[ Page 591 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

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

Introduction and first reading — 591

Point of order Question of withdrawal of Bill 9.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 591

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 591

Mr. Speaker — 591

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 592

Mr. Speaker — 593

Routine proceedings

An Act for the Restriction of the Use of Spring Traps (Bill 72). Mr. Gardom.

Introduction and first reading — 593

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

Introduction and first reading — 593

Administrative Tribunals Appeals Act (Bill 74). Mr. Wallace.

Introduction and first reading — 593

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

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 594

Mr. Bennett — 597

Mrs. Webster — 598

Mr. Gardom — 600

Ms. Brown — 603

Mr. Wallace — 605

Mr. Rolston — 607

Mr. Gorst — 609

Mr. Williams — 611

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 12, 1973

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

PETROLEUM CORPORATION ACT

Hon. Mr. Macdonald presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Petroleum Corporation Act.

Bill 70 read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Yesterday in our debates, towards the end of the day, we approved a motion of the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich), where he asked to withdraw Bill 9 which was standing on the order paper in his name. Leave was granted, Mr. Speaker.

Yet, no doubt because of the fact that today is Friday and there's not that much time between the end of the Thursday sitting and the beginning of the Friday one, this still occurs on the October 12 orders of the day, on page 28. This bill has been withdrawn by this House by a formal vote of this House, and I would recommend…

Interjections.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: …I would request that the Attorney General read Hansard, and perhaps May, page 546. The facts are fairly clear Mr. Speaker. In our Hansard draft, page 354, I am quoting the Hon. Mr. Stupich: "Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to withdraw Bill 9, standing on the order paper in my name." Leave was granted.

Now, subsequently there was discussion on this, Mr. Speaker, and you will no doubt recall I did ask a question of you as to what we actually did do. But it was the end of the day and perhaps this is the reason for the error that occurs in today's order paper.

So, I raise this, Mr. Speaker, at the first opportunity so that on page 28, under "committee", Bill 9 — which is still standing there — can be withdrawn before the Monday sitting.

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, in asking for leave to withdraw notice, I did err in phrasing my request. I'd like to compliment you in the way in which you picked up this error so promptly and corrected me. I note that orders of the day did pick up the correction that you made.

What I don't understand is why everybody else seems to understand what is happening except the Hon. Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson).

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, it was quite obvious an error did occur, and the Minister is quite correct in pointing out that he did make an error, and you, Mr. Speaker, did point that out to him at the time. But I'm telling you, however, Mr. Speaker, and the Hon. Minister, no steps were taken to rectify the error and we have a vote recorded in our Hansard to withdraw Bill 9.

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out to the Hon. Members first that I have had the benefit, through the courtesy of the Hon. Member, of examining those three pages. I'm still of the opinion that I, having picked up what appeared to be a manifest error by the Minister, made it clear to the House that he was in error in his choice of words and that the House then went ahead to approve the withdrawal of a notice on the order paper.

The reason I picked it up I think should be explained to the House so you see that possibly we haven't withdrawn a bill, although I'd like to look at the whole question, now that I know.

Before we proceed, would the Hon. Member be seated for a minute? Thank you. I'd like to point out that you could not withdraw a bill, if you want to be technical about it, in the fashion the Minister was trying to do. If be was trying to withdraw a bill — and this was the reason I picked it up — he would have to ask for leave to discharge the order of the House. This had been committed to a committee and there was an order of the House that this bill be committed to a committee. So how could you just simply withdraw a bill? Therefore, I picked it up.

He had not withdrawn a bill at all; he was doing something else, The only thing I could think of that he was doing was something about item 9 on the order paper.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, certainly lie thought that the Minister had made an error. And all I can say to the Member is: to err is human, to forgive is divine.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The point that I would like to make to you, Mr. Speaker, however, is that the error was made; no steps were taken by vote or anything else to correct this. We never did vote on motion 9; we simply voted on the decision of the Minister. I believe by unanimous consent we adopted the course that we did to grant him leave to withdraw Bill 9.

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

[ Page 592 ]

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

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

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that leave was granted unanimously at the time. Now, I understood that by rules of the House, by unanimous consent you can vary your original rules. Therefore I would think that the argument put forward falls on the ground that unanimous consent was given for that process. It's not a question of Bill 9 never coming back; the Minister can re-introduce it.

Yesterday we had the Premier pointing out that laws should be obeyed, and rules should be obeyed. A lengthy speech was given to this effect, that if there is any decision or any desire to change them, the place to do it is here in the Legislature. It's not to do it by subsequent re-examination. We have to obey the decisions that we have come to; we cannot thereafter, on the basis of understandings, vary votes which have been taken in this House, or vary decisions taken in this House.

If we are to follow the principle so well expressed by the Premier yesterday — and I'm sure everyone in the House agrees with him — I think we should at least follow the orders and rules and decisions of our own Legislature. If we don't do that, I fail to see how we can expect the public to follow the decisions we make with respect to laws which we pass for everyone else.

The point comes right down, Mr. Speaker, to what we did yesterday. Here in the Hansard it's perfectly clear that leave was granted to withdraw Bill 9. It's there, and there's nothing we can do about it subsequently, unless somehow or other we change a vote or take another vote altering this.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, may I interrupt to point out to you on page 354 the following words:

"MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, could you clarify the motion that was made by the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) as to what he removed?

"MR. SPEAKER: What he did, as I finally discovered, is that he asked leave to remove from the order paper a notice of introduction of a bill, not a bill that's on the order paper. As I gathered, Item 9 not Bill 9."

Then there were a number of interjections and I said: "I hope and trust that that is what the Minister asked for. Is that correct?"

And he said: "Yes, that's correct." There was at that stage no attempt by the House to say that unanimous consent was not given for that purpose.

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

MR. SPEAKER: It says here:

"MR. D.A. ANDERSON," — this has been written in since — "I'm sure that that's what he would like to do. But what did we actually do? Did we withdraw Bill 9?"

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

I think it was manifestly clear to the House at that stage that all this disarray was the result of a misunderstanding of one word, the word "bill."

I point out to the Hon. Member that May, at page 376 of the 18th edition, says, "If it is wished for any reason to withdraw a bill from the consideration of the House, it is necessary first to discharge the order for the current stage of the bill." The current stage of this bill was in committee and it had been so ordered by the House. You have to be formal about it and, if you're going to get technical, you would have to stand up, if you were the Minister in charge, and ask leave of the House to discharge the order relating to Bill 9. That was not done, and that's why I picked it up and realized he must not mean Bill 9 at all.

I would suggest that if the Member wishes to say that this has not been properly done, if he wishes to maintain that point and ask the House to deal with this matter….

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, the point I am making is this: you have indicated there was confusion thereafter, and quite rightly so, but I fail to see how a Minister can, subsequent to a vote, inform the House on what we voted on. When I gave leave at that time, I gave leave for Bill 9 to be withdrawn. Every single person in this House who voted on that or who indicated expression of approval on that also voted on Bill 9. I just cannot understand how subsequently….

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No, no.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: You'd better read the Hansard, Mr. Minister; you had better read the Hansard where you said — and I use your own words: "I ask leave to withdraw Bill 9."

Subsequently, I fail to see how a Minister can redefine a vote or a decision, previously taken, to his advantage in this manner. The fact is, we have made a decision. It's obviously a decision in error but, having made a decision in error, we in this House, in my view, should either correct the error or abide by the decision.

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

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The way I suggest correcting the error, Mr. Speaker, is to take the wording as it is, take a literal reading of it and follow that particular course of action. If you wish to use a particular form, and ask leave to withdraw an order as

[ Page 593 ]

opposed to…

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

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

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

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The question is: are we or are we not going to obey this particular decision that we have taken? If we're not, there seems little point in us arguing in accordance with rules in this Legislature if a Minister can subsequently change a vote that we in this House have taken.

MR. SPEAKER: My position is this: in the circumstances, I would have to regard what was attempted. If that was a withdrawal of Bill 9, that was nullity, because you cannot withdraw a bill in that fashion. You must discharge an order and must say so, if you want to be technical about it.

If the House is going to become a technical place, then we will be technical. But I would prefer if the House could somehow forgive each other occasionally in our errors. In this instance, it became clear to me, and it became clear, I thought, to the Hon. Members, that the Minister was wrong in what he was asking for and he realized he was wrong.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, if it was clear to the Member yesterday subsequent to the act, why is he raising it now? If it was clear last night by his own admission, why has he taken up 23 minutes to say he's confused now?

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): It's costing us $2,000. (Laughter.)

Interjections.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: When the Minister makes an error and we subsequently recognize it, and I subsequently bring it to the attention of the House, I ask only that it be rectified properly in accordance with the rules of this House. We can ignore it, we can change votes after, we can change wordings of votes subsequent to the votes at the request of Ministers, but I find that a distasteful way of conducting business.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Well then, in the circumstances, because the Hon. Member is insisting upon these rights, I will take the matter under advisement, discuss the matter in detail over the weekend and propose a method by which this can be clarified to the Member's satisfaction.

MR. W.R. BENNETT (South Okanagan): I'd like to draw recognition to a group of senior citizens from my home town of Kelowna representing the Kelowna Retired Citizen's Activity Centre and escorted by Mrs. Phyllis Trenwith, provincial counsellor for the aged in Kelowna. I'd like this House to bid them welcome.

Introduction of bills.

AN ACT FOR THE RESTRICTION
OF THE USE OF SPRING TRAPS

Mr. Gardom moves introduction and first reading of Bill 72 intituled An Act for the Restriction of the Use of Spring Traps.

Motion approved.

Bill 72 read a first time and ordered to be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

CONSUMER CREDIT DISCLOSURE
PROTECTION ACT

Mr. Curtis moves introduction and first reading of Bill 73 intituled Consumer Credit Disclosure Protection Act.

Motion approved.

Bill 73 read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS
APPEALS ACT

Mr. Wallace moves introduction and first reading of Bill 74 intituled Administrative Tribunals Appeals Act.

Motion approved.

Bill 74 read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Orders of the day.

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

[ Page 594 ]

move we proceed to public bills and orders.

Motion approved.

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING ACT

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister Without Portfolio): It's with a great deal of pleasure that I rise to open debate on the Department of Housing Act. The purpose of the Act is quite obviously to create a department. One might speculate on the necessity of placing such a priority on housing. I think, however, that the volume of time and space being devoted in the media to the problem of housing speaks on its own.

If we look farther afield, we find that a province such as Ontario, which has for years had a housing corporation, is now contemplating a homes Ministry in what they consider to be a near-crisis situation. This comes in spite of the fact that recent statistics from Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation point out that in British Columbia, in selected cities of populations over 10,000, housing starts were up in July, 1973, for instance, 13.5 per cent over July, 1972; that the seven month total is about 6.4 per cent ahead of 1972; and that the adjusted monthly average is about 5 per cent ahead of 1972.

In spite of what appears to be some statistical evidence of action being taken, there are many areas in which there is a very obvious crisis in the housing area. It's very interesting, since I was named last May as the Minister Without Portfolio responsible for housing, that there has been a fantastic volume of mail, a fantastic number of requests come in for interviews from all types of different groups.

There have been people in various fields of development: people in the field of mortgages, landlords, mobile home operators and mobile home tenants, senior citizens, public housing tenants, and many, many more groups. I've attended probably four or five seminars outside of the capital area. I've travelled reasonably widely — not as much as I might have hoped — and everywhere that I go there is a tremendous sense of a housing crisis among the people who are aware, who are involved and on this firing line.

I suppose the problem is not as visible to those of us who are fortunate enough to be in the housing game, to own our own house, to be well on the way to paying off our mortgage. There might be some who would question this need, but I doubt that there would be many Members present in this House who would question the need for a department.

Bill 49 does create a department. It provides for the hiring of staff in keeping with the proposed Public Services Act. In addition to the staff which will be taken on under the Public Services Act, and the Deputy Minister — of which this authorizes the employment — we will require the hiring of specialists. Even today, under the Housing Incentive Fund Act, we are acquiring property. It is necessary to engage specialists to do appraisals, take soil samples — do various functions related to specific property acquisitions. When these acquisitions might be in a place which is somewhat remote in the province, it is perhaps necessary to engage local people in the field rather than attempt to provide a staff which will cover the entire province.

[Mr. Gardom in the chair.]

One of the main provisions of the Act will be to allow us to enter into agreements — of particular interest would be agreements with the Government of Canada.

Some of you may have received from the Hon. Ron Basford the new National Housing Act programmes kit which outlines several of the new and not-so-new programmes. Some of these programmes were pioneered in the Province of British Columbia. I think that SPOTA (Strathcona Property Owners and Tenants Association) in Vancouver played a great role in what is called the Neighbourhood Improvement Programme, and we would continue to be a lighthouse province in the area of prodding the federal government into new programmes in terms of housing.

We would hope to complement many of their programmes which we feel are good in concept but perhaps don't go far enough in terms of not providing for enough people or not pumping enough money in, not bringing the programmes within the reach of enough people. We would hope to cooperate with them in things such as assisted home ownership programmes, or neighbourhood improvement programmes, and other federal programmes.

We also would like to reach agreements with municipalities and regional districts so that they can play a great role in initiating the type of development which they feel is a solution for their particular area. We're not looking for externally imposed solutions. We will be willing to assist in every manner which is possible with the municipalities.

We've sent out, to date, two circulars which were mentioned yesterday. We've had a great response from the municipalities, but I feel that we should have an even greater response. Some municipalities, quite frankly, are a little cool to housing development. They don't seem to place it high on their list of priorities. Some feel that they've had to provide too much of the growth in the area of housing. But we hope that by face-to-face contact and negotiation that we can reach agreements, and in

[ Page 595 ]

some cases formalized agreements, which will spell out clearer terms of reference and responsibility between two or three levels of government.

I've been quite impressed by the role which is being played by cooperative housing in this province. When I first was given my assignment I felt that cooperatives were a very worthwhile concept, but perhaps required a little bit too much initiative on behalf of the participants. I find, much to my pleasure, that there is a great deal more initiative in people towards providing housing and helping themselves under the programme which is presently available under the federal government — which will make loans at 8 per cent to those with qualifying incomes, and even lower incomes under the assisted home ownership programme — and in conjunction with the provincial programmes of buying and leasing land at 4 per cent which again lowers the cost of housing and the monthly payments which are required. Of course, many of these people are able to take advantage of the $1,000 home acquisition grant as these are primarily new residences, and most of them are experiencing their first form of home ownership.

This very weekend there will be a sod-turning ceremony for the Pioneer Co-op in Victoria West. I hope that some of the Members will be out there to see it, and I hope that it will be kicked off in fine fashion. I know that with the backing of the United Housing Foundation that it is bound to be a success.

There has been some mixed success with cooperative housing and cooperatives since, I guess, they started in the '30s. But we are very fortunate here in British Columbia, non-profit societies have a good track record in this province and the United Housing Foundation, I think, has everything going for it. It has some of the finest people giving of their professional services and talents without charge. Many others are working at rather nominal wages and really avoiding getting into any sort of wage structure, as much as they can.

The United Housing Foundation, as an aside, has also taken upon itself the task of renovating three of the Gastown hotels which were in a deplorable condition. I visited them before the renovation, along with other persons such as Aldermen Mike Harcourt from the City of Vancouver and representatives from Central Mortgage and Housing.

I thought it was a little bit of a twist to the usual. I think it was rather significant that the so-called dignitaries were there to see the thing before — to see the state of burned-up mattresses and the filth which I won't describe literally, but nothing that you could imagine would grasp this. It is in the Hon. Minister to my left's riding. But the people who have been displaced from this housing have been placed temporarily — this under a programme under the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) so there is no dislocation, but the main kudos go to the United Housing Foundation.

We hope to cooperate with the United Housing Foundation. We may anticipate formalizing some agreements with the United Housing Foundation. We see them playing a very significant role.

There is, within the Act, a vehicle to create Crown corporations. Now in my view, the purpose of this section is not to create the British Columbia housing corporation. I would envisage, if that event should occur, that it would be brought in as a piece of legislation in its own right. But we do see the need for creating Crown corporations in this area where, after all, we are entering a field which has been traditionally the preserve of private enterprise in this country — not in other nations. It will be for specific projects necessary, I would anticipate, to create a Crown corporation — perhaps to wind up the affairs of the corporation upon completion of the project.

The Act is mostly an enabling Act and it does facilitate the transfer of various Acts: obviously the Housing Act — one would anticipate that it would go to the Minister of housing; the Elderly Citizen Renters Grant Act, which may or may not be best suited in a Department of Housing; Elderly Citizens' Housing Aid Act; the Provincial Home Acquisition Act; the Provincial Home-owner Grant Act; the Housing Incentive Fund Act, and the University Endowment Lands Administration Act.

This does not mean that each and every one of these Acts will necessarily find its way into the department of housing. But it is thought that, in line with modern practices in legislation, we no longer designate Ministry by title but designate that Minister shall be the Minister named by the executive council — an order of the executive, council to the Lieutenant-Governor.

One of the problems which we hope to overcome by having a department of housing, one of the problems which is quite obvious to one who looks into the housing crisis, is the cost of land, particularly in the lower mainland and also to some extent in the capital region. Today service lots are being auctioned off by the City of North Vancouver to the highest bidder….

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

HON. MR. NICOLSON: The district, I am sorry, yes. The City of North Vancouver has quite a different philosophy on housing. I stand corrected.

In the District of North Vancouver they're up to $30,000, when the cost of servicing these lands couldn't, even with gold-plated services, exceed $9,000 I shouldn't expect. So there's a tremendous inflation being given there, not only to the price of those particular lots but also to the price of every

[ Page 596 ]

existing lot, and not only in the District of North Vancouver but on the North Shore and, to some extent, in all of Greater Vancouver.

Now the District of North Vancouver, I suppose, has its problems, and is looking after its particular interest in the best way that it's equipped to do so. It perhaps sees as the best course of action this type of inflationary action. But I think that we have to look at the problem of housing in toto — if the Second Member for West Point Grey would permit me to impose upon his preserve of Latin phrases.

MR. WILLIAMS: Vancouver–Point Grey.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom). We have to look at this in toto so that the action which is perhaps best suited to one particular area has to be looked at in terms of its harmful effect on the total needs, I would say, not only in its immediate area but in the entire lower mainland.

There are many other actions which are taking place, some being taken by municipalities, and other types of actions which are having a similar inflationary effect on the cost of land. There, of course, is a great amount of land being held by small speculators as well as large speculators. There is no simple answer to this.

Government is in the best position to know where the types of development are going to take place. Government is in the best position to acquire land prior to development taking place, as I mentioned last year in debate. It is hoped that there would be less objection to government developing land because there is a tremendous antagonism towards development of any type.

With provincial, federal and municipal governments cooperating in the development of land, it will be not for profit. I think this is a very important point. The acceptability of development will be more defensible where people know that excessive profits are not being made where the benefits are going to the government — that is, to the people.

Cost of borrowing is another very prohibitive factor in providing housing today. Interest rates have gone up to a point where I've had letters from — in one case, a single-parent school teacher making $9,600 a year who could not, in the particular area where she was living, qualify for a CMHC loan with that particular income. I've had a person with a larger family and making $12,000 a year complain of the same type of thing. I know the Premier has said it and I say it, that it is ridiculous when people of this type of income cannot afford to get into housing; when they cannot qualify for mortgages, then something is wrong with this system.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

We would hope to bring in a programme of assistance where it would be my hope that not only could people of this income be qualified for some type of home ownership, but people of much, much lower incomes as well. The assisted home-ownership programme under the National Housing Act looks after part of this problem but it doesn't go far enough if it doesn't provide the number of programmes. The history has been that the ceilings on these prices have always lagged behind realistic prices in the housing market. So we would hope to enter into this field using this Act and this department as a vehicle.

One of the most essential things in a housing programme is preserving the existing housing stock. The National Housing Act requires, under the Neighbourhood Improvement Programme, an agreement between the federal and provincial governments. This Act, again, is a vehicle for us to get ahead with this. It was SPOTA in Vancouver that was instrumental as a pilot project in creating this programme as a national programme. We intend to remain in the forefront as a lighthouse province in the area of housing. We hope to take this and other measures to preserve the existing housing stocks and to better utilize the existing housing stock.

I've mentioned the role which I hope that municipalities will play, and I would like to stress again that we cannot, and do not wish to, externally impose housing solutions for Fort St. John or Prince George or Cranbrook, or Fernie or Sparwood or Natal, or any other area — or in Vancouver. We will make great efforts to cooperate with municipalities, but certainly in the final analysis, I think, as humans, as humanitarians, we must give this a very high priority.

We cannot just simply dismiss our responsibility by saying that if we provide low-income housing, we are going to have a flood of people into British Columbia. We heard that argument about Mincome. That was an argument against Mincome. There's no way that we can shut off the border of British Columbia. There's no way we intend to.

I suppose that if we don't respond to this need, what we might do is make it so that the people who were born in the province and worked in this province and, through some misfortune, are on low income, in spite of being in this province all these years — we might make it so that these people who have nowhere to go and are homeless and…I had a phone call this morning and I was told that people are living in cars in Prince Rupert because of lack of housing.

I'll tell you one thing: if we don't move to do something about housing — not just low income

[ Page 597 ]

housing but housing for everyone because, as I've mentioned, the crisis is extending up into the middle income group at the present…. I don't know where it will end, but if we don't move what will happen is that only those who can afford it will be housed. We won't stop immigration, but the only immigration we will have will be of people I suppose from other parts of Canada, the United States and the rest of the world who can afford to pay the price. I don't think there should be a price of admission to the Province of British Columbia.

The private sector will have to play a major role, and it has played a major role. The housing starts which I outlined earlier are mostly due to that field, but I would hope to facilitate some of the decision-making and to bring a better understanding between the private sector and some of the municipalities. We certainly will not be out with our own Crown carpentry corporation, our own Crown plumbing corporation and our own Crown electrical corporation. We see a role for the private sector in many areas.

One of the problems today is that there has been a slowdown in the ratifying of certain developments. This has come largely as a result of some very poor development and as a result of some rip-offs, but by no means are all members of the private sector to be tarred by the same brush. I've learned a great deal of valuable information from various members of that sector who have been of great assistance to me. I look forward to their cooperation; I know that they're as eager as I am to solve the crisis. Admittedly, they want their profit, their pound of flesh — that's what they're in business for.

I think that this Act and the personnel which it will enable us to hire will go a long way toward bringing about better understandings between all of the various segments of the housing industry. There's no way that a person can discuss the entire scope of the problem in 20 minutes or half an hour. There's no way that a Minister who is given the responsibility for housing can become an expert in four or five months or I daresay in four or five years. Some of the people that I've met in the business don't claim to be experts and they've been in it for 10 and 20 years. There's always something to learn, always something new on the horizon. There are new methods of building. Perhaps on a large-scale government project it will be possible to take advantage of these.

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

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

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

HON. MR. NICOLSON: The Hon. Member, who has never looked up at the press gallery, is cautioning me. (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: Where is the press gallery?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.

MR. W.R. BENNETT (South Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to extend our congratulations to the Minister on the assumption of this proposed new department. We all wish him well in the way he will carry out his duties in solving this crucial problem in British Columbia, as it is in all of Canada and North America. I'm glad he made note of the fact that British Columbia had always been a leader in innovation in new types of housing in all categories for the rest of Canada, and we hope that he will continue this precedent.

We see this is a coordinating bill, and he suggested himself that it will coordinate the Housing Act, the Elderly Citizens' Housing Aid Act, et cetera, until he gets to the University Endowment Lands Administration Act. That gives us some concern that this would be administered in a housing Act, because we suggest that the original intent of the university endowment lands was not to provide housing or commercial property but to provide the highest and best use and to provide moneys for the universities of British Columbia.

We would suggest that we're concerned about section 7(3) where it says, "All income received by way of interest, rentals or sales of housing, or otherwise, shall be credited to the fund," and this fund is the fund that was set up in section 7. We would suggest that the moneys directly raised relating to the university endowment lands be separated from these funds, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister, and that these funds be put to the furtherment of the development of higher education in this province, as those 1,700 acres were originally set up for.

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

MR. BENNETT: That's a nice idea but, frankly, on one hand you talk about the rape of the land earlier and when the land is held for its ultimate and best use later you say it wasn't getting money. But the land is there, it has appreciated, and the fact that it hasn't been used means that the universities will get more money and better money in the future from this land rather than if it had been developed in the past in a lower economy market when we were dealing with a different dollar. I don't want to give an economics lesson to the Hon. Member because he might give me a lesson in theology. (Laughter.)

[ Page 598 ]

We're also concerned that in this Act, as in other Acts, when you take the definitions sections and combine them with the powers sections, through the powers given to the Minister — and this seems to be taking place in all Acts and it further will be in Bill 64 — in reality this could become an order-in-council government and the Legislature won't provide its role in being able to discuss new programmes and new legislation.

I hope the Minister will bring any specific proposals that he has before the House. I was pleased to note that where they're going to set up new corporations he specifically suggested that this will be by legislation, and I commend him for alleviating our fears in those regards.

Now, we're all concerned about housing and we're concerned about costs. I had hoped today that the Minister in his speech on this new department would give us specific solutions about specific areas of housing. Unfortunately, we've dealt in the usual generalities of identifying the problems. We all know the problems. We know the problems of the high cost of servicing land; we know the high cost of house construction; we realize that there's difficulty with many families meeting the eligibility to get mortgage money. I had hoped that the Minister would have provided us with definite solutions.

One which we've made in this House where this government can aid in lowering the price of housing is to remove the 5 per cent sales tax from the cost of building materials as it relates to housing in this province. We would appreciate it if the Minister, in consultation with the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett), would take that under advisement.

I was also happy to see that the Minister suggested that there was a place for the private sector in the solving of housing in this province. It's refreshing every now and then to find out that there are people in that government who do recognize that the private sector does have a contribution to make in this province. I was worried perhaps that he was going to develop his own contracting firm, and I've dug out these statistics to show how governments efficiently build in Canada. It covers four categories. The mix of material and labour and the efficient use of labour in construction is one way of lowering the cost. All contractors in Canada, and these are years 1969, '70 and '71: their mix of labour, their material cost was 40 per cent higher than the labour. With utilities, the material cost was 40 per cent higher than the labour mix. Others: material mix was 40 per cent higher than the labour cost. Governments: the labour cost was 30 per cent higher than the material cost.

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce): What are you quoting?

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

Interjection.

MR. BENNETT: Yes, I'll provide that to the proposed housing Minister (Hon. Mr. Nicolson), and anything to do with industrial development I'll give to the Industrial Development Minister.

I would suggest that I provide these only as a guide so that if you had, in fact, ideas of setting up your own building corporations perhaps you would look at governments' history of construction in the efficient use of labour and perhaps be persuaded to use the private sector. I'm glad to see that you have suggested that you will.

Mr. Speaker, with these exceptions of the university endowment lands and the extreme powers, we favour the establishment of the department of housing. We congratulate the Minister and we shall support this bill.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

MRS. D. WEBSTER (Vancouver South): I am very pleased to be able to take part in this debate today concerning the setting up of the Ministry of housing.

I am most pleased that the Member for Nelson-Creston (Hon. Mr. Nicolson) has been selected as the Minister in charge of that department.

I think he will use a great deal of imagination in his work from what he has done so far in relation to his interviews concerning housing in various parts of the province. He said earlier, when he was appointed as Minister in charge of housing, that he had never backed away from a challenge. I believe that to be true and I wish him well.

I think it is most important at this time that we have a department of housing. There certainly is a crisis. It is just dreadful to think that in one of the wealthiest countries in the world, and one of the richest provinces within that country, we still find it difficult to provide proper shelter for all our citizens at a cost where it is approachable to the various citizens.

It seems shameful, as the Minister has mentioned, that in some cases people are living in cars because they cannot afford to buy a home. Let me say others are living in shacks that are practically falling apart. They are living in housing that actually should have been condemned years and years ago but which still seems to be acceptable for people.

Why this is necessary, I don't know. We are in a country that has all the minerals, natural resources and materials. We have one of the largest lumber industries in the world right here in British Columbia; yet we are not able to provide homes for citizens. I think it is a completely ironical and really sad

[ Page 599 ]

situation.

Another problem that has been mentioned by the Minister and by the Member for South Okanagan (Mr. Bennett), is the high cost of money. In 1966 we sold our home and moved into an apartment. At that time the mortgage interest rate was 7.5 per cent. Today, on any money that you place into credit unions or place into the various trust companies or banks, you can get up to 9 1/8 per cent interest, which means that if that is the investment interest, then the lending interest is at least 2 per cent higher. That means that most lending interest rates for mortgages must run about 10, 11, 12 per cent or even higher. How can young people afford to buy money to buy a home at that rate of interest?

However, I would like to turn to one or two of the problems concerning my own constituency of Vancouver South. From the surface appearance, there isn't very much of a housing problem. But if you look a little bit deeper, we do have problems that I consider are very serious.

First of all, on May 15, 1973, a joint CMHC and Greater Vancouver Regional District report said that senior citizen housing indicates an immediate need in excess of 5,000 units. That is in the Greater Vancouver Regional District. Almost the whole eastern side of the district of Vancouver South is allocated to senior citizen housing by private organizations, such as the church groups — the United Church and the Baptist Church. Then there are the ethnic groups, such as the Anglicans, the Germans, the Finnish, the Icelandic, the Scottish….

Interjection.

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

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

MRS. WEBSTER: Besides that, there is a great deal of public housing. Rows and rows of units of public housing for senior citizens.

This is all very well, but I think it segregates the old people in one area of the community too much.

One reason for this is that in the past all this housing has been producer-oriented. They find a piece of land, hey develop it and they make a decision that this is going to be for a particular group and while this has been a very generous and outgoing type of thinking, at the same time sometimes it is psychologically bad.

I believe that social needs, too, must be tied in with housing. For instance, there have to be neighbourhood amenities near some of these senior citizen homes. There is no area for shopping, for instance. There is no church. Maybe they have their church services within their own senior citizens' homes, but that isn't necessarily the case each time. The transportation, in some cases, is rather inadequate. A greater number of them have been dependent upon buses provided through LIP grants and other grants to be able to get away from their housing units for an afternoon or to get a little bit of recreation.

Another thing that I think is really needed — particularly for old people and once more in relation to segregation — is the opportunity to see people of other ages. They don't want to feel that the only people they see are old people. They have belonged to other generations themselves and there should be more of an age mix in housing units. They have to remain part of the community, that is; part of a larger continuum of people.

We must remember too, Mr. Speaker, that each one of us, before long, will become a senior citizen. Let us think of what we will feel like if we are segregated as an older group ourselves rather than being able to be part of the larger community.

I believe that senior citizens, like all other groups, should be given the choice of where they want to live. They should be able to stay in the community in which they were living before and in the type of housing in which they would like to live. There is no reason why public senior citizen housing could not be built in other sections of the community and why such large units should have to be built.

I must say that one of the things that has developed in relation to cooperative housing and low-rental housing is that there is more of a mix, where senior citizens can be living in the same community as young people with families or people of the middle-age group so that they don't feel that they are communicating only with other people in their own age group.

I believe another thing that must be looked into — and I am sure that the Minister will try to keep an imaginative approach; at least I hope he will keep an imaginative approach to the type of housing that will be built and also to renovation — is that senior citizens who now have their own homes may have some type of support when they require it so that they can stay in their homes.

During the summer I have been travelling with the Committee on Social Welfare and Education and one thing that was mentioned to us over and over again was that most older people are much happier in their own home. But what they need is coordinated services — it is something that was spelled out in the presentation of our final committee report — so that if they are not capable of doing everything for themselves, at least maybe once or twice a week a homemaker or a Public Health nurse or another public service coordinator could drop in and see what their needs are so that they can be maintained within their own establishment, rather than having to move into

[ Page 600 ]

senior citizen housing.

Now I would like to turn to another point, Mr. Speaker. In the Vancouver South area I realize that there is very little land left for the development of housing. But a very interesting development has taken place during the last six or seven years — maybe not that long ago; maybe five years is a better estimate.

In the Vancouver South area the whole tract of land from Kerr Road to Boundary Road and all the way from about 48th Avenue to the North Arm of the Fraser River, an area of land that had been previously undeveloped, has been turned over for a development, which is now known as Champlain Heights.

The developers, along with the Killarney-Fraser View Area council, produced plans by which there would be a housing mix so that there is a great deal of housing for low-income groups, and not all in one place. There are going to be several sections or subdivisions for low-income groups. Then there are two subdivisions, one of them that is completed now, De Cosmos Village, for cooperative housing.

Besides that there is quite a large subdivision set aside for middle-income and higher-income people. Housing for the middle incomes runs to about $25,000 to $30,000, and for higher incomes it's running from about $45,000 to $50,000. These are beautiful homes and it is a lovely area.

The whole area has been developed in such a way that consideration was given not only to shelter, but also to the entire community. That is: the development of two churches in the area; a community school which opened just this fall; I believe there is a high school that is being built or projected; they have a lovely shopping centre in the are a which is fairly close in to the entire development, practically in the middle of it. Besides that they have just recently got transportation, so that they have a bus system around the housing development that leads into and connects with other bus systems in the Vancouver and Burnaby areas.

This is the sort of thing we want. Besides that, they have a day-care centre for children which is one of the finest in the entire city. So there is lots of recreational space and there are good facilities for all the people regardless of their standard of living or of the type of development in which they would like to be in.

In De Cosmos Village there are about 110 units and the members of this cooperative group are eligible for the $1,000 home-acquisition grant. Besides that there are 10 families from social assistance rolls living within this cooperative. No one in the cooperative knows who the 10 families are because they have been selected and carefully placed. So people from social assistance rolls also have the opportunity of being brought up in an ordinary community in which they don't see only other people who are also on social assistance rolls. It does give them an opportunity to feel a little bit less depressed, and gives them more of an incentive towards a better life for themselves.

The cooperative aspect is very interesting because it is not necessarily just home ownership. They feel the pride of home ownership which is not home ownership in the strictest sense. If anyone living in a housing co-op wishes to leave, he can do so, and he has his initial equity returned. But he doesn't get any other money returned, nor can he make a profit on his equity.

So the cost of the housing for the next person is the same as it was for the person who left. In fact, it is so successful that they say that of 19 different types of multi-family projects surveyed in Vancouver in March this year, the cooperative was judged to be the most successful.

There are many advantages to living in a co-op. If they are imaginatively planned in a new area as they have been in the De Cosmos Village, when the buildings go up trees and greenery are left in between; so the landscaping is a secondary problem.

With the planning expertise of regional citizens that have planned neighbourhood facilities and transportation requirements I think a great deal can be done in producing a satisfactory type of housing for people. I hope that not only this but other methods are found as innovations for producing homes so that everyone in British Columbia will have proper shelter.

Mr. Speaker, I realize that this is a very heavy burden for any Minister who takes on a portfolio such as housing because it is one of the greatest needs there is in this province today. At least we will have a start now, and some of our hopes in better homes for British Columbians will be on the books for the future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister said in his remarks, this is mostly an enabling Act and it is clearly another instance of this government's trend towards legislation by regulation and another plank in its platform of the abandonment and emasculation of legislative competence and, I would say, the historic concept of legislative accountability.

It was interesting to hear the remarks of the Member for South Okanagan (Mr. Bennett) dealing with the university endowment lands. They appeared to be a rather dramatic departure from heretofore Social Credit policy, which seemed to be to originally I disregard the concept of the university endowment lands. Repentance at any stage should be welcome, however late it may be.

I do feel though, Mr. Speaker, that the lands should be put to their highest and best use with a view to a long-range outlook. They should be preserved as much as possible for parkland purposes

[ Page 601 ]

and also for the purposes of a scientific research city, which the first Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) has enunciated loudly and exceptionally well within the halls of this Legislature over the past 10 years.

It would, without any question, provide an impetus and an incentive for the development of secondary industry in the province of B.C. so that we could at long last have as the label of British Columbia, "Made in B.C.," as opposed to dug, cut, taken out of the water and shipped out of B.C.

That, I think, would be a far better use of the university endowment land than putting it into housing as is contemplated within the provisions of this statute. For the City of Vancouver, which is the third largest city in Canada, and is showing every indication of at least doubling in population within the next 25 years, steps should be taken to provide that degree of greenbelt sanity.

We continue to feel, as was espoused by our former Member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Clark), that there should be a moratorium on land taxes for pensioners and on a loan basis. I would hope that this would be an aspect which the Hon. Minister would take within the umbrella of his portfolio and give full consideration to it so as to enable our pensioners to stay in their own surroundings and in their own homes, and to better enjoy their twilight years.

The tax moratorium would be an encumbrance upon their property which would be payable upon its disposition, or upon the death of the householder. I'm suggesting a loan, not a gift. This facilitation would be a facilitation of the kindliest sort.

I continue to feel that apartment dwellers should be given a better break than they have in the past. It is true that provision is made for those over a certain age but I think it should extend further than that.

I would like to mention a couple of words about incentives, which is really the way our country has been built. I think, most of all, we need higher incentives in the private sector for home finance. I'm talking of help for the little fellow who needs a house.

The average B.C. monthly wage — I think this is a rather astonishing figure and I hope it is correct; but it is from the Minister of Labour's (Hon. Mr. King's) monthly or weekly booklet so I presume that it is correct — it appears to be $712 gross. For an individual who is earning something like that, a home today — I suppose unfortunately I am going to use the word moderate, although it is a startling amount of money — a home would moderately cost $35,000. Of that monthly sum of $712, this individual I am speaking of would have to spend about $325 as a minimum for his two mortgages, and this would be long before he takes into account any deductions for income tax, pension, insurance, property taxes, and what he has to have to feed himself and clothe himself and his family. In those figures, about all the average homeowner would have left, after paying for his two mortgages and the necessities of life, would be just about enough left to starve himself.

This is even more tragic and realistic when one takes into account that a $35,000 house is miles beyond the reach of thousands of people in the Province of B.C. who couldn't afford to own a home of that value or, indeed, even half that value, which the Member down the way agrees with. You are going to ask for a suggestion and I am going to make a suggestion.

Now there is no question of a doubt that every forecast for the housing industry is on the up-swing. There are going to be more houses, make no mistake of that. And it doesn't appear at all that interest rates are going to be dropping; I think high interest rates are a prevailing situation of the times. There is no suggestion that we are going to have a decrease in the price of building materials. Wages are going up, the cost of production is increasing, we're finding inflation in just about all sectors and that is exceptionally bad.

I think the argument that the federal government of this country, or of any country for that matter, is the only villain is absolute nonsense, for this is a western world situation. Notwithstanding that, I don't think that either of our respective governments, the provincial government or the federal government, have got people properly involved in participating in any way to bring about some cures themselves.

We've got to find a source of money and we need to establish an interest rate which would attract the private lenders and be beneficial to the borrowers. That's a pretty difficult quest.

Now, I see that the increase in the volume of bank savings deposits has been spectacular. It reached an unprecedented $18.6 billion dollars by April of last year — and I would commend the Hon. Minister to the fact book of the Canadian Bankers' Association where he will find most of these figures. These bank deposits have more than doubled since 1963.

Now this bulletin reports that in 1972 there were 3.6 million personal savings accounts in the range of $1,000 to $10,000 alone; 3,6 million savings accounts in Canada in the range of $1,000 to $10,000 alone. I suppose you could say, in effect, the banks are laughing all the way to the bank. But notwithstanding the fact that the banks today are paying higher interest premiums on savings deposits, they are certainly getting richer by the day, and still we find a very abysmal housing shortage.

So, my suggestion is this: let's have a little bit of innovation. Let's make it more attractive for the saver to yank some of this relatively dead money out of the bank and put it into a good first or second mortgage. But bank depositors are never ever going to do this.

[ Page 602 ]

They are just not going to do it unless it is made attractive to them.

It's true that they could lose some of the liquidity features of having funds in bank deposits, but a people's mortgage could be for a relatively short term, say five years, and if cash was needed, a good mortgage receivable would always be good security, Mr. Speaker, for the lender to borrow on himself or for banks or other financial institutions. And for those who have surplus of money — the ones that we want to get to — their liquidity would, of course, be relatively unaffected.

My suggestion is this: permit any individual — and I am not talking about corporate structures — but permit any individual who chose to loan funds for residential mortgages up to a defined amount of, say, not more than the maximum NHA and with no minimum, permit that individual, providing he kept to a set and a pegged interest rate, to receive that interest income without it attracting any national income tax.

Now, let me give you an example, and I'll use a fairly high figure for the simple purposes of arithmetic, if nothing else. Presupposing that your lender has a taxable income of $25,000 a year, every nickel he earns over that, he pays 50 per cent tax on. So, if he chooses to loan on the security of a mortgage today to an individual, say $10,000 at 12 per cent, there is an interest income to this individual, this lender, of $1,200 a year.

Now out of that he pays half of it, $600, to Ottawa, part of which is returned of course to the provincial coffers of British Columbia, and he is left with $600 net in his pocket. But the borrower has to pay $1,200 as the cost of that loan, plus repayments of principal, and this is the obvious load that borrowers have on their backs in the situation which we all know about.

So the lender, rather than perhaps fiddle around with a mortgage, what does he do on the whole? He leaves it in the bank where it brings him less interest — what is the current bank deposit interest, 6 ¾ per cent approximately? So he would be getting a gross of say $675, and of course would have then to pay half of that in tax. So he would end up with — my arithmetic being sound — around $337.50 net. You see? So they are both really stuck. The lender is stuck and the borrower is stuck and we are not bringing them together at all. They are going farther apart as opposed to being brought together.

The only way we are going to find a solution for inexpensive money, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, is this critical housing situation — which is not going to diminish; I mean, you may have the best of intentions and every one here may have the best of intentions but it is going to be a continuing problem — the only way we are going to be able to reduce it at all is, one way or another, to get the borrower and the lender closer together so that they can combine for their mutual gain. If they can do that, you will find that they will be interested in doing it, but there's got to be a break for each.

Now this is the suggestion for the incentive: let this fellow advance a $10,000 mortgage loan to a householder and peg his interest at a moderate rate — say 7 per cent. Then the house owner, at the end of the year in my illustration, would have paid only $700 interest as opposed to $1,200; he would have had another $500 in his pocket to take care of his family. And the lender — permit him to receive that pegged mortgage interest income-tax-free. And I am referring only to residential homes, I am referring to defined amounts of loans and I am referring to individuals and not to the corporate structure, as I've mentioned.

Then you would find that you have society participating in the situation and I think would have some better cures for the housing problem than we have had to date. Because I do not feel that just the injection of government funds is going to produce too very much.

I think, also, Mr. Speaker, that there should be an incentive for people to repair and beautify and remodel their homes rather than just another hammer on the head from the tax collector. This would require a bit of work to establish an equitable formula, but the Minister is leaving himself carte blanche insofar as formulae are concerned, both as to income and outgo within his statutes, so perhaps this would not cause him too much difficulty. He will have a great deal of time to work on it and come up with something that would be productive and useful.

If you reached the conclusion that he could, say, repair his home to the extent of one-tenth of its value and entitle him for those repairs during that year to a reduction in his gross taxes of, say, a half of the amount of the repairs — make an incentive, just make a fair kind of an incentive — then you find that he's helping not only himself but the community at large, maybe offering additional employment, maintaining and improving standards, enriching tax coffers for the ensuing years, and, at no cost to the community, improving the community and making the areas in which we all live happier places to live. That's, after all, the very objective purpose of housing.

I would say the 11 per cent sales tax on residential building material, as well as the 5 per cent, should be turfed out as soon as we can possibly do that.

I do feel, Mr. Speaker, very strongly in saying that I've not yet seen any government in Canada or any federal government in Canada, since I first became interested in politics, effectively come to grips with the housing situation. It's always stop-gap. We find Ministers and Ministries through a succession of various governments attempting to do the very best. They come in with a plan and then it works for a

[ Page 603 ]

little while; it dissipates and then, just like the tide coming in on King Canute who is powerless to help stop it, the problem rolls back continuously.

I would say that until such time as we can find a means of better bringing the private sector into the field of residential lending, the more difficult it's going to be to have any kind of a pragmatic and effective solution.

I have more to say on the bill. There was another point I intended to raise, but it is 11:40 and I know other Members would like to speak.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): 1, too, would like to rise in support of this bill and speak primarily as it affects my constituency. As you know, I represent an urban riding and, if we were asked to find the single most crucial thing that's happening in our riding at this point, it would have to be the absence of housing — not even the absence of adequate housing, but the absence of any kind of housing at all.

Even during the period of one short year that I've been in office, I have seen the riding change. It actually is a riding that is in very rapid transition which sees the disappearance of the single-family home and replacement by high-cost rental and condominium accommodations. What's happening in Burrard, Mr. Speaker, is that poor people are being forced out of the riding. Although it is in the centre of the city which has all its services, excellent transportation, hospitals, schools, everything within walking distance, only people who can afford to live there and enjoy these services are rich people or people who are almost rich.

To me, the creation of this department offers an opportunity for some much-needed planning in this field, particularly in this area. The demand for housing, not only in the lower mainland but everywhere in this province, is not only crucial but seems to be on the increase and can be expected to increase over the next decade.

What's happening all over the world now is that the baby boom of the late 1940s and 1950s is finally hitting the market. All those babies born at that time are now young adults starting families of their own and needing housing. A Greater Vancouver Regional District report which was issued recently showed that there's going to be a 3 per cent increase in population; that is 30,000 people in the Greater Vancouver area alone.

Coupled with this, of course, are sky-rocketing costs of land and housing throughout the entire province. Land costs are increasing and have been increasing steadily. The Greater Vancouver Real Estate Board gives us an example of a lot which in 1967 cost $5,500, today in 1973 costs over $17,500. Add to this the increased taxes and services for water lines, sewers, et cetera, and we see why it is no longer possible for most people to own housing.

What I'm hoping from this department is that we will have some dynamic and flexible overall planning for the entire province, not just for the urban areas but for the outlying areas as well. We hope it will have cooperation with the municipalities to develop more innovative and imaginative zoning and use of the land that is available to them. We think, for example, of Habitat that was built for Expo '67. It is very dubious, Mr. Speaker, that that kind of building even today would be permitted in the Vancouver area, but that was accepted as an experiment. I'm saying that what we need are more experiments of this nature, experiments not only in the kinds of houses that are built but also in the ways in which they are built.

I'm a great admirer of the ways things were done in the past and I think it's wonderful to have artisans who can build from scratch with their own hands and make beautiful buildings. But the reality of the situation is that we can no longer afford that kind of building and that we have to start looking at newer and less expensive ways of putting shelter together. This is certainly one of the things that I'm hoping the new Minister will look at, I hope he will also try to encourage the federal government to do away with its 11 per cent excise tax on building materials because that is a regressive tax.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Okay. I have to think about the provincial one. I'm better at giving advice to the federal government, actually.

Interjections.

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

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

One of the outcomes of these increased costs, including the 11 per cent federal tax, Mr. Speaker, is that the trend has been to apartments, away from rentals to conversions into condominium units, and a cutback on building of apartments. This is creating, as I said before, a real problem for low-income residents who live in Vancouver-Burrard and who are finding that they have to move out.

I'd like to quote a couple of examples if I can. There's a 79-year-old man in my constituency who was told recently that his rental accommodation was going to be destroyed by the end of November and that he had to find another place to live. He has lived in this area all of his life.

There's also a 74-year-old lady who has been paying S150 a month rent. This woman has a

[ Page 604 ]

guarantee of $200 a month and out of this, Mr. Speaker, she has been paying $150 a month rent, which leaves her, as the Hon. Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) just pointed out, nothing left but complete and abject poverty.

What both of these people did was to apply to the B.C. Housing Management Commission and asked to be put on their waiting list. They were told that the waiting list is presently two to three years long. There's a waiting list of 1,580 applicants for single accommodation in Vancouver alone, and in the entire greater Vancouver area there are only 1,257 public housing units for single people, So what we have here is that even if we doubled this in the next year, we still wouldn't be able to keep track of the people on the waiting list. There are people joining the waiting list every day.

I would like to suggest to the Minister that we take a look at what some other governments have been doing in this area. Other governments have taken initiative in building housing. In Sweden, for example, 30 per cent of the housing units were built on public initiative; in England and Wales, 25 per cent; in Canada, we have less than 1 per cent of the total housing stock built this way. Since 1964 there have been only 76,000 units built all across Canada.

What I'm hoping, Mr. Speaker, and what I'm suggesting to the Minister, is that this department become a vehicle for the government becoming more involved in the business of providing public housing. Here I would like to disagree very strongly with the second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom). I have a very great distaste for the idea of 12 per cent mortgages and 14 per cent mortgages and this kind of thing. I think there's something basically immoral about someone who lends you $1 and expects to get $1.14 in exchange for it, and I certainly would not support the idea of….

MR. WILLIAMS: He said 7 per cent.

MS. BROWN: Oh, in any event, I still think that the government should be made more responsible and should become more involved in the whole area of public housing, with one very basic kind of commitment: to lease rather than to sell.

I think that we have to get away from the idea of ownership — that everyone has to own their own little plot of land or own their own house. We have to start looking at the business of utilizing housing and using space rather than owning it.

At a recent area council meeting, Mr. Speaker, a resolution was passed urging that the government plan for and try to achieve a stable population within this area within 20 years, and that it go into the business of trying to supply at least 7,500 units which should be publicly owned and that these units should be for housing, for leasing, rather than for ownership.

I would certainly like to endorse that resolution at this point and ask the Minister to seriously consider it — the area council resolution.

I think the major responsibility, really, and one of the major areas of responsibility with this new department of housing, would have to do with cooperating with the municipalities. Any planning has to be done working together with them, and it must take into account other services such as transportation, health needs and other needs in the planning and designing. These things have to be done together. There has to be a lot more input from the residents themselves, especially taking into account the neighbourhood concept.

When do we decide and who decides, Mr. Speaker, that an urban area is large enough and that it should not become any larger? This again is something that has to be decided on in consultation with the municipalities and with the people living in the area. I think we have to start thinking in terms of saturation points. We have to start thinking in terms of stable population. We have to start looking at the development of satellite cities and satellite areas. None of this should be handed down as a directive from above, but should be arrived at through massive consultations with all levels of government and with all people.

Very briefly, Mr. Speaker, back again to the crisis which involves the tenants presently living in Vancouver-Burrard. There is a vacancy rate in my constituency at this point of 0.6, which means that one in every 175 apartments is vacant. I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that we will never be able to deal with the landlord and tenant situation, we will never be able to deal with the whole business of rental accommodation, until we deal with the matter of providing more housing. Any amendment to the landlord-and-tenant legislation that is done is really only stopgap and band-aid until we get at the whole business of doing something very dramatic about the shortage of units presently in existence.

So we have a dilemma. We have a dilemma that involves meeting the physical need for housing while taking into account the social needs that are involved with housing. Here again I would like to talk about what the GVRD refers to as livability. I hope that the Minister will avail himself of the number of studies that have been done on the impact of crowding on people and its deleterious effect on residents — the impact of high-rises and the adverse effect that this has.

As an eminent psychiatrist once said, "The higher you go, the madder you get." This is becoming increasingly obvious, Mr. Speaker, and I certainly hope that the Minister will avail himself of these kinds of information when he's trying to design and create new housing. I would like to urge very strongly that, certainly, incentives should be used to

[ Page 605 ]

encourage people to restore and revitalize the housing that is there now. I think we should slow down the mad rush to concrete-and-glass boxes that are going up all around our cities.

We should try to hold on to some of the older houses that are there, built as they were very well — really, among some of the best that exist. They're a part of our history. They're a part of our past and I don't think that we should try to eliminate them.

I think that large loans with very low interest should be made available to people who want to purchase older homes, larger loans. I realize that there is now some money available; I'm agreeing with you, Mr. Member. I certainly did agree with that part of your speech. They also should be made to people who want to redesign these homes and probably turn them into multiple dwellings.

Here again, cooperation with the municipality about dealing with their very rigid and sometimes very archaic zoning standards would be very useful. But here again I would like to suggest a lot of cooperation, not the government going ahead and handing down directives. We should take into account in the social needs the special needs of our senior citizens and the special needs of young families with children.

One of the things we have in Burrard is this phenomenon of all these apartment buildings going up and all of them refusing to take families with children. We have the phenomenon of two-bedroom and three-bedroom apartments going up in a riding which has excellent schools, marvellous transportation, the largest hospital in the province right there in the centre of the riding…and these very large apartment blocks going up, three-bedroom, two-bedroom, and no children allowed. I think that this is something that the Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) should look into.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Thanks. Because it really is destroying my riding and it's breaking my heart.

I'm very pleased about the coordinating of all the different funds that have to do with housing that are coming under this department because, in point of fact, what's been happening in the past is that neither one was responsible to the other and the left hand didn't know what the right hand was doing, and they really didn't care in any event.

We have a phenomenon that has happened recently where a senior citizen housing unit designed for a one-family area, 13 storeys high, was turned down by the design panel who said that 13 storeys of 8-by-10 boxes was not a good place for senior citizens to live. It was turned down by the city planner who said that it didn't fit in with the area. It was turned down by the surrounding residents who wanted to retain the area for low-rise or family houses.

But city council approved it and, as a result of city council's approval, the provincial government, through its elderly citizen renters grant, is going to have to go along and give its contribution to the development of this complex. We certainly need a lot more senior citizens' housing, but, here again, the social aspect comes in. A 13-storey building with 8-by-10 boxes in it is not socially acceptable. Although we're meeting the physical needs, we are certainly not meeting the social needs of the people who will be using it.

In closing, I would like to suggest to the Minister that we sometimes can learn from people even from other countries that we like to refer to as being under-developed. With this in mind, I would like to bring to his attention a project which is presently being pioneered in Jamaica, Mr. Speaker, a country of which I have some knowledge.

What they're doing there is encouraging cooperative housing; but the builders, the people who are building these houses, are the people who are going to live in these houses. What they're doing is having people developing trades and having people designing the kind of housing that they're going to live in. They have a real sense of responsibility toward the construction of the thing.

It's creating employment and at the same time, it's not for sale. It's for their use as long as they want to live there. When they're through with the housing, it reverts to the government and then it is, in turn, leased again. They don't actually own it.

I think this is a very exciting concept and I think that it certainly is one that the Minister should maybe…and I would be very willing, if my expenses were paid, actually to do further study on this for the Minister. (Laughter.) Preferably in January, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: I'd bring him back a very full report on how this project is progressing.

MR. GARDOM: When do you have time for your cooking?

MS. BROWN: My pork chop cooking. I hope that the department is also, Mr. Speaker, going to embark on the business of education, and that it will see as its priority the education of the consumer to the concept of using housing rather than owning housing and to leasing land rather than buying land. I expect great things of this department, Mr. Speaker, and I wish the Minister lots of luck. Thank you very much.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I'll be brief since I think many of the points have already

[ Page 606 ]

been covered. The former speaker talked about England and Wales and that upset me a little bit. On our side of the House we talk about the United Kingdom. (Laughter.)

Seriously, food and shelter have to be the two subjects which concern any government above all others. If people can't eat and they haven't got a roof over their heads, then society is in a big mess. I think with the rapid escalation in the costs of food and the shortage of accommodation and the costs of existing accommodation that these undoubtedly have to be two of the primary challenges to this government or to any government at the present time.

So often the primary issues cannot be decided primarily by one level of government. We often hear in this House about pleas for federal-provincial cooperation. But certainly one reason that I am very eager to support this bill is that I hope it will give this government, through its Minister, a closer liaison and understanding of the federal-provincial scene and the degree to which this government can meet and discuss, with Mr. Basford and others involved in the field, the whole question of dealing with the cost.

Because, really, the only reason — it sounds perhaps too simplistic — but the only reason there's a shortage of housing is the cost. Well, it may not be the only reason but it's the main reason. And the main reason cost is a factor is that there is a lack of incentives. If there were real incentives to people to build houses and the cost was not prohibitive, you would be solving the problem.

I think that a lot of these ancillary reasons that have been brought up in debate today are part of the picture. But the big problem is the cost of housing, and this has been covered by others talking about the cost of serviced land, the cost of labour and the added costs of sales tax and federal tax on building supplies, and so on — we needn't go over all that again. That is an established fact, well pointed out by the debate so far.

The question of cost certainly has to be a factor and particularly the interest rate on mortgages. I'm very pleased that the Minister is on record…. I have a clipping from one of the newspapers — September some time — where the Minister makes it very plain that he recognizes the high cost of money as being one of the very considerable obstacles to creating more housing, whatever type of kind of housing. I think this applies in general to all types of construction.

The Minister is on record as saying that they are looking at a variety of ways in which the interest rate on a first mortgage could be kept within reasonable limits. I think this is a big first step and this party will certainly be in support of that goal of making first mortgage money available at an interest rate which is below what it is at the present time.

One of the Members has indicated that cost isn't a factor. I have statistics that say that the cost of urban land in the last three or four years has gone up 12 per cent annually.

MR. WILLIAMS: I didn't say that. You said it was the only fact. I was just correcting you.

MR. WALLACE: The main problem in housing is the cost….

MR. WILLIAMS: You didn't have the solutions right, that's all.

MR. WALLACE: The solutions I am suggesting, Mr. Member, will have to lie in two areas. One is minimizing the cost of money; two is providing incentives that I'm thinking about, which again might be forthcoming if federal-provincial cooperation could be brought about, would be to look at the possibility of allowing the interest on a mortgage to be deducted as against federal income tax.

Now there's nothing revolutionary about this. Again if I can refer to the United Kingdom for example: the part of the premium that a person pays on life insurance in the United Kingdom is a tax deductible expense. This is an attempt to encourage individuals to look after their own family and their own dependants if they should die.

I think in terms of housing, if federal and provincial governments really mean what they say — that there is a housing crisis, that they acknowledge the tremendous importance of food and shelter — then I think that in terms of tax incentives, or tax relief, this should be an area where the Minister of the new department could very well put this kind of proposal to the federal government that the question, not necessarily all of the interest, but…. This is already allowed in terms of business concerns. If you operate a business you can deduct the interest on the loan or a mortgage from the cost of doing business. I think that this could well be extended to the question of residential accommodation on much the same principle as the homeowner grant was provided provincially. You only got it against one building, namely your recognized residence. I think that the federal government should be approached and asked whether they would go along with this, or what conditions they might apply.

You can't complain on one hand about lack of incentives without putting forward some positive proposals of our own, and these other factors have been mentioned — that we should get rid of the sales tax particularly on building materials and look also at the 5 per cent sales tax provincially.

There are many other factors which I think should be considered. Again to return to the United Kingdom, the principle of government subsidy for housing has been well established in that country. I

[ Page 607 ]

can't speak for the more recent changes in the system, but I think a former speaker today mentioned that 20 per cent of houses in England and Wales had been built under the subsidy programme. It's simply a well recognized thing in Britain that houses in every community are available at a subsidized cost to the residents.

I have to disagree with some of the implications made in Canada that this leads to ghettos and segregation, and so on and so forth. This certainly is not a clear result of the programmes that they have in the United kingdom. Some of the what we call "municipal housing schemes" are extremely well developed with open space and parks and recreational areas for the children and so on. If it can be done in Britain, I don't see why it can't be done in British Columbia.

The fact that research is needed, it need not be in great depth. I think that if the Minister would look at the British scene, and I'm not suggesting for a minute, through you, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister that everything's rosy in Britain either. They have big problems there too. But I'm saying that they got into the field of municipal-subsidized housing many years ago and surely their experience is something that we can learn from. I think it would be a very wise approach either for the Minister to visit the United Kingdom or to send someone like the speaker who offered her services, under certain conditions, to conduct further research.

AN HON. MEMBER: She wanted to be paid.

MR. WALLACE: I was pleased that the Minister had also commented earlier on, and was quoted on the press as saying that he was not about to set up a government Crown corporation. I think we're facing an ever increasing plethora of Crown corporations — and the Attorney General cringes in light of the bill that was introduced today.

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: Oh, yes — giving the government certain specific powers.

I think, as I said at the outset, federal-provincial-municipal cooperation is very important, also consultation to a greater degree with everyone who is involved in the housing picture, whether it's a question of construction or otherwise.

The municipal people tell me that there's also one big snag in the delays in bringing about subdivisions — the amount of red tape and bureaucracy between the municipal and the provincial arms of government can very often lead to tremendous delays in creation of subdivisions which have been in the works for some time. I think if this is the case, again, closer liaison would help. The municipal people also tell me that the servicing requirements under NHA are extremely tough and sometimes excessive, so here is another area where a greater degree of consultation would probably get around that problem.

One final point I would like to make, Mr. Speaker, is the question of land not yet developed but scheduled for development. The recent amendments to the Assessment Equalization Act have made it very difficult for some intending single-family owners who buy the land and have not the money to build the house and wait for a year, or two or three until they can afford to put on the improvements. The new legislation has really increased the tax on vacant land. Whether or not the government was aware of this very unfortunate consequence when it brought in the amendment I don't know, but I would strongly appeal to this government now to further amend the Assessment Equalization Act so that the person intending to build a family home on a single lot should not suffer the considerable penalty of increased taxation during the time that he is saving up the money to put on the improvements.

It's an enormous subject, the question of housing, and different speakers have touched on different points. But I think for the record we must make it plain that we support the bill. We hope that it will not result in the eventual setting up of a Crown corporation where the government seeks to control the whole field, as it's seeking to do in certain other areas, and that the emphasis be placed on trying to solve the problem of costs via the vehicle of incentives to the potential homeowner, and to the potential constructor.

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): Mr. Speaker, in just following what the Member said in supporting this bill, I don't think we're here to restrict or to control. We're here really to do quite the opposite, to loosen things up and be innovative. We did not put rent controls on apartments and other forms of housing: we realize the consequences of that. We don't believe in that. But by gosh, we certainly expect with this kind of incentive now that we will see people going into building apartments, duplexes, condominiums, et cetera.

Along this whole idea of being innovative and very aggressive, the Minister and I have had several discussions about the purchasing of land. I just assume you pretty well start here. And I was not trying to manipulate yesterday, I was simply trying to find out from you what has been the response to letters that the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) and you have sent out to all municipalities asking for help in acquiring land.

You tell me that very, very few people have replied. I know in my own riding that none of the municipalities have replied, and I will be after them again tomorrow. I have written them all letters again,

[ Page 608 ]

because the District of Mission has 64,000 acres within the district. The district itself owns an awful lot of land and could help us, and could remind us where the Crown grant land is.

It is kind of ironical, Mr. Speaker, but even the government does not have an inventory system for knowing where even its own land is. Through public works and the new land secretary we're going to get some kind of efficient, businesslike system to know where our inventory of lands held under various Crown departments are. So I am just appealing to you. I think we should remind the House that we start with land.

Attempts have been made. The Minister tells me he's spent — I don't know if he's spent all of the $10 million that we allotted him in the estimates, but certainly he's spent a great deal on land. But very, very, few municipalities — I think Smithers was one and there are a few others — have helped in securing land.

I don't think any Member has said, but I understand the District of North Vancouver has not been all that helpful regarding the Blair Range, regarding getting services. Maybe the House isn't aware of the somewhat obstructive tactics of that municipality in not getting….

Interjection.

MR. ROLSTON: Well, we're told they're not allowing, they're not encouraging services up to that property, a large property which I gather is held partly by the federal government and which surely it is a great place for a lot of housing.

I would hope in British Columbia that we would continue to be innovative….

AN HON. MEMBER: You've got your facts wrong.

MR. ROLSTON: Well, let's hope that the facts are wrong there, Mr. Member.

AN HON. MEMBER: Check them.

MR. ROLSTON: We'll do that, but this is what I have been told.

I would hope that we continue to be innovative in the building of houses. We have had several companies in British Columbia in recent history that have tried to do modular housing. When I lived up on the west coast of Vancouver Island, houses were prefabricated and sent up there. There were houses that were built in North Vancouver, and I think on the side of the Fraser River, shipped up in barges to Campbell River, sent right across from Campbell River to Gold River and became part of that community.

I think a great deal could be done here. I think you could encourage the modular housing. I'm thinking that we might even go as far as not just wood, but aluminum and steel. We remember the Habitat experience at Expo 67 of a modular type of, thing. It was a very expensive thing and maybe that particular structure wasn't appropriate, but I would assume that much more could be done in modular housing. We have very innovative craftsman and businesses here, and I would hope your department could encourage that. Not just wood, but other products.

Just speaking about the unions, my experience has been that it is often very helpful to have union craftsman building houses. One of the advantages — and I understand this is one of the reasons why this government wants to see more people organized — is that along with organization you also get some quality. You get a guy who's certified, but there's also a certain standard that is expected of a carpenter.

Now the people who work at framing houses, my experience was that these framers, especially if they were organized, were much faster, they had the proper tools. They didn't come in with four or five pieces of equipment, often with a square that was out of tune, and just sloppy. I think most professional groups — the Member next to me is a doctor — are expected to have equipment to do the job. As a clergyman I am expected to have equipment to do a job. And I think that's one of the hopes that we have.

In housing it's been my experience that unionized people are not necessarily more expensive when it comes to productivity. I don't know if the Member for South Okanagan (Mr. Bennett) was referring to that when he was talking about the actual labour expense in building housing if it was a government project but my experience is that often it is certainly no more expensive. And we really can, I think, expect even a greater productivity at no greater labour cost per square foot in housing.

We have had discussions here about the quality in houses. As one who bought his first house only last May, I was shocked in going through houses. There used to be the cross-bracing underneath the flooring, and now you see the one-by-three strip. And that's supposed to be adequate. We know that isn't adequate; people tell us that's not adequate.

I would hope that your department, working with the building inspectors and the municipalities, could keep a little bit of an eye out, and not be pushy but certainly encourage building inspectors, maybe by gathering them together now and then for a little conference, to keep up the quality and make them very aware of what the government and what this department expects in quality in housing.

I would hope that the Minister would — I guess along with the Attorney General's (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) department in somewhat of a policing

[ Page 609 ]

role — collaborate and turf out the people who build houses or condominiums which are just dreadful, first of all, as far as quality goes. But then, even worse than that I think, we have some dreadful illustrations in the riding of Dewdney and other places where the company plans to go broke, it goes broke and the people who are the jobbers and who have the subcontracts of various trades are left holding the bag.

The Attorney General knows of some really horrible illustrations in Maple Ridge of condominium units that are still not completed or, if they are completed, the company has been resold and resold and resold, the people have lost their down payment, it's just a dreadful financial mire. I could mention names; it is tempting to mention certain developers. But I think the Members of this House are aware of this and we hope that you can, with the Attorney General's department, do some policing here, We all know about co-op housing, but I wonder if the Members are aware of some of the really simple advantages of co-op housing. They can enjoy high quality housing at a significantly lower cost; they don't need to pay legal or real estate fees when they purchase or when they sell their shares. I believe they need only to pay $10 per Member. They put down a $1,000 deposit which they get back, of course, when they move out of the co-op unit. Co-op members or owners having equity can enjoy the $200 annual homeowner grant. The monthly costs usually remain stable. Occasionally they increase, but usually the directors of each co-op have considerable input.

I think we should be very proud of Shirley Smidt, the executive director of United Housing Foundation. I have been most impressed with this person and the projects that she is into. Every week we seem to be discussing a new event that United Housing Foundation and the co-op people are promoting. You mentioned one that's being opened tomorrow.

I haven't discussed this in caucus, but I personally would like you to go for legislation giving $50 rental rebate to the disabled people of this province. We do this now for the senior citizens, and I would hope that you could change the legislation next spring to see that there's a $50 allowance for the two or three thousand disabled people that should have that privilege in B.C.

The last thing I wanted to say — and again this is one of these nitty-gritty things — is about zoning. Because housing does involve zoning. I understand the Social Credit government introduced land-use contracts, am I correct on that, the land-use contract where you can amend a zoning situation with a special land-use contract. Now, my experience is that they wanted to give some rigidity, some kind of control. There were some pretty arbitrary things happening in the past. But I wonder if the House agrees that maybe the pendulum has swung from a very laissez faire to a very rigid position on land-use contracts. That's been my experience.

In many cases in Maple Ridge and in Mission, my goodness, these people are ogres and nobody can seem to get a land-use contract on things. We could talk about mobile home parks, and I can think of two condominium units that were turned down. I'm just wondering. It is my feeling that maybe at this time in history some of these decisions are a little bit too arbitrary. I don't know who is helping whom. Maybe this is one way of keeping the price going up and up and up on the existing land and the existing land that is zoned for multi-use. But my experience has been that the land-use thing has swung to too rigid a position.

Now my last comment in keeping with this, I must confess — and the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams) knows that I grew up only a block away from where he now lives — but I had a real hang-up about duplexes. I think one of the worst things that could ever happen would be a duplex in West Vancouver. In fact right next door to my parents' place there was a couple who were naughty-naughty. They had a duplex in the basement of their home. And this was a very terrible thing.

I am just wondering if we haven't — and I admit my blocks here — if we haven't grown up with some really misguided misgivings about multi-units in various parts of communities. If it's West Vancouver or if it's Mission, I think we really ought to look at this. I think a great many units in Vancouver could be loosened up. I really don't see why great chunks of not just the East End, but great chunks of Vancouver couldn't…. There would be basement apartments or garret apartments or many other apartments that would be quite appropriate and meaningful. Obviously this is going to loosen up a great deal of housing accommodation.

Now of course I really agree with some of the Members, on looking at the 5 per cent provincial sales tax and 11 per cent regressive federal sales tax on building materials, that we really have to look at this. I think Members on both sides of the House have so rightly pointed out that this is really regressive legislation. I suppose you could argue that we collect the taxation and we hopefully redistribute it throughout our various housing programmes for lower-income people, but I am not convinced that really is happening.

I wish you all the best, sir. You've got an immense task. We could go on and on and on, but I want to support you and at times be pretty aggressive with you to make it possible to be innovative and to at least begin to control some of the costs in housing, this most essential fact of life. Thank you.

MR. J.H. GORST (Esquimalt): 1, too, rise to support the Minister in the new appointment, to

[ Page 610 ]

congratulate him with my words of good wishes to his department and the new task he has before him.

Well, Mr. Speaker, a great deal has been said this morning on the housing department and the new direction that that department will be taking, so I will just be brief in my remarks.

I would like to make a few remarks about this very basic human right of housing, along with the food, clothing, health, education et cetera.

It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that one of the very prime problems here is the high interest rates, which go along with housing and people trying to get a place for themselves and their families to live and grow up in. I notice that the new long-term mortgage that is now available at 40 years really only seems to facilitate the monthly payment while having the effect of making the final purchase price one that staggers the mind.

I recently noticed here in this area of British Columbia where a purchaser of an $18,000 mortgage over 40 years at $200 is going to pay a final price of $96,000 for that dwelling. Now I think that we have here the very same old question when a person asks not the price of the product but how much a month is it going to cost to get in, with no thought to the end result.

All kinds of arguments are put forward for the high cost of housing, and quite justifiably so, but one is the high cost of land. I happened to note that there is a report that housing in this area since 1969 up to this time, has increased an average of $6,000 a dwelling in that short space of four years. I would guess that a great deal of that increase, probably the major portion of it, is on the price of the land itself, a part of housing that has for too long now been treated as a commodity which is speculated on. On that speculation is added the high interest rate of the mortgage, calculated on the price of the land, which really has nothing to do with the cost of the house.

I think it would make far greater sense, Mr. Speaker, through the provincial government housing department, to assemble the land and provide it on a lease basis to homeowners, thereby saving the homeowner, the burden of the interest rate on the land and taking that profiteering and speculation on the land out of the housing operation.

Mortgage funds, quite obviously, cannot be provided from the private sector for low-cost housing because the prime purpose of that quarter is to make money. I think that what we need is a provincial housing mortgage corporation, through which mortgage funds for individual homeownership could be made available at a low rate of, say, 5 per cent.

Now that's not so odd. It's been done for 25 years now, or more, through the Veterans' Land Settlement Act, for hundreds of thousands of Canadians, at 5.5 per cent. Therefore we should be able to do it for all Canadians. There should be no problem.

The only problem is one of attitude and social conscience. If you are prepared to take the profiteering and speculation out of the hands of the private sector you can place housing where it belongs — with the people's representatives and their government — to provide those kinds of funds so that they can get housing for their families.

Land and home mortgage funds have come to the point where there is just no other way than that which I have expressed to provide housing for our people. This present system of relying on the private sector continually works at the aggravated expense of the average person.

I agree with the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) that too many older homes are being torn down in our communities. But there again, those structures are victims of land speculation and high mortgage rates and really have nothing to do with providing housing for people. Any housing that is provided is secondary to the original concept of making another dollar. In most cases it makes far more sense to upgrade those homes and provide some families with a civilized environment to grow up in.

I note, too, that the majority of apartments that are constructed are all-too-small in square footage of space — the rooms are small, there is inadequate area for children to study, relax in, for families to have a place of their own to be alone, to have a quiet moment. Most of these apartments are such little, box-like places that they are in no way conducive to developing a good lifestyle.

Mr. Speaker, I look at this area around the parliament buildings, James Bay, and then I look at the West End of Vancouver, with its jungle of high-rises, the most densely populated area in the world.

AN HON. MEMBER: In the world?

MR. GORST: That's right. That's right. The West End of Vancouver has the greatest population density per square mile than any….

Interjections.

MR. GORST: Well, we obviously have some disbelievers here.

AN HON. MEMBER: I believe you, Jim.

MR. GORST: Thank you.

I don't think we can continue on that basis, Mr. Speaker. It seems to me that the direction and the development of our communities, the social lifestyle therein, is being decided upon by others than those who will live in the community. I don't think we can

[ Page 611 ]

make the low-cost land on a lease available so that those engaged in reaping enormous profits through mortgages can continue to practise in that trade.

I also note that some regional districts and municipalities now wish to enter the land assembly field. I think that's good, but I would ask that, when they provide the lots they assemble for homes, they lease them rather than sell them. Along with that, they should find funds available which can be provided at a very low rate, funds that are made available through social capital rather than private capital.

I would like to come back to the area of James Bay here, adjacent to the parliament buildings. There are now 14 high-rise buildings in that area. It's a very small area and I wouldn't want to see any more.

Mr. Speaker, it is my opinion that we as a provincial government ought to secure all this general area around the legislative buildings under provincial government direction and guidance so that we ensure that our buildings and our waterfront do not end up as a Vancouver West End type of development.

I would like to conclude by saying that I view the matter of housing as a question of who is going to direct the development of our community. I repeat that those who profiteer on land and mortgages must not be allowed to continue to develop and direct and formulate the kind of community that we are going to live in. Housing, I would suggest, is now in the same context as highways, hospitals, health and education, and is really a social utility and has to be provided for in that way through social capital which can only come through government intervention.

MR. WILLIAMS: I just have a few remarks that I would like to make in this debate.

Members have wished the Minister well. I don't. I hope he has a hell of a time! As the debate has indicated, the housing situation in the Province of British Columbia, particularly in the urban areas, is very, very serious and it's not going to be solved unless the Minister really gets down to work. I hope that in six months he comes back to this House haggard, tired, with the job done. But so far in this debate and his opening motion, he hasn't convinced me that the job is going to be done.

I think we should borrow a technique from the American system: Ministers who are undertaking serious responsibilities are obliged to come before the House and be voted upon as to whether their credentials are satisfactory. All I can say at the moment, if we had this system here, is that I'm not sure the Minister would get very many votes based upon what he said today.

He has been the Minister Without Portfolio responsible for housing, he has had $10 million available to him for expenditure for those purposes, and yet we haven't seen one positive step taken by this Minister to provide one new housing unit.

This isn't like the bill we debated yesterday to establish the department of consumer affairs because that's a wide-ranging department covering a lot of responsibilities. This bill, Mr. Speaker, deals with a very narrow responsibility. I'm not saying the problems are easy, but it is a very narrow responsibility.

There's one difference between this bill and the one we debated yesterday. This one gives the Minister tremendous amounts of money. He's being handed whatever the balance of the $10 million might be from the Housing Incentive Fund, and further moneys are going to be made available by the Minister of Finance. So it's a little different from the one we had before and I think that we are entitled to some more positive indication from the Minister as to what he plans to do before voting on second reading.

I said the problem was a very narrow one and there's no question that it is. The problem is that we don't have enough housing units. Housing is the one area where the law of supply and demand really functions. If you've got enough housing units, your other problems disappear — and we don't have enough. The Minister has not given any indication that he knows how to provide enough.

I suspect that with the demand that we have today and with continuing demand, we are never going to have enough. Unless we start aggressively to build housing units of all types, we are never ever going to approach the day when the supply of housing in our communities will be more than enough to meet the demand and the problems resulting from undersupply will disappear.

Mr. Speaker, we have talked about this at length today. I think one thing must be clear: the problem is most serious in the large, urban communities. You can go into the housing problem, but it is not as severe as you find in the urban areas. This is because we have two kinds of immigration. We have immigration from within the province where people are flowing from rural communities towards the urban centres, and then we have the immigration from outside our borders. That is going to continue. The Minister must come to grips with that problem first of all by coming to grips with the people who control land development in the urban centres: the municipalities.

The Minister indicated to us that he was looking forward to cooperating with the municipalities to enable the job to start. Well, I trust that the kind of cooperation which the Minister has in mind is not the kind of cooperation which the municipalities have experienced from the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) in matters of urban transit. If that's the kind of cooperation that this Minister is going to offer to the municipalities, he might just as

[ Page 612 ]

well forget it.

The municipalities have a very special responsibility and that responsibility is to the citizens and the taxpayers in that municipality. Those municipal governments are a lot closer to the citizens and taxpayers than this provincial government is to its taxpayers. They, the local governments, must respond much more rapidly to the wishes of their local taxpayers than is the case with the provincial government.

I was startled to hear the Member for Dewdney (Mr. Rolston), without factual knowledge, attacking the District of North Vancouver. Sure, the Minister at one time thought he was going to acquire significant parts of Blair Rifle Range, and certainly there was some difficulty with the District of North Vancouver. It was a very simple difficulty, Mr. Speaker: who was going to pay for the cost of servicing the land?

I would like to hear the Minister indicate whether he thinks the municipality should pay that expense or whether it should be the expense of the developer, whether it be a private developer or the provincial government. Unless the Minister is able to solve the riddle of the Gordian knot — if he remembers how that riddle was finally solved — unless he reaches that solution with regard to municipal cooperation, then he's not going any place with his housing department. The municipalities, in the areas where the housing is most critical, control zoning, building bylaws, and hence, land development.

I urge the Minister to move rapidly, reasonably and responsibly to meetings with the municipal governments to resolve these difficulties. For years under the former administration the municipalities suffered financial inequity. Problems have been created for those local governments with rising burdens thrust upon them but with one single revenue source — namely, taxes upon real property; and they can't carry that burden any longer.

This Minister, if he is going to move forward with his department, will need the assistance of his colleagues in the cabinet in resolving that financial dilemma that faces the local governments before he is going to get the kind of cooperation that he will need to have.

I would have thought that we would have heard from this Minister, at the time of introducing this legislation, some indication of the positive steps that he is going to take to provide housing.

The Hon. Second Member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) made excellent suggestions. There have been excellent suggestions from all the Members who have taken their place in this debate. Not one from the Minister. What's he been doing for the last four or five months? I understand — and I readily accept what he said — that no one is going to become an expert in four or five months.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): He sure wasn't that rapid on the agricultural committee.

MR. WILLIAMS: But what he said was that maybe he wouldn't become an expert in four or five years. Now are we going to have to wait for four or five years before the Minister can indicate those positive steps that he will take to solve the housing crisis?

HON. MR. BARRETT: He's not going to follow the federal Liberal….

MR. WILLIAMS: He's not, eh? No. Well, I'm very glad to hear that, Mr. Speaker, that he's not going to take that long because I happen to agree with the Hon. Premier and Minister of Finance with his criticism — and I assume it was a criticism — of the federal Liberal policies. I just hope that the Minister doesn't fall into the same kind of trap.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Don't become a Liberal.

MR. WILLIAMS: That's right. Don't become a Liberal. I agree. (Laughter.)

It's not that I want that Minister to maintain the same conservative approach that he has adopted up to date to his problems — of not having any ideas. (Laughter.)

Everybody laughs about this matter. As a result of decisions which were made by the federal government, we've got the problem that we've got today. I say it and I will continue to say it. We don't want those kind of solutions from this Minister. But he said nothing to indicate what his solutions might be. If I'm left in some quandary then, Mr. Speaker, it is the worry that his solutions may be those which we have seen before.

You know, we just have a need. How are you going to build the houses? How are you going to build the apartment buildings? We need to have single-family homes for sale and for rent. How are you going to provide them? What's your first step, Mr. Minister? You've got $10 million. You've had four or five months and you've done nothing. Please tell us what your first step is going to be.

When will we see the first new housing unit as a result of activities of your department? Do you have a time-table? Do you have a schedule? I hope that the Minister can answer these questions because the people of this province who need housing are tired of listening to all the debates that have gone on all the year — under the former administration as well — meetings with the federal government, meetings with the local government, meetings with the provincial government — and they haven't produced one more housing unit. The problem has become worse.

Now if this Minister has got the answers, Mr.

[ Page 613 ]

Speaker, then let's hear from him today. And if he has got the answers and we hear from him today, maybe we'll vote second reading of this bill.

MR. R.T. CUMMINGS (Vancouver–Little Mountain): I would like to adjourn this debate to the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources): Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the House to file an information White Paper with respect to Interior stumpage appraisals, Leave granted.

MR. FX RICHTER (Leader of the Opposition): May I inquire from the Leader of the government what is anticipated for Monday?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the introduction of bills, continuation of second reading, and then on to committee stage, oral questions, oral answers… (Laughter.)

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:51 p.m.