1974 Legislative Session: 4th 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, APRIL 2, 1974

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

2107 ]

CONTENTS

Privilege

Use of dining room facilities. Mr. Chabot — 2107

Mr. Speaker — 2107

Routine proceedings

Public Service Superannuation Act, 1974 (Bill 95). Hon. Mr. Hall.

Introduction and first reading — 2108

College Pension Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 96). Hon. Mr. Hall.

Introduction and first reading — 2108

Teachers' Pension Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 97). Hon. Mr. Hall.

Introduction and first reading — 2108

Municipal

Superannuation Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 98). Hon. Mr. Hall.

Introduction and first reading — 2108

Public Works Fair Employment Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 87). Hon. Mr. King.

Introduction and first reading — 2108

Fair Sales Practices Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 65). Hon. Ms. Young

Introduction and first reading — 2108

Oral questions

Forfeiture of driver's licence. Mr. McClelland — 2108

Vancouver purchase of Orpheum Theatre. Mr. McGeer — 2108

Second reading of Bill 75 (rent stabilization Act). Mr. Wallace

— 2108

Possible appointment of Mr. Calder as Deputy Speaker. Mr. Smith

— 2109

BCTF expulsion policy. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2109

Vancouver Island Coach Lines. Mr. Curtis — 2109

Railcar shortage. Mr. Fraser — 2109

Expropriation of North Vancouver city property. Mr. Gibson — 2109

Arpro Developments Ltd. Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 2109

Government plans for North Vancouver. Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 2110

Sawmill at Burns Lake. Mr. Phillips — 2110

DREE projects. Mr. L.A. Williams — 2110

Crown corporation taxes. Mr. McGeer — 2110

B.C. Hydro bus system losses. Mr. Bennett — 2110

Income assurance for hog producers. Mr. McClelland — 2110

Tabling of DREE agreements. Mr. Chabot — 2110

B.C. Tel application to CTC. Mr. Smith — 2111

Planned Kokanee hatchery increase. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2111

Relief from higher oil prices for B.C. residents. Mr. Gibson — 2111

Government assistance for Okanagan fruit processor. Mr. Curtis

— 2111

Coal Act (Bill 92). Hon. Mr. Nimsick.

Introduction and first reading — 2111

Committee of Supply: Department of Housing estimates.

On vote 111.

Mr. Bennett — 2111

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2112

Mr. Bennett — 2112

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2112

Mr. Bennett — 2112

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2113

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2113

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2115

Mr. Wallace — 2115

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2117

Mr. Wallace — 2118

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2118

Mr. McClelland — 2119

Mr. L.A. Williams — 2123

Mr. Phillips — 2126

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2126

Mr. Phillips — 2127

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2129

Mr. Fraser — 2129

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2133

Mr. Chabot — 2133

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2135

Mr. Chabot — 2135

Mr. Gardom — 2136

Mr. Phillips — 2142

TUESDAY, APRIL 2, 1974

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker, I hope

the Hon. Members will join in welcoming Mr. Frank Sims who is in our

gallery today. He is the chairman of the Manitoba Liquor Control Board.

This also happens to be his birthday, so I hope that the House will

toast his presence and his birthday.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Speaker,

I have the pleasure of introducing to the House today my mother and

with her my aunt, Mrs. Marion Craig, who has come to visit us from that

great province of waving wheat and wavering politicians, Saskatchewan.

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

today a class of high school students from Delta Senior Secondary

School in Ladner, along with their teachers, Mrs. Tanner and Mrs.

Lorenz. I hope the Members will make them welcome.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Up in the gallery is a group of

citizens from the senior citizens centre in Oak Bay, and I would ask

the Members to welcome them.

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): I think it's only fair that someone introduces to the Hoase the mother and father of our Speaker, Mr. and Mrs. Dowding.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a

point of privilege. Last night we sat fairly late and the Member for

South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) and the Member for Columbia River went

into the dining room to have something to eat for reinforcement as it

appeared that we were going to be here for some time. We hadn't eaten

from 6 o'clock on because we were going through this occupational

health thing. We had to take some blood tests at 8 o'clock in the

morning. When it appeared that we were going to be sitting fairly late,

we wanted something to eat. We went to the dining room at 12:45 a.m.

and found that there was a minimum of food, that there was no cook. The

only thing available to us was crumpets, tea biscuits or toast, and

coffee. However, we did manage; I took on some crumpets and the other

Member took on toast.

My point of privilege is: I don't know whether it was because of a

shortage of food or not, but it came to my attention that Sunday

afternoon there were massive trays of food leaving the dining room out

the front door of the parliament building. The trays were filled with

fruit, vegetables, meat, sliced meat — massive trays were going out the

front steps.

MR. SPEAKER: What has that got to do with last night? There was no food?

MR. CHABOT: Maybe all the food left on Sunday. It was most

unusual to see — I've never seen it in the 11 years that I've been here

— the dining room functioning on a Sunday, to see food leaving the

dining room, especially. I could understand it functioning for some

special reason, probably with leave of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! Are you suggesting that somebody was taking food that belongs to the Legislature?

MR. CHABOT: I'm suggesting that there was food coming out of the dining room in trays….

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce): By itself? (Laughter.)

MR. CHABOT: And I'd like, Mr. Speaker, if you could explain to me in view of the….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I'm glad to discuss the matter with you personally, any time you want.

MR. CHABOT: Well, in view of the fact that the food was

leaving this building on a Sunday afternoon, and as you are in charge

of the dining room, I was wondering if you could tell me just….

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, I know exactly what it was all about. It

was my food. It was for a party the Speaker was holding, and it was

bought by me. It didn't belong to this House and it didn't belong to

the government. And I hired the people who were using it. Now if you'd

asked me personally any time, I could have told you that. But you

wanted, apparently, to make an issue of it.

MR. CHABOT: Well, yes, because the cook from upstairs was carrying the food out….

MR. SPEAKER: I paid for his services as well, sir.

MR. CHABOT: And what kind of a party were you throwing, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: For the Members of this Legislature and I

intended to invite you to the next one. I'm starting to wonder whether

I should. (Laughter.) The next point is: I couldn't come up

[ Page 2108 ]

there and do the cooking for you last night because

I was helping your hon. colleague in the library, getting his books.

(Laughter.) I can't do everything around here. (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell us about the bloodshed.

MR. CHABOT: One other point. They dropped one of those little strawberry

tomatoes, and I stepped on it accidentally on the steps going up. (Laughter.)

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): I'm glad to see the Member fighting for his

constituency.

PUBLIC SERVICE SUPERANNUATION

AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

Hon. Mr. Hall presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a

bill intituled Public Service Superannuation Amendment Act, 1974 .

Bill 95 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House

after today.

COLLEGE PENSION

AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

Hon. Mr. Hall presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a

bill intituled College Pension Amendment Act, 1974 .

Bill 96 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House

after today.

TEACHERS' PENSION

AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

Hon. Mr. Hall presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a

bill intituled Teachers' Pension Amendment Act, 1974 .

Bill 97 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House

after today.

MUNICIPAL SUPERANNUATION

AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

Hon. Mr. Hall presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a

bill intituled Municipal Superannuation Amendment Act, 1974 .

Bill 98 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House

after today.

PUBLIC WORKS FAIR EMPLOYMENT

AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

On a motion by Hon. Mr. King, Bill 87, Public Works Fair Employment Amendment Act, 1974 ,

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the

day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

FAIR SALES PRACTICES

AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

On a motion by Hon. Ms. Young, Bill 65, Fair Sales Practices Amendment Act, 1974 ,

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the

day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral questions.

FORFEITURE OF

DRIVER'S LICENCE

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Speaker, a question to the

Attorney-General. During his estimates the Attorney-General promised

that he would look into a matter which I raised regarding Wesley

Vaughan of Aldergrove, and also that he would look into the possibility

of altering the regulations which allow the Motor Vehicle Branch to

lift licences in the case of people who owe certain indemnities. I

wonder if the Attorney-General has had a chance to look into that, and

whether he expects any action.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I'm not prepared to make a statement at this time. It is still being looked into.

VANCOUVER PURCHASE

OF ORPHEUM THEATRE

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, some

time ago the Premier took as notice a question we asked whether the

provincial government would give assistance to the City of Vancouver to

purchase the Orpheum Theatre. I wonder if the Premier could make a

statement now, in view of the letter that the Minister of Recreation

and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford) wrote to the city yesterday.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The question is still taken as notice.

SECOND READING OF BILL 75

(RENT STABILIZATION ACT)

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact

[ Page 2109 ]

that many tenants are being given abrupt notice to

vacate apartments because of pending legislation, would the

Attorney-General give urgent consideration to giving second reading to

Bill 75 in the very near future?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

POSSIBLE APPOINTMENT OF

MR. CALDER AS DEPUTY SPEAKER

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Speaker, my question

is to the Hon. Premier. A few days ago it was reported that the Hon.

Member for Atlin (Mr. Calder) is away from the House on leave attending

a Commonwealth Parliamentary Seminar in London, England. It was further

explained the purpose of the seminar was for the training of chairmen

and speakers.

Is it the intent of the Premier, upon the Member's return, to appoint him chairman or Deputy Speaker of this Legislature?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. This is not a question that can

be asked of anyone in the House. That is for the House to determine,

not for the Premier.

MR. SMITH: Upon the authorization, Mr. Speaker, of the leader of the government.

MR. SPEAKER: Nonsense!

BCTF EXPULSION POLICY

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, last Thursday the

Minister of Education took on notice the question that I asked her

regarding her department's attitude towards the BCTF policy of

expelling teachers from the federation if they "fail to cooperate with

his or her professional organization." Now, as it's a requirement that

you must belong to the federation to teach in the province, may I ask

the Minister whether she's had the opportunity in the last six days to

look into this matter, and whether she could report to the House at

this time?

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): I have not. I answered a similar

question yesterday for the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace), and I said I am

setting up a meeting with the BCTF. I certainly cannot answer that question

until I have done that.

VANCOUVER ISLAND COACH LINES

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, with respect to Vancouver Island Coach Lines in Victoria.

I wonder if the Minister could indicate if any provincial government

official or employee is now involved in giving policy directions or

recommendations, written or verbal, to the VIOL management

HON. J.G. LORIMER (Minister of Municipal Affairs): I will have to take that as notice.

RAILCAR SHORTAGE

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): I asked the Premier yesterday, as

president of the BCR, if he had anything further to report on the acute

railcar shortage, and if discussions were taking place between the CNR

and BCR on this subject.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The report is, Mr. Speaker, to the Member,

that the negotiations are going on very well. We are pleased with their

progress and we hope shortly to have an announcement.

EXPROPRIATION OF

NORTH VANCOUVER CITY PROPERTY

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): I have a question

for the Minister of Municipal Affairs, with respect to the very

valuable 17 acres of North Vancouver city put under notice of

expropriation by the province.

I wonder if the Minister could reassure the House and the city, or

if he can't give reassurance right now, give urgent consideration to

the question of the city not thereby losing any tax revenue. In other

words, will the provincial government be paying full taxes on the

property?

HON. MR. LORIMER: I want to thank the Hon. Member for giving

me notice of this question. I am prepared to assure him at this time

that the city will not lose revenue. As far as the other area of

concern, everyone in the area will be treated completely fairly.

May I, Mr. Speaker, answer some questions that I took on notice a few days ago?

ARPRO DEVELOPMENTS LTD.

HON. MR. LORIMER: The Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace)

asked: could the Minister tell the House whether Mr. Parker, director

of transit, was instructed to ask North Vancouver city council to drag

its heels considering a request for Arpro Developments Limited in

January to carry out a $25 million development near the Seaspan

property on the North Shore? The answer is no.

The Hon. Member for Oak Bay also asked how long will the government

indulge in negotiations before resorting to expropriation of the same

[ Page 2110 ]

property. The answer is as long as necessary. (Laughter.)

GOVERNMENT PLANS FOR

NORTH VANCOUVER

HON. MR. LORIMER: And the Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr.

Bennett) asked: would the Minister advise the House if the National

Harbours Board, the Greater Vancouver Regional District, or the

Canadian National Railway were advised of this government's plans in

respect to North Vancouver? First of all, the harbour master was

consulted by the transit bureau in regard to the ferry system.

Secondly, the property involved was the property set out by the

regional district in their plans for the last four or five years.

SAWMILL AT BURNS LAKE

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): I'd like to direct a

question to the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. Some

time ago the Minister was presented with a proposal regarding the

construction and operation of the sawmill at Burns Lake by the British

Columbia Association of Non Status Indians. l would like to ask the

Minister if he has reached a decision regarding this proposal.

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

I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, that there were proposals from West

Fraser Sawmill and Babine Forest Products, as well as the British

Columbia Association of Non Status Indians. I will take the question as

notice.

DREE PROJECTS

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: To the Minister of Industrial Development,

Trade and Commerce. Could he advise the House of the projects which

have been approved under the general agreement with the national

government concerning the Department of Regional and Economic

Expansion? I gather from the agreement that the projects can only be

approved up to March 31, 1974.

HON. MR. LAUK: I'll take that as notice and answer it later in the week, Mr. Speaker. I'll get the details for the Hon. Member.

CROWN CORPORATION TAXES

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr.

Barrett) some time ago gave indication that there would be no more

special tax deals of corporations in cities and municipalities in

British Columbia. This has caused some confusion because some people

believe that Crown corporations would now pay full local taxes, but

evidently the Deputy Minister of Finance is not aware of this. Could

the Premier clarify whether Crown corporations in British Columbia will

now pay full municipal taxes?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Policy, Mr. Speaker, and I'll take the question as notice.

B.C. HYDRO BUS SYSTEM LOSSES

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): To the Minister of Municipal Affairs as a director of Hydro. In the Vancouver Sun

of March 26 there was a report that the nine-month loss on the B.C.

Hydro bus system was $11.4 million. Contrasting this with the 1972 to

March 31, 1973, loss of only $4 million, I wonder if the Minister could

tell whether that figure includes the $2 million government subsidy, or

what additional costs are in that figure.

HON. MR. LORIMER: I'm sorry, I'll have to take that as notice. I'll

get the answer for you this week.

INCOME ASSURANCE

FOR HOG PRODUCERS

MR. McCLELLAND: A question to the Hon. Minister of

Agriculture. Since hog producers in the Fraser Valley are in serious

trouble meeting their production, or at least getting decent prices for

their production, can the Minister tell us whether or not he is near

agreement with the hog producers for an income assurance scheme and

whether negotiations are still going on?

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): An interim plan

will be announced very shortly, Mr. Speaker, but it is recognized by

the industry and by us that it's just interim.

TABLING OF DREE AGREEMENTS

MR. CHABOT: A question to the Minister of Industrial

Development, Trade and Commerce. Will the Minister be tabling in the

House the DREE agreements signed with the national government?

HON. MR. LAUK: Yes, I'll table it in the House later this week.

MR. CHABOT: Later this week?

HON. MR. LAUK: Yes. You don't want the original. Can I table a copy?

MR. CHABOT: Yes, a copy will do.

[ Page 2111 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

B.C. TEL APPLICATION TO CTC

MR. SMITH: My question is to the Hon. Attorney-General. It is

reported that B.C. Telephone is presently preparing a case to go before

the CTC for an increase in the rate that they will be charging users of

telephones in the Province of British Columbia. Does the

Attorney-General, or someone from his department, intend to appear on

behalf of the provincial government as an intervener in this particular

application?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Minister of

Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) is the Minister

directly involved, but we've already conferred about the matter. I

don't think we've been served with formal notice of the application,

but I think it is extremely likely that this government will intervene

in order to protect the consumers of this province.

MR. SMITH: A supplemental question on the same subject

quickly, Mr. Speaker. Will the government as an intervener appear

before this hearing and either support or oppose the application? Which

side do you intend to take as government?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I think it's extremely

likely that we will oppose the increase, because in my opinion the

rates are already more than adequate for the telephone users of the

province of British Columbia.

MR. SMITH: One more supplemental question, Mr. Speaker.

If that proves not to be the case, do you not feel you have a

responsibility to the civil servants in the province whose funds you

have invested in shares of B.C. Telephone?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, we will be protecting the

consumer full out in respect to this application, notwithstanding any

investment portfolio that might exist.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, may I welcome the Minister of Recreation and Conservation to the chamber?

MR. SPEAKER: You haven't got much time for that; you had better hurry.

PLANNED KOKANEE HATCHERY INCREASE

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Will he tell whether his department has plans for

substantial increases in the Kokanee hatchery production in B.C.? It's a question

of which I have given him notice.

HON. J. RADFORD (Minister of Recreation and Conservation): I'll take that as notice.

RELIEF FROM HIGHER OIL

PRICES FOR B.C. RESIDENTS

MR. GIBSON: A question for the Premier, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday the Premier advised us that the cabinet meeting this morning

would take into consideration the question of price relief for the high

cost of oil for British Columbians. I wonder if he has anything to

report to the House on that.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we did take it into consideration.

GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE FOR

OKANAGAN FRUIT PROCESSOR

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Agriculture. Has

he received a request or has his department received a request from

Paradise Products Ltd. at Naramata with respect to government financial

capital assistance? This firm is engaged in opening up new markets for

processed fruit in the Okanagan Valley.

HON. MR. STUPICH: I'll have to take that as notice, Mr. Speaker. I'm not familiar with the name.

COAL ACT

Hon. Mr. Nimsick presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Coal Act .

Bill 92 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House

after today.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING

(continued)

On vote 111: housing and development, $50 million.

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Chairman, last night at 11 o'clock when the

[ Page 2112 ]

House was adjourned for the first time, I had been

asking the Minister of Housing some questions dealing with the lease of

land. Unfortunately I never got a chance to regain the floor nor did he

to respond to these questions. I wonder if the Minister can remember

those questions which dealt with policy as to the intent of leasing,

covering particular economic groups. Is the Minister prepared to answer

those now? Or would he like me to re-elaborate on those questions?

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister of Housing): I believe I did

explain some of the things. I think that the major aspect to the

land-leasing programme is that we do want to give assistance. And where

we give assistance there must be some opportunity for controls, because

we recognize that our venture is not into the total market but in a

limited sense into this market. We must therefore bring certain

controls and measures with our action in this respect, or else we, in

effect, end up printing paper money if we just give subsidies without

certain protection to the people of the province.

As I have said before, we see this as an alternative to pure rental

housing. That is, where the land is leased, the person does have the

control over the maintenance, the alteration, the appearance and upkeep

of the dwelling unit. They have a tenure which we feel is sufficient to

ensure stability and security.

We also find ourselves blessed in certain areas with Crown lands. We

will be able to make these lands available to people for reasonable

cost where we have not had to incur all the costs of land acquisition.

We will also with this be able to distribute our total housing

budget in this vote so that where in communities we are not blessed

with this presence of Crown lands — such as we are blessed in Kamloops

and in Williams Lake and places where we have either Crown land or B.C.

Rail land or some other such land — we might be able to even out some

of the costs and recover sufficient from our ventures in one area to

perhaps subsidize to some extent another area that might prove to be

more expensive. That is because we require land acquisition as well.

So we're looking and are very cognizant of the fact we do this

within a real estate market which is very high. We're trying to come in

with an alternative.

I must say that there are two types of criticism we get about the

land-lease policy. One is that we're going to give too much away. The

other criticism is that nobody's going to want it. I don't know how our

critics can reconcile those criticisms, because obviously if it's too

good, then somebody must want it.

There are many rationales for this, and we do have to be careful not

to get into confusion of land banking as some people do with land

leasing. But I think that perhaps the first and foremost rationale of

this is that we can only enter into the market in a limited way. Until

the real supply and demand problem is broken — and certainly we can't

do that in one year; we have to be careful — we have to have

restriction, and certainly leased land is an opportunity in this

respect.

We also are encouraging people — and people have started even before

we took office — to build cooperatives on leased land; we're trying to

encourage this. We would not seek to come up with something that would

prejudice the type of initiative that's being taken and which presently

has some 1,600-odd units under construction or occupation.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, one of the questions I raised was

that rather than the government buying a tremendous amount of land in

landbanks, there should be some utilization of the municipalities

themselves in developing their own development corporations. They could

utilize their own landbanks or lands they have available in a programme

of providing serviced lots. Recognizing the fact that they have the

local expertise, you would only be duplicating a service if you took

off the lands from them and then took it to the government and then

developed it under their rules and conditions — and had to deal back

and forth under another level of government.

What I was asking was whether you would consider making money

directly available to the municipalities to develop municipal serviced

lots with a municipal development corporation, recognizing that they

are faced with and are aware of local needs. That was one question.

Could you answer now?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Yes, I also flipped back to some of the other questions you asked.

W e are assisting municipalities and have demonstrated this in two

instances with Greater Vancouver Regional District, who were a

tremendous assistance to us in the initial stages of our land-banking

programme, when we had to work under the old statute of the Housing Act, 1960 .

We have agreed to sell them a piece of property called the Coast

Meridian property in Port Coquitlam, and they will be entering into

building family rental housing under

section 15 of the National Housing Act .

We will probably assist them also with interim funding capital so that

the flow of progress payments from Central Mortgage and Housing doesn't

impede their relationships with their contractors and such. There tend

to be delays there, and we would like to see those delays prevented.

I've also pointed to the initiative taken by Penticton and the

assistance which we have given to them — I believe up to $500,000

interim capital. The project was started last October and I imagine

that our interim funding will be returned to us probably by June. It's

being advanced to them as work

[ Page 2113 ]

progresses.

We've also had discussions with Port Moody, and we have made a

tentative offer to them to assist them. They have plans for 15,000

dwelling units on their north shore. We have made an offer to assist

them in proceeding with their enterprise in that area, in order that it

might take place at a greater rate than what they might have been

capable of with their limited borrowing powers; so we do recognize that.

One of the other questions you asked last night was about private

holdings land lease. I'm not leaning toward that, but something that is

being given some consideration is perhaps where land is held by some

non-profit type of group in their title; we might be able to authorize

their leasing to some cooperative or something. There could be some

instances arise, but we're not looking towards continuing large

landlords and such, which I think is contrary to the philosophies of

both of our parties.

You did ask about the option to purchase. I have said earlier in the

estimates that I am not giving that consideration at this time. We're

looking toward a pure leasehold.

MR. BENNETT: Just one further question, Mr. Chairman. Dealing

again with municipalities, in order to get these serviced lots onto the

market to meet the crisis, would the Minister be able to deal with the

Municipal Affairs Minister in getting enforcement of the 60-day

approval clause in all property subdivisions? Part of the problem of

getting serviced lots onto the market has been the failure of

municipalities to react to requests. These requests and proposals have

sat on their desks far beyond the 60-day requirement. Sometimes it's

over a year and up to two years.

This isn't helping to solve the serviced lot problem. I think now,

in the philosophy you have in meeting the crisis, you must show some

direction to these municipalities so we don't have what we have in some

cases where municipalities or local governments put heavy imposts onto

certain service areas, making the cost prohibitive and holding up the

serviced lots meeting the price requirement that we're concerned about

meeting.

I wonder if you could tell me, through you, Mr. Chairman, what sort

of action your department will take with Municipal Affairs in bringing

this about.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: I could say that these are certainly some

of the most serious problems that exist. We are looking at this, but in

a more total sort of a way. I'd hate to pick on one segment and try and

place the blame in one area, because I think that if blame is to be

meted out it must go in many, many different directions. So we are

looking at this, but in more of a total context.

We are presently gathering information, getting chronicles of

approval hurdles that are being taken by many developers — projects

that have been going on for two or three or more years, and then for

shorter term projects. Mr. John Northy is assembling some hard data on

these things. But certainly not all the blame lies at the municipal

level.

MR. BENNETT: Is the provincial government prepared to enact a

subdivision code of basic services for subdivision lots in the province

specifically aimed at a lower price need? Now we agree that this is the

area of market that isn't being served.

Again, many municipalities are demanding too many frills to meet the

cost. They are dealing in an old supposition that everything had to be

curbed and guttered, and with storm drains and underground wiring; and

it put the price of these lots out of the reach of the area of market

that we have to look after in this province — the area of need that

we're all concerned about.

Would you consider a subdivision code of basic utilities for the province to meet this one area of need?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, again I find that your analysis of

the problem is good. I could even point out other things, such as

underground parking requirements in certain areas. For a third of the

price of underground parking, one could provide tremendous recreational

facilities within subdivisions and such. One really wonders what the

priorities are.

It again is a matter that we are looking into. However, I haven't

considered one uniform subdivision code for the entire province. I

think that we do have to look at local needs and that there is a place

for certain types of services.

In certain areas, for instance, overhead wiring is invisible. You go

into Oak Bay where the place is very well treed and such and you don't

even notice it, but in other areas where they lack some of these

amenities, or some of the established type of foliage, it's very

visible and very oppressive.

So I do think that municipalities should have a hand in planning and

in setting some local standards. I am hesitant at this time to presume

to run over municipal regulations, but some of them are definitely

getting to be a little bit much. I've seen, as I say, where we spend

much, much more for underground parking of cars than what we might be

able to put into splendid recreational facilities. Heated indoor pools

and such can be put into strata corporations for less money than we're

presently paying for underground parking.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Chairman, the Minister

mentioned in his speech during the budget debate that a substantial

increase would have to come from the federal government. I believe he

[ Page 2114 ]

mentioned a figure of $73 million that came last

year into British Columbia through CMHC or through the Urban Affairs

department federally. In the intervening period — getting on for two

months — he's had discussions with his federal counterpart. I wonder

whether he could indicate at this time how much the new figure might be

that they've arrived at, and what programmes in this budget might be

cut or altered, depending upon the amount of money he receives from the

senior dominion government.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, Mr. Member, we haven't been told how

much will be forthcoming. I do believe that they are a little

apprehensive that we've taken such an initiative. But I am sure that

this is a programme which is going on in many different provinces

across the country, and there will have to be more money forthcoming.

We will certainly be taking up everything that is available, and then I

think we'll have to be pressing for more.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, as the Minister says, the

federal government is apprehensive; everyone in this opposition also is

apprehensive about the construction of housing in British Columbia in

the coming year. But the answer didn't really give me much in the way

of guidelines to go on. Is there pressure one way or another that one

form of housing is to be advanced rather than another? I remember that

Mr. Andras, the former Minister, certainly devoted almost his entire

budget to low-cost housing back in the early 1970s. Has there been any

change?

I just wonder whether he could be more forthcoming with details, and

certainly with figures, because $73 million is a tremendous amount of

money. It's larger than the amount we're discussing at the present

time, the provincial contribution. It would seem that the Minister at

this stage should have a better idea than he's indicated to us as to

how the two levels of government are going to coordinate the provision

of funds.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, to the leader of the Liberal Party,

I just say that for years and years there has been a lack of pick-up at

the provincial level. Funds were available in excess of those which

were taken up in programmes. I think last year was the first year in

which we committed our allotted share and then more, because I imagine

that in other provinces it was not taken up. So the budget was spent.

I think that now, instead of a pull, there will be a push from this

province. We have made our intentions known. We will be asking for

those moneys; we will be expecting those moneys.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: You can't expect the money if you don't reach an agreement on it.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: We will certainly be pushing for the

moneys as we are in other areas. If worse comes to worst, we'll have to

go to outside sources. But after all, most of these moneys we are

anticipating are just under

section 43; it's just a straight loan.

We are setting targets and we will be looking for participation in many more ways during the year.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I am disappointed that there is not more

information on this forthcoming; it is somewhat central to the whole

question of low-cost housing and assisted housing. I will leave that as

the Minister is clearly unwilling or unable to answer questions.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: I wish we could get the commitment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Minister use his mike when he responds?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Sure. I will switch to another subject and ask about existing housing and the possibility of rehabilitation of older buildings.

We have had, Mr. Chairman, not far from here, the Roccabella, a

large building up there close to the hospital, which was destroyed on

March 2, 3 and 4. It was torn down even though it was providing

low-cost housing for a relatively large number of people. It was a

large, elderly building which in actual fact had a substantial amount

of historic interest.

The request was made to the Minister's department for assistance to

keep this building up and to make sure it was not torn down because,

when it was torn down, the overall stock of housing in Victoria

diminished. In addition, we lost an historic building which I think was

a great loss to a city which prides itself on tourism and its

connection with the past.

I wonder when the Minister is going to change from the policy he

outlined in his letter of March 5. He sent a letter to the Heritage

Committee the day after the building was torn down, saying:

"I wish to thank you for bringing the situation of the

Roccabella Guest House to my attention. It is our policy to increase

the supply of housing rather than to purchase existing dwelling units.

Thus I regret to inform you that I will be unable to take further

action in this matter."

This letter was dated the day after this building was demolished.

It seems a curious situation, a curiously rigid mental approach to

the whole question of housing for the Minister to have no interest in

preserving existing housing and to protect it from demolition. To be

interested only in providing assistance in cases where

[ Page 2115 ]

a new building is going up seems shortsighted. In

addition, being in an area of Victoria which had this building there,

it seemed definitely the wrong thing to do.

I realize new buildings will go up on the same site, but there will

still be a net loss of housing because the new construction could have

taken place on some other site. I wonder whether the Minister has any

plans to adopt a more flexible approach to the problem of housing and

to change his policies so that he could accommodate existing buildings

as well as assistance to new construction.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: I can quite appreciate the heritage

represented by the Roccabella and for the residents of Victoria. I know

of certain buildings in the City of Nelson where there have been

rumours of tearing down or removing a top storey and modernizing and

such. I can quite sympathize with that sentiment.

However, we apparently did have a look at the possibilities of

relocation, having the building sawn into pieces and moved to another

location, but it didn't prove feasible. I think there is a limit; we do

have to have frames of reference. I think heritage is a worthwhile

objective, but I don't know if that should be in the Department of

Housing necessarily.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: We lost housing; we lost accommodation.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Yes, we are concerned about the loss of

housing units or the preservation of existing housing units. Under the

Neighbourhood Improvement Programme, there will be rehabilitation loans

from Central Mortgage and Housing for people within those participating

areas.

We would also be interested in seeing this concept, the Residential

Rehabilitation Assistance Programme, which is

an act of the

Neighbourhood Improvement Programme, operating outside of Neighbourhood

Improvement.

We do have to set priorities in a first year of operation. Certainly

we are participating in the Neighbourhood Improvement Programme. In

those participating areas, there is the opportunity for rehabilitation.

There will be more areas designated and will probably be announced

sometime next fall for next year. This is an ongoing programme for the

next five years and there will be many more areas in the province

designated. Within Victoria now, there is the machinery by which such

rehabilitation could take place.

If that had happened a little bit later on, or in the next few months, there would be something….

Interjection.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, that's true. There was not the

enabling legislation. We have had a $20 million portfolio of existing

housing offered to us. But I am sure if I were to have purchased an

existing portfolio of housing, I would be criticized because I have not

really created a new housing unit.

Interjection.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: I am sure one could have rationalized that

it was future land banking and such for redevelopment some 20 years

down the road. We do have quite a bit of existing housing offered to us

and we feel we could spend the entire $50 million very quickly. I've

probably had offered to me a good $30 million worth all together. We

have had to set a target in terms of creating new housing units.

I feel that preservation of the Roccabella, for reasons such as you

have mentioned…. I acknowledge that there is, as you say, a net loss in

dwelling units; there is a loss of housing. But for the heritage

reason, I think that should be under some other vote.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I don't have a great deal to add

to the debate. I have tried to listen to all the comments made. The

theme I detect from all the comments on this side of the House is that

the problem is really simple in one respect: costs only soar when the

commodity we are talking about is in short supply. With the population

of the province increasing at 3 per cent per year, it stands to reason

that shelter has to be one of the commodities that will have to be

provided at a very rapid rate.

One theme that has run through this debate, particularly this vote,

is that $50 million doesn't begin to look at the problem. We needn't

repeat the figures that have been recorded over and over again: the

$5,000 or so it costs to service a lot and the cost of land. I think we

would be deceiving ourselves and we would certainly be deceiving the

people of British Columbia if we were to give any kind of impression

that this $50 million is going to go very far in solving the housing

problem in British Columbia.

That is not to belittle the effort being made or to give an

impression that $50 million is peanuts; I am not saying that at all. I

am saying that in the general debate on this department and the

comments made on this particular vote, it's clear the opposition

parties have very serious reservations about two main aspects. First of

all, is there enough money to begin to provide the supply required?

Even with that $50 million, does the Minister have plans for the

disbursement of this $50 million in the most appropriate way to get the

greatest mileage under the circumstances?

The opposition is acknowledging that this will come nowhere near to meeting the need. Someone

[ Page 2116 ]

last night quoted a figure of $400 million which, of course, is eight times the figure being placed in this vote.

The Minister said quite rightly that this is the first year in this portfolio;

these things cannot be suddenly arranged overnight. I don't think we are expecting

him to arrange it overnight, but I think we could criticize the Minister for

not asking the cabinet for a fair, reasonable sum of money to do the job. That

is really what vote 111 boils down to.

Having not pressed for adequate amounts of money, there is no

alternative but to suggest that the job which can be done with this $50

million will surely have to be centred on the most immediate need.

Surely that is low-cost housing, as the Second Member for Victoria (Mr.

D.A. Anderson) has just pointed out.

I find myself somewhat confused by rereading the original speech of

the Minister on February 13 or 15, when he gave a breakdown of the kind

of units that were to be built — 1,500 cooperative housing units, 3,000

senior citizens' units, and 2,500 family rental housing. I'll ask a few

questions and perhaps the Minister can answer them all at once and then

we won't be jumping up and down.

Of the 3,000 senior citizens' units and the 2,500 family rental

housing, could the Minister tell us on these two points alone, which

come within the ambit of low-cost housing, how much of the $50 million

will it be expected will be used in the provision of these two

particular needs?

He may have answered the second question some time in the long

debate yesterday, but I wonder if he answered the degree to which a

subsidy of mortgage interest is anticipated by the government. In other

words, if the market rate is 10 per cent…. I think the First Member for

Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) mentioned that you'd be lucky to get a mortgage

in the open market at 10 per cent. I wonder to what degree or if to any

degree a decision has been made on the degree of subsidy.

I wonder very seriously also about this whole matter of federal

cooperation. Just to demonstrate the point, as recently as today, Mr.

Chairman, we have a headline in the Province

of today: "Non-Status Indians to Get Help." Many Members of this House

in this debate and in recent years have talked about the desperate

housing situation of the Indian people. So often we hear that Indian

affairs are very much a federal responsibility, but the provincial

government did make the home acquisition grant available to the

Indians. When you read a release such as comes from the office of Ron

Basford in the press today that $6 million is to be made available for

housing…. The Minister may correct me if this is wrong, but I quote

from one of the columns: "The provincial government…."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Could we have a little more quiet? Would the Hon. Member continue?

MR. WALLACE: You get the impression that nobody's listening, don't you?

"The provincial government is invited to make units

available for private ownership on a purchase and rental plan, each

related to the individual family's income."

It's the use of such words as "invited." It leaves certainly the

reader with the impression that there hasn't been very much

federal-provincial discussion before this plan was finalized. You get

the impression that the federal government wants to take the glory for

announcing $6 million worth of aid to housing for the Indian people,

and that once they get the headline and once it's all across the news,

then they invite the provincial government to get involved in some

poorly defined way. Now I may be wrong in this — maybe you had all

kinds of discussions. I don't know. But the fact of the matter is that

the federal government has said that in this programme ultimately 7,000

housing units will be provided for the Indian people and that they will

provide 75 per cent and the provincial government 25 per cent. This has

not been mentioned so far by the Minister in any of his statements and

I wonder if he would like to enlarge on this when he answers.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: The Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr.

L.A. Williams) says you mentioned this last night. If this is the case,

I was probably out of the chamber. But in terms of federal cooperation,

there has been a recent debate in the federal chamber regarding the

proposal that interest rates on home mortgages be deductible from

income tax or be made an income taxable allowance. I notice that the

Liberal government rejected this proposal, but I wonder if the Minister

could tell us whether or not it is any particular avenue which the

provincial government has pursued in discussions with the federal

government and what, presumably, the tax ramifications would be,

whereby interest rates on mortgages might be given some consideration

as tax-deductible allowance.

Of course, it's been mentioned many times, but I think still a

factor is the question of the 11 per cent sales tax on building

supplies. I know we beat this to death in this House. Every Member's

spoken about it, but to what degree has the provincial government in

discussions with the federal level tried to make any kind of deal, even

to have the amount reduced? Yesterday the Minister explained how the

government is circumventing problems with municipal taxation and senior

citizens' housing, and how a system was worked out. I wonder if we're

[ Page 2117 ]

anywhere near to working out some kind of

arrangement, even to have the 11 per cent sales tax on building

supplies removed or reduced. When did the Minister last discuss this

and when did the provincial government last raise this point with the

federal government?

As far as that goes, the Minister made the point that for the first

year we've accepted all the federal money that was available. I

remember well that someone spoke in this House on the degree to which

the former administration did not take up all the federal money that

was available. To what degree is there continuing and regular

consultation in this area? Again, I refer back to the question of this

press release regarding the non-status Indians.

Another question that I think was raised but I don't know if it was

answered was the project encouraging people to take training so as to

build their own homes. Again, this certainly encourages individual

initiative and it sounds like a good idea on the face of it, but to

what degree has the Minister consulted with trade unions in the

construction industry? It would seem to me that even with the best of

intentions, this encouragement to have less than fully trained people

indulge in a highly skilled enterprise, namely the construction of

homes, would run counter to union philosophy.

I presume that when the Minister talked about encouraging the

do-it-yourself approach this would include teaching the individual to

do skills which people in the industry spend several years learning and

getting the necessary qualifications. I wonder if the Minister

consulted with unions in the construction business. If he did so, what

was the response? How soon does he anticipate that this programme will

be encouraged? At what specific date will people be able to enrol in

the courses to learn carpentry and the various other skills?

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I just wonder if the Minister, before we wind

up vote 111, would give us an approximate breakdown in the distribution

of the $50 million and the direction of the different kinds of units

that he outlined in his speech of a month or so ago. Out of that $50

million, how much of the land involved will be leased or made available

for purchase? Or will it all be for lease? We've already talked at some

length, and I think this side of the House makes it quite clear that

they cannot see why leasing land rather than selling it will make a

great deal of difference.

Secondly, it will create problems towards the end of the lease.

While it may simplify — some problems of financing for the individual

house occupier at the start, in the long run there are other problems

which the Minister felt he could not make a commitment on regarding

automatic renewal of the lease.

So I wonder out of the $50 million, of all the land involved, how

much will be leased and how much will be available for purchase.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: The Member has talked about the short

supply and what impact this will have. We're looking at a total impact

of about 7,000 units under this particular vote. We've already

discussed our target under the Elderly Citizens' Housing Aid Act .

In addition to that I think you have to take into account the federal

government Central Mortgage and Housing programme — the Assisted

Home-Owner Programme. I believe that their target is somewhere in the

neighbourhood of 1,000, but it could be more. So the public sector

would certainly be looking at an impact of in excess of 8,000 units.

Going to a breakdown of these, we are intending to build, under sections 40 and 43 of the National Housing Act ,

approximately 2,500 family rental dwelling units. This is a market

which is not being built for. There are apartments being built for

young career people, or young marrieds without children or the mature

residents only — that type of thing. It's not necessarily by outright

discrimination but by invitation.

So this is the market which we feel is not being fulfilled, and if

we don't do it, there's not much of it being done. If there is

criticism to be levelled, it's that perhaps we are leaving it for the

private sector to cream the most lucrative markets and we are taking

the less financially attractive.

There are 1,000 senior citizens' dwelling units in addition to the Elderly Citizens' Housing Aid Act

— 1,000 senior citizens' dwelling units under sections 40 and 43. We

are setting a target of 1,500 lots for lease to cooperatives, and they

would be financed further under Central Mortgage and Housing. This

again is a sector of the market which is not going to be filled by the

private sector.

Then there are 2,000 serviced lots on Crown and municipal land. The

bulk of this will be in the rural areas where we actually have some

Crown lands. Rather than just turn these over and sell them fee simple

to some developer to go and develop and do whatever he would with them,

we will be putting these on so that these would be again things that

would not normally be put into the housing market.

So we see our main thrust as complementing, adding to, but not being

something that would normally have been done by the private sector

anyhow.

The remainder of the $2 million grant is to neighbourhood

improvement — land assembly. That's where we get a focal point for

non-profit societies to perhaps put forward proposals for either family

rental housing or, as is more common, elderly citizens' housing. It's a

focal point for the building of interest in the cooperative because

it's nice to have something tangible about which to start building the

plans and dreams and aspirations of a cooperative. If

[ Page 2118 ]

there is a piece of land, this is the focal point about which discussion can take place.

The Member talked about mortgage subsidy; certainly we intend to

have subsidies geared to income. It would be somewhat similar to the

assisted home ownership programme of the Central Mortgage and Housing,

although we think a little bit more encompassing.

The Minister's — the Hon. Ron Basford's — announcement was as much a

surprise to myself I am sure as it was to you. We had a meeting in my

office, as I earlier said, last Friday. We discussed and reached

agreement in principle on certain aspects. We found that we were in

agreement on the building of new housing units, new dwelling units, and

I believe it set a target of something in the neighbourhood of 188 new

dwelling units to be built by BCANSI.

We were still discussing some of the terms of reference as far as

acquisition of existing dwelling units by BCANSI. I find this quite

shocking, really. I have not had a chance to talk with the Minister. I

give him the benefit of the doubt regarding whatever misunderstandings

might have come up. But we were certainly quite definite that we would

prepare a joint release and release our intentions jointly.

There were many others at the meeting and I am sure that they were

quite surprised by this action. I find it quite out of character, in

fact. It could be more as a result of what is happening in Ottawa at

the present time.

Interjection.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, we've signed no agreement.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would request that Members not ask questions without using their microphones.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: The 11 per cent sales tax, of course, is

mentioned. It was mentioned by every province, I think, in a position

paper at the tri-level conference held last fall. The federal

government certainly refuses to move on this.

Now as far as the home-builders' programme is concerned: as it was

outlined, there is built into this an education programme where the

people will discuss many different things and how to act as a developer

and how not to make mistakes. We have brought in Mr. Duncan MacIntyre,

who has had considerable experience in this type of programme.

Now this is not going to solve the housing crisis, but it can be a

meaningful, useful experience. I don't anticipate objections from the

unions. We don't look upon this as being a huge programme. It takes a

special kind of person. One of the best reasons for the education

aspect is that you will get drop-outs from the people who think they

are interested but, when they are faced with some real work, will tend

to drop out of it. So this is one of the extra bonuses to the education

aspect.

It is a very rewarding experience. Many of my friends have built

their homes. I have assisted quite a few of them with some free labour

or maybe just in exchange for refreshment, and I know what a rewarding

experience it can be. We feel this is an opportunity that should be

made available to people at this time.

We see as one of the major problems, of course, a shortage of

skilled tradesmen and labour. Certainly at this time qualified

tradesmen will, with the present climate, be well-engaged

professionally. We are not looking for huge numbers for the

home-builders' programme, but for an opportunity for those who would

like to help themselves.

I believe I have given a breakdown on…. Well, I didn't give a dollar breakdown of the $50 million. So I'll go over it again:

Family rental dwellings, 1,000 under

section 40, $7 million; 1,500 under

section 43, $4 million; that's our share.

Senior citizens' dwelling units, 1,000 and broken down: 500 under

section 40, $2.1 million; 500 under

section 43, $0.9 million…I've got

two pieces of paper here. Oh, $2.1 million and $0.9 million — a total

of $3 million.

The lots for lease to cooperatives: this would be for servicing.

Average cost per unit is $6,000; that would be $9 million. Of course,

that starts to come back in terms of a 4 per cent lease rate; some of

that comes back.

Two thousand serviced lots on Crown and municipal land — that would

be $14 million; neighbourhood improvement, $2 million; and land

assembly, $11 million. Does that add up? Well, probably $10 million for

land assembly and $1 million for grants. That's to United Housing

Foundation and such.

MR. WALLACE: A follow-up question, Mr. Chairman. I would like

to refer back to this announcement by the federal government about the

$6 million of which this government is reputed to be providing 25 per

cent. The Minister mentioned that nothing has been signed. The point I

was trying to make is that cooperation between the two levels leaves

something to be desired.

Secondly, none of the money that is reputed to be put up by the B.C.

government in the news release is included in the $50 million in vote

111, presumably. This money, if we take

part in the federal programme,

is in addition to what the Minister has outlined this afternoon.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, that's true. We

[ Page 2119 ]

haven't signed an agreement. That's not provided

here. The Act does provide for the special appropriations from the

surplus fund, but there has been nothing done. We have had excellent

cooperation up to this point, I would say. We have watched releases,

and one or two things did come out where maybe either party felt they

had said something that might have been taken as offensive to the

other. We have phoned each other and tried to clear these things up. I

expect to be in touch with Mr. Basford.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Chairman, I have a few questions I'd like to ask and some statements I'd like to make under this vote.

First of all, I certainly agree with the Minister that we don't

concentrate in this province on buying existing housing units. That

isn't the problem and it won't solve any of the problems that we have.

We don't want to see the government get into the pure real estate

business. That's another of the reasons I don't understand why they

bought Dunhill Corporation, because all they did is buy a real estate

development firm and that won't solve any of the problems we find

ourselves faced with in this province. There has to be another reason

they bought the Dunhill Development Corporation, and we'd like to know

why.

I think it is important that this House find out what the government

was really thinking about when it got into that bad deal of spending $6

million for a company it didn't even need, and for a company that won't

provide us with any necessary housing in this province, and for a

company which will probably just be a millstone around the government's

neck. Certainly there was no need for buying that company on the basis

of solving the housing problem, so there must have been another reason.

We'd ask the Minister what that reason was.

I was happy, too, to hear the Minister say that they're not

expecting to have huge numbers of people taking

part in their programme

of having people build their own homes. I think it's called the "sweat

equity programme" in Nova Scotia. It has only provided in that province

some 4,300 houses, as I understand it, since the 1930s — 100 a year or

something, so it's no big deal. It's not going to be any significant

programme as far as increasing the supply goes.

It was interesting too, Mr. Chairman, that that programme was announced on

the day that the Premier got back from his visit to Nova Scotia. I've been wondering

if he brought it back with him and whether it's another of his hot-line policies

that he develops on the spur of the moment. He has a habit of doing that, Mr.

Chairman. He gets on a hot-line radio programme or something, and a caller will

phone in and say, "Here's a good idea." The next morning we have a

major policy announcement in the House. So he got back from Nova Scotia with

his "sweat equity programme" and the next day we were having it rammed

down our throats again.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's the only way to fly — mouth open.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mouth open all the time, that's right.

It should be remembered that Nova Scotia certainly isn't unionized

to the same kind of degree that British Columbia is, and that may cause

some problems in relation to this "sweat equity programme."

I also understand — and the Minister will correct me, I know, if I'm

wrong — that under the "sweat equity programme" in Nova Scotia they've

been having some serious difficulties with the homes which have been

built because they never get finished in many instances. People will

build a house to a certain degree and then stop and you find half

finished houses all over the place. I don't think that's what we want

for British Columbia either.

[Mr. Liden in the chair.]

I'd like to make a few comments about real estate listings…well, not

necessarily that, but in relation to housing costs and land costs.

There are a lot of reasons, of course, but the cost of housing is

escalating in this province faster than it is in any other province of

Canada. It's becoming a more serious problem here than in any other

part of Canada.

One of the reasons has to do with real estate, and perhaps when the

Attorney-General is looking at the real estate business he might take

this into account. It is the practice of the real estate industry as a

whole to concentrate on listings rather than selling houses. One of the

larger real estate companies in this province even pays bonuses to its

salesmen for listings. On the Multiple Listings Services, commissions

are higher for the lister than for the seller. What that does, of

course, is create a kind of an unreal competition in getting listings

rather than getting out of moving houses around in the industry. We

find that people are given all kinds of reasons for putting their

houses on the market. One of the major reasons, of course, is that they

list it at an incredibly high price — a price which today is

unrealistic in terms of the market. But as those listings all come in

at those inflated values, then that actually does become the price.

If we can somehow turn around the real estate industry and get them

back into the kind of business they're supposed to be in, that of

selling houses for people, I think we'll go a long way toward reducing

the cost of housing in British Columbia, get rid of this bad practice

of this emphasis on listings, bonuses for

[ Page 2120 ]

listings, and certainly higher commissions for listings which do nothing but add to the cost of houses.

It's been mentioned on a number of occasions about the escalation of

land costs and it's pointed out very well in this report from the

Greater Vancouver Regional District with relation to housing. I won't

go into it again except to say that the certain land costs in British

Columbia cannot be allowed to continue to escalate in the manner in

which they are right now.

One of the most recent reasons for this escalation is this

government's action in relation to assessments in British Columbia. The

escalating assessments which have resulted from Bill 71 have put an

undue influence on the real estate market and is causing, in the high

growth areas particularly, escalating costs of land and housing. These

land costs in what really is a land-rich part of the province, part' of

the country, are unreal. We have all kinds of land, as is also pointed

out in this report from the Greater Vancouver Regional District and

that isn't our problem.

The Minister's emphasis on buying land doesn't make sense either,

given the kind of land that we have already available, already zoned,

without encroaching on the agricultural bank of land that we have to

look after this part of the province, where the growth is the worst,

for 30 years. We really are land rich in terms of the availability, yet

we see these escalating costs even though we do have lots of land, so

there must be other reasons. I suggest that assessments is one of those

reasons, as is that action….

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. I believe this matter is still before the committee.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Which committee is that?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Assessments. Bill 71.

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, l agree, and I won't offer any solutions to the problem, I'll….

MR. CHAIRMAN: You should be dealing with vote 111.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I am dealing with vote 111. It

has to do with housing and development, and one of the easiest ways of

providing housing to all of our people is to make sure that the price

is right. If the price is wrong, Mr. Chairman, then those people can't

afford to get into the kind of housing they need and deserve.

There are many reasons why land costs and housing costs have gone

out of control in this part of the country. All I say about assessments

is that's one of the reasons costs are going up.

Zoning is another, Mr. Chairman. I'd suggest for one thing that we

have too much land, particularly in the lower mainland part of the

country, taken out of reach of the people who need housing. Land is put

aside for industrial purposes in areas which will never use that land

for industrial purposes. It will sit there forever; never being used

because local municipalities all think they need to zone large banks of

land for industrial purposes. That isn't good planning to begin with

and that too decreases the supply, so the price goes up.

Bill 42 was a major cause of escalating land prices, particularly in

the lower mainland. Anybody who tries to get around that by saying that

Bill 42 didn't increase prices just doesn't know what he's talking

about. There is no doubt that Bill 42 within a very short while, a

matter of two to three months, had escalated land prices in the Fraser

Valley by as much as 50 per cent in three months. There were no other

intervening factors, only Bill 42. That bill was the direct cost

charge. That bill was directly responsible for increasing the cost of

land again.

Mr. Chairman, it's been mentioned before about the surcharges which

many municipalities put onto private developers and public developers

as well in relation to building homes, building apartment units, senior

citizens' homes, and all kinds of housing.

They do this in self defence because they're not getting the kind of

help from the government that they deserve, so they have to find

additional means of raising revenue. One of those means of raising

revenue is one which has been chosen by a great many municipalities on

the lower mainland and which, in my opinion, is totally discriminatory

against people who are moving into the area, and is an extremely

dangerous practice and is an extreme hardship, again, in preventing

that spiralling cost of land.

In the budget debate the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr.

L.A. Williams) pointed out some of the charges that some of the

municipalities have a habit of putting on new development. He mentioned

Surrey which has a cost of $3,000 a unit for servicing alone. That

isn't all of it — there's another $1.300 for parks development; $150

per suite or unit for water; $300 per suite or unit for drainage. If

you're on a main road they charge you $200 extra; $650 a suite if you

have to build a municipal road, and that's all on top of the actual

servicing costs.

So what you are looking at is about $5,000 per unit before the

developer even gets on the land to break the ground, and that is in

many instances at least as much as a quarter and sometimes as much as a

third of the cost of a building lot. That's a significant reason for

the cost of a building lot in the lower mainland of British Columbia

today.

It's not only because of the niggardly treatment that the

municipalities get from this government; it's also because of this

whole matter again of Cadillac

[ Page 2121 ]

subdivisions where the municipality demands a very,

very high degree of servicing in new subdivisions and around new

developments, with 66-foot-wide roads, almost freeways through

residential areas, sidewalks, curbs and gutters, sewers, water, street

lights, underground wiring, underground parking, the whole bit.

Especially rural urban areas don't need that standard of servicing.

That again is a significant charge upon the land that really has to be

looked at in order to have it reduced. Maybe what this government

should do is come up with some kind of minimum servicing legislation,

minimum subdivision legislation so that at least there's some

guidelines around the province.

Then, of course, the Housing Minister should get together with the

Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) and the Minister of Municipal

Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) and convince them to help the municipalities

out a little bit more and you won't have that charge weighing so

heavily upon the cost of land.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask whether or not the Minister has had

any kind of a report yet from Mr. Glen Haddrell, who was appointed as a

special consultant to the Minister of Housing with regard to

cooperative housing, at a salary of $125 a day up to a maximum of

$1,582. Have you had any report? Maybe that was the reason we're into a

"sweat equity programme." Was that part of Mr. Haddrell's report to the

Minister?

Through you, Mr. Chairman, the Minister mentioned the Neighbourhood

Improvement Programme. I'd like to express my extreme disappointment

again with the Minister in regard to the Neighbourhood Improvement

Programme which was requested by the Bridgeview area of Surrey. I can't

think of any area on the lower mainland that needed help as badly as

the Bridgeview area. There isn't any other area which was in the kind

of trouble that Bridgeview was in with regard to its drainage and

sewage problems. As one of the aldermen in Surrey pointed out when that

request for Neighbourhood Improvement Programme assistance was refused

by the Minister, it was like pulling the blocks out from under the

people.

Every government official at every level of government has called the Bridgeview

sewer and drainage problem extremely serious. Provincial officials, health officials,

municipal officials, federal government officials who have been in that area

all say it's a disaster area with regard to its sewage and drainage problems.

Yet this government passes them by, snubs that whole area in relation to its

Neighbourhood Improvement Programme without consulting anyone in Surrey to get

a little more information about the needs, and apparently not even consulting

the Member for Surrey, who happens to be the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr.

Hall). The Provincial Secretary, when he found out that the Housing Minister

had turned Surrey down, said he was shocked and dismayed and he'd talk to the

Minister right away. I wonder if he did talk to the Minister, Mr. Chairman.

If he did, what was the result of that talk and will you reconsider, before

the next NIP grants are announced, helping Surrey out with this problem? The

people there can't live with that situation any longer.

I'd like, too, to emphasize again, Mr. Chairman, this problem that I

raised briefly in another vote with regard to mobile homes. One of the

best ways we can get out of the situation we have with regard to the

financing of mobile homes is to quit designating mobile homes as always

mobile. As long as we make in our designations the term "mobile" mean

that those homes are always capable of being moved, then they'll never

be able to get any kind of financing to the same degree that you can

with a private home — a fixed home on a piece of property. We've got to

recognize that those mobile homes in many instances are in fact

residences which will never be moved and are anchored to that spot,

particularly those homes which are on private land and not in

mobile-home courts. Those people need some new methods of financing so

that they can take advantage of the second mortgages from this

government the same way that people who live in conventional homes can.

I'd ask the Minister to treat that as an urgent priority, Mr.

Chairman, to make sure that the people who really need help… These

people are the people who can't afford to buy conventional homes;

that's why they're in a mobile home in the first place. So they

probably need more help than anyone else and they deserve to get that

help.

I want to mention briefly the possibility of putting housing on the UBC Endowment

Lands, Mr. Chairman. I think that that would be a calamity and a tragedy for

British Columbia. Here we are in this province buying thousands and thousands

of acres out in the Fraser Valley for park purposes at vastly inflated prices.

We're buying homes in the Fraser Valley at today's inflated prices to be someday

torn down in favour of regional parks. I'm in favour of the regional parks programme,

but here we have in the UBC Endowment Lands another Stanley Park. The priorities

are mixed up. We're out there buying good houses to tear down for parks and

we're going to build houses on a park that we already have at UBC Endowment

Lands. Now what kind of sense is that?

AN HON. MEMBER: It's nonsense.

MR. McCLELLAND: That's right, it's nonsense. I say that this

Minister has got himself locked in, Mr. Chairman, to a public statement

made some time ago….

[ Page 2122 ]

HON. MR. NICOLSON : On a point of order, I believe that this

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

Williams) and that point has already been made earlier in debate on the

Minister's salary.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's quite correct. That point was made yesterday. You can discuss the question of housing.

MR. McCLELLAND: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. When it

comes down to the philosophical intent of this government with relation

to housing and development I think that we must make it very clear that

we must maintain the choices that people have in relation to the kind

of housing that they wish to have. They must still have the opportunity

to choose to own their own homes and to own the land upon which those

homes sit. They must not be forced into the kind of situation which

will see them only able to get leases to the land so that they will

never ever own the land that their houses sit on. They'll be serfs of

the state and they will never, ever be able to rest easy with the

assurance that some day they will, in fact, own their land and the

government won't come along and say: "I'm sorry, we've changed our mind

about that land. We want it for some other purpose. Get your house off

of it." That's not good enough, Mr. Chairman. We must always insist

that that choice is available, that a person has the right to own his

own home and to own the land upon which it sits.

This whole obsession with land from the Housing department, Mr.

Chairman, is a little strange because we don't have a lack of land. We

don't have a lack of money. The only thing we have is a lack of housing

units and a lack of leadership, Mr. Chairman. Until this government

realizes that and gets out and begins to put in the kind of initiative

that it needs to get the private sector moving, it will never solve the

housing crisis in British Columbia.

Incentive, Mr. Chairman, is what the private sector needs. People

come here from Europe because home ownership is so rare. They never get

the opportunity in Europe to own a home of their own, and that's one of

the reasons that we attract so many people from other parts of the

world.

The Member for Richmond (Mr. Steves) the other day said that

single-family housing is an uneconomical form of housing. Well, so

what? It's what the people want. The Hellyer people, the federal task

force in 1968, studied this problem very carefully and they found all

over Canada the experts saying: "Single-family housing is a thing of

the past." The experts all told him that it was multiple units,

multiple-land use, no more single-family housing, and yet on that same

survey, all of the people they talked to told them they wanted

single-family housing, that the single-family home was a dream that all

of them had and hoped one day that that dream would come true.

Sure, the experts don't understand it, the socialists don't

understand it, the socialists don't care what the people want — it's

only what the bureaucrats want. That's not good enough for the people.

What's good for the state is all important....

AN HON. MEMBER: In their mind only.

MR. McCLELLAND: In their mind only. So instead of encouraging

people to own their own homes, this government is doing everything it

can to discourage the people from awning their own homes.

Can a person come along today and buy a piece of land and hold it in

the hope that someday he'll be able to put a house on it? No way!

You're taxing him off that piece of land and you're forcing that land,

Mr. Chairman, into the hands of speculators and developers because of

your taxation and assessment policies.

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, you can own land, Mr. Member, that's

right — if you've got enough money to be able to hold onto it while the

taxes go up around you and know full well that someday in the future

you'll be able to realize a great profit.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): If you're able to weather the storm.

MR. McCLELLAND: Or if you're able to weather the storm, sure.

But you've got to have a lot of money to do that. You can't weather the

storm unless you're rich, unless you're a developer, or unless you're a

speculator. The person today who has sort of established his own little

landbank, the person who held that land in the hope of someday soon

building a house on it has been cut out of the goad Life in British

Columbia.

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, we need rental accommodation. There

isn't any doubt about that — and public housing and everything else.

But don't ever lose sight of the fact that the people of British

Columbia want someday to own a home of their own if at all possible.

I don't want to take up too much of the time so I won't read all of

my notes; I'll save some of them for later. I do want to say a word or

two about speculation. We agree on this side of the House that it's not

right that rip-off profits should be realized from a piece of property

which hasn't been improved, which has risen in value mainly because of

the actions

[ Page 2123 ]

of the community and certainly not because of the

activities of the speculator. We don't agree with that; we think it

should be stopped.

But this government obviously doesn't agree with us or they would

never have got involved with Dunhill. What they did there was to make

some speculators rich, wasted $6 million of the taxpayers' money in

British Columbia, and got taken in the bargain.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

MR. McCLELLAND: Then the government got itself into the real

estate business again, sold the land and made a rip-off windfall profit

from it. And how many houses did you provide for the people of British

Columbia in that little deal, Mr. Minister?

This government has got to stop confusing the person who wants to

own land of his own with rip-off speculators. Get him out of that

category, because all he wants to do is live in this province in the

manner in which he chooses to live. We can't allow this government to

take away any more choices from people.

There are ways to put an end to speculation. I'd suggest most of

them should come from initiatives from the federal level with relation

to capital gains taxes. If the taxation policies are brought in line,

you'll end speculation fairly quickly.

What about new construction techniques? Instead of going into this

"sweat equity" nonsense, why don't you just get your researchers out

working on new methods of construction so that private contractors can

bring in housing at far less cost. That's the way to get around the

cost problem, or at least one of the ways. Let's get your researchers

out looking at new ways to build houses. Let's get your researchers out

telling us why a house has to be 1,200 square feet. What's so magic

about that? Why can't it be 900 square feet? Why does a municipality

have to insist that it won't accept any smaller housing for small

families? They can be every bit as attractive and practical as a great

huge mausoleum somewhere on a viewpoint or waterfront of Esquimalt. Why

can't you have a 900-sq.-ft. house?

AN HON. MEMBER: Who has a mausoleum in Esquimalt?

MR. McCLELLAND: I don't know if anyone has. I just mentioned Esquimalt as a matter of fact and as a matter in passing.

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: On the waterfront in Esquimalt, yes. Right. But I don't

know if anyone owns any houses over there; I just happened to mention it.

In conclusion, at this point anyway, I just want to say that one of

the real ways we'll bring down the cost of housing and land in this

province — and I want to emphasize it very forcefully — is by helping

the municipalities. If we relieve a major part of their financial

burden, we'll relieve a major source of the escalating costs of housing.

Education costs should be taken off the land fully, not partially.

This so-called progressive removal we've heard from this government is

totally phony. It won't remove any taxes from land for education. Why

don't they call it what it was: "son of homeowner grant"?

MR. CHAIRMAN: You're talking about legislation. You should be dealing

with vote 111.

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I just want to say again

that there are ways to break down the costs of land. There are positive

ways. This government should get involved with. them as quickly as

possible.

I would also suggest, too, in order to both increase the supply and

bring down costs again, this government should revise its taxation and

assessment procedures to end the penalties for people who choose to

improve their homes. In Montreal, I'm told, they have a system of

municipal subsidies for people who improve or in some cases even

replace their substandard housing. Why not this government? How about

it? Is this government planning on some kind of action that doesn't

penalize people who really want to improve the surroundings of their

community? Let's not tax them off their property. Let's not buy it from

them. Let's not get into leased land. Let's get off of this obsession

with land and get into the needs that we have.

Supply housing units; that's where the problem is. Until this

government recognizes it, we won't solve the housing crisis in this

province.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): I'll be brief.

We've been debating the estimates of this Minister and his department

for 20 hours now. I think it must be patently clear to everybody in

this committee that the Housing department is not equipped, nor is the

Minister, to solve the crisis that faces us in housing in British

Columbia.

We are faced with a crisis of supply. From the very beginnings of

debate, when the Hon. Member for Richmond (Mr. Steves) spoke, he

indicated that we required 30,000 housing units in British Columbia to

catch up and to get ourselves even. The Member for Vancouver–Point Grey

spoke yesterday about the number of houses that would disappear from the

[ Page 2124 ]

housing supply because of over-age and diversion to other purposes. That indicated how great the problem was.

We have a situation with this vote 111 where the department has

funds to the extent of $50 million for these particular purposes of

housing development. But in order to even do the catch up work, we know

that something in excess of 10 times that amount, in excess of $500

million will be required if we are going to even meet the current need.

I readily appreciate, Mr. Chairman, and I trust that no number of

the public, no Member of this committee would think this government

would be able to do it all itself. The private sector will still remain

the predominant source of funds and the predominant source of energies

in order to solve this crisis of supply.

The Minister himself recognized this when on Saturday he told this

House that last year building starts were up from 6.5 to about 6.9 per

cent. He said he realized it wasn't enough but that we've not only to

build a certain number of homes for the people who are moving into the

province with our increased population but we have to replace existing

homes which are substandard and we have to make up for hidden losses

which occur from the use of residential or other development. The

Minister recognizes the problem. I was shocked last evening to hear the

Minister stand in his place and announce to that House that housing

starts for the next year were going to go down. That's precisely what

the Minister said. He gave as the reason for the number of housing

starts going down that there were going to be shortages of material and

we were facing a labour situation in 1974 which was going to interfere

with the productivity of the construction segment of our society so

that housing starts were going to go down.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: A point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: State your point of order.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, the Member is saying that I made

certain remarks the other day. If he would like to quote them in full

context for the record, I think it might be acceptable but….

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think you can correct that when your turn comes to speak.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: As soon as the Hansard

blues are available, I would be delighted to send the Minister a copy

of precisely what he said in this regard because it was a shocking

announcement for the Minister to make when considering the estimates

for a department which is going to cost the people of this province

something in excess of $75 million this year.

I wish the Minister would just be candid with the committee and tell

us that he and his department are not yet ready to tackle the problems

and provide British Columbia with the solutions — which is a solution

to the problem of supply. Now we recognize that he's going to carry on

with the continuing programme of providing specialized accommodation

for senior citizens. Terrific. The former government started that

programme, and any programme that wouldn't carry it on shouldn't be

government.

AN HON. MEMBER: The government before that started it.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: And yet that's not where the big area of

need exists — not for those citizens. They need help and it's help that

the government should give; but it in no way will diminish the need for

the 30,000 housing units that must be constructed in this province if

we are to solve the problem of supply and make some attack upon

ever-increasing prices.

The Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) talked about rising costs of

land and all the factors that are going into the rising cost of land.

I'm aware, Mr. Chairman, of one situation where a developer,

subdivider, sold eight lots to a builder. Two homes were commenced, but

inside of about three months, the builder found that he could dispose

of the other six vacant lots at a greater profit than he could make if

he held on to them and built the houses. Now that's a shocking

situation, but that's what's going on. And that is what is escalating

month by month the cost of housing and is the problem that confronts

the people of this province.

If one thing shocked me, Mr. Chairman, about the acquisition of

Dunhill, it was the admission made by the Minister in this House that

the government is doing exactly the same thing as the house

construction man, who, rather than go ahead and build houses on land

that he owned, was rolling it over at a profit. As a matter of fact,

Mr. Chairman, the other night the Minister stood in this place and

proudly proclaimed how much more the government had got for the Dunhill

properties that it was disposing of than even the appraisals had

indicated.

AN HON. MEMBER: Bragged about it.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Bragged about it. But we understood that

the government spent $5.8 million of the people's money to acquire

Dunhill to help to solve the housing problem. How do you solve the

housing problem unless you create new units? You don't solve the

housing problem. How do you solve the housing problem unless you create

new units? You don't solve the housing problem by taking land that you

acquire in a company such as Dunhill and

[ Page 2125 ]

selling it at an inflated price to somebody else, for them to take the responsibility of building housing units.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Do you give it away?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: No, you don't give it away. You do what

you set out to do, Mr. Minister, and that is to take the land and built

housing units on it. Why in heaven's name did you buy Dunhill?

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): To make somebody rich.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Did you buy Dunhill to get the accounts

receivable? Did you buy it to get the tax deferment? Did you buy

Dunhill to get a 50 per cent interest in Highland Realty? Did you buy

Dunhill to get interest in an equipment company?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. I wish this

Member would be present in the House. This has been ruled sub judice.

While I'd like to respond to these remarks, in doing so we get

entangled. There's no end to the questioning and where it leads to. And

there are matters before the court. We have ruled on this fairly

firmly, and I hope that you would use the previous Chairman's ruling.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point of order is well taken.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: The point of order is not well taken. I'm not talking about values; I'm talking about the incidence…

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Oh, my God.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: …of the assets that were acquired by this

government when they bought Dunhill and which the Minister himself

tabled with this committee — distributed to every Member of this

committee. And now because it's beginning to hurt he wants to stand

behind some order of the Chair which prevents us from discussing

exactly what they bought in Dunhill. Do you want me to read you the

properties? They're already on record.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I want to remind you that the ruling on the

whole question of Dunhill was that it's sub judice. You get into the

matter and you get expanding on it; the whole question should be out of

order.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I'm not raising questions as

to the values. I'm not going to go into the question of the appraisal

documents. I'm not going to go into the question of how much per share

was paid. I'm not going to go into the question of how much the people

who sold their shares paid for their shares. That's the issue.

I'm only asking the Minister, Mr. Chairman, why they bought that

company if it was not to take the land that that company owned and to

build housing units on it — if it was not to avail themselves of the

apparently skilled people in Dunhill Developments and to use their

skills to build housing units?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. I believe

the Member's asking a perfectly innocent question, and I would give him

a perfectly innocent answer. But it is not for me and it is not for the

Member to decide what is and what is not sub judice.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think the point is well taken. We're

canvassing the matter with the Clerk. The whole question of just where

we draw those lines is a difficult one. But the moment that you raise

questions, you call for certain answers, and you get into that same

question. If we could restrict the debate just to the question of

whether or not the purchase should have been made, that might be all

right. But the moment you open the question for debate, you get into

trouble on the question of sub judice. I must rule the matter out of

order.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Then I'll simply ask the Minister if he

would please stand in his place when I've taken mine and tell this

committee why the government bought Dunhill. And I'll ask the second

question: did it buy Dunhill so it would have the opportunity to make a

speculative profit on the sale of Dunhill land?

Mr. Chairman, the Minister's not doing his job. After four months

his department is not organized to do the job that it was given by this

Legislature when the department was established last November. I think

that the only way to resolve this matter is for the Minister to stand

in his place and admit to this committee and to the people of British

Columbia that he and his department cannot do the job and that they

shouldn't expect anything to happen in 1974 which will in any way

resolve the crisis of supply which we in British Columbia are facing.

Having admitted that, the Minister should tell this committee that

he will use all of his abilities to recommend to his cabinet colleagues

that legislative steps will be taken to reduce the taxes on land, to

provide initiatives for the private sector so they can get on with the

job of building the housing units in British Columbia which we must

have if the young people and the old people in British Columbia are to

have adequate housing accommodation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 111 pass?

[ Page 2126 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: No, don't get panicky now. I thought maybe the quiet Minister over there would like to answer some questions.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Your discussion should be on vote 111.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, I am. That's right, $50 million.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, well, time will tell. Lots of

time, Mr. Attorney-General. Be patient. We'd like a few questions

answered, first of all.

I want the Minister to answer me as to whether Dunhill Developments

is going to remain a public company or become a Crown corporation. This

is very important, Mr. Chairman, and has nothing to do whatsoever with

the case before the courts. It has to do with the ability of what is

now Woodbridge Development Corporation to build housing in the province.

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

that what you're really discussing is legislation or the need for

legislation. You're not discussing the vote that's before the House.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, yes, I am, Mr. Chairman, because you're

asking me to vote $50 million here this afternoon to provide housing,

Well, this government purchased, with $5.5 million of the taxpayers'

money, a corporation to build housing.

MR, CHAIRMAN: But to create a Crown corporation would require legislation and that kind of discussion is out of order on this vote.

MR. PHILLIPS: Then, Mr. Chairman, it's going to remain a

public; company. And if it's going to remain a public company, is this

going to hamper or increase its ability to build private housing in

this province?

If it's going to remain a public company, Mr. Chairman, what will

the company's status be as a taxpayer? The Minister has already told me

that once he purchased it — and he said this in the document that he

filed here on Saturday — the corporation will not Dave to pay income

taxes.

Now if the company is not going to pay income taxes, Mr. Chairman, he is going to have to make it a Crown corporation.

Interjection.

MR, PHILLIPS: Well, it's got to be one or the other. Public

corporations pay income tax. It's clearly laid out in the documents

which the Minister filed in the House that this corporation will not

have to pay income tax. I've got the document here somewhere, Mr.

Minister.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Publicly owned.

MR. PHILLIPS: Publicly owned? But not a Crown corporation?

Well, if it's owned by the public... Well, anyway it clearly states in

the documents that were tabled in this Legislature that this….

The reason that it is so important is this: As was just ably pointed

out here a few moments ago by the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound

(Mr. L.A. Williams, private sector — those in the construction business

— are going to still have to provide approximately 90 per cent of

private housing and, indeed, public housing in British Columbia. If

this Minister is going to create a company that's going to receive

preferential treatment from the government, is this going to hamper and

hold back investment by the private sector?

I think these are perfectly legitimate questions, Mr. Chairman. I

would like at this time to have the Minister give me some answers.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 111 pass?

MR. PHILLIPS: No! Mr. Chairman, I think we are entitled to

know what this Minister's future plans are for Woodbridge Development

Corporation, He says in this document that he tabled that federal

income tax will not be payable once Crown corporation status is

established. Do I understand then that he intends to make a Crown

corporation out of it? The Attorney-General says "No." No, he isn't.

Well, then low can he justify this statement that he tabled in this

Legislature? How can he justify it?

I think, Mr. Chairman, that this Dunhill fiasco that the Minister

got himself into was purchased to provide Dousing — that's a stated

policy. If he's going to make it into a Crown corporation, then what

will the new company's relationship be with the present construction

industry? Will it indeed be a competitor in the private sector and in

the public sector? Mr. Chairman, I think that the Minister should

answer these questions and I would like to give him the opportunity.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: I perhaps listened a little more carefully

to Mr. Speaker's ruling and to the decision also of the Chairman. I am

not going to play supreme court judge or anticipate what is or what is

not one thing or another. In answer to the Hon. Member's question, I am

clearly on record in the newspapers and I believe by inference of the

documents to which he has referred, I think my

[ Page 2127 ]

intentions are clear... It's not for us to judge

which is or is not sub judice in this matter, as explained. I have

certainly made my intentions clear in the press. I realize it should be

said in here but I think the statement that you refer to also makes my

intentions quite clear.

The Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) made certain comments. He

referred to the hiring of Mr. Glen Haddrell, who works for the

cooperative housing foundation. While the order-in-council specified

him by name, he is seconded. He is not receiving $125 per day but he is

receiving his regular salary from the cooperative housing foundation.

This is the consulting fee which the organization is charging us and of

course this goes to cover other expenses such as office overhead,

secretarial assistance, and such at the foundation. I am still awaiting

the report in its final form, However, he has been very helpful to us.

I can't see any of these people still in the House, but several

times the questions were brought up of how we were going to distribute

the $50 million and how it fits in with the private sector. I have

explained it. I explained it again to the Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr.

Wallace) and the questions from the Member for West Vancouver–Howe

Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) were very similar to these. So it has been

thoroughly canvassed.

MR, PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, on this same point, the future of

what this government and how this government intends to use Dunhill

Developments or Woodbridge Development Corporation has absolutely

nothing to do with the case before the courts. It's in the future. What

is behind you'll have to answer in court. What is in the future has

nothing to do with that case whatsoever.

I am merely asking how the Minister intends to treat Woodbridge

Development Limited. Are they going to receive, for instance, their

money from the provincial government at preferred interest rates? The

reason I bring this up, Mr. Chairman, is this. Ninety per cent of the

housing in British Columbia is still going to have to be provided by

the private sector. If this government is going to have their own Crown

corporation, receiving preferential treatment from this government — preferential treatment by being given land, preferential treatment by

being given special interest rates, preferential treatment by the

government backing their mortgages — what attitude is the private

sector going to take toward it?

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell us about your riding.

MR. PHILLIPS: Is the Minister planning on going and buying more development

corporations and putting the private sector out of business entirely? This is

all crucial, Mr. Chairman, to the crisis that we face in British Columbia today

and the crisis that that Minister has developed since he took office. He doesn't

want to give any answers because he doesn't know the answers.

As I said before in this Legislature, Mr. Chairman, he has

heightened the crisis that we have in this province. He doesn't know

where he is going, or if he does, he's certainly not selling this House

because he has not given us any answers since we've started debating

his estimates.

Mr. Chairman, I was interested, and I might say surprised, reading in this

morning's Province : "Non-Status Indians to get Help."

HON. MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, this subject was thoroughly canvassed earlier and a full explanation given,

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think the point of order is well taken. The matter has been canvassed.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the Minister

same questions about this announcement. This question has not been

answered. It clearly states that the Hon. Mr. Basford said that the

federal government grant of nearly $220,000 will be made immediately to

the B.C. Association of Non-Status Indian Housing Limited, to provide

500 homes. Well, if I divide 500 homes into $220,000, it comes to

$4,400 apiece. I would like the Minister to advise me what type of a

hose is going to be built, because the provincial government is footing

25 per cent of the cost of these houses,

HON, MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, as I have tried to

tell the Hon. Member, I have already answered then questions to the

Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace), We have signed no agreement with them

and it was a unilateral announcement.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Chairman, I have a suggestion to make to the Minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! On a point of order before the

Hon. Member continues, the point of order is well made. I don't know

whether the Hon. Member for South Peace River was out of the House but

this question has arisen already here this afternoon, I would ask the

Hon. Member to continue.

MR. PHILLIPS: There is in the hands of the Minister of Lands,

Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) a proposal regarding

construction and operation of a sawmill at Burns Lake....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! This matter is clearly not related to these estimates.

[ Page 2128 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: It is purely related. If you'd just let me continue, Mr. Chairman, I will tell you how it's related.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! What may be discussed under this

vote is the manner in which this $50 million will be used or

administered by the government.

MR. PHILLIPS: This involves it very closely if you'd just let

me continue for just a few moments. One of the impacts of this proposal

by the British Columbia Association of Non Status Indians is the social

benefits….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. PHILLIPS: ...as it pertains to housing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would rule that you must discuss the vote as it relates to the administrative responsibility of the Minister.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, it is the administrative responsibility

of this Minister to provide housing for native Indians and the

non-status Indians in this province, Mr. Chairman. Clearly it is his

responsibility. As a matter of fact, some of this $50 million will be

going in that direction.

In this proposal before this government, one of the sections is on

social benefits. Item No. 5 in that proposal says, "More and improved

housing through the British Columbia Association of Non Status Indians

Native Housing Limited," and directly through the sawmill auspices.

My suggestion to the Minister is that this would be one way for that

government over there to really make great strides forward in a

positive economic and social way to provide housing for our native

people in this province.

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

Williams) feels this is too big a proposal, that there's too much

involved, he has the power….

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

Member that we're considering the estimates of the Minister of Housing

and his responsibilities. Your questions are to be directed to….

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Minister, 6-ft. two-by-fours, boards,

lumber to build houses. The Minister wants to provide housing for the

natives of this province. This is a positive way he can do something.

All he has got to do is talk to the Minister of Lands, Forests and

Water Resources….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would point out to the Hon. Member for South Peace River….

MR. PHILLIPS: Listen! Just because the Premier comes in here and shouts orders… I'm making a good point here!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Be seated.

MR. PHILLIPS: You sure get fussy when the Premier comes in here and gives you a few orders, don't you?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will the Hon. Member remain seated until I make my point?

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Shame, shame.

MR. PHILLIPS: Shame on you!

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair's responsibility is to apply the

rules correctly. I would point out to the Hon. Member for South Peace

River that you may not ask one Minister to advise another Minister as

to what he should do. If this were done, then of course we could talk

about all of the estimates under one Minister's estimates. You must

deal only with the responsibilities of the Minister whose estimates we

are considering. Particularly under this vote, you may only consider

those matters covered by this vote. I would ask the Hon. Member to

continue.

MR. PHILLIPS: I probably shouldn't even ask the Minister of

Housing to talk to the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources.

I'm suggesting to the Minister of Housing that this would be an

excellent way to really make strides forward in providing housing for

the non-status Indians and for the native Indians.

It was suggested in this

article that we train some of these people

as carpenters. I suggest you go even further than that and assist them

in setting up their own housing corporation. It could be a construction

corporation. In the vocational school facilities in the north you could

train these non-status Indians and the native Indians to become not

only carpenters but plumbers and electricians. They could form their

own housing construction company. This is in your riding, Mr. Chairman;

you should be interested in this.

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

Member that under standing order 61(2), speeches in Committee of the

Whole House must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under

consideration. We are considering vote 111, an expenditure of $50

million for certain programmes that the government has already

indicated are going to be set in motion. Therefore, the question must be

[ Page 2129 ]

on these programmes.

MR. PHILLIPS: They discussed certain programmes and I'm suggesting another one.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: Any of the programmes they've suggested I don't think are going to work.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! That's precisely what the Hon. Member

may not do. He may not suggest other programmes but rather discuss the

programmes which are contained under this vote.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, some of this money under this vote is going to go to native housing.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): A point of order. Are you

suggesting to the Hon. Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) that

he cannot make suggestions to the Minister of Housing concerning

alternate methods and means of providing housing in the Province of

British Columbia under this vote? Is that what you're saying?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member may make suggestions providing

that he's talking within the requests… A vote is a request for $50

million and for certain purposes. He can make suggestions as to how the

money should be used within the intentions of this vote. However, he

must confine himself to the purpose of the vote which is an allocation

of $50 million for certain purposes. If his remarks are relevant to

these purposes, and the Hon. Minister has indicated what these purposes

are, then he is in order. But he cannot move into other areas.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'd like to have the Minister's comments on my

suggestion. I think it's a positive one and I think it's a good one. It

would go a long way toward providing housing. This government, even

though they criticized lumber companies for ripping off the price of

lumber for housing before they had their own corporation, don't seem to

be doing very much to bring down the price of lumber today when they've

got their own corporation. They don't seem to be doing much about

taking off the 5 per cent sales tax….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. PHILLIPS: As a matter of fact, they're not doing anything constructive to provide housing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I've requested the Hon. Member for South

Peace River to keep your remarks strictly relevant to the vote before

us. I would just give you this chance. If you have nothing new to say

relevant to this vote, take your place. Would the Hon. Member continue?

MR. PHILLIPS: In this vote there is money for the purchase of

land. This Minister has purchased a lot of land in British Columbia and

I would like to know where he has purchased this land for housing. I

would like to know how much of it was purchased from municipalities. I

would like to know how much of it was purchased from the private

sector. I'd like to know how many parcels had appraisals on them.

Would he table in this House a list of the land he has purchased

since becoming Minister, complete with locations and what he paid for

them? Would he indicate that to me this afternoon? Would he tell the

House that he would do this?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Yes, we did this during the last session.

There are questions on the order paper and we will have this

information brought up to date. We'll try and incorporate those

questions which you've asked.

MR. AN. FRASER (Cariboo): Sit down, Mr. Premier, and rest.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. FRASER: I have been listening with a lot of interest for

the last day or two on housing. The housing debate is very interesting

if you are interested. I agree with a lot of the speakers. I hope you

don't rule me out of order for being repetitious and so on, but the

main problem, of course, is the lack of lots available for housing,

particularly serviced lots.

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

Hon. Member that the words, I think, in the standing orders are

"tediously repetitious." There's nothing the matter with being

repetitious, providing you don't become tedious.

MR. FRASER: Fine, thank you. The answer to the overall

problem, of course, is to create more lots, particularly serviced lots.

I think this government created a lot of their own troubles under Bill

42. I said that the other night and I still believe it. However, that

doesn't resolve the problem before us, and it has to be resolved.

I'm not very happy with what I see going on in the new Department of

Housing. I'd like to comment there that this Minister actually is

coming close to a year now in this office. He went into the cabinet, I

believe, in May, 1973, as the Minister Without Portfolio in charge of

housing. Of course, we're looking at the completely new portfolio of

Housing.

[ Page 2130 ]

Fifty million dollars is a lot of money, and,

during the debate, I'm sure most of the MLAs have been trying to find

out what direction he's going to take the province in trying to relieve

the housing crisis.

I want to emphasize the fact that there are no serviced lots

available for building on. I think it applies mostly in urban areas of

this province, not only on the lower mainland which I'll discuss in a

minute or two. I might say that in my observation there is a lot of

land available in the lower mainland, the North Shore and in the

Interior for housing but it's a case of getting it assembled and put

together. I realize, coming from the municipal side, that there are

always problems in this and it all takes time. But I think this

Minister should be trying to cut through the red tape — cut it down so

this process can be speeded up.

The main point, as I see it, is the servicing and organizing the

servicing. There really hasn't been anything accomplished in that area.

The other problem is that it becomes more acute as each day goes by

because of land values escalating and more people every day looking for

accommodation.

I'd just like to relate to the House some of the critical areas that

exist now, but I suggest there are going to be a lot more critical

areas of the province. I saw information the other day on the

population of certain areas and the projected population ahead.

Probably the worst one is Delta where the present population was listed

as 62,000 and projected to be 98,000 — a 50 per cent increase by 1986,

a short period of 15 years.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about your riding, Alex?

MR. FRASER: I'm coming to that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Good.

MR. FRASER: The next most critical area in the province

appears to be Coquitlam. I wonder what the MLA for Coquitlam (Hon. Mr.

Barrett) is doing about that. They have 55,000 citizens now and are

projected in 1986 to have 95,000 people — almost 100 per cent increase.

Again, where are those people going to live? Where are they going to

get the serviced lots and the accommodation to locate on?

Surrey is probably one of the worst of all, with a present

population of 108,000 and going to 500,000 people. There is certainly

land there but, again, there are lots of problems in Surrey about

assembling the land and getting it available for housing.

Even in the Minister's own area of Nelson, I understand, there's a

shortage of serviced lots. Kelowna is another place, moving out of the

lower mainland, where there is a heavy demand for serviced lots.

The area I know better is Prince George where there is a very heavy

demand. This is caused by new people still coming into that area and

there is a heavy demand. I've heard this new Minister say nothing ever

happened in prior years from government regarding housing. The City of

Prince George, in my opinion, has done a terrific job in cooperation

with the province for years. I refer to Crown land. They have made

arrangements with the province, I believe, going back 15 years at

least, where the city made an arrangement to purchase the Crown land.

They set their minimum on it and the city put their services in and

were entitled to a slight profit. Those lots were all snapped up and, I

might say, stabilized the price of housing in that area. It has still

done so today to a certain degree because of prior policies.

I think there will be some trouble in Prince George now, as an

example. because of the change of government policy. Prior to this,

when the provincial Crown and the City of Prince George made

arrangements, those Crown lots were put up for sale and the citizens

purchasing received title to this property. As I understand it, this

system changed. These serviced lots are going to the citizens but they

will only be on a leased basis. I suggest that the majority of our

citizens are not going to accept it. Dealing with policy, they will put

these lots up for auction on a leased basis and will probably find the

people aren't receptive to it. Then again, this will create a further

problem regarding housing in this area.

I see the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) here. I understand in

his area there is a heavy demand there for serviced lots as well — and

in Penticton and Nanaimo, giving examples of where the problems really

are acute in the Province of British Columbia.

I have another observation I'd like to make for this new Minister

which I feel fairly strongly about. Is h