1975 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 30th

Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational

purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, APRIL 17, 1975

Night Sitting

[ Page 1475 ]

CONTENTS

Committee of Supply: Department of Housing estimates

On vote 102.

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 1475

Mr. Chabot — 1478

Amendment to vote 102.

Mr. Chabot — 1482

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 1482

Mr. L.A. Williams — 1484

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 1488

Mr. Wallace — 1489

Mr. G.H. Anderson — 1493

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 1495

Mr. Phillips — 1496

Point of order

Status of debate. Mr. Bennett — 1498

Mr. Speaker — 1498

Point of order

Authority for microphone cut-off. Mr. Gardom — 1498

Mr. Speaker — 1498

Routine proceedings

Division on motion that the House adjourn — 1499

THURSDAY, APRIL 17, 1975

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF

HOUSING

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

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister of Housing): I'd like to say a

few words about the current housing situation in British

Columbia.

As I am sure Members of this House know, new housing starts

were down 37,627 in 1973 to 31,420 — a 16.5 per cent decline.

This decrease was less than the Canadian average but any drop

in housing starts is still a great concern to this

government.

Housing starts have also continued to decline in the first

three months of 1975. The figures that are available for urban

areas with a population of 10,000 and over indicate that starts

were off 34 per cent in the first three months of 1975.

However, the news is much worse for the rest of Canada.

The house-building industry has entered what is probably the

biggest slump since the Second World War. Starts in urban areas

for the first quarter of 1975 were off 49 per cent from last

year throughout Canada — with Alberta down 37 per cent, Nova

Scotia down 39 per cent, Quebec down 44 per cent, Saskatchewan

down 48 per cent, Ontario down 58 per cent, and Manitoba down

72 per cent. In fact, only three provinces put in a better

performance than B.C. and they certainly don't have the same

problems with migration.

The decline in housing starts is not only a national

phenomenon; as Members know, housing starts are also down

drastically in the United States and Japan, our major trading

partners. The major cause of the housing slump in Canada and

abroad has been governments allowing interest rates to soar to

all-time highs in an attempt to counteract the inflationary

impact of the energy crisis. Unfortunately, steps were not

taken to protect the housing sector from exorbitant interest

rates and a point was reached at which consumers simply could

not afford to buy the products builders had to offer.

I am glad to say there are now signs that more funds are

becoming available for investment in housing. Although mortgage

interest rates still have some distance to fall before their

traditional relationship with the rates of short-term debt is

realized, I am confident that the pace of house building in

B.C. will soon start to pick up again.

The major reason why the housing slump has been less severe

in British Columbia compared to other Canadian provinces is

attributable to the activities of the Department of Housing. In

February of last year, I provided the House with some targets

for the new department's first year's work. In doing so, I felt

that I was perhaps being a little impetuous because at the time

I still had practically no staff for launching and managing a

substantial housing programme. But now, looking back at those

targets, I'm happy to see that they have been considerably

exceeded.

Mr. Chairman, last February I said that the Department of

Housing would initiate 2,500 family units in the towns and

cities in British Columbia in the coming year. Well, by the end

of the calendar year we had completed 310 units, another 486

were under construction and 6,218 units were in advanced stages

of planning and design. That's over 7,000 units of family

housing in the pipeline, Mr. Member — over three times as many

as were built under the Social Credit administration.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): You didn't build them — you

didn't build anything.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: I said that funds voted by the

Legislature would be used for 3,000 senior-citizen housing

units. By the end of 1974 1,450 new provincial and non-profit

senior-citizen dwellings and boarding beds had been completed,

another 2,588 were under construction...

MR. CHABOT: The developers put those in place.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: ...and 4,054 were in the design stage.

This programme of over 8,000 apartments and boarding-home beds

is undoubtedly the greatest housing-for-senior-citizens

programme that has ever been undertaken by any jurisdiction of

our size in North America, but one which the pioneers of this

province richly deserve.

I said last February that I wanted to see 1,500 cooperative

units in the coming year. I'm pleased to report that 292 units

of cooperative housing were built or acquired in 1974, another

535 were under construction at the end of the year and plans

were well advanced for 1,717 more units.

With the Department of Housing's policy of land-leasing,

housing cooperatives are receiving more support in British

Columbia than in any other province. I can tell you that if

this trend of people grouping themselves together to provide

themselves with housing continues, the cooperative housing

movement is going to become a very major force in British

Columbia. We don't believe that the only alternative to home

ownership or renting from private landlords should be public

housing.

Mr. Chairman, the key to stabilizing housing costs

[ Page 1476 ]

is access to an ample supply of service lands. Last

year I

said that the Department of Housing wanted to service more than

1,000 home lots in Crown subdivisions throughout the province.

Well, Mr. Chairman, we have a programme underway that

is going to service more than 1,000 Crown lots.

In fact, 845 home lots were actually serviced in 1974; and

at the end of year engineering and construction was underway on

another 1,124 lots, with 425 in the planning stage. If you

combine these lots with the spaces that we are creating for

mobile homes, at the end of 1974 we had a programme of not

1,000 lots, but 3,208 lots and mobile home spaces. When the

land development activities of the B.C. Land Service are also

taken into account, you will see that in one year the Province

of British Columbia has become the largest land developer in

the province, and we are well on our way to satisfying the

demand for serviced lots.

The department's new leasehold mortgage programme has met

with particularly good reception. Under this scheme lots are

leased on a long-term basis with first mortgage loans that

carry an interest rate as low as 5 per cent. By the end of

March, over 400 leasehold mortgages have been applied for with

a value of approximately $10 million. In Revelstoke 20 lots

have been leased; in Williams Lake, 39; Fort Nelson, 46.

MR. CHABOT: We'll talk about Revelstoke later.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: In Kamloops, 37; in Coquitlam, 176; in

Chetwynd, 10 and in Prince George, 90. Because of the

popularity of the leasehold programme, 30 more lots in Prince

George were put on the market earlier this week.

I regret that very few loans have been made available under

the department's conversion mortgage programme that is

available in Vancouver, Burnaby and New Westminster. There have

been hundreds of inquiries from people interested in developing

an additional rental suite in their homes but, because of

restricting zoning and building bylaws, only 23 conversion

loans have been actually approved.

In implementing the province's housing programmes, the

Dunhill Development Corp. has proved to be a most effective

instrument.

I have previously tabled Dunhill's 1974 annual report in the

House, and, from studying it, Members will appreciate that,

like other B.C. Crown corporations, this one made a profit — $2

million in 1974. That's 34 per cent of the amount the province

paid for the company. Dunhill itself completed and marketed 375

condominium units in its 1974 fiscal year. This practice of

direct participation in the home-building industry will be

continued, so Dunhill's construction skills are constantly

being tested against those of other major developers.

However, what is probably of most interest to the House is

that Dunhill is now undertaking a major responsibility of

supervision of the government's land-servicing and

house-building programmes throughout the province and for land

acquisition in the Victoria and Vancouver areas. Dunhill now

plays the same role as other provincial housing corporations,

but with an important difference. It also retains the capacity

to build housing directly on an in-house basis instead of

always having to rely on general contractors. So the Department

of Housing will take the responsibility for liaison with other

levels of government, financial administration and policy

research, while the Crown corporation looks after getting the

sewers and water and the homes built.

I should mention that Dunhill also has taken responsibility

for several large housing schemes such as the 2,000-unit

Riverview development in Coquitlam and the initial planning for

the Burke Mountain new community. I would also be remiss if I

did not pay tribute to the chairman of the B.C. Housing

Management Commission and other members of the commission.

During the past year the management practices of the commission

have been completely revamped and a positive new rent

supplement plan introduced. From the comments I have received

from tenants, municipal officers and others, I know that the

work of the commission is appreciated.

Mr. Chairman, when I made my inaugural address as Housing

Minister last February, I stressed that the provincial

government cannot be expected to do the job of providing better

housing for people of this province alone. In particular, I

said I would need the support of the federal government and the

municipalities. As far as the federal government is concerned,

I have had a good relationship with the Hon. Barnett Danson,

Minister of Urban Affairs, and I think he is going to do a good

job. But he needs more friends in his Liberal cabinet.

With the disastrous slump in housing starts, it is

incredible this year that CMHC's national budget is only being

increased 12 per cent over 1974. As I pointed out at

the federal-provincial conference on housing held in Ottawa

last January, the magnitude of this increase failed to take

account of inflation in building costs, which have gone up at

least 20 per cent in the same period. Unless Ottawa is prepared

to make a great deal more money available for housing this

year, I fail to see how things will be improved.

For example, I have been advised by the Central Mortgage and

Housing Corp. that British Columbia will receive only 21 per

cent of the amount we requested for social housing in

1975. We told CMHC that this province will require

$187 million for family rental housing. We are only

getting $39 million. We requested $107

million for senior citizens, because

[ Page 1477 ]

that's the amount we needed to do a proper job for

our

pioneers. We'll get only $26 million. We will also get only $10

million instead of $60 million for cooperative housing, and

$12 million instead of $30 million for land-assembly.

As you know, we won't get a cent from CMHC to help us

develop high-grade mobile-home parks in this province. So much

for the federal government's role in building housing for

Canadians.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): How much was

your contribution from Ottawa?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Not nearly enough, Mr. Member.

The startling fall-off in rental housing construction, not

only in this province, but right across Canada, and the drying

up of funds for housing of any sort late last year, clearly

demand a complete restructuring of housing finance in this

country. Yet I see no leadership being asserted in Ottawa to

achieve this.

One of the things I was most impressed with when I was in

Scandinavia last fall was the system of housing finance that

exists in these countries. In Sweden and Finland, all financial

institutions such as banks, trust companies and credit unions

are obliged to maintain a certain proportion of their assets in

state housing loans, mortgages for home purchases and loans to

cooperatives and municipalities to build rental housing. These

loans bear a lower than market interest rate, but then all

investors are treated equally. The Scandinavian countries

realize that housing must be subsidized by everyone as a social

priority.

I'm pleased, however, that Barney Danson has proved that

Ottawa can respond on occasion to a provincial initiative. For

over a year I've been urging that rent supplements be made

available for people living in non-profit and cooperative

housing. A few weeks ago, Mr. Danson announced that Ottawa

would share in the cost of rent supplements for 25 per cent of

units on such projects and I congratulate him on taking this

step. British Columbia is anxious to conclude an agreement with

Ottawa as soon as possible to lower rents to senior citizens

and families living in such accommodation. This accommodation

that I refer to is accommodation sponsored by Greater Vancouver

Regional District, by service clubs and by other non-profit

organizations under

section 15 of the National Housing Act.

Mr. Chairman, last year I told the House that the people I need the

most cooperation from are mayors and aldermen in British Columbia's

municipalities. I'm pleased to say that on the whole my department's

programmes have had an excellent response from civic leaders throughout

the province. However, I regret to say that there are proposals for

several thousand new housing units being held up in city halls in the

lower mainland. In too many cases, development proposal schemes are

rejected outright if they deal with anything other than single-family

homes. Some aldermen have vowed to uphold this and just don't recognize

the times in which they live. In some cases, interminable delay occurs

and often completely unreasonable financial demands are imposed on home

builders.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): What emphasis are

you placing on single-family homes?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Some municipalities, like the City of

Vancouver, Richmond, the City of North Vancouver, Burnaby and

the District of Coquitlam have been receptive to our

initiatives in housing growth. Even though we have our

differences from time to time, I know that these councils

basically believe more housing needs to be built for the

families now living in attics and basements. Other councils are

negative and are simply not accepting their fair share of

growth. This means that even if the financing problems for

housing were solved overnight (that is, mortgage financing) no

long-range solution to the housing shortage in Victoria and

Vancouver areas would occur unless municipal bottlenecks and

red tape are rectified.

I do not believe that the council members are acting with

malice in effectively sabotaging construction of a great deal

of new housing. I realize that citizens in Victoria and

Vancouver areas are seriously concerned about the rapid pace of

population growth with its concurrent pressure on open space

and public services. This widely spread concern can frequently

be seen in the strident opposition that takes place to housing

development proposals of any type and is usually coupled with

the demand that any piece of vacant land be preserved as a

park, no matter what the adequacy of immediately available

community space might be.

Mr. Chairman, as a politician I can understand the kind of

pressures that are being placed on council members in these

areas, but at the same time I would urge them to provide

leadership in gaining acceptance for housing proposals that

contain the promise of increasing the supply of new homes. I

would ask them to be especially receptive to proposals for

family accommodation of the type that uses less valuable urban

land than traditional single-family homes.

Mr. Chairman, conferences are often used to avoid rather

than solve problems, but I've recently received representation

from such diverse organizations as the Vancouver and District

Labour Council, the Vancouver Board of Trade, the B.C. and

Yukon

[ Page 1478 ]

Building Trades Council and the B.C. Construction

Association that a meeting should be held to discuss solutions

to the housing shortage in the lower mainland.

Today I want to announce that I will sponsor a conference in

June that will pinpoint the reasons for Vancouver's current

housing shortage and identify ways in which all levels of

government can work together to widen housing opportunities for

the residents of the lower mainland. The attitude of

municipalities to new housing will come in for special

examination at this meeting. Besides representatives of the

organizations I've just mentioned, also there will be invited

members of the house building industry, the real estate

profession and financial institutions. I also intend to invite

members from every municipal council in the lower mainland.

This conference will be followed by another on housing problems

in the greater Victoria area.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for your indulgence of my

remarks at this time.

MR. CHABOT: I listened attentively to what the Minister had

to say. The only thing that he said of any importance to me

was the fact that his department is stabilizing housing costs

in British Columbia.

There's very little doubt that that's not the case because

your department is increasing the cost of housing like we've

never experienced in the province before. As I go on, I will

cite you many examples of where you've placed exorbitant costs

on British Columbians, be it British Columbians wishing to live

in housing or British Columbians wishing to live in trailers — on pads

owned and leased by the B.C. Housing Management

Commission.

Now in British Columbia there's very little doubt — the

Minister has clearly indicated to me and clearly indicated to

this House as well — that we have a housing crisis in this

province at this time. It was related just this morning in the

Vancouver Province that housing starts take a 27 per

cent drop in this province — a 27 per cent drop in this

province which is...

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): How much in

Ontario?

MR. CHABOT: ...primarily attributable to the bungling, not

entirely of that department over there, but the bungling and

interference in the marketplace by that government over

there.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: We're ahead of the rest of Canada and

we're ahead of the United States of America in housing

starts.

MR. CHABOT: You're not ahead anywhere.

You're going backwards in housing starts in this

province.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Is this your job tonight, Alex?

(Laughter.)

MR. CHABOT: The Minister of Defence has just made his

statement.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I got those figures from the federal

government.

MR. CHABOT: The whole housing situation in this province is

in a state of chaos and a shambles caused by that government

over there. It wasn't too long ago that one reporter in the

press gallery made the suggestion when talking about Casa Loma

that the Minister should be bronzed and placed in front of that

establishment. Well, I'm not going to be quite that harsh, but

I'm going to talk very briefly because we have new rules here

now. The Minister gets up and occupies some of the time that

has historically belonged to the opposition. There isn't that

much time and I'm not going to be unfair to the other Members

of the opposition who might want to speak on your estimates.

I'm going to be as brief as I possibly can and ask a series of

questions to which, I hope, I will get answers from that

Minister over there.

Speaking very briefly about Casa Loma, not only myself, but

other Members of the opposition were shocked to see that the

purchase of this project was announced jointly by the Minister

of Housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson) and the Speaker of the

Legislature (Hon. Mr. Dowding). I thought that it was most

inappropriate. The Attorney-General seems to chuckle at that

fact.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: He's the MLA for Burnaby-Edmonds.

MR. CHABOT: Certainly he has a right to announce it as the

MLA for Burnaby-Edmonds, but he has no right as the Speaker of

the Legislature to make any public announcements. He made this

public announcement; the Speaker announced the Casa Loma

scandal. I'm surprised that the Speaker wants to tie himself

into that scandal.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who got paid off?

MR. CHABOT: The whole Casa Loma situation is financial

scandal and financial mess, which the Minister will readily

deny. However, we find that the Attorney-General found it

necessary to ask the RCMP fraud squad to investigate the

dealings on Casa Loma.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Was that through wrongdoing?

[ Page 1479 ]

MR. CHABOT: Well, it threw strong suspicions on the part of

the chief law officer of this province that he would involve

the fraud squad of the RCMP to investigate Casa Loma. We have

repeatedly asked the Minister of Housing several questions,

which remain unanswered, regarding Casa Loma.

MR. CURTIS: He's not very loose in the question period.

MR. CHABOT: The Minister has refused, despite being asked on

numerous occasions, to answer certain facts relative to Casa

Loma. The key question which the Minister is unwilling to tell

the people of British Columbia is: when did negotiations

commence for the purchase of this public scandal?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: What do you mean by negotiations?

AN HON. MEMBER: Maybe the RCMP knows.

MR. CHABOT: You can stand and try to suggest to us all you

want the need for senior citizens' housing in British Columbia.

We readily recognize the need. But the need does not justify

the means in this particular instance. There is no need for the

taxpayers of this province to get taken in a deal like Casa

Loma for the provision of senior citizens' housing in this

province.

I want to ask, as I said before, a few brief questions of

the Minister. I want to ask a few questions regarding some of

the activities of his department in the community of

Squamish.

I was in Squamish last weekend and I noticed some duplexes

there, which I'm led to believe are owned by Dunhill, that have

been empty for some considerable time which would indicate that

there apparently is no housing shortage in that community. I

would like the Minister to tell me how long those housing

complexes, which have been purchased by Dunhill, have been

vacant, and what the prospects are for the sale, the rent, or

the lease of these properties.

I'm going to quote from one of the Minister's housing news

releases, the one on February 19, 1975, in which he indicates

that his department has launched a major housing project in

Squamish and in the vicinity of Squamish. I would like the

Minister to tell me just how this is progressing.

The Minister suggested that there was a need, that the department

will be involved in the placement of 2,000 units to house 7,000 people

in this community. He suggested in this press release that the phase

development would be completed within five years and that it would

include, 437 single-family dwellings, 498 medium-density townhouses,

240 mobile-home pads, 836 high-density units, schools, a commercial

area and parks. He also went on to say that the department is

undertaking the cost of diking the Cheekye River to prevent flooding of

the development area. This off-site project is estimated to cost

$300,000.

There are several questions relating to this development. On

what basis is the Minister involving his department and

involving Dunhill in the establishment of 2,000 housing units

in Squamish?

What need does he anticipate there? Certainly, it can't be

the car plant because it will be some considerable time before

that is functional. It is my understanding that they will have

a skeleton staff for some considerable time. So what industry

do you foresee in Squamish that justifies the construction of

2,000 housing units?

Also, I question the expenditure of $300,000 for the

construction of a dike. Is this for the protection of housing

which your department will be constructing on a flood plain? If

so, it is my understanding that the Department of Lands,

Forests and Water Resources is discouraging other

municipalities in this province, very strictly, from allowing

housing to be developed on flood plains.

Now I want to question some of the outlays which your

department is making in the Squamish mobile park. It is my

understanding that the cost of these pads — that is, the

on-site servicing — is in the neighbourhood of $7,500; that

off-site needs for servicing these 240 trailer pads is over

$1,800 each for a total outlay per pad of over $9,000. It is my

understanding that the B.C. Housing Management Commission

intends leasing a number of these pads, those that aren't

released to a cooperative, on a monthly basis at a fee of over

$116 per month. I wonder whether the Minister will tell me

where else in this province it costs $116 per month to rent

trailer space?

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): Pitt Meadows.

MR. CHABOT: It strikes me as being extremely costly trailer

space rental.

The Member for Dewdney says it is going to cost over $100 in

Pitt Meadows as well. In other words, this must be another

government programme as well.

I find this to be an exorbitant fee for trailer rental space...

MR. ROLSTON: We'll show you around next weekend.

MR. CHABOT: ...when the original objectives of this

government, at least as indicated in their colourful brochures

which they distribute throughout this province, are to be

responsible and in the business of providing low-cost housing

and low-cost trailer space.

[ Page 1480 ]

I find this figure of over $116, the projected figure in the

community of Squamish, to be exorbitant. I am wondering if the

Minister would tell me why it is necessary to provide this

costly rental space in the community of Squamish.

I find that the government is also involved in the

subdivision in the community of Fort Nelson. It's my

understanding — and this was just released on March 7, 1975, or

at least the press release suggests it — that the subdivision

in Fort Nelson will be one of 156 lots, a new residential

subdivision which will cost in the neighbourhood of $9,000 per

lot. Now I understand, despite the fact that the Minister

released a press release just on March 7 suggesting that this

development will be a residential subdivision — which indicates

to me housing — I find it will have a mix of trailer pads.

I'm wondering if the Minister will indicate to me what the

anticipated cost of the monthly rental of these trailer pads

will be in the community of Fort Nelson. Will it be as high as

the fee I've indicated will be charged in the community of

Squamish? I wonder as well, when I take into consideration this

housing development in the community of Fort Nelson, where that

expertise is, that $6 million expertise which we taxpayers

purchased. It's my understanding that housing is underway in

the community of Fort Nelson.

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: By private developers. Where's that great

expertise for which we spent $6 million of taxpayers' money?

Why aren't they involved in the provision of housing units in

the community of Fort Nelson?

Now the government is also involved in the establishment of

trailer pads in the community of Burns Lake, the cost of which

they anticipate to be in the neighbourhood of $7,000. That's

for servicing the land. You know, I really can't understand

this government. If a private developer had to originally

purchase the land and then provide the kind of inflationary

service cost which the government is providing to this

property, they'd be out of business. They couldn't survive. But

we're talking about Crown land, land that is presently owned by

the Crown. All they have to do is service the land, provide

services to these various trailer pads. We find that the

services for these various trailer parks are exorbitant,

between $7,000 and $9,500 per spot. Is the trailer monthly

rental in Burns Lake going to be $100 per month or more, such

as it is in Squamish? How exorbitant and how ridiculous can you

be?

It's always been my understanding that people buy trailers

for the purpose of economy. How can it be economical for

someone to buy a trailer if he has to park it on a government

pad at over $100 per month?

Absolutely ridiculous!

One more question regarding exorbitant outlays by the

government. I'm wondering if the Minister would give me some

information regarding his purchase of land in the community of

Revelstoke.

In January, 1974, the Department of Housing bought 0.82

parts of an acre of land in the community of Revelstoke for

$109,000, which, in effect, makes it a price of $133,000 per

acre for land in the community of Revelstoke. I find this to be

exorbitant and unrealistic. Certainly that isn't the market

value of land in the community of Revelstoke.

I said that they bought 0.82 parts of an acre for $109,000

in the community of Revelstoke.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is there oil underneath?

MR. CHABOT: In case the Minister doesn't realize that this

is a small interior city, that these prices can't possibly be

related to land values in the community of Vancouver or the

community of Victoria, it appears to me that the government,

with its obsession to purchase land, will pay almost any price.

I want to know from the Minister who we bought this land from

in the community of Revelstoke, at what I consider to be a most

unrealistic price. I think it is important that we find this

out.

Now I want to ask the Minister another question regarding a

press release which came out on May 31, 1974, in which he

indicated that they had signed a federal-provincial agreement

with the Urban Affairs Minister, Ron Basford, on a new remote

area housing programme for British Columbia. Mr. Nicolson

said:

"I have wanted for some time to reach agreement with

Ottawa

on a programme that would have specific application to smaller

communities in British Columbia, especially those in the north.

The new remote area housing programme should provide good

accommodation for the first time in communities that lack the

normal service necessary for federally funded housing."

This really means that the federal government picks

up 75

per cent of the cost. But since that time Mr. Basford, the

former Minister, had this to say regarding the remote area

housing programme.

"Federal land-buying money could be withheld from B.C.

the provincial government insists on a doctrinaire approach to

leasehold residential land, says federal Urban Affairs Minister

Ron Basford. Basford told a public meeting he favours a

combination of leasehold and private ownership of Crown lands

for homes. 'There is a place for leasehold land and also a

place for the sale of land,' he said Monday, 'but that's the

difference between the NDP and the Liberals — it should be both

ways.

[ Page 1481 ]

Liberals aren't doctrinaire like the NDP. If

federal

money is just being used for leasehold land then we will be forced to

take a strong look at federal money coming to B.C.'

"One of the first leasehold subdivisions in the

province

will be developed in Prince George for residential purposes.

The provincial government ordered the city to lease lots to

home builders on a 60-year agreement rather than sell the land

outright.

"Basford said new housing legislation will provide

federal

credit for provinces to buy more private land for residential

purposes. 'We want to spend $ 100 million on this kind of

project but we are not interested,' he said, 'in land banking for

future use. We want our dollars to be immediately utilized for

the benefit of people who want to purchase housing.'

That's what he said in that statement.

Now I wonder where we presently stand in this remote area

housing programme. We have a new Minister now and I understand

that the programme is up in the air, unresolved. I am wondering

if the Minister feels that he has lost the federal funding in

this remote area housing programme, the joint programme which

he was so proud to announce back in May, 1974.

I am wondering also, regarding the remote area housing

programme, whether the Minister has constructed any log houses

in the north. If he has, could the Minister give me an

indication as to how much these log houses have cost, what the

sizes of these homes are and what is the source of the logs? I

have constituents who have attempted on numerous occasions, all

in vain, to secure logs for log housing for summer homes and

they have been unsuccessful in securing these logs. I am

wondering whether there have been log houses built in the

northern part of British Columbia, their size and the source of

these logs, whether they were built for resale or for lease and

what the costs involved are.

Is the Minister contemplating housing programmes in the East

Kootenays? If so, is he considering government housing

programmes in the community of Golden or the community of

Invermere? I want to assure him that if there is any

consideration that Invermere might need public housing, I

suggest to you that the Department of Housing is not very

familiar with the present housing situation in that community.

Will the Minister tell me also...?

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: We also like the private enterprise system in

that community of Invermere. We like it in Golden, too, and in

all the other little communities in my riding. We don't like

government housing being superimposed on us!

Is the government giving any consideration to a housing

programme at Roscoe Bay near Ocean Falls? If so, what? I wonder

if the Minister would give me some details on the housing

project which he has underway in the community of

Castlegar.

Unfortunately, time won't allow me to ask fully the

questions I would like to ask the Minister, but I find that the

administration of the Department of Housing under this Minister

is in a state of chaos — a state of shambles. If one was only

to look at the figures, one could really see that in public

housing more units are being constructed by Daon Development

than are being constructed by Dunhill Development. Daon seems

to have a corner on the market as far as public housing is

concerned in this province.

I thought that government over there was against these

private developers which they've always called the rip-off

artists in this province as far as housing is concerned. But

now we find that this government has gone to bed with the

developers. All the developer has to do, unfortunately for the

taxpayers of this province and the future residents of those

homes, is go with a semi-completed, or quarterly-completed, or

fully-completed housing project and that government over

there...Dunhill is ready to buy at almost any price. The people are

paying very dearly for this rip-off that has taken place in

housing in British Columbia because this government has not put

to use that $6 million vehicle called Dunhill Developments.

Another press release from February 17, 1975, announced by

the favourite daughter jointly with the Minister — or was it

just the favourite daughter? No, it was just the favourite

daughter — sorry — who made this announcement. I thought it was

a joint one with the Minister. It has to do with the 21

townhouses on the site at 13th Avenue and Laurel Street. Of the

21 townhouses, we find that 14 of them are going to cost

$627,000. That's the....

MR. CHAIRMAN: The green light is on.

MR. CHABOT: Oh, I'll refrain from those remarks because they

will take me a few moments.

AN HON. MEMBER: The green light means go, not stop.

MR. CHABOT: Yes, when I see a green light on the street it

means go, however it's reversed here. It goes to show you how

mixed up that government is: they have green lights for stop.

It's just unbelievable!

AN HON. MEMBER: You're colour blind.

MR. CHABOT: Some of you have the audacity to call it a blue

light.

Mr. Chairman, as I said before, I find that the

[ Page 1482 ]

whole matter of housing is in a state of shambles

in British

Columbia, caused not only by that Minister there, but primarily

by that Minister. He has the audacity to stand here and tell us

how many housing units he's put in place. Those housing units

are housing units you've purchased from private developers, not

housing units that you have contributed to put in place. I find

that you have imposed on the people of British Columbia by

providing very costly housing. You have not fulfilled your

objective in the provision of low-cost housing. Because of the

bungling, incompetent government over there and its actions the

people of this province are suffering not only because of a

shortage of housing but also because you have increased the

cost of assessments in this province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Time.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, under these circumstances I have

no alternative but to move — seconded by the Member for South

Peace River (Mr. Phillips) — that the salary of the Minister of

Housing be reduced by the sum of $1.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There's no seconder required in committee. We

are dealing with the amendment that the salary be reduced.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, speaking against the

amendment and trying to respond to some of the reasons that the

Member gave for putting forward the amendment, he stated that

there was a 27 per cent drop in B.C. at the beginning of this

year. Well, if he had listened to my speech, he would have

noted that he was wrong again. I say that it's worse than

that.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): A point of order, Mr.

Chairman.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: It's 34 per cent.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Member for North Peace

River on a point of order.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I recognize that fact that it's not

necessary now for a seconder to place his name on a motion

except for about two motions that regularly come before this

House every session. But it has been the courtesy and the

custom of this House to allow a seconder to sign his name to a

motion, and recognize that seconder if he so desires, since you

haven't changed the rules of the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. There is no point of order.

This procedure is not necessarily followed in committee as it

is in the House.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, in fact, I said that

housing starts had continued to drop in the first three months

and that for urban areas with a population over 10,000, they

were off 34 per cent, Mr. Member, for the first three months. I

think you were quoting the two-month figure.

I think you were quoting the two-month figure. But they were

off 49 per cent throughout Canada, and that was down 37 per

cent in Alberta, 39 per cent in Nova Scotia; Quebec was down 44

per cent, Saskatchewan 48 per cent and Ontario down 58 per

cent. Now I know you wouldn't want to blame me for what's

happening in those other provinces. I know that you're a

reasonable man, as are you all reasonable men.

Now on Casa Loma, when did negotiations commence? Casa Loma

Motels approached Mr. Paulus with an offer to sell in the late

summer of 1974. B.C. Housing Management Commission inspected

the project and reported on it on September 20, 1974. Dunhill

inspected the property on or about October 17, 1974. Mr. Paulus

wrote to me recommending approval of the project with certain

conditions on October 19, 1974. On October 24, the proposal

call selection committee considered the application and

authorized Mr. Paulus to continue talking to them. On November

25, 1974, the proposal call selection committee was advised

that an application had been made to CMHC under

section 43.

MR. CHABOT: The first contact?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: I said the summer of 1974; I believe it

was in July. But on December 5, 1974, the proposal call

selection committee was advised that the proponent, Casa Loma

Motels Ltd., had been advised that the only circumstances under

which the project would be acquired would be in the event that

the surplus funds for 1974 were available under

section 43 of

the National Housing Act. The availability of such funds would

not be ascertained until December 10, 1974. On December 19, I

indicated my approval of the purchase on the conditions

outlined.

So it's evident from the contents of a letter from the Hon.

T.A. Dohm, QC, to Casa Loma Motels Ltd. that the settlement

made between Casa Loma Motels Ltd. and Mr. Macdonald, barrister

and solicitor acting on behalf of the lien claimants, was made

in late August or early September, 1974. From this information,

there's no evidence to support the contention that a commitment

to purchase by the department, or even negotiations between

Dunhill and Casa Loma, were either made or going on prior to

the settlement of the lien claimants — which really is not

material either, in my opinion. You want to know the sequence

of events, and there you have it, Mr. Member.

[ Page 1483 ]

Let the record show that he said that there's no need for

senior citizens' housing.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Member is entitled to

make a correction when die Minister is finished.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Oh, he did, Mr. Chairman, admit to a need

for senior citizens' housing by purchase of Casa Loma,

then.

Now in Squamish...you talked of the duplexes. These are

just being turned over and have just recently been completed,

or are being completed. We already have 17 applications for

rentals in those units. You question the need for development....

MR. CHABOT: Yes, 2,000 units.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: We have presently 239 mobile home pads,

39 single-family lots, I believe, and 159 under design at the

present time. The Cheekye dike $300,000 was a necessary

improvement. But unlike your government, which allowed such

things as the development of flood plain without any

protection, and allowed things like all those things in

Kamloops on the banks of the North Thompson, allowed them to go

in, and then, at government expense, it was necessary to go in

later and protect them and people made considerable profits.... This

particular project is being done and properly

planned.

MR. CHABOT: Is it on the flood plain you need

protection?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, diking has been necessary to

contain the Cheekye, yes, Mr. Member.

MR. CHABOT: Is it on the flood plain?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, I don't know that it would be

called the flood plain, but we felt it necessary to protect the

area.

He talks about $9,000 per pad, and he talks about people having to

pay around $116. Do you know that back in 1968, when the workers went

into Mica, there was housing provided by B.C. Hydro for management but

the workers were left captive of a mobile private enterprise

mobile-home park that charged $70 per pad back in 1968? Now that's the

performance of that government. Mr. Member, this is not going to have

gravel roads and lack drainage and be a dust bowl. This is going to be

a first-rate development. I believe it includes storage spaces. There

will be full servicing and it includes a much higher standard of

servicing than what you will find in the average mobile-home park.

You talk about Fort Nelson, $9,000 per lot. I think you

would appreciate some of the soil difficulties up there. You

seem to object to the mix of single-family homes and

trailers.

MR. CHABOT: No, I'm not objecting to that.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: That is done on the request of the

municipality, Mr. Member.

MR. CHABOT: I'm not objecting to that.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Fine.

They are going to be marketed in Fort Nelson on the lots for

single-family homes — that is, the 8 per cent rate of the

assessed value, which will work out to about $60 per month. But

that is not a mobile-home park and it doesn't offer the

services of a mobile-home park.

Burns Lake, $7,000. We bought that land from the village of

Burns Lake. That was not free Crown land.

At Revelstoke, we have 50 units planned under

section 40. It

is a federal-provincial agreement and both parties have been

very much involved in that. I believe it is 1.07 acres.

MR. CHABOT: No, that's not correct. Who did you buy it

from?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: The remote area housing programme. Mr.

Basford made some political statements in the heat of an

election campaign...

MR. CHABOT: Who did you buy the land from?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: ...and I am not going to blame him for

getting political during an election campaign. There has been

no slacking off as far as intent, but the remote area housing

programme is administered primarily by Central Mortgage and

Housing. The performance last year was very disappointing but

we did manage to make a start and some 25 homes were built last

year under that programme.

In Invermere and Golden, there is no programme. I believe

there are no programmes going on in Roscoe Bay. In Castlegar,

we are talking to the council.

MR. CHABOT: I asked you if there were plans for Roscoe Bay.

Are there plans for Roscoe Bay?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: I am informed not, at this time. We are

talking to the town council in Castlegar. You talk about Daon

Development but, Mr. Member, the proposal call housing

programme is quite open. When we opened 44 units in Cranbrook

recently, that involved four or possibly five small

contractors. We

[ Page 1484 ]

were told by everyone that that programme kept the

small

builders busy this winter.

MR. CHABOT: Were they union contractors?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: I don't think most of them were, in this

particular instance, Mr. Member.

MR. CHABOT: Thank you.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Daon Development has done a great

deal.

You complain about the housing units that we purchased. Mr.

Member, a lot of those projects would have stopped after a

first phase for lack of mortgage funding. What might have ended

up as 30-some-odd units coming up on the market, we made sure

the full project came on the market — the full 150 or 170

units.

The 21 townhouses at 13th and Laurel: I don't know what you

were going after there, but it is a very fine project. I've

been on the site. I was very impressed with the crews who were

working there, the men who are there. There are jobs, Mr.

Member, lots of jobs.

MR. CHABOT: Oh, I'll tell you about jobs.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I have pleasure in joining in this

debate. I only wish that the Minister of Housing had seen fit

to distribute to the members of the committee the remarks that

he read to you, Mr. Chairman, at the commencement of this

evening's proceedings. The Minister of Human Resources (Hon.

Mr. Levi) saw fit to do so this afternoon. The reason I would

like to have had those available is I would have liked to

compliment the author, who is obviously not the Minister.

The Minister spoke about the demand for housing in the

Province of British Columbia. I suggest that there is only one

demand that will really serve the purposes of the people who

are looking for housing and that is the demand that the

Minister resign.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: The Member for Columbia River (Mr.

Chabot) talked about the remote area housing programme. Well,

the remote area housing programme is British Columbia, because

if you happen to be in need of a house in British Columbia,

this is the remotest area you can possibly find.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: More remote in Ontario, Mr. Member, 58

per cent.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Well, the Minister says "more remote in

Ontario," but the fact of the matter is that the Minister didn't

bother to tell the committee, in response to the question of the drop

in housing starts, that the housing starts in British Columbia do not

even keep up with the growth in British Columbia, let alone the housing

units which are demolished in the course of other construction in this

province. We are rapidly falling behind.

The Minister hasn't bothered to tell the committee there is

a need in the lower mainland of this province for 35,000

housing units. The Minister doesn't even have the slightest

idea of the personnel which are required in order to build

35,000.

The Minister has promised the people of British Columbia who

are in need of housing that they're going to have a conference

in June. I stood in this House in 1969, and heard the

responsible Minister tell us that we're going to have a

conference on housing in British Columbia, and the same people

who were in need of housing in 1969 are in need of housing

today. This is what he's offering to us — a conference on

housing to which he's going to invite the representatives of

all those governments on the lower mainland and other

municipalities who may be interested.

This is the Department of Housing? The Department of Housing

has only served one purpose, as far as I can find: it's made

some millionaires overnight in the Province of British

Columbia. I'm talking about the owners of Dunhill Development

and the owners of properties which are capable of subdivisions

for housing purposes. They've been made millionaires overnight.

People like the owners of Casa Loma have been made millionaires

overnight.

The Minister gave us more answers in a quick response to

questions from the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot)

concerning Casa Loma than he has after day after day after day

of questioning in question period, when he took questions as

notice and did not give the answers. He spun through them

tonight.

I asked the Minister weeks ago whether his department or

Dunhill Development had obtained a market value appraisal of

the Casa Loma project prior to commencing negotiations with the

owners of that project, and he has not answered it yet. I'll

tell you why I asked that question: I have it on unimpeachable

authority that in September, 1974, the then owners of Casa Loma

Developments obtained a market value appraisal of the completed

project at $2.2 million. This government, at the end of 1974,

bought that development for $3.1 million.

I challenge the Minister to produce to me any market value

appraisal which his department, or Dunhill Development,

obtained before they completed those negotiations with Casa

Loma Developments. As a matter of fact, the market value

appraisal in September of 1974 was the second market value

appraisal which had been obtained by the owners of Casa Loma

developments. They knew

[ Page 1485 ]

what the value of their project was: $2.2 million.

The

government came along and offered them $3.1 million, and

believe it or not they accepted it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who got the gravy?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Who got the gravy? Who got the $900,000?

Certainly I'll tell you that the mechanic's lien claimers

didn't get the $900,000. They got 40 cents on the dollar. If

the Minister didn't know this, then the Minister has got to be

the worst calamity that has ever faced the government of the

Province of British Columbia, and he should be ashamed — and

the Member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Hon. Mr. Dowding) should be

ashamed that he would have joined in the announcement of this

kind of a project for those kinds of dollars.

If they want to buy that property as a senior citizen

development, then they should have done so on what was its

market value instead of making millionaires out of the people

who owned Casa Loma, in the same way they made millionaires out

of the people who owned Dunhill Development. And the people in

Dunhill Development, which they bought when they bought that

company, are bailing out faster than the Deputy Ministers in

the Department of Economic Development of this government.

Housing has been spoken of as a crisis in this Province of

British Columbia. The crisis rests not with the lack of

housing, but the inability of this government and that Minister

to understand the problem and produce solutions which are

meaningful for the people of British Columbia. He blames the

federal government, which contributes at least 75 per cent of

the money for every major project of government that that

Minister has announced — at least 75 per cent. He blames the

municipalities. He blames every level of government except his

own, and he is the Minister of Housing.

Why is it that the fault always rests on someone else? It's

always the federal government because they won't do enough;

it's always the municipal governments because they won't

cooperate; it's always the private sector because they won't

cooperate; it's always the financial institutions because they

won't do their responsibilities. Somehow or other it's never

the provincial government, whose direct responsibility it is to

ensure that these problems are resolved and which has taken it

upon itself to create a separate Minister of Housing and place

that Minister on the rolls. It's never their fault. How

come?

No one is purer than that Minister because he was a schoolteacher. I

was in a taxicab in Vancouver two weeks ago, and I found that the

driver was a young man who had come from the eastern regions of this

province and lo and behold, he'd been a student of the Hon. Minister. I

said that he was now the Minister of Housing. Do you know what that

young man's response was?

"He was a lousy teacher, too." (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: You say "shame," but I am only

repeating what the young gentleman said to me. It is the

assessment of a man who has seen the Hon. Minister at the

closest of quarters.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): I've heard lots of things about

you but I don't believe them all. (Laughter.)

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Why not? Why not? I was hoping the

Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley) was going to come

to the Minister's rescue. The Minister of Public Works is the

guy who is responsible for acquiring vacant property, and the

Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson) is responsible for

acquiring property that should be vacant but isn't.

(Laughter.)

Interjections.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, under our rules we don't

have much time to debate this particular Ministry and I only

hope that the time will come back.

I want to turn to another matter which I think is an

absolute scandal as far as this Department of Housing is

concerned.

Interjection.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: If the Hon. Member for Kamloops (Mr. G.H.

Anderson) would just go back to sleep until he can get a nod to

come back in the chair again, he would make a major

contribution to this debate.

I want to talk about an issue which arose — and this is not

the fault of this government in the initial instance — back in

February, 1970. I hope the Minister and the people who are

associated with him will pay some attention to the narrative

until it gets to the area where the problem really arises. In

February, 1970, a Mr. and Mrs. Erickson acquired some property

which was being developed by a company called Sahara

Developments Ltd. It was a condominium operation. They

purchased the property in February of 1970 for $17,100. They

paid $300 cash and they got a first mortgage from the

provincial government for $5,000. It was a residential

property; it was a condominium. It was part of a strata-lot

operation in the Municipality of Delta — Strata lot No. 42.

They took possession of the property and they

[ Page 1486 ]

then began to experience severe problems with

regard to the

development — problems which were not only felt by them, but

also by many other people who had acquired property in this

condominium which contained a total of 51 units. The rugs began

to split; the nails started coming through the floors and the

walls; the windows leaked and the water came in and made the

rugs wet and they began to mildew; the grounds weren't taken

care of and the property was not maintained. They had verbal

agreements with the owners to do something about this, but

nothing ever happened.

Well, they and the Ericksons, and the majority of the people

who were in the same position with regard to this operation,

wanted to move out. They made approaches to the developer but

without success. Several people did move out. The Ericksons

tried to work out their problems with the developer but they

didn't have any success. Some people went to the B.C.

government, the people who had got second mortgage loans, and

they quitclaimed their property to the B.C. government. The

government took them off the hook, so to speak.

The Ericksons, and several of the others, attempted to sell

their property. In the case of the Ericksons they dropped their

price as much as $2,000, but, although there were a few

inquiries, as soon as people found out what the property was

there just wasn't any further interest. There were no buyers

because of the bad reputation of this particular

development.

In late 1971 they got in touch with an official of the

Department of Housing, Mr. Chatterton, and he sent out an

inspector to look at this Sahara Developments condominium. They

didn't get any word back from Mr. Chatterton but they, and

others in the development, learned that the inspector's report

was not very praiseworthy of this development. So they got in

touch with Mr. Chatterton again and he sympathized with their

problems and recommended that they go and see a lawyer. They

did this in August, 1971, and he advised them to get a

quitclaim — quitclaim their property back to the government and

get out of it. They phoned Mr. Chatterton and told him they

were going to stop payments on the property and he said that

unfortunately the government was no longer taking quitclaims.

He advised them to walk out of the property because it was in

such bad shape. They raised the question: "Well, if we walk out

of the property, what happens? We've got an obligation to the

government under our mortgage of $5,000."

They received an assurance verbally from Mr. Chatterton that there

would be no action taken by the government if they were to walk out.

Mr. Chatterton indicated to them that he only knew of one case in which

the government had ever taken action against a defaulting mortgagor

under the government's second mortgage. They asked him if he would put

this in writing but Mr. Chatterton refused, saying that he did not want

to put himself on the line and that he had to have protection for

himself.

Anyway, with this assurance from this official of the

government, the Ericksons then stopped payments for Sahara

Developments in September, 1971. In the next few months they

moved out of the property.

As might be expected, the holder of the first mortgage,

which was Sahara Developments, commenced its foreclosure action

on October 13, 1971. They eventually recovered title to the

property in June, 1972.

You would think that the story would have ended there. The

Ericksons were finished; they'd walked away. They'd lost the

money they had put in — it wasn't very much but it was their

money — and that would be the end of the whole problem. We find

out that Sahara Developments sold the property again in

November, 1973, to other purchasers. The price at which they

sold it that time was $23,400 — up from $18,000. That's an

increase of $5,400 from the price at which the Ericksons

purchased the property.

If you look at the records of the particular property, Mr.

Chairman, you'll find that the Hardesty's have also failed in

their payments and been foreclosed.

Why isn't the government involved in this? In 1973 this

Legislature passed an amendment to the Provincial Home

Acquisition Act,

section 5(a), effective April 18, 1973, and

retroactive to April 1, 1966. The change was one which gave the

government the right in circumstances such as this, where the

government has been foreclosed, for the Minister to have a

discretion. The discretion was to issue a certificate stating

the amount of the deficiency under any mortgage contract, file

that certificate with the courts and it would have the effect

of a judgment.

These people, the Ericksons, had received assurances from

officials in the department that if they walked away there

would be no problem as far as the government was concerned,

then by the law of 1973 — the change that was made in 1973 — were

placed in a position where they were in jeopardy of having

a judgment registered against them.

Lo and behold, Mr. Chairman, what do you suppose happened?

In July, 1974, the government filed a certificate of judgment

against the Ericksons. But did they tell the Ericksons? Did

they tell the Ericksons about it? Not on your life, Mr.

Chairman. In October, 1974, Mr. Erickson, when trying to raise

some money from a credit union, applying for credit, a search

was made and the credit union discovered that there was a

judgment registered against Mr. Erickson in the amount of

$6,253. He had never known of it before.

[ Page 1487 ]

Well, what did Mr. Erickson do in that particular situation?

He was startled to learn of this development, so he wrote to

the Department of Housing. He wrote to the Department of

Housing on October 7, 1974. He restated all the facts that I

have recited to you, Mr. Chairman. He said in his letter to Mr.

Chatterton:

"Again, at that time I contacted you and asked you

what

action the government would take against me. You gave me verbal

assurance the government would take no action against me."

In response

to that letter, on October 11, 1974, the

Department of Housing, over the signature of Mr. Rounds,

director of finance, wrote to Mr. Erickson saying:

"While we appreciate your position, under the Act that

operate it is stipulated that where the government is

completely foreclosed out of a second mortgage, a judgment is

to be laid against the individual to protect as much as

possible the public funds invested.

"While it has been the government's standing up to the

present not to take action on these judgments," — in

other words, not to go to any for-sale or garnishee proceedings — "the

judgments have been laid in all cases that meet the

above criteria and cannot be released until payment in full has

been received."

So Mr. Erickson has got a judgment of $6,300 sitting against

him, plus interest at 5 per cent from July 2, 1974.

It wouldn't be so bad, perhaps, if only one individual was

being affected in this way. But a search of the records shows

that the government now owes 31 judgments arising out of

mortgages on this single development — the Sahara development — which

has, as I said, only 51 units. Out of 51 transactions the

government now holds 31 judgments which they didn't file until

after June 12, 1974.

Mr. Chairman, you must also recognize that the government

loaned the money to these individuals without making any

inspection of the premises upon which the mortgage loans were

secured.

I have told you about the kind of experiences the Ericksons

had. Similar experiences were the lot of all of the other

people who engaged in Sahara Developments and purchased

property back in 1970 with Sahara Developments. Carpet

splitting, windows leaking, a lousy transaction, a transaction

upon which any competent mortgage lender wouldn't have advanced

10 cents.... But the government, without inspection, advanced

$5,000 under a second mortgage and now has had the temerity to

take judgments against the individuals who were obliged by

reason of the condition of the properties to walk away from

them.

These individuals with judgments against them will run up against

the same problems that the Ericksons face every time they go to apply

for credit involving certainly land transactions. If they buy other

property and try to get a mortgage, they will find that there's a

judgment staring them in the face. Their credit with respect to

personal loan transactions will be affected by the actions of the

government in taking judgments under this particular amendment which

was made in 1973, long after the event.

When inquiries are made of the Department of Housing, it is

apparent that it is the government's policy not to inspect the

premises before making a loan, unless the price is

unreasonable, or if there is 100 per cent financing. In the

case of the Ericksons, out of their total purchase price of

about $18,000, their cash contribution was $300. Is that not

100 per cent financing? If it is not, Mr. Chairman, let me

assure you that there are other transactions involved in these

31 judgments in which there wasn't one penny put up by the

purchaser. It was 100 per cent mortgage financing, all covered

by first mortgage.

Now who was the true beneficiary of all this? Sahara

Developments were the true beneficiaries, because as you search

each of these 31 transactions you find out the properties were

foreclosed. Sahara Developments got the properties back, wiped

out the purchaser, wiped out the provincial government and its

second mortgage and resold the property — and in some cases has

gone through this transaction twice at increasing prices, The

government has put up the money; Sahara Developments has

received the benefit of that money. Now these 31 individuals,

four years after the event, five years after the event, are

still called upon by the Province of British Columbia to

discharge their indebtedness to the government which advanced

them moneys under legislation which did not at the time of the

advance provide any right on the part of the government to take

this kind of action. This is the people's government.

It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that this particular story — or

stories, because there are 31 of them — is indicative of

this department's attitude towards the housing needs of the

people of British Columbia. I said a few moments ago that the

department has made millionaires overnight. The department, in

this particular way, is continuing to enrich the developers of

the province to the detriment of the individual citizen.

They've got judgments without notice.

In the course of these investigations we came across one

individual who refused to believe that the Government of

British Columbia had taken a judgment against her, absolutely

refused to believe it. We insisted that she look at the record,

and this individual said: "I will not look at the record. I

don't believe that the Government of British Columbia would do

such a thing." But the government has.

Now I say to the Minister of Housing that your records and

the records of your department will bear

[ Page 1488 ]

out what I say, and it is your responsibility and

the

responsibility of the government and the officials in your

department to provide redress for these individuals, to remove

the certificates of judgment you hold against them and to clear

their credit. If you do not, then it will be against your

credit, and let you not stand in this House ever again and talk

about what your department is going to do for the individual

citizen in this Province. You'll do it for the developer,

you'll do it for Dunhill, you'll do it for Casa Loma, but

you'll do nothing for the individual.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): Nonsense!

HON. MR. NICOLSON: I shall address my remarks to the Member

for West Vancouver–Howe Sound's (Mr. L.A. Williams') questions.

He says that the conference in June will be no solution. Well,

I would wonder if he was against dialogue between all the

parties that are involved.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Build the

houses.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: I say that we are building. There is a

programme to service and bring on stream 2,000 units in one

development alone, and we just recently got an approval in

Burnaby for some 200-odd units. Mr. Member, Burke Mountain and

things of this magnitude maybe are beyond your grasp but the

solution is in hand. It does take some time but fair

enough.

Was there an appraisal? Mr. Member, there was not an

independent appraisal in this case, or in Casa Loma. There was,

however, an internal thing done. I know you will object to

that.

AN HON. MEMBER: File it.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: On replacement costs...and it showed

that the price on this was at least $4,000 per unit below

replacement costs.

MR. GARDOM: What about market value?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: The cost per square foot, as I have said

before, is $26.23 per square foot and this is lower than any

other senior-citizen project that has been submitted to us

either through the non-profit sponsorship sector or anything

else in the past year.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): On the backs of the

small contractors.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Member, now you talk about a $2.2

million quantity survey which was done. That was on an

uncompleted project. This is, for the completed price, $3.1 million. If

you can find us

more quality housing, with complete underground parking, at

$26.23 per square foot in Burnaby or Vancouver I want to hear

about it, Mr. Member, because we would certainly be interested

in buying something that is not presently on the market but can

be bought on the market for social housing at that price — $26.23.

AN HON. MEMBER: Underground parking for old-age

pensioners?

MR. GARDOM: What are they going to drive?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, Mr. Member, you might have that

attitude about senior citizens but...

MR. GARDOM: How many of them drive?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: ...if you look at senior citizens

there's a lot of life in most of them yet.

MR. GARDOM: How many of them drive?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Probably most of them could walk you

under the ground, Mr. Member.

You say the feds contribute 75 per cent in every case. Well,

Mr. Member, if we contribute 33 1/3 per cent under the Elderly

Citizens' Housing Aid Act, my arithmetic tells me that they

couldn't possibly be contributing 75 per cent. Most of their

contributions are in the form of loans. We make ours in the

form mostly of grants.

You talk about one of my former students calling me a lousy

teacher. Well, that's fair enough; I'm sure that you could find

a few more that would say that as well. I don't want to hold up

estimates to bring my old day books to show the number of

scholarship students and also NHL hockey players who are now

presently in the Stanley Cup, like Danny Gare, among my more

proud associations, but I won't go into that because it's out

of order, Mr. Chairman, clearly.

Now you have related this matter of the condominium

development in Delta. It is a matter of concern to me. I have

just as recently, believe it or not, Mr. Member, as today been

informed of a related matter in this incident. I would like to

look into this very carefully to see what redress might be able

to take place. But we do have to be very careful.

You talk about what assurances were given verbally over the

phone. I think that this is a very difficult area. I don't want

to get into accusing one person or another, but I think, Mr.

Member, that it would be possible if assurances were given that

wages would not be garnisheed that a person not professionally

trained such as yourself might not understand the difference

between that and a filed judgment.

[ Page 1489 ]

MR. GARDOM: That's process of execution.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Yes, but as I say, if someone would say,

"Your wages will not be garnisheed," they might say,

"Well, I was given assurance that nothing would happen."

Interjection.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: I'm not going to get into an argument

over what might have been said on the phone. Certainly

something should be given in writing.

I am quite concerned, and so was my staff quite concerned,

about the practices of that government when they hastily

brought this bill in for political mileage.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Your government.

HON. MR. NICOLSON : And my staff is concerned,

Mr. Member.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: In 1973 you brought it in.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: They did not require any equity. We do

now require that these mortgages be covered by some equity. I

know that in some of these instances there was only $1 in down

payment. That particular thing is a very sorry spectacle, Mr.

Member, and we will look into it very carefully.

MR. GARDOM: Will you agree to a moratorium on the judgment

until you look into it? Will you agree not to take execution on

the judgment?

MR. WALLACE: I shudder a little bit when I hear our learned

friends talking about executions and other such terms in this

House. I am a little nervous that I might be the next one for

an execution.

AN HON. MEMBER: Perhaps.

MR. WALLACE: I think, in general terms, one has to look at

the housing situation in this province on a short-term and a

long-term basis. We have heard the word "crisis" bandied about

quite a bit. There is no question that with population

increasing at over 3 per cent a year and the housing starts

down in the manner that's been described by whatever

percentage, it's down drastically, we obviously have a serious

problem.

One of the things that puzzles me quite a bit is the

reluctance of the Department of Housing to at least tackle the

short-term problem first.

In the United Kingdom after World War II there was a fantastic

upsurge in the production of prefabricated homes. I can well remember

many people criticizing the rather small and not very attractive

appearance of these prefabricated homes. I can remember doing house

calls to very large areas of small homes close together, with what

would be described as minimal accommodation, in the south of England. I

suppose in this affluent society there aren't too many people who look

upon that kind of development in Britain in the late '40s with

enthusiasm, but Mr. Chairman, I can tell you it was very much the

difference between a roof over somebody's head or a matter of moving in

with relatives and living in congested and undesirable circumstances in

terms of overcrowding.

I think that when we look at the housing problem in British

Columbia right now, we should look at it as though there were

some short-term measures we could take which could be quickly

useful, while at the same time, looking further down the road

and trying to develop a diversity of both rental and home-owned

accommodation.

It is not as though the prefabricated principle is unknown

or unpracticed in Canada. I notice that under this latest

publication called "Ontario Housing," in southwest

Ontario, particularly in the London area, there is quite a

development of what are called sectional homes which are

assembled on the site. I wonder to what degree this government

could look at that as some measure of short-term solution to

the problem. I am not suggesting for a moment that this is

anything but a short-term solution. These homes can be looked

upon to last perhaps 15 or 20 years. Nevertheless, when there

is a crisis, you can't have all the solutions and the luxuries

and all the desirable features of accommodation you might

otherwise want in a permanent home.

Along the same line, instead of just paying lip service to

this kind of thought, smaller, basic, functional homes without

some of the — I hesitate to use the word — frills, and some of

the luxuries and some of the space and perhaps the number of

rooms and all the built-in garburetor and dishwasher and

what-have-you could be considered. This is often discussed. We

certainly discussed it at our policy conferences in our own

party. I wonder to what degree there are real plans available

or under way by this government to get down to the very basic

fact of providing perhaps 1,000 square feet with just the very

essential elements of a home. In the course of time young

couples, as their income improves and their situation changes,

could then have the flexibility to add to the home or to add

luxuries or to enlarge the square footage or what-have-you. I

think these are two of the areas in which a short-term solution

might lie.

There is a third aspect which has been touched upon tonight,

namely, mobile homes. I haven't got the figure right with me,

but I understand that, I think it's in the United States,

approximately

[ Page 1490 ]

one-third of all homes purchased or built these

days are

mobile homes. In other words, the cost factor has become so

acute that many people have little alternative but to consider

a mobile home.

Here we have the problem, Mr. Chairman, that you never

really own a mobile home because you haven't got the freedom to

buy and sell. There are all kinds of constraints, visible and

invisible.

As far as I can gather, the mobile-home business in this

country is one of the biggest official rackets that you can

imagine. We've got examples right here in the capital city that

have been publicized lately with the kind of example of Mr. and

Mrs. Clackett, whose case was publicized in the local

newspaper. Really, the problem of having a mobile home without

a site to put it leaves the owner — the so-called owner — completely in

the grips of the person who does have land or a

site available for the location of mobile homes.

We don't have time to go into details, but some of the

circumstances that were related regarding a payoff when the

person wants to sell the home or vacate and sell to another

owner, and all the ways in which the mobile home owner can be

subjected to what are, if not illegal practices, certainly

little short of blackmail....

I hope to be in Prince George this weekend, one of the main

reasons being to visit with the Western Mobile Homeowners

Association. They've already provided me with a great deal of

information. While the general picture is clear to many people,

I wonder to what degree the Minister is moved to plan

legislation which will surely give the mobile home owners some

measure of protection from all the sharp practices that are

presently close enough to being legal that they can get away

with it. Alternatively, because there is such a shortage of

accommodation, I presume that many mobile home owners put up

with the sharp practices simply because they have no

choice.

It's the old story once more that if something is in short

supply, you either get a black market or you get sharp

practices which it's very difficult to discipline. I hope that

if the Minister is planning some kind of legislation it takes

into account the very basic nature of the way the law of supply

and demand operates. I would very much like to know tonight if,

in fact, the government is aware of the racket in mobile homes

and whether or not there is some attempt pending on their part

to help the person who is being prejudiced.

One of the big differences between this government and the parties

on this side of the House is the philosophical concept of home

ownership and land ownership. We don't accept the kind of rather

dogmatic statement that the day is gone when people can own their own

homes. We feel that many of the reasons that costs make it difficult

for a person to own their own home can be minimized in various ways. In

particular, we think that the lack of incentive

which presently exists is something that the government could

enhance. The concept of leasing of accommodation is sound

enough, but we would like to ask why the government doesn't

consider that a lease-to-purchase option is not a sound way to

give the home occupier one day to own their own home, and own

the land on which the home sits.

Most of the government's plans these days seem to be related

mainly to the leasing of land and the action of cooperatives.

I think that that's part of the overall kind of planning that

should be used. But I wonder if the government has yet had any

change of heart in adding that incentive of a lease with an

option to purchase, let us say, five years or four years or six

years, or at some period in time down the road because whether

we indulge in ideology or not, it is a very natural desire for

individuals and couples and families to want to own their own

homes. It seems to me that to take the rather dogmatic position

in inflationary times that that day has gone so let's just

direct all our plans toward the government owning and leasing

the land, is, I think, both premature and not what the majority

of people favour.

I'm puzzled by the vehicle that this government developed to

get into the housing field, namely the purchase of Dunhill

Development Ltd. We've heard many comments in the House about

some rather surprising financial dealings. I read the annual

report, and there's one page that really puzzled me. The pages

aren't numbered, incidentally, which makes it difficult to give

referral, but it's under the paragraph entitled "Land

Development Division." The paragraph reads: "Every project

begins with land acquisition. Our staff members appraise the

value of the proposed site and determine its probably use."

It's the next sentence that puzzles me. It says: "We do this

for our own projects as well as for proposed government

projects." This raises in my mind some conflict of interest

situation.

In other words, we have Dunhill Development which, by all

accounts, is the vehicle that this government is using to

acquire land and embark upon housing projects, but apparently

this same Dunhill Development Ltd. has projects of its own.

Earlier on in the same report, it talks about satellite towns — that's

early in the report — and I wonder if the Minister

could give me some idea what the report means by "our own

projects" as contrasted with government projects, and just how

the directors of Dunhill Development and the administration

make choices between their administration and their financing

and all the other matters that relate to two types of projects,

one of which is government projects, and the other, presumably

private projects with the specific purpose of making a

profit.

I haven't got the precise reference, but I seem to recall that a few

months ago it was made quite plain

[ Page 1491 ]

that Dunhill Development is in the

business of making a profit. It seems strange to me, coming from a

socialist government which keeps harping about how wrong it is to make

a profit. The Minister is shaking his head, but I can remember quite

clearly one land purchase for a certain price which was subsequently

sold to a developer at an enhanced price and the question was asked at

that time: "Would, in fact, the increased price not be passed on to the

individual consumer who finally bought a lot out of that development?"

As I recall it, the Minister publicly stated: "Yes, the government felt

entitled to collect the increased value of the land between the time

the government purchased it and resold it to a developer." I can't

recall that particular purchase, and the Minister may know the one I am

referring to, but it was certainly given front page publicity in the

newspaper.

All I am saying is that I thought this government, by

whatever type of housing development it had in mind, had

purchased Dunhill Development in order that it could act on

behalf of the government to acquire land at the lowest possible

price and pass it on to the purchasing consumer at the lowest

possible price. Now we find that Dunhill Development has some

private projects on its own as well as government projects. Do

the government projects not make a profit and the other

projects do? If so, can you tell us what kind of percentage

profit Dunhill makes on its private development?

It's all very confusing to me to find that the government

bought out a building company, or a development company, with

the specific purpose of trying to acquire land and build homes

and rental accommodation at the lowest price possible for the

consumer and yet we have had this admission by the Minister

that, at the same time, Dunhill Development considers it quite

reasonable to try and make a profit like any other free

enterprise outfit. Now I happen to believe in the free

enterprise system, but it puzzles me that this socialist

government should be using this vehicle and I would certainly

like an explanation of that particular phrase about "...our

own projects as well as proposed government projects." I am

also interested to know what they mean by "satellite

towns."

The question of this government's planning and apparent ignoring or

flouting of regional and municipal levels of government is, I think,

one reason why the Minister is finding less than harmonious cooperation

from the municipalities. Once again, I don't think you can have your

cake and cat it. If you want to have cooperation from regional and

local government, you have to do something less than pass the amendment

to the Laws Declaratory Act where you tell the regional and municipal

levels of government that, "Well, there's a whole lot of laws about

land use and improvements, but we, the government, will do exactly what

we like." If you think, Mr. Chairman, that regional and municipal

governments are likely to cooperate with that kind of autocratic

attitude by the provincial government, then it doesn't surprise me at

all that you are finding the municipalities are less than cooperative.

I think one of the prime examples would have to be the Burke

Mountain project. Now for all I know the basic concept on Burke

Mountain might be excellent, but I have certainly visited

Coquitlam and talked to a few people and talked to some of the

aldermen and they feel very unhappy at the way in which

extensive planning is well underway by the provincial

government — the exact figure I just don't recall; something

like 20,000 homes and, I think, finally an ultimate 80,000 new

residents over the next 10 years. These figures might not be

quite precise but they are certainly massive figures for one

area of development.

The kind of feeling that has been created amongst the

residents of Coquitlam is summed up by the kind of statement

that they feel they're getting a development shoved down their

throats whether they like it or not. The municipal council

feels that there isn't the consultation and the prior

discussion that they feel they're entitled to as a local and

supposedly autonomous level of government. With no disrespect

to one of your staff seated on the floor of the House, there

was this protest meeting in Coquitlam back in January. The kind

of criticism put forward...it says here: "One man criticized

the presence of Deputy Housing Minister George Chatterton as

the only government representative. He noted that Mr.

Chatterton was a civil servant and could not possibly espouse

provincial policy." That's right. But the very presence of a

civil servant who is in no position to espouse or defend

policy, in the eyes of the people in Coquitlam and other areas,

just further accentuates the impression that the Minister is

not really interested at the political level in sitting down

and talking with the mayor and aldermen.

I may be exaggerating the sentiment, but there are clippings

over the last three months in the newspaper which make the

point very clearly that there is not enough recognition by the

provincial planners in the Housing department of the legitimate

desires of municipal and regional politicians to be consulted

and have a realistic say in planning for their area. This

reminds me a little bit about the Surrey controversy and the

refinery. We're coming across this kind of situation all the

time, where the government's busy auctioning land and saying:

"We may or we may not; nothing's been decided." The people in

the area have strong suspicions that a great deal is being

decided and planned and that they will only get the details

after the plan is so far down the road that they can't alter

it.

We've got another part of this Burke Mountain

[ Page 1492 ]

situation which appeared in the newspaper just the other day — April 15. Premier Barrett had been asked to overrule Dunhill

Development and order publication of the environmental studies

into Burke Mountain housing scheme. "The president of the

Northeast Coquitlam Ratepayers Association said Monday that the

request to Premier Barrett, who is the MLA for the area, was

put through an executive assistant." Listen to this, Mr.

Chairman. "He said it was made after Werner Paulus, president

of Dunhill, told him that an environmental report on the area

would not be made public."

Again, the Minister has the opportunity to deny this or

explain otherwise. Again and again we get the impression in

different departments of this government that while it may be

well-motivated to serve the people in the way it sees wise or

judicious, in practice this government's getting to be as bad

as the former government in taking autocratic actions which

later on cannot be reversed. Whether the public or the citizens

of the area like it or not, they just either have to like it or

lump it. I think that this Minister should give us some

explanation of the degree to which municipalities such as

Coquitlam, Surrey and others are going to be better consulted

in the future than they seem to be in the past.

Of course, how could any local government have any kind of

confidence in getting a fair shake or being consulted when we

have the amendment I've already referred to — the Laws

Declaratory Act. That has to be the most abominable piece of

legislation this government has passed. To justify it on the

grounds that this is what the Social Credit regime did seems to

me just the most pathetic way to try and bolster up a position

which contradicts completely any recognition of municipal and

regional autonomy. I would suggest that the government would be

far better to come right out and say that it does not really

respect municipal autonomy, that the ball game has changed and

the most important thing to get ahead with in construction of

housing is to give the provincial government complete and total

authority to do as it chooses with the use of land. Instead of

that, we play around with the myth that local levels of

government do have some autonomy. All it does is waste time,

because sooner or later the provincial government does what it

likes anyway. Maybe it would be just as well if the provincial

government did what it wanted right off the bat.

There's a whole lot of shadow-boxing that goes on in this

whole business. We have the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon.

Mr. Lorimer) and the Minister of Housing at different times

standing up in the House and saying that municipalities are not

cooperating and that they're dragging their feet.

Another point I might make here is that if this government would

stop playing footsy with municipal financing in the first place, and we

go through this ridiculous last-minute fan dance with the $20 million

from the profit on natural gas, maybe the municipalities would be a

little more cooperative. If we look at the reasons why municipalities

are apprehensive about some housing developments, it's because their

net financial position gets worse. So I think that to take some of

these points in isolation really doesn't help the debate at all. I

think that if the Minister of Housing and the Minister of Municipal

Affairs and the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) would just put

the whole question of government aid to the municipalities on some

consistent, dependable, predictable basis, that, in very short order,

would be very helpful in getting the kind of cooperation which the

Minister would like from the municipalities.

I'd just like to finish by asking the Minister some specific

questions because the general impression that so many people

have is that we have a Department of Housing, but there's been

precious little new housing construction. So often the

government seems to have taken over or bought out construction

which was already underway. There has been a sad lack of

government initiating its own projects.

On that basis, I wonder if the Minister could just tell us

how many units, particularly of rental construction, were

initiated by this government in the past year and how many were

purchased after the construction had been initiated by some

other party.

I don't mean to get into Casa Loma because that's been

covered by the other parties, and time is short, but the

Minister bragged about this square-foot cost being lower than

even Barney Danson could imagine. I wonder if the Minister

could give us an average or range square-foot cost of rental

housing produced over the last year.

The third question I'd like to ask: instead of looking back,

could the Minister look forward and tell us what the provincial

government's housing target is in terms of units that he

expects to complete between April, 1975, and March 31,

1976?

We've heard a lot about land assembly, and I wonder if the

Minister could tell us the total interest costs presently

carried by the provincial government on lands purchased for

residential use — the interest costs of land presently carried

by the government. How much of that land is presently in use or

under development? Much of it is undeveloped. But what kind of

carrying costs are we involved in where land has been acquired

and is not presently built upon?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Green light.

MR. WALLACE: This will have to be the last question. Could

the Minister tell us what specific measures are being taken

provincially to stimulate the construction of rental

accommodation?

I had meant to comment on the land freeze and

[ Page 1493 ]

the lack of incentives, the question of rent control and all

the other factors which have depressed the construction of new

rental accommodation.

Again, the government can't have it both ways. They are

saying that land is too expensive and costs are too high for an

ordinary couple to build and own their own home, Therefore, it

means that most people have to rent as an alternative. They

really have no choice. That being the case, surely the primary

priority of the government would be to provide incentives to

the private sector in cooperation with government to build

rental accommodation. As far as I can see from reading the

Dunhill annual report and reading some of the other reports

from the private sector, the only effects on rental

accommodation construction are negative ones. Although the

federal government has allowed write-offs to the end of this

year, this seems to me like a very half-hearted and inadequate

incentive to the investor.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I have to get up and speak

against this motion to reduce the Minister's salary by $1.

In the first place, I think it's a frivolous motion. I think

this Minister has been doing an excellent job in the short time

that his department has been in operation and since he was

awarded his Ministry. I also would not like to see him lose $1

because, like me, he's from a remote area of the province and

we need every dollar to get back and forth from areas like

Kamloops and Creston.

Interjection.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: Oh, the Minister will have a chance to

speak.

Interjections.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: We've heard the opposition complaining

for days and days about debates being throttled and not having

a chance to question Ministers and we've sat here....

Interjections.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: Tonight we sat and didn't hear one

legitimate piece of criticism for this Minister whose estimates

are under debate tonight. A complete and total waste of

time.

Interjections.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: The opposition knows it. They are playing

games. They are playing the usual games that the opposition has

played in this House, particularly the official opposition, for

two and a half years now.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Where is your question?

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: I'm supporting the amendment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: I'll withdraw that, Mr. Chairman.

MR. PHILLIPS: If I was asking for support I wouldn't ask

you.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: I'll withdraw that, Mr. Chairman. I'm

speaking against the amendment.

Interjections.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: We heard this nonsense tonight, as we

have heard before, about Casa Loma as though no one in this

province knows the difference between the purchase price and

the total cost price.

Anyone who has bought a house in the Province of British

Columbia or any other province in Canada knows there is a

difference in the purchase price and the total cost by the time

you have finished paying the lawyers, the real estate agents,

the assessment fees and so on and so on, ad infinitum.

MR. PHILLIPS: Democracy in the province is dead, dead,

dead.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: I think the Member for Columbia River

(Mr. Chabot) made as good a point tonight as he did on the

Kaymor property in Kamloops, which was a total, negative

statement. He made it more than once on that Kaymor property

that was discussed before, and his position tonight was just as

negative; no substance to it whatsoever. Of course, if the

Member for Columbia River went to buy property today, he

wouldn't pay the purchase price, he would say to the owner:

"I'll pay you 3 per cent more than you paid for it 10 years

ago." And of course the owner would sell it to him. Nothing

realistic about it at all. No regard to today's values.

I really enjoyed the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound's

(Mr. L.A. Williams') speaking in favour of the motion because

his main position was: who made the profit? I like to hear a

Liberal Member stand up in this House talking about "who made

the profit?" when we can go to the same party in Ottawa and ask

them: "Who made the profit on the Bonaventure?" Do you remember

that one...to make razor blades out of? Who made the profit

on Hamilton Harbour? Who made the profit on some of those

Quebec race tracks? There is no way that any Liberal should

ever speak in this House about some private entrepreneur making

a profit, with the record their party has.

[ Page 1494 ]

They talk about autocratic action. I think it was the Member

for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) talking about this Minister's

autocratic action. This Minister and his staff have been to my

riding on three different occasions to talk about a housing

development there that is within the boundaries of the City of

Kamloops. The Minister is coming back again with his staff on

the 29th of this month to speak to city council. He is going to

speak to city council to find out what they want, what they

consider the most reasonable way to develop that property. To

have the Member for Oak Bay say that this Minister is

autocratic is, I say, total nonsense.

They talk about the high cost of land in British Columbia.

Mr. Chairman, I bought my home in Kamloops and the property

with it about 16 years ago.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): You were lucky; Social

Credit was in then.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: I paid $8,100 for that 1.75 acres, and I

have a quarter of an acre for a front lawn. In 1971, which,

thank goodness was the last year of Social Credit rule in this

province, I was offered $11,000 for that front lawn.

MR. PHILLIPS: They were the land value policies of your

government.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: It was 1971, Mr. Member; you were still

in government then.

One and three quarter acres with a house and outbuildings,

when I bought it in 1956 was $8,100. In 1971, which, as I said,

thankfully was the last year of the Social Credit regime in

this province, I was offered $11,000 for a quarter-acre front

lawn, but now they say all these costs are due to this

government. Absolute, total nonsense!

MRS. JORDAN: What's it worth today?

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: Let's look back. What did the opposition

do about housing in this province? The housing crisis didn't

start in 1972. There was a shortage of housing in Kamloops

many, many years before that but we had a very, very excellent

representative, of course, the late Minister of social

rehabilitation and one thing and another — he had various

posts. Under the representation from this Minister, we were

very short of housing in Kamloops and the prices went up and

up. Of course, we've been blamed for it, but they went up and

up under that Minister.

What did the previous government do about this? Did they form a

Department of Housing? Did they give him a staff to try and make land

available, housing available? They did absolutely and totally nothing.

That is exactly the reason why the people of this province finally

said: "We have had enough."

MR. McCLELLAND: Did they pay $6 million for Dunhill

Development?

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: No, but I think they paid quite a bit

more than $6 million in extra costs for the various Columbia

River developments, Mr. Member. There is no way you can argue

against that.

Interjections.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: Well, Mr. Member, when you say that I

haven't brains to know about what's going on, I'll agree with

you. I don't have many brains — just an ordinary person. Just a

little fellow from Kamloops, like the previous one. Where is he

now? Where is your next one going to go?

Interjection.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: Yes. Well, I'll go and visit you in

Columbia River after the next election because we won't be able

to chat here.

We have a Housing department that is now in Kamloops where

not one single unit of housing was ever put in by the

provincial representatives of the people before — 12 housing

units are being built now. We do have apartment rentals in

Kamloops.

MR. PHILLIPS: Ha! Twelve housing units in Kamloops. Big

deal.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: I am just starting. Twelve units of

housing that can be rented. Not apartments because we have

enough apartments in Kamloops, and the department has

recognized this.

But apartments, of course, have their regulations. Some say

no dogs, some say no children, and houses are extremely scarce.

The 12 units that are being built, and will be finished, the

contractor assures me, in another two and a half months, will

be for families with children and dogs and canaries, if they

want.

There are also 80 acres that are scheduled for development,

but this autocratic Minister, as you call him, is listening to

the city council and listening to their suggestion about these

80 acres. On the meeting on the 29th, hopefully, we can resolve

the problem to the satisfaction of both parties. Perhaps this

housing will have to be put somewhere else — perhaps in another

section of the city. We will hear the city's opinion first. I

am looking forward to attending that meeting with the Minister

and the city council of Kamloops because the city council in

Kamloops, before 1972, was completely ignored by the Provincial

government. Everyone said: "Oh, well, with that very high

powered Highways Minister up

[ Page 1495 ]

there everything is hotsy-totsy and dandy in Kamloops." All

we got was Highway 1 and the federal government paid for 60 per

cent of that.

So I'm looking at the clock, and I know the Minister has

questions to answer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to answer the

questions for the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace). I think he

made some very good suggestions about prefabs, and we are

actually using them at Fort Nelson and Kitimat and in Penticton

last year, I had said in this House, we used modular homes and

prefabricated homes in conjunction with the City of Penticton.

The City of Penticton was the developer. We gave them the

interim funding, and using those modular homes it was possible

to bring in homes, I believe as cheap in a six-unit row house,

selling under AHOP I think for $21,000 or $22,000, and the top

was a very large duplex unit for about $28,000.

We've also used these quite successfully elsewhere and we do

have a study, particularly to use these.

I must agree with you about the need for small, basic,

functional homes, but this relates to your other talks about

cooperating with the municipalities. Cooperating with Burnaby — we have done so. We have reached a land-use contract with

Burnaby, which means that we have underground parking

requirements that cost alone about $7,000 per housing unit

created — $7,000 for cars and other very high level services.

So it is very difficult.

But in the case of Penticton and Mayor Frank Laird, they saw

this. They took it and ran with the ball, and it's an excellent

thing. We do have cooperation with the majority, almost with

any municipality. We can point to something we are quite happy

with in our relationship with that municipality.

You are going up to Prince George. I hope you will look at

the subdivision while you are there. You've asked about mobile

homes and planned legislation. This is of great concern to both

myself and the Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Ms. Young).

It is not an easy area to act in and we do have to be careful

that the action that we take does not further curtail the

interest in the production of mobile-home pads. We know that

there is sharp practice going on. People will quite openly

confess this, even dealers and mobile-home park operators. It

is not as widespread in the interior as it is down here, but it

is getting that way. So we are concerned about that, and also

about the spreading of the responsibility of mobile homes just

about through every government department.

The home ownership — we do not have any intention to bring in a

lease with option to purchase, but we have given the option of buying

freehold or buying leasehold in certain areas, mostly in the small

towns, and in Prince George this option was offered, also in

Revelstoke, and I think it was in Williams Lake the same type of option.

In the annual report, the land development acquisition, I

don't think that there is a conflict of interest. We make

decisions on this at the directors level, usually when it

involves a profit type of a project, but I do think that it

keeps a corporation sharp in terms of being competitive and not

allowing bureaucratic inertia to build in. They do have to

perform and also the profit is necessary to justify the

purchase price of Dunhill Development.

You recall the transfer, I think, of land of Imperial

Ventures Ltd., and that was under the terms of an agreement for

sale that was agreed to prior to us even negotiating with

Dunhill.

Burke was sold for a price. If we had sold it for a cheaper

price, they would have made a bigger profit, because we

couldn't have controlled their selling price, and that would

have been rather naive to just transfer it.

In terms of our selling and our profits, one of the things

that we're most concerned with is that we could have gotten a

higher price, for instance, in selling out Simon Fraser Hills

if we had held if off the market a little bit more, doled it

out in smaller doses. The thing we do have to be concerned

about is that if our price is too low, it will encourage

speculators to buy these homes and then resell them

immediately. Then you have to get into conditions of sale and

resale and all kinds of things which I think as a conservative

you would probably object to on the basis of that being too

much regulation and such.

So we try to set our price between where we would not be

criticized for playing into the hands of speculators and yet

selling it very reasonably. The way that is sold out, though,

certainly shows that we're not trying to take an excessive

profit. Ours are not part of those 1,500 vacant homes that

cannot sell because they're not realistically priced at the

present time.

Burke Mountain. Extensive planning is not ready to take

place. The question was asked today in question period about

the environmental study. We will not release the environmental

study at this time because it will indicate key areas of land

for development and we're still negotiating the purchase of

land in that area — and I say negotiating — and we have

recently purchased a couple of other small miscellaneous

parcels and we want to continue on that basis. The information

contained in that study could prejudice those in terms of

setting land values and such on key areas, or areas which might

not be key because of environmental considerations.

Interjections.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, that's something I

[ Page 1496 ]

certainly haven't considered; I'll maybe take that under

advisement. But we have involved the council as much as

possible and I think we've had very good cooperation with

council on the Riverview development which is something that is

in a very advanced stage of planning. We involved them

completely throughout that, and I think we're ready now to

involve them in some planning. But the planning has not taken

place in Burke Mountain. We've taken some inventory, and that's

really all that we have at this time. We have not completely

finalized even the approach of how we will pull in resource

people, how we will involve people and such, and certainly

we're not doing detailed planning at this time.

You talked about the department initiating its own housing.

I think the things that we have purchased that were partly on

the market were: Greenbrook, 127 units; Meadowbrook, 176 units;

Casa Loma, 125 units; and also one which we were involved in

with GVRD which was an 18-unit project which was partially

completed. The last two were bankruptcies — the 18-unit project

and Casa Loma — which might not have been on the market for two

or three more years. It's hard to say. Or would it ever have

come on? Certainly not as social housing.

Meadowbrook, I think, would have stopped after some 40 or 50

units had been completed in the first stage. I informed Mayor

Tonn of our intention before we purchased it and he welcomed

this. The council has supported this project throughout and

continues, most of them, to support it. Even some of those who

have criticized it say they have buried the hatchet on it.

Greenbrook, again, the first phase was nearing completion but

it was our understanding that the remainder of it would not be

completed.

The other things that we have brought on the market, it's

difficult to say if they would have been built anyhow, but you

can appreciate that with these 1,500 units in Vancouver that

are presently empty, it's most likely that most of those would

not have been occupied.

As for the Member for Kamloops (Mr. G.H. Anderson), I'll be

looking forward to the visit in Kamloops.

Interjections.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: I think you'll get a better idea of that

when we file the annual report. I had hoped that it would have

been ready by now, but it isn't. It should be ready very

soon.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'd just like to say a few words about this

$90 million department this evening.

You know, I was amazed at the beginning of the estimates that the

Minister quoted a number of statistics about housing. But I want to

tell you something, Mr. Chairman: before the Minister of Housing took

over his department, and before this great Ministry of housing was

formed in this Province of British Columbia, British Columbians were

the best-housed people, not only in Canada, but in North America.

Today, with all the great promises by the Minister of Housing, with all

the great promises by the Minister of Finance and the Premier of this

province, British Columbia, when it comes to housing, is a have-not

province. It's very difficult to realize that in this House this

evening we have the same Minister of Housing who last year predicted

that by the end of 1974 there would be a surplus of housing in British

Columbia — a surplus of housing. And what do we have? We have the worst

housing crisis in the Province of British Columbia in the history of

British Columbia. What happened to all those great promises of the

Minister of Housing? I hope that he has come down from his lofty roost

and will come to grips with the situation.

That Minister has failed and failed miserably. I won't put

all of the blame on the Minister of Housing. But I do put some

of the blame on him, because he still is as arrogant today as

he was a year ago. By the attitude he has had tonight, he is

still unwilling to listen to the voice of experience, to listen

to the people who made British Columbians the best-housed

people in Canada.

Tonight, as we stand in this Legislature, Vancouver and

Victoria are in a worse position than the rest of Canada in

terms of housing shortages; and this is according to CMHC

statistics.

I'll just give you a few other statistics. Housing starts

declined 27 per cent...

AN HON. MEMBER: Mr. Chairman, I draw your attention to the

clock.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. My attention having been drawn.... Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: ...to a total of only 992 in the

first two

months of the year in the Vancouver regional district from a

total of....

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

Interjections.

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

seated?

Interjections.

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

seated?

Interjections.

[ Page 1497 ]

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

seated?

Interjections.

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

seated, please?

Interjections.

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

rules of the House and be seated?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I order the Hon. Member to be seated.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I order the Hon. Member to be seated.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. If the Hon. Member refuses to

be seated, I'll have to use my power under the standing orders

and ask the Hon. Member to withdraw.

Interjections.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports progress

and asks leave to sit again.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Order, please!

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, there are over 10 different

departments of the government buying land in this province.

Instead of putting Crown land on the market...

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: ...at reasonable prices....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: I declare a short recess.

The House took recess at 11:03 p.m.

The House resumed at 11:08 p.m.

MR. PHILLIPS: We have the Department of Public Works...

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member please take his seat?

MR. PHILLIPS: ...the Department of Recreation and Conservation....

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member please take his seat?

MR. PHILLIPS: Is this closure?

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member please take his seat?

MR. PHILLIPS: Am I not going to have the opportunity to

question the Minister of Housing?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: Is this closure in the House this evening? Or

the Minister of Economic Development? Or the Minister...?

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member please...?

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member please take his seat

while the Speaker is standing?

Would the Hon. Member please take his seat while the Speaker

is standing?

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Under the parliamentary rules of

this country you can't have two people standing and talking at

the same time. This has not happened, and will not happen, in

this House.

I must therefore declare that the Hon. Member is defying the

rules of the House. I must order him to withdraw.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: I order the sergeant-at-arms to remove the Hon.

Member from the House.

[Interruption.]

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

[ Page 1498 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. When shall the committee sit

again?

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Next sitting, Mr.

Speaker.

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

order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I will not recognize any point

of order unless you agree to obey the rules of the House. If

you do not allow the Speaker to speak, if you shout down the

Speaker, then it isn't a House.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: I am prepared at any time to listen to any Hon.

Member if he obeys and observes the rules of the House.

One at a time. The Hon. Leader of the Opposition has

something to say. I will listen to you.

MR. BENNETT: On a point of order, the Chairman has not

reported to the Speaker. The committee should still be sitting.

We did not have the opportunity to vote on the committee

reporting progress. As far as I am concerned, the Speaker is

not in the chair.

MR. CHABOT: Absolutely! Get the Chairman back!

MR. BENNETT: You have no authority, Mr. Speaker, and no

right to be there! We are still in Committee of Supply....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BENNETT: You had no right to have the Member for South

Peace River (Mr. Phillips) escorted from the chamber.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Will the Hon. Member listen to

me while I explain the point?

When the Chairman rises and reports to the Chair, without

question put, when the time of adjournment is approached at 11

o'clock...and somebody had drawn his attention to the

clock.

Now I am told by the Chairman, who came to the desk here,

that his attention had been drawn to the clock, and that he's

risen for that reason. That is the rule where the attention of

the Chairman is drawn to the clock. He did report to me and I

was about to put the question to the House Leader as to when

the committee should sit again.

Now it may be an error on the part of Members on that point,

because it does differ from the normal occasion to which the

Hon. Leader of the Opposition refers. There is that distinction

at the time of adjournment, and I would therefore suggest that

it might be well if we did adjourn.

I am asking the Hon. House Leader when the committee shall

sit again.

MR. GARDOM: Point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: What is your point of order?

MR. GARDOM: I rise on a somewhat different point of order.

This is a matter which I think has concerned the whole of the

House for a very, very long time, and that is the process that

is being criticized by the opposition, and being referred to as

electronic gagging. I found tonight that when you, Mr. Speaker,

left the chair the microphone of the Member who has been

escorted out of the House was cut off.

I also noticed, Mr. Speaker, that on many occasions when

points of order are being made by Members to the Chair, the

statements that have been made by Members are completely

emasculated from Hansard . I've attempted my very best to

find authority for this procedure. The only authority I have

been able to find was apparently a report in Hansard of

last year — I believe the date was May 30 of 1974. It was a

report from the committee on the rules of the House. I refer to

page 3586, and I see this recommendation:

"Your committee further recommends" — only a

recommendation,

Mr. Speaker — "that the Hansard operators