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)

MONDAY, OCTOBER 15, 1973

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 615 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

An Act to Amend the Succession Duty Act (Bill 69).

Hon. Mr. Barrett. Introduction and first reading — 615

Public Service Labour Relations Act (Bill 75).

Hon. Mr. Hall. Introduction and first reading — 615

Oral Questions

B.C. Railway strike. Mr. Chabot — 615

Fatality on Hope-Princeton Highway. Mr. Wallace — 615

Newsprint sales contract for Ocean Falls. Mr. Wallace — 616

Closure of Lakelse resort by Health Department. Mr. Smith — 616

Land Commission backlog difficulties. Mr. Curtis — 616

Follow-up on Canadian heavy-water plant. Mr. Phillips — 617

Negotiations for acquisition of Laurel Point. Mr. Williams — 617

Gas explosion reports. Mr. Wallace — 617

Hiring of females by Liquor Control Board. Mr. McClelland — 618

Feasibility studies for Gabriola Island ferry sites. Mr. Morrison — 618

Air ambulance service by government air fleet. Mr. Smith — 618

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

Mr. Cummings — 618

Mr. Liden — 620

Mr. Fraser — 622

Mr. Curtis — 623

Mr. Steves — 624

Mr. McGeer — 629

Ms. Sanford — 631

Mr. Lockstead — 632

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 633

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 636

Mr. Kelly — 636

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 637

Mr. Barnes — 639

Mr. Smith — 641

Mr. Phillips — 643

Mr. McClelland — 646

Hon. Mr. King — 648

Speaker's ruling

Withdrawal of notice of introduction of Bill 9 — 648

Motion

Motion to ratify withdrawal of item 9. Hon. Mr. Stupich — 649

MONDAY, OCTOBER 15, 1973

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, I'd

like to advise the House with regret of the death of former

Chief Justice Herbert William Davey, who's been on the Supreme

Court of British Columbia since 1953, then on the Court of

Appeal for a long period of time, and was our Chief Justice of

the province from 1967 until he became a supernumerary judge in

1972 and continued his service to the province. He was an

outstanding legal scholar whose trenchant opinions were in the

best traditions of the common law.

I want to advise the House that, in speaking with his widow

today, she expressed a wish for complete privacy. I would hope

that the public would not send flowers and notes and letters,

in accordance with the wishes she expressed to me.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, visiting

Victoria today attending an important meeting of western

Ministers and seated on the floor of the House are two

Ministers from our sister province whom I'd like the House to

welcome. They are the Hon. Horst A. Schmid, Minister of

Culture, Youth and Recreation for the Province of Alberta, and

the Hon. Laurent L. Desjardins, Minister of Tourism, Recreation

& Cultural Affairs for the Province of Manitoba.

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): Mr. Speaker,

today is certainly a red letter day. It's not often we have

Ministers from other provinces coming here, and it's even less

often that those of us who have the privilege of representing

rural ridings have visitors. This afternoon we have a group of

22 students from the Princeton Secondary School, accompanied by

their two teachers, Mr. Nittering, and Mrs. Kernaghan. I would

ask you to welcome them.

MRS. D. WEBSTER (Vancouver South): Mr. Speaker, I would also

like to have the assembly here welcome a group of students from

Thompson Secondary School in the Vancouver South district, with

their teacher Mr. Bob Ellis.

Introduction of bills.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE SUCCESSION DUTY ACT

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

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled

An Act to Amend the Succession Duty Act .

Bill 69 read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders

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

after today.

PUBLIC SERVICE LABOUR RELATIONS ACT

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

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Public Service Labour

Relations Act .

Bill 75 read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders

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

after today.

Oral questions.

B.C. RAILWAY STRIKE

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr. Speaker, a question to

the Premier and President of the B.C. Railway. Contract

negotiations have broken down again between the B.C. Rail and

management. I understand that there are no further plans for

discussion or talks between labour and management. Picket lines

are in place, disrupting service to the customers of the B.C.

Rail. I wonder what plans the government has to get the two

parties together for resumption of negotiations and the

resumption of service to the customers of B.C. Rail?

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, there is a strike on

the B.C. Rail by the shop crafts, involving 380 people. The

Maintance of Way union involving 450 people have accepted the

contract offer, and the UTU, involving 500 people, have

accepted a contract offer to be ratified by the membership. We

have asked the associate deputy Minister of Labour, Mr.

Kinnaird, to travel to Vancouver and attempt to bring the two

parties together. This strike was just declared this morning,

and we have made the initial move through the associate deputy

Minister.

FATALITY ON HOPE-PRINCETON

HIGHWAY

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, it's nice to see

the Minister of Highways back in his seat this week. I was

meaning to ask this question last week regarding the

Hope-Princeton Highway at a point where a Victoria resident

fell to his death last week, and I believe there have been 17

deaths at that point in the past 10 years. I wonder if the

Minister could tell us to what degree the department will make

that corner safe?

[ Page 616 ]

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Mr. Speaker, I wasn't

aware until this moment that there had been a fatality on the

Hope-Princeton Highway.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Oh, oh.

HON. MR. LEA: I'll tell you, Hon. Member for West

Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams), they didn't have it in the

Halifax paper, where I was. I don't think it's something to

make light of. I wasn't informed by my department. I didn't

read it in the paper. I'm glad the Member has brought it to my

attention and I will look into it.

NEWSPRINT SALES CONTRACT

FOR OCEAN FALLS

MR. WALLACE: Thank you Mr. Speaker. I accept that answer and

hope that the Minister will give us more details later.

There is another question which I think is most important

Mr. Speaker, but the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams) is not in the House. Could I

address the question perhaps to the Premier?

I noticed that the newsprint sales contract between Ocean

Falls and Crown Zellerbach has been terminated and that the

company which is taking over the contract as of January 1,

Gottesman-Central National Organization, has a president by the

name of Mr. Wallach, who is a director of Can-Cel. I wonder if

the Premier would make any comment as to whether this director

will be resigning in the light of the business contract now

set?

HON. MR. BARRETT: It is correct that it is the same man, but

there is no conflict of interest. The sale of newsprint of

course is something separate from Can-Cel's products.

The reason for the change in the Wallach contract is that

the price is much higher right now. I'm sure that with this

move we will be returning even greater funds to the corporation

on behalf of the people of British Columbia.

MR. WALLACE: Just a supplemental question, Mr. Speaker. The

Minister concerned declined to outline the terms of the new

agreement. Since this is now public business with the

taxpayers' money being involved in Can-Cel, would the Premier

care to table the terms of the new agreement with the

House?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'll certainly take the question as

notice. I would like to speak to the Minister.

CLOSURE OF LAKELSE RESORT

BY HEALTH DEPARTMENT

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): My question is to the

Hon. Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance. Is it

true that the operators of the Lakelse Hot Springs resort near

Terrace were required by the Department of Health to close down

the premises this summer at a time when the tourist season was

in full flight in that part of the country, and, as a result,

forced them out of the business of serving the public at the

height of the tourist season?

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance):

Well, Mr. Speaker, after that speech from the Member across the way, I'll take

it as notice. I don't know if a tourist facility was closed down by the Health

department, but if it was, obviously there is good reason for closing any place

down.

MR. SMITH: A supplemental question to the Minister….

MR. SPEAKER: I think the matter will be raised again when he

obtains the facts that you want.

MR. SMITH: May I ask the Minister to file with the House the

details of why the Department of Health required the operators

of that resort….

MR. SPEAKER: I think the proper time to ask that would be

once the main question has been answered.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, if that

Member wants that kind of information, why doesn't he put it on

the order paper?

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Don't be so

snarly.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. When an Hon. Member asks for

information and it's taken as notice by the Minister, when the

notice is returned by the answer to the question on a further

day, the supplementals would flow from that, I would think.

LAND COMMISSION BACKLOG

DIFFICULTIES

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, to

the Minister of Agriculture. Is the Land Commission and its

staff experiencing any difficulty with respect to a backlog in

applications, inquiries, correspondence? The information

reaching our office

[ Page 617 ]

is that the commission is having great difficulty in getting

caught up with its work. I'm not referring to the preparation

of the agricultural land reserve, but day-to-day

correspondence.

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

know they're busy, but I've not had a report that they're

having difficulty in keeping up with their day-to-day

correspondence. I'll check.

MR. CURTIS: Supplemental. It would be appreciated if the

Minister could inform the House later, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I think that this matter has been taken

as notice.

FOLLOW-UP ON

CANADIAN HEAVY-WATER PLANT

MR. PHILLIPS: I'd like to direct a question to the Hon.

Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce. Last

week I informed the Minister about a heavy-water plant that was

going to be built in Canada. I informed the Minister that the

decision would be made prior to the end of October, and I'd

like to know if the Minister has done any follow-up on this

leading information that I've given to the Minister.

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Industrial Development, Trade

and Commerce): Mr. Speaker, no. The answer is no.

MR. PHILLIPS: Does the Minister feel that a heavy-water

plant would be a good industry for British Columbia?

MR. SPEAKER: I don't think that's a proper question in

parliament.

MR. PHILLIPS: Then I'll ask another supplementary question.

I'd like to inform the Minister first of all before I ask my

supplementary question.

MR. SPEAKER: No time for speeches now, Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, the Atomic Energy Company of Canada Ltd.

has recommended to the federal cabinet that the Hat Creek coal

deposits be a site of a heavy-water plant in British

Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: How about that.

MR. PHILLIPS: This is in the hands of the cabinet at the

present time. There is environment involved, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to ask the Minister of Industrial Development,

Trade and Commerce if he would energize himself, atomic

energize himself, with some of this heavy water and get to

Ottawa and find out what is going on with regard to this hot

water — this heavy plant for British Columbia. (Laughter.)

NEGOTIATIONS FOR ACQUISITION

OF LAUREL POINT

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, to the Hon. Minister of Public

Works. With regard to the extension and preservation of the

precincts of these buildings, would the Minister indicate at

what stage the negotiations are with regard to the acquisition

of the land at Laurel Point?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: The plan for the precinct area is not

complete. We are attempting to acquire numerous pieces of

property in the overall precinct area. As yet we haven't

finalized anything with regard to Laurel Point.

GAS EXPLOSION REPORTS

MR. WALLACE: While the Minister of Public Works is in a

communicative mood….

AN HON. MEMBER: As always.

MR. WALLACE: As always. Do you think he could tell us

whether or not he has yet received a report which would explain

the explosion on Oak Bay Avenue in which someone was seriously

injured two weeks ago?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Yes, we have received our report put out

by Mr. Freestone, a member of the Department of Public Works.

It didn't explain why the explosion occurred.

We have since received a copy of one other report from B.C.

Hydro. They distribute the gas in this part of Victoria. We are

attempting to get two other reports, and when we have these we

hope to be able to give you further information.

MR. CHABOT: A question to the Premier. I noticed on the

weekend phase III of the reconstruction of the Premier's suite

was taking place around the clock. I was wondering what kind of

renovations were taking place again — the third time in the

last year — in the Premier's office, and what the expected

costs are of this major renovation to the Premier's office?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Member

for continuously being consistent.

[ Page 618 ]

He's wrong again. There is no renovation going on in the

Premier's office. Apparently there is some need for further, as

I understand it, sewage disposal from up above my office.

(Laughter.) They're putting some more pipes in. I don't know if

it comes from the east wing of the House or the west wing.

(Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. So far has question period

descended. (Laughter.)

HIRING OF FEMALES

BY LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): I hope I won't contribute to

that descending, Mr. Speaker, but I'd like to ask the Attorney

General a question. It's in regard to his views about hiring

females in the retail liquor stores in B.C. He has told the

House on a previous occasion that the reason we don't hire

females in the retail outlets is that they have to lift cases

of liquor.

I'd like to ask if it's not true, Mr. Speaker, that there

are three positions listed on the application form for the

retail stores. They are designated "office," "store" and

"storeroom." If that's correct, is there then not room under

the position of "store" to hire women in the retail

outlets?

Has the Minister instructed the LCB to change its practices

in this regard?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I sympathize with the

position that women should be employable in the retail liquor

outlets of the province. I'm discussing that with the Liquor

Control Board and asking them to review policy to try to get

around, if they can, a

section of the Factories Act — I forget

which one it is — about the 35 lbs. Those discussions are going

on.

I'd like to see it more open, not only in the office where

as I say, we've made great progress in terms of equality of

employment, but out in the outlets, insofar as we can, without

firing people with long seniority. New vacancies where it's

possible.

FEASIBILITY STUDIES FOR

GABRIOLA ISLAND FERRY SITES

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to

address my question to the Minister of Transport. I'd like to

know if the Minister has received any feasibility studies on

the Gabriola Island ferry site and on a ferry location site on

the mainland.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Commercial Transport and Communications):

Yes, it was in the press, I think, a couple of months ago, where the Minister

of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) and I met with the regional district of Nanaimo and

the Gabriola Island Planning Commission, discussed it with them and told them

the proposed sites. We're now making wind and wave studies of the various proposed

sites on each side.

MR. MORRISON: The study I was referring to was the one for

the wind and the waves.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, I haven't got the wind and wave

studies yet.

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

BY GOVERNMENT AIRFLEET

MR. SMITH: My question is to the same Minister. It is my

understanding that at the present time the air fleet of the

government has been increased, first of all with the purchase

of two jets, and now a report that you are presently

negotiating to purchase two Beechcraft turboprops. The

indication is also that the two latest aircraft will be used

for photographing by departments of government and also for air

ambulance services.

Have either the jets or any other aircraft been used or been

called upon to provide air ambulance services to any part of

the province?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, as a matter of fact, I have a little

sheet here somewhere. In a two-week period there were four

specific flights made from different parts of the province

carrying emergency cases to hospitals in Vancouver and

Victoria. Even though the planes are not…. Somebody said

there were three last night. But they are being used, even

though we are not yet geared up for full ambulance service.

They are now in use.

MR. SMITH: A supplemental question: will the Minister file

details with the House?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Certainly, certainly!

Orders of the day.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I move we proceed to

public bills and orders.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill

49, Mr. Speaker.

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING ACT

(continued)

MR. R.T. CUMMINGS (Vancouver–Little Mountain): I am very

pleased, Mr. Speaker, to rise in

[ Page 619 ]

support of this bill.

There is a crisis in housing in Vancouver. The average price

of a house in Vancouver in 1960 was $13,000. In 1972 it was

$31,000. Since January, 1973, it has been raised by 40 per

cent, so that the average price of a house is $41,000. In

Vancouver a 35-year-old, two-bedroom home would cost

approximately $40,000. In Saskatoon the same house would cost

$26,000.

Vacancy rates in Vancouver are 0.4 per cent or four units

for every 1,000. These are all symptoms of the housing crisis.

United Community Services finds that there are 10 per cent less

starts this year than there have been in the previous year.

This shows that the private market is not fulfilling its role.

To satisfy the present mortgage income requirements it takes

approximately $16,000, well above the means of the average

British Columbia citizen.

The City of Vancouver considers its situation a disaster.

There are also 1,900 people waiting on lists for public

housing; and this list is renewed every year, so there are

hundreds of people out there who think they are on that list,

but aren't. These are all symptoms of a great problem. Last

month Opperheimer's Lodge was opened in the downtown east side

of the city. It housed 147 single men and women. Applications

numbered almost 500.

The flop-house area of Vancouver is getting $55 a month

rent, and this is just for a cot.

There are some solutions I would like to suggest. I feel

that there should be higher taxes on speculative land holdings.

A person or a firm should not be allowed to withhold land which

the public needs now. I think there should also be changes in

the municipal zoning bylaws, especially the single-family

zoning bylaw, because there are homes in this area that are not

being utilized properly. There are old-age pensioners in an

eight-room house. I feel that these should and will be

converted.

One other time, when I was a little child, in 1940, there

was a great shortage of housing and the federal government, in

its wisdom of that day, realized that something seriously had…. It was a very serious shortage. The war came and thousands

and thousands of people came to Vancouver. There was a great

shortage and a lot of illegal suites were born. There are a

large number still to this day in Point Grey, Oak Ridge and

Shaughnessy, which is my constituency. They were very suitable

housing.

For example, another way that it should be challenged is …

in Coquitlam they've challenged the concept of side spaces and

large backyards. They've gone to a cluster development, which

gives a greater density per acre of people and provides cheaper

land.

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

line.

MR. CUMMINGS: That's correct. I think we should also

directly subsidize cooperatives. I was going to say "poor" but

anyone under $13,000 is considered poor as far as the mortgage

companies are concerned now. In this way, I feel that we would

give the people a chance to own their own homes and have a

sense of accomplishment in this way.

I wish to congratulate the Hon. Minister (Hon. Mr. Nicolson)

for going into the first mortgage business because it is a

first step at least. But I think the main thing we've got to do

is to create competition to the private market. I feel that we

have to go into a massive construction programme. There is only

one way to drive down prices and that is with competition.

I think also in this challenge to single-family zoning there

should be a conversion programme, because these homes will need

money to convert. For example, a big, 16-room mansion can be

converted to probably three very, very fine suites. We have to

help people to convert.

It is very, very important for public housing to be done.

Vacancy rates in Vancouver have fallen to almost zero; this

indicates the demand. Such a scarcity forces a rise in prices.

The things you hear about pricing and rents today are because

of these price increases. Landlords and corporations operating

by that law charge what the market will bear.

Some people don't think that housing is a disaster. In one

land development company, Dawson Developments, profits

increased over 400 per cent in three months in 1972. Another

real estate firm, Block Brothers, has a less dramatic but still

more substantial profit increase of 62 per cent over the same

period. It seems that housing is not a problem for

everyone.

I wish to come back and plead again for public housing

because public housing is the only way we can supply housing

for the poor people, the working poor — literally, the average

citizen of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr.

Gardom) made the suggestion of subsidizing the mortgager so

that he could provide money at a lower rate. There are a number

of points I would like to point out about this proposition. The

federal Liberal government have just come out with a whole set

of new programmes under the National Housing Act .

If the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey thinks that

wiping out taxes on the enormous, lucrative mortgage business

is a magic solution to reducing lending rates, why did he not

incorporate this in a new programme of his party's federal

government? He should go and tell Trudeau about his idea.

The fact that mortgage rates stand at the shocking figure of

10 per cent this year can be traced directly back to the

Liberals removing the 6 per cent ceiling

[ Page 620 ]

on mortgages. If this Member's proposal was of any value,

and his own government doesn't seem to think so, it would not

reduce the mortgage rate. If this party wants to help the

people they should maybe create a tax shelter for the mortgagee

rather than the mortgager.

I just want to plead once again, Mr. Speaker, for the need

for public housing. It is the only possible answer for the poor

people and the working poor people.

Thank you.

MR. C. LIDEN (Delta): Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the

principle of this bill. Certainly it's going to lay the base

for setting up one of the most important departments that we

are going to have in this government for the next period of

time.

There is a tremendous pressing problem today. People out

there in that population certainly have high hopes from this

department and they have great expectations — most particularly

those people in the area who are looking for shelter or trying

to find enough money to be able to buy a home or to get into an

apartment and try and get started.

The task of this department is going to be a tremendous one.

It is going to be a difficult one. The demands are so high:

thousands of units are required every year just to keep even

and certainly that pressure area is greatest in the lower

mainland. It seems that we have to spread this growth out

somewhat. The one thing that I think we must do is start

planning for the spreading of the population in British

Columbia to other places than the lower mainland.

Certainly the port of Prince Rupert and the possibilities of

some real future up there is dependent on the kind of housing,

the kind of community that's built, and a higher standard than

what we have had in the past. It seems to me that this whole

business of just allowing cities to go as things happen isn't

good enough. We are going to have to get into far more serious

planning as to what happens in the hinterlands.

I think there are a few things we can look at that have

happened so far. For instance: even in the lower mainland, in

trying to spread out the growth, we see in the five year

period, 1966-1971, that 21 per cent of the growth of the

lower mainland took place in the Delta area. That's a

fantastic, heavy load for one area to carry. The growth in that

same period, 1966-1971, in Delta was greater than it was in

the City of Vancouver and the municipality of Burnaby

combined.

That situation is continuing. While it has eased somewhat

because the council in Delta has brought in some stricter

regulations, but it is nevertheless more than a community can

bear to carry — that sort of growth all at one time.

I think of some of the other things we're doing. For

instance, when I think of the ICBC locating in downtown

Vancouver, I am concerned that in the long term some other

plans are developed for the ICBC. It seems that when we look at

the number of people that would be employed in the main office,

the size of the families today, the service trade that goes

along with that many people, the ICBC in itself can be the

basis of a satellite town.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Satellite town?

MR. LIDEN: And certainly the location of that operation

alone is very, very important in what happens in the providing

of proper homes and shelter in the Province of British

Columbia.

We have to look at places other than Vancouver. We have to

look at places other than the Fraser Valley to take some of the

pressure off.

MR. GARDOM: Security bill.

MR. LIDEN: One of the real problems, of course, in the lower

mainland is the price of lots, the price of land and the cost

of getting started in housing. The problem really is that in

the lower mainland, and I guess as everywhere else where the

profit system is the measuring stick, that the price will be

whatever the market can bear. It is never related to what it

cost to buy the land or what it cost to develop the land. It's

always just whatever the market will bear.

I want to tell you a little bit about a situation that I

just ran across here not so long ago, because many people are

of the opinion that a lot of the residents who have lived in

the Fraser Valley for a long time are cleaning up on the sale

of their land. It's usually not the case.

I know a little old lady who has been a widow for six years.

She has 2 3/4 acres of land on the Scott Road, which is a

pretty high-priced location in the Surrey-Delta area. That lady

was out shopping one day. She has never had a "for sale" sign

on her place and when she arrived home, there was someone in

her yard. That person who was in the yard wanted to buy the 2

3/4 acres. She said it wasn't for sale. Nevertheless, he

continued discussion there with her and by the time he left, he

had her so confused that she really didn't know what she was

doing. The person who was there represented Gazelle Holdings

and he entered into a contract with that little old lady that

had her signed up to sell that 2 3/4 acres of land for $35,000.

Land in that area can get twice that amount of money.

The situation calls for a $5,000 payment, I think it is

today, October 15. It calls for the remaining $30,000 to be

paid October 15, 1975, at no interest on the agreement. That is

the kind of thing that is

[ Page 621 ]

happening; no interest on the agreement. She was paid $100

for signing the document, that was last March. She was so

confused, she didn't know what she was doing.

We've done some work on the situation since. She got in touch with the legal

people; they wrote to the firm. The firm concerned also have their legal people

— their firm is the very prominent firm in New Westminster, Hogarth, Oliver

and Hughes — and they say that the sale stands and they are going to defend

it. The lady gets involved with various legal discussions and she ends up with

a letter from the Vancouver Legal Assistance Society saying: "with regard to

your case, we feel that there is only a 50 per cent chance of setting aside

the transaction, and that if you lose, you will be liable for the legal fees

of the other side and that this could come to $2,500."

Now, what can an old person, living by themselves, never

having had to deal with this sort of thing before, what kind of

a situation are they in? They are in a terrible situation and

they are getting taken every day by these kind of operators

moving around the lower mainland.

Something might be said about the price if, in fact, it were

passed on to the new buyer. That is not what happens. The new

buyer, the young people, the young couples who are trying to

get established are having to pay sky-rocket prices for land,

and it's not because the old people who have owned the land for

many years are cleaning up. It's because of the old system of

charging whatever the market will bear; the old story of supply

and demand being the rule. That to me just isn't good enough,

It's something that I hope this department can get into in

assembling, purchasing, leasing of land in a way that it will

have some meaning not only to the people who are buying land

but to those who are selling as well.

Certainly we have other problems as well — the question of

the quality of homes, and so on. There are people being made

millionaires all over this province by picking up cheap land

and selling it for whatever the market can bear; and it hasn't

only happened in the lower mainland. I know I've read stories

of it happening in the Interior and in the Okanagan as well.

The people who have been doing that are still doing it. They

are a little afraid that the new department might get involved

in the thing and scare away some of the profits that they have

been making, and I hope we can do that.

In this new department I hope that we can look at the standards, the qualities

and what is happening in housing. Certainly we have some pretty bad examples

of what has happened in the rapidly growing areas where the municipalities,

I'm sure, try desperately to hire enough inspectors and staff people to keep

things on an even plane. But it seems that if they are going to prevent some

of the kinds of builders, kinds of developers that we have today…to keep

some of them on the straight and narrow, you have to have an inspector parked

there continuously. That is not possible — not for any municipality.

What happens is that these builders get people involved. And

once again young couples trying to find a place for themselves,

they get involved in such a way that they just can't get out of

it. I have been called to visit places to look at the kind of

things that are happening. Checking it out with the

municipality I find that oftentimes we are called to look at

places that are built by the same guy, the same firm. No matter

where you go, it's the same few people.

I must say that there are some real good builders in the

Fraser Valley; there are some real good builders in Delta. But

we have some people who create a problem for all of them.

Certainly the one, Richard Company, Richard A. Lopez, who has

been building homes and has been chased by the inspectors in

that area for some time, is someone who has to be looked at. I

think the department, when they really get going on this thing,

they might even consider working with the municipalities to

lift the licence of those kinds of people who are creating

problems for the people of British Columbia.

The list of problems is so long on one house, a house which

people have moved into, paid for — improper inspection due to

the complications of the way it is done — that if I were to

read the list out it would take too long. There are pages and

pages of problems created by this builder.

When we get involved in trying to solve the problem of

housing the whole question of shelter — and that means to me

single family units, it means condominiums, it means apartments

and cluster developments, all kinds of developments — the one

thing that concerns me is that we maintain a really high

standard, so that those people who do buy in the area of

single-family units are not found to be, in a short time,

living among a number of high-rise apartments.

We have problems of that sort also developing throughout the

lower mainland and I know that in the city proper, in

Vancouver, they have those kinds of problems as well.

We've a lot of little people in the retirement years living

in White Rock who find all of a sudden they have an apartment

on either side of their little home. That's the kind of problem

those senior citizens just don't need. They also find, of

course, that they are being badgered by those who want to buy

their land, even if their land is not for sale.

But to get right into the question of the quality of homes,

the standard of homes, we have also to look at what's been

happening.

I've worked for a while on house construction. I worked with

painters who have shown me and told me some of the tricks that

they are required to pull. For instance, the inspection

requires that the tops as

[ Page 622 ]

well as the bottoms of the doors be painted, not just the

panels that you can see. When you pack all those doors into the

basement for the painters to paint them, they're advised to run

their brush along the edge of the bottom and the edge of the

top, and not to worry about putting paint or varnish on them,

because the inspector can't see that anyway when it's hung back

on the hinges. All he has to do is feel the edge, and if that

feels good enough that's all that counts.

The tradesmen are being told to prostitute the trades. They

are not even being able to carry out the trade in the way that

they learned it, because there's somebody always interested in

the speed-up development of building houses and the standards

begin to take second place.

It's all because it's more necessary to make a profit on the

building of those houses than it is to create the kinds of

homes that will stand up for a long period of time and be of

service to the people who buy them.

One of the things that was just recently brought to my

attention in some of the housing developments was basement

concrete that's cracked all over, cracked in the walls, cracked

in the floors and I was even told of one place where the

concrete is turning to sand.

Now it doesn't matter what kind of inspection you have, the

inspector can't drill a hole through the concrete to see

whether it's half-an-inch thick, two inches thick, three inches

thick, or just how thick it really is. The result is that when

you have all this speed-up operation, and because we have some

very poor developers in the community, we end up with concrete

that in some places is just skin-thick and in some places has got

its depths and its hollows. The result is that it cracks within

a year, or two and there's nobody to get back at. A great many

of the young people who end up in these homes are mortgaged to

the hilt and are unable to face the costs of repairing them.

There becomes a slipping-away of standards, a slipping-away of

living conditions. It always seems that the people who are most

seriously hurt are those who don't have the money to get out of

the problems.

I'm convinced that there are some builders who shouldn't be

allowed to continue to build. But the inspection system can't

keep up in the rapidly growing areas, so we find that they keep

getting after them and they fix up some of the things that they

are required to fix up, and they go on from there.

Somehow it seems to me that the Minister is going to have to

work with the municipalities and that we are going to have to

be awfully brutal with those people who are unfair to the

citizens of this province. We must put them out of business if

that's the way they want to carry one.

Certainly there will be a lot of problems. There's a lot of problems to face

in trying to solve the problem of shelter in this province. I want to encourage

the Minister. I know some of the things that I've said make it look like an

insurmountable job, but certainly he has my full support. I believe that this

is a department that's certainly due, and due immediately. We've got to get

on the job and I wish you the best of luck when we get it going.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few

words on housing here. I'd like first of all to congratulate

the new Minister of the new department. As you know, we are

certainly supporting this bill on second reading, but I would

like to discuss for a minute the problem regarding land for

housing.

Now I think first of all the new Minister has got a problem

on his hands that was created by the government that he is a

part of. I refer to the land freeze that has certainly

increased the cost of land in the lower mainland and a lot of

other parts of British Columbia. Some Members have said that

this problem is really just for the lower mainland areas, but I

can assure you that land prices for housing are acute wherever

there is a municipality in the interior or the north part of

the province. Land costs are certainly one of the big

factors.

I would like to know, when the Minister replies, what the

policy of the government is going to be with land that they

acquire for landbank or, in the case of Crown lands, what is

the policy going to be on disposal to the eventual purchaser?

In other words, is the policy going to be one of straight

leasing of this type of land or are they going to let it be

purchased by the individual?

There has in the past been quite a bit of Crown land turned

over to municipalities. I think probably the most successful

point in British Columbia has been the City of Prince George,

where Crown lands have been acquired for some time and

arrangements made through the city with the Department of Lands

of the provincial government to develop them for housing. In

effect what has happened, the Crown has set their price on the

land per acre, the city supplies the services, the Crown has

services is added to the price of the land and it is then sold

to the individual purchaser. In that particular city I think

they have done an excellent job — I know they have — and they

have kept the price of land down.

I think the secret has been that they've always had a fair

amount of lots available for the purchasers to acquire. I think

this is the answer in keeping up the quantity of land

available.

I really wonder, if the policy is going to be straight

leasing, whether it's going to be as attractive as it should be

to the individuals who are really looking for housing.

The other thing I'd like to know is whether the policy is for straight leasing

of this land, either in a

[ Page

623 ]

landbank or Crown land that is developed, where an

individual person leases a lot. I'd also like to know what the

terms are going to be regarding housing. Are they going to be 6

years, 20 years, 60 years? What is it? I understand that nobody

has said what this will be. I think if this is the case that

the government should announce policy. I'd like to hear the

Minister say something about it when he is winding up on this.

What I'm concerned with, if an individual leases a lot, if this

is government policy, and they go along for five years and they

decide to sell their lease, is there any capital gain involved

here? This lease will have to be subject to the agreement of

the provincial government. Are they going to acquire the

capital gain that goes on this or are they going to let the

individual reap the benefit of this capital gain?

AN HON. MEMBER: It's not in the bill?

MR. FRASER: No, it's not in the bill. I think a lot of cases

in the province now are waiting on the new government to

announce the policy and I'd certainly like to know what it is.

That's all I have to say at the present time on this housing

bill.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): The Minister, I

think, faces some awesome challenges as he sets up his new

department. I hope that he will measure up to those

challenges.

His assurances to the contrary notwithstanding in an

interview in the Vancouver Sun of September 22, I believe there

is the very real possibility that we may be headed towards

still another giant Crown corporation in this whole area of

activity for housing.

It's easy to speculate that the Minister may well become

known, in the jargon of the day, as the "czar" of housing for

British Columbia. If that is to be his role, then I think it

will be most unfortunate and a very good opportunity will have

been missed. In some respects the bill is a very good one. It brings

about seven orphan pieces of legislation under a single

administrative roof and, from a coordinating point of view,

this obviously is likely to be beneficial.

The Minister has been very low-key in his comments

concerning the new department, both in the House and in talking

through the media. But the fact remains that at least two

sections of the bill, numbers 6 and 9, assign him potentially

sweeping powers. He does have the right to set up a Crown

corporation, a housing agency, and again in

section 9 we have

the spectre of regulations which are completely beyond the

control or reach of this or succeeding Legislatures.

One of the immediate goals of the new Minister, Mr. Speaker, should be to establish,

and I hope he will, the closest possible working relationship with municipalities

and regional districts to ensure that their local knowledge, their expertise,

their background information, is made available not only to him, but to his

senior departmental people in order that it can be something of a team approach

to solving many of the problems he faces.

Some municipalities need to be encouraged, persuaded or, in

fact, prodded to become more active in the full spectrum of

housing accommodation. I think it's correct to say that the

past record of some municipalities and regional districts — particularly municipalities in this respect — is fairly

poor.

There are some exceptions to the rule and I can say that the

District of Saanich, I feel, is one of those exceptions, due in

large measure to the efforts of Alderman Mrs. Edith Gunning,

who pushed and prodded her council associates into the housing

field several years ago. The Minister, in fairness, took

considerable time one day this summer to learn first hand what

has been achieved within these past few years in Saanich and

elsewhere in Greater Victoria in housing.

As I attempted to point out in debating the Speech from the

Throne and as the Minister stated in his remarks on Friday

last, Mr. Speaker, it's a most regrettable fact that so many

middle-income families are finding it impossible to move into a

home of their own.

The Minister speaks about land assembly under government

sponsorship, and that is a commendable objective. My fear

remains, however, that those land-assembly schemes are

relatively long term and involve the setting aside of large

tracts of building sites for development in something over 5 to

10 — possible 12 years. As others have observed, this long-term

planning and assembly, while commendable, does nothing to meet

the immediate crisis — the shortage of reasonably priced land,

the shortage which is with us today.

So let's get moving, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker.

You've been assigned the housing function for a number of

months now. It's time for some early and very positive

action.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the Minister will have to be at his

persuasive best to overcome the average citizen's built-in

resistance to major innovations in single-family lot use, lot

size and housing development. Previous speakers have referred

to this. The concept such as zero lot line has much to

recommend it. But there's certainly going to be resistance from

individuals who see this as row-housing or as an introduction

of some type of less desirable housing from the United Kingdom

and elsewhere.

I've read with interest the activities of the Greater

Vancouver Regional District in introducing zero lot line

housing under that pilot project referred to in Coquitlam, and

I can only trust and hope that that development, since it is

something of a pilot scheme, will be handled with the greatest

possible care and

[ Page 624 ]

imagination.

It's also an interesting fact of life, I think, in our

present living style that the so-called "front yard" of a

single-family dwelling lot has become something approaching

sacred ground. This is still another challenge to the Minister

if he's looking at the greatest possible and best use of land

available to him for his departmental activities.

You know, Mr. Speaker, in so many respects that front yard,

that precious, say, 25 feet of land between the municipal

property line and the front of the house, represents a

tremendous waste of land. You rarely see the family entertain

on it; you rarely see the children playing on it — they're told

to play in the back or go to the park — the family makes very

little use of it other than to cut it and water it and keep it

fairly attractive.

Now there is, I suggest, considerable merit in experimenting

with developments in some of these new projects where that

rarely-used piece of ground, 60 feet by 25 feet, whatever the

dimensions may be, could be put to a more advantageous use. It

could be put at the rear of the property on a

joint-living-space basis — some common recreational land, as an

example. There's an interesting possibility there, Mr.

Speaker.

Finally, a detail — but, I feel, Mr. Minister, one which

could be of considerable help to people who are attempting to

establish their first home, and I quote a specific example in

order to demonstrate what the situation is. In areas other than

municipalities or perhaps even, with your assistance and

encouragement, within municipalities, I would suggest the

preparation of some little booklet which would fully outline

for the prospective new home-owner, the builder — that is, the

eventual owner — what information is necessary and where one

can get that information.

The need for this kind of booklet was brought to my

attention this summer by some people who are moving permanently

to one of the Gulf Islands — Galiano, in fact. They pointed out

that they had to do the following: they had to apply in Ganges

on Salt Spring Island for their building permit; to an office

in Victoria for the necessary health clearances; to the City of

Duncan for their hydro authority and, finally, in Ladner for

their electrical permit.

In addition, they had to consult with the Minister's new

department or parts of the Minister's new department with

respect to home acquisition and home-owners grants, and that

was done here in Victoria. They had to chase all over the

south-western part of British Columbia in order to get the

necessary clearances to build an ordinary single-family home on

Galiano Island.

It's difficult enough, then, for those of us more directly associated with

government at one level or another to remember all the locations, all the requirements,

all the assistance programmes available. So it's easy to understand how confusing

this must be for someone who's moving into perhaps their first new home.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister has a major job ahead of him.

Again I hope that he achieves at least some of the goals he has

set for his department and himself. The problem: a critical

shortage of all types of housing today — not just 10 years from

now but today, Mr. Minister — a shortage which is, I think,

demoralizing to many young British Columbians.

MR. H. STEVES (Richmond): Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt

that there is a housing crisis before us. Some of the Members

have given us evidence indicating how broadly based this

housing crisis is, so I don't propose to go into that area.

I would, however, like to start off by reading a letter that

I have received from a person regarding rental accommodation. I

think this is typical of many calls by phone and by letter I've

had — probably 300 or 400 over the past couple of months. This

letter reads:

"Dear Sir;

"As a senior citizen and a widow, I find the increases in rent in Vancouver out of all reason. The owners

are showing no mercy, even though they realize many of us will

have to move. In my case, it means I will have to move again,

which will be the third time in six years.

"I moved in at $145 a month and in three years the rent is up to $195 a month. What am I going to do? I do

not want to move away to Burnaby or some other district as I

have lived here about half of my life. My friends and my

relatives are here. Besides, I have heart trouble and should

not have to go through this strain every year or two.

"Is there no way of restricting rent increases to six or seven per cent? Or building some new apartments for

the middle-class citizen who does not want to be on

welfare?"

I think this typifies the problem that people are facing,

particularly our senior citizens and our young people who are

trying to find accommodation — senior citizens, of course, who

are on fixed incomes and don't have the $195 per month to blow

all in one shot on rental accommodation.

The rental increase this person is talking about is small by

comparison to some of the others I have heard of. Other

increases have ranged…in one apartment an increase, in one

jump, from $160 a month to $245 a month, and the citizens

living there received a written notice saying that they were

going to receive this increase and that in three months they

expected them to vacate the premises — unless, of course, they

were willing to pay the rent. But right in the letter that they

got it more or less indicated that they expected they would

probably leave. Their rental

[ Page 625 ]

increase is about 35 per cent in one jump.

Mr. Speaker, what I suggest is happening is that the

landlords are clearing the deck in anticipation of legislation

not just in housing, but in rental accommodation in the future.

They are clearing the deck both by increasing the rents and, of

course, by evicting people or turning down people that they

consider in one way or another undesirable.

The answer to this, of course, is the massive housing

programme that someone mentioned earlier, and I will go into

this in a little more detail later. Until that time, until we

are able to bring in a massive housing programme, I think we

have to address ourselves to, as a stop-gap measure, trying to

restrict the evictions and having rent posted and so on as to

just cause. We may even have to start looking at just cause for

rental increases until we do have a chance to increase the

housing that's available. Things are getting very much out of

hand and I think that by spring it will probably be twice as

bad as it is now.

Mr. Speaker, the bill we are discussing here mentions

setting up housing corporations. As the answer to the housing

crisis I would like to look at this particular aspect of the

legislation in some detail. I would like to suggest that rather

than setting up housing corporations we should set up one major

housing corporation — one which would be set up on a regional

basis, one which would focus funds and energy on the housing

shortage in a well-organized, proper way, one which would

assist both as a solution of the housing crisis and in the

broader range of problems concerning regional and provincial

development. I can see such a corporation developing a

long-term housing plan say for 10 or 15 years by making a study

to find out what the housing needs will be over the next 10 or

15 years.

I've heard various comments with regard to the amount of

housing we need. I've heard that we have a population increase

from out of the province of about 3 per cent, which would

amount to about 30,000 to 35,000 people moving in per year

needing accommodation. This indicates probably that with our

natural growth of population plus immigration we need, just to

catch up and break even, about 30,000 units per year of public

and private housing that we already have, of course.

I think that the housing corporation should develop a

long-term plan to predict how much housing will be needed over

10 or 15 years and then set up an immediate 4 or 5-year plan to

solve the immediate housing crisis. The housing authority would

then prepare and release annual estimates of the housing supply

and the shortages in both the public and in the private sector.

I think only by attacking it in this manner will we really be

able to solve the housing crisis.

With regard to the types of housing that we should look into and the

methods of doing it, unfortunately in many areas the housing

authorities, as with other governmental bureaucracies, can become

over-centralized. I think that we have to work very carefully with the

local community. A provincial housing authority should have branches in

all the municipalities and regional districts, should work with the

local municipalities and with the local citizens involved in living in

any public accommodation or public housing and should work with the

local advisory planning boards and the regional districts in developing

proposals for housing that are sensitive to local needs.

I think that we have to try to create a housing mix.

Somebody mentioned earlier smaller lot size — zero lot lines. I

think we have to try to create a housing mix and we've tried

this in Richmond over the last number of years. We've embarked

on a programme there of developing mixed housing with both

single-family dwellings and apartments. We could look into

smaller lot sizes mixed in with the large lot sizes so that we

get low-income people and middle-income people and

higher-income people living together in the community and do

not start creating ghettos.

Look at what Richmond is trying to do by putting in

medium-rise apartments — seven-storey apartments — in areas of

single family dwellings. Take a look at cluster housing whereby

you can develop a cluster of houses and leave lots of open

space for the community. While talking on apartments, this also

does the same thing. I don't think we should go into the urban

areas outside of Vancouver and start putting in seven-storey

apartment blocks or 14-storey high-rise apartments unless we

leave some open space. By developing the land properly you can

take buildings that would take up a large amount of acreage and

instead have it take up some of the air space and leave some of

the green spaces below for the little kids to play in and for

people to enjoy as parks.

Using the Richmond example again, in the bylaws out there

the Richmond council has allowed about 10 per cent of the land

in any new subdivision to be developed as apartment living.

When they develop that land they have to donate so much green

land for park development as well for the community at large. I

think that we should look to this example as a way of

developing housing in other area as well.

One other thing we must consider in our housing programmes

is that the housing programme and services be well integrated

with other services such as schools, social services, day care

centres in the new housing developments, and so on. Most

apartments, in my opinion, could have a day care service at the

lower floor or the upper floor or some place so that young

parents living there could take their kids in during the day,

or during the night for that matter — whenever they need the

facilities of a day care centre. They wouldn't have to go

halfway across town

[ Page 626 ]

looking for such a service.

Our housing will also have to take into consideration

employment needs so that we don't have people going from one

area all the way through the city to get to their employment on

the other side. We have to develop a housing programme which

will allow people to work and live in the same neighbourhood as

much as possible.

We also have to consider when we're developing a housing

programme our transportation needs, particularly public

transit. We should be looking to find transit corridors in the

greater Vancouver area where we can increase the density of

housing so that we will then be able to afford to put in the

more heavy types of rapid transit such as rail lines and so on

to go into the areas where people will work. So we should look

to these areas for a heavy increase in housing density. This

will not only help pay for the system of public transit but

also will encourage the people to use the public transit rather

than their vehicles. So at that point we get more people using

public transit and less filling the roads with automobiles.

The other thing I would like to see the housing corporation

do or this department do, as has been mentioned earlier by the

Hon. Member for Delta (Mr. Liden), is get into a major land

assembly programme. In my riding we have between 2,000 and

3,000 acres — I'm not sure of the exact figures now because

things are being developed so rapidly in some parts of the

community and in others very little development has taken

place. But we have between 2,000 and 3,000 acres of

residentially-zoned land which has not been built upon.

Much of this land is owned by land speculators in fairly

large chunks who are holding the land and letting it go out

very slowly for development so that they can keep the prices

up.

Other acreage of this land is owned by small property owners

who are not interested in speculating at all and probably would

be interested in selling their land and having it developed but

are not able to do so. This group is largely a group of people

who came back from the war and under VLA purchased land in

Richmond — and I'm sure this has happened in other ridings as

well — thinking they were going to have a small farm. The

soldiers when they were overseas looked to coming home and

having a bit of property where they could grow some vegetables,

have a cow and so on. So under VLA a programme was set up

whereby they were able to claim around 1.6 to 1.8 acres in VLA

subdivisions. This was a great ideal. However, the people found

when they did get this small parcel of land, of course, that

they could not make a living on under 2 acres. They have one

house on the land and much of the land is vacant land behind

them.

We have many, many hundreds of acres, in fact several quarter sections of land

in Richmond, that are VLA holdings and small holdings that aren't under VLA

that maybe range from 2 to 3 acres. We'll have a whole quarter section. Our

roads are laid out every quarter of a mile. You might have 50 or 100 houses

around that quarter of a mile and all the land behind it is vacant land — much

of it growing weeds, the odd cow, the odd horse, some of it in vegetables. But

there are so many single owners that they aren't able to assemble the land.

I would like to see the provincial government get involved

in a land assembly programme in areas such as this to develop

that land and put it into housing. We would have thousands of

homes on the market very, very quickly if we were able to

develop such a programme.

This can be done. As an example, I'd like to mention a

programme which the municipality of Richmond considered about

four years ago and which was voted down by a local council

because it infringed upon free enterprise. We looked into

developing a quarter

section of land — actually it was smaller

than that, a 50-acre piece of property — four-and-a-half years

ago. We had an opportunity to buy the land at that time for

$3,000 per acre for 50 years or a total of $150,000. We

investigated the cost of putting in services and found that the

municipality could put in all roads, covered sewers, lighting

and all the services required for subdivision. We required 15

acres for an addition to one of our parks — the Hugh Boyd Park

on Francis Road in Richmond. We found that by developing our

own assembly programme we could have got the parkland free, put

in all the services, either sold or leased the lots for about

$1,000 per lot less than the market value, put in a covered

swimming pool and still made about $100,000 on the

development.

Because people on the council at that time did not want to

infringe upon free enterprise it was voted down in a five to

four vote of our local council. We are presently in Richmond

negotiating to buy the 15 acres of land we need to add to the

park for $10,000 per acre, or a total of $150,000 — which was

the cost we could have had the whole development for only five

years ago.

Now I use this as an example because it can be done. If the

provincial government is able to get into land assembly I think

you will find that some of the municipalities like ours are now

much more amenable to it, that we can get in, we can decrease

the cost of the property by putting it out on a lease basis. We

can put in needed parks and recreational developments and all

services and still bring the cost of providing land for people

down.

The other thing with regard to the land assembly programme,

in areas where we would not be assembling land I, too, would

like to join with one of the other Members who mentioned that

we should be

[ Page 627 ]

increasing taxes on speculative holdings. This is not only

in the residential areas but would also apply to the

agricultural land as well, and of course in the Bill 42 debate,

I mentioned that there are many land speculators in my riding

holding vast tracts of land for speculation in the agricultural

zone.

My feeling is that we should increase residential and

agricultural taxes on people, on speculators who are holding

tracts of land both in the agricultural zone and in the

residential zone. We can increase these taxes by determining

who the people are who live on the land in the agricultural

zone, if they live there, and are farmers themselves. In the

residential zone we can determine who actually lives on the

land and exempt them from a tax increase. But I think absentee

owners should have to pay higher taxes because they are largely

the ones who are really involved in the land speculation.

The ones on the VLA lots, we have to look at some other way

of actually helping them by a housing-land assembly programme.

But those who are sitting on the land and holding it should pay

higher taxes so that they will be forced to put the land on the

market and not withhold the land in order to create an

artificial increase in price for their land.

Mr. Speaker, when the provincial government does get

involved in a land assembly programme, and does start putting

land on the market, I would like to see us do it on a lease

basis only and on a long-term lease basis. I would like to see

us get rid of the middleman in the resale of such land that we

develop.

This morning I was on an open-line programme and I had a

phone call. In fact, it was rather interesting that on this

open-line programme I was involved in this morning most of the

people that phoned in were interested in housing. I had

mentioned things on the high cost of food, and environmental

problems and so on, but the people were most concerned about

housing and this is what they zeroed in upon.

I mentioned some of the things that I have mentioned here

about land developers owning large tracts of land in the

agricultural zone, and somebody phoned me. A vice-president

from Block Brothers phoned up and said: "Well, we don't own

land in the agricultural zone." They were, more or less, he

inferred "good boys" so I agreed with him that they did not own

land in the agricultural zone in Richmond and I, of course, had

never said that they did.

But what Block Brothers had done, and this is one reason that they were not,

in my opinion, opposed to Bill 42, was that they had gone into the more urban

areas and had bought lands in a small way, but more valuable lands, and were

involved in a speculative way in the residential areas. One of the ways that

they did this in my own area, in Steveston, they had prior knowledge, for example,

when the municipality was going to put in the sewer programme. It was knowledge

that was available to a lot of people, but the general public didn't know about

it yet.

Block Brothers salesmen went door to door through the

community, asking people if they would like to list their

house, or the vacant lot that they might own, and some people

owned as much as a half acre or an acre, and they offered them

a lot more money than what they had thought their land was

worth.

As soon as the sewer programme was announced and the

municipal government started putting it in at the taxpayers'

expense of course there was an inflation in the value of the

land.

Perfectly legal! The Block Brothers representatives and some

other land real estate companies as well, were able to make a

pretty good profit by speculating on what municipal government

was going to do.

I use this as an example because I think that when the

provincial government gets involved in a programme like that we

have to guard against this thing from happening.

Now, when I was talking to this Block Brothers

representative this morning and he was saying: "We didn't get

involved in large land holdings," and I pointed out that

they had been involved in small holdings for speculative

increase in the value of the land, a land contractor phoned up

and gave an instance of how — I believe it was North Vancouver — had put land out on a lease basis. They developed the lots and

had put them up for bids. Apparently Block Brothers came in and

bid on the leased lots and the contractor that I was talking

to, he said that he bid up second to Block Brothers. They got

the lots for about $26,000 per lot. He bid against them and

lost out.

Block Brothers apparently got most of the lots, if not all

of the lots, in this particular subdivision and now this

contractor is still trying to buy these lots because he's the

one that has to build the houses on it. Block Brothers does not

go into the construction of houses.

He is now faced with paying $29,000 for the same lots that

Block Brothers was able to buy by bidding with the local

government for $26,000.

Now I think this is something that we have to take

cognizance of, that if we are putting lots out for sale on a

bid basis, or anything else, that it should go to individual

buyers or individual contractors who are building for buyers

and that we should eliminate the middleman.

Even if we are able to do it on a fairly massive scale — and

I don't think we will initially — we are liable to have some of

these real estate companies — and I use Block Brothers as an

example, but there are dozens of others — coming in, bidding up

and buying the land and then still being able to control the

price that the land is leased out for to the citizens who

are

[ Page 628 ]

trying to have their houses built.

I think, Mr. Speaker, what we need as well as the housing

authority, a province-wide housing authority, is a real estate

authority as well to deal with the land — a provincial real

estate authority to deal with the land that we are putting on

the market.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on housing

qualities. This was raised by the Hon. Member for Delta (Mr.

Liden) earlier. The quality of housing is generally the

responsibility of the local municipalities who have to

interpret the National Housing Act and also have local

municipal bylaws.

Presently, the municipalities have been working with the

provincial government in developing standards of housing

quality for use across the entire province. However, these

standards are only standards for construction in the line of

safety. They do not take into consideration the quality of the

construction that is being built. Well, they do take in quality

in a minor way, but not in a major way.

One of the things that I think the provincial government

should consider in working with the building inspectors

throughout the province, is also getting involved in setting

guidelines for licensing of builders in an area, as well as

setting the guidelines for construction in a cooperative way

with the municipal governments.

I would like to cite two examples. One: two years ago, and I

can give these from a very informed point of view as I was

chairman of the building and licensing committees of the local

council for a couple of years. Two years ago we had a company

come in and build houses in Richmond. They found some loopholes

in both our municipal bylaws — because we were looking only

into, at the time, safety features — but also loopholes in the

National Housing Act .

This one particular builder came in and built houses that

had no outside sheathing on the houses. In other words, they

put up the studs, they put up insulation and gyproc on the

inside, they put on tarpaper on the outside of the studs, and

then put on the outside finish which, in the case of most of

the houses, was cedar siding which eventually dried out and

left great cracks so the air could get into the cedar and then

go through the tarpaper. There was no sheathing, no plywood

underneath, no shiplap, no nothing. Of course they saved a lot

of money in the construction of those particular houses.

They also cut corners in a lot of other ways because our

local bylaws did not take into consideration the quality of

the house, so the houses were very inferior.

When they came back to us last year to renew their licence

to continue to build houses we turned their licence down. We

said we didn't like the quality even though in the bylaws they

probably met the quality characteristics that were set up. But

also we had had so many complaints we were able to say "Okay, the people you sold to are complaining." Some of them

listed hundreds of complaints against this particular company.

And we said: "We don't think that you are a good business and

we don't think you are a good corporate interest in our

community and therefore we are not going to renew your

licence."

I might add, and this had no bearing in our decision, we

found that one of the principals in this company was a Mr.

Link, who I understand has had some connection with the Mafia.

But at any rate, this did not play a role in our decision in

turning the licence down.

However, the question I raise is where is Mr. Link and his

company operating now? What other municipality have they moved

into? Are they in Delta, or Surrey, or where? Mr. Link where

are you? Because we have said that you can't have a licence in

Richmond. I think the province should be looking into the

licensing procedures of other areas.

Another example: Sharon Gardens in Richmond, of which many of you may have

heard, also had many problems. The residents who bought the houses there….

In fact, with a proper consumer affairs department, when something like that

happened, I think the Hon. Minister of consumer affairs (Hon. Ms. Young) would

have got a lot of complaints from this particular development a couple of years

ago.

In Richmond we turned down the licence of that company as

well. The last time I heard, they had formed a new company

under a different name operating in Delta.

So, I think we should look into housing builders such as

this and make sure that they do meet the requirements of those

areas because what they do is produce inferior quality housing.

When they get kicked out of one area, they move into another

one and keep on going.

So, Mr. Speaker, I would like to plead for province-wide

licensing guidelines for builders to be enforced co-operatively

with the municipal authorities and the regional authorities

throughout the province.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased with the

legislation. I think in the future we will see a major input of

government investing in housing in the province. I think it is

rather urgent, of course, that we get into it in a big way, but

I am sure that if we do, and when we do, we will be able to

maintain or keep or bring the costs of land and housing down

and will be able to keep the rents from spiralling.

I understand that Manitoba, by entering into a housing

programme such as this, was able, in effect, to bring rents

down because they were able to create enough housing that they

created a surplus. B.C. is a lot bigger than Manitoba, but I

think that with this kind of legislation we'll at least be

able to make an effort in that direction.

[ Page 629 ]

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

got before us another one of these bills that takes a good

idea, translates it into bad legislation, and puts it into the

hands of a worse Minister. I'm trying to be charitable, but

we've had a pattern in this session of one big bill after

another. And unless the Legislature comes to its senses and

begins to lay out in fairly precise terms what legislation

should achieve and what the restraints are on the government,

we might as well all go home and not show up in the Legislature

at all — have one omnibus bill saying the government can do

anything it wishes and use any amount of money for that purpose

and that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may pass

regulations if it doesn't specifically say he can do that in

the one Act we pass.

Because there is really nothing here to act as a major

indication of what the government intends to do in the way of

housing. That's why we have had in this debate Member after

Member standing on his feet and saying, "I wonder if the

government will do this?" or "I wonder if the government will

do that?"

What a bill should do is to lay out, precisely, a plan of

action so that the Members are debating the pros and cons of a

definite plan. Not the kind of legislation that we have had

where the legislative council and his assistant sit down and

think of everything possible under the sun and include it in

five or six sections.

We are in the unfortunate circumstance, as I said before, of

having two bad sessions of the Legislature instead of one. We

still have the same number of people drafting bills — the

elected Members don't have anything to do with drafting bills — and they are overworked. There are too many suggestions being

placed before them where there is the title of a bill and an

idea thought of, but without there really being any concept of

what is to be achieved. What you have to do, under those

circumstances, is to take a look at the record and try and

judge what has happened. What has happened since the NDP

government has taken over, is that we have had the highest rate

of inflation in housing and land costs in our history. In no

other period in British Columbia's past has there been such a

relative shortage of housing, such a relative shortage of

rental accommodation, such sharply increasing prices of new and

used homes. The reason is: the demand is continuing on, despite

the fact that we have had a change in government, but the

supply is shrinking. The supply is shrinking because every

single move the government has made — and it isn't just the

Minister of housing-to-be, when we pass the legislation for his

department — it's the negative moves that have been made by all

the other Ministers of the Crown that has been responsible for

setting housing back in this province.

I'll just give one example, Mr. Speaker. This is from a civil servant in the

Highways department and I don't want to blame him because I know he is acting

under the instructions of the Minister. This is what he said to Mr. John Martens,

who is General Manager of the 108 Recreational Ranch Development:

RE: 108 Development Land Use Contract

Thank you for your letter dated September 18,

1973. I have read the circular you enclosed. I confirm that I will not issue

you a certificate of substantial commencement.

Yours very truly,

M.G. Elston

Senior Approving Officer

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of things wrong with that kind of a letter.

First of all, it is arrogant because it gives no reasons for the refusal. Secondly:

it gives no indication as to when the government policy might change. Thirdly:

it fails to honour a contract.

When governments change they have one sacred obligation, and

that sacred obligation is to honour contracts of previous

governments that have been entered into in good faith. Our

whole system of democracy breaks down if every time there is a

new government they feel completely free to dispense with every

previous obligation undertaken by their predecessors in office.

This is precisely what has been done in this particular case.

It's right in line with the thinking and actions of the

Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. Mr.

Williams) because that's what he did with the PNE contracts

when he brought that amendment in last year.

It is just about the poorest way for a government to

perform, Mr. Speaker. For a government that has stood up in

this House and in the election campaigns before that, to say

they were an open government: it was going to be a new deal;

they would listen to the people; there would be real democracy;

there would be consultation…. I have heard the Members, all

of them on this side of the House, applauding all those

statements, and what a fine, clean, honest, upstanding

government it was to be. You still applaud the remarks; you'll

applaud the words, as you are applauding now, but look what

happens. You turn around and the action is to repudiate

contracts, to send out arrogant letters of dismissal, to go

against the Cariboo Regional District.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: Well, this is what this letter…. Mr.

Minister, I'll come to something you have done. This isn't one

of them.

AN HON. MEMBER: That won't take long.

[ Page 630 ]

MR. McGEER: The Cariboo Regional District wrote to Premier

Barrett and the Highways Minister protesting this action,

because the Cariboo Regional District believes in honouring

commitments. They were quoting from one of the up-country

newspapers:

"The Regional Planning Board is doing everything

possible to persuade the government to honour this land-use contract.

For the government not to allow the developers to continue is not only

a flagrant breach of contract, but it's also a great disservice to a

growing community."

Those aren't my words, Mr. Speaker, but I sympathize with

them.

If the government is prepared to repudiate contracts, if

it's prepared to do a disservice to a growing community, if

it's prepared to go against the decisions of a regional

planning board, whether it's in the Cariboo or anywhere else,

and to take these arbitrary actions without consultation, then

what we're going to do is to break down the confidence of

cities and municipalities, regional districts, homebuilders and

individual citizens in their ability to plan and develop

British Columbia. We'll be left with only what the government

can achieve.

So far, Mr. Speaker, the government has not placed one lot

for sale or lease to the public of British Columbia. All that's

happened in the 13 months the government has been in office is

to have a series of statements, plus a series of arbitrary

actions, that have throttled the normal kind of development

that's desperately needed in a province like British Columbia

where the population is rapidly growing.

It's been suggested that a whole year has been lost. But Mr.

Speaker, this example of the 108 is not just a question of

losing a year; it's setting things back. I'm certainly no

apologist for Henry Block. I think if he gets his knuckles

rapped by the government he deserves it, because Henry Block

has done very well out of the land freeze in other aspects of

his operations. I apologize, Mr. Speaker, for giving the House

some incorrect information when I spoke about his profits here

once before, in saying that he had 2,000 lots for sale at the

time he sent the congratulatory wire to the Premier. He had

considerably fewer than that, but the fact nevertheless remains

that the profits of that company went soaring ahead as soon as

the land freeze was announced by the government.

The people who are being injured by this are not Block

Brothers; they're the people who, in investing in this

community, had every reason to believe that the development

would go ahead as planned because a land-use contract had been

granted by the government. They're really the ones who have

been left holding the bag and I see no reason why they should

be victimized by the arbitrary actions of the government.

When others in some other development in British Columbia

see what can happen to this particular group, then they become

very, very cautious in the way that they move. I submit it's

actions of this kind that have led to the dreadful shortage of

land and new housing developments in British Columbia.

This in turn has pushed up the price of used housing and has

created a desperate shortage in rental accommodation. The

shortage in rental accommodation in turn has pushed up the

prices of rentals, as the Member for Richmond (Mr. Steves)

recently told us about in the letter that he read to the

House.

Mr. Speaker, there's only one appropriate way to cure this

situation, and that's for the government to undertake moves

that will restore confidence in the general public; to begin to

work in cooperation with the regional districts and not in

opposition to them; to use the resources of government to work

in partnership with those in the private sector, because

there's no possible way that a government housing corporation

can be large enough to do it all themselves. No possible

way.

Therefore, if the government is to be successful and the

people are to have housing, then somehow the government is

going to have to ride to victory on the coattails of what the

private sector does.

Mr. Speaker, when I plead for more precise legislation in

this House so that Members on this side don't have to speculate

about what's going to happen, it's because others, who are

actually in the business of providing housing, need to know

these answers, too, before they're able to take the kind of

action that all of us want to see taken on behalf of all those

who lack accommodation at the present time.

Mr. Speaker, I promised a few kind words for the Minister

before I sat down. He's a new Member and he's recently been

appointed to the cabinet.

I suspect he first came under the spell of the Minister of

Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams), who

whispered some suggestions to him as to what his initial

statements should be. They were carelessly made, Mr. Speaker,

and again they set back the course of progress in this

province.

The purchase of a home and property is the most important

single purchase that any of us or any of the people in British

Columbia will make. It's the physical basis for our family

structure. It's the location of the neighbourhood where we

live, how we educate our family and the style of living that we

undertake.

If our housing programmes are successful, then our

communities can become model communities and people, by owning

their homes, can enter into the best form of savings.

It's the ownership of property that gives a man a real stake

in his community. While it may seem expensive to pay the high

interest rates of mortgages,

[ Page 631 ]

nevertheless the home is the one thing that increases in

value as time passes by. Those mortgage payments turn out in

the end to be an extremely valuable form of savings.

A man's home is his castle. If you turn around and have the

government, the Crown, own that property and lease it out to

that man on a short-term basis, then it's an asset which

depletes in value and always that man with his most important

possession is at the mercy of a government that can change the

terms of that lease at will.

Remember that the pattern of this government is one of

saying: "It's all right to break a contract. You don't have to

honour the terms of the previous government." Now you're going

to impose those conditions on every individual lessee of the

tracts of land that you develop.

Mr. Speaker, under those conditions a person would be very

unwise to make his commitment to that kind of housing if he had

the alternative of outright purchase of his land, where his

home could then be his castle. I am an absolute opponent of

this concept of leasing land to any individuals except the very

wealthy, who would have the option themselves at any future

time of buying a piece of land outright, But for the vast

majority, whose only real opportunity to save in life would be

through the home they'd purchase, nothing could be a more

mistaken concept.

I hope that the Minister will begin to turn a deaf ear

towards the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources

(Hon. Mr. Williams) and begin to think in terms of the real and

important needs of the average income earner in the province.

While that man a year ago might have felt that he was close to

being able to purchase a home, inflation and the rising costs

of property have made that dream become more and more remote.

He's much further away today, even though he may have had a

modest increase in his salary, to achieving that dream than he

would have been the day the NDP took over.

Mr. Speaker, the correct thing for that Minister to do is to

begin to look at the position of people who are wanting to buy

a home today. Here we have in British Columbia an immense

amount of land. We've got a vast reservoir of natural

resources, skilled tradesmen — all the elements to provide

every average citizen of British Columbia with his own home and

his own piece of property.

So what the government should use its resources to do is to

purchase land outright, not by any mean haggling, not by taking

land that belongs to the universities, but by going out and

purchasing it in the areas where housing is required. The

Minister can do that. There's land in Burnaby, Delta, the City

of Vancouver, North Vancouver — everywhere there's land

available.

Then prepare that land with the necessary services and sell it at cost, or

below the cost. Sell it outright to those people; that way you put property

on the market. That way you automatically deflate any excess profits that others

developing property may have been tempted to extract. Because then you're in

open competition for the basic unit that is required for housing. Then help

that man; buy his home after it's built, by increasing the amount of mortgage

money available.

When you do all these things you're not only doing the right

social thing, you're doing the right economic thing. Because

this is going to spur employment and productivity and do it in

the most useful direction possible — namely, to buy shelter for

the people. This is the challenge and it's the only challenge,

really. This is where the power and the resources of government

can be used to help individual citizens.

But to do what the NDP government has done so far — take a

holier-than-thou attitude to every privately-held piece of land — forgetting all about the vast tracts that belong to the Crown

… but if it belongs to some individual there must be

something wrong with it, and therefore moving this way, that

way, the other way, to block him going ahead with any projects;

then instead of going out on the open market and buying

undeveloped land if it's available, to attempt to take, as the

government is doing, land from Simon Fraser University and the

University of British Columbia and then, having taken the land

and having stopped the private developer — not stopped it but

inhibited it — then to go ahead with the programme of leasing

this property, to me is doing things wrong on every single

count.

If the government makes mistakes like this, and there is

every indication that they're going to continue making

mistakes, then it's just going to be tougher for everybody in

British Columbia to get a home in which they can live. I hope

the Minister will at least have listened carefully to the

things that some of the Members have said on this side, because

there's nothing more needed than a Ministry of Housing. But

just establishing that Ministry won't necessarily do good; it's

quite possible that such a Ministry can do harm.

If the Minister is going to be successful then he's going to

have to change his direction. I hope, as a consequence of this

debate, that he'll begin to take a second look at his

policies.

MS. K. SANFORD (Comox): I would also like to offer my

congratulations to the new Minister of Housing and at the same

time congratulate the government for having established this

portfolio which deals with one of the most basic needs of the

people of the province. It's a need which has now reached

crisis proportions here.

I've heard, during the debate today and also last

[ Page 632 ]

week on this bill, MLAs from the lower mainland indicating

that the greatest crisis is in the lower mainland, that the

shortage there is indeed very critical. I would like to point

out to the new Minister of Housing and to the people of this

assembly that the situation is at least as critical in rural

ridings such as Comox.

I have here a clipping from last week's paper of one of the

editions from Campbell River which headlines on the front page

that Campbell River is the fastest growing in the province. Now

because of the rate at which places like Campbell River are

growing, the councils are finding it almost impossible to keep

up with the problems that are created by that rapid growth. Of

course, one of the serious problems that is created is the

matter of housing for its citizens.

The council at Campbell River did a survey a short time ago

and did some projecting for their housing needs for the future.

One of the things they found was that by 1977 they would need

an additional 284 suites of apartments in Campbell River. Well,

those permits have already been issued for the year 1973 in

Campbell River; so they are about four years behind in

estimating the growth that is taking place at Campbell River.

The apartments that have been finished under the permits issued

this year are already full.

The same situation applies to places like Port Hardy where

also they are facing extremely rapid growth, particularly

because of the introduction of the huge Utah Mines project up

there. In Port Hardy they have had to accept mobile homes all

over town, in various places, with little or no planning. They

are suffering health problems because of the situation there,

and they are turning desperately to the provincial government

for help.

In Port McNeill the situation is not much different. But

contrary to the comments of the previous speaker who indicated

that not much was being done — and I've heard that from several

Members of the House — I would like to compliment the Minister

who in a few short months has responded very positively to the

requests of the municipalities in the riding of Comox. For

instance, he is in the process of servicing lots in various

parts, he is in the process of negotiating for land, and he has

purchased land in several parts of the riding.

He has now responded to the requests in Port Hardy, Port

McNeill, Sayward, Campbell River, Courtenay and Comox, and

there are still requests coming in for assistance, Mr.

Minister; I understand there are more that are on their way.

But the councils up there are grateful for the response that

they have received, and they now have permission to go ahead

with land clearing and providing services that are needed.

At the same time, I would also like to compliment the various organizations

and service groups which have gone ahead and provided housing, particularly

for senior citizens in various parts of the riding.

I feel that the work that has been done by these service

organizations deserves credit because of the many hours that

they have devoted to working with planners and architects and

provincial governments and federal governments. They have

constructed these homes, moved the old-age pensioners into them

and are now doing the work of caring for the lawns and doing

the landscaping.

The First Member for Point Grey (Mr. McGeer), who just

finished speaking, made a comment which I feel I have to

comment on at this time. He said that when people own their own

property they gain a stake in their communities. Now I think

that that particular statement is an insult to the large

numbers of people who have never owned property and who will

never be able to own property because they can't afford it.

These people, many of them, have at least as large a stake in

their communities and are working at least as hard as the

property owners to see that their community develops in an

orderly fashion.

I would have to agree with many of the other speakers that

because we have treated land as a commodity and not as a

resource, it has been priced out of the market for so many of

the people of British Columbia. I would like to see our land

used — the emphasis on the use of land and not on the ownership

of land.

Mr. Speaker, again I congratulate the Minister. We in Comox

riding expect great things out of this department. Thank

you.

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): Not a great deal has been

said in this debate, Mr. Speaker, about some of the problems

facing people in rural areas in regard to housing. It's true,

as the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer)

pointed out, that there is a large area of the province not

presently being used for any purpose except growing trees — which is a pretty good purpose, in my opinion.

There is a lot of land available in a constituency such as

mine. The fact is that the overwhelming majority of this type

of property — even though it is, in theory, owned by the Crown — is not suitable for housing.

I would suggest to the Minister, Mr. Speaker, that in areas

surrounding communities where Crown land is available…I

personally favour the long-term lease concept so that property

may be made available to the people on a long-term basis at

very low prices so that these people can afford to build a

home.

One of the main problems facing people in an unorganized area is obtaining

funds from the bank or other sources — in other words, mortgage money. I know

of a young fellow, just recently, who was making very nearly $10,000 a year,

is 22 years old, married; he went to the bank, applied for a mortgage

[ Page

633 ]

and was refused.

He then went to one of these finance companies in order to

obtain money, and is paying a tremendous rate of interest on

his money. As a matter of fact, in 18 months, under his present

contract, he'll have only paid $300 of the principal on a

$9,000 loan. In other words, 18 months of his payments have

gone to the interest charges and he's only paid $300 on a

$9,000 loan to the principal.

Mr. Speaker, there is another problem in regard to housing

in some of our rural areas. Much of the land surrounding our

rural communities is owned by private companies — usually

foreign-owned companies. These companies are paying a very low

rate of taxation on this land, yet they will not, in some cases

under any circumstances, release this property for use for

building purposes. I have an example.

In my constituency we have people attempting to build a mile

to two miles outside the community where there are no water

services. Yet between where they are building now and the

community there is approximately a mile to a mile and a half of

excellent property which should be used for housing so that

people may have these services. Yet these companies refuse to

sell this land.

They know that these companies don't need this land for

their development programmes or for their operations. They are,

in fact, holding on to this property for sheer speculative

value. It's better than money in the bank the way things are

going these days.

So I would urge the Minister, Mr. Speaker, to look at this

concept, to look at ways of perhaps getting some of this land

back into the hands of the Crown. I could suggest here a number

of methods, but I'll leave it to the Minister. I'm sure that

the Minister will come up with some very satisfactory

ideas.

I think that's about all I have to say. In closing, Mr.

Speaker, I would once again say that I personally favour the

concept of long-term leases of Crown lots to individuals. Thank

you.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): The legislation we have here

has been discussed — or I should say skirted — in the

Minister's explanations and, of course, in much of the

statements by Members supporting the government. Questions have

been raised by Members of all three parties on this side and

yet none of these questions appear to have been answered by the

government spokesmen. We certainly trust that the Minister

himself will rectify the omission in his initial introductory

statement when he comes to the debate because, as this bill has

presently been explained, I rather doubt if it can get the

support of me or other Members of my party.

The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that in the last year the problem

of housing in British Columbia has become infinitely more

acute. Prices have gone up; shortages have occurred. Now it's

not just me saying this; the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver

South (Mrs. Webster) talked about there being one empty

apartment out of the 175 — 174 in her riding which are

occupied. There's one vacant out of 175, a vacancy rate of 0.6

per cent. She talks about this — which is, of course, a direct

result of the policies of this government so far — and suggests

that this will have to be rectified.

I agree with her; it's a terrible thing, and why has it

occurred? And why has this situation been allowed to develop?

… which, of course, has resulted in tremendous difficulty in

people getting apartments, in the first instance and, secondly,

in getting adequate rent. It's existed because this government

apparently deliberately has created an air of uncertainty in

the investment field, when it comes to housing, which has never

been paralleled in this province or any other province, to my

knowledge.

The person who is considering investing in an apartment at

the present time has to make up his mind what is going to

happen in the future. That is the only way he can determine

what return he might or might not get. He has to realize that

Members of this government have talked about rent freezes,

perhaps rent freezes which would prevent him in future from

taking any rectifying measures in case of inflation — and

inflation's been a fact of life for some time. He knows that's

the case; he knows he's faced with that threat.

He knows, in addition, that he's threatened with a

government that doesn't honour contracts. He knows that his is

a long-term proposition and, if he's faced with a government

that doesn't honour contracts, he's in a very difficult

situation. So what happens, of course, is that the responsible

developer pulls back; he puts his money into something else, be

it government bonds or heaven knows what else.

The less-responsible developer, the guy who's out for the

rip-off fast buck, the guy who's converting apartments to

condominiums — like the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams), gets in there and takes the poor

fellow in an apartment or a poor couple in an apartment for a

proper ride.

That's what's happening now. Irresponsibility has been

encouraged; responsibility in the housing field has certainly

been discouraged. That is the unfortunate result of the

government's failure to make clear its intentions in this

field.

The Minister has talked at some length about the role that

private enterprise is going to play. He says, "Oh, don't worry;

there's not going to be a Crown corporation for plumbing or for

wiring." But what about the other areas where there may well be

[ Page 634 ]

Crown corporation. Indeed, he said he wasn't sure that a

Crown corporation would be necessary. He doesn't know,

apparently, and unless this very fundamental question is

resolved, how can we vote for Crown corporations in the

abstract — which is what he's asking us to do? I would say that

unless he answers that question very properly and very well,

there's no way, as I mentioned earlier, for us to support this

legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I've mentioned the apartments and I followed

the suggestion of the Hon. lady Member for Vancouver South

(Mrs. Webster). Well, how about land itself and construction on

land of single dwellings for families?

We have a government which has substantially reduced the

amount of land available for housing and has done nothing

constructive to put more land in the hands of people.

They have reduced it in two ways: first by Bill 42, and

they've already given their reasons for that, fair enough;

secondly by buying up lots and not reselling them to the

public. The result is that the provincial government has come,

as a major buyer of housing land, into an already difficult and

tight market, and has boosted the price up substantially. If

anyone wants an example of it, my hon. friend from Oak Bay (Mr.

Wallace) can tell them about the proposal in Oak Bay for a

$900,000 purchase of nine acres there.

The fact is that the government, by its two-fold, hamfisted

approach, has reduced the amount of land available for housing

and as yet, in the last 13 months, has done nothing to make

land available to the people who wish to have it for housing

purposes. Land is not being sold; land is not being serviced by

the government; yet all of this could well have been done at

some time or other during the past few months.

After all, in the last session of the legislature we voted

$10 million for the housing incentive fund, and we've yet to

have a report on how it's operating or how this money is being

used to assist the people in the province who need housing.

Instead of that, we've simply seen in the marketplace

constantly rising prices for both rents and houses.

We've had this government, having created the problem,

simply blaming the private enterprise sector, saying that they

have failed to produce the housing necessary. Well how can

they, given the climate created over the past 12 or 13 months

by this very government? It's absurd to create situations where

private enterprise cannot act effectively, and then blame

private enterprise for not acting. That I believe is a circular

and foolish argument that I've heard far too much of from

government Members.

What we have had from government Members are suggestions that we wipe out the

university endowment lands and use it for housing when it provides, second to

Stanley Park, I would say, the prime potential recreational chunk of land that

exists within the city.

Sure, you can wipe it out. You can put houses there. You can

use it for housing. And certainly it will solve the problem in

the short run.

But what do you do next time? What do you do five years from

now or four years from now when that land has been used up? Do

you move down to Stanley Park and attempt to get the federal

government to give up that land? Instead of the $1-a-year lease

that it's on now for park purposes do you try to get them to

put into the housing corporation for housing because the

university lands have been used up?

The university lands at present have potential for

recreation. And, let's face it, the City of Vancouver,

according to all of the planners reports, or the people who

look into the future, the futurists, they tell us that about

twice the population will be there 25 years from now.

We have the possibility of a second Stanley Park in terms of

recreation….

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): What's

the meaning of the word "endowment"?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Minister, you just stick to your

ferries and your jet aircraft and you don't worry about

land.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, what's the meaning of the word

"endowment"?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Could I ask that the gentleman who has

trouble using the dictionary….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will the Hon. Members please not interrupt

the Hon. Member for Victoria?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'm not interrupting him; I'm helping

him.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The next possible use of this land is, of

course, the science city concept of my hon. friend from Point

Grey (Mr. McGeer). We have the potential for using that land

for science-related and technology-heavy industries close to

the university where there can be the interchange between the

industry and the university community which has been found so

beneficial in other areas — once again, another possibility

which this government apparently wishes to abandon. If it is

abandoned, there's no other land in that area for such a

purpose.

So we have the potential suggestions of the Hon. Minister.

There's this one; he wishes to take over a rifle range, perhaps

that's acceptable; he wishes to take over cemetery property,

put out in reserve for

[ Page 635 ]

another university, the Simon Fraser University. These are

the things that he's doing which are all temporary, short-run,

shortsighted proposals, and yet nothing else has come from him

in terms of more farseeing proposals which we can accept.

We've had a whole year lost and nothing has been done except

to put up proposals which in my mind do nothing to solve the

problem in the long run; indeed, in the future it can only make

the City of Vancouver — and that's the particular area I was

talking about — a less attractive place to live in.

Mr. Speaker, the costs have been mentioned. The cost of

building for the Department of Education, which was assumed

some years ago to be $18 a square foot, is now up to $30; and

yet we have not heard a word from this government about steps

they intend to take in any area to reduce that cost.

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: If you'd been listening, Mr. Minister,

you'd have heard what I said about voting on the bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order. Would the Hon. Member please address

the Chair?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: And you'll find out when I vote how I

vote. Understand? And I will find out how you vote when you

vote.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't worry about him.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The Minister's comments have sunk into

their usual dull murmur I'm afraid I can't hear them.

We get into the area of the bill itself and what it does as

a bill. The first thing that it does, and it's very clear, is

that it grants virtually unfettered powers to the Minister

himself, or the Minister through the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

Section 5: "…special powers for any purpose relating

to an acquisition…the Minister may enter into any

agreement." Subsection 3: "The Minister may advance from the

fund any moneys he considers necessary for any purpose."

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister Without Portfolio): You've got to

read it in context.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I have been reading it in context, Mr.

Minister. This is unfortunately something that you haven't done

yet.

We go on in this. The Minister says that he's to be….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the Hon. Members please

be a little quieter so that we can hear the second Member for

Victoria?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The Minister goes on. He talks in the Act

of creating corporations which apparently he's not too sure

what he's going to do with. He's talked about a couple of

corporations — plumbing and electrical wiring — which he doesn't

intend to form. How about the others that you do intend to put

forward?

He suggested in his speech that it may need further enabling

legislation. If it needs further enabling legislation, for

heaven's sake, why was that clause incorporated? It grants

powers quite unnecessary for the purpose of setting up a

department and it's the type of thing which makes this Act — and I trust the Hon. Minister of Industrial Development, Trade

and Commerce (Hon. Mr. Lauk) is listening — which makes it

impossible for me to support.

The Act goes on into the housing fund, about the

"Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may, from time to time,

authorize payments…" which goes right down to specific

individuals; and yet we in this Legislature don't know who

those individuals will be, don't know what classes of

individuals are affected, have no idea what the plans will be

and certainly no idea from the Minister's speech how he intends

to use this legislation. Therefore we are essentially writing

the traditional NDP "blank cheque" which I cannot accept at

all.

Then finally in the Act, before you get to the amending

section, you have further powers to make orders under

regulation. The Minister can apparently define what words in

the Act mean. Instead of using the courts, he as the Minister

or the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council will define. He can

person of any land under this Act. Respecting any manner

necessary to carry out the intents and purpose — not the words,

but the intents and purpose which of course he defines — he can

make regulations. Well that's the type of legislation which is

eroding the rights of citizens of British Columbia and the type

of legislation which we cannot support.

The Minister wishes a department of housing. He wishes to

set up a department, and we think there is reason for such

legislation. Let him come forward to this House with proper

legislation, properly drafted, which we can debate on the basis

of what's there, not on some view that he holds which he may or

may not express in this House or which he may or may not

express publicly on some public occasion. We want to know what

we're dealing with, what we're voting on, and we're not getting

it from this government.

[ Page 636 ]

You know, Mr. Speaker, if we pass bill after bill of this

nature — and I speak to the backbench of the NDP — there really

won't be much purpose of having a Legislature in British

Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: We are reversing three or four hundred

years of attempts by Legislatures, attempts by the people's

representatives to take power from the Crown and grant to the

Crown limited power for limited purposes. This type of

legislation does the reverse. It puts us back in the days of

Henry VIII, where the Crown was all-powerful, the Legislature

met for one purpose alone and that was to pass money and

supply. Since then we've developed, in the traditions of

British parliamentary democracy, to a point where the

Legislature, the people's representatives more or less have

some control over what is done by Ministers.

If this type of legislation continues, we're back to the old

days. And you know full well what will happen. We'll be called

here for even more sessions, we'll be paid more, we'll no doubt

have more research assistants, we'll get better offices. All

the paraphernalia will be there to try to persuade us that

we're doing something useful; when in actual fact we'll be

doing less and less, because by legislation such as this we're

taking the very guts out of the whole legislative process.

Mr. Speaker, I will answer the Hon. Member who posed a

question earlier. I cannot support legislation of this nature

which is so sweeping, legislation which in no way limits the

Minister or the cabinet in putting through, simply by a

signature, regulations which should be through this House.

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

don't intend to speak at any great length in this debate, but

there have been comments made from time to time, not just today

but comments made inside and outside of the House, about the

effect of Bill 42 from the 1973 spring session on land prices

in the Province of British Columbia. The fact that land prices

have increased, the fact that land for housing seems to be in

short supply, has been blamed, in the minds and the mouths of

some people, entirely on that Bill 42, when actually the

converse, if anything, is the truth.

B.C. is not the only place that has experienced some change in land prices

in recent years. The Hon. Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis) did

draw my attention to a recent issue of Time magazine dated October 1, 1973,

which told about land prices in the States. In one instance, the price doubled

in a period of two years from $30,000 up to $60,000 for 300 feet of water frontage

in Maine. In another case in Utah, raw land near the Sundance Ski Resort fetched

$3,750 an acre in 1966; today it goes for $13,000, even though zoning restrictions

prevent some buyers from building anything.

This is the sort of thing that has been happening in the

States. Other examples: 30 acres that sold 15 years ago for

$285,000; two weeks later for $375,000; one week later for

$525,000. Several months later the developer turned down

$750,000. No Bill 42 there, Mr. Speaker, and yet runaway land

prices.

Later on, references to the fact that around metropolitan

centres real estate developers are pushing suburbia farther and

farther into the countryside. Citizens are talking seriously

the advice of humorist Will Rogers: "Buy land. They ain't

making any more of it."

This is the experience of many countries, not just in the

States. Saturday's Vancouver Province talked about Japan's

problem with inflation, with their economy generally, and yet,

"The rise in land prices has been the most spectacular of all."

No Bill 42 that I know of. Land prices are "estimated to have

vaulted 33 per cent in 1972" — in one year alone — "and to be

headed for a 40 per cent leap this year." Mr. Speaker, this is

what is happening where there is no control at all.

The provincial government in the spring of this year stepped

in to make sure that land prices would not experience that kind

of runaway inflation. There has been an increase in prices in

British Columbia but we did take steps to make sure that there

would be some agricultural land available in suburbia and, to

go beyond that, to purchase land.

We have been accused from the other side that by purchasing

this land and taking it off the market we have actually driven

up prices. By purchasing this land and having a very small land

bank — so far — there is the knowledge that this land bank could

be made available at any time at all and this is one of the

things that is holding a little bit of downward pressure on

prices so far.

When we get embarked, when we get fully into the programme

that this legislation before us now will give the Minister the

authority to proceed with, when we get going with that

programme, the provincial government will then be able to

reverse something that is happening all over the world and make

land available for housing at prices that people can afford to

pay.

The start of that programme in this province was the

election of this government and the passing of Bill 42 in the

spring of this year.

MR. D.T. KELLY (Omineca): I rise to speak in support of this

bill and to take this occasion to congratulate the Minister

and, of course, to congratulate the government for presenting

the bill so that we will now be able to have a department

[ Page 637 ]

housing. Certainly it has been many, many years overdue.

I would like to relate to the new Minister, through you, Mr.

Speaker, some of the problems that I have in my area.

In reference to the last speaker and the manner in which he

defended our government concerning Bill 42 and what it had done

to land prices in British Columbia, we don't have that problem

in Omineca and other portions in that part of the province. For

example, this afternoon I was in communication with the village

clerk of Fraser Lake. We have serviced lots available in Fraser

Lake for $650. In many cases, even good-sized lots that would

be considered view lots are going for less than $1,000. For

some reason or another, there aren't any houses built on them.

And you know what? There is a shortage of housing in that area.

I wonder why?

Well, to start with, if you want to get a contractor in to

build a house in that part of the province, no contractor will

come from Prince George or even from Vanderhoof to build one or

two houses in Fraser Lake, for example. If you have a dozen

houses to build, they might consider moving. The reason why

they would want a minimum of a dozen houses is that they have

to move bunkhouses in to accommodate the workers and put in the

materials needed to build the foundations and frame the houses.

They would have to haul the supplies from a long distance

away.

It seems incredible that we are having this tremendous

shortage of land and, yet, in the central interior and in my

area, specifically there are about 75 serviced lots for a town

of 1,200 people. That is a considerable number of lots. They

would do anything to get these lots built on so that their tax

base would, in fact, be a lot better than it is at the present

time.

I would urge the Minister to have the municipalities allow

trailers to settle on these lots, for a proper foundation to be

put in and have some of the more modern and better-looking

trailers, now that they do a pr