who live there.

I also want to bring to his attention, of course, the plight of the

single-parent family living in Vancouver. There is a very interesting

study, Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister, which has been done on

housing for one-parent families which was prepared by Central Mortgage

and Housing. I think it really would be beneficial if the minister

would read it, because in fact what it shows is that this bill is of

absolutely no assistance whatsoever to people in that category.

In case the minister is wondering, I have some figures here that

show that in the city of Vancouver alone, of single families headed by

females, there are 3,937 such families; and of single families headed

by males, there are 144. What we're talking about are 4,000 families at

least in the city of Vancouver alone that would appreciate, if not at

least single-family dwellings, being able to purchase one of these

condominiums or strata-title units, or whatever, families who will not

be assisted in any way in doing this by this piece of legislation,

because the monthly payments to keep it up are just totally and

completely out of their reach.

Anyway these 4,000 families are on subsidized income. I'm sorry I

didn't bring in with me my average income for single-family parents,

but if the average for the city is between $8,000 and $11,000, I think

it's fair to conclude that the single-family parent wouldn't be above

that, but in fact they would fit into that category or be a bit lower

than that; it's possible.

I want to point out to the hon. minister, through you, Mr. Speaker,

that the quarterly review, published by the city planning department in

Vancouver, and which came out in January of this year, stated that

housing in the Vancouver area — and this included your units — in

November of 1975 was $60,000. And on April 29 of this year at a meeting

with city council, Alderman Harcourt, speaking to this, said that that

figure had now gone up to almost $80,000. This included both sides —

the east side as well as west side — because he was saying that the gap

was closing and there was now actually a difference of about $2,000

between housing on the east side of the city and housing on the west

side, which means in fact that all of Vancouver has now become the

inner city, because there isn't that difference any more.

So I'm hoping that the minister will exercise the powers he will

have under

section 16(

a) of this bill to do something about that

$47,000 ceiling, and that, taking into account the average income of

your single-parent families and the average incomes in the city of

Vancouver, he'll take a second look at that 12 per cent mortgage over

the 20 years.

I know you know, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, that it had

been the intention of the NDP government to look at the whole business

of lower-interest mortgages for lower-income families. I

[ Page 2667 ]

really had hoped that when the legislation came in it would

practically be on a two-price system, if there is any such thing, and

that people who fell into this $8,000 category and below and still

wanted housing would somehow be eligible for your second mortgage at

lower than the 12 per cent figure which is quoted here. So I hope the

minister will comment on those matters for me.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I recognize the first member for Victoria.

MS. BROWN: Socialist!

AN HON. MEMBER: Withdraw!

MR. BAWLF: Yes, please do withdraw. (Laughter.)

Mr. Speaker, just a couple of comments on this bill by way of

support of the bill. First of all, I hope that the hon. members would

not take this bill in isolation from other measures that are necessary

and, indeed, I think are going to be proceeding in the housing field to

resolve the housing shortage.

I think we have to begin by recognizing that the limits which have

been placed in various areas of the province in terms of eligibility

for the programme are very realistic in some parts of the province.

Where they become unrealistic and a problem if there is a temporary

problem in that regard is as one becomes involved in two urban areas.

The reason that there is a difficulty there is that if we were to

simply raise the ceiling, in terms of eligibility, to accommodate the

average house price, or a typical house price in these areas, in effect

what we would be doing is justifying the excessive profit, the

excessive gains that have been made in the land component on that

housing.

This is the problem that we have and it can't be treated in

isolation in this bill. Our problem in government, and every level of

government in this country, is going to be to drive the excessive costs

out of land. Now if we simply hand out funding to legitimize these

costs, then of course we have a serious problem in that we're not going

to defeat that situation.

For example, take the lower mainland. I see the members opposite are

agreeing, and I don't think there's anybody who's examined this problem

who would not.

MS. BROWN: You're right! You're right!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. member has the floor.

MR. BAWLF: Mr. Speaker, if I may continue, the situation on

the lower mainland has to be viewed not only in terms of simply the

core area of the city, but also in terms of a pool of housing in the

entire metropolitan area. In those terms, first of all I'm advised that

in fact the average family income for the typical family with children

who are in need of family-type housing is now in excess of $16,000 a

year. That is a statistic that's provided by the Department of Housing

from Statistics Canada.

MS. BROWN: That's not where you get statistics on income from — from the Department of Housing.

MR. BAWLF: On the question of eligibility, the cost of this

housing under the programme can be brought down in effect to within the

means of a family with an annual income of about $10,000 a year. This

has been carefully analysed by the Department of Housing, but

essentially the thing that goes hand in hand with this is the issue of

controlling land costs, not in the sense of imposing controls, because

it is in fact government controls which have artificially contrived the

shortage of land, but it is in terms of a number of measures which I

will be discussing under the estimates of the Housing department.

Interjections.

MR. BAWLF: I see I'm giving a great deal of amusement to that

well-known expert on land development, my colleague from Victoria (Mr.

Barber).

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): I'm learning from the Mount Stephen thing every day.

MR. BAWLF: It's interesting, Mr. Speaker, that there was a

controversy earlier this evening about my comment about some fictitious

profit that the second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) has failed to

substantiate because no sale has taken place.

MS. BROWN: Alleged, but never fictitious.

MR. BAWLF: Mr. Speaker, I think that if we can envisage — and

I think we must envisage — activity to drive down the cost of the land

component of housing significantly, then we can expect a great many

more people will be eligible under this ceiling, taking the Vancouver

example of $47,000. I will be pleased to address myself to that aspect

— driving down the land cost — during the minister's estimates. But I

would say that I enthusiastically support this bill, particularly

bearing in mind too that, as the first member for Vancouver-Burrard

(Ms. Brown) has pointed out, there is the capability, upon a period of

trial and error and review, of adjusting that ceiling. I feel that the

bill is one which sets in motion a useful

[ Page 2668 ]

mechanism, and I welcome it.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. Since this is my maiden speech, try to stop all heckling against me.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: I think I came back too soon. I'm confused. I've

been here two days and I hear within a period of two and a half hours

contradictory arguments from the most unusual sources.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): The question is: where are the socialists?

MR. BARRETT: The only guy with a blue Tory suit on is

speaking red; the guy who used to be a Tory is going further right —

he's presenting the bill; and the rest of them are nodding, not knowing

what's happening. First of all I'd like to understand what he means by

"driving down the cost of land" when in Victoria land he bought for

$200,000 he wants to sell for $600,000! If that is driving down, I'd

hate to see his

interpretation of driving up. As a matter of fact, I

think we should take away his driver's licence Incredible!

They buy the land for $200,000, they want to peddle it for $600,000,

but they say they'll only support houses that cost $47,000. How are you

going to get a $47,000 house on land that you've upped three times in

less than three years? How are you going to do it?

Mr. Speaker, is there a single member in this House who owns a home

anywhere in this province that is selling for less if he puts it on the

market than what the limits are in this bill? If there is a single MLA

here in this House who wants to sell his house at the ceiling that this

bill permits, let us know because we'd like to buy it.

AN HON. MEMBER: We're not all rich like you.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, not all rich like me. All right, Mr. Member, stand up and announce that your house....

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: Hey, Mr. Speaker, protect me! This is my maiden speech and they're not supposed to interject!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please! This is the hon. member's maiden speech. (Laughter.)

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: He lost his virtue a long time ago.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

MR. BARRETT: Shhh! Have you no respect for the Speaker?

Mr. Speaker, let them go to the press gallery and announce what

their house is worth and find out how many MLAs own a home that would

come under this bill if it was up for sale. Not one!

AN HON. MEMBER: Put your house up.

MR. BARRETT: My house is worth more than what this bill is.

AN HON. MEMBER: It sure is.

MR. BARRETT: Certainly it is, yes, and so is your house.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Well, I want to tell you, you don't live in a shack either, baby!

Forty-seven thousand dollars is the limit in Vancouver. As the

member pointed out, 250 houses are eligible. What kind of programme is

that? It's not a programme at all. It's a game. And what a sad game it

is! Homes up in Revelstoke at $34,000 are eligible. No wonder you're

happy to support this. It won't cost you a dime, but it sounds good.

Then on top of all that, you come in here and you say that this bill

is going to help the ordinary people. Let's look at what you've done to

the ordinary people in terms of their disposable income to gather up

enough for a down payment above this.

You've upped their personal income tax. You've upped the sales tax.

You've upped the medical costs. You've upped ICBC and you've told them:

"Now we're going to help you buy a house that isn't available."

MR. SPEAKER: Can we not get back to the principle of the bill, please, Hon. Leader of the Opposition?

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, things have changed since I was here last.

MR. SPEAKER: That's right.

MR. BARRETT: That's right. And they are trying to tell them that they can buy a house that isn't available.

AN HON. MEMBER: You've done away with the

[ Page 2669 ]

homeowner's Act.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, you've got to explain to my why it

is that they would go around pushing out land at $600,000 that only

cost $200,000 and try to tell us that that very land would be available

when houses are built on it for this Act. Well, that's impossible,

absolutely impossible.

The member for Victoria (Mr. Bawlf) makes his statement, and he said

we can't justify these excessive gains in land costs. Now do you think,

Mr. Speaker, that he's talking in a vacuum, that on the one hand you

defend the minister for the way he's handled the Victoria land and then

attack excessive land costs? People remember what you said a half an

hour ago. In your case it won't be much longer, but at least a half an

hour ago. And when you compare the two statements you come up with a

contradiction. He's now eligible for the cabinet — contradictions.

What kind of mockery is this bill? Those people to whom you've said,

"Go out and buy a home," those people you've said that you're

concerned about — now you're cutting off any assistance to them because

the homes available for this grant just aren't there.

How many houses in Delta are available at $47,000? If the member for

Delta (Mr. Davidson) knew, he'd go and buy them. He said zero. He's

looked himself. How many houses available in Richmond at $47,000? Who

is the member for Richmond (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) ? Is there a member for

Richmond here? Which one is it?

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, Richmond! That's right. They've been looking for you over there. (Laughter.)

The member for Richmond, how many houses available at $47,000? How

many people in your constituency are going to be able to take advantage

of this bill? How many? Do you know? How many houses are available in

North Vancouver–Seymour? Ask the Liberal member. He knows.

AN HON, MEMBER: Oh, ho, ho!

MR. BARRETT: North Vancouver–Seymour — oh, sorry. North Vancouver.... Oh, you're both Liberals! Sorry about that. (Laughter.)

Ask the Liberal members from the north shore. Ask the member for

West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Hon. Mr. Williams) how many $47,000 homes

there are there. He's really fighting for his constituents with this

bill tonight. There are young married couples who would like to live in

West Vancouver. There are young married couples who would like to live

in North Vancouver or Richmond and who would like some help from this

government, and all of those suburban areas are out of bounds under

this bill. You can't pick a place to go and live.

If there was ever a bill designed to ghettoize people, it is this

bill. This bill will have a perverse sociological influence in that it

confines low-income families to low-income home areas. There'll be no

possibility of developing a mix of incomes in any of the suburbs, and

one of the most dangerous things that is developing in the suburbs of

our large cities is the fact that they are ghettoized. There are no

very young and there are no very old, and this will continue that

trend. How do we expect to stabilize those communities if only the

wealthy upper-middle class move into suburbia and those on low incomes

are forced into ghettos because of legislation like this?

Where are those ghettos? Where are those homes that are available —

down on Powell Street in Vancouver, down on Union and Cordova? Is that

what's available? Is that what you're saying? "Stay where you are, you

low-income earners. Don't move into West Vancouver. Don't move into

North Vancouver. Don't move into Richmond. Don't move into Delta. We

don't want you here. If you are going to take advantage of the

government, go and find the cheapest home available in any dump, but

don't you come into the suburbs, because we're too clean."

That's what it is really is. Where is the low-income earner going to go?

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): Nowhere!

MR. BARRETT: You tell them. Yes, there is one area that this

bill will help. Oh, it just occurred to me, Mr. Speaker. There is an

area that this bill will help. That's in the area of the condominium

and the strata titles.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BARRETT: You know, where they build condominiums at a cost of $22,000 per condominium and sell them at about $46,000. Oh, oh!

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: Now, Mr. Speaker, where is most of the speculative money made in housing these days?

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: Don't interrupt me. I'm speaking my maiden speech.

Mr. Speaker, I want to know why, when that member reached the cabinet, his habits haven't changed.

Interjections.

[ Page 2670 ]

MR. BARRETT: Shocking!

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Economic Development): Shocking!

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, this bill is designed to add to the

huge profits that are already being made in condominium developments

that are available now, that are lagging in sales. They will be the

only ones that benefit from this bill. You will compartmentalize people

in the same fixed-income level going into those condominiums, and you

will ghettoize people, Mr. Speaker, through this legislation. And that

is exactly what is designed by this — protect the aseptic suburbs of

West Vancouver so that the working class don't show up there. That's

really what's happening under this kind of legislation. Oak Bay is safe

tonight from the working class. (Laughter.)

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: Vicious attack! (Laughter.)

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, this bill hasn't been thought out

at all; it is just plain gimmickry. You don't want to spend any money,

and you're trying to tell us that somehow this is going to help the

ordinary wage-earner or the ordinary young couple you want to set up in

a home. At the same time you got up earlier tonight in a trap —

unwitting trap! I don't think it was the Provincial Secretary's (Hon.

Mrs. McCarthy'

s) design, but what a thing to do to you! After your

statement tonight on land that was worth $200,000 that you're peddling

for $600,000, she calls your bill.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS. BROWN: Are you sure she's on your side?

MR. BARRETT: On the one hand, you try to say that you want to

get the price of land down, yet you're peddling land for three times

its worth; then the next thing you do is bring in a bill to say that

we've got to get the land prices down. You were either unwittingly put

in this box or it was by design.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: In any event, it's a paradox; it's a

contradiction. Don't worry about it? I'm worried about it. If you say,

"don't worry about it," what's in store for the rest of us British

Columbians if they buy land at $200,000 and peddle it at $600,000 and

say: "Don't worry about it; it'll bring the cost of housing down"?

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: You know, you're not going to spend any money at

all under this programme. You're going to spend a few bucks and go

around trying to say that you really don't want the rich to have a

hand. What you're doing here is protecting the rich in their enclaves,

ensuring that those houses are not sold to anyone other than the same

levels of income people as they are, and the natural mix that should

and could happen by making more money available for mixed developments

in the suburbs will not take place. It will not take place under this

legislation. You will sociologically confine low-income people to

ghetto-type purchases. They have no option; you limit their options.

For the risk of the 10 per cent that the former Minister of Housing

(Mr. Nicolson) said would be eligible at the upper end, it's worth that

risk to have a decent sociological mix in our neighbourhoods. You

haven't given one thought to that at all.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: Well, I don't know. What's wrong with Dunhill developing that property?

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: Dunhill's made a profit. If profit is your

desire, let Dunhill develop that property and then make this Act

available. Why isn't there provision in this Act to give more incentive

to co-op housing development? Why isn't the grant for co-op housing

development twice the grant for private developers of land?

If you want to have people come together in the community, why don't

you purposely develop a programme that says the grant for co-ops will

be twice as much as the grant for the single family or the developer

who has put the money in? This bill is not going to help anybody. All

it's doing is protecting those who are already in their houses, and the

opportunity for the young is being limited even further. It's narrowed

to one available development only — that's the condominiums; the

highrise condominiums that will pack young couples into them 10 and 15

storeys high throughout this province.

MR. KING: Slapped together.

MR. BARRETT: Then what will happen is that even the

municipalities, gathering more and more of this kind of housing, will

fight against its development because they have to provide the services

and even widen the tax base to provide those services. You haven't

thought this out at all, Mr. Minister. It's in a narrow vision that you

think some rich people are going to get a break, and that's just

[ Page 2671 ]

political nonsense.

I want to thank the House for not interrupting me in my maiden

speech. I want to thank the House for the complete attention they have

given me ...

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: ...and I want to thank the House for helping me identify the member for Richmond (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) . (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: You sure get noise from the ringmaster.

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, you took a little time there. You were quite fascinated with the previous maiden speaker there.

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): The maiden was fascinating.

Interjections.

MR. LEVI: The maiden was fascinating.

Interjections.

MR. LEVI: You know, we've been treated tonight to a new form of economics — BawIfian economics.

AN HON. MEMBER: Pardon?

MR. LEVI: BawIfian — that's named after the first member for Victoria (Mr. Bawlf) .

Interjections.

MR. LEVI: He mentioned in his speech that you have to look at

this bill, Mr. Speaker, in conjunction with other measures that the

government has taken or is about to take. The second member for — where

is it? — oh, Vancouver East (Mr. Barrett), pointed out some of those

special measures, like the increase in sales tax and the increase in

income tax. If those are the special measures, then, of course, we know

where we stand. But for the minister...back in March, he was being

interviewed by the press — by the Province — and he made a very

interesting observation about housing. I'd just like to quote, and this

is attributed to him. He said: "There may be a surplus in high-priced

units, but there still is a shortage in the moderate and low-price

range." Some people questioned the validity of the vacancy rates, but

he is sure there is a zero vacancy rate in lower-price accommodation.

Those were his observations back in March.

Now I don't know who he consulted with when he brought in this bill, when they were drafting the bill.

Maybe he might have written, dropped a line to the Real Estate Board

of Greater Vancouver, and asked them for a copy of the report that they

put out, Mr. Speaker, in September of 1975. They put out a report

called "Alternative Forms of Housing." It was published by the Real

Estate Board of Greater Vancouver in September 1975, and if the

minister doesn't have a copy, I'll let him have mine.

On the very first page where they lay out the problem, they say —

they're talking about the cost of housing in the Vancouver area — that

just this type of situation existed in Vancouver in 1973 and 1974,

years which saw panic buying leading to skyrocketing house prices. The

average price for residential sales on the multiple listing for the

greater Vancouver area jumped from $34,000 in the second quarter of

1973 to $44,000 in the fourth quarter of 1973, and to $54,000 in the

first quarter of 1974 — $54,000 in 1974 and he comes in with a ceiling

of $47,000.

Now I realize that he has trouble, Mr. Speaker, with Mr. Teron and

the CMHC. After all, Mr. Teron has a very extensive background in his

concern about housing, particularly housing for low-income people. He's

probably one of the better known developers in this country.

But obviously when the minister sat down with him, Mr. Speaker, to

talk about the ceilings, he couldn't get anywhere with him. He couldn't

advance the arguments, saying to Teron: "Look, in Vancouver you're

asking us to set a ceiling of $47,000 when that was appropriate in

1974, and here we are in 1976." But he lost that argument. He was at

Habitat for two weeks and I'm sure that he heard a wonderful line of

arguments about land control and what we should do to drive down the

price of land, and, of course, who's been whispering in his ear but the

BawIfian economic man — you know, the first member for Victoria (Mr.

Bawlf) . He's been telling him how to drive down the land prices.

In the Vancouver area, Mr. Speaker. we've heard tonight from the

first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) that there are 250 houses

that might qualify. My colleague for Burrard (Ms. Brown) said there's

one house in our riding. What's also interesting in the Vancouver area

is that in a recent survey done by the Financial Times , in May 1976,

they say Vancouver still has the highest-priced housing market and in

February saw about 3,000 unoccupied new houses unsold. Now we have to

presume from that, Mr. Speaker, that somehow, because the builders

can't sell these high-priced houses, they're going to be fascinated by

the programme that the minister is bringing in and they're going to

drop the idea of making a profit and they're suddenly going to go into

making low-cost housing.

Interjection.

[ Page 2672 ]

MR. LEVI: Yes, well, that's part of what the free enterprise

system is going to do in order to keep the socialists out. They're

going to practise socialism, even if it costs them money, and that's

the ridiculous part about what the minister is trying to tell us in

this House.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. LEVI: Ceiling of $47,000, 3,000 unsold houses in

Vancouver. I don't know how many in Delta. Certainly in New Westminster

they have unsold living units. They have them in Kamloops even. I was

in Kamloops recently and they have unsold houses. But the minister's

coming in...and this was going to be his big attempt at doing something

for the low-income people.

I said it right in the beginning of this session. He's not doing

anything for them. He's doing it to them. He had an opportunity, and he

still has, to do something about the housing project, this co-op in the

Victoria area. That was the co-op that was set up to meet

reasonable-priced housing. He has an opportunity in the Vancouver area

to do the same thing. But he decided that the co-op housing, the united

co-op housing, wasn't worth funding. So he didn't fund them. We're

going to leave it to the free enterprise system to build us houses at

$47,000 in Vancouver, $36,000 on the Island and $34,000 in the

interior. How unrealistic, Mr. Speaker, can you get?

I realize it is 10:45 at night, and the minister's tired because he

had a difficult time. After all, he had to read a five-page statement.

You know, that's pretty tough going when you've got to read a five-page

statement to answer three simple questions. It's a very tiring effort.

MR. BARRETT: But he had a mike in front of him.

MR. LEVI: Well, of course, he's very good at that microphone

thing. He's very much like our friend from Hawaii. He knows how to play

with the mike and do that kind of thing.

Interjections.

MR. LEVI: Here we go again. Aloha, baby! (Laughter.)

Interjections.

MR. LEVI: Yes, well, we do have an overabundance, Mr.

Speaker, of microphone freaks in this House, professional microphone

freaks, and we have some car freaks. My colleague here says we have car

freaks and it's true. We have developers and we have large landowners

and they're all sitting over on that side, and, as the second member

for Vancouver East said, who's got a $47,000 house? None of them. My

house is worth more than $47,000.

AN HON. MEMBER: All two rooms of it.

MR. LEVI: It's got three rooms but the dog sleeps in one of them.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know what the minister is going to do with his

bill. I guess he's going to play the hero. He is certainly playing the

hero tonight because the Premier isn't here. I suppose he's going to

run it through with that massive majority that they have over there.

Mr. Speaker, it is really, if I can say it without being out of

order, a massive con to suggest to low-income people out there that

this is going to assist them to be able to get into housing. You would

have to live pretty close to Dawson Creek in order to get into some of

the levels that they are talking about in here.

AN HON. MEMBER: Or Port Angeles.

MR. LEVI: Yes, you can get on the Washington ferry not too badly now — in fact, it might pay to commute.

That's the kind of thing that's going on in this province. They're

telling us all of this flim-flam about what they are going to do for

the low-income people. The other day I was up in the interior and I saw

a camper from Victoria. There was a big sign on it and it said:

"Vancouver Island, B.C.'s largest prison." They were making reference

to the business of the ferries, but they were also making reference to

other things. They can't even afford to get off the island, and I am

sure they want to get off the island. Housing is as important on this

island as it is anywhere else.

It is important that we do make available housing. We know the

record of the previous Social Credit government where they trickled

along for about five years. If you see the graph, it hugs the bottom

line and then suddenly in the two and a half years we had a Housing

department under the previous government, it shot right off the page.

Now, because they can't afford very big graphs, they've got to push

this thing down. This kind of legislation is going to force this down.

We are not going to get the kind of assistance that is really needed.

They will do nothing for the people in the Vancouver area — absolutely

nothing.

AN HON. MEMBER: How many houses in Little Mountain sell for $47,000?

MR, LEVI: Well, of course, if they wanted to tear down Riley

Park that would be something, eh? If they tear that down they can put

up some $85,000

[ Page 2673 ]

and $90,000 houses. We have it going on here where they are tearing

down houses at a fast rate. The land lays idle for eight or nine months

on Collinson Street waiting to build — what? Condominiums! Are any

people going to benefit from this? Who's going to get in there?

We see what goes on. Everybody sees what goes on in the urban areas.

Every time you walk down the street you are not sure you are in the

right street, Mr. Speaker, because you go down and there are houses and

the next time you go down, there's some guy with a big bulldozer

pushing the house into a hole. That's what's going on.

AN HON. MEMBER: The double-your-money condominium act.

MR. LEVI: The minister made a good opening speech, Mr.

Speaker, but that was in relation to the explanations he gave about the

co-op housing; it wasn't in relation to this bill. He came out with a

large number of figures, but maybe when he's closing he could tell

us.... He has a very capable deputy minister who is very knowledgeable

about the housing field. How many people does he estimate in this whole

province are going to benefit from this programme? Tell us how many

people in Vancouver, in Victoria, and in all of the places that you

have talked about. Tell us how many. You have an obligation. You can't

hold out to that little member for Cranbrook (Mr. Haddad) . I know he's

a magician, but if you don't tell him how many are going to be able to

benefit he will go back to Cranbrook and they'll run him over the

border. He will probably fall into the Libby Dam!

You have an obligation to tell every member of this House so that

they can go back to their ridings and say: "The Minister of Housing

brought in a bill, he talked about assisted home ownership and this is

how many people in our area can qualify." If you can stand up in this

House when you close the debate and tell us exactly how many people are

going to benefit, then you can come out smelling like a rose. Someone

made reference earlier to the bill being fishy. Well, it is fishy

because you haven't told us anything and you have an obligation to tell

us. If you can tell me that in Vancouver 400 or 500 families will

benefit, I will go over there and sing your praises.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: In my own riding I'll talk about that. I shall talk to all the people in Fairview....

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: That minister is getting so red in the face, Mr. Speaker, I am really worried about him.

Scotty, will you go and look at him? It's incredible the way he gets worked up.

I want to be able to go into the riding, talk to the people in

Kitsilano and say: "Look, your problems are solved," My colleague will

come with me and we'll sing the duet outside those scruffy houses and

we'll say: "Don't worry, the new Minister of Housing over there has got

a plan. It's a super plan. Part of it relates to driving down the cost

of housing."

You know how they drive down the cost of housing in that government?

They knock them down. (Laughter.) Then there's no problem. You don't

have a price problem — till they start building some new ones.

MR. BARRETT: Just a land problem.

MR. LEVI: Yes, that's all — a land problem. But, of course,

they have a solution to that, too. The first member for Victoria (Mr.

Bawlf) said: "You have to see this bill, Mr. Speaker, in conjunction

with other things that the government is going to do." Like what? Like

taking away the Land Commission? Is that one of the other things in

conjunction? The big debate is going on in Chilliwack right now about

the 1,800 acres. We had an attempt by the previous government to do

something in the Burke Mountain area, but one of the first grand

gestures of this minister was to come in and to say: "No, no, no —

Burke Mountain is not for us. That's not for us."

He read off a long list earlier, Mr. Speaker, about all of the

initiatives of the department. It seemed to me that 70 per cent of the

initiatives were started by the previous Minister of Housing (Mr.

Nicolson). You haven't been around there long enough to do any

initiatives. You keep getting yourselves balled up in these little land

deals.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's Bawlfed up.

Interjections.

MR. LEVI: Balled up, Mr. Speaker — I apologize; b-a-l-l-d. (Laughter.)

That's it, Mr. Speaker; we've got to hear from this minister. He's

got to tell us who he is going to benefit. You know, after all, he

knows about the liveable region plan in the Vancouver area; he knows

about the pressure that exists in the Vancouver area. So we have to be

assured by him that at least 500 families are going to benefit in the

Vancouver area, and that a couple of hundred families will benefit

here. But how many is he talking about? That's what he's got to tell

us, If the minister will do that, and if he comes across in a sincere

way, I'm sure the member for Delta (Mr. Davidson) will rush out with a

copy of the Blues , go on the ferry, go into Delta and tell the story.

I'm not going with a copy of the Blues ;

[ Page 2674 ]

I'm going to wait for the printed version, because things get changed between the Blues and the printed version.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LEVI: But if you're prepared to do that, then re prepared to

support it.

I see that the member for Delta is moving in his chair. That, Mr.

Speaker, can only indicate one thing: he's going to jump up when I sit

down and he's going to rip the living daylights out of me. Well, you've

got six minutes, Mr. Member, and if you can make a speech in six

minutes — right on! I yield the floor.

MR. W. DAVIDSON (Delta): Mr. Speaker, it's always a pleasure

to follow that member for Vancouver Burrard, as well as the member

previously...he doesn't seem to be on here, Mr. Speaker. (Laughter.)

I regret, Mr. Speaker, that I cannot totally share the enthusiasm

for Bill 49 as it presently stands. I am concerned that the limit of

$47,000 presently set is not sufficient for the kind of single-family

accommodation in my area — Delta, Surrey and White Rock. Certainly the

figures does apply to mobile homes, condominiums and some townhouses,

but builders who have contacted me have stated very strongly their

objection to the figure as outlined in this particular bill.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DAVIDSON: Mr. Speaker, one only has to go back to the

year 1968, when the $5,000 second mortgage was available, and compare

the price of homes then to the price of those same homes today. The

percentage assistance can be quickly seen to have dramatically

decreased, and average income has in no way kept pace with those

increased housing costs.

One fact which came out loud and clear in the last few weeks

surrounding Habitat is the fact that in the next 25 years the world

will have to produce the same number of housing units as has ever been

created in history. Governments are not going to build those homes;

free enterprise is going to build those homes.

Interjections.

MR. DAVIDSON: I hope that Bill 49 represents only a small

start at providing the incentive necessary to stimulate the housing

industry and to stimulate building to provide the same climate as was

created in 1968 with the most progressive legislation on housing ever

seen in North America in the province of British Columbia.

While I have certain reservations about the bill, I do intend to

give it my full support because I realize that additional plans by this

government will honour its commitment to supply housing to the people

of all socio-economic needs and levels of this province.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Well, Mr. Speaker, I notice that

the hon. minister from South Peace (Hon. Mr. Phillips) is very keen to

bring the debate to an end, very keen to terminate debate with his

interjections, and since it's 2 minutes to 11, I move adjournment of

this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10:57 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1976, 2001, 2011, 2013: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada