1973 Legislative Session: 3rd 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)

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 12, 1973

Morning Sitting

[ Page 591 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Petroleum Corporation Act (Bill 70). Hon. Mr. Macdonald.

Introduction and first reading — 591

Point of order Question of withdrawal of Bill 9.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 591

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 591

Mr. Speaker — 591

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 592

Mr. Speaker — 593

Routine proceedings

An Act for the Restriction of the Use of Spring Traps (Bill

72). Mr. Gardom.

Introduction and first reading — 593

Consumer Credit Disclosure Protection Act (Bill 73). Mr.

Curtis.

Introduction and first reading — 593

Administrative Tribunals Appeals Act (Bill 74). Mr.

Wallace.

Introduction and first reading — 593

Department of Housing Act (Bill 49). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 594

Mr. Bennett — 597

Mrs. Webster — 598

Mr. Gardom — 600

Ms. Brown — 603

Mr. Wallace — 605

Mr. Rolston — 607

Mr. Gorst — 609

Mr. Williams — 611

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 12, 1973

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

PETROLEUM CORPORATION ACT

Hon. Mr. Macdonald presents a message from His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Petroleum Corporation

Act .

Bill 70 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.

Motion approved.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, on a point of

order. Yesterday in our debates, towards the end of the day, we

approved a motion of the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr.

Stupich), where he asked to withdraw Bill 9 which was standing

on the order paper in his name. Leave was granted, Mr.

Speaker.

Yet, no doubt because of the fact that today is Friday and

there's not that much time between the end of the Thursday

sitting and the beginning of the Friday one, this still occurs

on the October 12 orders of the day, on page 28. This bill has

been withdrawn by this House by a formal vote of this House,

and I would recommend…

Interjections.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: …I would request that the Attorney

General read Hansard , and perhaps May , page 546. The facts are

fairly clear Mr. Speaker. In our Hansard draft, page 354, I am

quoting the Hon. Mr. Stupich: "Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to

withdraw Bill 9, standing on the order paper in my name." Leave

was granted.

Now, subsequently there was discussion on this, Mr. Speaker,

and you will no doubt recall I did ask a question of you as to

what we actually did do. But it was the end of the day and

perhaps this is the reason for the error that occurs in today's

order paper.

So, I raise this, Mr. Speaker, at the first opportunity so

that on page 28, under "committee", Bill 9 — which is still

standing there — can be withdrawn before the Monday

sitting.

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, in

asking for leave to withdraw notice, I did err in phrasing my

request. I'd like to compliment you in the way in which you

picked up this error so promptly and corrected me. I note that

orders of the day did pick up the correction that you made.

What I don't understand is why everybody else seems to

understand what is happening except the Hon. Second Member for

Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson).

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, it was quite obvious an

error did occur, and the Minister is quite correct in pointing

out that he did make an error, and you, Mr. Speaker, did point

that out to him at the time. But I'm telling you, however, Mr.

Speaker, and the Hon. Minister, no steps were taken to rectify

the error and we have a vote recorded in our Hansard to

withdraw Bill 9.

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out to the Hon. Members first that

I have had the benefit, through the courtesy of the Hon.

Member, of examining those three pages. I'm still of the

opinion that I, having picked up what appeared to be a manifest

error by the Minister, made it clear to the House that he was

in error in his choice of words and that the House then went

ahead to approve the withdrawal of a notice on the order

paper.

The reason I picked it up I think should be explained to the

House so you see that possibly we haven't withdrawn a bill,

although I'd like to look at the whole question, now that I

know.

Before we proceed, would the Hon. Member be seated for a

minute? Thank you. I'd like to point out that you could not

withdraw a bill, if you want to be technical about it, in the

fashion the Minister was trying to do. If be was trying to

withdraw a bill — and this was the reason I picked it up — he

would have to ask for leave to discharge the order of the

House. This had been committed to a committee and there was an

order of the House that this bill be committed to a committee.

So how could you just simply withdraw a bill? Therefore, I

picked it up.

He had not withdrawn a bill at all; he was doing something

else, The only thing I could think of that he was doing was

something about item 9 on the order paper.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, certainly lie

thought that the Minister had made an error. And all I can say

to the Member is: to err is human, to forgive is divine.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The point that I would like to make to

you, Mr. Speaker, however, is that the error was made; no steps

were taken by vote or anything else to correct this. We never

did vote on motion 9; we simply voted on the decision of the

Minister. I believe by unanimous consent we adopted the course

that we did to grant him leave to withdraw Bill 9.

MR. SPEAKER: As I said, you can't do that.

[ Page 592 ]

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: You can by unanimous consent, though.

MR. SPEAKER: No, there's no vote in this matter.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that leave was

granted unanimously at the time. Now, I understood that by

rules of the House, by unanimous consent you can vary your

original rules. Therefore I would think that the argument put

forward falls on the ground that unanimous consent was given

for that process. It's not a question of Bill 9 never coming

back; the Minister can re-introduce it.

Yesterday we had the Premier pointing out that laws should

be obeyed, and rules should be obeyed. A lengthy speech was

given to this effect, that if there is any decision or any

desire to change them, the place to do it is here in the

Legislature. It's not to do it by subsequent re-examination. We

have to obey the decisions that we have come to; we cannot

thereafter, on the basis of understandings, vary votes which

have been taken in this House, or vary decisions taken in this

House.

If we are to follow the principle so well expressed by the

Premier yesterday — and I'm sure everyone in the House agrees

with him — I think we should at least follow the orders and

rules and decisions of our own Legislature. If we don't do

that, I fail to see how we can expect the public to follow the

decisions we make with respect to laws which we pass for

everyone else.

The point comes right down, Mr. Speaker, to what we did

yesterday. Here in the Hansard it's perfectly clear that leave

was granted to withdraw Bill 9. It's there, and there's nothing

we can do about it subsequently, unless somehow or other we

change a vote or take another vote altering this.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, may I interrupt to point out to

you on page 354 the following words:

"MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, could

you clarify the motion that was made by the Minister of Agriculture

(Hon. Mr. Stupich) as to what he removed?

"MR. SPEAKER: What he did, as I finally discovered, is

that he asked leave to remove from the order paper a notice of

introduction of a bill, not a

bill that's on the order paper. As I gathered, Item 9 not Bill 9."

Then there were a number of interjections and I said: "I

hope and trust that that is what the Minister asked for. Is

that correct?"

And he said: "Yes, that's correct." There was at that stage no attempt by the

House to say that unanimous consent was not given for that purpose.

HON. MR. BARRETT: We cleared it up yesterday.

MR. SPEAKER: It says here:

"MR. D.A. ANDERSON," — this has been written in since — "I'm

sure that that's what he would like to do. But what did we actually do? Did

we withdraw Bill 9?"

Then the Minister said: "Shall I put it in writing?"

I think it was manifestly clear to the House at that stage

that all this disarray was the result of a misunderstanding of

one word, the word "bill."

I point out to the Hon. Member that May , at page 376 of the

18th edition, says, "If it is wished for any reason to withdraw

a bill from the consideration of the House, it is necessary

first to discharge the order for the current stage of the bill." The current stage of this bill was in committee and it

had been so ordered by the House. You have to be formal about

it and, if you're going to get technical, you would have to

stand up, if you were the Minister in charge, and ask leave of

the House to discharge the order relating to Bill 9. That was

not done, and that's why I picked it up and realized he must

not mean Bill 9 at all.

I would suggest that if the Member wishes to say that this

has not been properly done, if he wishes to maintain that point

and ask the House to deal with this matter….

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, the point I am making is

this: you have indicated there was confusion thereafter, and

quite rightly so, but I fail to see how a Minister can,

subsequent to a vote, inform the House on what we voted on.

When I gave leave at that time, I gave leave for Bill 9 to be

withdrawn. Every single person in this House who voted on that

or who indicated expression of approval on that also voted on

Bill 9. I just cannot understand how subsequently….

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No, no.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: You'd better read the Hansard , Mr.

Minister; you had better read the Hansard where you said — and

I use your own words: "I ask leave to withdraw Bill 9."

Subsequently, I fail to see how a Minister can redefine a

vote or a decision, previously taken, to his advantage in this

manner. The fact is, we have made a decision. It's obviously a

decision in error but, having made a decision in error, we in

this House, in my view, should either correct the error or

abide by the decision.

MR. SPEAKER: How do you suggest correcting the error, Hon.

Member?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The way I suggest correcting the error,

Mr. Speaker, is to take the wording as it is, take a literal

reading of it and follow that particular course of action. If

you wish to use a particular form, and ask leave to withdraw an

order as

[ Page 593 ]

opposed to…

MR. SPEAKER: "Discharge an order" is the correct

expression.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: …withdrawing an order, if you wish to

argue that point….

HON. MR. BARRETT: I ask leave to make the Member happy.

(Laughter.)

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The question is: are we or are we not

going to obey this particular decision that we have taken? If

we're not, there seems little point in us arguing in accordance

with rules in this Legislature if a Minister can subsequently

change a vote that we in this House have taken.

MR. SPEAKER: My position is this: in the circumstances, I

would have to regard what was attempted. If that was a

withdrawal of Bill 9, that was nullity, because you cannot

withdraw a bill in that fashion. You must discharge an order

and must say so, if you want to be technical about it.

If the House is going to become a technical place, then we

will be technical. But I would prefer if the House could

somehow forgive each other occasionally in our errors. In this

instance, it became clear to me, and it became clear, I

thought, to the Hon. Members, that the Minister was wrong in

what he was asking for and he realized he was wrong.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, if it was clear to the Member

yesterday subsequent to the act, why is he raising it now? If

it was clear last night by his own admission, why has he taken

up 23 minutes to say he's confused now?

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): It's costing us

$2,000. (Laughter.)

Interjections.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: When the Minister makes an error and we

subsequently recognize it, and I subsequently bring it to the

attention of the House, I ask only that it be rectified

properly in accordance with the rules of this House. We can

ignore it, we can change votes after, we can change wordings of

votes subsequent to the votes at the request of Ministers, but

I find that a distasteful way of conducting business.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Well then, in the circumstances, because the Hon. Member is insisting upon these rights, I

will take the matter under advisement, discuss the matter in

detail over the weekend and propose a method by which this can

be clarified to the Member's satisfaction.

MR. W.R. BENNETT (South Okanagan): I'd like to draw

recognition to a group of senior citizens from my home town of

Kelowna representing the Kelowna Retired Citizen's Activity

Centre and escorted by Mrs. Phyllis Trenwith, provincial

counsellor for the aged in Kelowna. I'd like this House to bid

them welcome.

Introduction of bills .

AN ACT FOR THE RESTRICTION

OF THE USE OF SPRING TRAPS

Mr. Gardom moves introduction and first reading of Bill 72

intituled

An Act for the Restriction of the Use of Spring

Traps .

Motion approved.

Bill 72 read a first time and ordered to be placed on the

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

House after today.

CONSUMER CREDIT DISCLOSURE

PROTECTION ACT

Mr. Curtis moves introduction and first reading of Bill 73

intituled Consumer Credit Disclosure Protection Act .

Motion approved.

Bill 73 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.

ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS

APPEALS ACT

Mr. Wallace moves introduction and first reading of Bill 74

intituled Administrative Tribunals Appeals Act .

Motion approved.

Bill 74 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 .

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I

[ Page 594 ]

move we proceed to public bills and orders.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 49, Mr.

Speaker.

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING ACT

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister Without Portfolio): It's with a

great deal of pleasure that I rise to open debate on the

Department of Housing Act . The purpose of the Act is quite

obviously to create a department. One might speculate on the

necessity of placing such a priority on housing. I think,

however, that the volume of time and space being devoted in the

media to the problem of housing speaks on its own.

If we look farther afield, we find that a province such as

Ontario, which has for years had a housing corporation, is now

contemplating a homes Ministry in what they consider to be a

near-crisis situation. This comes in spite of the fact that

recent statistics from Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation

point out that in British Columbia, in selected cities of

populations over 10,000, housing starts were up in July, 1973,

for instance, 13.5 per cent over July, 1972; that the seven

month total is about 6.4 per cent ahead of 1972; and that the

adjusted monthly average is about 5 per cent ahead of 1972.

In spite of what appears to be some statistical evidence of

action being taken, there are many areas in which there is a

very obvious crisis in the housing area. It's very interesting,

since I was named last May as the Minister Without Portfolio

responsible for housing, that there has been a fantastic volume

of mail, a fantastic number of requests come in for interviews

from all types of different groups.

There have been people in various fields of development:

people in the field of mortgages, landlords, mobile home

operators and mobile home tenants, senior citizens, public

housing tenants, and many, many more groups. I've attended

probably four or five seminars outside of the capital area.

I've travelled reasonably widely — not as much as I might have

hoped — and everywhere that I go there is a tremendous sense of

a housing crisis among the people who are aware, who are

involved and on this firing line.

I suppose the problem is not as visible to those of us who

are fortunate enough to be in the housing game, to own our own

house, to be well on the way to paying off our mortgage. There

might be some who would question this need, but I doubt that

there would be many Members present in this House who would

question the need for a department.

Bill 49 does create a department. It provides for the hiring of staff in keeping

with the proposed Public Services Act . In addition to the staff which will be

taken on under the Public Services Act , and the Deputy Minister — of which this

authorizes the employment — we will require the hiring of specialists. Even

today, under the Housing Incentive Fund Act , we are acquiring property. It is

necessary to engage specialists to do appraisals, take soil samples — do various

functions related to specific property acquisitions. When these acquisitions

might be in a place which is somewhat remote in the province, it is perhaps

necessary to engage local people in the field rather than attempt to provide

a staff which will cover the entire province.

[Mr. Gardom in the chair.]

One of the main provisions of the Act will be to allow us to

enter into agreements — of particular interest would be

Some of you may have received from the Hon. Ron Basford the

new National Housing Act programmes kit which outlines several

of the new and not-so-new programmes. Some of these programmes

were pioneered in the Province of British Columbia. I think

that SPOTA (Strathcona Property Owners and Tenants Association)

in Vancouver played a great role in what is called the

Neighbourhood Improvement Programme, and we would continue to

be a lighthouse province in the area of prodding the federal

government into new programmes in terms of housing.

We would hope to complement many of their programmes which

we feel are good in concept but perhaps don't go far enough in

terms of not providing for enough people or not pumping enough

money in, not bringing the programmes within the reach of

enough people. We would hope to cooperate with them in things

such as assisted home ownership programmes, or neighbourhood

improvement programmes, and other federal programmes.

We also would like to reach agreements with municipalities

and regional districts so that they can play a great role in

initiating the type of development which they feel is a

solution for their particular area. We're not looking for

externally imposed solutions. We will be willing to assist in

every manner which is possible with the municipalities.

We've sent out, to date, two circulars which were mentioned

yesterday. We've had a great response from the municipalities,

but I feel that we should have an even greater response. Some

municipalities, quite frankly, are a little cool to housing

development. They don't seem to place it high on their list of

priorities. Some feel that they've had to provide too much of

the growth in the area of housing. But we hope that by

face-to-face contact and negotiation that we can reach

agreements, and in

[ Page 595 ]

some cases formalized agreements, which will spell out

clearer terms of reference and responsibility between two or

three levels of government.

I've been quite impressed by the role which is being played

by cooperative housing in this province. When I first was

given my assignment I felt that cooperatives were a very

worthwhile concept, but perhaps required a little bit too much

initiative on behalf of the participants. I find, much to my

pleasure, that there is a great deal more initiative in people

towards providing housing and helping themselves under the

programme which is presently available under the federal

government — which will make loans at 8 per cent to those with

qualifying incomes, and even lower incomes under the assisted

home ownership programme — and in conjunction with the

provincial programmes of buying and leasing land at 4 per cent

which again lowers the cost of housing and the monthly payments

which are required. Of course, many of these people are able to

take advantage of the $1,000 home acquisition grant as these

are primarily new residences, and most of them are experiencing

their first form of home ownership.

This very weekend there will be a sod-turning ceremony for

the Pioneer Co-op in Victoria West. I hope that some of the

Members will be out there to see it, and I hope that it will be

kicked off in fine fashion. I know that with the backing of the

United Housing Foundation that it is bound to be a success.

There has been some mixed success with cooperative housing

and cooperatives since, I guess, they started in the '30s. But

we are very fortunate here in British Columbia, non-profit

societies have a good track record in this province and the

United Housing Foundation, I think, has everything going for

it. It has some of the finest people giving of their

professional services and talents without charge. Many others

are working at rather nominal wages and really avoiding getting

into any sort of wage structure, as much as they can.

The United Housing Foundation, as an aside, has also taken

upon itself the task of renovating three of the Gastown hotels

which were in a deplorable condition. I visited them before the

renovation, along with other persons such as Aldermen Mike

Harcourt from the City of Vancouver and representatives from

Central Mortgage and Housing.

I thought it was a little bit of a twist to the usual. I think it was rather

significant that the so-called dignitaries were there to see the thing before

— to see the state of burned-up mattresses and the filth which I won't describe

literally, but nothing that you could imagine would grasp this. It is in the

Hon. Minister to my left's riding. But the people who have been displaced from

this housing have been placed temporarily — this under a programme under the

Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) so there is no dislocation, but

the main kudos go to the United Housing Foundation.

We hope to cooperate with the United Housing Foundation. We

may anticipate formalizing some agreements with the United

Housing Foundation. We see them playing a very significant

role.

There is, within the Act, a vehicle to create Crown

corporations. Now in my view, the purpose of this

section is

not to create the British Columbia housing corporation. I would

envisage, if that event should occur, that it would be brought

in as a piece of legislation in its own right. But we do see

the need for creating Crown corporations in this area where,

after all, we are entering a field which has been traditionally

the preserve of private enterprise in this country — not in

other nations. It will be for specific projects necessary, I

would anticipate, to create a Crown corporation — perhaps to

wind up the affairs of the corporation upon completion of the

project.

The Act is mostly an enabling Act and it does facilitate the

transfer of various Acts: obviously the Housing Act — one would

anticipate that it would go to the Minister of housing; the

Elderly Citizen Renters Grant Act , which may or may not be best

suited in a Department of Housing; Elderly Citizens' Housing

Aid Act ; the Provincial Home Acquisition Act ; the Provincial

Home-owner Grant Act ; the H ousing Incentive Fund Act , and the

University Endowment Lands Administration Act .

This does not mean that each and every one of these Acts

will necessarily find its way into the department of housing.

But it is thought that, in line with modern practices in

legislation, we no longer designate Ministry by title but

designate that Minister shall be the Minister named by the

executive council — an order of the executive, council to the

Lieutenant-Governor.

One of the problems which we hope to overcome by having a

department of housing, one of the problems which is quite

obvious to one who looks into the housing crisis, is the cost

of land, particularly in the lower mainland and also to some

extent in the capital region. Today service lots are being

auctioned off by the City of North Vancouver to the highest

bidder….

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): District.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: The district, I am sorry, yes. The City

of North Vancouver has quite a different philosophy on housing.

I stand corrected.

In the District of North Vancouver they're up to $30,000,

when the cost of servicing these lands couldn't, even with

gold-plated services, exceed $9,000 I shouldn't expect. So

there's a tremendous inflation being given there, not only to

the price of those particular lots but also to the price of

every

[ Page 596 ]

existing lot, and not only in the District of North

Vancouver but on the North Shore and, to some extent, in all of

Greater Vancouver.

Now the District of North Vancouver, I suppose, has its

problems, and is looking after its particular interest in the

best way that it's equipped to do so. It perhaps sees as the

best course of action this type of inflationary action. But I

think that we have to look at the problem of housing in toto — if the Second Member for West Point Grey would permit me to

impose upon his preserve of Latin phrases.

MR. WILLIAMS: Vancouver–Point Grey.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom). We have to look

at this in toto so that the action which is perhaps best suited to one particular

area has to be looked at in terms of its harmful effect on the total needs,

I would say, not only in its immediate area but in the entire lower mainland.

There are many other actions which are taking place, some

being taken by municipalities, and other types of actions which

are having a similar inflationary effect on the cost of land.

There, of course, is a great amount of land being held by small

speculators as well as large speculators. There is no simple

answer to this.

Government is in the best position to know where the types

of development are going to take place. Government is in the

best position to acquire land prior to development taking

place, as I mentioned last year in debate. It is hoped that

there would be less objection to government developing land

because there is a tremendous antagonism towards development of

any type.

With provincial, federal and municipal governments

cooperating in the development of land, it will be not for

profit. I think this is a very important point. The

acceptability of development will be more defensible where

people know that excessive profits are not being made where the

benefits are going to the government — that is, to the

people.

Cost of borrowing is another very prohibitive factor in providing housing today.

Interest rates have gone up to a point where I've had letters from — in one

case, a single-parent school teacher making $9,600 a year who could not, in

the particular area where she was living, qualify for a CMHC loan with that

particular income. I've had a person with a larger family and making $12,000

a year complain of the same type of thing. I know the Premier has said it and

I say it, that it is ridiculous when people of this type of income cannot afford

to get into housing; when they cannot qualify for mortgages, then something

is wrong with this system.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

We would hope to bring in a programme of assistance where it

would be my hope that not only could people of this income be

qualified for some type of home ownership, but people of much,

much lower incomes as well. The assisted home-ownership

programme under the National Housing Act looks after part of

this problem but it doesn't go far enough if it doesn't provide

the number of programmes. The history has been that the

ceilings on these prices have always lagged behind realistic

prices in the housing market. So we would hope to enter into

this field using this Act and this department as a vehicle.

One of the most essential things in a housing programme is

preserving the existing housing stock. The National Housing Act

requires, under the Neighbourhood Improvement Programme, an

agreement between the federal and provincial governments. This

Act, again, is a vehicle for us to get ahead with this. It was

SPOTA in Vancouver that was instrumental as a pilot project in

creating this programme as a national programme. We intend to

remain in the forefront as a lighthouse province in the area of

housing. We hope to take this and other measures to preserve

the existing housing stocks and to better utilize the existing

housing stock.

I've mentioned the role which I hope that municipalities

will play, and I would like to stress again that we cannot, and

do not wish to, externally impose housing solutions for Fort

St. John or Prince George or Cranbrook, or Fernie or Sparwood

or Natal, or any other area — or in Vancouver. We will make

great efforts to cooperate with municipalities, but certainly

in the final analysis, I think, as humans, as humanitarians, we

must give this a very high priority.

We cannot just simply dismiss our responsibility by saying

that if we provide low-income housing, we are going to have a

flood of people into British Columbia. We heard that argument

about Mincome. That was an argument against Mincome. There's no

way that we can shut off the border of British Columbia.

There's no way we intend to.

I suppose that if we don't respond to this need, what we

might do is make it so that the people who were born in the

province and worked in this province and, through some

misfortune, are on low income, in spite of being in this

province all these years — we might make it so that these

people who have nowhere to go and are homeless and…I had a

phone call this morning and I was told that people are living

in cars in Prince Rupert because of lack of housing.

I'll tell you one thing: if we don't move to do something

about housing — not just low income

[ Page 597 ]

housing but housing for everyone because, as I've mentioned,

the crisis is extending up into the middle income group at the

present…. I don't know where it will end, but if we don't

move what will happen is that only those who can afford it will

be housed. We won't stop immigration, but the only immigration

we will have will be of people I suppose from other parts of

Canada, the United States and the rest of the world who can

afford to pay the price. I don't think there should be a price

of admission to the Province of British Columbia.

The private sector will have to play a major role, and it

has played a major role. The housing starts which I outlined

earlier are mostly due to that field, but I would hope to

facilitate some of the decision-making and to bring a better

understanding between the private sector and some of the

municipalities. We certainly will not be out with our own Crown

carpentry corporation, our own Crown plumbing corporation and

our own Crown electrical corporation. We see a role for the

private sector in many areas.

One of the problems today is that there has been a slowdown

in the ratifying of certain developments. This has come largely

as a result of some very poor development and as a result of

some rip-offs, but by no means are all members of the private

sector to be tarred by the same brush. I've learned a great

deal of valuable information from various members of that

sector who have been of great assistance to me. I look forward

to their cooperation; I know that they're as eager as I am to

solve the crisis. Admittedly, they want their profit, their

pound of flesh — that's what they're in business for.

I think that this Act and the personnel which it will enable

us to hire will go a long way toward bringing about better

understandings between all of the various segments of the

housing industry. There's no way that a person can discuss the

entire scope of the problem in 20 minutes or half an hour.

There's no way that a Minister who is given the responsibility

for housing can become an expert in four or five months or I

daresay in four or five years. Some of the people that I've met

in the business don't claim to be experts and they've been in

it for 10 and 20 years. There's always something to learn,

always something new on the horizon. There are new methods of

building. Perhaps on a large-scale government project it will

be possible to take advantage of these.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Quit looking at the press

gallery.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Never mind the press gallery.

MR. CHABOT: You're always looking up at the press

gallery.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: The Hon. Member, who has never looked up

at the press gallery, is cautioning me. (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: Where is the press gallery?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be now

read a second time.

MR. W.R. BENNETT (South Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to

extend our congratulations to the Minister on the assumption of

this proposed new department. We all wish him well in the way

he will carry out his duties in solving this crucial problem in

British Columbia, as it is in all of Canada and North America.

I'm glad he made note of the fact that British Columbia had

always been a leader in innovation in new types of housing in

all categories for the rest of Canada, and we hope that he will

continue this precedent.

We see this is a coordinating bill, and he suggested himself

that it will coordinate the Housing Act , the Elderly Citizens'

Housing Aid Act , et cetera, until he gets to the University

Endowment Lands Administration Act . That gives us some concern

that this would be administered in a housing Act, because we

suggest that the original intent of the university endowment

lands was not to provide housing or commercial property but to

provide the highest and best use and to provide moneys for the

universities of British Columbia.

We would suggest that we're concerned about

section 7(3)

where it says, "All income received by way of interest, rentals

or sales of housing, or otherwise, shall be credited to the

fund," and this fund is the fund that was set up in

section 7. We would suggest that the moneys directly raised

relating to the university endowment lands be separated from

these funds, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister, and that these funds

be put to the furtherment of the development of higher

education in this province, as those 1,700 acres were

originally set up for.

AN HON. MEMBER: They weren't getting the money.

MR. BENNETT: That's a nice idea but, frankly, on one hand

you talk about the rape of the land earlier and when the land

is held for its ultimate and best use later you say it wasn't

getting money. But the land is there, it has appreciated, and

the fact that it hasn't been used means that the universities

will get more money and better money in the future from this

land rather than if it had been developed in the past in a

lower economy market when we were dealing with a different

dollar. I don't want to give an economics lesson to the Hon.

Member because he might give me a lesson in theology.

(Laughter.)

[ Page 598 ]

We're also concerned that in this Act, as in other Acts,

when you take the

definitions sections and combine them with

the powers sections, through the powers given to the Minister — and this seems to be taking place in all Acts and it further

will be in Bill 64 — in reality this could become an

order-in-council government and the Legislature won't provide

its role in being able to discuss new programmes and new

legislation.

I hope the Minister will bring any specific proposals that

he has before the House. I was pleased to note that where

they're going to set up new corporations he specifically

suggested that this will be by legislation, and I commend him

for alleviating our fears in those regards.

Now, we're all concerned about housing and we're concerned

about costs. I had hoped today that the Minister in his speech

on this new department would give us specific solutions about

specific areas of housing. Unfortunately, we've dealt in the

usual generalities of identifying the problems. We all know the

problems. We know the problems of the high cost of servicing

land; we know the high cost of house construction; we realize

that there's difficulty with many families meeting the

eligibility to get mortgage money. I had hoped that the

Minister would have provided us with definite solutions.

One which we've made in this House where this government can

aid in lowering the price of housing is to remove the 5 per

cent sales tax from the cost of building materials as it

relates to housing in this province. We would appreciate it if

the Minister, in consultation with the Minister of Finance

(Hon. Mr. Barrett), would take that under advisement.

I was also happy to see that the Minister suggested that

there was a place for the private sector in the solving of

housing in this province. It's refreshing every now and then to

find out that there are people in that government who do

recognize that the private sector does have a contribution to

make in this province. I was worried perhaps that he was going

to develop his own contracting firm, and I've dug out these

statistics to show how governments efficiently build in Canada.

It covers four categories. The mix of material and labour and

the efficient use of labour in construction is one way of

lowering the cost. All contractors in Canada, and these are

years 1969, '70 and '71: their mix of labour, their material

cost was 40 per cent higher than the labour. With utilities,

the material cost was 40 per cent higher than the labour mix.

Others: material mix was 40 per cent higher than the labour

cost. Governments: the labour cost was 30 per cent higher than

the material cost.

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

What are you quoting?

MR. BENNETT: This is quoted from material turned out by the

federal government.

Interjection.

MR. BENNETT: Yes, I'll provide that to the proposed housing

Minister (Hon. Mr. Nicolson), and anything to do with

industrial development I'll give to the Industrial Development

Minister.

I would suggest that I provide these only as a guide so that

if you had, in fact, ideas of setting up your own building

corporations perhaps you would look at governments' history of

construction in the efficient use of labour and perhaps be

persuaded to use the private sector. I'm glad to see that you

have suggested that you will.

Mr. Speaker, with these exceptions of the university

endowment lands and the extreme powers, we favour the

establishment of the department of housing. We congratulate the

Minister and we shall support this bill.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

MRS. D. WEBSTER (Vancouver South): I am very pleased to be able to take

part in this debate today concerning the setting up of the Ministry of housing.

I am most pleased that the Member for Nelson-Creston (Hon.

Mr. Nicolson) has been selected as the Minister in charge of

that department.

I think he will use a great deal of imagination in his work

from what he has done so far in relation to his interviews

concerning housing in various parts of the province. He said

earlier, when he was appointed as Minister in charge of

housing, that he had never backed away from a challenge. I

believe that to be true and I wish him well.

I think it is most important at this time that we have a

department of housing. There certainly is a crisis. It is just

dreadful to think that in one of the wealthiest countries in

the world, and one of the richest provinces within that

country, we still find it difficult to provide proper shelter

for all our citizens at a cost where it is approachable to the

various citizens.

It seems shameful, as the Minister has mentioned, that in

some cases people are living in cars because they cannot afford

to buy a home. Let me say others are living in shacks that are

practically falling apart. They are living in housing that

actually should have been condemned years and years ago but

which still seems to be acceptable for people.

Why this is necessary, I don't know. We are in a country

that has all the minerals, natural resources and materials. We

have one of the largest lumber industries in the world right

here in British Columbia; yet we are not able to provide homes

for citizens. I think it is a completely ironical and really

sad

[ Page

599 ]

situation.

Another problem that has been mentioned by the Minister and

by the Member for South Okanagan (Mr. Bennett), is the high

cost of money. In 1966 we sold our home and moved into an

apartment. At that time the mortgage interest rate was 7.5 per

cent. Today, on any money that you place into credit unions or

place into the various trust companies or banks, you can get up

to 9 1/8 per cent interest, which means that if that is the

investment interest, then the lending interest is at least 2

per cent higher. That means that most lending interest rates

for mortgages must run about 10, 11, 12 per cent or even

higher. How can young people afford to buy money to buy a home

at that rate of interest?

However, I would like to turn to one or two of the problems

concerning my own constituency of Vancouver South. From the

surface appearance, there isn't very much of a housing problem.

But if you look a little bit deeper, we do have problems that I

consider are very serious.

First of all, on May 15, 1973, a joint CMHC and Greater

Vancouver Regional District report said that senior citizen

housing indicates an immediate need in excess of 5,000 units.

That is in the Greater Vancouver Regional District. Almost the

whole eastern side of the district of Vancouver South is

allocated to senior citizen housing by private organizations,

such as the church groups — the United Church and the Baptist

Church. Then there are the ethnic groups, such as the

Anglicans, the Germans, the Finnish, the Icelandic, the

Scottish….

Interjection.

MRS. WEBSTER: That's right, the Scottish.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): That's wrong.

MRS. WEBSTER: Besides that, there is a great deal of public

housing. Rows and rows of units of public housing for senior

citizens.

This is all very well, but I think it segregates the old

people in one area of the community too much.

One reason for this is that in the past all this housing has

been producer-oriented. They find a piece of land, hey develop

it and they make a decision that this is going to be for a

particular group and while this has been a very generous and

outgoing type of thinking, at the same time sometimes it is

psychologically bad.

I believe that social needs, too, must be tied in with

housing. For instance, there have to be neighbourhood amenities

near some of these senior citizen homes. There is no area for

shopping, for instance. There is no church. Maybe they have

their church services within their own senior citizens' homes, but that isn't necessarily the case each time. The

transportation, in some cases, is rather inadequate. A greater

number of them have been dependent upon buses provided through

LIP grants and other grants to be able to get away from their

housing units for an afternoon or to get a little bit of

recreation.

Another thing that I think is really needed — particularly

for old people and once more in relation to segregation — is

the opportunity to see people of other ages. They don't want to

feel that the only people they see are old people. They have

belonged to other generations themselves and there should be

more of an age mix in housing units. They have to remain part

of the community, that is; part of a larger continuum of

people.

We must remember too, Mr. Speaker, that each one of us,

before long, will become a senior citizen. Let us think of what

we will feel like if we are segregated as an older group

ourselves rather than being able to be part of the larger

community.

I believe that senior citizens, like all other groups,

should be given the choice of where they want to live. They

should be able to stay in the community in which they were

living before and in the type of housing in which they would

like to live. There is no reason why public senior citizen

housing could not be built in other sections of the community

and why such large units should have to be built.

I must say that one of the things that has developed in

relation to cooperative housing and low-rental housing is that

there is more of a mix, where senior citizens can be living in

the same community as young people with families or people of

the middle-age group so that they don't feel that they are

communicating only with other people in their own age

group.

I believe another thing that must be looked into — and I am

sure that the Minister will try to keep an imaginative

approach; at least I hope he will keep an imaginative approach

to the type of housing that will be built and also to

renovation — is that senior citizens who now have their own

homes may have some type of support when they require it so

that they can stay in their homes.

During the summer I have been travelling with the Committee

on Social Welfare and Education and one thing that was

mentioned to us over and over again was that most older people

are much happier in their own home. But what they need is

coordinated services — it is something that was spelled out in

the presentation of our final committee report — so that if

they are not capable of doing everything for themselves, at

least maybe once or twice a week a homemaker or a Public Health

nurse or another public service coordinator could drop in and

see what their needs are so that they can be maintained within

their own establishment, rather than having to move into

[ Page 600 ]

senior citizen housing.

Now I would like to turn to another point, Mr. Speaker. In

the Vancouver South area I realize that there is very little

land left for the development of housing. But a very

interesting development has taken place during the last six or

seven years — maybe not that long ago; maybe five years is a

better estimate.

In the Vancouver South area the whole tract of land from

Kerr Road to Boundary Road and all the way from about 48th

Avenue to the North Arm of the Fraser River, an area of land

that had been previously undeveloped, has been turned over for

a development, which is now known as Champlain Heights.

The developers, along with the Killarney-Fraser View Area

council, produced plans by which there would be a housing mix

so that there is a great deal of housing for low-income groups,

and not all in one place. There are going to be several

sections or subdivisions for low-income groups. Then there are

two subdivisions, one of them that is completed now, De Cosmos

Village, for cooperative housing.

Besides that there is quite a large subdivision set aside

for middle-income and higher-income people. Housing for the

middle incomes runs to about $25,000 to $30,000, and for higher

incomes it's running from about $45,000 to $50,000. These are

beautiful homes and it is a lovely area.

The whole area has been developed in such a way that

consideration was given not only to shelter, but also to the

entire community. That is: the development of two churches in

the area; a community school which opened just this fall; I

believe there is a high school that is being built or

projected; they have a lovely shopping centre in the are a

which is fairly close in to the entire development, practically

in the middle of it. Besides that they have just recently got

transportation, so that they have a bus system around the

housing development that leads into and connects with other bus

systems in the Vancouver and Burnaby areas.

This is the sort of thing we want. Besides that, they have a

day-care centre for children which is one of the finest in the

entire city. So there is lots of recreational space and there

are good facilities for all the people regardless of their

standard of living or of the type of development in which they

would like to be in.

In De Cosmos Village there are about 110 units and the members of this cooperative

group are eligible for the $1,000 home-acquisition grant. Besides that there

are 10 families from social assistance rolls living within this cooperative.

No one in the cooperative knows who the 10 families are because they have been

selected and carefully placed. So people from social assistance rolls also have

the opportunity of being brought up in an ordinary community in which they don't

see only other people who are also on social assistance rolls. It does give

them an opportunity to feel a little bit less depressed, and gives them more

of an incentive towards a better life for themselves.

The cooperative aspect is very interesting because it is

not necessarily just home ownership. They feel the pride of

home ownership which is not home ownership in the strictest

sense. If anyone living in a housing co-op wishes to leave, he

can do so, and he has his initial equity returned. But he

doesn't get any other money returned, nor can he make a profit

on his equity.

So the cost of the housing for the next person is the same

as it was for the person who left. In fact, it is so successful

that they say that of 19 different types of multi-family

projects surveyed in Vancouver in March this year, the

cooperative was judged to be the most successful.

There are many advantages to living in a co-op. If they are

imaginatively planned in a new area as they have been in the De

Cosmos Village, when the buildings go up trees and greenery are

left in between; so the landscaping is a secondary problem.

With the planning expertise of regional citizens that have

planned neighbourhood facilities and transportation

requirements I think a great deal can be done in producing a

satisfactory type of housing for people. I hope that not only

this but other methods are found as innovations for producing

homes so that everyone in British Columbia will have proper

shelter.

Mr. Speaker, I realize that this is a very heavy burden for

any Minister who takes on a portfolio such as housing because

it is one of the greatest needs there is in this province

today. At least we will have a start now, and some of our hopes

in better homes for British Columbians will be on the books for

the future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister said in his

remarks, this is mostly an enabling Act and it is clearly

another instance of this government's trend towards legislation

by regulation and another plank in its platform of the

abandonment and emasculation of legislative competence and, I

would say, the historic concept of legislative

accountability.

It was interesting to hear the remarks of the Member for

South Okanagan (Mr. Bennett) dealing with the university

endowment lands. They appeared to be a rather dramatic

departure from heretofore Social Credit policy, which seemed to

be to originally I disregard the concept of the university endowment lands.

Repentance at any stage should be welcome, however late it may

be.

I do feel though, Mr. Speaker, that the lands should be put

to their highest and best use with a view to a long-range

outlook. They should be preserved as much as possible for

parkland purposes

[ Page 601 ]

and also for the purposes of a scientific research city,

which the first Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer)

has enunciated loudly and exceptionally well within the halls

of this Legislature over the past 10 years.

It would, without any question, provide an impetus and an

incentive for the development of secondary industry in the

province of B.C. so that we could at long last have as the

label of British Columbia, "Made in B.C.," as opposed to

dug, cut, taken out of the water and shipped out of B.C.

That, I think, would be a far better use of the university

endowment land than putting it into housing as is contemplated

within the provisions of this statute. For the City of

Vancouver, which is the third largest city in Canada, and is

showing every indication of at least doubling in population

within the next 25 years, steps should be taken to provide that

degree of greenbelt sanity.

We continue to feel, as was espoused by our former Member

for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Clark), that there should be a

moratorium on land taxes for pensioners and on a loan basis. I

would hope that this would be an aspect which the Hon. Minister

would take within the umbrella of his portfolio and give full

consideration to it so as to enable our pensioners to stay in

their own surroundings and in their own homes, and to better

enjoy their twilight years.

The tax moratorium would be an encumbrance upon their

property which would be payable upon its disposition, or upon

the death of the householder. I'm suggesting a loan, not a

gift. This facilitation would be a facilitation of the

kindliest sort.

I continue to feel that apartment dwellers should be given a

better break than they have in the past. It is true that

provision is made for those over a certain age but I think it

should extend further than that.

I would like to mention a couple of words about incentives,

which is really the way our country has been built. I think,

most of all, we need higher incentives in the private sector

for home finance. I'm talking of help for the little fellow who

needs a house.

The average B.C. monthly wage — I think this is a rather

astonishing figure and I hope it is correct; but it is from the

Minister of Labour's (Hon. Mr. King'

s) monthly or weekly

booklet so I presume that it is correct — it appears to be $712 gross. For an individual who is earning something like

that, a home today — I suppose unfortunately I am going to use the word moderate,

although it is a startling amount of money — a home would moderately cost $35,000.

Of that monthly sum of $712, this individual I am speaking of would have to

spend about $325 as a minimum for his two mortgages, and this would be long

before he takes into account any deductions for income tax, pension, insurance,

property taxes, and what he has to have to feed himself and clothe himself and

his family. In those figures, about all the average homeowner would have left,

after paying for his two mortgages and the necessities of life, would be just

about enough left to starve himself.

This is even more tragic and realistic when one takes into

account that a $35,000 house is miles beyond the reach of

thousands of people in the Province of B.C. who couldn't afford

to own a home of that value or, indeed, even half that value,

which the Member down the way agrees with. You are going to ask

for a suggestion and I am going to make a suggestion.

Now there is no question of a doubt that every forecast for

the housing industry is on the up-swing. There are going to be

more houses, make no mistake of that. And it doesn't appear at

all that interest rates are going to be dropping; I think high

interest rates are a prevailing situation of the times. There

is no suggestion that we are going to have a decrease in the

price of building materials. Wages are going up, the cost of

production is increasing, we're finding inflation in just about

all sectors and that is exceptionally bad.

I think the argument that the federal government of this

country, or of any country for that matter, is the only villain

is absolute nonsense, for this is a western world situation.

Notwithstanding that, I don't think that either of our

respective governments, the provincial government or the

federal government, have got people properly involved in

participating in any way to bring about some cures

themselves.

We've got to find a source of money and we need to establish

an interest rate which would attract the private lenders and be

beneficial to the borrowers. That's a pretty difficult

quest.

Now, I see that the increase in the volume of bank savings

deposits has been spectacular. It reached an unprecedented $18.6 billion dollars by April of last year — and I would

commend the Hon. Minister to the fact book of the Canadian

Bankers' Association where he will find most of these figures.

These bank deposits have more than doubled since 1963.

Now this bulletin reports that in 1972 there were 3.6

million personal savings accounts in the range of $1,000 to

$10,000 alone; 3,6 million savings accounts in Canada in the

range of $1,000 to $10,000 alone. I suppose you could say, in

effect, the banks are laughing all the way to the bank. But

notwithstanding the fact that the banks today are paying higher

interest premiums on savings deposits, they are certainly

getting richer by the day, and still we find a very abysmal

housing shortage.

So, my suggestion is this: let's have a little bit of

innovation. Let's make it more attractive for the saver to yank

some of this relatively dead money out of the bank and put it

into a good first or second mortgage. But bank depositors are

never ever going to do this.

[ Page 602 ]

They are just not going to do it unless it is made

attractive to them.

It's true that they could lose some of the liquidity

features of having funds in bank deposits, but a people's

mortgage could be for a relatively short term, say five years,

and if cash was needed, a good mortgage receivable would always

be good security, Mr. Speaker, for the lender to borrow on

himself or for banks or other financial institutions. And for

those who have surplus of money — the ones that we want to get

to — their liquidity would, of course, be relatively

unaffected.

My suggestion is this: permit any individual — and I am not

talking about corporate structures — but permit any individual

who chose to loan funds for residential mortgages up to a

defined amount of, say, not more than the maximum NHA and with

no minimum, permit that individual, providing he kept to a set

and a pegged interest rate, to receive that interest income

without it attracting any national income tax.

Now, let me give you an example, and I'll use a fairly high

figure for the simple purposes of arithmetic, if nothing else.

Presupposing that your lender has a taxable income of $25,000 a

year, every nickel he earns over that, he pays 50 per cent tax

on. So, if he chooses to loan on the security of a mortgage

today to an individual, say $10,000 at 12 per cent, there is an

interest income to this individual, this lender, of $1,200 a

year.

Now out of that he pays half of it, $600, to Ottawa, part of

which is returned of course to the provincial coffers of

British Columbia, and he is left with $600 net in his pocket.

But the borrower has to pay $1,200 as the cost of that loan,

plus repayments of principal, and this is the obvious load that

borrowers have on their backs in the situation which we all

know about.

So the lender, rather than perhaps fiddle around with a

mortgage, what does he do on the whole? He leaves it in the

bank where it brings him less interest — what is the current

bank deposit interest, 6 ¾ per cent approximately? So he would

be getting a gross of say $675, and of course would have then

to pay half of that in tax. So he would end up with — my

arithmetic being sound — around $337.50 net. You see? So they

are both really stuck. The lender is stuck and the borrower is

stuck and we are not bringing them together at all. They are

going farther apart as opposed to being brought together.

The only way we are going to find a solution for inexpensive money, Mr. Minister,

through you, Mr. Speaker, is this critical housing situation — which is not

going to diminish; I mean, you may have the best of intentions and every one

here may have the best of intentions but it is going to be a continuing problem

— the only way we are going to be able to reduce it at all is, one way or another,

to get the borrower and the lender closer together so that they can combine

for their mutual gain. If they can do that, you will find that they will be

interested in doing it, but there's got to be a break for each.

Now this is the suggestion for the incentive: let this

fellow advance a $10,000 mortgage loan to a householder and peg

his interest at a moderate rate — say 7 per cent. Then the house

owner, at the end of the year in my illustration, would have

paid only $700 interest as opposed to $1,200; he would have

had another $500 in his pocket to take care of his family. And

the lender — permit him to receive that pegged mortgage

interest income-tax-free. And I am referring only to

residential homes, I am referring to defined amounts of loans

and I am referring to individuals and not to the corporate

structure, as I've mentioned.

Then you would find that you have society participating in

the situation and I think would have some better cures for the

housing problem than we have had to date. Because I do not feel

that just the injection of government funds is going to produce

too very much.

I think, also, Mr. Speaker, that there should be an

incentive for people to repair and beautify and remodel their

homes rather than just another hammer on the head from the tax

collector. This would require a bit of work to establish an

equitable formula, but the Minister is leaving himself carte

blanche insofar as formulae are concerned, both as to income

and outgo within his statutes, so perhaps this would not cause

him too much difficulty. He will have a great deal of time to

work on it and come up with something that would be productive

and useful.

If you reached the conclusion that he could, say, repair his

home to the extent of one-tenth of its value and entitle him

for those repairs during that year to a reduction in his gross

taxes of, say, a half of the amount of the repairs — make an

incentive, just make a fair kind of an incentive — then you

find that he's helping not only himself but the community at

large, maybe offering additional employment, maintaining and

improving standards, enriching tax coffers for the ensuing

years, and, at no cost to the community, improving the

community and making the areas in which we all live happier

places to live. That's, after all, the very objective purpose

of housing.

I would say the 11 per cent sales tax on residential

building material, as well as the 5 per cent, should be turfed

out as soon as we can possibly do that.

I do feel, Mr. Speaker, very strongly in saying that I've

not yet seen any government in Canada or any federal government

in Canada, since I first became interested in politics,

effectively come to grips with the housing situation. It's

always stop-gap. We find Ministers and Ministries through a

succession of various governments attempting to do the very

best. They come in with a plan and then it works for a

[ Page 603 ]

little while; it dissipates and then, just like the tide

coming in on King Canute who is powerless to help stop it, the

problem rolls back continuously.

I would say that until such time as we can find a means of

better bringing the private sector into the field of

residential lending, the more difficult it's going to be to

have any kind of a pragmatic and effective solution.

I have more to say on the bill. There was another point I

intended to raise, but it is 11:40 and I know other Members

would like to speak.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): 1, too, would like to rise

in support of this bill and speak primarily as it affects my

constituency. As you know, I represent an urban riding and, if

we were asked to find the single most crucial thing that's

happening in our riding at this point, it would have to be the

absence of housing — not even the absence of adequate housing,

but the absence of any kind of housing at all.

Even during the period of one short year that I've been in

office, I have seen the riding change. It actually is a riding

that is in very rapid transition which sees the disappearance

of the single-family home and replacement by high-cost rental

and condominium accommodations. What's happening in Burrard,

Mr. Speaker, is that poor people are being forced out of the

riding. Although it is in the centre of the city which has all

its services, excellent transportation, hospitals, schools,

everything within walking distance, only people who can afford

to live there and enjoy these services are rich people or

people who are almost rich.

To me, the creation of this department offers an opportunity

for some much-needed planning in this field, particularly in

this area. The demand for housing, not only in the lower

mainland but everywhere in this province, is not only crucial

but seems to be on the increase and can be expected to increase

over the next decade.

What's happening all over the world now is that the baby

boom of the late 1940s and 1950s is finally hitting the market.

All those babies born at that time are now young adults

starting families of their own and needing housing. A Greater

Vancouver Regional District report which was issued recently

showed that there's going to be a 3 per cent increase in

population; that is 30,000 people in the Greater Vancouver area

alone.

Coupled with this, of course, are sky-rocketing costs of land and housing throughout

the entire province. Land costs are increasing and have been increasing steadily.

The Greater Vancouver Real Estate Board gives us an example of a lot which in

1967 cost $5,500, today in 1973 costs over $17,500. Add to this the increased

taxes and services for water lines, sewers, et cetera, and we see why it is

no longer possible for most people to own housing.

What I'm hoping from this department is that we will have

some dynamic and flexible overall planning for the entire

province, not just for the urban areas but for the outlying

areas as well. We hope it will have cooperation with the

municipalities to develop more innovative and imaginative

zoning and use of the land that is available to them. We think,

for example, of Habitat that was built for Expo '67. It is very

dubious, Mr. Speaker, that that kind of building even today

would be permitted in the Vancouver area, but that was accepted

as an experiment. I'm saying that what we need are more

experiments of this nature, experiments not only in the kinds

of houses that are built but also in the ways in which they are

built.

I'm a great admirer of the ways things were done in the past

and I think it's wonderful to have artisans who can build from

scratch with their own hands and make beautiful buildings. But

the reality of the situation is that we can no longer afford

that kind of building and that we have to start looking at

newer and less expensive ways of putting shelter together. This

is certainly one of the things that I'm hoping the new Minister

will look at, I hope he will also try to encourage the federal government

to do away with its 11 per cent excise tax on building

materials because that is a regressive tax.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Okay. I have to think about the provincial one.

I'm better at giving advice to the federal government,

actually.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member press

on?

MS. BROWN: I will, thanks, Mr. Speaker.

One of the outcomes of these increased costs, including the

11 per cent federal tax, Mr. Speaker, is that the trend has

been to apartments, away from rentals to conversions into

condominium units, and a cutback on building of apartments.

This is creating, as I said before, a real problem for

low-income residents who live in Vancouver-Burrard and who are

finding that they have to move out.

I'd like to quote a couple of examples if I can. There's a

79-year-old man in my constituency who was told recently that

his rental accommodation was going to be destroyed by the end

of November and that he had to find another place to live. He

has lived in this area all of his life.

There's also a 74-year-old lady who has been paying S150 a

month rent. This woman has a

[ Page 604 ]

guarantee of $200 a month and out of this, Mr. Speaker, she

has been paying $150 a month rent, which leaves her, as the

Hon. Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) just pointed

out, nothing left but complete and abject poverty.

What both of these people did was to apply to the B.C.

Housing Management Commission and asked to be put on their

waiting list. They were told that the waiting list is presently

two to three years long. There's a waiting list of 1,580

applicants for single accommodation in Vancouver alone, and in

the entire greater Vancouver area there are only 1,257 public

housing units for single people, So what we have here is that

even if we doubled this in the next year, we still wouldn't be

able to keep track of the people on the waiting list. There are

people joining the waiting list every day.

I would like to suggest to the Minister that we take a look

at what some other governments have been doing in this area.

Other governments have taken initiative in building housing. In

Sweden, for example, 30 per cent of the housing units were

built on public initiative; in England and Wales, 25 per cent;

in Canada, we have less than 1 per cent of the total housing

stock built this way. Since 1964 there have been only 76,000

units built all across Canada.

What I'm hoping, Mr. Speaker, and what I'm suggesting to the

Minister, is that this department become a vehicle for the

government becoming more involved in the business of providing

public housing. Here I would like to disagree very strongly

with the second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom). I

have a very great distaste for the idea of 12 per cent

mortgages and 14 per cent mortgages and this kind of thing. I

think there's something basically immoral about someone who

lends you $1 and expects to get $1.14 in exchange for it, and I

certainly would not support the idea of….

MR. WILLIAMS: He said 7 per cent.

MS. BROWN: Oh, in any event, I still think that the

government should be made more responsible and should become

more involved in the whole area of public housing, with one

very basic kind of commitment: to lease rather than to

sell.

I think that we have to get away from the idea of ownership — that everyone has to own their own little plot of land or own

their own house. We have to start looking at the business of

utilizing housing and using space rather than owning it.

At a recent area council meeting, Mr. Speaker, a resolution

was passed urging that the government plan for and try to

achieve a stable population within this area within 20 years,

and that it go into the business of trying to supply at least

7,500 units which should be publicly owned and that these units

should be for housing, for leasing, rather than for

ownership.

I would certainly like to endorse that resolution at this

point and ask the Minister to seriously consider it — the area

council resolution.

I think the major responsibility, really, and one of the

major areas of responsibility with this new department of

housing, would have to do with cooperating with the

municipalities. Any planning has to be done working together

with them, and it must take into account other services such as

transportation, health needs and other needs in the planning

and designing. These things have to be done together. There has

to be a lot more input from the residents themselves,

especially taking into account the neighbourhood concept.

When do we decide and who decides, Mr. Speaker, that an

urban area is large enough and that it should not become any

larger? This again is something that has to be decided on in

consultation with the municipalities and with the people living

in the area. I think we have to start thinking in terms of

saturation points. We have to start thinking in terms of stable

population. We have to start looking at the development of

satellite cities and satellite areas. None of this should be

handed down as a directive from above, but should be arrived at

through massive consultations with all levels of government and

with all people.

Very briefly, Mr. Speaker, back again to the crisis which

involves the tenants presently living in Vancouver-Burrard.

There is a vacancy rate in my constituency at this point of

0.6, which means that one in every 175 apartments is vacant. I

put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that we will never be able to deal

with the landlord and tenant situation, we will never be able

to deal with the whole business of rental accommodation, until

we deal with the matter of providing more housing. Any

amendment to the landlord-and-tenant legislation that is done

is really only stopgap and band-aid until we get at the whole

business of doing something very dramatic about the shortage of

units presently in existence.

So we have a dilemma. We have a dilemma that involves

meeting the physical need for housing while taking into account

the social needs that are involved with housing. Here again I

would like to talk about what the GVRD refers to as livability.

I hope that the Minister will avail himself of the number of

studies that have been done on the impact of crowding on people

and its deleterious effect on residents — the impact of

high-rises and the adverse effect that this has.

As an eminent psychiatrist once said, "The higher you go,

the madder you get." This is becoming increasingly obvious, Mr.

Speaker, and I certainly hope that the Minister will avail

himself of these kinds of information when he's trying to

design and create new housing. I would like to urge very

strongly that, certainly, incentives should be used to

[ Page 605 ]

encourage people to restore and revitalize the housing that

is there now. I think we should slow down the mad rush to

concrete-and-glass boxes that are going up all around our

cities.

We should try to hold on to some of the older houses that

are there, built as they were very well — really, among some of

the best that exist. They're a part of our history. They're a

part of our past and I don't think that we should try to

eliminate them.

I think that large loans with very low interest should be

made available to people who want to purchase older homes,

larger loans. I realize that there is now some money

available; I'm agreeing with you, Mr. Member. I certainly did

agree with that part of your speech. They also should be made

to people who want to redesign these homes and probably turn

them into multiple dwellings.

Here again, cooperation with the municipality about dealing

with their very rigid and sometimes very archaic zoning

standards would be very useful. But here again I would like to

suggest a lot of cooperation, not the government going ahead

and handing down directives. We should take into account in the

social needs the special needs of our senior citizens and the

special needs of young families with children.

One of the things we have in Burrard is this phenomenon of

all these apartment buildings going up and all of them refusing

to take families with children. We have the phenomenon of

two-bedroom and three-bedroom apartments going up in a riding

which has excellent schools, marvellous transportation, the

largest hospital in the province right there in the centre of

the riding…and these very large apartment blocks going up,

three-bedroom, two-bedroom, and no children allowed. I think

that this is something that the Attorney General (Hon. Mr.

Macdonald) should look into.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Thanks. Because it really is destroying my riding

and it's breaking my heart.

I'm very pleased about the coordinating of all the different

funds that have to do with housing that are coming under this

department because, in point of fact, what's been happening in

the past is that neither one was responsible to the other and

the left hand didn't know what the right hand was doing, and

they really didn't care in any event.

We have a phenomenon that has happened recently where a senior citizen housing

unit designed for a one-family area, 13 storeys high, was turned down by the

design panel who said that 13 storeys of 8-by-10 boxes was not a good place

for senior citizens to live. It was turned down by the city planner who said

that it didn't fit in with the area. It was turned down by the surrounding residents

who wanted to retain the area for low-rise or family houses.

But city council approved it and, as a result of city

council's approval, the provincial government, through its

elderly citizen renters grant, is going to have to go along and

give its contribution to the development of this complex. We

certainly need a lot more senior citizens' housing, but, here

again, the social aspect comes in. A 13-storey building with

8-by-10 boxes in it is not socially acceptable. Although we're

meeting the physical needs, we are certainly not meeting the

social needs of the people who will be using it.

In closing, I would like to suggest to the Minister that we

sometimes can learn from people even from other countries that

we like to refer to as being under-developed. With this in

mind, I would like to bring to his attention a project which is

presently being pioneered in Jamaica, Mr. Speaker, a country of

which I have some knowledge.

What they're doing there is encouraging cooperative

housing; but the builders, the people who are building these

houses, are the people who are going to live in these houses.

What they're doing is having people developing trades and

having people designing the kind of housing that they're going

to live in. They have a real sense of responsibility toward the

construction of the thing.

It's creating employment and at the same time, it's not for

sale. It's for their use as long as they want to live there.

When they're through with the housing, it reverts to the

government and then it is, in turn, leased again. They don't

actually own it.

I think this is a very exciting concept and I think that it

certainly is one that the Minister should maybe…and I would

be very willing, if my expenses were paid, actually to do

further study on this for the Minister. (Laughter.) Preferably

in January, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: I'd bring him back a very full report on how this

project is progressing.

MR. GARDOM: When do you have time for your cooking?

MS. BROWN: My pork chop cooking. I hope that the department

is also, Mr. Speaker, going to embark on the business of

education, and that it will see as its priority the education

of the consumer to the concept of using housing rather than

owning housing and to leasing land rather than buying land. I

expect great things of this department, Mr. Speaker, and I wish

the Minister lots of luck. Thank you very much.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I'll be brief since

I think many of the points have already

[ Page 606 ]

been covered. The former speaker talked about England and

Wales and that upset me a little bit. On our side of the House

we talk about the United Kingdom. (Laughter.)

Seriously, food and shelter have to be the two subjects

which concern any government above all others. If people can't

eat and they haven't got a roof over their heads, then society

is in a big mess. I think with the rapid escalation in the

costs of food and the shortage of accommodation and the costs

of existing accommodation that these undoubtedly have to be two

of the primary challenges to this government or to any

government at the present time.

So often the primary issues cannot be decided primarily by

one level of government. We often hear in this House about

pleas for federal-provincial cooperation. But certainly one

reason that I am very eager to support this bill is that I hope

it will give this government, through its Minister, a closer

liaison and understanding of the federal-provincial scene and

the degree to which this government can meet and discuss, with

Mr. Basford and others involved in the field, the whole

question of dealing with the cost.

Because, really, the only reason — it sounds perhaps too

simplistic — but the only reason there's a shortage of housing

is the cost. Well, it may not be the only reason but it's the

main reason. And the main reason cost is a factor is that there

is a lack of incentives. If there were real incentives to

people to build houses and the cost was not prohibitive, you

would be solving the problem.

I think that a lot of these ancillary reasons that have been

brought up in debate today are part of the picture. But the big

problem is the cost of housing, and this has been covered by

others talking about the cost of serviced land, the cost of

labour and the added costs of sales tax and federal tax on

building supplies, and so on — we needn't go over all that

again. That is an established fact, well pointed out by the

debate so far.

The question of cost certainly has to be a factor and

particularly the interest rate on mortgages. I'm very pleased

that the Minister is on record…. I have a clipping from one

of the newspapers — September some time — where the Minister

makes it very plain that he recognizes the high cost of money

as being one of the very considerable obstacles to creating

more housing, whatever type of kind of housing. I think this

applies in general to all types of construction.

The Minister is on record as saying that they are looking at

a variety of ways in which the interest rate on a first

mortgage could be kept within reasonable limits. I think this

is a big first step and this party will certainly be in support

of that goal of making first mortgage money available at an

interest rate which is below what it is at the present

time.

One of the Members has indicated that cost isn't a factor. I have statistics that say that the cost of urban

land in the last three or four years has gone up 12 per cent

annually.

MR. WILLIAMS: I didn't say that. You said it was the only

fact. I was just correcting you.

MR. WALLACE: The main problem in housing is the cost….

MR. WILLIAMS: You didn't have the solutions right, that's

all.

MR. WALLACE: The solutions I am suggesting, Mr. Member, will

have to lie in two areas. One is minimizing the cost of money;

two is providing incentives that I'm thinking about, which

again might be forthcoming if federal-provincial cooperation

could be brought about, would be to look at the possibility of

allowing the interest on a mortgage to be deducted as against

federal income tax.

Now there's nothing revolutionary about this. Again if I can

refer to the United Kingdom for example: the part of the

premium that a person pays on life insurance in the United

Kingdom is a tax deductible expense. This is an attempt to

encourage individuals to look after their own family and their

own dependants if they should die.

I think in terms of housing, if federal and provincial

governments really mean what they say — that there is a housing

crisis, that they acknowledge the tremendous importance of food

and shelter — then I think that in terms of tax incentives, or

tax relief, this should be an area where the Minister of the

new department could very well put this kind of proposal to the

federal government that the question, not necessarily all of

the interest, but…. This is already allowed in terms of

business concerns. If you operate a business you can deduct the

interest on the loan or a mortgage from the cost of doing

business. I think that this could well be extended to the

question of residential accommodation on much the same

principle as the homeowner grant was provided provincially. You

only got it against one building, namely your recognized

residence. I think that the federal government should be

approached and asked whether they would go along with this, or

what conditions they might apply.

You can't complain on one hand about lack of incentives

without putting forward some positive proposals of our own, and

these other factors have been mentioned — that we should get

rid of the sales tax particularly on building materials and

look also at the 5 per cent sales tax provincially.

There are many other factors which I think should be

considered. Again to return to the United Kingdom, the

principle of government subsidy for housing has been well

established in that country. I

[ Page 607 ]

can't speak for the more recent changes in the system, but I

think a former speaker today mentioned that 20 per cent of

houses in England and Wales had been built under the subsidy

programme. It's simply a well recognized thing in Britain that

houses in every community are available at a subsidized cost to

the residents.

I have to disagree with some of the implications made in

Canada that this leads to ghettos and segregation, and so on

and so forth. This certainly is not a clear result of the

programmes that they have in the United kingdom. Some of the

what we call "municipal housing schemes" are extremely well

developed with open space and parks and recreational areas for

the children and so on. If it can be done in Britain, I don't

see why it can't be done in British Columbia.

The fact that research is needed, it need not be in great

depth. I think that if the Minister would look at the British

scene, and I'm not suggesting for a minute, through you, Mr.

Speaker, to the Minister that everything's rosy in Britain

either. They have big problems there too. But I'm saying that

they got into the field of municipal-subsidized housing many

years ago and surely their experience is something that we can

learn from. I think it would be a very wise approach either for

the Minister to visit the United Kingdom or to send someone

like the speaker who offered her services, under certain

conditions, to conduct further research.

AN HON. MEMBER: She wanted to be paid.

MR. WALLACE: I was pleased that the Minister had also

commented earlier on, and was quoted on the press as saying

that he was not about to set up a government Crown corporation.

I think we're facing an ever increasing plethora of Crown

corporations — and the Attorney General cringes in light of the

bill that was introduced today.

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: Oh, yes — giving the government certain

specific powers.

I think, as I said at the outset,

federal-provincial-municipal cooperation is very important,

also consultation to a greater degree with everyone who is

involved in the housing picture, whether it's a question of

construction or otherwise.

The municipal people tell me that there's also one big snag in the delays in

bringing about subdivisions — the amount of red tape and bureaucracy between

the municipal and the provincial arms of government can very often lead to tremendous

delays in creation of subdivisions which have been in the works for some time.

I think if this is the case, again, closer liaison would help. The municipal

people also tell me that the servicing requirements under NHA are extremely

tough and sometimes excessive, so here is another area where a greater degree

of consultation would probably get around that problem.

One final point I would like to make, Mr. Speaker, is the

question of land not yet developed but scheduled for

development. The recent amendments to the Assessment

Equalization Act have made it very difficult for some intending

single-family owners who buy the land and have not the money to

build the house and wait for a year, or two or three until they

can afford to put on the improvements. The new legislation has

really increased the tax on vacant land. Whether or not the

government was aware of this very unfortunate consequence when

it brought in the amendment I don't know, but I would strongly

appeal to this government now to further amend the Assessment

Equalization Act so that the person intending to build a family

home on a single lot should not suffer the considerable penalty

of increased taxation during the time that he is saving up the

money to put on the improvements.

It's an enormous subject, the question of housing, and

different speakers have touched on different points. But I

think for the record we must make it plain that we support the

bill. We hope that it will not result in the eventual setting

up of a Crown corporation where the government seeks to control

the whole field, as it's seeking to do in certain other areas,

and that the emphasis be placed on trying to solve the problem

of costs via the vehicle of incentives to the potential

homeowner, and to the potential constructor.

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): Mr. Speaker, in just following

what the Member said in supporting this bill, I don't think

we're here to restrict or to control. We're here really to do

quite the opposite, to loosen things up and be innovative. We

did not put rent controls on apartments and other forms of

housing: we realize the consequences of that. We don't believe

in that. But by gosh, we certainly expect with this kind of

incentive now that we will see people going into building

apartments, duplexes, condominiums, et cetera.

Along this whole idea of being innovative and very

aggressive, the Minister and I have had several discussions

about the purchasing of land. I just assume you pretty well

start here. And I was not trying to manipulate yesterday, I was

simply trying to find out from you what has been the response

to letters that the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr.

Lorimer) and you have sent out to all municipalities asking for

help in acquiring land.

You tell me that very, very few people have replied. I know

in my own riding that none of the municipalities have replied,

and I will be after them again tomorrow. I have written them

all letters again,

[ Page 608 ]

because the District of Mission has 64,000 acres within the

district. The district itself owns an awful lot of land and

could help us, and could remind us where the Crown grant land

is.

It is kind of ironical, Mr. Speaker, but even the government

does not have an inventory system for knowing where even its

own land is. Through public works and the new land secretary

we're going to get some kind of efficient, businesslike system

to know where our inventory of lands held under various Crown

departments are. So I am just appealing to you. I think we

should remind the House that we start with land.

Attempts have been made. The Minister tells me he's spent — I don't know if he's spent all of the $10 million that we

allotted him in the estimates, but certainly he's spent a great

deal on land. But very, very, few municipalities — I think

Smithers was one and there are a few others — have helped in

securing land.

I don't think any Member has said, but I understand the

District of North Vancouver has not been all that helpful

regarding the Blair Range, regarding getting services. Maybe

the House isn't aware of the somewhat obstructive tactics of

that municipality in not getting….

Interjection.

MR. ROLSTON: Well, we're told they're not allowing, they're

not encouraging services up to that property, a large property

which I gather is held partly by the federal government and

which surely it is a great place for a lot of housing.

I would hope in British Columbia that we would continue to

be innovative….

AN HON. MEMBER: You've got your facts wrong.

MR. ROLSTON: Well, let's hope that the facts are wrong

there, Mr. Member.

AN HON. MEMBER: Check them.

MR. ROLSTON: We'll do that, but this is what I have been

told.

I would hope that we continue to be innovative in the

building of houses. We have had several companies in British

Columbia in recent history that have tried to do modular

housing. When I lived up on the west coast of Vancouver Island,

houses were prefabricated and sent up there. There were houses

that were built in North Vancouver, and I think on the side of

the Fraser River, shipped up in barges to Campbell River, sent

right across from Campbell River to Gold River and became part

of that community.

I think a great deal could be done here. I think you could

encourage the modular housing. I'm thinking that we might even

go as far as not just wood, but aluminum and steel. We

remember the Habitat experience at Expo 67 of a modular type

of, thing. It was a very expensive thing and maybe that

particular structure wasn't appropriate, but I would assume

that much more could be done in modular housing. We have very

innovative craftsman and businesses here, and I would hope your

department could encourage that. Not just wood, but other

products.

Just speaking about the unions, my experience has been that

it is often very helpful to have union craftsman building

houses. One of the advantages — and I understand this is one of

the reasons why this government wants to see more people

organized — is that along with organization you also get some

quality. You get a guy who's certified, but there's also a

certain standard that is expected of a carpenter.

Now the people who work at framing houses, my experience was

that these framers, especially if they were organized, were

much faster, they had the proper tools. They didn't come in

with four or five pieces of equipment, often with a square that

was out of tune, and just sloppy. I think most professional

groups — the Member next to me is a doctor — are expected to

have equipment to do the job. As a clergyman I am expected to

have equipment to do a job. And I think that's one of the hopes

that we have.

In housing it's been my experience that unionized people are

not necessarily more expensive when it comes to productivity. I

don't know if the Member for South Okanagan (Mr. Bennett) was

referring to that when he was talking about the actual labour

expense in building housing if it was a government project but

my experience is that often it is certainly no more expensive.

And we really can, I think, expect even a greater productivity

at no greater labour cost per square foot in housing.

We have had discussions here about the quality in houses. As

one who bought his first house only last May, I was shocked in

going through houses. There used to be the cross-bracing

underneath the flooring, and now you see the one-by-three

strip. And that's supposed to be adequate. We know that isn't

adequate; people tell us that's not adequate.

I would hope that your department, working with the building

inspectors and the municipalities, could keep a little bit of

an eye out, and not be pushy but certainly encourage building

inspectors, maybe by gathering them together now and then for a

little conference, to keep up the quality and make them very

aware of what the government and what this department expects

in quality in housing.

I would hope that the Minister would — I guess along with

the Attorney General's (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) department in

somewhat of a policing

[ Page

609 ]

role — collaborate and turf out the people who build houses

or condominiums which are just dreadful, first of all, as far

as quality goes. But then, even worse than that I think, we

have some dreadful illustrations in the riding of Dewdney and

other places where the company plans to go broke, it goes broke

and the people who are the jobbers and who have the

subcontracts of various trades are left holding the bag.

The Attorney General knows of some really horrible

illustrations in Maple Ridge of condominium units that are

still not completed or, if they are completed, the company has

been resold and resold and resold, the people have lost their

down payment, it's just a dreadful financial mire. I could

mention names; it is tempting to mention certain developers.

But I think the Members of this House are aware of this and we

hope that you can, with the Attorney General's department, do

some policing here, We all know about co-op housing, but I wonder if the Members

are aware of some of the really simple advantages of co-op

housing. They can enjoy high quality housing at a significantly

lower cost; they don't need to pay legal or real estate fees

when they purchase or when they sell their shares. I believe

they need only to pay $10 per Member. They put down a $1,000

deposit which they get back, of course, when they move out of

the co-op unit. Co-op members or owners having equity can enjoy

the $200 annual homeowner grant. The monthly costs usually

remain stable. Occasionally they increase, but usually the

directors of each co-op have considerable input.

I think we should be very proud of Shirley Smidt, the

executive director of United Housing Foundation. I have been

most impressed with this person and the projects that she is

into. Every week we seem to be discussing a new event that

United Housing Foundation and the co-op people are promoting.

You mentioned one that's being opened tomorrow.

I haven't discussed this in caucus, but I personally would

like you to go for legislation giving $50 rental rebate to the

disabled people of this province. We do this now for the senior

citizens, and I would hope that you could change the

legislation next spring to see that there's a $50 allowance for

the two or three thousand disabled people that should have that

privilege in B.C.

The last thing I wanted to say — and again this is one of these nitty-gritty

things — is about zoning. Because housing does involve zoning. I understand

the Social Credit government introduced land-use contracts, am I correct on

that, the land-use contract where you can amend a zoning situation with a special

land-use contract. Now, my experience is that they wanted to give some rigidity,

some kind of control. There were some pretty arbitrary things happening in the

past. But I wonder if the House agrees that maybe the pendulum has swung from

a very laissez faire to a very rigid position on land-use contracts. That's

been my experience.

In many cases in Maple Ridge and in Mission, my goodness,

these people are ogres and nobody can seem to get a land-use

contract on things. We could talk about mobile home parks, and

I can think of two condominium units that were turned down. I'm

just wondering. It is my feeling that maybe at this time in

history some of these decisions are a little bit too arbitrary.

I don't know who is helping whom. Maybe this is one way of

keeping the price going up and up and up on the existing land

and the existing land that is zoned for multi-use. But my

experience has been that the land-use thing has swung to too

rigid a position.

Now my last comment in keeping with this, I must confess — and the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams)

knows that I grew up only a block away from where he now lives — but I had a real hang-up about duplexes. I think one of the

worst things that could ever happen would be a duplex in West

Vancouver. In fact right next door to my parents' place there

was a couple who were naughty-naughty. They had a duplex in the

basement of their home. And this was a very terrible thing.

I am just wondering if we haven't — and I admit my blocks

here — if we haven't grown up with some really misguided

misgivings about multi-units in various parts of communities.

If it's West Vancouver or if it's Mission, I think we

really ought to look at this. I think a great many units in

Vancouver could be loosened up. I really don't see why great

chunks of not just the East End, but great chunks of Vancouver

couldn't…. There would be basement apartments or garret

apartments or many other apartments that would be quite

appropriate and meaningful. Obviously this is going to loosen

up a great deal of housing accommodation.

Now of course I really agree with some of the Members, on

looking at the 5 per cent provincial sales tax and 11 per cent

regressive federal sales tax on building materials, that we

really have to look at this. I think Members on both sides of

the House have so rightly pointed out that this is really

regressive legislation. I suppose you could argue that we

collect the taxation and we hopefully redistribute it

throughout our various housing programmes for lower-income

people, but I am not convinced that really is happening.

I wish you all the best, sir. You've got an immense task. We

could go on and on and on, but I want to support you and at

times be pretty aggressive with you to make it possible to be

innovative and to at least begin to control some of the costs

in housing, this most essential fact of life. Thank you.

MR. J.H. GORST (Esquimalt): 1, too, rise to support the

Minister in the new appointment, to

[ Page 610 ]

congratulate him with my words of good wishes to his

department and the new task he has before him.

Well, Mr. Speaker, a great deal has been said this morning

on the housing department and the new direction that that

department will be taking, so I will just be brief in my

remarks.

I would like to make a few remarks about this very basic

human right of housing, along with the food, clothing, health,

education et cetera.

It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that one of the very prime

problems here is the high interest rates, which go along with

housing and people trying to get a place for themselves and

their families to live and grow up in. I notice that the new

long-term mortgage that is now available at 40 years really

only seems to facilitate the monthly payment while having the

effect of making the final purchase price one that staggers the

mind.

I recently noticed here in this area of British Columbia

where a purchaser of an $18,000 mortgage over 40 years at $200

is going to pay a final price of $96,000 for that dwelling. Now

I think that we have here the very same old question when a

person asks not the price of the product but how much a month

is it going to cost to get in, with no thought to the end

result.

All kinds of arguments are put forward for the high cost of

housing, and quite justifiably so, but one is the high cost of

land. I happened to note that there is a report that housing in

this area since 1969 up to this time, has increased an average

of $6,000 a dwelling in that short space of four years. I would

guess that a great deal of that increase, probably the major

portion of it, is on the price of the land itself, a part of

housing that has for too long now been treated as a commodity

which is speculated on. On that speculation is added the high

interest rate of the mortgage, calculated on the price of the

land, which really has nothing to do with the cost of the

house.

I think it would make far greater sense, Mr. Speaker,

through the provincial government housing department, to

assemble the land and provide it on a lease basis to

homeowners, thereby saving the homeowner, the burden of the

interest rate on the land and taking that profiteering and

speculation on the land out of the housing operation.

Mortgage funds, quite obviously, cannot be provided from the

private sector for low-cost housing because the prime purpose

of that quarter is to make money. I think that what we need is

a provincial housing mortgage corporation, through which

mortgage funds for individual homeownership could be made

available at a low rate of, say, 5 per cent.

Now that's not so odd. It's been done for 25 years now, or

more, through the Veterans' Land Settlement Act , for

hundreds of thousands of Canadians, at 5.5 per cent. Therefore

we should be able to do it for all Canadians. There should be no problem.

The only problem is one of attitude and social conscience.

If you are prepared to take the profiteering and speculation

out of the hands of the private sector you can place housing

where it belongs — with the people's representatives and their

government — to provide those kinds of funds so that they can

get housing for their families.

Land and home mortgage funds have come to the point where

there is just no other way than that which I have expressed to

provide housing for our people. This present system of relying

on the private sector continually works at the aggravated

expense of the average person.

I agree with the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms.

Brown) that too many older homes are being torn down in our

communities. But there again, those structures are victims of

land speculation and high mortgage rates and really have

nothing to do with providing housing for people. Any housing

that is provided is secondary to the original concept of making

another dollar. In most cases it makes far more sense to

upgrade those homes and provide some families with a civilized

environment to grow up in.

I note, too, that the majority of apartments that are

constructed are all-too-small in square footage of space — the

rooms are small, there is inadequate area for children to

study, relax in, for families to have a place of their own to

be alone, to have a quiet moment. Most of these apartments are

such little, box-like places that they are in no way conducive

to developing a good lifestyle.

Mr. Speaker, I look at this area around the parliament

buildings, James Bay, and then I look at the West End of

Vancouver, with its jungle of high-rises, the most densely

populated area in the world.

AN HON. MEMBER: In the world?

MR. GORST: That's right. That's right. The West End of

Vancouver has the greatest population density per square mile

than any….

Interjections.

MR. GORST: Well, we obviously have some disbelievers

here.

AN HON. MEMBER: I believe you, Jim.

MR. GORST: Thank you.

I don't think we can continue on that basis, Mr. Speaker. It

seems to me that the direction and the development of our

communities, the social lifestyle therein, is being decided

upon by others than those who will live in the community. I

don't think we can

[ Page 611 ]

make the low-cost land on a lease available so that those

engaged in reaping enormous profits through mortgages can

continue to practise in that trade.

I also note that some regional districts and municipalities

now wish to enter the land assembly field. I think that's good,

but I would ask that, when they provide the lots they assemble

for homes, they lease them rather than sell them. Along with

that, they should find funds available which can be provided at

a very low rate, funds that are made available through social

capital rather than private capital.

I would like to come back to the area of James Bay here,

adjacent to the parliament buildings. There are now 14

high-rise buildings in that area. It's a very small area and I

wouldn't want to see any more.

Mr. Speaker, it is my opinion that we as a provincial

government ought to secure all this general area around the

legislative buildings under provincial government direction and

guidance so that we ensure that our buildings and our

waterfront do not end up as a Vancouver West End type of

development.

I would like to conclude by saying that I view the matter of

housing as a question of who is going to direct the development

of our community. I repeat that those who profiteer on land and

mortgages must not be allowed to continue to develop and direct

and formulate the kind of community that we are going to live

in. Housing, I would suggest, is now in the same context as

highways, hospitals, health and education, and is really a

social utility and has to be provided for in that way through

social capital which can only come through government

intervention.

MR. WILLIAMS: I just have a few remarks that I would like to

make in this debate.

Members have wished the Minister well. I don't. I hope he

has a hell of a time! As the debate has indicated, the housing

situation in the Province of British Columbia, particularly in

the urban areas, is very, very serious and it's not going to be

solved unless the Minister really gets down to work. I hope

that in six months he comes back to this House haggard, tired,

with the job done. But so far in this debate and his opening

motion, he hasn't convinced me that the job is going to be

done.

I think we should borrow a technique from the American

system: Ministers who are undertaking serious responsibilities

are obliged to come before the House and be voted upon as to

whether their credentials are satisfactory. All I can say at

the moment, if we had this system here, is that I'm not sure

the Minister would get very many votes based upon what he said

today.

He has been the Minister Without Portfolio responsible for

housing, he has had $10 million available to him for

expenditure for those purposes, and yet we haven't seen one positive step taken by this

Minister to provide one new housing unit.

This isn't like the bill we debated yesterday to establish

the department of consumer affairs because that's a

wide-ranging department covering a lot of responsibilities.

This bill, Mr. Speaker, deals with a very narrow

responsibility. I'm not saying the problems are easy, but it is

a very narrow responsibility.

There's one difference between this bill and the one we

debated yesterday. This one gives the Minister tremendous

amounts of money. He's being handed whatever the balance of the

$10 million might be from the Housing Incentive Fund, and

further moneys are going to be made available by the Minister

of Finance. So it's a little different from the one we had

before and I think that we are entitled to some more positive

indication from the Minister as to what he plans to do before

voting on second reading.

I said the problem was a very narrow one and there's no

question that it is. The problem is that we don't have enough

housing units. Housing is the one area where the law of supply

and demand really functions. If you've got enough housing

units, your other problems disappear — and we don't have

enough. The Minister has not given any indication that he knows

how to provide enough.

I suspect that with the demand that we have today and with

continuing demand, we are never going to have enough. Unless we

start aggressively to build housing units of all types, we are

never ever going to approach the day when the supply of housing

in our communities will be more than enough to meet the demand

and the problems resulting from undersupply will disappear.

Mr. Speaker, we have talked about this at length today. I

think one thing must be clear: the problem is most serious in

the large, urban communities. You can go into the housing

problem, but it is not as severe as you find in the urban

areas. This is because we have two kinds of immigration. We have immigration from within the province where people are

flowing from rural communities towards the urban centres, and

then we have the immigration from outside our borders. That is

going to continue. The Minister must come to grips with that

problem first of all by coming to grips with the people who

control land development in the urban centres: the

municipalities.

The Minister indicated to us that he was looking forward to

cooperating with the municipalities to enable the job to

start. Well, I trust that the kind of cooperation which the

Minister has in mind is not the kind of cooperation which the

municipalities have experienced from the Minister of Municipal

Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) in matters of urban transit. If

that's the kind of cooperation that this Minister is going to

offer to the municipalities, he might just as

[ Page 612 ]

well forget it.

The municipalities have a very special responsibility and

that responsibility is to the citizens and the taxpayers in

that municipality. Those municipal governments are a lot closer

to the citizens and taxpayers than this provincial government

is to its taxpayers. They, the local governments, must respond

much more rapidly to the wishes of their local taxpayers than

is the case with the provincial government.

I was startled to hear the Member for Dewdney (Mr. Rolston),

without factual knowledge, attacking the District of North

Vancouver. Sure, the Minister at one time thought he was going

to acquire significant parts of Blair Rifle Range, and

certainly there was some difficulty with the District of North

Vancouver. It was a very simple difficulty, Mr. Speaker: who

was going to pay for the cost of servicing the land?

I would like to hear the Minister indicate whether he thinks

the municipality should pay that expense or whether it should

be the expense of the developer, whether it be a private

developer or the provincial government. Unless the Minister is

able to solve the riddle of the Gordian knot — if he remembers

how that riddle was finally solved — unless he reaches that

solution with regard to municipal cooperation, then he's not

going any place with his housing department. The

municipalities, in the areas where the housing is most

critical, control zoning, building bylaws, and hence, land

development.

I urge the Minister to move rapidly, reasonably and

responsibly to meetings with the municipal governments to

resolve these difficulties. For years under the former

administration the municipalities suffered financial inequity.

Problems have been created for those local governments with

rising burdens thrust upon them but with one single revenue

source — namely, taxes upon real property; and they can't carry

that burden any longer.

This Minister, if he is going to move forward with his

department, will need the assistance of his colleagues in the

cabinet in resolving that financial dilemma that faces the

local governments before he is going to get the kind of

cooperation that he will need to have.

I would have thought that we would have heard from this

Minister, at the time of introducing this legislation, some

indication of the positive steps that he is going to take to

provide housing.

The Hon. Second Member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown)

made excellent suggestions. There have been excellent

suggestions from all the Members who have taken their place in

this debate. Not one from the Minister. What's he been doing

for the last four or five months? I understand — and I readily

accept what he said — that no one is going to become an expert

in four or five months.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): He sure wasn't that

rapid on the agricultural committee.

MR. WILLIAMS: But what he said was that maybe he wouldn't

become an expert in four or five years. Now are we going to

have to wait for four or five years before the Minister can

indicate those positive steps that he will take to solve the

housing crisis?

HON. MR. BARRETT: He's not going to follow the federal

Liberal….

MR. WILLIAMS: He's not, eh? No. Well, I'm very glad to hear

that, Mr. Speaker, that he's not going to take that long

because I happen to agree with the Hon. Premier and Minister of

Finance with his criticism — and I assume it was a criticism — of the federal Liberal policies. I just hope that the Minister

doesn't fall into the same kind of trap.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Don't become a Liberal.

MR. WILLIAMS: That's right. Don't become a Liberal. I agree.

(Laughter.)

It's not that I want that Minister to maintain the same

conservative approach that he has adopted up to date to his

problems — of not having any ideas. (Laughter.)

Everybody laughs about this matter. As a result of decisions

which were made by the federal government, we've got the

problem that we've got today. I say it and I will continue to

say it. We don't want those kind of solutions from this

Minister. But he said nothing to indicate what his solutions

might be. If I'm left in some quandary then, Mr. Speaker, it is

the worry that his solutions may be those which we have seen

before.

You know, we just have a need. How are you going to build

the houses? How are you going to build the apartment buildings?

We need to have single-family homes for sale and for rent. How

are you going to provide them? What's your first step, Mr.

Minister? You've got $10 million. You've had four or five

months and you've done nothing. Please tell us what your first

step is going to be.

When will we see the first new housing unit as a result of

activities of your department? Do you have a time-table? Do you

have a schedule? I hope that the Minister can answer these

questions because the people of this province who need housing

are tired of listening to all the debates that have gone on all

the year — under the former administration as well — meetings

with the federal government, meetings with the local

government, meetings with the provincial government — and they

haven't produced one more housing unit. The problem has become

worse.

Now if this Minister has got the answers, Mr.

[ Page 613 ]

Speaker, then let's hear from him today. And if he has got

the answers and we hear from him today, maybe we'll vote second

reading of this bill.

MR. R.T. CUMMINGS (Vancouver–Little Mountain): I would like

to adjourn this debate to the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the House to file an information White Paper with

respect to Interior stumpage appraisals, Leave granted.

MR. FX RICHTER (Leader of the Opposition): May I inquire

from the Leader of the government what is anticipated for

Monday?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the introduction of bills,

continuation of second reading, and then on to committee stage,

oral questions, oral answers… (Laughter.)

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:51 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1973, 2001, 2013: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada