1975 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 30th

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, MAY 6, 1975

Afternoon Sitting

[ 30050302031.gif" target="_blank" title="View the original Hansard page">Page 2031 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral questions

Can-Cel shares investigation. Mr. Bennett — 2031

Indian cut-off lands. Mr. Gibson — 2031

Jurisdiction of rentalsman. Mr. Wallace — 2032

ICBC commissions for Clearwater. Mr. Curtis — 2032

Purchasing commission approval on supplies, Mr.

Fraser — 2032

Columbia River investigation. Mr. D.A. Anderson —

Medicare payments to physicians. Mr. Wallace — 2033

Possible rentalsman intervention in Prince George

property lease increase. Mr. Phillips — 2034

Committee of Supply: Department of Housing estimates

On the amendment to vote 102

Mr. Phillips — 2034

On vote 102.

Mr. Phillips — 2039

Hon. Mr. Nicholson — 2040

Mr. Phillips — 2041

Hon. Mr. Nicholson — 2041

Mr. Bennett — 2041

Hon. Mr. Nicholson — 2042

Mr. Wallace — 2042

Hon. Mr. Nicholson — 2042

Mr. Curtis — 2043

Hon. Mr. Nicholson — 2043

Mr. Curtis — 2043

Hon. Mr. Nicholson — 2044

Mr. Bennett — 2045

Hon. Mr. Nicholson — 2045

Mr. Curtis — 2045

Hon. Mr. Nicholson — 2045

Mr. Curtis — 2046

Mr. Wallace — 2046

Hon. Mr. Nicholson — 2048

Mr. Phillips — 2048

Hon. Mr. Nicholson — 2049

Mr. Phillips — 2050

Hon. Mr. Nicholson — 2050

Mr. Phillips — 2050

Mr. Bennett — 2051

Mr. Phillips — 2052

Hon. Mr. Nicholson — 2054

Mr. Fraser — 2055

Mr. Curtis — 2056

Mr. Bennett — 2057

Hon. Mr. Nicholson — 2057

Mr. Phillips — 2060

Hon. Mr. Nicholson — 2063

Mr. Phillips — 2064

Point of order

Conflict of bills. Mr. Speaker — 2068

TUESDAY, MAY 6, 1975

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. C. LIDEN (Delta): Mr. Speaker, we have in the gallery

today a group of 35 citizens from Crescent Beach and I would

ask the Members to make them welcome.

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources):

Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of the Legislature

today to two friends of mine from Kimberley in the gallery, Mr. and

Mrs. Watson.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker, we have

20 students from the Western Washington State College who are

sitting up in the gallery. I hereby, as Attorney-General of all

British Columbia, order and enjoin said students to repair to

my office at 3 o'clock for a quick refresher on the politics of

the Province of British Columbia. (Laughter.)

MR. C. D'ARCY (Rossland-Trail): Mr. Speaker, I would like

the House to join with me in welcoming two long-time Trail area

residents, Mr. and Mrs. Joe Landucci. I believe Mrs. Landucci

was originally raised in Rossland.

Oral questions.

CAN-CEL SHARES INVESTIGATION

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, to

the Attorney-General: Can the Attorney-General now advise the

House, in regard to the investigation into the Can-Cel shares

which he named March 15, 1974, whether the 10 persons, Messrs.

Morrison, Smith, Smallacombe and Campbell of the securities

commission and the six officers from the RCMP, have ever met

together in a meeting regarding this investigation?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The answer is no. They do not meet. The

objective of an order under that particular

section of the

Securities Act is to name sufficient personnel who can conduct

the investigation because their names are set out in the order.

They do not all necessarily work on the investigation and they

do not all necessarily work together. Some will do part of it,

others will do another part and some will do none at all, but

they are available if necessary. It was a massive

investigation.

MR. BENNETT: A supplementary: did all 10 members participate

or were any members replaced during the course of this

investigation?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I will check that part of the answer.

MR. BENNETT: A further supplementary: when the investigation

is completed, will the Attorney-General file the report in the

Legislature?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, Mr. Speaker, I'll certainly be

glad to give a statement on it. Whether it will be in one

report form or masses of material…. You know, an opinion

based on masses of material is something that I would want to

give consideration to.

MR. BENNETT: Is it completed?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Quite frankly, it is not completed in

terms of running down all of the share transactions of that

massive organization. But the vast majority of those share

transactions have been run down, checked with a list, including

volunteers suggested by the opposition — or you had that

opportunity — who might be possible insiders, and nothing

really untoward has turned up in the investigation. But I can't

say it's completed because all share transactions, some through

trust companies and so forth, have not been checked.

MR. BENNETT: Will you table the report?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I'll give consideration to some form in

which the final results can be announced.

INDIAN CUT-OFF LANDS

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Speaker, a

question for the Premier. Pursuant to the meeting with the

federal Minister of Indian Affairs, I wonder if the Premier

could tell us if the province is now ready to acknowledge its

responsibility to solve the problem of Indian cut-off

lands?

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I've not yet had a

full report from the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr.

Levi), who met with the Minister. It is my understanding that

Mr. Buchanan stated to the press that he recognized that it was

essentially a federal problem. However, this matter will be

discussed in cabinet when the Minister reports this week.

MR. GIBSON: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker: this, of

course, is a provincial responsibility, the

[ 30050302032.gif" target="_blank" title="View the original Hansard page">Page 2032 ]

cut-off lands, but could the Premier say when that

discussion in cabinet…?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I don't think argument is in

order in question period.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you disputing that you can debate the

question in question period? I think you know the rules.

Please!

MR. GIBSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, the Premier made a statement

of fact which is not correct, so it seemed to me that it is

entirely proper to take a moment to correct it.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

JURISDICTION OF RENTALSMAN

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, could I ask the

Attorney-General if he could confirm that he has been requested

to investigate a charge that the rentalsman has far exceeded

his jurisdiction in regard to a landlord in Courtenay by

threatening a criminal prosecution and in effect attempting to

extort a settlement?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, that matter has not been

drawn to my personal attention, but I will check the

matter.

MR. WALLACE: Could I now draw it to the Minister's

attention? The communication, I believe, has been received in

his office and seeks to explore a very serious matter of

extravagant use of the role of the rentalsman against the

rights of the individual in Courtenay.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I recognize it's been drawn to my

attention — the allegation — and I'll look into it. Quite a few

of the allegations drawn to my attention have no foundation in

fact, but some have.

ICBC COMMISSIONS FOR CLEARWATER

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): To the Minister of

Transport and Communications regarding ICBC: in his press release

distributed in conjunction with the filing of the ICBC annual report a

few days ago, page 4 of the release, the Minister referred to revenues

accruing to smaller communities as the result of handling Autoplan. He

specifically cited the community of Clearwater: "Clearwater will be

paying a lower mill rate directly as the result of income earned by the

municipality through Autoplan commissions."

I wonder if the Minister is aware of the fact that

Clearwater is in fact not a municipality, Mr. Speaker. If he

would comment on that…?

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and

Communications) : If you check the Clearwater paper, you'll find

that's the claim which they made publicly.

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. I don't think we

should operate ICBC or any other government agency on the basis

of newspaper reports. Would the Minister indicate if he's aware

of the fact that Clearwater is not a municipality? There is no

tax levied as a municipality. Is the news release issued over

the Minister's name a few days ago therefore incorrect in this

regard?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I recognize what a major point you've

just raised. I will check and see whether the newspaper report,

in which they claim that great benefits had come to the

community because ICBC was there, is correct, not correct or

whether you're trying to create a mouse out of a molehill.

MR. CURTIS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Not another! What's coming now, another

mouse?

MR. CURTIS: I resist the temptation to be argumentative. If

the municipality's letters patent, the incorporation of

communities, is a molehill, then we know how the Minister of

Transport and Communications feels about it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. Not another speech, please.

MR. CURTIS: Will the Minister undertake to file with the

House a statement of those municipalities, underlined, which in

fact are receiving Autoplan commissions as the result of the

procedure outlined in his press release?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, and I'll also give a list of the

municipalities to whom we are paying full taxes, including

North Vancouver.

PURCHASING COMMISSION

APPROVAL ON SUPPLIES

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Mr. Speaker, to the

Attorney-General: to what extent, if any, are judges required

to seek the approval of the

[ 30050302033.gif" target="_blank" title="View the original Hansard page">Page 2033 ]

Attorney-General's department before furnishing

office

suites in court houses through the purchasing commission?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: All purchases of government supplies

should go through the purchasing commission.

MR. FRASER: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Do judges enjoy

any special rights to authorize expenses for their office

furnishings by unilaterally signing purchase or lease-rental

agreements?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.

COLUMBIA RIVER INVESTIGATION

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): To the Minister of Lands,

Forests and Water Resources, Mr. Speaker: may I ask the

Minister whether it is still government policy to proceed with

the appointment of a commissioner to look into the whole

question of the Columbia River treaty and the possibility of

cost allocation to other government departments of costs

undertaken in that development?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources): The statements made by myself today are still the

position of the government, Mr. Speaker.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the

Minister whether any steps have yet been taken to seek out a

commissioner for this task and to have him appointed? Has any

person been requested to take the job and has any person

refused?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Comment would be inappropriate, Mr.

Speaker.

MEDICARE PAYMENTS TO PHYSICIANS

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the Minister of

Health a question with regard to payment of physicians for

claims submitted for medicare services: does the Medical

Services Commission claims department have a specific list of

physicians whose claims are handled on an individual basis

rather than being put through the computer?

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Yes, Mr. Speaker, the

Medical Services Commission does keep a record of doctors who what they

call "balance-bill" and what I call "extra-bill." Based on that record,

we have the option and the right under order-in-council to withdraw

medicare privileges from that particular doctor. We feel that it's

grossly unfair that a doctor

habitually charges over and above the medical payments. That

record is being kept at my specific instruction.

MR. WALLACE: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Has the Minister or

the Medical Services Commission notified the individual doctors

or the B.C. Medical Association of the existence of this

different method of handling claims?

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, this is not a different method

of handling claims. We handle claims in the way we've always

handled claims. What I've asked the Medical Services Commission

to do is to keep a record of doctors who act unilaterally in a

different way than the norm. The medical association knows

quite well that this is the only possible way we could

establish a pattern, They've argued with me for some time over

this order-in-council. I've argued that the reason for the

order-in-council is to give us the right to go after people who

abuse the system. There is the odd case where an extra billing

is required because of some sort of undue attention that had to

be given — that can't be recognized by the computers. But as a

normal course of events we must keep a record of this sort. We

are going to continue to keep it and we'll be using it from

time to time to ask doctors to either live within the terms of

reference or be opted out of medicare.

MR. WALLACE: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Could I

have the Minister's assurance that on that list of names there

is no other name for any other reason than the reason of extra

billing?

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I can't think of any other

reason. I haven't given any instructions, but I certainly can't

give that specific assurance without consulting. I can think of

nothing else, standing on my feet, that we would use for that

reason.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): A supplementary for

clarification, Mr. Speaker. Is the Minister saying that extra

billing by physicians, which may include an acceptable sum of

extra billing for specialist service where there is no

appropriate fee, is abusing the system?

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I thought I made myself quite

clear in the first place…

MRS. JORDAN: No, you didn't. That's why I asked.

HON. MR. COCKE: …so that the Member for North Okanagan

could have understood. I said that where people have been

habitually overbilling —

[ 30050302034.gif" target="_blank" title="View the original Hansard page">Page 2034 ]

extra-billing — we are keeping a record so that we

can

establish that this is a habit pattern. Where it is, we have

the right to opt them out of medicare. Frankly, I think it's

the only way to fly under these circumstances.

MRS. JORDAN: Would the Minister further clarify if, in fact,

there are some services provided by a specialist for which

there is no specified fee and that that, in itself, has been an

accepted form of charging but is in essence called "extra

billing"?

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the Member for North Okanagan

brings up the very case that we except. That's not what we're

talking about at all, because those cases are so rare that the

person would come up on the list very, very occasionally. There

are other persons, as the Member for North Okanagan realizes,

who make a habit of this. We certainly are establishing that at

the present time.

MRS. JORDAN: I wonder why the Minister is so testy.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

POSSIBLE RENTALSMAN INTERVENTION IN

PRINCE GEORGE PROPERTY LEASE INCREASE

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I'd like

to direct a question to the Minister of Economic Development as

a director of the British Columbia Railway. I have in my hand a

copy of a letter from Mr. E.H. Rutley, supervisor of real

estate for British Columbia Railway, written March 11, 1975, to

Hogenberry Holdings of Prince George outlining rent increases

on property. This company leases from the British Columbia

Railway. I point out to the Minister that this property is in

turn sublet to the Prince George school district bus system.

Formerly this property was leased at a rate of $1,330 per

annum; this letter advises that effective May 1, 1975, the

annual rate is $3,790 per annum, an increase of 285 per

cent.

Could the Minister advise the House if he believes that this

rental increase, which, in effect, will be passed on to the

taxpayers, falls in line with rental increase guidelines under

the rentalsman? Can the Minister advise the House if the

lessees will have recourse to the office of the rentalsman in

this matter?

MR. SPEAKER: I don't think you can ask legal questions of a

lawyer; it wouldn't be proper. But you can ask if it is a

fact.

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Economic Development): Mr.

Speaker, if the Hon. Member could provide me with the material he has,

I will look into it for him and answer in due course.

MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you very much. I appreciate the answer,

because there is another case where the rent went up 274 per

cent and the lessee was going to put a warehouse on this. But

now he will move, probably, to the Canadian National Railroad,

and there will be a loss of revenue to the BCR.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. No speeches.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: May I ask leave of the House to file the

report made to the Justice Development Commission by J.M.

Cramm, outlining some of the problems in the justice system and

some of the solutions.

Leave granted.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING

(continued)

On vote 102: Minister's office, $150,127 — continued.

On the amendment.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): I would just like for

a few brief moments to explore a little further the house on

the hill, Casa Loma. I'd like to ask the Minister once again

if, over the evening and during the night, his memory returned

to him, or whether he took time to call the general manager of

Dunhill Development to recheck his calendar pad to see if there

were any notations made with regard to the date of the first

meeting with the directors of Casa Loma.

Was the Minister aware of the situation whereby 40-odd

creditors were going to have to settle for 40 cents on the

dollar? Was the Minister aware of this situation? Was he

advised of the situation by the persons responsible for this

acquisition through Dunhill?

I would like to know, Mr. Chairman, if the Minister was

really aware of this situation, because we seem to have a great

credibility crisis with this government. We have a credibility

crisis with the Department of Housing. We have a credibility

crisis with the Premier. We have a credibility crisis with the

Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A.

Williams).

[ 30050302035.gif" target="_blank" title="View the original Hansard page">Page 2035 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member confine

his remarks to the amendment?

MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We have a credibility crisis with the Minister of Mines and

Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Nimsick). But maybe the Minister

of Housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson) would like to retrieve himself

and come clean and, as I asked yesterday, be candid with the

House with regard to the house on the hill.

Again yesterday afternoon, Mr. Chairman, he stated that it

was very necessary to provide housing for senior citizens, that

the government rush in and acquire Casa Loma. But the Member

for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) pointed out that the

Minister had taken a large senior citizens' housing project

away from the senior citizens. So there again we have the

Minister incredible in his incredibility. Incredible!

Mr. Chairman, the Province of British Columbia at one time

had the best-housed residents in all of Canada, and under this

Minister they are now among the worst housed. I am not too

impressed with the Minister of Housing, who stands in this

Legislature and says that all the provinces in Canada have

housing starts down. I'm not impressed with this statement,

because this is the Minister, Mr. Chairman, who, right in this

very Legislature approximately one year ago, told the Members

of this House that he was going to solve the problem of housing

in British Columbia. That's why he acquired Dunhill Development

Corp. for $5.8 million, a ripoff of $2 million of the

taxpayers' money.

That's why he acquired this corporation, to solve the

housing problems in British Columbia. But we've gone from a

housing crisis, which was created under this government in the

first two years of office, to where we now have a housing

catastrophe. Mr. Chairman, the responsibility for this housing

catastrophe rests squarely on the shoulders of this

Minister.

A year ago the Minister had all of the answers. What's he going to

do now? He's going to call a conference. He's going to call in people

who used to provide housing for British Columbia, the private

enterprise people, the private sector of our economy, and ask them how

the housing situation can be solved. This is incredible, because we

told that Minister that the government would not be able to solve the

housing problem, that what they should do if they wanted to solve the

housing problem was to put Crown land on the market at reasonable

prices. It would bring down the price of privately held land and then

people would be able to afford the land; then they would be able to

afford the housing. The Minister of Housing is very aware that I have

pointed out that it is not the increased cost of construction of

housing, that it is not really the increase in interest rates, but it

is the increase in the cost of land that has taken British Columbia

into the position of being a have-not province in housing. Land

policies that are directly attributable to the policies of that

socialist government….

We warned them what would happen, but, oh, the Minister had

all of the answers. His great department was going to solve all

of the problems. But it hasn't solved any of the problems; it

has created more problems.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where's the Liberal Party?

MR, CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would point out to the Hon.

Member that he is tending to be tediously repetitious — under

standing order 43.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Chairman, when I spoke before, I

don't know how you knew what I was saying because you had my

mike cut off a week ago last Thursday night. So how would you

know whether I was being repetitious or not? And I don't recall

making these statements yesterday afternoon, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point of the standing order, Hon. Member,

is that to repeat his own arguments or the arguments of others

is what constitutes repetition.

MR. PHILLIPS: We have a very serious situation, Mr.

Chairman, a very serious situation in British Columbia, and

that Minister is not being candid with this House. He is

endeavouring to tell us that he has the answers when he does

not have the answers.

It's unfortunate, but the very people whom this government

was condemning a few short years ago, and I'm referring to land

speculators — what has happened now? This government has made

British Columbia a haven for land speculators, a haven for

them. There was always a very delicate balance in British

Columbia between supply and demand for land. So what has

happened now? We have 10 different government departments,

including the Department of Housing and Dunhill, going into

that short supply of land and buying up privately held land. By

doing this they have inflated the price of that land by, in

some cases, 500 and 1,000 per cent. This is what has created

the housing shortage that we have in British Columbia today.

This is what we have created.

Mr. Chairman, I would like the Minister to advise us how he

is going to get himself out of this situation, a situation

which he and the other Ministers of this government have

created.

Mr. Chairman, we're comparing some statistics and we're

comparing other cities in Canada, but I want to tell you that

in British Columbia housing starts

[ 30050302036.gif" target="_blank" title="View the original Hansard page">Page 2036 ]

declined 27 per cent to a total of only 992 in the

first two

months of this year in the Vancouver regional district, and

this is from a total of 1,359 in January and February of last

year. CMHC statistics also show that the number of housing

units completed in the two months declined 19 per cent to a

total of only 1,943 from 2,418 in the same period last year.

This is with a Department of Housing in British Columbia that

had a budget last year of approximately $135 million.

But you recall very well, Mr. Chairman, that this Minister

said he was going to solve the housing problem. You recall very

well that he even predicted there would be a surplus of housing

this year. So what has the Minister really done? What has the

Minister done? I would like him to clarify that situation this

afternoon and advise the House how he has set about to solve

the housing problem.

Maybe he would tell us how his policies have failed. Maybe

that is why the Minister has called this housing conference — because

he realizes he has failed. The man who had all the

answers is now going to go to the private sector and ask for

their help to solve the housing crisis, the same crisis that a

year ago he had answered. Units under construction at the end

of February declined 20 per cent to only 9,790 units from a

total of 12,227 at the same time last year. I realize that we

could quote statistics until the cows come home, but the very

point is that this Minister and his department had all the

answers through their policy of the government's providing the

housing and building the housing and owning the land and buying

the land and leasing it back. They were going to solve the

problems. They haven't solved the problem; they have made it

worse.

We have to lose faith in this Minister, Mr. Chairman, and

lose faith in this department. It has not done the citizens of

British Columbia one speck of good. They have created more

problems than they have solved.

Anyone who wants to make a quick buck today just has to go

round and buy some land and resell it to the government. That's

all you have to do. The government is paying abnormally high

prices for their land. In a 13-month period from November of

1973 to December of 1974, the Department of Housing purchased

2,952 acres of land at a total cost to the taxpayers of

British Columbia of $26,262,831 — 74 different parcels of

land.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): How much per acre?

MR. PHILLIPS: You just be patient and you will have the

opportunity to find out just how much per acre. I have a few

questions to ask in that very regard, Mr. Member. Just be

patient.

Mr. Chairman, the problem is that all of the various departments of

government that are buying up privately held land are going around the

province in an uncoordinated way. Public Works doesn't know what the

Department of Housing is doing. The Department of Recreation and

Conservation doesn't know what the Land Commission is doing. The

Department of Economic Development has no co-ordination with the Land

Commission. The Insurance Corp. of British Columbia is off on its own

little tangent. We have the B.C. Petroleum Corp. who are off buying up

good farmland in the Surrey area — 25 per cent of it good farmland.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): No, it's not

BCPC.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, it isn't?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It's the Industrial Development

Corp.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, they are buying it for the petroleum

corporation. We have the Department of Agriculture buying up

ranches, pinko Panco Poultry and all of their land, all

uncoordinated; the Department of Highways is buying up land;

the transit authority is buying up land. None of these

departments that are frolicking in real estate in British

Columbia are co-ordinated under any one Minister or one

administration. They are frolicking throughout the province,

gobbling up land like it was going out of style, completely

uncoordinated.

The B.C. Land Commission alone last year purchased 8,028

acres at a cost of $10,874,400.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): Are you opposed to that?

MR. PHILLIPS: But the problem is, Mr. Chairman, that while

they are buying up this land at these highly inflated prices,

they are inflating the price of the remainder. We have a very

unique situation in the lower mainland where we have

approximately 1 per cent of the land mass housing 90 per cent

of the population. As I say, the balance between supply and

demand before the government went in there and started

frolicking in this real estate, before they went in and started

frolicking around, buying up everything in sight, was a very

delicate one. Now the balance is out of order. The price of

privately held land has skyrocketed. That is why I say, Mr.

Chairman, you have made British Columbia a haven for land

speculators. You have upset that very delicate balance.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, I'm not saying there wasn't the odd

speculator before. But do you have to pass a bill, do you have

to have passed policies, to take the

[ 30050302037.gif" target="_blank" title="View the original Hansard page">Page 2037 ]

right to own land from 99 per cent of the citizens

because

of maybe one half of one per cent who are doing something

wrong? This is the fallacy of your policy. This is where you

don't have any vision to see what you're doing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member to

confine his questioning to the specific responsibilities of

this Minister and to the amendment.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, the reason that we're debating

this non-confidence motion is because this Minister has failed — failed

in his promises, failed in his responsibilities,

failed in his duties. He has taken the housing situation from

the crisis that developed after a year and a half of his

policies and made it into a complete catastrophe. This Minister

has been a total and utter and complete failure, and you have

to take into consideration all of the policies as well as the

failure of them.

The problem is that the person now who wants to buy land for

housing has to pay three times. His taxes that he pays in his

general taxes in British Columbia are going to buy this land at

highly inflated prices. This money doesn't grow on trees. It's

the people's taxes that you're using to buy this; it's tax

money. So not only do his taxes have to go in to buy land and

to create inflated prices on the remainder of the land, but

then if he does want to buy a piece of land, he has to pay

through the nose for it because of the policies of this

government. The land has been inflated, as I said, sometimes

1,000 per cent.

Then what happens after he buys the piece of land? This is

why we can't have people owning their own homes in British

Columbia today. What happens? There's less privately held land

to pay the taxes, to run the school districts and the

municipalities.

This is why I can see the Minister wanting to hold a

conference and why he wants to bring the private sector in — the

private sector that he put the run on. He didn't allow them

to go ahead and provide the housing for British Columbians, as

they had done for years and years and years and did an

excellent job at. If they're going to build something now, he

thinks he's creating housing by buying up projects that they

have planned and are going to bring on stream.

What happens? A lot of people who sell their projects to

this government take their money and the put it in housing

elsewhere. They put it in housing in other provinces. They put

it in housing in the States — in California and in the State of

Washington. This is why we have a housing crisis in British

Columbia today. This is why it's a complete catastrophe. This

is why this Minister is a complete and total failure. He hasn't

done anything to improve the housing situation in British

Columbia. He has brought it to a state of complete chaos.

And now he's going to call a conference. He's going to have

all the answers.

Mr. Chairman, I just have to condemn the people who sell

their land to this government, because for a few bucks they are

selling their birthright and the birthright of future

generations. I do not condemn those persons who have been

threatened with expropriation and forced by this government to

sell their land. I do not condemn them, because they have been

forced by this government to sell their land. But those who

sell for the quick buck now are selling their birthright to

this socialist government. They are selling their birthright

and the birthright of future generations.

I don't condemn those landowners who have to sell because of

excessive taxation. And there are many persons in this province

in the past year who have had to sell their land because of

excessive taxation brought in by the stupid, idiotic policies

of that socialist government.

MR. C. LIDEN (Delta): I wonder where that's coming from.

MR. PHILLIPS: And the Member for Delta knows full well what

I'm talking about. He just has to go back a year. He sat on the

committee; he travelled around this province. He saw the people

coming before this committee and crying because they were going

to have to sell their land because of the Premier's

bumbling.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Don't say that.

MR. PHILLIPS: Premier's bungling.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Don't say those things.

MR. PHILLIPS: Putting his hand into the assessment pot.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We're considering the amendment

to vote 102.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, there's the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr.

Macdonald). Harp, harp, harp!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The amendment to vote 102.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, are you calling me to order? Are you

calling the Premier to order? Are you calling the Member for

Delta to order? Now make up your mind.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would call all Members to

[ 30050302038.gif" target="_blank" title="View the original Hansard page">Page 2038 ]

order and ask the Hon. Member not to be put off

from keeping

entirely relevant to the amendment.

MR. PHILLIPS: Irrelevant or irrelevant?

HON. P.F. YOUNG (Minister of Consumer Services): Oh, you've

learned the difference.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, and it's too bad you wouldn't learn

something over there when you make a mistake. It's too bad you

wouldn't learn, but you just keep on fumble-bumbling along and

making the same old mistakes time and time again. Oh, yes, it

was fumbling and bumbling by the Premier of this province,

putting his sticky hands into the assessment Act…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: …that is causing people in this province to

sell their land to this government. Forced sales.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member try to

return…? Please do not allow the other Member to distract

you from this amendment.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I'll try, Mr. Chairman. I'll try. But

when you have the clown prince here, he's easy to draw your

attention because he's a past master at joking and making jokes

and putting on a play act and it does distract me.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I confess, he's beat me

today.

MR. PHILLIPS: It is, Mr. Chairman, as I am pointing out, the

policies of this government that have created this chaos in

housing. I would like this Minister to stand in this

Legislature in a few moments when I take my seat and tell me

what firm, positive plans he has to undo this situation that he

has created — to allow people to go back to the method of

owning their own home and allowing the entrepreneurs in this

province to build the houses. What's he going to do to bring

down the price of land? People didn't buy his policy, Mr.

Chairman, of leasing land and becoming serfs of the state. They

haven't backed this policy. British Columbians are not ready to

become serfs of the state. They want to own in fee simple the

land they have a house on. This is what has created this

problem.

Many people have had to lose their land through tax sales due to

excessive taxation. That's shameful. But what is that Minister doing

about it? His policies are not working. He must see that they are not

working. So, Mr. Chairman, maybe the Minister would tell us where he is

going to go after his budget is passed this year. And it will be passed

because of the crushing majority of the socialist government. It will

be passed; it will be crushed through this Legislature. What is he

going to do? What concrete plans does that Minister have? Where is the

Department of Housing going? What does he intend to do to solve the

chaos — the catastrophe — that we have in housing in British Columbia

today? I think it is his responsibility to advise the Legislature what

new policies he's going to have for 1975. Your policies and programmes,

Mr. Minister, that you had in 1974 didn't work. We're in worse shape

now than we were last year.

[Mr. Liden in the chair.]

It's just not good enough for you to

stand in this

Legislature and say that housing starts are down in other

provinces. We have the fastest-growing population rate of any

province in Canada. These people are coming here and unless you

put up a gate at the border they are going to come here. They

are going to come here because of our climate. We should be way

ahead of the other provinces in housing starts, so your

policies haven't worked. We are not going to settle for

excuses, Mr. Chairman. We want to know what new, innovative

policies you are going to come up with for the coming year. How

are you going to get the price of land back down to where it

was? What policies have you got to invite the private sector in

to do the job that you can't do?

You know, Mr. Chairman, the Minister will probably stand up

and tell us about 3,000 or 4,000 or 5,000 housing units that he

is going to create next year. Does the Minister not realize

that we need every year in the Province of British Columbia not

5,000, not 10,000, but 50,000 new housing starts to keep

abreast of our current needs? How is he going to create those

housing starts? What new policies? How is he going to solve

this problem?

Mr. Chairman, I will not accept from the Minister the fact

that he is going to talk about interest rates, because it isn't

the interest rates but the high price of land that is holding

housing back. May I make a suggestion to the Minister of

Housing? The Crown owns approximately 95 per cent of the land

in British Columbia. Instead of going out and buying more of

that 5 per cent that is privately held and inflating the price,

why don't you sit down and be realistic and put some of that 95

per cent of Crown-owned land on the market…?

MR, CHAIRMAN: I bring to your attention that the green light

is on. You are nearing the end of your remarks.

[ 30050302039.gif" target="_blank" title="View the original Hansard page">Page 2039 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: I just got up!

HON. MR. MACDONALD: A brief moment — 30 minutes.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I forgot, Mr. Chairman, that we do have

closure in this Legislature now.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: You haven't asked your question yet.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, would you like to ask it for me? You're

part of the problem, Mr. Attorney-General.

What policy? Why don't you take some of this Crown-owned

land and put it on the market and bring the price of privately

held land down? No way, with these speculators that you have

created in British Columbia. All you have to do in British

Columbia today, if you want to sell your land to the

government, is just whisper it to yourself and some man from

some government department will come running and buy it up.

They're frolicking all over the province. Will the Minister

tell us what new innovative policies he's going to bring in

during 1975 to solve the housing problems of B.C.?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the amendment pass?

Amendment negatived.

MR. PHILLIPS: Just a second, Mr. Chairman!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! You've completed your 30 minutes.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, is the Minister not going to…?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't recognize anyone on the floor. You've

had your say.

MR. PHILLIPS: The Minister is not going to answer any….

MR. CHAIRMAN: You know the rules as well as I do. The

amendment has been defeated. Shall vote 102 pass?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

MR. PHILLIPS: Just a moment, Mr. Chairman, I have the right

to…. (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: On vote 102.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: You bored people — drove them out of the

House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Member for South Peace

River.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, they seem to be in a hurry, Mr. Chairman,

to rush this thing through.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm recognizing the Member for South Peace

River on vote 102.

MR. PHILLIPS: I think this is absolutely disgusting, Mr.

Chairman. (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. PHILLIPS: I think it's absolutely disgusting.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You may have the floor on vote 102.

MR. PHILLIPS: I think it's absolutely disgusting that the

Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Ms. Young), who should be

interested in housing, wants to rush this vote through. I think

it's absolutely disgusting, Mr. Chairman — absolutely

disgusting. Great interest shown!

HON. MR. MACDONALD: You bored people; you drove them right

out of the House. Where are they?

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I know where your cabinet is, Mr.

Chairman.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. PHILLIPS: Maybe he's out fabricating some more

stories.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: Unkind, but the truth, Mr.

Attorney-General.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I want to bring the Member's attention to the

fact that we're dealing with….

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! We're dealing with vote 102. The Member

for South Peace River has the floor and shouldn't be

interrupted by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) or

anybody else.

MR. PHILLIPS: It is the Minister's salary, Mr.

[ 30050302040.gif" target="_blank" title="View the original Hansard page">Page 2040 ]

Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's right.

MR. PHILLIPS: I have here a list of a few parcels of land

that the Department of Housing purchased last year. I'd like to

ask the Minister who location 1239 in Terrace, purchased

December 18, 1973, was purchased from. Who did the appraisal?

In area, it's 1.504 acres. The cost is $40,000 to the taxpayers

of this province, which works out to $26,666 per acre. I would

like the Minister to tell me who did the appraisal and from

whom the land was purchased.

Parcel 1456 in Maple Ridge, purchased on December 19, 1974 — 5.78

acres. The cost to the taxpayers was $185,000; the cost

per acre was $32,006.

Would the Minister advise who did the appraisal on those two

parcels of land and from whom they were purchased?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 102 pass?

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, just a moment. Come on! Just a minute.

Don't be in such a….

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister.

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister of Housing): Mr. Member, the

Terrace one, I think, goes back to 1973. I think that we

discussed those earlier in last year's estimates but we'll

endeavour to get some information on that, perhaps, in the form

of a return.

The Murkley property, which you've referred to, in Maple

Ridge was purchased from G.I. Murkley. I think that I've also

filed this in answer to questions in the House. The appraiser

was Michael Geddes.

MR. PHILLIPS: Who?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Michael Geddes.

MR. PHILLIPS: A qualified appraiser?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: It was purchased for co-operative housing

— United Housing Foundation. I believe it's senior citizens'

housing co-op, although I'm not sure. It's not designated. It

is for a co-op.

MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Member, a little bit more information

on the other one, though….

MR. PHILLIPS: In Maple Ridge?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: The one in Terrace. It is a

section 40

project under the National Housing Act — "anticipate

construction of 40 units." So it's obviously multiple-zoned

property. We're looking for a spring start; in fact, I believe

that this one has already started. Yes, construction has

already started here — 21 bachelors, 16 doubles, 3 handicapped

units. It'll be three-storey wood-frame construction. It's

senior citizens' housing under

section 40 of the National

Housing Act. Of course, CMHC would also have their own

appraisals.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

MR. PHILLIPS: On these parcels, was the money paid out of

the Department of Housing? Were there loans on the parcels from

CMHC? Or did you purchase them outright through the Department

of Housing?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, in this particular case, the

federal government, CMHC, purchased it and they are billing us

25 per cent, although normally we do the first purchasing and

bill them later.

MR. PHILLIPS: Just a couple of others, Mr. Chairman. Prince

George: location 1507-2, purchased July 29, 1974, cost to the

government, $95,960; 2.51 acres, cost to the government of

$38,231 per acre. Who was it purchased from? Who did the

appraisal? Were there any real estate fees paid?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: That was developed by the city; it was

Crown land from the Department of Lands. The development was

done by the city, Prince George. I don't believe any real

estate fee was paid. It was really the servicing costs.

MR. PHILLIPS: How many lots are on this? There are only 2.51

acres, and if you are looking at 4.5 to 5 lots per acre, that

would appear to me to be a little out of line — $95,960 for

servicing only 2.51 acres. Isn't that out of line?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Member, there was quite an extensive

subdivision done. This is one of the multiple-zoned parcels in

the entire thing. There were other parcels which were

single-family, and this was part of a general transaction.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, how was the cost determined? You advised

me that the cost of $95,960 was for servicing this property.

What was involved? What did you pay for it? Or did you pay out

$95,960? Tell us; tell the House: what did you pay for it? What

did you receive for this $95,960?

[ 30050302041.gif" target="_blank" title="View the original Hansard page">Page 2041 ]

HON. MR. NICOLSON: All right. This was an agreement between

the city and the province. We purchased these. These were put

on the market by the city. There was an upset price on them,

and any profits go back into further development projects on

behalf of the city. So anything that accrues is not going into

anyone's pocket, other than to the City of Prince George.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, is this going to be used for just single

houses? This property, is it going to be used for single

houses? What's it going to be used for?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: No, Mr. Member. This one is a multiple

site.

MR. PHILLIPS: How many housing units are going to be created

on this particular piece of land?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: We're considering a proposal call project

on these. They are zoned as multiple sites, and they would be

at a reasonable density consistent with the price of the

land.

MR. PHILLIPS: Have you any developer interested in putting…?

Have you provided plans? Has anybody provided plans? You

say you are going to put it on your recall programme. Has

anybody showed an interest in it yet? Have you made the plans?

Are you going to get somebody to build it? Is Dunhill going to

build this project?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Member, we've had great response from

our proposal call housing programme, and we don't anticipate

any difficulties there.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, you say that you're going to have

multiple housing. Are you going to specify what can go on that

piece of property? How many storeys? Is it going to be a

three-storey, or are you going into multiple storeys with

elevators?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Member, we specify general

guidelines, whether it is for senior citizens' housing or

family housing. Normally we would specify heights of buildings,

the overall density, and then we, of course, reserve the right

to reject applications or accept applications. That's the way

it has been done.

For instance, the one that you mentioned earlier — in

Terrace. That was bid upon by at least four or six different

firms and the proposal call selection committee, in conjunction

with CMHC, we chose the particular proposal and it turned out

to be using prefabricated, pre-engineered components. But we

get a good response to this.

MR. PHILLIPS: Now I would just like to ask the Minister how

many housing units Dunhill actually conceived the idea of

constructing and go ahead and construct, or how many they

started last year. How many housing units did Dunhill

Development Corp. actually build or start to build last

year?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: In answer to the question, I haven't

filed this yet, but 22 units were completed at a total cost of

$847,000; 566 housing units are under construction at an

estimated cost of about $16 million.

MR. PHILLIPS: What was that last figure?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: There are 566 under construction directly

by Dunhill. The proposal call programme under Dunhill's

supervision has 206 units completed; 477 are under construction

and 14,013 are in planning stages.

MR. PHILLIPS: Does Dunhill have a construction wing that is

actually building these, or are they just supervising? Do they

have their own construction company, and what's the name of

it?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Yes we have a construction company. It's

called Fisher Construction.

MR. PHILLIPS: Is this a Crown corporation under Dunhill?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: It's a wholly owned subsidiary of

Dunhill.

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): To the

Minister: were all of these units constructed by Fisher

Construction?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Yes, these are all either Dunhill or

Fisher. To elaborate a little bit, and off the top of my head,

the 22 units completed at Lister and Inman, I believe, in

Burnaby just off Boundary Road. The 4th and Wallace senior

citizens' project, which I think is over 200 units in

Vancouver, not too far from Jericho Beach, is being done solely

by Dunhill — of course with hiring subtrades and such and

putting subs out to tender. There are two projects in North

Vancouver currently being constructed by Dunhill. Also, there's

a project on Chesterfield and 1st in North Vancouver and also a

highrise on East 2nd Avenue, and Pioneer Village in

Surrey.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, could the Minister advise…all

those units or developments seem to be at the coast or on the

lower mainland. Is there any building activity by either Fisher

or Dunhill in the

[ 30050302042.gif" target="_blank" title="View the original Hansard page">Page 2042 ]

interior of the Province of British Columbia?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Yes, just under their supervision, Mr.

Member.

MR. BENNETT: Well, could you identify the areas in which

there are actually units that were conceived and are under

construction now by Dunhill or your department? Could you

identify what communities or areas they are in?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: I think I just have, but I'll go through

that again.

MR. BENNETT: No, in the interior.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: In the interior? Fully under construction

by Dunhill?

MR. BENNETT: That you initiated and are under construction.

There aren't that many.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: No, Dunhill is supervising proposal calls

in these areas outside of Vancouver, but its direct

construction…. There is one in the Victoria area that will

soon be started under direct supervision of Dunhill.

MR. BENNETT: The question is: are either Dunhill or Fisher

actually constructing any units in any part of the province

other than on the lower mainland? Is there anything under

construction by Dunhill now, or by Fisher?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: No.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Chairman, I just want to

touch briefly on another question, other than specific

statistics which other Members have been questioning. I was

very interested in reading about one of our enterprising

cities, the City of Penticton, trying to develop secondary

industry — in the magazine Business

in B.C. in May,

1975. There's a very interesting

article on Mariner Homes Ltd.,

which is a company in Penticton which is developing sectional

or prefabricated homes, I'm not sure of the precise

description. But I made some inquiries of the company today

because it seems to me that one of the primary problems, which

seems self-obvious, is the cost of homes. We've heard that

there are empty homes in Vancouver and Victoria, and the reason

they're empty is that people can't afford to pay the price. So

it seems very much axiomatic that if we can find cheaper homes,

we'll be solving the problem.

I made some inquiries about these particular homes and I find that a

two-bedroom home of 960 square feet can be completed at a cost of

$14,400 up to $14,880 and that a two-bedroom home with 1,152 square

feet can be fully completed at $17,280. That's f.o.b. Penticton.

When one looks at the price of homes in the newspapers these

days, these figures look more attractive. One of the questions

that we asked the company today was the whole question of

whether, in the light of these very attractive prices, sales

were rising on these homes. Apparently the answer is no. The

company feels that there is a lack of both federal and

provincial incentives for this kind of home.

I understand that the company met in Victoria with the

Department of Housing quite recently, seeking to make the

government aware of this particular modular home and trying to

point out some of the real advantages of the savings in cost

and construction time. A home can be put up in 30 days, I

understand, depending on the time of year. As I say, this

company has built senior citizens' homes in McBride. With

particular references to senior citizens' homes, the square

footage, which might at first glimpse seem limited — 960 —

nevertheless, for a young couple with one or two children, the

two-bedroom home with that square footage and that price seems

to me most attractive.

I wonder if the Minister could comment on the apparent,

shall I say, "lack of optimism," on the part of the

department to try and encourage this kind of company or any

other similar company. I think I quoted in a speech earlier

this session about the same kind of company in London, Ontario,

that was turning out sectional homes with great success.

It seems to me that while, perhaps, families want more space

and they may want some of the frills that might not be present

in this kind of unit, the real difficulty in the housing market

is finding reasonable, economically priced accommodations for

young couples and young families, just after they get married

or in the early years of marriage. One of the things that has

become clear in all our debates on housing is the diversity of

approach that any government must take to housing: rental

units, condominiums, single-family dwellings, apartments and

the whole range for which there isn't just one simple approach,

obviously.

It seems to me that since we so frequently hear of the

difficulties of young couples with small children in acquiring

their first home, this kind of concept and the fact that it has

been tried and proven not only in British Columbia but in

Ontario and other parts — and in England and Scotland, I know — could

we hear from the Minister to what degree he is perhaps

willing to provide some incentives?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: It is rather interesting you should bring

up Mariner Homes. I think, from what I have seen of Mariner

Homes, they have a very good

[ 30050302043.gif" target="_blank" title="View the original Hansard page">Page 2043 ]

product. We try to encourage them. They have been

used in

our joint federal-provincial rural and remote housing programme

in Fort Nelson. They were brought into that rather remote area

all the way from Penticton at a competitive cost. Also, some of

these Mariner homes are being used in our leasehold and

freehold lots, by the way. We put them up in an open auction in

Revelstoke and they are being used in our leasehold and

freehold lots in Revelstoke. People are making use of the

modular home to quite an extent in the subdivisions that we are

doing in places like Williams Lake and so on.

The 960 square feet for a family. Well, Mr. Member, I can

quite empathize with people in this particular square footage

of house. As I have said before, before coming down here, I had

a fairly comfortable lot on which I lived, situated on a

lakeshore. It was 756 square feet. I still own it, Mr. Member;

756 square feet for a family of four. I think this is one of

the things that is wrong today. Too many bylaws require that

minimum square footage must be over 1,000 square feet.

To point out the other side of the story on Mariner Homes,

we had a very successful experience, as I have related to this

House many times, with Penticton. Penticton went out; we

provided interim funding. They acted as the developer. They

marketed the homes using the federal government assisted home

ownership programme. I visited that project just last week.

People are now landscaping; there is a tremendous sense of

homeownership. But it was no small disappointment in the City

of Penticton that Mariner Homes seemed to choose not to make a

serious competitive bid and lost our right in Penticton to a

firm from Kelowna. So it came to pass that homes sold from

$22,000 to about $27,000-$28,000 on that project. We've shown

it can be done at $22,000.

We certainly cannot align ourselves with any one producer in this

modular-home industry. There are many good, reputable firms — Westwood

Homes, Irwin Homes, and others — up in the Prince George area. There is

good industry up that way. There are some good ones on the lower

mainland, in the Penticton, Kelowna and Okanagan areas and many parts

of the province. Certainly a lot of this comes down to the availability

of serviced land and transportation costs. We are looking into the

utilization of these homes, especially in places like Kitimat where it

is hard to attract a year-round building industry and where it's

necessary because of short building seasons to get in and get out very

quickly. I have met with the national association of modular-home

manufacturers — the Canadian Association of Home Manufacturers — they

are in the factory-built housing industry.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): I wonder if the

Minister would take a few moments of the committee's time to bring us

up to date with respect to a development in the Municipality of Saanich

which has, to say the least, been stalled for an unreasonably long time

— I have the chronology of the development. It is Roy Road. The

Minister and I discussed this just about a year ago, towards the end

of the spring 1974 session. Once the Minister is able to tell us what's

happening with this very promising but now rather stale project in

Saanich, perhaps I could have some supplementary questions.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Member, Dunhill Development is

dealing with Saanich on this. There have been problems in

recent months because of staff and because of the

lockout-strike situation, so there have been some discussions,

but it's been very much hampered by that particular….

MR. CURTIS: Thank you. Nonetheless, the staff problems which

really date from late January with the CUPE strike-lockout

situation in the several municipalities of greater Victoria

would serve only as the reason for difficulties and increased

delay from that point to about now.

I would like to remind the Minister, since I indicated it

just a moment ago, that it was June 14 of last year when I

asked the Minister about the statements made at that time in

the press by the mayor of Saanich, Mr. Lum, concerning what he

felt was provincial government inactivity on a major housing

scheme in the Roy Road area. The Minister, as my notes

indicate, at that point said that there is a liaison person in

his department, Mr. Williams, for that particular project,

which was agreed upon at a meeting that took place some time

ago.

Then later I asked if there was still a degree of

flexibility with respect to this proposal as far as the

province is concerned — this is related to density — and the

Minister said that was true. So we are just about 11 months

after the last conversation on this floor regarding Roy

Road.

I referred to the chronology. As I understand it, it was in

the spring of 1970, five years ago, that the municipality took

the first tentative steps with regard to assembling a

significant parcel of land, replotting and related matters

which would eventually provide some 400 to 500 serviced lots

available at least on a cost basis for the people of greater

Victoria and for those who wished to locate here — 400 to 500

lots.

Now the present government has been with us since September

of 1972 — in other words, most of that period — and I think

that it is a matter of record that from the spring of 1970

through 1971 and into 1972 a great deal of time was involved

with, as I say, land assembly, replotting, negotiations with

owners and all the complications that go with that. But we now

see 1973, 1974 and a good portion of 1975 passing by and still — and

correct me if I am wrong,

[ 30050302044.gif" target="_blank" title="View the original Hansard page">Page 2044 ]

Mr. Minister — not one house provided in Roy Road.

There are

400 to 500 lots serviced and could have been sold at cost, but

no action. Now I do hope the Minister will take as much time as

is necessary in this committee to tell us where the problem

exist. Put the strike to one side; put the lockout to one side,

because that only relates from very late January of this year.

What happened in 1973? What happened in 1974 and why are there

no houses under construction on this site?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Member, as a former mayor of that

municipality, you were involved….

MR. CURTIS: Up to 1973.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Right. Certainly it's my wish that

property such as this be developed expeditiously, but assembly,

purchases and negotiations were originally being done by the

municipality. That's how that project got initiated.

I think it was hoped that about 100 acres could be assembled

there. I think about 50 acres have been assembled. We would

still acquire land and perhaps modify plans slightly. It's of

concern to me, but I am informed that the original intent was

in terms of long-term land banking. I think that the need,

however, is now, but it should be borne in mind — and you can

correct me if we misunderstand on that point — that the

original intent was long-term land banking. I think the need is

now, I agree.

I think we can also bear in mind that, not too far away,

there is another project which was called, at the time that it

was topical in the newspapers, the largest development of its

kind ever in the capital area, and that would be

Interurban-Marigold. It has received all approvals and should

be underway very shortly so that…. It is underway.

But I agree, and we are in discussion on this. I think that

we're pretty much in agreement on densities, et cetera. After

all, we paid the bills; the municipality did the negotiation

and put a great deal of their staff time and effort into it.

Central Mortgage and Housing was, I believe, originally

involved as the active partner in the federal-provincial

partnership on this, and now initiative has been given to

Dunhill. Hopefully we will be able to proceed with this

summer.

MR. CURTIS: Do I understand the Minister to say they

hopefully will be able to proceed with this summer?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, that's what I would hope. But, you

know, the municipality has been involved in this. I think there are

still some things to be…. Well, it hasn't gone through first, second,

third and fourth reading. Beyond that, I don't want to presume

something that has not taken place. I don't want to prejudice any

discussions with the municipality by going into this too much.

MR. CURTIS: Then the strike-lockout situation in Saanich

municipality notwithstanding, the project is running behind

what the Minister would wish, I gather, in terms of schedule.

Is this a problem with the municipality over 1974, is it the

complexity of the development, or is it a difference of

opinion, perhaps, between the provincial philosophy and CMHC

philosophy? I think that may be the case. What, precisely, is

the problem in this development, again putting the strike to

one side for the last three to four months?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Okay, Mr. Member. I think the main

problem has been over-densities, and looking at the cost and

looking at utilization of available land. I think discussions

were centering around the number of persons per acre. I think

that we are close to an agreement in this particular area now.

But when we look at the costs of that land assembly, the costs

of servicing and trying to bring about something that's

desirable, I would say that we have been discussing the concept

in terms of densities. That would probably be the problem to

date. That's just a normal process, as you well know. That has

been, I think, the major holdup, but that's a thing that does

have to be talked out in negotiations.

MR. CURTIS: The Minister earlier referred to the Marigold

development, which I think is also commonly known as the Pempco

property. I look to the Minister for confirmation of that.

Pempco or Marigold, we're speaking of the same development.

I understand that, as the Minister has already indicated, is

going to be very large. Is it not going to take some

considerable time to be developed, in terms of two to three

years before final completion in all stages?

The other point I would like the Minister to indicate: is

this going to be, in the main, leased lots or will some be

available for outright sale?

Large. Two to three years. Lease or sale. If a combination,

what percentage of which?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Yes, the time frame would be about two

years overall. Contracts have already been let for some of the

servicing and construction of zero lotline subdivision

portions. All of this project would be under a leasehold of one

form or another. The zero lotline would be on a 99-year lease.

There will be a significant amount of co-operative housing on

the project and that would be on the normal co-operative lease.

The

[ 30050302045.gif" target="_blank" title="View the original Hansard page">Page 2045 ]

multiple sites would be co-operative.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I was surprised at the Minister's

answer because in the fancy report that Dunhill produced in

1974 they suggest that start of construction for the Marigold

project would be February, 1975, and completion would be 1976.

Now the Minister says that the fancy report that was just made

available to the public is incorrect, that the information

supplied by Dunhill Development in that report is not accurate

and that already he is revising the estimates on the

information. Now can the Minister clarify the situation? Is all

of the information provided in this report suspect or

incorrect, or are there new timetables and a new time

frame?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, I don't know if the Member is

attacking the auditors who…

MR. BENNETT: No, this isn't the auditors; this is your own

work — your timetables.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: …report the financial statements. Are

you taking….

MR. PHILLIPS: Come on now, don't be ridiculous.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, Mr. Member…

MR. BENNETT: You just gave a different timetable.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: …in my math class if you take one year

and 11 months and you round it off to one significant figure,

you come out with two years. You know, 1.8 years is two years

in rounding off figures. If you start at February and you

complete by the end of December of 1976, I believe that's

approximately a couple of years.

MR. BENNETT: Did construction start in February?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Servicing has commenced now.

MR. BENNETT: Has physical construction started?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Physical construction has started.

MR. CURTIS: I hope that the Minister is right, Mr. Chairman,

in his assessment, his statement to the committee today, that it should

be wrapped up in two years. There are those in the municipality, at

both the elected and staff level, who doubt that, who feel that it may

well be three years plus before this particular project is complete.

MR. BENNETT: Another revised estimate.

MR. CURTIS: Yes, it may well be another revised estimate.

But if the Minister would care to elaborate on his earlier

statement, if he's confident that it's going to be two years,

great. But he indicated earlier that construction had started;

then he revised that statement, as I understood him just a

moment ago, to say that servicing is underway. There's a

difference between servicing of the property and actual

construction. I do hope that this one isn't going to be sitting

around for something in the neighbourhood of three years

awaiting completion and occupancy by people who very

desperately need housing in this area.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Member, when the rest of that group

was in office and some of those Members were Members of this

House, way back in 1968, they started a senior citizens'

housing project, another highrise similar to Nicholson Tower

in the West End. Now construction, I believe, was finally

commenced under our government. There was so much red tape,

stuff going back and forth….

Interjections.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, you know, I guess I have to be

cautious in answering questions because I know that even with

the great expertise that you people supposedly had when you

were government and which you had wished to bring back to this

province and restore, a project that was started in 1968 is

only this summer going to be completed and occupied. It only

really got underway when this group got into office.

MR. CURTIS: Answer the question. What about this one?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Member, we get used to pretty fast

action. For instance, we bought a couple of pieces of property

in North Vancouver, which I've got down here, I think, less

than a year ago. We've got construction underway there already.

You go over and see the Dunhill crane on the tower. It's going

up one floor every four days, Mr. Member. That's the kind of a

delivery system that we have.

We bought the 4th and Wallace property — the GVRD bought it

actually, or did the negotiation. They had a plan, a pretty

expensive plan, pretty good architecture. We went the normal

route and there was only one solution: if it was going to come

in at a kind of a cost, if we weren't going to get it into this

type

[ 30050302046.gif" target="_blank" title="View the original Hansard page">Page 2046 ]

of procrastination, et cetera, then Dunhill

Development

would have to take over. That project is near to completion

now, Mr. Member, and that's our kind of record. I think that

with Dunhill Development I'm quite confident that, unless there

are some very unusual circumstances, once we've got our

land-use contract there should be no problems and we will be

able to go ahead on schedule.

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, the Minister follows the same

approach as his cabinet colleagues in this government. There is

not a specific answer with regard to his responsibility but a

reminder of the failings, real or imagined, of previous

governments. I suggest that one of the problems that we face in

housing in British Columbia is very clearly identified with a

statement in the record, in Hansard , from earlier this

session by this Minister whose vote we're discussing today. One

of the very real problems is in terms of his relationship with

municipalities because it shows his disdain for municipalities;

it shows his mistrust of municipalities; it shows his contempt

for municipalities. I refer to the statement when he was

answering a question:

HON. MR. NICOLSON: In the first place you were

asking me

about whatever pressure might have come from the Department of

Housing; now you're talking about Dunhill Development. I don't

know why they would ask that it be confidential because it's

rather naive to expect anything to remain confidential if you

send it to a municipality.

And then he later says: "Well, when you grow up,

you know, you'll

find out the facts of life."

Now that is not the climate in which provincial and local

governments could possibly co-operate to produce housing in the

Province of British Columbia under this Minister's direction. I

think that that one will stand in Hansard 's

record of

debate in this session — it will stand for as long as this

government is in power, which I believe will not be very long,

as an indication, as I said earlier, of the contempt this

Minister holds for local government and for municipalities. How

can he possibly expect local government to co-operate, to be

open and to be as helpful as possible when this kind of

statement is made and stands in the record?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound —

pardon me, Oak Bay.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: They all look alike.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, that was a dreadful Freudian slip

on your part. The empty Liberal benches are keeping the

Chairman distracted this afternoon.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): We're here.

MR. WALLACE: Oh, I beg your pardon! There's one solitary

Liberal holding the fort.

MR. GARDOM: Order! That's unkind.

MR. WALLACE: The sentinel of the Liberal Party.

(Laughter.)

Mr. Chairman, I just want quickly to try and get some of the

detail that the Minister talked about yesterday but was,

perhaps, sidetracked in the discussion that followed. I was

trying to appreciate to what degree the Minister has an

inventory of the projected types of accommodation and the

number of units that are considered to be required in the next

year or two and the number of units within the different

categories that are presently under construction. I noted with

interest the figure in the Dunhill report for total units

completed, in progress or planned — 2,984. Let's say 3,000 for

ballpark figures.

We discussed yesterday that 30,000 units a year is not an

unreasonable figure; in fact, we did a little better than that

in recent years. So taking round figures, the Dunhill units at

the moment represent about 10 per cent of the kind of

reasonable target figure that we might be looking at. It has to

be at least 30,000, I guess, when we look at the 3 per cent

increase in population.

I wonder if the Minister, yesterday, when he said that his

department had done a fair amount of studies right down to

small number of units…. If that information is available, it

might not be appropriate to go into it in committee. But could,

perhaps, the Minister file projected figures as to the number

of units required, what percentage should be rental, leasehold

freehold and so on? Because the great difficulty that we have,

at least in the opposition in trying to be fair and bring

constructive and productive criticism to the House, is that we

don't seem to have any government game plan, if you might call

it that, for housing in the next few years. I feel that there's

a lack of long-range planning. Nowhere is this more obvious

than in the field of rental accommodations.

While the Minister is not responsible for rent control,

there's no question that that was just one more negative factor

in the construction of rental accommodation. The vacancy rates

of 0.3 per cent, or whatever they are, are not improving at

all. The problems, as the years go by, with any specific

incentive programme as long as there is rent control just don't

hold much prospect of improving the rental situation. So my

question is: is there some overall plan for the next year or

two in terms of the numbers of units and the various types of

units? Could we have these figures so that we could study them

in the

[ 30050302047.gif" target="_blank" title="View the original Hansard page">Page 2047 ]

opposition?

Secondly, is there any specific incentive programme to

encourage the construction of rental units other than some of

the points the Minister has raised already?

Yesterday we talked about the federal subsidy on interest

rates and the question of whether this government might also

get into the business of subsidizing interest rates perhaps on

a wider basis to encourage investment of capital in rental

units.

We mentioned the basic home — the 1,000 sq. ft. home with no

frills and no luxuries — and the difficulty sometimes of

municipal bylaws. I wonder if the Minister could tell us to

what degree at least the government is trying to take some

initiatives in this direction, because it relates back to the

principle I was trying to emphasize in regard to the modular

homes by Mariner Homes Ltd. — that the price is right. The

building may not have all the space or all the frills, but

there are probably very few of us in this chamber who didn't

start off our married life in pretty cramped quarters. I was

certainly one of that congregation. I think 99 per cent of us

in this chamber started off in pretty cramped quarters.

Without any disrespect to the legions of homeowners in

Britain, the square footage which British residents seemed to

be satisfied with is considerably less than is encouraged in

the North American concept of the right way to live and what we

should all expect in terms of space and accommodation and the

luxuries which should go into our homes. I wonder if, within

the very obvious realm of costs and inflation, the many

citizens of this province are having to revise what they think

their standard of living should provide in terms of

accommodation.

That is not a politically attractive thing to say, but as

far as I can see, with the inflationary factors not only in

North America but elsewhere, and the state that our economy is

in, and the interest rates being charged on money, and many of

these other factors, I think it is absolutely essential that

the government take some initiative in emphasizing that at this

point in time the rather smaller, basic home without frills is

where a great deal of emphasis should be laid. As far as the

Conservatives are concerned, if we were the government, this is

one particular area which we would emphasize because we reject

the concept that an individual or a couple or a family can no

longer own their own home. That is poppycock, as far as we are

concerned.

The challenge is there. The fact is that we have to revise the kind

of style of accommodation or the style of living. Too readily we have

all accepted as being some kind of right that we should all have 1,800

square feet and three bathrooms and a whole lot of other luxuries with

wall-to-wall carpeting, luxuries of a type which, as you go through

your marriage and get a few kids and your income increases, it would be

quite reasonable to add to the home. I think that it would be a sign of

leadership on the part of the Minister to try and develop with the

municipalities an understanding that this is not an attempt to develop

"ghettos." I hate that word and the way it is always dragged into this

kind of argument. It isn't the idea at all to create slums of ghettos,

but to try and provide reasonable accommodation for young couples and

young families who simply are trying to cut the coat according to the

cloth. The cloth, in this case, is dollars.

I would like to hear a little more about this and about what

optimism or otherwise the Minister feels there is to start to

create 1,000 sq. ft. homes on perhaps smaller lots or with some

of the other modifications — zero lot lines and other

mechanisms — that make better use of the lot size.

Finally, I know it is a very difficult question, but the

Minister has emphasized how much more we could do with more

control of our own finances within our own provincial

boundaries through some form of financial institution. This

year, is it a total of $90 million we are putting into lease

housing and development? I notice this $70 million. Again, in

relation to this kind of overall plan that I have suggested the

Minister might give to the House or file with the House, what

kind of additional sums of money does the Minister consider

would be needed to try and cope with the increasing population

demand? At the moment we are just, I gather from what's been

said, hanging in there, trying to make sure the situation

doesn't get any worse, but not really catching up with the

continuing population increase. If $70 million is the figure

which we can afford alongside all the other priorities of

government in education and highways and agriculture and so on,

what does the Minister conceive as being the kind of figure

that we need in this province?

To put it another way, what sums of money could we match

with CMHC in addition to those they have been willing to

provide? I gather that recently they just announced that their

annual amount of money was all used up and they were unable to

provide any more funding. I can't remember the exact date. It

was a month or two ago. What I want to know is: within the

current fiscal year, if CMHC had additional funding, how much

more funding could we match with CMHC funds to try and

realistically begin to solve our problems rather than just

scrambling rather inadequately to make sure the situation

doesn't get any worse?

I know that is probably even an unfair question but again,

from our side of the House, We would like to know what the

overall outlook is and what kind of sums of money really are

involved — not the $70 million we have in this budget simply

because it is the

[ 30050302048.gif" target="_blank" title="View the original Hansard page">Page 2048 ]

most we can afford at the present time.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: First of all, the Member for Oak Bay (Mr.

Wallace) requested some idea on housing starts. He mentioned

that in the Dunhill report there was indication of an activity

of about some 3,000 units and that that represented about 10

per cent of the housing starts in the province for last year. I

think a desirable figure would be at least 40,000 housing

starts.

I have said many times that I don't see the province

providing the funds through social housing programmes alone to

reach these targets. We hope to supplement and bring certain

types of housing on the market to supplement the normal flow. I

talked yesterday about things we feel we could do to help the

private sector. We do set some target figures.

Then you started to talk about what we would expect from

CMHC. On April 17, I did say that we had been advised by

Central Mortgage and Housing Corp. that British Columbia would

only receive 21 per cent of the amount we requested for social

housing in 1975. We told CMHC the province will require $187

million for family rental housing; we're getting only $39

million. We requested $107 million for seniors, and we'll get

$26 million. We'll also only get $10 million instead of $60

million for co-op housing and $12 million instead of $30

million for land assembly. I think that if those amounts were

forthcoming, it could also be a significant help. But that

alone would not make up the difference to the required 40,000

units between what we're producing now and what we're doing….

The financial institution. I would think that once it was

brought in, one could not expect it to immediately raise the

funds, get the delivery system and, if it were brought in this

session, create the solutions this summer. But eventually it

could have a tremendous effect. I have been informed by people

in the mortgage insurance business, in the mortgage trust

company business and so on that as little as $200 million could

have a very significant effect in British Columbia. I would

think $500 million could have a most substantial effect, but as

little as $200 million could have a very substantial beneficial

effect.

I welcome the Member's comments about Volkswagen-standard housing as

opposed to the Cadillac standards, getting along with one bathroom and

so on. The Greater Vancouver Regional District has a compact housing

study, and I'm looking forward to that. I hope that they get

cooperation from their member municipalities toward going forward with

this proposal. I've also had some very encouraging discussions with

some council members here in the greater Victoria area and with a

couple of councils in the greater Victoria area, and they expressed the

same type of concern. It can take many forms, but I think the time is

becoming more ripe to re-examine these standards and look at them very

carefully as to what the cost of this type of standard is to society as

a whole.

MR. WALLACE: Incentives to rental accommodation.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Incentives to the private sector for

rental accommodation. At the moment we would be looking to

participate as requested with Central Mortgage and Housing on a

subsidy of a quarter of the units. I would think that

investment opportunities could be afforded by a provincial

financial institution in order to make this more viable.

One of the major needs for a provincial institution, which I

don't think I did mention yesterday, was that CMHC standards

require sewered land, and there's a tremendous problem with

some organized municipalities that have not yet got completely

sewered facilities. You just cannot wait two years until they

go through with their programme, which might already be

approved. People need these programmes today. Also, of course,

in the unorganized areas there are tremendous opportunities for

people to build and to get involved.

It might also be of interest to you about the success of the

leasehold programme. An article, which I believe was in a paper

called the Williams Lake Tribune ,

says: "Owning the land

isn't everything." It says: "Leasehold Lots and Why Nots."

It's a very favourable

article about one family. "Mr. Tony Nuji

says he couldn't be happier." It shows him doing some of the

finishing work on his project. It shows how he was able to keep

costs down. "He put a lot of his own sweat equity into the

project." Because he wasn't carrying the cost of the land, he

only had to put $300 down to reserve the lot, which would be

refundable, and was able to get this housing programme going. I

would perhaps send it over; I think the Member would be

interested.

MR. PHILLIPS: I would just like a few moments to discuss….

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Take your 30 minutes.

MR. PHILLIPS: Where's your Premier? Where's your leader? Is

he out dreaming up some new fabrications?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Would the Hon. Member address

the Chair? I would ask the Hon. Member to….

MR. PHILLIPS: Building some new fabrications to….

[ 30050302049.gif" target="_blank" title="View the original Hansard page">Page 2049 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Would the Hon. Member address

the Chair and address the vote? I would ask other Hon. Members

to….

MR. PHILLIPS: He's outside, Mr. Chairman, searching for

someone to blame the housing crisis on.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. PHILLIPS: Blaming his own lies on somebody else.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. PHILLIPS: He blames it on the press, Mr. Chairman; then

he is out to find somebody to blame the housing crisis on.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, my!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before the Hon. Member proceeds, I have not

finished making a point of order.

MR. PHILLIPS: Do you want me to sit down?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member may be seated; I will only be

a moment. He may remain standing if he wishes. (Laughter.) The

Hon. Attorney-General (Mr. Macdonald): I would ask that he not

speak except from his own seat.

MR. PHILLIPS: Be careful. Be careful, or you'll never get

that cabinet post. But you are not going to be in long enough

anyway. You've missed your chances now. He's just playing you

for dominoes anyway — checkers, maybe.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member proceed relevantly?

MR. PHILLIPS: They're just using you, Mr. Chairman. He's

going to take the nomination away from you and he's going to

lose, too.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. He may run in South Peace

River. (Laughter.) Would the Hon. Member proceed relevantly or

"revelantly" to vote 102? (Laughter.)

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, and I'll try and keep all my remarks

relevant. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

For just a few moments I would like to talk about Dunhill

Development, and I have a few questions I would like to ask the

Minister.

(1) How many of the original management team of

Dunhill Development still remain working for the

corporation?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, do you mean to tell me that this $5.7

million…and you don't know how many of your…and your

large contract…? How many more years do the management

contracts run? Have there been any changes made in the

management contracts since the acquisition of this company?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: All but two of the original management

team remain and the management contracts run for two years.

MR. PHILLIPS: How many are left in the team if all but two

of them have gone? How many people do you still have of the

original management team? How many of the original management

team are still working for Dunhill?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Member, how far do you want to go

down the list? The senior vice-president, vice-presidents?

MR. PHILLIPS: No, I am just talking about the top management

team.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: The people who we put under management

contract?

MR. PHILLIPS: How many are left? We're talking about a

fairly large contract, and the Minister of Housing should have

that at his fingertips. How many are left?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, of the people who were under

management contract, there would be one who has left and the

other person who has left is my Deputy. There were five people

under management contract.

MR. PHILLIPS: So there are three left?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: No, there are four left.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, one has been side-stepped now.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: There's Mr. Paulus, Mr. Dahlberg….

MR. BENNETT: Take your shoes off.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: There were four under contract, Mr.

Member, and there are three left.

[ 30050302050.gif" target="_blank" title="View the original Hansard page">Page 2050 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: But one of those three is now your Deputy.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: No, he was not under management

contract.

MR. PHILLIPS: So you spent $5.8 million for four people.

MR. BENNETT: And there are only three left.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: No.

MR. PHILLIPS: What did you buy? You know, the assets of the

company when you purchased it were $2,978,982 as per the consolidated

statement of retained earnings in the financial statement you put out.

And you told me that I must believe the accountants.

In the statement which the Minister furnished us with, and he wants

us to believe the accountants, it t states that the value of the

company, assets minus liabilities, is $2,978,982. The Minister paid

$5.7 million for the company, so the people of British Columbia have

been ripped off to the tune of $1.7 million.

I have brought this point up in this House before, but the Minister

said he had acquired a management a team. Now one of the management

team has gone elsewhere, probably to run Dunhill's large housing

corporation in the States — maybe he learned here. But I would like

the Minister to advise me one thing further with regard to this

management team. Have there been any changes in the original wage scale

of this management group that he hired under contract? I What was the

total cost of the contract? In other words, it was a two-year contract

and you had four persons and now there are three; what is the total

cost going to be to the taxpayer — of this management team, this

expertise that you bought? What is the total cost of this contract,

of this management team?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: I'll have to take that as notice, Mr.

Member. It's a Crown corporation, Mr. Member.

If you read that report, you will see that there was a $2 million

profit last year. Mr. Member, property values are in there at their

book value. Some of those were purchased some time earlier, and last

year I documented that the value of the properties, which was assumed

— the difference between assets and liabilities — was in excess of the

purchase price to the

a corporation. That was quite thoroughly canvassed last year.

[Mr.

Lockstead in the chair.]

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, we're not in question period.

The Minister doesn't take questions as notice during his

estimates, if he ever wants to receive his salary vote. He has

the expertise lined up there. You don't take questions as

notice during estimates. If he wants his salary he's got to

answer the questions. He's got the expertise there; he can find

out. We'll be on your vote for a couple of minutes yet. You can

send out and find out.

I want to know what the cost to the taxpayers is for this

expertise that you ripped off the taxpayers of this province for

to the tune of $1.7 million, buying this company that hasn't

created one single housing unit in this province.

Now the Minister says, Mr. Chairman….

HON. MR, NICOLSON: Stop misleading the House, Mr. Member.

Are you doing that deliberately?

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm reading the statement. You told me to

believe the statement. Somebody mentioned the statement here a

moment ago, and you said: "Oh, don't you believe the

statement." As a matter of fact, you got up on your high horse

and pretty near rode over here.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Members please address the

Chair?

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, certainly, Mr. Chairman. I'd be most

happy to. Would you ask the Minister of Housing to address the

Chair at the same time?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would like all Members to please address the

Chair.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes. Now we notice, Mr. Chairman, that there

is a $2 million profit in Dunhill past year. Where did that

profit come from? Off the asks of the people who bought housing

from Dunhill. Yet the Minister condemns this. He wants people

to provide housing at no profit. That is why he's in the

business; that's why he's buying the land; that's why he's

building the houses. He doesn't want any profit. The government

doesn't make any profit. Yet he gives us this financial

statement, and the assets of the company, even after $2 million

profit — which is an additional $2 million on the backs of the

taxpayers of this province, Mr. Chairman — are still only worth

$4,999,459. So the value of Dunhill Development Corp. is still

not up to the amount which the Minister of Housing paid for

this great acquisition, Mr. Chairman.

Not only that, we are paying interest on it. That's right.

We're paying interest on that money. Every year that goes by,

this deal gets worse. The Minister says: "Well, the assets are

not in here at their true value." What is their true value?

[ 30050302051.gif" target="_blank" title="View the original Hansard page">Page 2051 ]

This is just what I've been talking about, Mr. Chairman, all

day. The government is inflating the price of land. It's the

government that's doing it. Dunhill is doing it. If the value

of this land is worth more now and he's going to charge more

for the houses, he is shoving the price of housing up in this

province when this company and the government should be acting

to bring the price of land down. They should be bringing it

down, Mr. Chairman, not shoving it up.

Not only did we buy this corporation and rip the taxpayers

off, paying nearly $2 million more than the company is worth,

even after it makes an additional $2 million it is not worth

what they paid for it. Now they are using this company as an

instrument to inflate the price of land. Well, you know the old

theory, Mr. Chairman: take all of the low-priced land,

speculate on it, shove the price out of all reach of the common

man, and who can afford the land? Only the very, very rich.

I thought this government was interested in providing

housing for ordinary British Columbians, young married couples.

But now we have created the situation through Dunhill

Development Corp., Mr. Chairman, and through the Department of

Housing where only the very rich can own land in British

Columbia — a complete reversal of the stated policies of that

Minister. It has made a haven in British Columbia for land

speculators, a complete haven for land speculators, forced

people off of the land by increasing the taxes and forced

people off of the land by threatened expropriation.

Then we have the pride and joy of the Minister of Housing,

Dunhill Development, and what of the management team that he

acquired for this $5.7 million? One of the management teams has

already left, and that's all he bought. He acquired, in his own

words, Dunhill Development to buy some "expertise" to assist

him with creating housing — much-needed housing — in British

Columbia.

MR. BENNETT: At prices they can afford.

MR. PHILLIPS: At prices they can't afford.

So not only do we have a company that isn't worth what the

Minister paid for it, even after a year and $2 million profit

off the backs of the taxpayers of this province, or off the

backs of those who wanted to buy homes, but the situation has

moved from a crisis area when he bought the company into a

complete catastrophe now.

How can that Minister justify it? Will the Minister advise

the House how he can justify Dunhill Development, a company

that doesn't really go and create housing, but a company that

sends their $5.7 million worth of expertise around buying up

projects that are created by the private sector? The Minister

should hang his head in shame.

Will the Minister advise the House what the price tag is on

the total contract of management? This contract for management

is over and above the $5.7 million that he paid for Dunhill,

and we still haven't got answers to the uneven trading patterns

that surrounded the shares of Dunhill before the government

purchase. It's another one of those areas where we really don't

know when the government started dealing with Dunhill. It's

like the house on the hill, Casa Loma. There's a shortage of

memory as to when we really started dealing with Dunhill.

MR. BENNETT: Selective amnesia.

MR. PHILLIPS: It's amazing to me that the Minister can have

such a short memory when he wants to have. He seems to be able

to recall some figures out of the air about the number of

houses, but on anything else the Minister has a shortage of

memory. Well, maybe some day the Minister's memory will be

jogged a little.

Will the Minister just advise me how much was the total

price of that expertise — the contract for those great

"expertists" — that he acquired with Dunhill?

MR. BENNETT: Further to what the Member for South Peace

River (Mr. Phillips) was saying, the Minister and some of the

Members on the NDP side of the House seemed to question that

the price of housing was beyond the reach of the average

person. I just happen to have on my desk a study: "Towards

Permanent Solutions to the Housing Crisis." This was done by

the Vancouver and District Labour Council, and it shows exactly

what's happened to the cost of housing between the years 1971

and 1974. We know that they're worse now in 1975. If we take a

look at these figures produced in this study, we find that what

the Member for South Peace River said is true: no action is

being taken to make housing more affordable, housing more

available, housing that people can buy. No effort has been made

to get housing to the people who have limited incomes.

In 1971 the average Multiple Listing Service price for a lot

in Vancouver was $26,500. In 1974 the average MLS price was

$57,000. The price of housing has more than doubled in just

that very short period of time. This is exactly what the Member

has been saying to the Minister: you've done nothing to bring

the price of housing down; you've done nothing to make it more

available, more affordable. There's a housing crisis; there's a

shortage, and it's priced beyond the means of the people of

this province.

When you take a look at what that extra price does to the

end price — that is, the extra interest our people will have to

pay — you find out that they'll be saddled with a debt for the

rest of their lives. The 1971 house ($26,500) had a down

payment of $2,500, a mortgage then of $24,000, prepayment

[ 30050302052.gif" target="_blank" title="View the original Hansard page">Page 2052 ]

period 25 years. The going rate of interest then

was 9.25

per cent; NHA interest monthly payments $202: total payments

$60,000. So ultimately that $26,500 house would cost $60,000.

They pay $36,801 in interest.

But what about the same house today? From 1971 to 1974 it

went to $57,000. Same down payment, but now we have a mortgage

of $55,000 over 25 years. NHA interest rates in this study are

11.5 per cent, monthly payments $553.42, and the total payment

for that house is $116,000.20.

MR. PHILLIPS: That's cheap housing.

MR. BENNETT: That's cheap housing, and that's affordable

housing, and that's meeting the problem of the people of this

province.

That is the average multiple listing price. That isn't

selecting some category such as subsidized housing or any

special housing with figures that can make it look good. That

is the average. When we consider the average, that is what the

average citizen of this province is faced with. It has made

housing less available to our people. Instead of promoting and

encouraging home ownership, we have housing less available than

it was three years ago and continuing to escalate in price and

become beyond the means of our people.

That isn't the government or the Housing Minister solving

the problem. That isn't the young couples starting out being

able to buy housing. That isn't people trying to buy

housing.

MR. PHILLIPS: Real estate! Dunhill Development real

estate!

MR. BENNETT: This Minister is great at selecting….

MR. PHILLIPS: They're the greatest ripoff artists in

B.C.!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Please let the Member

continue.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Consumer Services

(Hon. Ms. Young) doesn't even care that the price is beyond the

reach of the average couple, the average person in British

Columbia. Programmes should only be considered successful when

the actual market is being satisfied, when our people are able

to not only buy housing but have it made available, and are

encouraged and have the programmes and pricing to make it

possible. That is not possible today in British Columbia. It is

less possible today than it was in 1971. Housing is now beyond

the reach of the average couple in this province. This problem

has accelerated while this Minister has sat on the portfolio. How can

he claim success

when this condition exists?

These are the figures provided by the Vancouver and District

Labour Council. They say we have a crisis while he is the

Minister of Housing. The situation continues to get worse, Mr.

Chairman. Here we have housing that is more than doubled in

price since 1971, our citizens can't afford it, and the

Minister is trying to tell us that he has a successful housing

programme and that he has done his job as the Housing

Minister.

It is no wonder that we on this side of the House intend to

vote against his salary when the vote comes. The non-confidence

motion didn't go far enough, Mr. Chairman. It was only going to

reduce his salary by $1. This Minister doesn't deserve a

salary. He has done nothing to make housing affordable or

available to the people of this province. The figures prove it

but there is proof that is worse, and that is the people

searching for accommodation and shelter who can't find it in

British Columbia and can't afford it, builders who want to

build but can't build and provide housing. He tries to say that

Dunhill…. How many units did he say were completed — 22?

MR. PHILLIPS: Twenty-two units!

MR. BENNETT: Twenty-two units is his success story of

Dunhill — 22 actually completed.

MR. PHILLIPS: That's less than two a month!

MR. BENNETT: That's his success story. We have seen housing

go beyond the pocketbook and not be available to our citizens.

This was in British Columbia, where the ultimate dream of every

citizen was to own his own home. This Minister is creating some

sort of confiscation in advance because nobody has housing

expectation any more. They are going to end up as a tenant,

either through lend-lease as a tenant of the government, or a

tenant of Dunhill, or a tenant of one of the many corporations

he is developing. They are certainly being denied the

possibility of home ownership. That is a reversal in this

province, a reversal in this country, and it is not meeting the

hopes and the expectations of our citizens.

MR. PHILLIPS: I would just like to talk for a moment, Mr.

Chairman, and ask the Minister if he would not consider some

suggestions that would create low-priced land for housing in

British Columbia. Take some of the $90 million that is

available to this Minister. Instead of continuing on this

suicidal course he is on — and that's what it is, a suicidal

course — of buying land, escalating the price beyond all reach

of the ordinary person in British Columbia, take some of that

money, service Crown

[ 30050302053.gif" target="_blank" title="View the original Hansard page">Page 2053 ]

land, put it on the market at reasonable,

affordable prices

to the consumer, and let's get on with providing housing.

Why will not the Minister consider a proposal that will

bring down the price of land and do away with the speculators

in British Columbia? He has the authority under his Act to do

this. He can assist municipalities and people who already own

land to get the services in. Put that land on the market and

bring down the price of privately held land and bring down the

price of government-held land. Put it on the market. Let the

people who want to buy it for housing have it. Let's get off of

this kick, this theory, this thesis, that the government must

own the land.

As I said before, Mr. Chairman, this is what has undone the

balance between supply and demand. This is really what has

shoved the price of land out of all reach of the ordinary

British Columbian.

Even if we took the $6 million that he paid for Dunhill and

went around and made that money available to municipal

governments to service the land that is available…. I've

given the figures in this House: there is sufficient land

available in the Greater Vancouver Regional District to look

after the housing needs and the projected population increase

for 20 years without opening up any new…this is stuff

that's available already. This is by their own report. I've

given that information to the House before: enough land is

available without opening up any more in the Greater Vancouver

Regional District, by their own surveys, to look after the

housing needs for 20 years.

The problem is that municipalities are not going to service

this because of the taxation problem, because there isn't

sufficient taxation. There isn't sufficient revenue to service

housing. And as we've already argued in this House,

municipalities are going broke; and they go broke providing

more housing. But if the government would go in and assist

these municipalities by providing the services, then we would

have housing available to British Columbians.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask the Minister just a few

questions about the Burke Mountain situation in Coquitlam. The

government used some of its power to acquire this land. Would

the Minister advise me exactly what is going to happen on Burke

Mountain? How many acres are there? What type of a community or

village, what type of project are you going to put in there?

When is it going to be built? What compensation are you going

to give to the landowners already in that area when their way

of life is disrupted? Does this really matter to the

Minister?

Mr. Chairman, I'm just referring to an

article in The

Vancouver Sun on January 29, 1975. The headline is,

"Government Front Deceived Burke Mountain Sellers,"

which is more deception by this government — the way they

acquired this land. More deception by this Minister.

The

article says that it's a pass from Daon to Dunhill to

Canada Trust, with B.C. receiving. Probably the same situation

exists there as usually exists when the government goes in to

buy land. Some of the owners are ripped off because they are

not paid the going price, while others are given a bonanza

because they are paid two and three times the going price. If

the government were to announce that they were going to buy, it

wouldn't inflate the price; it would have a going market price.

And the government should pay that going market price if

they're going to keep on with this land acquisition.

No, Mr. Chairman, they use devious means of acquiring land

held in the hands of private individuals in British Columbia.

Even after they acquire it…. I'd just like to quote from

this article:

"Figures announced for the size of the provincial

government's Burke Mountain housing scheme in Coquitlam are

virtually meaningless, a Sun investigation has found. So far

the government does not know how much the project will cost,

how many homes it will provide, or how much land it will

cover.

"The man in charge of the project for the government,

Werner

Paulus, president of the Crown-owned Dunhill Development Co.

Ltd., said in an interview that figures given in December by

the Minister of Housing, Lorne Nicolson, are just a broad

brushstroke, not something that is definitely going to be

developed.

"Nicolson gave the cost of the project as $1 billion

and

said it would provide an eventual 20,000 homes on 4,000 acres

for a population of 70,000."

Would the Minister advise the House what the new figures

are? What is this project going to cost? How is it going to be

financed? What types of construction and what types of homes

are going to be built there? How many people will this project

accommodate, if the figure of 70,000 is out?

The

article continues:

"In fact the government does not know at the moment

how much

land it will have nor how much of that is physically capable of

being developed. It has only the haziest idea of what form the

development will take. Nicolson has only been able to suggest

the local council and residents look at the Helsinki suburb of

Tapiola, which is described as a garden city."

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

Now Mr. Chairman, I have been talking about the expertise

that we paid for when we acquired Dunhill Development, and

here's another example of, not expertise, but another example

of the non-existence of expertise from this $5.7 million

acquisition. Well,

[ 30050302054.gif" target="_blank" title="View the original Hansard page">Page 2054 ]

maybe the Minister would fill us in on some of the

highlights of the Burke Mountain project.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: To start with the Burke Mountain project,

I said at the time — of course, anything is a ballpark figure

until detailed studies and plans are made — that it will

eventually provide up to 20,000 new homes for some 70,000

people. People would like to know what ballpark figures we are

estimating for such a project. Those figures are definitely

estimates and it definitely requires detailed study and

planning.

If you want to get an idea of something more specific, I

said a couple of years ago, almost as soon as I was appointed,

that the government would look at developing the Riverview

lands. Now we have all of the information and the proposals are

in. We do have figures on housing types, densities and so on.

We are at the stage where we are proposing this to the

municipal council.

Another thing I said was that this was a 5-to-10-year

development — 5 to 10 years, Mr. Member. In other words, we are

not setting a hard and fast

schedule but definitely indicating

that it would take place over some lengthy period of time. I

think that's enough there.

As for management contracts, you requested that I inform you

of how much is being paid in the management contracts. Mr.

Member, development business is a very competitive business.

It's not my intention to disclose the amounts of the management

contracts. Other development companies, I'm sure, wouldn't

announce them to us either. We certainly cannot afford to have

this expertise raided by the companies. We don't want to wave a

red flag in front of a bull in this instance. You should know

that, Mr. Member; you pride yourself on being a successful

businessman. I know that K.O. Aspol built Aspol Motors into a

very thriving institution. I don't know if you've run it into

the ground; I maybe suspect that that's the case. I don't know

how Fords are selling up in Dawson Creek now as a result of

your tenure with that project. But you should know, Mr. Member,

that in business that would be a very poor decision to

make.

I think you try to intimate that Dunhill Development…. You know, we

have made a $2 million profit. That isn't a ripoff, Mr. Member. In

selling these at fee simple, as you say, there are a few things to

consider, Mr. Member: how high do you sell and how long can you sell?

If you sell it too high, for one thing, people might not buy. That's

what's happening with a lot of developments. We hear of 1,500 vacant

new units in the greater Vancouver area because the prices are too

high. If you sell too low, then somebody else, if the market is there,

will simply buy it, hold it for a very short space of time and sell it

at a higher price. So you've got to try and responsibly set your price

between those two areas.

Certainly, Dunhill Development is in a very

competitive area. Some maisonette houses which are in the Simon Fraser

Hills area are selling at $37 to $36 per square foot when other

comparable things in the greater Vancouver area and West Vancouver area

are selling for $65 and $69 per square foot. Arbutus Village in

Vancouver, a good development — well, a fairly good development — $65 a

square foot. A Wall & Redekop development, Aspenwood in Vancouver —

$54 per square foot and $47 to $52 per square foot. Cherry West in

Vancouver — again, $54 to $58. There are some that might come close:

Edgewater Park in Richmond — $34.48 to about $40 per square foot;

Quilchena Park — $39 to $38. So Dunhill is definitely in a very

competitive area.

Other Dunhill projects which are close by there — really in

the same development — have little bit higher standards. Prices

range from $43, $44, $39 and $32 per square foot. Other

comparable projects are $67, $47, $45, $73, $62, $75, $67; so

these are the types of things you have to take into

consideration in generating these.

Now you insist on saying that Dunhill has not built any

housing. Now, Mr. Member, Dunhill completed other housing

projects. The ones that were completed since started, turned

over to them by the department: 22 units. But, Mr. Member, you

can see and behold many projects which are now under

construction by Dunhill and will very soon be completed. As far

as our programme there is concerned, we are certainly getting

full dollar value. You seem to insist on misrepresenting the….

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I am sure the Hon. Minister

didn't intend to suggest that the Hon. Member for South Peace River was

deliberately misleading ….

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, Mr. Chairman, he on one hand says

that we only built 22 units — he admits that — then he turns

around and says we haven't built one unit.

MR. PHILLIPS: You said that.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Now, really, Mr. Chairman, I try to

assume that Hon. Members don't have vexatious intent. I assume

that of Hon. Members, and I try to assume that that isn't the

case with that Hon. Member, but I don't know why he says one

thing and then he turns around and says another.

But, certainly, Dunhill Development has proven it's very

competitive. Now while these 1,500 units are vacant and

overpriced, one phase of Dunhill project

[ 30050302055.gif" target="_blank" title="View the original Hansard page">Page 2055 ]

in Simon Fraser Hills sold out in two weeks' time

because it

was fairly priced, Mr. Member. That actually was initiated in

May of 1974. I don't include that in the units that were asked

for in the question actually posed by the Leader of the

Opposition. He worded his question very carefully so it would

come out showing not too many, but actually here….

Interjections.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, he put such limitations in that

question as to misrepresent the actual fact and the actual

success.

MR. PHILLIPS: You're the Minister; you should tell us what

they are.

MR. BENNETT: You're like the Premier; you'll say

anything.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Here's a Dunhill Development project, 40

units, and these have all been completed.

Interjection.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, Mr. Member, these were not done for

the Department of Housing, These were done for Dunhill

Development and sold for profit, part of the activity of

Dunhill Development.

There's Ashbee House; also another project in the same

location — I believe about 150 units there — built and completed

by Dunhill last year. But if you want to play political games,

ask questions and qualify them in such a manner as to try to

create the type of answer which you wish to solicit, we'll play

your game; we'll answer your question as you've asked it.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Is it correct that we're dealing

here with a motion to reduce this Minister's salary?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We have disposed of that motion

and we are now on the vote. We are now considering vote 102,

the salary vote for the Minister of Housing.

MR. FRASER: Reduce the whole salary. Take it right out.

That's what should happen to him.

MR. WALLACE: Where have you been, Alex?

MR. FRASER: Oh, I've been around. This Minister certainly has

got a great attitude, and I know that the Member for Saanich and the

Islands (Mr. Curtis) mentioned his attitude with municipalities. I

think that this is causing a lot of difficulty getting housing going

when he treats the municipalities the way he's quoted as treating them.

I want to deal with this Minister's contention that there

was nothing done about housing by prior governments until he

came along with the new Housing department. I want to relate,

Mr. Chairman, a success story in housing, and it happened in

the central part of the province. I don't think the Minister

knew anything about it, that it ever existed, and I'm going to

tell you and this House about it.

I refer to the City of Prince George, the