1974 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, APRIL 1, 1974

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

2029 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Special Funds Appropriation Act, 1974 (Bill 7). Amendments.

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2029

Emergency Health Services Act (Bill 93). Hon. Mr. Cocke.

Introduction and first reading — 2029

Police Act (Bill 91). Hon. Mr. Macdonald.

Introduction and first reading — 2029

Oral questions

Commission fee for Wisener and Co. on purchase of Westcoast shares. Mr. Bennett — 2029

Cost of new ferries. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2030

Investigation of impasse at Mills Memorial Hospital. Mr. Wallace — 2030

Aquaculture project for Boundary Bay area. Mr. McClelland — 2030

Cushioning the impact of higher B.C. oil prices. Mr. Gibson — 2030

Federal subsidy for new ferry construction. Mr. Curtis — 2031

Suggested distribution of Waffle Manifesto. Mr. Phillips — 2031

Investment of KBC premiums. Mr. Morrison — 2031

Status of negotiations on BCR railcar shortage. Mr. Fraser — 2031

WCB computer contracts. Hon. Mr. King — 2032

Definition of driver's policy. Mr. Morrison — 2032

Self-regulatory powers of Teachers' Federation. Mr. Wallace — 2332

Premier's intentions for an Easter recess. Mr. Curtis — 2032

Committee of Supply: Department of Housing estimates.

On vote 107.

Mr. Phillips — 2033

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2034

Mr. Morrison — 2034

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2035

Mr. Wallace — 2035

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2035

Mr. McClelland — 2035

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2035

Mr. Bennett — 2036

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2036

Mr. L.A. Williams — 2036

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2036

Mr. L.A. Williams — 2036

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2037

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2037

Mr. Bennett — 2037

Mr. Wallace — 2037

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2038

Mr. Bennett — 2038

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2038

Mr. Gibson — 2039

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2039

Mr. Bennett — 2040

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2040

Mr. Bennett — 2040

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2041

Mr. Wallace — 2041

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2042

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2042

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2043

Mr. Phillips — 2043

Mr. Gibson — 2045

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2045

Mr. Gibson — 2046

Mr. Morrison — 2046

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2046

Mr. Morrison — 2047

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2047

Mr. Gibson — 2047

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2047

Mr. L.A. Williams — 2047

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2048

Mr. Smith — 2049

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2050

Mr. Phillips — 2051

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2051

Mr. McClelland — 2051

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2051

Mr. Phillips — 2051

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2051

Mr. Phillips — 2051

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2052

Mr. Phillips — 2052

Mr. McClelland — 2053

Mr. Phillips — 2053

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2054

Mr. Schroeder — 2054

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2054

Mr. Morrison — 2054

On vote 108.

Mr. Phillips — 2054

Mr. Wallace — 2055

Mr. Phillips — 2056

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2056

Mr. McGeer — 2056

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2056

Mr. McGeer — 2056

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2058

Mr. Gibson — 2058

Mr. Phillips — 2058

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2059

Mr. McClelland — 2059

Mr. Gibson — 2059

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 2059

Mr. Bennett — 2059

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2059

Mr. Phillips — 2059

Mr. Gibson — 2060

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2060

On vote 109.

Mr. McClelland — 2060

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2060

Mr. Wallace — 2060

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2061

Mr. Wallace — 2061

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2061

Mr. Phillips — 2061

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2062

Mr. Phillips — 2062

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2062

Mr. Gibson — 2062

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2062

On vote 110.

Mr. Phillips — 2062

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2062

Mr. Phillips — 2063

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2063

Mr. Phillips — 2063

Mr. Chabot — 2063

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2063

On vote 111.

Mr. Phillips — 2063

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2063

Mr. Bennett — 2064

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2064

Mr. Phillips — 2064

Mr. Bennett — 2064

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2064

Mr. Phillips — 2064

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2065

Mr. Bennett — 2065

Mr. Phillips — 2065

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2065

The House met at 2 p.m.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I would like to share

with the House a telegram sent this morning to Hon. Frank D. Moores,

Premier of the Province of Newfoundland, Parliament Buildings, St.

John's, Newfoundland.

DEAR MR. PREMIER:

ON BEHALF OF MY GOVERNMENT AND THE PEOPLE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA,

I WISH TO EXTEND SINCERE CONGRATULATIONS TO YOUR GOVERNMENT AND THE PEOPLE OF

NEWFOUNDLAND ON THE 25TH ANNIVERSARY OF YOUR ENTRY INTO CONFEDERATION MARCH

MAY WE ALWAYS WORK TOGETHER FOR THE UNITY AND FUTURE GOOD OF

OUR GREAT COUNTRY.

SINCERELY YOURS, THE PREMIER.

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni):

Mr. Speaker, I would like the Members to welcome today a class of

students from Smith Community School, an independent school in Port

Alberni. They are here under the direction of their teacher, Mr. Russ

McLaughlin.

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): Mr. Speaker, I would ask the House to welcome Mayor Brown of Merritt and the clerk of Merritt, Bob Cavanagh.

I would ask you also to welcome Darwin Charlton, who I believe came

to this land with his father, a disciple of early John Ruskin, and set

up the first co-op enterprise in British Columbia before the turn of

the century, where we now have Ruskin, B.C.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): Mr. Speaker, seated in the

gallery today is a visitor from Kamloops, Mr. Don Ellsay, who has a

long history of civic involvement in the city. He's down here now on

behalf of SPEC and STRAADA, who are trying to get a study done of the

Shuswap-Thompson river basin — a study which I endorse. I ask the House

to welcome him.

Introduction of bills

SPECIAL FUNDS APPROPRIATION ACT, 1974

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

amendments to Bill 7, intituled Special Funds Appropriation Act, 1974.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I ask leave to move first reading of the bill accompanying the message.

Leave granted.

Amendments to Bill 7 read a first time and placed on orders of the

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

EMERGENCY HEALTH SERVICES ACT

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

a bill intituled Emergency Health Services Act.

Bill 93 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on

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

after today.

POLICE ACT

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

a bill intituled Police Act .

Bill 91 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on

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

after today.

Oral questions

COMMISSION FEE TO WISENER AND CO.

ON PURCHASE OF WESTCOAST SHARES

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Was the Premier aware of

the commission rate booklet used by all security firms in Canada when he authorized

the $404,993 commission fee to Wisener and Company on the purchase of Westcoast

Transmission shares?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I am aware of the commission book and if the Member wishes the details of that commission I will table it as a return.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to go further because

we've had information tabled in this House dealing with that

transaction. If the Premier is aware of the commission book did he know

he overpaid Wisener and Partners Company Limited by $259,000 at least

over the maximum commission?

HON. MR. BARRETT: There was no overpayment, Mr. Speaker.

MR. BENNETT: Well, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to….

[ Page 2030 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Let's not engage in debate. Will there be a further question — a supplementary?

MR. BENNETT: Yes, I'd like to know further if Wisener and

Partners Company Limited are going to be official brokers since they've

bought a seat on the Vancouver Stock Exchange and I notice they are now

buying B.C. Telephone shares for the Province of British Columbia.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, we deal through all brokerage houses.

COST OF NEW FERRIES

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

and Communications, Mr. Speaker. I refer first to his press release

last week indicating the cost of building the new B.C. ferries at

approximately $40 million. May I ask the Minister whether this is the

expected total delivery price?

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

Yes, that's a firm price. We had the alternative of taking a lower

price with an escalation clause and it was the judgment of the

management that in view of the uncertain circumstances it was best to

take a firm price for the whole contract.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: May I further ask the Minister, Mr. Speaker, whether this includes the engines and propulsion units for the vessels?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, that's the total price as supplied by the yard.

INVESTIGATION OF IMPASSE AT

MILLS MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

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

Minister of Health in regard to the serious situation at Mills Memorial

Hospital in Terrace whether he has taken any decision regarding the

appointment of a public administrator to investigate the situation,

inasmuch as both the medical and general staff are much distressed by

the attitude of the board of trustees?

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, that was a problem a week or two ago and I was in touch with the problem at all times.

As I understand it, the board has put their house in good order.

They have a better understanding of their duties. I understand that

everything is fine in Mills Memorial Hospital at the present time, and

there's no need to put that hospital under trusteeship.

AQUACULTURE PROJECT

FOR BOUNDARY BAY AREA

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

Minister of Recreation and Conservation. I notice by a press release

that the Minister and the Minister of economic development (Hon. Mr.

Lauk) are going into a study of future development of the aquaculture

industry. I'd like to ask the Minister if there are any plans to

develop any kind of a pilot project in this relation in the Boundary

Bay area.

HON. J. RADFORD (Minister of Recreation and Conservation): No plans for that, Mr. Member.

MR. McCLELLAND: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Are there any

plans to purchase any further property in that area that you're aware

of? Or are there any plans to move the Boundary Bay dike back to flood

a larger area in the Boundary Bay area?

HON. MR. RADFORD: No, there are no plans that I am aware of to the points that you've just raised.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: A further supplementary, Mr. Speaker, on

the press release. May I ask the Minister what special features of the

Chuchitzeny fish hatchery have caused this to be singled out for a

special visit? That's the Chuchitzeny fish hatchery near Nekko — the

one you sent your press release out on.

Can I ask the Minister then what the special features of the trout

hatchery at Lake Chuchitzeny near Nekko are that have caused him to

have a special visit to that particular operation? I've seen it; it's a

very small one. I wonder why it's got such special features that

require a visit by cabinet Ministers of British Columbia.

HON. MR. RADFORD: None that I'm aware of, Mr. Member.

CUSHIONING THE IMPACT

OF HIGHER B.C. OIL PRICES

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): A question for

the Premier, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the Premier could advise the

House if a decision has been made on the ways and means of cushioning

the impact on British Columbians of higher oil prices.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, also at the request and the

same question from the Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis), I expect that it

will be on the agenda of the cabinet meeting tomorrow morning.

[ Page 2031 ]

MR. GIBSON: On a supplementary then, Mr. Speaker, could the

Premier advise the House whether this cushioning will apply to other

energy costs such as home heating oils as well as the price of gasoline?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, we haven't decided anything yet; we're

meeting tomorrow.

FEDERAL SUBSIDY FOR

NEW FERRY CONSTRUCTION

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

the Premier and Minister of Finance. I wonder if he would indicate

whether the provincial government's apparent failure to inform Ottawa

of its Burrard Inlet ferry plans will reduce in any way the possibility

of receiving federal subsidy assistance in the construction of the two

vessels to be used in the service

HON. MR. BARRETT: I don't think so, Mr. Member.

MR. CURTIS: A supplementary. Has the province formerly communicated to the federal authorities the intention to proceed?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'll take that as notice.

SUGGESTED DISTRIBUTION

OF WAFFLE MANIFESTO

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

to address my question to the Provincial Secretary. I wonder if the

Provincial Secretary would give consideration to having printed, to

meet the growing demand, at least 20,000 copies of the Waffle Manifesto.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sure that question is out of order. I don't

think it's within the administrative responsibility of the Provincial

Secretary.

INVESTMENT OF ICBC PREMIUMS

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, my question is

addressed to the Minister of Transport and Communications. I wonder if

the Minister could tell us where ICBC has invested the surplus premiums

the income — that has been received to date. I'll take it as a return

if he'd like.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Bank certificates and notes…there are only one, two, three pages here.

MR. MORRISON: I'd be very happy to have it as a return….

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, now that you've asked the question…. I won't give you all the details: Royal Bank of....

MR. MORRISON: It's the details I wanted, and I'll take a return.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, there's a way of getting a return. You put

it in the order paper.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Those are the rules of the House. That's how you get a return.

MR. SPEAKER: I would point out to Members that if you ask an

oral question you may get a return. On the other hand, it should be

done by motion.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: That may be true. Usually if it's a lengthy

answer it should not be given in oral questions, but should be in the

form of a return. Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Minister please be seated now? That can

be dealt with by him later.

STATUS OF NEGOTIATIONS

ON BCR RAILCAR SHORTAGE

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

Premier who is president of the British Columbia Railroad. Where are we

at with the CNR negotiations over the shortage of railcars?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, since the federal Minister's

statements the negotiations have taken on more meaning. I haven't had

an up-to-date report. I will try get one overnight and report back to

you.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: A supplementary. Could the Premier please

indicate when he will be releasing the documents concerning the

original agreement between BCR and the two national railways which BCR

terminated, and which led to the troubles we've had for the last two

years?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'm not aware that there was a request for those documents.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I made it to you the other day.

HON. MR. BARRETT: What day?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I'll check the Hansard if

[ Page 2032 ]

you want.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, would you check that, Mr. Member?

I'll check back with BCR and find out if such documents or formal

arrangements were in existence.

WCB COMPUTER CONTRACTS

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, the Leader

of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) asked a question last week which I took

as notice. He asked whether the Workmen's Compensation Board has

awarded any computer contracts to any corporation without tender.

I would advise the Member, Mr. Speaker, that the Workmen's

Compensation Board contracts of that nature do not come within the

purview of the Ministry of Labour. They are quite free to enter

contracts independently of this department, except with respect to land

contracts which must be approved by the department. So the question

should really be directed to the chairman of the Workmen's Compensation

Board.

DEFINITION OF DRIVER'S POLICY

MR. MORRISON: Mr. Speaker, my question again is addressed to

the Minister of Transport and Communications. Could he tell us whether

the driver's policy is considered an insurance premium or a driver's

licence charge?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: There's a specific definition within the

Act which makes it very clear that it's a driver's licence insurance

premium. It's part of the overall insurance package.

MR. MORRISON: Mr. Speaker, a supplemental. I'd like to know,

then, what risk it covers. Secondly, what form of an insurance policy

will the driver receive?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It covers the basic risk, as I say. It's part of the overall insurance policy. What was your second question?

MR. MORRISON: What form of insurance policy will the driver then receive?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The same form of insurance policy as he'd get with the other part of his insurance.

MR. MORRISON: In other words, no policy at all.

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out to Hon. Members that you should try to

avoid asking two questions at the same time, because it makes it difficult.

SELF-REGULATORY POWERS

OF TEACHERS FEDERATION

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the Minister of

Education, in light of the fact that the BCTF has passed a motion, in

effect, giving them authority to discharge a member from the BCTF for

what is considered an internal breach of discipline in the classroom or

teaching too many pupils in a class, and since the right to teach

involves membership in the BCTF, could the Minister tell the House

whether she has had discussions with the BCTF to give them this degree

of self-regulation and discipline?

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): I haven't had any

specific discussions with them on that. This somewhat relevant question

was asked me last week, and I took it as notice. But I hope to have

discussions with them, and then I will answer.

MR. WALLACE: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Due to the fact that this

motion has been passed by the BCTF, could I ask the Minister in the meantime

whether, in effect, the BCTF has the authority to discharge somebody from membership

and hence put them out of the teaching profession in this province? It's a very

serious consequence of being discharged from the BCTF.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I don't believe it's quite as rigid as you're suggesting.

But, as I said, I took the question as notice because I intend to meet with

the BCTF on this.

PREMIER'S INTENTIONS

FOR AN EASTER RECESS

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Premier. In view

of his impending visit to Japan on government business, and with a

little bit of pleasure thrown in, could he indicate whether it is his

intention to adjourn the Legislature while he is away or permit it to

carry on?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I understand that that's a

matter for the Whips to discuss. But I would hope, since there's been a

breakdown in the Whip system, that perhaps some love and peace will

come back this week and we can come to some arrangement with the Whips.

In any event, it is the government's intention to press on with the

estimates. If we're not finished with the estimates, of course, we must

consider a break and then come back after the break and finish off with

legislation.

MR. CURTIS: A supplementary. Can I take it

[ Page 2033 ]

from what the Premier has said, Mr. Speaker, that

if the estimates are not concluded when his departure date arrives, he

would consider a termination of the House?

HON. MR. BARRETT: It's not a question of a departure date,

Mr. Member. It's the question of an Easter break in itself. If the

House can't get the work done, then we'll have to consider such a break.

MR. CURTIS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I feel that the

Premier could be a little more direct in the answer. During your

absence in Japan from Victoria is it your thought that the Legislature

should adjourn while you're away or carry on as normal?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Perhaps longer than my particular absence in Japan — perhaps longer, Mr. Member.

I don't know if this is proper in the question period, Mr. Speaker,

but I'd be pleased to answer. There's a great deal of work to be done.

We must, of course, have interim supply so that civil servants, welfare

recipients, Mincome people and others do not go short because of this

House's inability to conclude its work.

We reach to Easter; if we're not there in time then, of course, we

must consider interim supply to enable the business to go on. Then I

think we should have a recess for all the Members to relax for a while

and have an Easter break. It has been the longest session in the

history of this province. We don't want to exhaust the Members. We

understand that they are not having enough time to eat or to sleep;

that's the complaint we've been getting, therefore I think they need a

break.

MR. CURTIS: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. The question was not

asked with respect to the stomachs of the opposition Members, but the

business of this Legislature, and your….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Is that a debate or is it a question?

MR. CURTIS: An observation.

Orders of the day

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING

(continued)

On vote 107: homeowner assistance, $360,976.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Chairman, the

purpose of purchasing Dunhill Development Corporation, now Woodbridge

Development Corporation, was, I presume, to give homeowners in the

province assistance in purchasing their houses, to see that that

corporation would be building through their management team a large

number of low-rental homes. In this way the homeowner would be

assisted. In order to assess the situation, to determine in my mind and

in the mind of the official opposition if this is going to be of

assistance to homeowners in the province, I would appreciate the

Minister at this time tabling the appraisals that he had done before

purchasing this company — appraisals on both land and buildings. In Hansard of Friday last, Mr. Chairman, the….

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Chairman, on a point of order.

It's my understanding that the House came to some agreement to raise

the opening of this on vote 111. What we're dealing with now is a

separate vote on homeowners assistance. It's my understanding that we

agreed on vote 111.

MR. PHILLIPS: I think it's only fair. The Minister said he

would table the appraisals in the Legislature so that we'd have

opportunity to study them before vote 111 comes up. I'm just asking the

Minister if he would table the appraisals at this time. He said he

would. As I say, I could quote it out of Hansard here where he said he would table these appraisals on Monday.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where?

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, all right:

HON. MR. NICOLSON: To be sure, I'd like to bring this into the House on Monday if I could. I could table it at that time.

That's in response to a question asked by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) where he says:

...was going to get some information as to which appraisals

had not been authenticated by government appraisals that were used in the compilation

of this list, which the Minister had circulated throughout the House, dealing

with the properties in Dunhill Development…and I wonder if you could

have an answer for me now.

The Minister says:

To be sure, I'd like to bring this into the House on Monday next

if I could. I could table it at that time.

Again, in response to a question

by the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot):

You don't have the information

now….

HON. MR. BARRETT: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: State your point of order.

[ Page 2034 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: I think the questions are appropriate, but

they are appropriate under vote 111 — that is where we agreed. I

appreciate today is Monday, but I want to stay in order, and I suggest

the question be raised on vote 111. We're dealing with the home grants

on this one, homeowners assistance. When we get to vote 111 that's the

appropriate time, Mr. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I'm just suggesting that homeowners assistance...certainly that's what Dunhill was really purchased for....

HON. MR. BARRETT: Look, Mr. Member, let's try to keep some

order in the House. Mr. Chairman, I ask you to call the Member to

order. When we get to vote 111, then it becomes in order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm afraid that I can't recognize agreements

between groups, as Chairman of the committee. If the proper discussion

takes place under this vote, homeowner assistance, I'll have to rule on

the basis of whether or not the Member is in order or out of order.

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister of Housing): Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: State your point of order.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: The Home Owner Assistance Branch is in no

way connected with Dunhill Development Company. It gets no direction

from that branch, so it would be most inappropriate to get into that

discussion at this time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We're on vote 107: homeowner assistance. I would hope the Member will bear that in mind.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, your point is certainly well

taken and I want to abide by your decision and be cooperative, as I

always am. The point is well taken, but I did want to advise the

Minister that we will expect those appraisals in the House, because

they were promised.

Mr. Chairman, I would like the Minister of Housing to advise the

House this afternoon what definite plans he has to give further

homeowner assistance to our native citizens.

There have been patchwork announcements made from time to time, but

I don't feel that this is really going to solve the problem. We have

incentives that are made available to the majority of our citizens.

Evidently these incentives are not enough to provide adequate housing

for our first citizens.

I would like at this time to ask the Minister if he would advise

what plans he has as an overall umbrella, not just a patchwork sort of

development here and a patchwork development there in cooperation with

the federal government so a Minister can come out and make an

announcement. Shouldn't we have some overall plan that's going to solve

this problem once and for all, so that our first citizens know what's

going to happen?

I don't want the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) to get up and

say that you were the first ones to make available the homeowner grant

to our native citizens. That's very commendable; I commend the

government for that. But I'd like to know what the overall plan is.

Where are we going? I think the organizations of first citizens

throughout the province would like to know.

It is stated policy of the government that they intend to see that

our first citizens are provided with good housing. I think it's

appropriate under vote 107, which is homeowner assistance, if the

Minister would advise what his overall policy is going to be. I'd like

him to, advise at this time if he would be so kind, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: We are presently in negotiations with the

federal government concerning a programme proposed by BCANSI (B.C.

Association of Non Status Indians). We're in fairly general agreement,

just nailing down a few nuts and bolts. We should be making an

announcement rather shortly, but as we're still in negotiation on this,

I don't think it would be proper to go into details. But what we are

generally looking at is a home-building programme for a certain number

of units, also looking at alternative ways of housing people,

especially in the north where the building season is short. There's

quite a bit of scope left yet in terms of what we will be doing.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the

Minister could tell us what form the homeowner assistance will take to

those people who, perhaps, will be acquiring homes but on land which is

leased land. Will they still be entitled to any form of homeowner

assistance for the house itself? Is there any other form of assistance

for people who might be building on zero lot lines? This is a very

complex part at the moment.

I'd like it if he could give us detail on what the programme is.

Would it apply to co-operatives? — where a co-operative might be going

into some form of a building programme where the people will own some

equity or something in the co-operative, who will be building new homes

which essentially will be their own homes although the co-operative

will own the entire outfit. Will they qualify for any form of homeowner

assistance and what form will it take?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Co-operatives

[ Page 2035 ]

incorporated under the Co-operative Associations Act will continue to receive the homeowner assistance and qualify for the programmes.

MR. MORRISON: Could you detail it?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, $1,000 grant on a new home, which is

usually what they opt for. On the mortgage, as a non-profit par value,

co-ops qualify for 8 per cent money from the federal government. It

isn't usually opted to take our second mortgage. Usually these are not

on used homes where they would have to have the normal renting of two

years previous to acquisition.

MR. MORRISON: Where a person will be building a home on property which is leased….

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Yes, on leased land. The Member asked also

if the assistance would be forthcoming to people who are building on

leased land. This will be available on Crown or municipal leased land.

I think there was one other question you had there. Sorry, I didn't jot it down; I should have.

MR. MORRISON: You answered it.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Under homeowner assistance, could

the Minister tell us if there are any plans specifically directed

towards help in refurbishing or rebuilding old homes? Rather than take

the attitude that seems to be that you pull them down and build new

ones all the time, often at inflated prices because of the price of the

land, is the government considering or does it have any plans in the

mixer for a specific programme of assistance for the upgrading of older

homes? It has been attempted in Oak Bay, I understand, just on a pilot

plan basis by a private developer, and financially it seemed to make it

a very reasonable project. I wonder to what degree the government might

do that.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: I'd like to answer the Member by saying

that we are looking at the whole mortgage field, as I suggested to

someone on Saturday. We are looking into home improvement loans as one

of the needs.

There will also be, under the home conversion loan perhaps, some

improvements made. A person might have to raise a basement to a

reasonable height so that there might not be complete separation of the

money that is going into conversion and what might be an improvement.

Further, under designated neighbourhood improvement programme areas,

residents within those areas are eligible for loans of up to $5,000 for

home improvement in Central Mortgage and Housing money, half of which

is forgiveable if their income is $6,000 per annum and one of which is

forgiveable if their income is $11,000 and within those ranges. So

these are programmes which are available.

Also, if we can reach an agreement with the federal government to

designate a certain area, in specially designated areas that same

rehabilitation programme can be made available.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): I'm wondering if the Minister

would care to comment briefly on some of the problems being experienced

with grants for mobile-home owners. It's a very difficult area, Mr.

Chairman, because the mortgage requirements from banks and credit

unions and places like that make it almost impossible for some people

to get enough equity to qualify for the government's second mortgage.

It seems to me that those mobile homes that are placed on privately

owned land in this day and age certainly have far more equity than we

recognize officially because of the rapidly escalating cost of the land

itself. I'm just wondering if perhaps there's some possibility of some

changes to make it easier for those people who do have a five-acre

piece of property which is vastly undervalued as far as the government

goes.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Member, it is a matter of concern to

me and it's one with which we're quite frequently confronted. It causes

some difficulty.

These people do qualify for a grant rather than a mortgage. So

they're not completely forgotten. However, there are some real

difficulties in these cases where the chattel mortgages, which are the

first mortgages, leave us in an insecure position. Where these chattel

mortgages could perhaps cut into the land value and such, we find it

very difficult to secure second mortgages, even when these are on

privately held land. It would be virtually impossible in the case of a

mobile home situated in a mobile-home park, although it could be

possible in some cases where someone is situated on their own piece of

land. It's a very difficult thing to administer and look into. It has

been very difficult up to this point.

MR. McCLELLAND: A quick supplementary, Mr. Chairman. The

problem with the grant is that quite often they've dissipated that

amount in the type of mortgaging they have to go into for their second

sometimes, and also for legal charges. I'm just suggesting that if

perhaps the land was valued on a more realistic basis, then the equity

would be there and you would be able to secure that second mortgage.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: I think that is a good suggestion. We'll be looking at it further.

[ Page 2036 ]

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): We're speaking

about helping people with older homes. There was a programme developed

in late 1967 that was going to help selected welfare recipients to own

their own homes, and I talk about widows with their families or

disabled people. They were going to be able to purchase their home and

build up an equity by using their rental supplement in the $550

provincial home acquisition grant and obtain a special mortgage. This

was negotiated with the federal government, but I understand it ran

into problems with CHMC. Are you still actively pursuing this special

category, and is this programme continuing to be worked on? Are you

trying to overcome the objections of CMHC?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: There have been some changes made. I

believe that the maximum price has been raised from $20,000 to $24,000.

I think the one that you're referring to was called the GVRD 300

programme.

The trouble with the programme is that the take-up has been rather

small. I believe it's less than 100 units out of the 300 target that

were ever taken advantage of, for a couple of reasons. One is the

difficulty of finding homes — even condominium units now — at that

price.

The programme, however, has been somewhat taken up on a larger scale

by Central Mortgage and Housing in their assisted home-ownership

programme, which now gives loans up to $30,000 for people within

certain income limits. The income range varies from area to area

throughout the province, and it would be difficult to go into that.

Generally I think it is from $6,000 to something up around $12,000 or

$13,000 per annum. I know that within the Nelson area the lower limit

is fixed at something like $9,000-odd.

So this programme is still there, but it's one of these difficult

programmes that finds trouble in keeping up with the inflated costs of

housing.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): I'd like to

continue the discussion with the Minister on the subject raised by the

First Member for Victoria (Mr. Morrison), namely the availability of

home ownership assistance in respect to leased land. I gather that the

Minister's response to the Member's question was that such assistance

was available in respect of lands leased by a municipality or by the

Crown. I would like to inquire from the Minister as to the reason for

this rather severe restriction.

There are other owners of land who might be willing to make that

land available on a leasehold basis for housing construction which

would assist in the reduction of the total cost of the housing unit. I

fail to recognize the significance of the refusal in cases such as that.

The system of leasehold land tenure has been practised in Britain

for centuries. The concept of fee simple ownership is something which

is really a western innovation. Substained homes and buildings are

constructed upon leased land. There's no hesitation in making a

significant investment for improvements on the part of people in

Britain. It's a system which we could readily copy in this country to

the very great benefit of people who are at the moment in need of

residential accommodation. I would wonder if, therefore, the Minister

would indicate why, rather than encouraging such a programme, the

policy of his department is to deny support in this particular case.

As well as land, which is available for lease from private owners,

there is another public enterprise which is a significant lessor of

lands: the British Columbia Railway. I have raised this with the

previous government; I raised it a year ago with this government. I

would like to know from the Minister why, when British Columbia Rail is

the owner of lands and leases those lands for the purposes of the

construction of dwellings, this government is not prepared to extend to

the tenants of that land home acquisition grants. I know there was, and

indeed still is, a statutory bar to such grants being given, but I

would hope the Minister would support me when I urge the government to

change the legislation so British Columbia Rail land can be available

in the same way as Crown land is for home-acquisition-grant support.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: I want to do these maybe one at a time.

The BCR lands. I understand the Act has been amended to accommodate these....

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: When?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: That is my understanding. We can check this out and certainly we have no hang-ups about that as far as BCR lands are concerned.

The land lease. Making the provisions of the home acquisition grant

available on privately leased lands is one which we haven't had full

time to look at all the pros and cons on. We are examining this and

giving this some consideration. However, I think I see some problems in

it. This does have to be looked at and we are looking at this.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I thank the Minister for indicating

they're looking at this particular problem. Of course there can be

problems, but it seems to me that if the length of the lease is long

enough to cover the period required to redeem the amount of the

mortgage, say, rather than the grant and you have all the same

protection with respect to change of ownership which you currently

have, it would be very

[ Page 2037 ]

valuable to encourage owners of land to make their

land available for the construction on a lease rather than a purchase

basis. It certainly cuts down the initial financing cost and the

long-term mortgage expense which is so often one of the major problems

in young persons deciding whether or not they're going to proceed with

residential construction.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): A quick question to the Minister which I'm sure he'll be able to deal with very quickly.

There have been persistent rumours, I understand, as promoted by

hotlines, that there's the possibility of a programme similar to the

rent-control programme whereby the owner of a house who has taken

advantage of the homeowner assistance programmes by the government

would be unable to sell his house for more than 8 per cent more than

the assessed value of that house on December 31, 1973. I wonder whether

the Minister would like to indicate to the House whether or not this is

a programme of his department as we're dealing, of course, with the

homeowner assistance.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: I can say this is not a programme of my department.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Thank you very much.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I should make a point. That last question

raised was really a question of legislation and not something that

should come up under the estimates.

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): I'd just like to

comment on the proposal of the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound

(Mr. L.A. Williams) on leased land. I was a little concerned. When we

developed fee simple in North America, we were getting away from the

class system. Everybody had a right of ownership and we were getting

away from the serf concept. Whether one is a tenant of the state or of

the large landholder, they still would never have a chance to own a

part of their country or participate in the growth against inflation

that land bears.

I think any lease programme should encourage people to eventually

purchase the land. I disagree entirely with the government putting

government grants out to private landholders so they can own land

forever and have these people as tenants of large corporations. You're

never going to encourage people to develop homeownership and you're

going to encourage a very few large landholders to own the land

forever. I'm not in favour of that at all.

In fact, even where the government leases land for people for

housing, I believe this should contain within it, if it's used as a

means of getting people into housing when they can't afford a down

payment, some encouragement with an option to purchase so those people

will eventually be able to own that land and own their house.

Quite frankly, I don't think the ultimate should be people never

owning their property. Quite the contrary; I think every encouragement

should be given to the citizens of the province to own their own homes

and the land under it, and not to become serfs of either the large

landholders whether they be private or the state.

MR. WALLACE: That opinion just expressed perhaps best

differentiates that side of the House from this side of the House. I

would certainly join with the Leader of the Opposition in saying that

we certainly feel homeownership is a very desirable principle in itself

per se. Whether we have ideological differences or not, a person's home

is their castle.

I think that very deeply ingrained feeling in individuals is

something that should be encouraged and developed in our modern society

at a time when men as individuals are losing their identities in a

variety of ways in the face of technology, urban congestion, pollution

and all the other problems the individual citizen in society is faced

with. I feel, as the former speaker did, that there should be

encouragement and incentive given to the individual not just to own the

building but to own the land on which the building sits.

We needn't rehash old arguments in this House as we've already

talked about the effect of Bill 42 reducing the amount of available

land and so on. But as a principle, I wonder if the Minister could tell

us to what degree the original lease arrangements will include either

incentives to purchase at a later date or what time factor might be

involved in which the resident could enter into a purchase agreement,

or if in fact this government with any leased land is totally opposed

to the day ever coming when the owner can actually buy the land.

I'm sure there are all kinds of examples in other areas in the

business sector where a person can rent equipment or rent various forms

of assistance in their work and finally purchase it. The money paid out

initially in the form of a lease goes to some degree towards the down

payment.

I think this is certainly something very close to the hearts of

individual citizens in our society today. It's a further alienation or

a further depressing effect on their initiative and their wanting to be

independent and to look after their own affairs if they are denied any

realistic opportunity to own the land as well as the building. I hope

the Minister would perhaps enlarge on that comment.

[Mr. G.H. Anderson in the chair.]

[ Page 2038 ]

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, replying to the two previous

speakers, it's probably true that leasehold tenure has appealed more to

those with means than those without. British Properties, the Musqueam

Indian band reserve, residential properties and such are on leasehold,

I believe. The District of North Vancouver has been using a lease or

purchase basis for accepting bids. It has actually occurred to a

surprising extent already; it's nothing new.

We are not considering purchase options such as they have in

Ontario. In fact, in Ontario they appear to be moving further away from

that.

In the first instance they allowed an option to purchase at the

original price after five years occupancy. Now they have reviewed that

so that it's an option to purchase at the current appraised value,

which might tend to dampen the incentive. So with these trends away

from this, we are looking toward a purely leasehold policy. Persons

will own their home but not the land.

We already have, in addition to that, people in cooperative housing.

They have opted for this. We would hope that by doing this we could

offer them some financial advantages in return, so that their

investment would not be upon their housing. Money that would be left

for investment would be perhaps directed in other directions.

Certainly the concept people are using today that land is the only

thing you can invest in is perhaps dangerous thinking. Perhaps people

thought they couldn't lose on the Dow Jones in 1929 and perhaps people

at some point are going to overestimate the value of land. There could

be some very serious repercussions to that as well.

I might also say, though, that we haven't been completely hung up on

leasehold, as I explained in Penticton. We have assisted them in a

project with interim funds. That being disposed of, fee simple, under

the CMHC Assisted Home-Ownership Programme. So we have announced

certain targets for leasehold land and mortgages on leasehold land and

we can only get into these things to a certain extent in our initial

years. So we feel that this is a good alternative we are bringing

forward. There is still lots of fee simple land.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, just pursuing the point: I think

it is a valid question to ask whether the lease programme and the

assistance for homes is to encourage the people to get more than a home

— to get a part of the community, and a permanent part of the community

that doesn't have a life span like a building has where it has to be

replaced on the land under it.

Is it just to provide temporary shelter or is it to give them a

sense of permanency? When we are looking for government funds going out

to leasing, the leasing programme should be looked upon as a form of

helping a person who has no equity — a young married couple — into

getting into their home without having to come up with things like down

payments. But as they develop some sort of assets — and this would be

subsidized by the government; it's a subsidized programme — the

encouragement would be that they would eventually own it. This is more

than just the economics of housing; we have to take a look on the

social side of this and at exactly what we want for our communities:

whether we are trying to develop permanency.

Now the Minister mentioned 1929 and the fact that land is the only

investment. I know that many families survived through the '30s because

they owned their own property. Where they didn't own it, where it was

rented, the people felt free to move, and you had a highly mobile

society. But the one sense of permanency there to this country was the

sense of ownership. There was a sense of belonging in those people that

did own their property. They owned their home and they did feel

strongly the social implication of this beyond mere shelter. I think

the government should be making a policy statement in this regard when

it talks about assistance for lease programmes.

What are the social goals of the government in this housing along with the financial?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, Mr. Member, we are looking for ways

and means of giving people a control of their shelter. As the Member

for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) has indicated there is a difference between

the two sides of the House on this question. I think that in assisting

people, when we look at rental, and rental management, we have some

difficulties there. It is something that we recognize: we will always

have to provide rentals. I understand preference studies show that 20

per cent rent out of preference; and 80 per cent of tenants would

prefer some sort of ownership.

In order to give this I say that we cannot print paper money; we

cannot give things away. What we are trying to do is come up with

something that will be part of the solution to dampen inflated prices

and speculation. We have to work toward this end within certain budget

limits. We have a tremendous amount of money in this budget, but we

certainly can't do the entire job. We have to look at the way in which

that money is spent so that it doesn't become a part of the speculation

and appreciation in property value.

But what we are looking for is where we might have had to put a

person into a rental-tenancy situation, they will be able to have the

management of their own home, the responsibility of what repairs to do,

the standard of maintenance they want to keep up. It will be their home

and it will be their home to dispose of, and also the improvements at

such time as they move. They will have to consider that the maintenance

of that home will be part of the

[ Page 2039 ]

consideration that somebody else coming into it would be willing to pay to them.

So toward a more responsible attitude on behalf of the person being

housed, I think it is desirable that we have some stake, some modified

equity in the housing, and that we supply the need which is there for

rental accommodation. But we should provide the alternative of people

being able to purchase some equity in their home on leased land, not

for speculation, but so that their costs will remain as constant as

anyone else's. Once they get into a mortgage situation, their costs

will be level, relatively — other than, perhaps, some periodic reviews

of ground rent. So they can look toward a fairly predictable, stable

dollar figure in terms of provision of shelter as anyone else who is

purchasing a home can do.

We would be looking toward a system of helping people, especially at

the beginning — when their earning capacity is probably least — when we

could probably anticipate that they would require less assistance as

they go along.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Chairman,

pursuing this point of leasehold tenure, I would like to ask the

Minister some very brief but very practical questions.

Does he have a term in mind for these leases — 50 years, 100 years, 1,000 years, whatever?

How will rental be determined during the term of the lease? Will

payments be on an annual basis or will the lease be fully pre-paid as

some of those that have been sold by municipalities?

At the end of the lease will there be a guaranteed right of renewal?

If there is no guaranteed right of renewal, will the improvements

revert to the Crown or to the owner of the land, as is the case with

many private leases?

I would ask the Minister, once he has fixed his desirable term for

the leases, how he thinks a person could sell their home in the last 25

years or so. It might be difficult for the purchaser to raise mortgage

money to assist in that transaction.

I would ask the Minister why a homeowner would do any maintenance on

that home for the last 10 years, if he had to accept the fact that at

the end of the 10 years he might completely lose his house, unless

there was a guaranteed right of renewal. Under those circumstances,

under that kind of leasehold situation, why would anyone do any

maintenance?

I ask these questions out of a genuine concern because I have some

knowledge of leasehold problems in other parts of the world and in

Canada, inside the national parks, where questions exactly such as

these have been very vexatious. I would appreciate any practical

comments the Minister has on how one gets around these problems which,

of course, are automatically solved with private ownership.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, I don't know if I can answer all

your questions directly at this time, but certainly you have brought up

some of those troublesome aspects of leasehold tenure.

The term which we are considering is 50 years. We are looking at

regular monthly payments, and we believe that this can be done quite

easily through arrangement — pre-authorized chequing arrangements.

The right of renewal — well, your last four questions: right of

renewal, reversion to Crown, sale in last 25 years and maintenance in

last 10 years. They certainly revolve around the question of whether or

not there is reversion to Crown, or whether there is compensation. I am

not prepared at this time to make that. But certainly I appreciate the

difficulties that you have pointed out there.

They are well recognized, especially in Great Britain at this time,

where I understand quite a few of the 100-year tenures have come up.

There have been problems of lack of maintenance and creation of slums

and such. I assure you though, Mr. Member, it's with this in mind that

we will be tackling that basic question of whether or not to have

reversion to the Crown.

MR. GIBSON: If I could just follow that up for a second.

Given these admitted problems, I wonder if the Minister could make a

short statement as to what he sees as the advantages of leaseholds

which are worth these problems on the other side, given the fact that

private ownership does, as I say, avoid most of these problems.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: It does keep the consolidation of parcels

of land within one ownership. One of the most difficult things which

developers go through today is the assembly of small pieces of land

scattered about. Lacking the power of expropriation, they have a great

deal of trouble there. Though as I said in the first instance, we would

seek to give assistance to people in housing to give them some right of

self-fulfilment and self-management.

The art of property management is a very difficult one. I understand

that most property management firms are constantly trying to steal good

personnel from each other. It's a very difficult and sensitive area.

It's even more sensitive in the case of public ownership in terms of

rentals. We feel it is more desirable that people have some control of

their own destiny and can express their individuality in terms of

landscaping, repairs and of maintenance or additions.

Some of these properties will be built by the individuals. Largely

these lease lots will be outside of the extremely high-cost areas and I

am hoping to prevent speculation on the land, although allowing people

reasonable appreciation of improvements where replacement costs

continue to rise and

[ Page 2040 ]

maintenance is satisfactory.

MR. GIBSON: Is that the basic reason then: the prevention of speculation?

MR. BENNETT: I would just like to pursue this further. The

Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) suggested that this is where there is

a difference on two sides of the House, and this was something I was

trying to pin down.

Is the policy that there should be no private ownership? Is that your policy in these houses? Is there a difference?

I think we should be looking for the stability of home ownership.

The Minister mentioned studies about a percentage of people preferring

to buy. But is that broken down into age groups? I think there is every

indication that as people get older, their sense of wanting to acquire

a place of permanency becomes more pronounced. Perhaps the percentages

in this survey are not very accurate when they're representative of the

mature citizen. Most people, by the time they reach a certain age, wish

to have a place of permanency; they are looking for home ownership.

Could the Minister expand and tell me if there is a hardline policy

of his government and of his department on home ownership and land

ownership, and how the surveys he has taken and refers to break down

into age groups?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: We continue the home ownership programme for people who buy their lands — grants, mortgages and second mortgages.

We do have some difficulty when we have large tracts of Crown land.

The experience has been in the District of North Vancouver or Alberni

or anywhere else, when a municipality goes to dispose of serviced land,

they are subject to two kinds of criticism and they can't win. Either

they sell it for what it's worth — in the case of the District of North

Vancouver around $30,000 a lot — and are criticized for selling for too

much. If they sell it for what it cost them to service it and,

considering the carrying cost they might have had through the years,

perhaps they could dispose of it for $15,000 or $20,000. But

immediately somebody else could buy that up and sell it for a profit.

In fact, this even happens with developers. Quite often when they are

disposing of condominium units, people are just lined up. They buy

them; they resell them the next day for another $1,000 or $2,000 profit

and turn it over pretty quickly.

Where we do bring lands on to the market, we would like to dispose

of these at reasonable figures, not necessarily at cost, to try to give

the people a choice, an alternative, and try to add something.

For instance, in Kamloops there are many alternatives going ahead:

there are some semi-rural developments going ahead at fee simple; there

are normal developments going ahead. We have 65 acres under planning

with the city and I expect it will be going ahead this year. Now, that

is Crown land. According to some people, it might be some of the most

valuable land in Kamloops, but it is also a splendid residential site.

Some parts of it, of course, are ravine and other parts are rock but it

is a very splendid site.

We want to bring that on the market at a price average people will

be able to afford but on a different basis than in the case of

comparable transactions in, say, Port Alberni or the District of North

Vancouver. We don't want to give it away and let somebody capitalize

right away; we want to keep the cost down and we want to make it

available to people at a reasonable price. It's for this reason that we

are looking at leasehold land.

To answer your question more specifically, Mr. Leader of the

Opposition (Mr. Bennett), it is not the hardline policy of this

government that everyone should have to lease land. There is fee simple

land; we still give assistance to people on fee simple land. We haven't

changed the policies of the previous government. In fact, we have

expanded them, and I think that has to answer that question.

MR. BENNETT: When you talk leasing, you are comparing apples

and oranges. In North Vancouver leasing, you're talking about a leasing

programme for upper middle-income families. When you first started

talking about leasing last fall, you talked about leasing as a use to

meet a particular economic group, the people who couldn't afford

high-priced lots or to lease lots in that $30,000 range. That's an

entirely difference programme.

I understood last fall, when you spoke in the Legislature and the

Department of Housing was developed, your lease programme was designed

specifically to meet the needs of people with lower incomes or low to

middle incomes who couldn't compete in that North Vancouver market. I

am asking if you are using the policy to meet the need of an economic

group. Is the government going to encourage home ownership for that

economic group or shall home ownership only be the privilege of the

people who can buy in North Vancouver? Is the government recognizing,

to meet the needs of that group, we are going to have to subsidize the

early leases to get them involved in home ownership? Is it prepared to

say those people can eventually own their own homes?

There are many mechanisms you can work into the lease or the

purchase agreement so they can't speculate after they have taken

advantage of the government programme. I want to know whether this

lease programme is there to meet this particular need and whether you

will, as a policy, encourage home

[ Page 2041 ]

ownership for this group. Will they be forever cast

in the role of renters in this province so that home ownership will

only be for those privileged people who can deal with $30,000 lots in

North Vancouver?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: This is home ownership on leased land. I

have spoken in terms of middle and lower income although I would not

necessarily rule out the people of higher incomes who might choose this

alternative. We would certainly try to satisfy the demands of people on

lower incomes. We must balance this against isolating people on the

basis of income into one large homogeneous group. We would like a more

heterogeneous distribution in terms of income and socio-economic

backgrounds, especially within large projects.

You mention methods by which you can prevent speculation. Indeed,

these methods have been used traditionally in company towns where

buy-back provisions have been stipulated if the property were to change

hands within less than, say, five years. These, I think, are more

restrictive, at least in some aspects, than what we visualize in terms

of a land lease programme.

So that is another example of a type of tenure which we have in the

province which is, I guess, technically or eventually fee simple on an

agreement for sale, but in fact there is a tremendous turnover of these

properties in some of the company towns, with the resultant effect that

the cost of housing is kept down to a reasonable level but it tends not

to be available for people such as professionals or bakers or people

who are required for infrastructure in the communities and it works

counter-productively to the community.

MR. WALLACE: I'm still not clear in the Minister's answer to

the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) and earlier comments. I

gather that the whole thrust of leasing land on which the owner will

own the home is primarily to deal with speculation. If I'm wrong on

that I needn't say more, but this is the emphasis that I detect from

the Minister's comments. If we're dealing with lower or middle-age

income groups, surely the answer to the housing problem is to create

more housing so that there isn't this panic on the part of people,

first of all to wonder if they will ever get a home, and secondly to be

willing to pay an inflated price because there is a shortage. I'm not

sure that there are two issues in conflict here.

I'm like the Member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson). I

really can't appreciate the degree to which this philosophy of leasing

the land without any option on the part of the purchaser to buy the

land really solves anything, other than maybe this so-called

ideological difference that we have. The Member for North

Vancouver-Capilano has pointed out that there are certain very definite

disadvantages in the long haul which would not apply if the person

owned the home and the ground, for the very obvious reason as he

pointed out, that if there is not automatic renewal of the lease, then

there is a complete lack of incentive to the owner wondering what's

going to happen when you get close to the the end of the lease.

You were asked — I forget by whom — and with respect, Mr. Minister,

you avoided answering. You said you weren't prepared to answer, but we

have to assume on this side of the House that you don't even know the

policy yourself.

What is going to happen at the end of 50 years? You may own the

house, but if you can't control the land on which it sits, then you're

in a pretty dicey situation. I find this whole matter, Mr. Minister,

through you, Mr. Chairman, rather contradictory.

In one of your comments you said you want people to have control

over their own shelter. Another comment you made was about control over

their own destiny. You're talking like a Conservative when you say

that. But the fact is what you're doing is not giving them that kind of

control; you're giving central control to the Crown that leases the

land. I don't see how you can suggest in one voice that you really do

support the concept of an individual having the maximum amount of

control over his destiny and over his own shelter when you insist on

keeping government control over the land. It's a contradiction, Mr.

Chairman. You can't make that kind of statement.

The Minister also stated that 80 per cent of renters would like to

own their own home if it were financially possible. I know we're not

talking about renters in this case, but I'm sure that of all the people

who are left with no choice but to purchase a home and lease the land,

I would strongly suspect that at least 80 per cent of them would very

much enjoy having the opportunity at a later date to buy the land as

well.

I can see an ideological reason, I suppose, but I just wonder if you

could give us some practical reason, other than the ones that have been

given and the emphasis you've laid on speculation. Most people in a

lifetime don't go around buying and selling homes for speculation.

I'm talking, Mr. Chairman, in case I haven't made myself clear,

about the great majority of individuals who are neither speculators in

land nor speculators on homes. I'm just talking about the ordinary

family — the man who has to provide a home for his wife and kids. In a

lifetime he probably does that on the average three or four or five

times. I just don't see why the housing policy of this government is so

blinded to the emotional aspect of land ownership and the whole

question of speculation, rather than accepting the fact that the great

majority of families want to own their own home and want control over

[ Page 2042 ]

it. In leasing the lot they can't have control over

their own destiny or over their own shelter. So I wonder if the

Minister could give us some more definite practical reason other than

just the ideology as to why.

I think you avoided answering the Member for North

Vancouver–Capilano, and the reason you didn't answer I would like to

know. Either you haven't finalized the policy about automatic renewal

of the lease, or you're not willing to tell us whether you've finalized

the policy. The other point is: are you absolutely opposed to any form

of option to the owner of a home on leased land at a specific time in

the lease to be given the opportunity to purchase? Is that a flat,

total absolute no in the view of this government?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Member, I acknowledged the existence

of the problem, as pointed out by the Member for North

Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson). I am quite aware of the problem. I

consider it a problem. But at this time, to answer you, I am not

prepared to commit the government on that decision.

On the option to purchase, I am not giving that consideration at the present time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before I recognize another speaker, I'd caution

the House that we seem to be straying quite a distance from vote 107.

That should properly be considered under vote 111.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I'll try to stick within this area of home

ownership, which is, of course, what we are essentially discussing.

Assistance to home ownership under this particular vote.

I appreciated the Minister's clear indication that there's a great

deal of uncertainty in his mind on many of these questions. He gave

three reasons for rental rather than ownership. One was the ease of

assembling land a century hence. I would like to ask him what

difficulty the government has had in assembling land by way of

expropriation in the last quarter-century, for example. Have we had

trouble in that back-up area behind Roberts Bank? How many highways

have not proceeded because we could not expropriate land? Was it

difficult for your colleague to get after North Vancouver and try to

expropriate land there? Are we facing real problems in expropriation?

If we are, your argument makes sense. If we're not, your arguments

don't make a great deal of sense to me, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr.

Chairman.

The second of the points that you've discussed, Mr. Minister, was

raised by the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace), and I won't repeat it.

But then we get on with the question of speculation, Mr. Chairman.

The Minister's arguments on speculation were that the private sector

would be a great deal smarter than the public people who were selling

the Crown land. That's the basis of your argument. It worries me

because speculation can only take place when the seller has no idea

what the value of the land is, or should be. The private person

speculating, or indeed a public body speculating, takes a long-shot or

flyer on what the future values will be worth, and he can only do that

when the seller doesn't understand the true value of the land. He can

only profit when the seller doesn't understand the true value of the

land. This is really quite frightening because it's an admission by the

Minister, in my mind at least, that he doesn't think the government in

selling land will be able to value it properly and therefore they have

to have a scheme in the future, other than expropriation, namely a

leasehold scheme to take advantage of the government incompetence at

this stage.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to talk just for a quick moment on that

$30,000 or $15,000 problem that the Minister raised in North Vancouver.

He puts in a nutshell the problem. The problem is the opportunity

costs, the extra value of land due to an inadequate supply of serviced

land in British Columbia. I think he's raised that quite well but he's

not given us any answers at all in terms of government thinking. Surely

the true value of the lot which cost $15,000 to service properly, as

the Minister indicated, wiping out all rental value in the economic

sense, is $15,000 rather than $30,000. That was the Minister's point.

The way to bring the cost of the land down is surely to service enough

lots in the rest of the community so that because of an adequate supply

the price drops down to where the cost level is, rather than our

present situation where, due to uncertainty, the cost level is almost

irrelevant. It's the cost level plus opportunity cost which raises the

price up to something like $30,000 a lot or even more.

He simply didn't deal with this except to say that it's very

difficult to give the initial buyer a subsidy, which I completely agree

with. I don't necessarily think he should be doing it.

But rental, Mr. Chairman, doesn't deal with the problem either

because if the rent is economic and a rational rent in the economic

sense, it simply is based on the capitalized value of the land and

interest rates and other things of that nature. So rental simply

doesn't overcome the problem either. I just don't see how that could be

put forward as an argument in favour of rent control by government when

it's clear that government rental schemes in many areas in the past

have simply been failures, due to a lack of real initiative on the part

of the public sector in comparison with the private sector.

It's the type of lack of initiative that we discovered very recently

with Dunhill Developments when Daon beat them to a deal. The argument

given was that because they were a public company, they

[ Page 2043 ]

had to move a lot slower than a private company.

It's the type of initiative which the public sector obviously, from

your own purchase of Dunhill, simply doesn't have.

I wonder whether the Minister could once more go back and try to

indicate to us where it is that he sees the advantage of renting as

opposed to ownership, because the expropriation argument doesn't make

any sense to me. I don't think it holds water. And the speculative

argument doesn't make any sense to me and doesn't hold water. The

Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) and the Member for North Vancouver

(Mr. Gibson) made it pretty clear that pride of ownership is obviously

an argument which indeed supports ownership rather than rental.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: There are difficulties in expropriation.

Expropriation should only be used where negotiations fail and where

something is needed badly enough. It is no way of saving money and

usually results in slightly higher overall costs and takes time.

Speculation: you know, I find it hard relating some of these

arguments to this vote, but I did discuss the supply and demand

situation in my Ministerial vote to some extent. I pointed out that

we're not attempting to solve the whole problem with just social

programmes, which largely show up in dollars and cents in these

estimates. We are looking at ways and means of assisting the private

sector, particularly through an expediter and with increasing dialogue

between both municipal and provincial governments and approving

authorities. So certainly other approaches have to be taken in addition

to these.

You kind of intimated that I didn't know how to appraise land. I'm

not an appraiser, but we do have a very qualified appraiser on staff

and we can certainly get appraisals. I think the appraisals in the

Dunhill acquisition are being borne out in terms of disposal prices and

such. We know what things are worth.

The problem is not in getting what the market will bear, but in

trying to assist people who need assistance without just handing them

excess money and grants, which tend to eventually escalate costs. We

feel that the best way to do this is by servicing some of our Crown

lands. Some we've had to acquire especially for this purpose; others

have come out of other government departments or Crown corporations.

Also we'll have a special programme for mortgages which will

eventually come under this department and under this vote in order to

further that aim. It will obviously have to assist those who need the

assistance most. Those people who don't need so much assistance, whose

income is a little bit higher, will get less. Some people will get no

assistance, but would have to pay what could be expected as a market

amount.

MR. PHILLIPS: You know, from listening to the answers that

the Minister has given so far in this entire debate on housing, I find

it very difficult to understand where this department is going. I think

the Minister is floundering in his own indecision. He hasn't given us a

clear-cut answer since we opened up this department.

We're looking at a vote this year which is supposed to be homeowner

assistance. This year that vote is $301,476 — a reduction from the

previous year of some $35,000. Here's a new department, a brand new

department, as the Minister in his own words said. "Oh, yes, it's

unique in all of Canada. As a matter of fact," he said, "it's unique in

all of North America."

The whole idea I thought, Mr. Chairman, was to give homeowner

assistance, and here we've reduced the budget. The Minister comes in

and he wants to change the entire direction that housing has been

headed in British Columbia. Now I think he's headed off in all

directions at the same time, and he doesn't know really where he's

going at all: complete indecision, and the Minister is floundering.

I asked the Minister a few moments ago what his plans were to assist

our native citizens in obtaining homes for themselves. What did I get?

I got a nothing answer. The Minister surely to goodness must be taking

some direction from his government, or he must be in a position to make

some decisions for himself. But we certainly haven't seen it.

Mr. Chairman, since this government came to office there have

probably been more surveys done by groups in British Columbia about

what is required to upgrade housing in British Columbia than ever

before. The Minister has had some really good reports prepared for him,

but he isn't listening to the information.

He isn't paying any attention to the surveys. He's going off in his

own unique way, floundering in his own indecision, going off in all

directions at one time, and what's happening to the housing crisis in

British Columbia today? Every week that goes by the crisis becomes

greater. I thought, while we were in this particular department

discussing his estimates, that he would outline for us some of the

policies which he must have thought out by now; and we've got nothing.

Mr. Chairman, the report recently given to the Minister, which clearly outlines

what was happening to Greater Vancouver housing costs, was a well-thought-out

document. It explained what had happened to the prices of houses. It's the same

thing I've said: land cost is the main increase.

I'd like to quote from the report. I bring this up, Mr. Chairman,

because we're talking about homeowner assistance. If you're going to

assist the homeowner to get his own home, you've got to have

[ Page 2044 ]

some incentives. Instead of this, this Minister

has, as a matter of fact, brought in stumbling blocks, not incentives.

He's brought in stumbling blocks by his policies, as I've outlined

before to this House, having increased the price of land beyond the

reach of a normal wage earner. In this document, Mr. Chairman, it

states very firmly

"How come monthly housing costs have skyrocketed 242 per cent while disposable income has increased only 85 per cent?"

They're talking about the period from 1963 to 1973. It goes on to say, as I've said in this House before:

"The cost of construction increases for materials and

labour were in line with increases in disposable income. They were up

84 per cent from $12,540 in 1963 to $23,064 in 1973 for a standard

bungalow. So that's not really the problem. Interest rates have taken

their share, they've increased from a yearly average of seven per cent

in 1963 to an average of 9.5 per cent in 1973."

That is significant and I'll discuss that later under another section, Mr. Chairman.

"Property taxes 1973, considering the provincial

homeowner's grant. What's the real problem? Where is the real incentive

needed? It's land. The cost of land has increased 525 per cent over the

past 10 years from $4,000 in 1963 to $25,000 in 1973 for a typical lot

in Burnaby. What is even more significant" — and this is what we've

been saying ever since this government took office — "what is more

significant is that half of this 525 per cent increase occurred in the

year 1973."

Now that's laid out by the committee. This is a committee that sent

in the report and tabled it with the Minister of Housing. So what I'm

saying, Mr. Chairman, is that here we're going to have homeowner

assistance where the price of land in the last year has increased about

225 per cent and the budget for homeowner assistance has been cut down

from $395,000 last year to $360,975 this year. Now I ask you, Mr.

Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I have to suggest to you, Mr. Member, that

you're out of order on that. This is administration expenses of that

department only, not the assistance itself.

MR. PHILLIPS: I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, you're out of

order because we're on vote 107 which is homeowner assistance. It's

$395,060 last year and $369,076 this year. If we want to go back and

open up the Minister's salary, I'm all for that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: This vote is only administration, Mr. Member; it has nothing

to do with land costs.

MR. PHILLIPS: Is the Chairman running the House or is the

Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan)? If you've

got a point of order, why don't you stand on a point of order and

conduct this House in a…. You're one of the longest Members in this

House and you sit over there and yap, yap, yap all the time. If you

want to raise a point of order, raise a point of order. Don't sit over

there and….

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

The point of order I want to raise is that that Member just doesn't pay

any attention to the rules of order of this House and never has.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's not a point of order, Mr. Minister.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I would like that Minister to

withdraw that remark unless he has something specific to say. It's a

reflection on my character and on my actions in the House. I ask that

it be withdrawn forthwith.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: What he has been doing today is a

philosophical debate on housing which belongs under the Minister's

vote. The Minister's vote is passed, and this vote you're talking on is

not the place for a philosophical debate on housing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point of order is well taken.

MR. PHILLIPS: At least I've never been accused of lying in the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask the Member to stick to the administration of homeowner assistance.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Member for South Peace River continue on this vote?

MR. PHILLIPS: You would think, Mr. Chairman, that the Members

of that cabinet over there, particularly the Member for

Cowichan-Malahat (Hon. Mr. Strachan), would be setting an example in

this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Member, that does not refer to homeowner assistance. Would you continue on homeowner assistance, please?

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I want to get a clear-cut answer from the

Minister of Housing as to where he is going. I want to know what his

plans are. I can't

[ Page 2045 ]

accept the fact that he's having dealings with the federal government and he's got....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Member, order, please! That is a policy

matter and does not come under the administration of homeowner

assistance. Would you please stick to vote 107?

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, is he going to give any assistance to our

native Indians? In what form? We're talking about homeowner assistance

so I would like the Minister to give me a clear-cut answer.

I'd also like the Minister to tell me what he's going to do in the

way of assistance to help that homeowner buy his own piece of land so

he can build his own home. Or tell me and outline to the House: is the

policy of land ownership out the window? We can't have it both ways. We

want to know what the policy of this government is and we want a

clear-cut policy.

He has $50 million special appropriation for mortgage money. There's

no shortage of mortgage money; that's not an assistance to homeowners.

The problem is that the interest rate is too high. If he would read

this report, and I'll refer to it later, the principal interest and

taxation in relation to income in 1973 jumped from….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, Mr. Member, please! Would you stick to

vote 107? Interest and mortgage has nothing to do with the homeowner

assistance administration.

MR. PHILLIPS: But it has, Mr. Chairman, because that is what

the home acquisition grant is all about: to assist the person to

acquire, to get the down payment. I would also suggest to you that the

homeowner's grant is homeowner assistance. What bothered me is that

this vote is down from $395,000 to $360,000. That's why I have to

believe the Minister is floundering in his own decision. I'd like him

to give us some clear-cut policies this afternoon.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I'd appreciate your guidance on

this point. Earlier on we were discussing the general question of

leasehold tenure in some detail. One could bring it up later on under

vote 111 but it would be convenient if we could continue the discussion

at this point. Could I have your guidance on that?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'd ask the Member to continue, please.

MR. GIBSON: Just some short questions to the Minister here on

leasehold tenure. I might say a few minutes ago, Mr. Chairman, I looked

across the floor of the House and chills ran up and down my spine

because there was the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) consulting

with the Minister of Housing. I said to myself, "Are we going to have a

royalty on the transfer of government leases?" Perhaps he was just

preserving his right to dig for minerals underneath.

The Minister put the problem very well that governments, be they

provincial or municipal, have in selling lots. Should they be sold at

market value, in which case they're criticized for selling them at too

high a price, or should they sell them at some artificially lower

price, perhaps their cost, in which case they're in effect giving a

subsidy to people? Ratepayers complain a little bit about that. He saw

leasing as the solution to that problem.

I would immediately ask him if he is going to lease below economic

value on the lease. If he is leasing below economic value, then he is

still giving a subsidy to the people who are lucky enough to be able to

acquire that particular kind of lease. All the rest of us in the

province would be paying for that subsidy. So I would ask the Minister

if that is his plan.

Is he going to lease at a rate of 4 per cent? If 4 per cent is

thought by the Minister to be the right percentage, could he cite the

line of thinking which led him to that number, given that usual lease

rates are much higher than 4 per cent of value?

I would also ask if it would be his plan that these monthly lease

rents he speaks of would be adjusted during the term of the lease or

whether they would remain constant over the whole 50-year term. If they

are to be adjusted, on what basis would they be adjusted? Would it be

with reference to economic value?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: To the Member for South Peace River (Mr.

Phillips), as I did answer him earlier on this vote. To be as specific

as I can about our plans for assistance to Indians, I was in

negotiation in my office with the Hon. Ron Basford last Friday

afternoon. We reached some tentative agreement and we're going to

formalize those things and make an announcement. I'm not going to take

anything away from him by making a premature announcement, even though

the Legislature has very high rights. I think the Member will

understand that it should be a joint announcement.

Interjection.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, this will be a policy for the next

year or two for assistance specifically to non-status Indians, BCANI

(B.C. Association of Non-Status Indians).

To the Member for North Vancouver–Capilano, the 4 per cent rate of

market value is policy for cooperatives. There will be adjustment, not

of the rate but of the appraised value. The conditions under

[ Page 2046 ]

which that would take place I again would have to hold for some time.

MR. GIBSON: Would the 4 per cent rate then apply to all government leased land or just to cooperatives?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: No, it just applies to co-ops on government leased lands.

MR. GIBSON: Has a rate been struck for general leasing for residential purposes?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: We have formulas. This will be announced

later, Hon. Member. It ties in with that other question of termination

of lease period renewal of tenure or provisions for renewal. This will

have to be announced at a later time.

MR. GIBSON: It's very difficult for us to intelligently

debate the Minister's estimates if he has in his mind figures which

will be announced later after the estimates are concluded.

MR. MORRISON: I'd like to ask the Minister a number of

questions but first concerning the cooperatives, I noticed on this 4

per cent we're talking about, it's called a mortgage and it has a term.

What exactly happens at the end of that term? Does the land revert back

to the Crown? What exactly is the score on that question?

Do you expect much of a demand for homeowner assistance in the

outlying areas, particularly the ones you referred to earlier where you

might be having a development of private housing on leased land in an

outlying area where land is relatively inexpensive? I wonder if you

could give an indication as to how much demand you anticipate, just for

the homeowner, since that's the vote we're on.

I'm curious to know on that leased land, who makes the decisions as

to the type of roads that will be put in, the general layout of the

land, the hiding of the wiring and TV and where the sewers will go? Who

will make decisions as to where the schools will be located, if any, if

the development is large enough? Who will handle the road maintenance

and snow clearing, that type of thing? Will that area come under a

general governmental area or will they have their own city council,

municipal council, regional council or whatever, or will it be handled

by the government itself?

To change the subject. Briefly, I would like to know if he could

give us an indication how long it takes now to process a second

mortgage agreement. From the time that the individual first comes in

with the application, how long does it take to actually process it for

the second mortgage to be finalized? Could he also give us an

indication of what the delinquency is that they are experiencing on the

existing second mortgages? Is there much delinquency at this moment,

and what do they anticipate in the future?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: The process of acquiring a second mortgage

sometimes appears to be long, but he must have title, he must be in

occupation, and it takes about a week to get a letter of intent on that.

MR. MORRISON: How long after the letter of intent? Three weeks? Two weeks?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: He gets it as soon as the mortgage is

registered but that takes about two or three weeks. I know that there

are delays. I get letters where people have said it has taken them four

months or so, and they add how much they've paid in bank interest at,

say 11 or 14 per cent. And we are looking at this question.

Quite often when you go into the individual case, it's due to the

fact that the person has not taken occupancy or has not actually got

title, and there can be other difficulties.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

MR. MORRISON: What about the delinquency on that? Are you getting much in the way of….

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Going back….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Members not speak from their seats?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, maybe we could have another go at this later.

We do not anticipate these leasehold lands as being a special

governing area. They will pay municipal taxes, maintenance and such

will be under the municipality. In fact the municipality has been, up

till now … say in the case of Kamloops, they brought a proposal to us

for development of those lands, and then we mulled that over. There is

a tremendous amount of involvement at the municipal level in terms of

the planning.

In the case of Chetwynd, the municipality did just about everything

— called tenders and everything for us — just subject to our approvals.

We made progress payments to them on that basis. It's very much in

cooperation with the municipalities, or at that least has been the way

we are working.

With cooperatives, they are 50-year leases. They do terminate and

there are reversions to the Crown provided in those cooperative leases

at present. That's as much their idea as it is ours at this time. That,

largely I would imagine, evolved from the situation in Vancouver where

the model was taken

[ Page 2047 ]

from the Amor de Cosmos Co-op where the City of

Vancouver drafted a similar type of agreement to that cooperative.

Since then we have sort of stood in the position that the City of

Vancouver did in the original agreement.

MR. MORRISON: On that cooperative again, where they have a

50- or a 60-year term, could you give me an explanation of this

Pembroke one which is using houses which have a life expectancy of

perhaps 10 years — they are being moved from another area? They are

already old houses, and the mortgages on the houses, I gather, are for

10 years, but the Pembroke Co-op are, I believe, having a 60-year term

on their mortgage. What happens in the intervening period, whatever

that might be? Because they're paying, obviously, a 4 per cent return

for a 50 or 60-year period, but the houses which are going on it,

obviously, have no life expectancy equal to that term. There seems to

be quite an area there that I'd like explained, if I could.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: We haven't drawn up the lease for that,

but we recognize that the life expectancy of the buildings is a

problem. We would probably make the lease at least five years in excess

of the life expectancy and any terms for mortgaging of the buildings,

because they'll have to get some sort of financing in order to make the

required adjustments to those buildings. I think what they plan to do

is change them into duplexes, each of those four buildings.

Interjections.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Just one. Four will be regular.

MR. GIBSON: A question to the Minister. Given the fact that

on these cooperative mortgage approaches, at the end of 50 years the

improvements revert to the Crown, what in heavens is he going to do at

the end of 50 years? I appreciate that it will be the problem of some

other government and some other Minister, but how is he proposing it be

handled then? Will all those people then have their housing taken away

from them?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: I think that would be rather difficult,

but these terms are written into some long-term leases, sometimes into

industrial leases. I would think that the government of the day would….

MR. GIBSON: Have a mess on their hands.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: I don't think they'd have a mess on their

hands. They'd have this very good housing and they could put some sort

of a period on it, or rent it at some economic rent for the remaining

life expectancy. But these people look to have their investment out of

it and during the last years they will be building up an equity because

their mortgages will have been paid off. In the last 10 years they will

have a period in which they might opt, and they're talking this way

now, although they know that it's presumptuous for even the present

Members to predict what will happen, say, 40 years down the road. But

one of the possibilities that they are talking about is building up a

fund in those last years so that they would have an equity when they

get out.

MR. GIBSON: I'm just finding it so difficult to follow the

Minister. I don't understand how you can have an equity in something

that reverts free of charge back to the government. It's a very great

puzzling statement.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Okay. Fair enough. Co-ops are very

puzzling, that's a fair enough statement. The basic concept is that

they take out shares proportional to the value or square footage of

their home — something in the range from, say $1500 to $2000. At some

time, say five years down the road, they get their shares back at

constant dollars based on some economic indicator which is decided upon

within the cooperative.

But these people have self determination. These are the conditions

that they accept. What they will be doing is paying a certain rent.

Somebody else comes in later on down the road, he would buy in those

constant dollars. The people who happen to be there for the last years

could be in there for nothing almost. They'd have their maintenance

costs, of course, which would have escalated by that time.

There's only one trouble with this co-operative. It's going to be

too good a few years down the road, especially as they get into the

40th to 50th year. At that time there would be no more mortgage

payments to make, and at that time they could if they wished, continue

paying at those rental levels that have been established, put that into

a special account so that they could pay themselves out with, perhaps,

several thousand dollars at the end of the 50-year period.

This is a joint federal-provincial programme, federal Central

Mortgage and Housing mortgages, and has leased land advantage. The only

problem they seem to create is that the cost is too low at the end and

what do you do with that tremendous advantage that is built up at the

end. But that's a problem which, compared to the troubles we have

today, I think we can look forward to.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Is the Minister suggesting that government will only lease lands that it controls to co-operatives?

[ Page 2048 ]

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Will it only lease lands to co-operatives? No.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, aside altogether from

co-operatives, may I enquire into the policies that we will find with

regard to the leasing of land to individuals for the purposes of

constructing homes? The Minister, I am sure, is aware that following

the construction of a home, the increase in value to that property,

aside from increases due to shortages of supplies, inflation and so on,

comes from the labour contributed to that home and homesite by the

owner. That is the landscaping, the maintenance, the improvement of the

interior — all of the sophistications which are added to the structure

by the owner. That is a significant factor in enhancing the value of

that property.

While I mentioned earlier the question of leasehold tenure being a

British institution, we must also recognize, Mr. Chairman, that in

Britain the people are not nearly as mobile as they are in Canada. In

fact, there are families which have been born and raised and died and

the second and third generations born, raised and died in the same home

or home community. However, that's not the experience in Canada. I'm

not sure what the most recent statistics are but back a few years ago

it was found that people in British Columbia, at any rate, were

changing homes every five to seven years.

Now, I pose this proposition to the Minister and I would like to

know what would happen. If the government leases land to an individual

who constructs a home and that individual improves the property — both

the grounds and the buildings — and then by reason of a change in

occupation or a change in family circumstance that person moves from

that person moves from that home, will the government permit that

person to sell the leasehold interest and the improvement at its then

market value?

I would specifically like to know whether the Crown lease of the

land will contain a provision prohibiting assigning or subletting,

which is not unusual in leases. If such were to be the case, then

individuals taking leases of Crown land and building residences would

be placed in a very, very hazardous position. The government, in

effect, could become and insist upon being the purchaser of that

property in the event that the first owner decided or was obliged to

move.

If that is not the case, if the Minister can assure the committee

that once the land is leased and a house constructed the owner — first

owner, second owner, or any subsequent owner — will always be at

liberty to transfer the property for whatever its value may be, would

the Minister then indicate what the situation will be as you reach the

last few years of the lease? Even though the residence may be of

significant value as you approach the tenth and the ninth and the

eighth and seventh and sixth last year of the lease so that the Crown

is going to acquire the rights not only to the land but to the

buildings — in other words, the reversion then will become vested in

the Crown — what will happen to the value unless the government is

prepared to indicate quite clearly that that lease will be renewable?

In addition to that, Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the Minister could

indicate in such a situation whether or not the land lease will be for

a fixed annual rent over its life or will that land lease be subject to

escalating annual rentals. Perhaps the extent to which the rentals

might escalate will depend upon the length of the lease. I want the

Minister to indicate what the government policy is in this respect.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: I'm afraid I will have to answer you in

somewhat the same manner as I answered the Member for North

Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson). You have certainly picked out one of

the alternatives — either you allow assignments or you guarantee

purchase by the Crown. We certainly recognize that and the resulting

options of both of these.

As I said to the Member from North Vancouver–Capilano when he asked

about the last 10 or so years of the lease, we also recognize the

problems of maintenance and of reassignment within those last years for

the owner, or the land tenant. He pointed out those problems, as I see

them, very well.

That's as much as I am prepared to answer that at this time. I

certainly have a very definite opinion as to how it should go. It's

difficult that we announce these things piecemeal. Once you are

committed on assignment versus guaranteed purchase, I think that all

the other things pretty well fall into place.

The fixed annual rent would not be fixed throughout the 50-year term

of the lease but the basis on which the adjustments would be made I

would not make at this time.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Point of order. This is dealing with a

taxation matter rather than philosophy. It was my understanding that we

were going to deal with the leases and housing under vote 111. Now, are

we going to repeat the same debate?

MR. CHAIRMAN: On the point of order, I just took the chair a

short time ago and this discussion was already in progress. I would

suggest that the Hon. Members try to bring this particular discussion

to a conclusion as it doesn't seem to be very relevant to vote 107,

strictly speaking.

MR. GIBSON: On a point of order, the matter was raised

earlier with the Chair since the discussion already had started in

terms of leasehold arrangements under this vote. It seemed more

[ Page 2049 ]

convenient at that time to carry on.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I

think we had best stick to some form of order. It is my understanding

there is an agreement on vote 111 to deal with these matters at that

time.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, they are out of order, in that case. It was my understanding that there was a House agreement to go to 111.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would like to comment on the point of order.

It is my understanding that those who were in the chair before me were

calling attention to the fact that they should be strictly relevant to

vote 107. I might point out that it is the administrative aspects or

matters pertaining to homeowner assistance. I would request that

discussion be relevant to the administrative aspects of homeowner

assistance.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: On the point of order, I won't delay the

Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) very long, but I just wish to

assure the Chair and the Hon. Premier that this discussion arose out of

a matter dealing with a home acquisition grant on leased properties.

The Minister has been good enough to allow us to continue the matter of

discussion of his leasing policy and I, for one, Mr. Chairman, have

concluded my questions on that matter. It will save time on vote 111.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point is that the Chair wishes to avoid repetition.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): I don't think there is

any intention for the Members to repeat in vote I 11 the line of debate

they are taking in some of these other votes, but we do have a few

things we wish to discuss and this is the first time this afternoon

that I have had an opportunity to get to my feet in this debate. I have

tried for an hour-and-a-half.

I would like to draw to the attention of the Minister, through you,

Mr. Chairman, a few problems that I think are important in this matter

of homeowner assistance.

I would like to start by saying to the Minister that there is a

great deal of conversation and interest and suggestions about what

government should do to attract people into northern British Columbia.

I think that it's not only the responsibility of the Minister of

Housing but the responsibility of a number of Ministers to try to come

up with programmes which help solve the problems of living in remote

climates under adverse weather conditions.

It seems to me, Mr. Minister, that some of the problems, whether

intentional or otherwise — or some of the solutions to some of the

problems — are glossed over very lightly with respect to such things as

homeowner grants and first and second mortgages to people who live in

the north. The people involved, for one reason or another, run into

endless problems trying to qualify for homeowner grants or for first

mortgages or for second mortgages under the existing provincial

legislation.

Now some of it has to do with the form of tenure that they have to

their land. That's true. But that shouldn't restrict those people or

prohibit them from exercising the same privileges as anyone else in the

Province of British Columbia who happens to be fortunate enough to live

in more urban surroundings.

I'd like to quote to the Minister from a letter I just received, not

because this problem won't be solved. I think it will be. But this is a

letter written to the collections officer of the Department of Housing

in British Columbia concerning a second mortgage payment that's in

default. The fellow indicates that he signed a monthly debit slip with

the Bank of Commerce, Fort Nelson, and probably if the debits are not

going through on a proper basis to the account, then somebody in an

accounting department somewhere in Victoria is at fault. I agree with

him. Probably somewhere in the administration area there's a mix-up, so

he's getting letters now indicating that he's in default on his second

mortgage payments.

But the thing I want to bring to your attention, Mr. Minister, which

I think is more important than this particular little matter which can

be solved, I'm sure, is the fact that this fellow says:

"Sir,

I have been thrown back and forth for over two years on this

government second mortgage. It took me two years to get it; and now after filling

out a form which authorized your department to take the monthly payment from

my bank account, you advise me that I am in arrears."

And he goes on to say,

"Check your files, because I think that there's some mistake on your part rather than on my own."

Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, really I can see no valid

reason why a person living in Fort Nelson should take two years to

become eligible for a second mortgage loan. I don't know what happened

in this particular case. I haven't been able to check out all of the

details. But this is just one of the disadvantages that people suffer

when they live 1,200 miles from the seat of government. Not only that;

branches of government that we take for granted in many parts of the

province are not there. They do not have anyone other than their MLA or

their

[ Page 2050 ]

government agent to go to to try to help them solve

the red tape, as they call it, that's involved in a number of these

situations.

I don't think it is good. These people have as much right to

attention and consideration and perhaps more so, because of the area

that they live in, than other parts of the province.

I would also like to draw the attention of the Minister to another

chap in Fort Nelson who is having all kinds of problems with respect to

registration of a second mortgage. His problem comes about as a result

of the fact that he's applied for tenure to Crown land under a

pre-emption certificate. The man's name is Roy Manette, a person

settling in Fort Nelson on 166 acres of land. He's built himself a home

which cost him $14,000 to build. So that is certainly equity on his

particular quarter-section of land.

Now he wasn't able to qualify for a conventional first mortgage loan

because of the fact that he does not presently own the property. The

title is still in the name of the Crown, and until he's been in

residence for one more year on this particular piece of property he'll

not be able to have title issued in his own name. But it just so

happens that if he'd been on a lease-purchase basis, then he would have

qualified for all of the conventional mortgages.

This chap has had to go to the bank and borrow the money that he

needed, with collateral other than his home, in order to get his home

built. He needs the second mortgage to help pay the expenses of

additional improvements that he wishes to make to his home. But because

of a technicality over the type of ownership that he has applied for,

he's ineligible to qualify for a second mortgage loan.

Now it seems to me, Mr. Minister, that if it was a lease-purchase

arrangement with somebody other than the government, there might be

some reason to disqualify his application. But, No. 1, he's applied for

Crown land under the form of tenure that was then available to him,

which is a pre-emption of Crown land. No. 2, he's completed some

clearing on this 166 acres of land that he has to do to qualify for a

title issued in his name.

He's built a home which has cost him $14,000 in cash for the actual

physical equipment that is there. So he does have equity, substantial

equity, in a home on a piece of Crown land; yet he is refused the

second mortgage registered against his particular property. He can't

register the first mortgage against it. He went to the bank and

borrowed that money, using other collateral to qualify his loan.

Now it seems to me, Mr. Minister, that if we are really vitally

concerned about housing in this Province of British Columbia — and I

think we are — surely we should be able to devise some method of

removing these stumbling blocks from in front of people who are

genuinely interested in becoming residents of British Columbia. In

effect, he is a pioneer of this generation. The fact that the type of

land tenure he has changed from a pre-emption to lease-purchase has

nothing really to do with the particular problem. It's just one form of

tenure or another, the result of which will end up in ownership by this

particular man and his family.

Now if he didn't pay off his second mortgage, who would be the

beneficiary? Obviously the Government of British Columbia would,

because their land would return to their name, and so would all the

improvements on it, including a $14,000 home.

I think it is unfair that this fellow, who has worked hard, who

moved to the north because he likes northern living conditions, should

have to face this type of a proposition. While I don't wish to prolong

the debate, I can give you literally dozens of similar problems that

people have brought to my attention because of the penalty they face

for living and choosing to live somewhere other than an urban centre in

the Province of British Columbia — to the extent sometimes that they've

been ruled out completely; they've had to put in their own sewage

system, for instance, and their own water supply. Well, this doesn't

happen in other areas of the province. Yet they are discriminated

against, in my opinion, because of the fact that the facilities are not

as far advanced in these areas as in other parts of the Province of

British Columbia.

I'd like to have the Minister reply to these specific cases, because

it does give an indication of whether you are going to do something

about it, or whether you can do something to assist these people

qualifying for the type of loan that everyone else seems to take as a

matter of their right in the province.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, I have had this matter brought to my

personal attention, of the person who is proving up the 166 acres, and

I'll certainly be looking into it further. It creates some problems,

but I would like to thank the Member for his remarks.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would again just remind the Hon. Members that we are considering the administrative aspects of homeowner assistance.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, just a ruling. That area we were

involved in earlier on leasing, and some of the philosophy behind it:

so many were speaking it was difficult to maintain my position in the

debate. Should we wait until vote 111 then?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would request that you wait until vote 111, which is more appropriate to this discussion.

MR. BENNETT: Yes, but the only thing is that

[ Page 2051 ]

the flow of the debate will be gone.

MR. PHILLIPS: I wonder if the Minister would give some

indication of what interest rate he plans on charging for the money

he's going to put out to give lower-income families assistance with

mortgage money. I would like to know if it is going to be just a

percentage point over the prime rate. Is it going to be subsidized by

the government? Just what interest rate is he planning?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I think that question also would be more relevant under vote 111.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: There is legislation before the House pertaining to this. It will eventually be coming under this vote, I would imagine.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, just a brief question to the

Minister with regard to assistance for native Indians. I understand

that in order to finally qualify for the grants or mortgage people

living on an Indian reserve have to submit those applications to their

band council for approval first.

Is there any way, Mr. Chairman, that the native Indians living on

reserves could be treated the same way as everyone else and just handle

their own applications, or is that an absolute necessity of procedure?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: I think this is necessitated because the

legislation was made retroactive and it was only through the band

councils that we could determine which buildings were built, I believe,

in the last five years. I think it was back to 1968 or thereabouts.

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: I know that; I know what's going on. That's

got nothing to do with the question I asked, Mr. Chairman. It wasn't

necessary for the Premier to jump up and chirp a little.

Is it true that it's no longer necessary for those people applying

for the grants now? They just submit them the same way as everyone else.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: It is impossible for us to register these

grants without getting into a legal tangle as it is reserve land in

these cases. The procedure is that we always register a mortgage or a

grant against the title, and before it can be transferred that has to

be cleared with the Land Registry office. It is for this reason that we

have to involve the band council.

MR. McCLELLAND: I understand that too. But the problem is

that there is quite often a very serious delay in time in getting those

grants approved because they may sit on the desk of a band council

member for weeks and never get submitted to this office. I don't see

how the provincial government can ever completely secure itself because

it's always on a reserve. It's always under the jurisdiction of the

federal government, so I don't see that that gives you any further

protection.

I'm just wondering if there isn't a way that the application entry

from the individual to Victoria can be speeded up, because it's slow

enough as it is when it gets over here and if we delay it any further

by going through band councils and getting delay there, then we're just

making more hardship for the individual.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: We'll look into that.

MR. PHILLIPS: I asked the Minister earlier to somehow justify

reduction in this vote 107. As I pointed out, it has been reduced from

$395,000 to $360,000. I realize that the director of the homeowner

assistance programme is now an executive, an Associate Deputy Minister.

However, there is still an administrative officer, which was not in the

vote last year, for the amount of $15,876. But the overall vote has

been decreased. I would think that if the government is now going to go

into the administration of mortgage money, is going to continue with

the home acquisition grant Act, with the homeowners' Act, going to

introduce a direct subsidy to the homeowner to relieve school taxes,

and yet the overall administrative vote to the homeowner assistance and

the number of persons involved in the department is reduced by some

$35,000, I wonder how the Minister can justify this in view of the fact

that he is going to give more assistance.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: There is going to be legislation before

the House. When that legislation is passed we will be making

representations to increase staff and to get the money for that staff.

But we can't anticipate that increased staff within this vote.

MR. PHILLIPS: Now come on, the government has a majority and

the legislation it brings in…well, they know it will get passed. It

will be debated; we'll certainly bring up the good points and the bad

points. But I think the Minister has to anticipate that the legislation

is going to pass and I think there should be provisions in it because

we get a little sick and tired on this side of the House of not

having…. We might as well not even discuss the estimates if they're not

going to be true estimates. I think that's a very poor answer. I'd like

to know why this vote is reduced when there is going to be more

responsibility under this department.

[ Page 2052 ]

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Member, there have been changes in the

staff and there will continue to be. I would estimate that the impact

of the new programmes will require about an additional 24 or 25 staff.

I asked this question prior to preparation of estimates, and it's

apparently not proper that you anticipate legislation in preparing

estimates.

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

Member for South Peace River that the point the Minister has made is

correct. Therefore it is not evidently proper to include anticipated

costs under possible increased legislation in the vote. We're

considering only the vote as presently authorized.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I could go through these

estimates which we have before us and I could find places where there

is legislation going to be brought in and there is provision made for

this legislation in the estimates. If the Minister of Finance wouldn't

allow for the additional 24 or 25 people he is going to have to

administer this new legislation, I don't….

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

Member that it is not proper to discuss something which is not in the

vote. The time to bring it up is when it appears in another vote where

it shouldn't be.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'd like to know what other vote these extra 24 or 25 people are estimated in, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The estimates before us are what

we're being asked to consider only, not any possible legislation that

might happen in the future.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, we are discussing the Department

of Housing and its estimates for the forthcoming year. I think that

anyone with any intelligence at all would realize that in order to

discuss these estimates intelligently and the personnel that is going

to be required by the Department of Housing