[ Page 1903 ]

CONTENTS

Statement

Awarding of ferry construction contracts. Hon. Mr. Strachan — 1903

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Department of Highways estimates.

On vote 98.

Mr. Phillips — 1903

Hon. Mr. Lea — 1905

Mr. Phillips — 1905

Mrs. Jordan — 1907

Mr. Fraser — 1912

Hon. Mr. Lea — 1913

Mr. Chabot — 1914

Division on motion that the committee rise — 1916

Mr. Chabot — 1917

Mrs. Jordan — 1918

Mr. L.A. Williams — 1921

Hon. Mr. Lea — 1921

Mr. Phillips — 1921

Mr.Chabot — 1924

Hon. Mr. Lea — 1925

On vote 100.

Mr. McClelland — 1925

Hon. Mr. Lea — 1929

Mrs. Jordan — 1930

Hon. Mr. Lea — 1932

Mr. L.A. Williams — 1932

Hon. Mr. Lea — 1933

Mr. Bennett — 1933

Hon. Mr. Lea — 1933

Mr. Curtis — 1933

Hon. Mr. Lea — 1933

Mr. Bennett — 1934

Mr. Fraser — 1934

Hon. Mr. Lea — 1934

On vote 102.

Mr. Morrison — 1934

Hon. Mr. Lea — 1934

On vote 103.

Mr. Bennett — 1934

Mr. McClelland — 1934

Hon. Mr. Lea — 1935

Mr. Schroeder — 1935

On vote 105.

Mr. Curtis — 1935

Hon. Mr. Lea — 1935

Mr. Fraser — 1935

Hon. Mr. Lea — 1935

Department of Housing estimates. On vote 106.

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 1936

Mr. Chabot — 1937

Division on motion that the committee rise — 1937

Mr. Phillips — 1937

Division on motion that the committee rise — 1944

Mr. Phillips — 1944

Division on motion that the Chairman leave the chair — 1944

Mr. Phillips — 1944

Division on motion that the committee rise — 1945

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 1945

Mr. Steves — 1947

Mrs. Jordan — 1948

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 1951

Mr. Chabot — 1954

Division on Mr. Chairman's ruling — 1956

Mr. Steves — 1957

Mrs. Webster — 1958

Mr. L.A. Williams — 1959

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 1961

Mr. L.A. Williams — 1962

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 1962

Mr. Gibson — 1963

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 1963

Mr. Wallace — 1963

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 1966

Mr. G.H. Anderson — 1967

Mr. Curtis — 1968

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 1969

Mr. Fraser — 1970

Mr. Phillips — 1970

Division on motion that the Chairman leave the chair — 1980

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1980

Division on motion that the committee rise — 1980

Division on time of next sitting — 1981

Point of order

Appropriateness of preceding motion. Mr. L.A. Williams — 1981

Mr. Speaker — 1981

Mr. L.A. Williams — 1981

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1981

Mr. Speaker's ruling — 1982

Mr. L.A. Williams — 1982

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1982

Mr. Speaker — 1982

FRIDAY, MARCH 29, 1974

The House met at 2 p.m.

MR. C. LIDEN (Delta): Mr. Speaker, at the unanimous request of the Special Committee on Assessment Procedures I ask leave to move a motion which would allow the committee to sit during the session.

Leave granted.

MR. LIDEN: I would move, Mr. Speaker, that the Special Committee on Assessment Procedures be empowered to sit during the sitting of the House and the Committee of the Whole House.

Motion approved.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the House to make a short statement regarding the awarding of ferry contracts.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, contract awards for three new British Columbia ferries at a total cost of $40,555,516 are being awarded today. Burrard Dry Dock Company Limited will build two passenger car ferries at a cost of $28,852,913 for the pair. The price includes consideration of a 17 per cent federal government subsidy. The third ferry, designed for carrying commercial trailered vehicles mainly but also suitable to campers and cars, will be built by Vancouver Shipyards Company Ltd. at a cost of $11,702,603, also with the federal subsidy applied.

Burrard will construct one of the car ferries at Vancouver and one at Esquimalt in its subsidiary shipyard operation, Yarrows Ltd. These contracts mean employment for up to 700 men in Vancouver, and up to 350 in the Esquimalt yard over a period of 18 months. Delivery is expected in the spring of 1976.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS

(continued)

On vote 98: Minister's office, $110,176.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Chairman, I have just a couple of items I'd like to bring up. Last evening in the House the Hon. Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) asked the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) if they were planning to link a number of the Gulf Islands by highways. The Minister of Highways replied that this was a laugh — that the former Minister of Highways had prepared such a study and that the study was available in his office and if she would like to come and get it she was welcome to it.

Then the government took off with great gales of laughter and pounding of their desks like a stampede of wild horses, misleading the people of this province into thinking that there was no such study, or if there was such a study done it was more or less of a laughing matter and that the study was worth absolutely nothing.

Now, I have this study in front of me. Mr. Chairman, I believe the map provided in this study is close to the routes that will be used by the ferries to link the Gulf Islands by bridge to the mainland. So I'd like the Minister to tell me what all the gales of laughter were about last night. Is this more of his trying to...I shouldn't say mislead the House, but just what is going on over on that side of the House? Does the Minister of Highways not talk to the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan)? Or is it just more incapacity of the Minister to have a broader view of what is going on in this province than his own department?

I was very interested this morning, Mr. Chairman, to hear the Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) tell the Legislature that the cheapest way for the Minister of Highways to travel around the province was in a 12-place helicopter.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would point out to the Hon. Member that the subject of the Minister and the helicopter has been pretty thoroughly canvassed. I would caution him, if he intends to raise the matter again, to be sure to raise a new point.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I didn't hear you bring the Member for Shuswap to order this morning when he was trying to mislead the people of this province, talking about something he knows absolutely nothing about, trying to tell the people of this province that they should have a helicopter instead of an automobile!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I was not in the House at the time the Hon. Member for Shuswap was speaking. I would ask the Hon. Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) to withdraw the imputation that the Member for Shuswap was trying to mislead the House.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, he was, Mr. Chairman! He told the Members of this Legislature that it was

[ Page 1904 ]

cheaper for the Minister of Highways to travel in a helicopter than it was for him to hire an automobile!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. PHILLIPS: And you didn't bring him to order!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The Hon. Member for South Peace River made a statement about another Hon. Member which is unparliamentary. I'm asking the Hon. Member for South Peace River to withdraw it.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I'll certainly withdraw it, but I'll just have to take into consideration that the Member for Shuswap knows nothing about what he's talking about.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. PHILLIPS: Either that or he's completely ignorant of the facts. Because I want to tell you the super-colossal waste and extravagance by the Minister of Highways is not going to be tolerated by the taxpayers that I represent.

If he thinks he can hoodwink the people of British Columbia and get one of his backbenchers to back him up along with the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) and the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke)....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would point out again to the Hon. Member for South Peace River that any suggestion or any imputation that another Hon. Member was trying to mislead or hoodwink or anything of that nature is out of order. I would ask him to withdraw that imputation.

MR. PHILLIPS: I will withdraw the imputation, Mr. Chairman, but this mammoth expenditure on such a small trip still should be open to debate. This is not the first instance of squandering of the taxpayers' money by this government in the short months they've been in office.

I think we should name that Minister the Whirlybird Minister. He's been in a spin ever since he's been appointed to his Ministry.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Again I would caution the Hon. Member that this subject has been very thoroughly canvassed and I would ask him to get to his new point.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I want to talk about a subject for a moment which is very dear to my heart. I refer to a highway in the Province of British Columbia, to a highway in the northern part of British Columbia, to a highway that was built and paid for by United States of America between 1941 and 1944. I refer, of course, to the Alaska Highway.

This highway was built by the American government shortly after Pearl Harbour. It was given to Canada....

MR. R.T. CUMMINGS (Vancouver–Little Mountain): Oh, come on. The Yankees never gave us anything!

MR. PHILLIPS: There's that chirp, chirp, chirp again! Where's the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley)? I sure wish he'd fix that chirp down there.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. PHILLIPS: He probably doesn't even know where the Alaska Highway is, that chirp.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'd ask the Second Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain not to interrupt the Hon. Member for South Peace River.

MR. PHILLIPS: Just ask him to leave the House. We'd never miss him.

This highway was given to Canada by the United States. All they were asked to do was maintain the highway and to see that the Americans would have the same right of travel over it as Canadians. I'm concerned, with the attitude of the Minister of Highways that he doesn't want American campers on our highways, that he might barricade the Alaska highway and, indeed, not live up to the terms of that treaty that was signed with the United States when they gave us that highway.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would point out to the Hon. Member that the subject which he has now raised — that is, the Minister's comments on tourism — has also been very thoroughly canvassed. I would ask him to confine his remarks to any new points....

MR. PHILLIPS: Not as it relates to a treaty between Canada and the United States, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CUMMINGS: You're out of your tree!

MR. PHILLIPS: You've been out of yours for a long time!

This concerns me, Mr. Chairman, because that highway is a very, very important link in north-south travel. As a matter of fact, it is the only land link between the State of Alaska and the continental United States.

I would like to know, Mr. Chairman, what the

[ Page 1905 ]

Minister feels about the upgrading of that highway, that very important link. It has been forgotten by Ottawa for over 20 years. It's a highway that has developed, brought in and opened up areas that have added millions and millions and millions of dollars in taxes to Ottawa, yet it has been forgotten by Ottawa. That highway should have been upgraded and paved 15 years ago. In 1952, there was a start by the then Conservative government to indeed do just that.

When Governor-General Pearkes was Minister of Defence, he laid down a programme of upgrading and paving 50 miles of that highway per year. On a highway that stretches 1,578 miles from Dawson Creek to Fairbanks, Alaska, it may seem like a very short amount of highway to be paved in one year. But had that programme been carried forward, we would have had over 1,000 miles of that highway paved today.

This highway, Mr. Chairman, through you to the Minister, has more tourist potential than, indeed, does the Trans-Canada Highway. No, not if you don't allow any Americans on it, but our $660 million tourist industry would grow to over $1 billion if that highway were upgraded and paved.

Mr. Chairman, I made the statement just a moment ago that there was more tourist potential on this highway than there was on the Trans-Canada Highway. I say this for the following reasons: In the State of California, there are more people living than there are in this whole Dominion of ours. The largest majority of the people are very well-to-do, and a very large percentage of them are either retired or semi-retired. These people are looking for new frontiers in which to take their vacations. They want to travel to a land that is still unspoiled. They want to see territory and climatic conditions and mountains and areas which they can find nowhere else in the world.

In the State of Oregon, we have two million-plus people. In the State of Washington, we have another three million-plus people. This is just the west coast of the United States of America. These people want to travel to Alaska.

Mr. Chairman, what holds them up? What are keeping those dollars at home? Lack, Mr. Chairman, of a decent highway. This is what is holding them up.

I understand, Mr. Chairman, that there are presently negotiations with the federal government in a highway programme to upgrade the highway. I understand that finally Ottawa is willing to negotiate with the province. The position of British Columbia has been for quite some number of years that if Ottawa puts the highway in the condition that it should be and paves it, the Province of British Columbia would take it over and maintain it.

Now, Mr. Chairman, this is a very, very important link. It's a very, very important highway that cost Canada nothing to build. I'll admit that she has spent millions of dollars in maintaining that highway since it was built.

Why can we not use some good business sense in Canada and in British Columbia? Where are the state of negotiations on, this very important land link?

We talk about building a new northern trans-provincial highway across the top of the Prairies. Why don't we complete this highway that is already there, which already has the potential, which has already opened up industry in the northern part of our province, and send to Ottawa millions and millions and millions of dollars of tax money?

Were it not for the Alaska Highway, there would be very, very little oil development in the northern part of British Columbia. Were it not for the Alaska Highway, there would probably be no Cassiar asbestos. Were it not for the Alaska Highway, there would probably be no mineral development in the Yukon Territory. Here is a highway that has more than repaid its debt to Canada, has more than repaid its debt to the United States of America, and now, Mr. Chairman, it's like a forgotten cousin.

Mr. Chairman, there are negotiations going on. I would like the Minister to tell the House this afternoon: what are the state of these negotiations, how are they progressing, what will it mean to British Columbians, what will it mean to that great land link between British Columbia and Alaska? I would ask at this time, Mr. Chairman, if the Minister would advise the House, so that we can all be enlightened.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): The negotiations are coming along well and it is going to mean a great deal not only to British Columbia but a great deal more to the area that that Member comes from. It is coming along quite nicely.

MR. PHILLIPS: Quite well, interested — vague answers. Mr. Chairman, the Minister wondered why he is not getting his estimates through.

HON. MR. LEA: I didn't ask that. I'm not wondering why.

MR. PHILLIPS: The needs of the north country are urgent. The people who live and work in that north country do so, as I pointed out earlier in the House, under strenuous conditions. They put up with climatic conditions and live without amenities that the people in the lower mainland enjoy. Even the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) stated that the facilities in the north should be opened up.

Mr. Chairman, the Stewart-Cassiar Highway is in need of money, is in need of upgrading.

Why, then, Mr. Chairman, did the Premier ban the Member from Atlin (Mr. Calder) from this House? Why is the Member from Atlin not here today?

[ Page 1906 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. PHILLIPS: Why, Mr. Chairman, isn't the Member from Atlin here speaking for his riding?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. PHILLIPS: Why isn't the Premier here today so he can talk to the Minister of Highways? Where is he?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would just point out to the Hon. Member for Peace River that the matter of where an MLA or a Member of this House is is not the concern of the Minister of Highways.

I would ask him to confine his remarks to the vote that we have before us, vote 98, and not again to refer to where other Members may be. I would ask the Hon. Member to continue.

MR. PHILLIPS: I will certainly abide by your ruling and I realize that the whereabouts of the Member for Atlin is not the responsibility of the Minister of Highways.

My concern is for the people of the north.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm concerned for the people in the northern part of this province.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Get on with your filibuster.

MR. PHILLIPS: This is no filibuster. Mr. Chairman, why?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Would the Hon. Member confine his remarks to the Minister's estimates or take his seat.

AN HON. MEMBER: Think it over.

MR. PHILLIPS: Why, Mr. Chairman...I must ask you this question. Why, when a person fights for the taxpayers of this province, does the Attorney-General and the other cabinet over there continually accuse them...?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Would the Hon. Member confine his remarks to vote 98 or take his seat.

MR. PHILLIPS: Now I'd like to talk about maybe a highway that goes through your riding, Mr. Chairman.

The Minister of Highways has stated that the trans-north provincial highway from the Peace River area to Prince Rupert should be upgraded to the standard of the Trans-Canada Highway. What's he going to upgrade it with? Peanuts?

HON. MR. LEA: That's Leo's department.

MR. PHILLIPS: There's certainly not enough money in these estimates to do very much upgrading, Mr. Chairman, and you know it. How much money is going to be spent on that highway from Prince George to Prince Rupert? How much money is going to be spent in the Minister's own riding? There's a lot of that highway in your riding, Mr. Minister, that needs upgrading — a lot of that highway in your riding. I've been over it — not in a helicopter, either.

HON. MR. LEA: That's not true.

MR. PHILLIPS: I drove over it in an automobile, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. LEA: That's not true.

MR. PHILLIPS: I didn't helicopter over it. I was on the surface. I could see; I drove every turn.

HON. MR. LEA: Not true, not true.

MR. PHILLIPS: I drove every turn on the highway. I was interested in seeing the condition of that highway. I suppose I could have used a helicopter and used more unreasonable expenditures of the taxpayers' money.

But I'd like to know, Mr. Chairman, what he plans on doing to upgrade the Stewart-Cassiar road? How much money is going to be spent on the highway from Prince Rupert to Prince George? How many bridges are going to be replaced?

I'd like to press on to another subject, Mr. Chairman, for a moment. Last evening, or sometime during his estimates, he stated that there was not sufficient equipment to keep the centre lines freshly painted at all times. I'd like to ask the Minister, Mr. Chairman, if he would give some consideration to installing a permanent white line on many of these highways which have been newly built and will last for some number of years. This permanent centre line could be in the form of cats' eyes. I find it difficult, even with super, high-powered headlamps in my automobile, when it's dark and rainy, to see that centre white line if it goes through an area that has any dirt roads coming into it at all.

Conversely, when you get on a highway where cats' eyes have been installed, these cats' eyes can be observed even in foggy conditions. Since the province now owns the insurance corporation and since the Department of Highways and the ICBC should be more concerned than ever — although I know they

[ Page 1907 ]

were always concerned with cutting down on expenditures and indeed saving human life — this is one way that I'm sure the cost would be well worth it. I'd like the Minister to give me his thoughts on that matter.

So I've posed a couple of questions, Mr. Chairman: one on the Stewart-Cassiar highway, one on the Prince George-Prince Rupert highway. I asked him a question this morning on his policy with regard to three-lane passing, not only necessarily on hills, but on level spots too, and a question on the use of cats' eyes in centre lines. I'll just return to my seat while the Minister has an opportunity to answer.

HON. MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, I made it clear that I'm not prepared at this point to divulge where the negotiations are with the federal government.

MR. PHILLIPS: Just before I sit down, I didn't mention the federal government. But I posed four other questions, Mr. Chairman, and I ask once again if the Minister would be prepared to give me an answer.

Mr. Chairman, since I'm not going to get an answer on those questions, I'll just press on to a couple of other short items that I'd like to bring up.

I felt that in the interest of safety, people out on the open highway should drive both day and night with their headlights on. I do this as a matter of course because I realize that on a dull day, or if a motorist coming towards me is distracted by something else, he will at least see my headlights.

HON. MR. LEA: That's not my jurisdiction.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, that's my opinion and I'd like your opinion on it, because I feel that it is a good safety measure. Canadian Coachways and Greyhound Bus in the States cut down their sideswipes by some 20 per cent by driving with their headlights on.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I believe the Hon. Member is talking about something which is under the jurisdiction of the Motor Vehicle Branch, which is....

MR. PHILLIPS: This is Highways, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is the Hon. Member talking about headlights?

MR. PHILLIPS: I drive on the highways, Mr. Chairman, and quite often I see a sign: "Put your headlights on."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, the Hon. Member may talk about the sign but not about the headlights.

MR. PHILLIPS: All right. I'll talk about the signs then. What I'm suggesting, then, Mr. Chairman, is that the Minister of Highways put more signs on the highways, and those signs should be: "Drive with your headlights on 24 hours a day in the interest of safety; the life you save may be your own."

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, you could do it like...what was that shaving lotion? — Burmashave. You could do it in a series of signs, you know: "Drive 24 hours".... Put it in a series of signs.

AN HON. MEMBER: Burmashave is out of order.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, there's one other area of the province in which I'd like to find out the Minister's intentions for this year, and that's with regard to the Yellowhead highway. How many bridges are going to be replaced on that highway this year? Is the past policy of replacing the existing bridges going to continue?

Maybe the Minister of Highways had too much lunch, and he can't seem to get up.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member may pose questions. But the time when these answers will be given, or if they will be given, is at the discretion of the Minister.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. If the Hon. Member would like to continue, would he please continue? Otherwise, would he take his seat and give way to someone else?

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): I don't know about the Minister's lunch, but he sure sounded like a hot water bottle.

I have some questions that I asked the Minister and he hasn't answered them. He mentioned, first of all, that he would file the commitments made to the City of Kelowna, the ones accomplished and met last year and the ones that he's made in his meeting this year. We've had a break; and I would like to ask the Minister where that information is, because I'd certainly like to just discuss it with him lightly during his estimates.

I was interested in the fact that when I discussed an area along Highway 97 at Woods Lake between Woodsdale and Oyama, and pointed out to the Minister that it had been a long-range plan and was an ideal plan — that this should become a roadside park-pedestrian area — he said flatly, "No." I'd like to ask him why he said no. I can't see what he could have against it. I didn't ask him for a lot of money for it, and I didn't ask him for it to happen overnight.

[ Page 1908 ]

But this is an ideal recreational area.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! If the Hon. Member has previously asked this question, I would ask her to be brief in putting the question again.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, I don't want to repeat the question. I'm asking what his reasons are for saying no to developing a design that could stand over the years and in which citizens themselves could participate. Really, Mr. Chairman, we spend a lot of taxpayers' money hauling gravel that comes over the cliffs on that road away from the road. Why not take that gravel and that excess rock that's sloughed off and use it as part of the fill on one of these long-term designs? There are areas which need to be built up that are already there. I would like the Minister's reasons.

I would like to know the Minister's policy regarding roadside parks in the future in British Columbia. There has been a policy of the Highways department to develop certain roadside parks. This I don't feel is the Minister's responsibility specifically, but these have deteriorated. It would seem, when one looks at the potential of enjoyment by British Columbians around our highways, that there should be no effort on the part of this government to slough off roadside stops onto municipalities. There should be an increased effort, either within the department or in cooperation with the Parks Branch, to establish more roadside stops.

They needn't be elaborate in terms of major facilities. They need washroom facilities at reasonable stop areas and should keep with their environment by reflecting natural wood. The highway picnic tables, which I'm sure you have noticed, made out of cement and ceramic which have heavy cement bases underneath, were basically designed and finished in the Public Works yard in Vernon. The people enjoy using these picnic tables, and I feel the government should establish a more aggressive policy in this area. I hope the Minister would comment.

There is certainly great concern on my part after travelling across Canada and seeing what has happened in Manitoba and Saskatchewan where the government has maintained a minor position in the park branch in terms of major parks and has, in essence, shunted p ark and roadside stop developments over to the municipalities. This has resulted in a most inferior establishment of roadside stops and parks in both those provinces.

We in British Columbia — and I don't want to delve into parks and recreation at this time — enjoy perhaps one of the finest Parks Branches in the world. Our roadside stops basically have been moving in their direction. They are under the direction of Highways and this Minister should make a concentrated effort to make more and more attractive roadside stops in this province so that people can enjoy themselves, can pull off the highway, and they don't get into a position where they are forced to go from town to town. In fact, they become more town hoppers rather than tourists enjoying our communities, our people and each other.

Just on that point, I would like to introduce two new thoughts on this matter of tourism which haven't been canvassed before in this relation.

Obviously the Minister doesn't seem to appreciate that one of the major thrusts of people in North America and in many parts of the world over the last few years is to develop a better understanding of each other. Major problems in life are often caused from minor irritations when people simply won't sit down and talk to each other.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MRS. JORDAN: The whole matter of tourism.... This point hasn't been made, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I'm just cautioning the Hon. Member that the comments of the Minister have been very thoroughly canvassed. I would ask her that any of her remarks should be related to his direct administrative responsibilities.

MRS. JORDAN: They will, because he has taken it upon himself to include very bold statements about the tourist industry. I won't touch anything that's been canvassed before.

One of the biggest barriers to people harmony is misunderstanding of cultural differences, misunderstanding of people's attitudes and misunderstanding of other people's motives. We are embarking in North America, and have been for some time and have in British Columbia, on programmes that we like to call cultural exchange. We're encouraging people to meet other people from other countries, other parts of British Columbia....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MRS. JORDAN: That hasn't been mentioned before, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I just want to make a point. A Minister may make remarks ex cathedra, that is to say outside of his administrative responsibilities. That does not give the Hon. Members the right to discuss that subject in the House.

We've allowed a certain amount of latitude because this subject is partly related to his own administrative responsibilities. I would ask the Hon. Member to be very careful to keep her remarks strictly relevant to his actual administrative

[ Page 1909 ]

responsibilities.

MRS. JORDAN: I will, Mr. Chairman, but speaking of ex cathedra, this is a problem. He closed the door on the church of tourism — a hallowed form of communication between people that should be nurtured, not slammed shut.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I'm trying to be kind to the Hon. Member but I would ask her to confine her remarks to the Minister's administrative responsibilities.

MRS. JORDAN: It does relate to the Minister's responsibilities because we need roadside parks in British Columbia. Roadside stops come under the Minister's administration. They are for the benefit of people and this Minister has stated emphatically that he wants to have just the select few people use his roadside parks.

I am trying to point out to him that we need more than ever in these times to learn to sit and listen to people, to learn of their ways and have them learn of our ways. This can only be done if we increase the opportunity for informal stops and informal talks. This takes place perhaps better than anywhere at the end of a fishing pier, of a highway, at a roadside park on a highway or, in fact, within the campsites in the Province of British Columbia.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources): The spirit of tolerance.

MRS. JORDAN: How would you know, Mr. Minister? Very foreign thought, I am sure.

Mr. Minister, we don't want a lot of Hilton-hoppers who can afford to go to every major Hilton in the world. We want people in British Columbia.

There is one other point I want to make in reference to the Minister's comments in his administration. Trying to tar all the people who have trailers and mobile homes from that terrible, terrible country, the United States, has been...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Order!

MRS. JORDAN: ...utter balderdash. People using your highways.... What's wrong with that, Mr. Chairman? Are you trying to stifle debate? (Laughter.)

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: If you've been in office 18 months and you are bored, you'd better resign.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I've repeatedly requested the Hon. Member for North Okanagan to confine her remarks to the administrative responsibilities of the Minister of Highways' vote 98. You've strayed away from the subject. I would ask you one more time to confine your remarks to this vote. Otherwise, I'll have to ask you to discontinue to speak.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, Mr. Chairman, I wouldn't do that if I were you; that's not a very democratic thing to do.

This Minister has talked about campers and trailers on our highways. It is his responsibility under this vote, where we are voting him a $110,000 vote to run his fancy office, to provide highways for the people who use those vehicles. The people who are using the highways from the point of view of trailers and mobile homes are not rich people. The majority of our visitors to British Columbia who use your highways that you're responsible for administrating are average people who worked hard in their lives...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MRS. JORDAN: ...who have saved their money...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MRS. JORDAN: ...recently sold homes...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MRS. JORDAN: ...and put their money into a trailer so they can enjoy meeting other people and using our highways.

Mr. Chairman, in using the highways....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member be seated?

MRS. JORDAN: You're trying my patience, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Remain seated until I have made my remarks.

MRS. JORDAN: I would be glad to.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member is out of order on a second point which I have made previously. Under standing order 43, Members are not to canvass their own arguments over again or the arguments of others. This particular point you were making has been made now several times. Therefore, I would ask you either to raise a new point or move on to another subject or discontinue your speech.

[ Page 1910 ]

MRS. JORDAN: Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I think I have made my point that the majority of people who have these facilities and use our highways are average Joes.

I would like to ask the Minister, when the suggestion of a helicopter for his department came up from the Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis), if this is a policy kite being flown by this Minister. Is there an intention in this Minister's mind to have the Highways department purchase a helicopter?

It would be my view, Mr. Chairman, when you examine the overall amount of use and the concerns we should have in this province for maintaining small secondary businesses, it is far better for the Highways department to be free to hire helicopters from private industry in the part of the province where they are needed, rather than the Minister to indulge....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! There was a point made that this Chair has made previously. The subject of helicopters generally has been very well canvassed. I would ask her to move to a new point, not to cover old ground.

MRS. JORDAN: I didn't heat anybody say that before, but if you feel that way, Mr. Chairman... I keep getting the feeling you want to cut the debate short.

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: Why don't you go back and make more....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MRS. JORDAN: I would like to go back to a matter I asked the Minister this morning which he didn't answer in a satisfactory manner — a question in relation to the Westside Road of Okanagan Lake.

He mentioned that he had to study things and plan them. I want to ask him why he was so sure at that meeting, when the people were there and the election was on, that this could be done "this fall," to quote him. Now he stands up in the House and says he has to plan it; you can't make a commitment one day and have the bulldozers out the next day.

HON. MR. LEA: A point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The Hon. Minister of Highways on a point of order.

HON. MR. LEA: You know, I've listened to that Member, Mr. Chairman, say over and over again what I've said. You say what you've said, not what I've said because I never said what you said I said. Right?

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. LEA: You just stick to what you've said.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, Mr. Chairman, if you'll just hold yourself patient one minute, I'll read you a quote from the people who were there. I'm not saying what you said you said....

HON. MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, on the same point of order. I did not write that letter. I would ask her, if she hasn't got a letter from me saying what I said, then she shouldn't say what I said.

MRS. JORDAN: That's no point of order, Mr. Chairman. This Minister committed himself, and this is the problem in this whole debate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Order! On the point of order.... Would the Hon. Member be seated?

MRS. JORDAN: There was no point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There is no point of order. However, I would ask the Hon. Member for North Okanagan, when she is reading, that she identify what she is reading, either as her own or the source that it is from.

Would the hon. Member continue?

MRS. JORDAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I did read it into the record, and I quoted where it came from. I'll try to find it and read it into the record again, if you wish.

But the Minister's reaction right now, Mr. Chairman, is very typical of the concern and the reason for this debate, because he states one way and the other way and simply refuses to come up with concrete answers. I asked him a very simple question yesterday as to where he hired his helicopter from, and he hasn't answered that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I understand...

MRS. JORDAN: I'm not going to introduce the subject, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MRS. JORDAN: But you must understand that unless we can get answers from this Minister...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MRS. JORDAN: ...we can't possibly let him have his vote.

[ Page 1911 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! In regard to the matter which the Hon. Member was raising, I was not in the Chair at the time, but I understand that the comments were made, the Minister has denied. Therefore, I would point out that she cannot persist with this. She must accept the denial of the Minister as the statement of another Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: He didn't deny it when he was answering the question, Mr. Chairman. However, I'll accept your ruling. But I'm sure the people will be very interested to find out that he has since denied making that statement. They will be made aware.

Mr. Chairman, during our discussions before lunch I asked the Minister about Ellison bypass. He responded by talking about Allison bypass, and said that there had been no money spent and no commitment by the former government. I did preface my remarks, which I won't go into in detail again, by saying that I recognized the problem and the people recognized the problem.

Mr. Chairman, again this would point out the need to canvass this Minister's vote very carefully: 1) He doesn't know that Ellison bypass is Ellison bypass and not Allison bypass.

2) In his own annual report for the year 1972-73, which includes the expenditures of the former administration, there is in fact an expenditure, under Report of Comptroller of Expenditures, page C197, for the District of North Okanagan of $14,366.49, for Okanagan Landing, Eastside Road to Bench Road, which is the Ellison bypass.

One must ask this question, Mr. Chairman. What sort of bafflegab are we getting from this Minister? What does he know and what doesn't he know?

On this particular point I would suggest, Mr. Minister — recognizing the problems of that area, and recognizing the fact that a good deal of the traffic is internal — that there was a slow, long-term commitment to develop that road.

Mr. Chairman, there have already been people killed on that road, and there are going to be more people killed, and it is completely impossible to renovate the current road, or to revamp it.

I would ask the Minister to open his mind on this thinking. I explained to him before that the people have been extremely patient, and I believe they will in the future if they believe that he is aware of the problem and trying to do something about it. But if he has a closed mind, then I think they are going to back him into a comer, and he's going to have to do something. It certainly would be more credit to the Minister to do it on the basis of understanding the problem and having a slow, progressive policy rather than waiting until he is backed into a corner.

This brings up another subject, Mr. Chairman. Recognizing the problems that the Highways department has in relation to their responsibilities to move vehicles from A to B in the quickest possible manner and the safest possible manner, I think we also must recognize that we have come to the point in our development in British Columbia where we can't rely solely on warrants, and that some common sense situations simply must prevail.

We have areas in this province where there are young children crossing highways within city limits, on major government highways, where there have been fatalities and there are going to be more fatalities. Just because it doesn't come up to a magical number, we go on saying the fatalities must occur because that doesn't meet the number. I believe that this Minister.... I would ask him to allow some common sense to prevail in some of these decisions.

You know, Mr. Minister, a child killed or an older person killed when 14,099 cars per hour was short of the 14,100 cars per hour which would have given us a stop light is simply not justified in any way, shape or form by a matter of numbers.

I think we have to educate the drivers in British Columbia to recognize that when they are in areas where people live, people come first. Surely, the whole problem we have in talking about the automobile is that we've begun to feel that the automobile should come first and not people. I suggest, in examining needs for crosswalks for children and people, examining needs for some of these stop-and-go lights and for stop lights directly, and courtesy corners on major provincial highways that lead into communities, that the Minister should instruct his department to rely on latitude in terms of the protection of human life and give some protection to the pedestrian.

I don't deny the fact that children run across the road without thought, and we should be concentrating our efforts on educating them. But it's little comfort to see these accidents and people hurt and maimed simply because we adhere to a number and we adhere to a policy that is rapidly going out of date.

I hope the Minister would answer some of those questions — why he won't even look at the suggestion about Woods Lake, and the other matters that I've asked him. I would also respond to him in terms of his saying, "What did Oregon say to the tourists?" I suggest to him that we all know that Oregon said to the tourists, and we know the problems that Oregon is reaping now. Their tourist industry is not a major industry.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MRS. JORDAN: They've allowed themselves to become a one-industry....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Order, please! I point out to the Hon. Member....

[ Page 1912 ]

MRS. JORDAN: But the Minister brought the subject up.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I pointed out and made the point that the Hon. Minister, when he makes statements ex cathedra which are outside of his administrative responsibilities, they may not necessarily be discussed under these estimates unless they clearly relate to his administrative responsibilities. I have cautioned the Hon. Member on this.

MRS. JORDAN: I accept the ruling, Mr. Chairman. I would just end by asking him to consult the people...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MRS. JORDAN: ...in the tourist industry in Oregon before he uses them as a guidepost.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member discontinue her speech, please?

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Mr. Chairman, now that I'm here, cool down, don't pick on me.

This morning I made some remarks when the staff was out — I'm glad to see they are here now, from the department. I think this has been covered before but I'm not sure.

In view of the cutting back on capital, the Minister says there won't be that much construction going on this year, or maintenance. Well, the emphasis is on an increase in maintenance.

Have passing lanes been discussed? I think that's here, either under maintenance or the capital. Is there any provision within the budget for passing lanes? Our highways are congested. I've heard the Trans-Canada and Highway 97.... I think that as an intermediate solution we could get a lot of relief by building more passing lanes. I might say they have been built in the past, but not as fast as the traffic increases.

I was wondering if the Minister would comment. Have they got any programmes laid on? On what roads do they intend to emphasize passing lanes?

I know the other item that was mentioned here is the painting of centre lines and so on. I believe I heard somebody say they had a problem with paint, or something. I want to tell you that as far as safety on the highways is concerned, the centre line is very important. They're all gone now, pretty well, in the Interior, from the wintertime.

I can't understand whether it's the shortage of paint or the shortage of the type of paint they require. I don't think they got their full centre-line painting programme done last year, so it makes it important they get cracking on it this year. I'd like to hear what the Minister has to say about it.

One other thing: routes. I have been told — and I'd like the Minister to comment — that we've got trouble in the Fraser Canyon at Jackass Mountain. For the information of the House, Jackass Mountain is about 165 miles east of Vancouver in the Fraser Canyon, and it's quite a cliff. I've rolled over it a couple of times so I talk with authority about it. I understand it's very unstable and I was wondering if this is correct. There's porous rock back for four or five miles — is this correct? Is there some danger there and what is the department going to do about it?

If any part of that mountain starts to move, we'll have a calamity in this province in view of the fact that it will clean out the CNR and probably even put a plug in the Fraser River for a while, it's such a large mountain. I have heard this and I'd like to know if there's any basis in fact to this. It was my information that the Highways department is looking for another route. They've gone back quite a ways and they find the rock is unstable all the way in that area. Of course, it leads us back to the fact of another route from the coast which has been discussed earlier.

Another thing I'd like to bring out is on large paving contracts. I've witnessed some large paving contracts in the last two or three years. I'm not referring to the Department of Highways paving now; I'm referring to the ones let to tender. They do a lovely job, and then the oil starts to work from the bottom to the top and you get a slippery and very unsafe condition. I understand from engineers that this is caused by putting too much oil in the mix. It works its way back from the base of the gravel up through the surface.

There's the section of the road on Highway 97 that was done in 1972. I don't want to name the contractor, but it's from mile 142 to mile 150. The Highways department at this stage do what they call a burn job to get the oil off. Lord help you if you happen to hit that piece of pavement when it's raining because it's just like driving on soap. There were a lot of accidents.

But anyway, this occurred and then sand and so on was applied after the burning to get to a rough surface.

The contractor on these hot-mix contracts has supervision, I assume, from the Highways department on the quality of material he's putting into this plant mix. It seems to me somebody has made an error. We're all human; we all make errors. I have no idea what that job cost somebody, but I would like to know who pays for it. Does the contractor pay for that error or is the public of the province paying for that error?

I would say in this particular section they've gone and done extensive work two years in a row to try and stop this oil from working to the top. For all I know they may have to do it again. I've further been

[ Page 1913 ]

told that if it doesn't stop this year, they will have to tear the whole thing up and redo the whole job, never mind the cost of building the base that, in the case of this contract, was $1 million for that eight miles more or less. The hot-mix contract alone was $600,000 after the base was built.

I want to know who is paying for all these repairs after somebody has made an error. As I say, I think there are responsible parties watching the contractor when they're mixing the hot mix and I would think that is the responsible party. If that's the case, I suppose the department has to pay the bill. I would like to hear the Minister's comments about it.

The worst part of it all is that two years in a row on this particular stretch on the main highway, it's a very, very dangerous situation for the travelling public. When does it become the most dangerous? At the height of the tourist season every year because of the lovely weather, the heat brings the oil out. So when we have the roads plugged with tourists, we have this dangerous condition existing, particularly in the months of July and August each year.

There's another thing that hasn't been aired here today — and I think I've mentioned it every year. I resent the fact that your department does work for the Lands department on development of Crown subdivisions. I think that Lands department has got enough expertise to call their own tenders and put it out to the private sector. The reason I don't like it is that, during the busy time of the year when the Highways department are in there doing this work, all the local roads in that area are neglected. I realize they do a good job; I'm not criticizing the work they do. But I think the Highways department has got plenty to do looking after the roads they have.

It's been going on for years and I have been saying it every year. Believe me, you ought to be in the Cariboo riding when they have got the equipment all tied up — front-end loaders, bulldozers, graders, dump trucks — on a Crown subdivision.

The story I get on it is the Lands department says: "Well, we don't know how to build roads." That's a bunch of guff, Mr. Chairman. They've got engineers galore and town planners. Even the Minister of Lands (Hon. R.A. Williams) is a town planner and I know they can get engineers to draw specs and let the private sector bid on these jobs.

AN HON. MEMBER: He wants to be Premier too.

MR. FRASER: The point is this poor old Highways department has got its hands full looking after the responsibilities they've got without subcontracting to another government department.

On that subject I also resent the fact that the Highways department is a garbage collector. I'll never buy that at all. Again, they're using dump trucks. Certainly these jobs have got to be done, but I wish that the Minister would take this up with his colleague, the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford). If we have to have garbage collection from roadsides, why isn't the parks department doing it? Again, relieving equipment every day in the Interior, there's at least two trucks out of each detachment in each Interior town that go out every day and do nothing but pick up garbage from the garbage containers. I think those trucks could be put to better use by hauling gravel and so on than hauling garbage and fooling around like that.

This is the last thing I'd like to mention to the Minister. It was brought to my attention in the last few days that the snowpack in this province is now worse than it was in 1897 when we had the worst flood we've ever had in the history of British Columbia. I understand the government is going to get a report on Monday, April 1, that will show this. On top of that, Mr. Chairman, it's still snowing.

I think we have trouble ahead, as you well know, and it will depend entirely on how the weather is in the month of April. I think we've got a serious problem ahead if we have a cool April and we don't get runoff and so on. But that's what exists at the present time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. FRASER: I'm leading up to this. In view of this, the Highways department always gets involved when we have a calamity; they are always the ones who are caught. This is my last question, Mr. Chairman. Is the Highways department doing anything about preventive measures, particularly in places like Kamloops and the lower Fraser Valley? When the calamity comes, it's always your department, Mr. Minister, that is called on to bail people out. I would like to hear your comments on that. Thank you.

HON. MR. LEA: I'd like to thank the Hon. Member for Cariboo for drawing to my attention the situation with land subdivisions. I'm sure that, wherever possible, the regional highways people do try to put priority to that work which should be done for highways, although you can't keep track of everything. Maybe what you say does happen. I'll look into that. My jurisdiction is highways and I tend to think like you do that that's the first priority for the equipment, especially in those seasons where work is to be done.

The Highways department picking up garbage. I'm told by my departmental officials that the only garbage we do pick up is from the roadside rest stops that other Members have asked us to put more in. I think that is fair; I wouldn't stop that. I think those roadside rest stops have to be kept clean and that, if we put them in, we're responsible for the

[ Page 1914 ]

maintenance of them. I believe that hauling garbage with highway equipment would be a legitimate use. Maybe we need more vehicles to do it, but I think it's a legitimate use.

In regard to the asphalt mix that you were talking about and the oil coming up to the surface: there are highway inspectors on even when it's a private contract that has been let and the private contractor is doing the actual work. But I'm told that it's practically an impossibility to be dead-on all of the time because you're working with different kinds and different coarseness of soil throughout the province. So all you can do is put all of your experience and all of your knowledge together and try to come up with the proper mix of oil and all of the other ingredients that go into the soil and hope that it works out.

So I don't think you can really say the blame can be put anywhere. It's an inexact kind of science, if you can call it science, and it happens from time to time. As you know, we've had to burn that section of highway that you're talking about. If that doesn't work and we can't do it that way, I suppose we'll just have to go in and do it again.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LEA: Well, I don't see any choice. We're certainly not going to leave a spot that's going to be dangerous from the Highways' point of view.

There was one other topic you brought up — flooding. Well, I suppose the Highways department is called upon to act any time there is a tragedy, and I suppose it's because we're everywhere in the province and we have equipment and we have manpower throughout the province. Oftentimes we're called upon by municipalities, by regional districts and by other departments.

Also you'll notice, I'm sure, Hon. Members, that you don't see that in my vote anywhere, but throughout the year from time to time, invariably, the Highways department is called upon to do work that isn't really under its jurisdiction. But there is a need and it has to be done. I would hope that the task force that we've put on to look at slides, and in particular the snow areas within the province, through the geo-technical division of the Department of Highways.... I've given them broad scope in which to work and report back.

I would hope that they will come back with recommendations that are broad in scope, because I've left that flexibility there. Believe me, they're a good, well-trained, conscientious group that are going into this task force including, of course, the chairman, Dudley Godfrey, who's been with the Department of Highways for a number of years and is retiring in June.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LEA: And he's a skier. He has graciously allowed himself to be kept on with the department while this task force is doing its work, not as an employee but as a special consultant to the department after his retirement.

I'd like to say now that I think, for a man and his wife who have looked forward for a great many years to retirement and going about their own plans.... I think that all Members of this House should thank Mr. Godfrey for doing this for the people of British Columbia.

I would hope, Mr. Member, that we do get more information and that we are better able to tell after this task force comes in and that we have an ongoing check on what's happening with snow in the province, and mud slides and that sort of thing. I would hope for a better way and a better warning system so that we can better deal with those problems before they happen. I again thank you for bringing those points to my attention.

Interjection.

MR. FRASER: Just one that you didn't answer. Is there any problem with Jackass Mountain?

HON. MR. LEA: No, not primarily that I'm aware of, or that my department's aware of. I don't know if that's one of the areas that you're going to ask me to rename, but other than that, no. I'll have the geo-technical people check into this.

MR. FRASER: Thank you.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Just a very few words. I find it rather difficult on a Friday afternoon to speak about highways after we've been discussing highways for some considerable time. In view of the fact that we spent $44,000 to amend the standing orders of this House, and it suggested that a Member shouldn't have to sit on a Friday afternoon, that they should have the opportunity of visiting their constituencies in this province....

I happen to be one of the Members coming from a far-flung area of this province and I feel that I have a responsibility, not only to attend to business in this House, but I have a responsibility from time to time to visit those people that I represent. This opportunity has been denied to me by this arbitrary government.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Will the Hon. Member be seated?

MR. CHABOT: All right, Mr. Chairman, if you insist. This arbitrary government!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you remain seated until

[ Page 1915 ]

I've made my comments?

MR. CHABOT: Oh, I always will, Mr. Chairman, You don't have to tell me that. I've been here before.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would just like to remind the Hon. Member of standing order 61(2), which says that all remarks in the estimates in Committee of Supply "must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration." We are considering vote 98 and I would ask the Member not to comment about the rules of the House or about kinds of sittings, but rather to confine his remarks to the administrative responsibilities of this Minister.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much your pointing out to me the relevancy of my discussion, relative to the standing orders of this House, because what I am talking about is the standing orders of this House which you are trying to point out to me that I should observe. I'm asking your government, Mr. Chairman, to observe the rules and regulations of this House as well.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. CHABOT: That is that Members of this House have the opportunity to go to their constituencies to represent their people.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: What is this? A closure?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

Interjections.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's a dictatorship.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Inasmuch as the Hon. Member has nothing to offer in regard to vote 98....

MR. CHABOT: Oh, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Order, please!

MR. CHABOT: You don't have the right to rule as to what I have to offer.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member be seated?

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, you're being dictatorial in suggesting that I have nothing to offer. What do you think you are — God or somebody?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member be seated?

MR. CHABOT: What is this Godless society we have today?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm prepared to allow the Hon. Member to speak if he speaks in a manner relevant to this vote. However, twice he has risen to his feet and has not been relevant to this vote and I assumed he had nothing to say, so I asked him to discontinue his speech. If the Hon. Member has a point to make relevant to the vote, he may proceed.

MR. CHABOT: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I will speak to this vote, but I find it exceedingly difficult when I see only 10 Members of the 38 Members of the socialist horde in the House. They've probably gone to their constituencies; they're probably having coffee in the coffee shop. I find it extremely difficult to speak in this House when only 10 out of the 38....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please! Will the Hon. Member be seated? The Hon. Member for Langley.

MR. CHABOT: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

lnterjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Order! I'm recognizing the Hon. Member for Langley.

Interjection.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): I'm standing on a point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Would both Members be seated? The Hon. Member for Columbia River, having been twice warned and asked to make his remarks relative to vote 98, has refused twice. The Chair cannot any more tolerate that kind of conduct and I'm asking the Member to discontinue his speech. I recognize the Hon. Member for Langley.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I just rose on a point of order. I'd like to have you tell us on what authority you have the right to ask any Member to discontinue his speech when he's speaking to the estimates of the Highways Minister and intends to speak some more to those estimates. I don't believe you have that authority.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you want a 15-minute

[ Page 1916 ]

adjournment while you look it up?

AN HON. MEMBER: We should have a recess while you look it up.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, don't give it to him.

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to meet again.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I'm dealing with the point of order.

Standing order 43:

"Mr. Speaker, or the Chairman, after having called the attention of the House, or of the committee, to the conduct of a Member who persists in irrelevance or tedious repetition, either of his own arguments or of the arguments used by other Members in debate, may direct him to discontinue his speech."

That is what I have done.

I recognize the Hon. Member for Langley.

AN HON. MEMBER: Point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On the point of order raised by the Member for Langley.

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: On that same point, Mr. Chairman, you've raised the point of standing orders which deals with tediousness or repetition, and there was no tediousness or repetition (Laughter) in regard to the comments that were being made by that Member.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. McCLELLAND: Your own ruling is not competent to the situation as it arose in this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The point was made not on the words of tedious repetition, but rather on...

MR. McCLELLAND: It was. You read it out yourself.

MR. CHAIRMAN: ...the words "irrelevance" which is contained in the same standing order.

MR. McCLELLAND: You'd better read it again because....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Twice the Member has requested to make his remarks relevant. He continued to be irrelevant. It's very clear what the standing order says; and I've asked the Hon. Member to discontinue his speech.

MR. CHABOT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Would the Hon. Member for Columbia River be seated unless he has a point of order or a motion to make?

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, what is this — closure or something? What a bunch of nonsense! Point of order. I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The motion is in order. The motion is that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 14

NAYS — 31

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, would you please report that the division took place in committee and ask for a recording in the Journals of the House?

MR. McCLELLAND: A point of order, again, Mr. Chairman, I wanted to get a ruling from the Chair on this matter of persistence, because the ruling that you quoted to me wasn't 61 either, it was 43, I believe. It has to do with a Member who persists in irrelevance.

I'd like to get your ruling on what constitutes persistence because you asked the Member on only

[ Page 1917 ]

two occasions. I recall many other occasions in the House, on both sides of the House, of the Chairman being asked to rule a Member out of order — 67 times on one occasion. So, what is persistence? I think it's necessary for us to know in order that we may debate intelligently in this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On the point of order, standing order No. 61(2) says:

"Speeches in Committee of the Whole House must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration."

Standing order No. 43 says:

"Mr. Speaker or Mr. Chairman, after having called the attention of the House or of the committee to the conduct of a Member who persists in irrelevance or tedious repetition, either of his own arguments or of the arguments used by other Members in debate, may direct him to discontinue his speech."

Now, the point was that the Hon. Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) was twice warned that his remarks were irrelevant and that he should make his remarks relevant to the vote under consideration. He, on the third time of having taken his feet, continued to be irrelevant and I asked him to discontinue his speech.

MR. McCLELLAND: No, no, Mr. Chairman! It was the second time. All we want to know is: two times, is that persistence? Now, is that the rule of this House from now on? It wasn't the third time, Mr. Chairman, it was the second time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I made the ruling on the grounds of him being twice warned. And the third time, he was then irrelevant again. If they don't agree with the ruling, they can challenge the ruling.

MR. McCLELLAND: I wouldn't want to challenge the ruling but I think it's very important that we know in which direction we're going in this House. Is that the criteria under which we're to operate from now on? Is two times persistence, in your view and in the view of this House?

MR. CHAIRMAN: There is no set number of times, Hon. Member, on the point of order. It's a matter of determining whether the Member is intending to make any remarks relevant to the vote.

MR. McCLELLAND: Then it becomes the whim of the Chairman to decide persistence. Is that correct?

AN HON. MEMBER: How do you know what he's going to say the third time?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair doesn't make a decision on a whim, but rather on an opinion. It's the opinion of the Chair that the Member was persisting in irrelevance. If the Member does not agree with the ruling, his recourse is to challenge the ruling.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! There's no one on the floor who has been recognized.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): On the point of order, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the fact that you are trying to clarify this point. I think it's important. I've been ruled out of order for...as the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) once said — on the grounds that once one Member had mentioned it, other Members could not inform their constituents of their views. I think, Mr. Chairman, on rule 43, "...If the Member still continues to speak, the Chairman shall report him to the House," it's not a question of appealing to have the House uphold your ruling. It's a question of you reporting to the Speaker, which is what the last part of 43 says.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! That is only a recourse in which the discussion of the Chairman appears to be necessary. I don't consider it necessary at this time. However, the Chairman, having a soft heart and sometimes a soft head, I am going to....

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, we cannot accept such an insult of that nature to our Chairman. I think you should withdraw at once.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chairman is prepared to give the Member for Columbia River a chance to see whether he will be irrelevant this time. I recognize the Hon. Member for Columbia River if he is prepared to be relevant to the vote.

MR. CHABOT: If I may be permitted a little bit of latitude, Mr. Chairman, to...which is probably not relevant, but I think....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! If the Hon. Member wishes to make another point, would he please make it on a point of order.

MR. CHABOT: I want to take this opportunity to welcome the Premier of British Columbia back to the province from his campaign trail in Nova Scotia.

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: I've never been one to praise his administrative abilities, but I'm very happy to see him

[ Page 1918 ]

back in British Columbia, and back in the Legislature, because he probably can stop this drifting and this lack of direction which has been displayed by the government in the last few days and during....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I would ask the Member to speak to the vote or else take his seat.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, you're awfully testy. I know you want to be in your riding this afternoon, just as I do too. That's where we rightfully belong. But we're here because of the lack of direction of that government over there.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. CHABOT: That's why we're discussing the estimates of the Minister of Highways this afternoon, speaking on the administrative responsibilities of the Minister of Highways.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Would the Hon. Member be seated?

MR. CHABOT: Oh, sorry.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I relented; I had a soft heart and a soft head and I gave him a further chance. He abused it. I am not going to recognize him again. Would the Hon. Member be seated? Order! Would the Hon. Member for Columbia River be seated?

MR. CHABOT: On what ruling, Mr. Chairman, do you insist I be seated? I was talking about the responsibilities of the Minister of Highways.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member be seated? Be seated! Order! Be seated!

MR. CHABOT: Are you a commie, too?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I feel it's not necessary to comment on the last remark. However, I made a ruling. I was prepared to give the Hon. Member a further chance; he abused it. I'm not going to give him that chance again.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I've never in my life — and I've been here for a long time — seen such a dictatorial attitude displayed by the Chairman of this House that you're presently displaying at this time. Never in my history! You were a Minister of the gospel at one time; you must have some charity in your heart....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member be seated? Would the Hon. Member remain seated?

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): What is that rule, Mr. Chairman, that says he must stay in his seat?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Again I will read the rules for the benefit of the Member for Victoria. Standing order 61 clearly says:

"Speeches in Committee of the Whole House must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration."

Standing order 43 clearly says:

"Mr. Speaker, or the Chairman, after having called the attention of the House or of the committee to the conduct of a Member who persists in irrelevance or tedious repetition, either of his own arguments or of the arguments used by other Members in debate, may direct him to discontinue his speech..." This ruling of the Chairman applies only to this vote. "...and if the Member still continues to speak, Mr. Speaker shall name him, or, if in committee, the Chairman shall report him to the House."

The Chairman may simply ask him to discontinue his speech. If the Hon. Member continues to speak and doesn't obey my ruling, then of course I must call the Speaker of the House.

MR. PHILLIPS: A point of order, Mr. Chairman. I must ask you to withdraw the vicious attack on the Chairman that you made here this afternoon. I don't think the Chairman has a soft head; it's the Premier who has the soft head. I ask you to withdraw that vicious attack on the Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Shall vote 98 pass?

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, I have some more information I would like to introduce into the debate in reference to a comment made by the Hon. Minister of Highways when we were talking about the Allison bypass at Okanagan Landing. He implied the former government had not spent any money and I proved to him that they had. He also said he had not cancelled the project; it had been cancelled by the former administration.

I took the liberty of phoning my office in Vernon where this file is housed in detail. I have the following note: "March 29, 1974: Re Okanagan Landing bypass." It's Mr. Miard's letter, outlining reasons why this project no longer has priority, was dated last year, 1973, and simply stated that this sort of project had no priority.

The point here is that the Minister has displayed a good deal of evidence that he doesn't know what's

[ Page 1919 ]

going on in his department. He has shown little evidence that he's willing to listen to other points in the question. He inadvertently, I believe, did not tell this Member the truth in his statement this morning.

I would place before the Minister, who is leaving the House at the moment, a strong appeal to use judgment in this case, to recognize the dangers to the people living in this area, and to correct his error of this morning by authorizing a progressive programme to build this road. I hope the Minister will comment on that when he returns to the House.

Another matter I wish to discuss and further enlighten the Minister on is in relation to the new City of Kelowna. The Minister stated that he would answer my questions by filing answers and agreements with the House. I would like him to do this this afternoon. Again, I would ask if he is prepared to. We did have the lunch break in between and it's necessary to have these figures to discuss it with him.

I want to ask him some more points, if he's going to answer on the basis of my questions, which I didn't go into before. I would like him to state whether or not it is within his thoughts as administrator of this department to carry through with the programme for Black Rock Road into the Allison district. It's ready for paving and this is one of the requests that was put to the highway engineer. I am speaking about this in principle, Mr. Chairman, because it involves this principle where confusion exists between the new City of Kelowna, the regional highway engineer and the people. It's because of lack of direction from this Minister.

I'm glad to see you back, Mr. Minister. It would be nice if some of the Members of your party were back too.

This is in regard to Black Rock Road which is ready for paving and should have been paved in 1973. It's a difficult road because, like the others I am going to mention, these roads have multi-use. The crucial use is the fact that fruit growers are hauling their fruit across this road.

As the Minister I'm sure is well aware, the apples, the peaches and the pears come off into bulk bins, they're loaded onto trucks and they're taken to the packing house. They're graded at the entrance of the packing house, not in the orchard. If they have to be driven over rough, pot-holey roads, then this bruises the fruit as they burnp against each other. This directly reduces the income to the producers who live on this road.

I'm sure you would want to know that this was a commitment; it was not made last year. It's one of the areas where the people and the Member for North Okanagan are getting a completely circular treatment between the involved jurisdictions because of the lack of direction from the Minister. I would like to have a commitment from him this afternoon that this circular treatment will stop and that this road will be paved this year. It must be done soon in order so they can get their produce across this fall. I'm sure the Minister is aware of the unrest and the problems involved in this industry.

Another matter involved in this confusion, which exists because of the lack of the Minister's administration, is Arab, Appaloosa and Pinto Road. Again, the highway engineer when questioned about this says: "They lie in the North Okanagan Electoral District and are now within the boundaries of the new City of Kelowna." He says that with a little work these roads would be ready for paving.

These are part of the commitment and responsibility of this government when it approached the City of Kelowna and drew up its final agreement on this shotgun marriage. It simply is not good enough for the highway engineer to tell the people that it's in another electoral district when, in fact, it's within the original highway district which is under this engineer's jurisdiction. I would urge the Minister to please look up these roads. Again, they are involved in the transporting of fruit produce for producers who are having an extremely difficult time at the best of times and anticipate an even more difficult time this coming year.

So please, Mr. Minister, see that those roads are brought up to snuff and paved. This fits right in with your improvement and maintenance programme; there's no new construction needed. I hope the Minister will stand up when I finish speaking and give the Member for North Okanagan some direction in this area.

I would like to ask the Minister his policy in relation to the Monashee Highway which travels basically from Nakusp or Edgewood to the Okanagan. This highway is used extensively for transporting of freight and is becoming a much more active tourist route in light of the road that is finished from Revelstoke to Galena Bay. I see that the Minister has put some funds down for the road from Galena Bay down to Nakusp, and it is a case of which comes first, the chicken or the egg. But the road must be upgraded. People in Lumby want it made very clear that they don't want the highway moving out of there. They feel concern about the amount of logging traffic that is using this road. We are spending a great deal of money on an old saw when it comes to maintenance on this road.

There should be, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, a policy and I would hope that the Minister would agree to this, of gradually improving, upgrading, widening this road over the next few years. I would ask him for a commitment in that area as far as his policy is concerned.

We have another question in relation to the Kootenay roads, and that is: what is the Minister's policy in regard to the request of having an alternate

[ Page 1920 ]

highway leading either to Nakusp or to Edgewood and travelling down the east or west side of the Lower Arrow Lakes to the Kootenay core?

This is a matter of great interest to the people of that area. It was a road that was under discussion at the change of administration, and it was one that a decision would be made on in a year or two in light of the need to settle the banks in the Lower Arrow Lakes due to the rising of the water. I would ask the Minister what his policy is in that area.

There is considerable concern, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, in relation to the Minister's policy regarding the area of Lumby and Cherryville. In these areas we have a vast network of gravel roads which are used for logging, tourism and local communications. There has always been a progressive programme of upgrading these roads and this was virtually halted this year, Mr. Chairman.

I was thinking about this at lunchtime, and felt that I had not been correct in recognizing the fact that this Minister took over his duties after last year's budget was prepared. So I certainly don't feel inclined to hold him responsible, but I would advise him that through this absolute neglect last year, which was a very dry year, these roads, which are difficult to maintain at the best of times, have deteriorated dramatically.

Mr. Minister, when I look at the budget for the North Okanagan in total for this year, it is an appalling situation. We had approximately $600,000 last year, and we have approximately $600,000 this year. So in light of the fact that last year was an extremely low year, with work not carried out that should have been carried out, just on a routine basis, and virtually no new work initiated, we have a whole year's lag plus a budget that doesn't even reflect the inflationary costs. So in fact the North Okanagan, after a year of neglect, which, as I mentioned, I do not attribute directly to this Minister but to the budgeting of the former Minister, now the Hon. Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan), we have a decreased budget.

In the meantime, Mr. Chairman, the increase in tourism and the increase in population growth and the increase in the logging industry using those roads is more than double what it was.

I would ask the Minister, for example, with Creighton Valley Road, if he is aware that while it is not an arterial road, it is a road that is bringing in a tremendous amount of revenue to the province through logging, which has increased there dramatically in the last year. At the same time, there has been a considerable build-up of population due to people moving in to the area.

Again, Mr. Chairman, you would be interested to know that this build-up of population is largely involved in agricultural production. We have a tremendous problem with conflict of use because they are largely crop producers — hay, wheat — and with the logging trucks using the roads, with the deterioration of the roads, which are gravel, there is an increase in the amount of dust and this destroys the value of the hay crop and the field crop, because cattle and small animals simply will just not eat dusty hay. Nor in fact can horses eat it, because they are subject to a lot of illnesses that are caused by dusty, bulky foods.

Mr. Chairman, I would ask the Minister in regard to Creighton Valley if he is prepared to not only maintain a progressive upgrading programme but to update the gap that was created by last year.

Also, in speaking of Creighton Valley, I would remind the Minister that the combined Crown Zellerbach-Weyerhaeuser operation in the area has resulted in a need and a concerted effort on the part of the companies and the people in the area to situate a log scale in that area at the Rawlings Lake Road and Highway 6, as it joins the Mabel Lake Road. If the Minister would agree to this establishment and the upgrading of this road, it would funnel a great deal of traffic through this area that is dispersed into other areas and causing problems.

As far as Trinity Valley is concerned, Mr. Minister, this is a road connecting Lumby area with the Enderby area, and is of interest, I am sure, to the Hon. Member from Shuswap (Mr. Lewis). The first 10 miles from the Lumby end was a good gravel road and was well-maintained and kept in good condition by the Department of Highways. But this again has deteriorated through lack of funds and attention last year and will need to be upgraded from last year's standard as well as needing more money to maintain it this year and hopefully continue on our progressive programme of improvement.

I would just remind the Minister that the area at the base of this going to Ashton Creek from the Highways department is in deplorable condition at this time. This is not because of the winter heaves and frost, but because of the neglect last year.

It is really not fair, Mr. Chairman, when one examines these roads to ask for paving of all of them. The people realize this, but it is also equally unfair to not maintain a progressive plan of upgrading. This would fall into the Minister's description of what he wants to make his priorities this year.

Also it is very unfair to the individual people who have small logging companies, small logging trucks, trucking firms, who have to haul their logs over these roads. These trucks cost $40,000, $50,000 or $75,000 apiece, as I am sure the Hon. Chairman knows. These aren't great companies, either; these are individual families who scrape and put their neck on the line, mortgage their homes to buy these trucks. If they have to drive them over roads that aren't kept up to a reasonable standard, it is not the Highways department that pays, and it is not the public of

[ Page 1921 ]

British Columbia that pays. It is the poor little guy who pays because he has to maintain his trucks. If he gets a broken axle or ruptured shock absorbers then he has to tie up his truck for a period of time. It cuts out his income, he has to pay the cost and also it devalues his truck.

With this growing increase in logging, which is being done to a large degree for the hauling by independent haulers in our area, I would urge the Minister to put in a weighscale, to upgrade and extend a progressive programme in Creighton Valley and the same in Trinity Valley. Trinity Valley is the one that is causing a lot of bitterness to the small loggers.

Perhaps the Minister will comment on those particular points and then I will have some more questions to ask him.

HON. MR. LEA: When we get to the proper votes — 100 and 101 — maybe she will repeat those questions and I will answer them at that time.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I think that this is a matter of administrative responsibility. I inquired of the Minister yesterday in regard to the limited access to Cypress Bowl. Will it be strictly reserved for the recreational use within the Bowl or on the mountain, or will it be available for access to other lands or subdivisions?

HON. MR. LEA: Well, Mr. Chairman, to the Hon. Member, it is a confusing situation, I admit. It is not a Department of Highways road; it is a Department of Recreation and Conservation road that they are paying for, and we are doing the work on that road.

I talked with the Hon. Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford) the other day, and it becomes even more confusing because it is still under the jurisdiction of the Department of Lands. I have called a meeting of both the other Ministers and myself and our staff. As soon as we get through with these estimates we'll be getting together and dealing with them, coming to some conclusions immediately as to what the situation is.

MR. PHILLIPS: I am just concerned with the Minister's own riding because in that riding of this — last year, according to the report of the comptroller, on day labour for roads project 2422, Yellowhead Highway 16, which includes under the day labour vote, weed spraying, shouldering and sundry locations, there was only an amount of $11,265.93 spent. Now, Mr. Chairman, that's close to $7,000 less than the Minister spent on his famous whirlybird trip.

Under that same vote for the Queen Charlotte City-Masset Highway 33, weed spraying and sea protection, sundry locations, only $8,000 was spent, Mr. Chairman. And that's $10,000 less than he spent on that famous helicopter trip of his.

All through his estimates many of the votes spent in his area are much less money than he spent on one helicopter trip. I wonder how many other ridings are going to have to go without their day labour vote in order that the Minister of Highways can go on more helicopter trips in the next year.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The Hon. Member knows that this subject of the helicopter trip has been thoroughly canvassed. I would ask him not to continue to discuss that subject. It has already been discussed at great length. The Chair has been very tolerant, and I would ask him to move to a new subject.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, has it been discussed in relation to expenditures in the Minister's own riding?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The Chair has been very lenient, Hon. Member, in allowing Members to discuss matters which should be brought up under vote 101 and vote 100 and not under vote 98. If the Hon. Member wishes to discuss specifics of highway maintenance, or bridge construction, highway construction, and so on, he should bring these up under votes 100 and 101. The Chair has been tolerant but I would ask you please not to abuse that.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Chairman, I am concerned about the other Members of the government who are from the north because they are not in the chamber this Friday afternoon after we've had three sessions every day this week. The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) is not in the House this afternoon, Mr. Chairman. He came in for a moment and then stepped outside.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would ask the Hon. Member to make his remarks relevant to the Minister's vote — that is, vote 98. The Hon. Member may continue.

MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For just a few moments I'd like to discuss the Department of Highways gravel requirements for the coming year, because the gravel pit is, under the terms of mining legislation, considered a mine. As I drive around the province I view some gravel pits that have been left by the Department of Highways in an un-restored state. I would like to know, Mr. Chairman, what the department's attitude is towards these strip mines that they are creating here in the province.

I realize in the north that this is a very, very important subject because there is a great shortage of gravel, particularly in the Peace River area. I realize that sometimes this gravel has to be hauled from river

[ Page 1922 ]

beds in the wintertime, but there are other gravel pits. I would like the Minister to explain to me what his intentions are with regard to restoring these gravel pits. Is he going to make some man-made lakes out of some of them? Are they going to be pushed and leveled off and grass planted so that the aesthetic value of the land will at least be close to what it was?

Maybe, Mr. Chairman, the Minister would take the time to advise the House, and while he is at it, I wish he would answer my previous question on the expenditures and what he is going to do on the Stewart-Cassiar Highway.

This vote is all lumped together. It's day labour and construction and we really don't know exactly how it is going to be broken down. He has the administrative responsibility to answer the taxpayers of this province, because all of us are taxpayers of this province, not just the missing Member for Atlin (Mr. Calder), Mr. Chairman. Where is the Member for Atlin, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would ask the Hon. Member to keep his remarks strictly relevant to the vote before us. The matter of other Members of this assembly is not concerned in the administrative responsibility of this Minister.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. I'll certainly abide by your ruling. But the Member for Atlin isn't here this afternoon and a lot of the other people....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The Hon. Member is deliberately flouting the rules and I would ask you to confine your remarks to the administrative responsibility of the Minister.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Chairman, the Stewart-Cassiar road does go through the Member for Atlin's (Mr. Calder's) riding. What concerns me is the fact that he's not here this afternoon. Is that why the Minister of Highways will not tell me what is going on in his riding? Mr. Chairman, I want to go into the Member's riding and tell them what's going to happen in their riding, because the riding is not being very well represented in this Legislature this year.

I have brought up several questions pertinent to the Minister's responsibilities. I asked him about safety on the highways with regard to installing cat's-eyes as permanent centre lines. I have had no response from the Minister, Mr. Chairman. I have had no response from the Minister with regard to the Prince George–Prince Rupert Highway.

I realize that it's Friday afternoon. I realize that we have had three sessions nearly all week and maybe the Minister of Highways is tired. I've cancelled my plane reservations to go to my riding this weekend, Mr. Chairman. I am quite prepared to stay here and fight for the taxpayers of this province — 24 hours a day, if necessary! I hate to see this government with such a big, crushing majority trying to push this little opposition around with a dictatorial attitude.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Would the Hon. Member return to the vote?

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, I would love to return to the vote and I would also love some answers, Mr. Chairman, from the Minister of Highways. I would love some answers.

We have in our area a ferry. That ferry crosses the Peace River at Clayhurst — the only means of communication within about 60 miles for those people to get across that mighty Peace River. That ferry has been there since those pioneers went into that Clayhurst area there in 1918 or 1919 after the First World War. They went in there to pioneer and to work and to develop that area. The Minister of Housing's (Hon. Mr. Nicolson's) wife is from that area — from an old pioneering family, Mr. Chairman. They went in there, partly isolated, and now that we have controlled flow on the Peace River, the costs of constructing a bridge would be only about one-third of what it was when we were having those big, tremendous spring floods. This was before the mighty Peace River power dam, which has controlled the flow of water.

The problem is this, Mr. Chairman. Prior to a controlled flow of water on the Peace River, we used to be able to go down there in the fall of the year when the weather got below freezing and build an ice bridge. Unless there was a tremendously long chinook and warm spell, which we get in that area, we could build that ice bridge and those pioneering families that are in there opening up the entire area could rely on using that ice bridge for the entire winter season. But now, Mr. Chairman, even though we have a controlled flow, the water comes from behind the dam and it's warmer and it takes us much longer to get that ice bridge in there.

So these pioneering farmers on that great agricultural area are never really sure from one week to the next whether they are going to be able to use the access or the ice bridge across the river. It's time to give consideration to putting in a permanent bridge across the river.

If the Minister of Highways is aware that within a few years there is going to be a dam constructed across that Peace River close to that area, the top of which could be used as a highway bridge, the Minister should tell us. But is he speaking to the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) who is a director of B.C. Hydro? Is he speaking to the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) who is a director of Hydro?

Mr. Chairman, I would just like some answers from

[ Page 1923 ]

the Minister of Highways.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I see no one on their feet.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, you had better turn around.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Is the Hon. Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) rising on a point of order?

MR. CHABOT: (Mike not on.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I recognize the Hon. Member for Columbia River on a point of order.

MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for turning the mike on. You did quote standing order 61 to me, not in its entirety but in bits and pieces. You're attempting to censure me and attempting to suggest that the Member for Columbia River should not have the opportunity of speaking.

I want to suggest to you, on my point of order, that you did not read all the pertinent subsections of section 61. The third one is the most important one, prior to declaring closure against a Member of this House. Subsection (3) says:

"The Chairman shall maintain order in the Committee of the Whole House, deciding all questions of order subject to an appeal to the House without the committee rising; but disorder in a committee can only be censured by the House on receiving a report thereof. Words used in committee to be reported to the House must be taken down in writing."

I would suggest you only used those bits and pieces which you felt were relevant to deny the Member for Columbia River the opportunity of having his free speech in this assembly. I find this most despicable and disgraceful because never, in the 11 years I have been a Member of this assembly, has anyone ever attempted to silence me. I've attempted to abide, from time to time... (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Order, please!

MR. CHABOT: ...by the rules of this assembly.

The people who have elected me on four successive elections have asked me to come here and speak on their behalf. You are suggesting now, by using irrelevant and half-baked conclusions, that I should be denied the right and the opportunity to express the views of the people who have elected me to come down here and speak for them. That, Mr. Chairman, I suggest to you is intolerable as far as I'm concerned.

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Premier, I'm not attempting to abuse the Chair. All I want is an opportunity to speak on behalf of the people who have elected me to come here and speak. That's what they want me to do; they want me to express their point of view. I'm being told now by the Chairman of this House, who is a Member on the government side, that I'm not going to be given the opportunity to speak. I think that's intolerable in this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please! On the point of order. Would the Hon. Member be seated? Under standing order 61(2) it says, "Speeches in Committee of the Whole House must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration."

On the basis of the fact that your remarks were not relevant, I referred to standing order 43. Standing order 43 says that if a Member persists in irrelevance, then the Chair has the discretionary power provided in the standing order to ask the Member to discontinue his speech — which is what I did. If the Hon Member feels his free speech is being taken from him, he may appeal my ruling to the House.

Also, he may rise on a point of order and promise that he will be relevant and ask for the reconsideration by the Chairman. I would be prepared to consider such a reconsideration if I can be assured that the Hon. Member will be relevant.

MR. CHABOT: On the point of order you are making. You have pointed out to me that on two occasions I was not being relevant to the discussions on vote 98 at this time. I'm not going to deny there's a possibility that I was probably off vote 98. But for you to anticipate that the next time I rise in my place I'm going to be off vote 98 I think is anticipating the wrong thing. Certainly, I think that in your responsibilities as Chairman of this assembly, after a Member has been what you consider irrelevant in the topic under discussion, which is vote 98, you should allow someone else to speak.

If that same Member whom you considered had been irrelevant rises in his place, you should not anticipate that again he's not going to be abiding by the rules of the House.

If you do otherwise, Mr. Chairman, I want to suggest that you are being most unfair and you are anticipating what the Member might have to say in this assembly. I don't think that's good manners on the part of....

MR. CHAIRMAN: On the point of order, standing order 43 clearly gives the Chairman discretionary power. If he feels, in the judgment of the Chairman, that the Hon. Member is going to be relevant, then of course he can allow him to speak again. This power is simply given because the Chairman must have the power.

[ Page 1924 ]

I'm relatively easy to get along with and I'm prepared to give the Hon. Member for Columbia River a further chance to see whether he can be relevant to vote 98.

MR. CHABOT: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. You haven't been in this House as long as I have, but I'm sure you realize the Member for Columbia River is not that difficult to get along with. Even the Premier agrees with that point of view.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: However, I would ask the Hon. Member for Columbia River to get to his remarks under the estimates just as quickly as he can.

MR. CHABOT: I will, Mr. Chairman. I'm one of slow speech, and I apologize for that. I don't speak rapidly but I do try to express myself in the best way possible under the circumstances, having been educated in another language. But I will try, Mr. Chairman, to express myself in the English language today. My leader is telling me to speak in French but I don't think that would be very fair. I'm not one to abuse the rules of the House.

I do not want to ask a few questions to the Minister regarding vote 98. I don't want to be accused of being repetitious, but it's going to be a little bit difficult. I wanted to know what the government is going to do about the ferry between Powell River and Bella Coola last night. It's really the triangle situation; Port Hardy is included and so forth. I have a few other things.

You want to answer that one?

HON. MR. LEA: Yes.

MR. CHABOT: But I have a few others. I'm a brief speaker. You know that, Mr. Chairman. You want to answer that one right now? Oh, just a moment, is the Premier...?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Would the Hon. Member and the Minister decide who is going to speak next.

MR. CHABOT: Do you want to answer that one, and then I'll get up and ask another?

HON. MR. LEA: I want to save you a lot of trouble, Mr. Member. I just want to tell you that is not under my jurisdiction.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Now you're out of order again.

MR. CHABOT: Oh, well, censure me, I guess. I asked a question, as I said before....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Would the Hon. Member for Columbia River continue with his second point?

MR. CHABOT: Thank you very much. I'm a little concerned and I want to be convinced again that the Minister stated correctly when he said Westside Road between Invermere and Fairmont Hot Springs would receive $50,000 for highway improvement this year. What really confused me, made me hesitate and led me to believe it might be some mistake was some erroneous information given to the House regarding the fee for vehicles going through national parks. I did contact the national park and I was told there is no suggestion that this fee will be removed from national parks. I hope the information I was given a little earlier about the $50,000 for Westside Road is accurate. I just want confirmation of that.

We have a bill before the House called the Metric Conversion Act. I believe the Minister is a progressive, straightforward-looking type Minister. I'm wondering whether he's giving some consideration to the conversion of miles. When a sign says "Radium Hot Springs — 10 miles," will he relate that into kilometers?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I feel that the proper time to bring that matter up would be the consideration of the bill. However, if the Minister does wish to make a brief answer....

MR. CHABOT: Okay. Maybe I'm premature in that particular request, but I thought the Minister might be interested in being the first in British Columbia to adopt a forward-looking conversion scale — and that's without discussing the bill, Mr. Chairman.

You're awfully touchy, Mr. Chairman. You're watching me awfully closely as if I'm going to stray from vote 98. I'm not about to do it after almost being censured by you just a few moments ago. There's no way that I would dare deviate from what we're presently discussing.

Now the Minister has discussed just a few moments ago the question of a snowslide survey crew and I have his press release here. It's to protect the motoring public against the potential of an avalanche. Some of the people in my constituency were a little concerned, Mr. Minister, a little while ago when you were talking about this particular situation — about what kind of action you were proposing to take.

When they heard that you'd be shooting bullets up into the potential slide areas, they wondered what you were talking about. They are accustomed to howitzers being used in the Rogers Pass and they wondered what new method had been devised by the

[ Page 1925 ]

Department of Highways by using bullets instead of shells.

I'm wondering, Mr. Minister, whether you have had any consultation with the crew that's been in the Rogers Pass for 10 years, who have a tremendous amount of experience. I'm wondering if you are drawing upon the talent and the experience which has been generated by this crew which has done a very effective and responsible job in the Rogers Pass.

I don't know whether you've consulted them, but if you haven't I suggest that you do, because I'm sure they could give you a tremendous amount of assistance in protecting the motoring public in the province.

Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 98 pass?

MR. CHABOT: I hadn't quite sat down, Mr. Chairman. I'm just wondering if the Minister would comment just briefly on those three subjects.

HON. MR. LEA: Well, Mr. Chairman, first of all I'd like to comment on the statement that I made earlier about the tolls in parks being removed. After that, one of the Social Credit Members said he phoned the park and they said they hadn't been removed. I said that my staff had assured me that they had been removed; and we've double-checked. Tolls in parks were removed midnight, July 25, 1973. This covers all through-commercial traffic. If goods are delivered or picked up in parks, the toll still applies. B.C. was concerned with the through traffic affecting our shipping costs, and that has been removed. So in some ways, Mr. Member, both of us were correct.

One other point: you asked whether we had consulted with the people from the Rogers Pass who have been responsible for avalanche control. The man who designed that, the man in charge, is on the committee.

MR. CHABOT: The $50,000 is still in place?

HON. MR. LEA: Oh, yes.

MR. CHABOT: Thank you.

Vote 98 approved.

Vote 99: general administration, $5,324,608 — approved.

On vote 100: maintenance and operation, $69,952,074.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, there are a couple of items I'd like to discuss under this vote with the Minister. Some of them I referred to him at an earlier date by letter in December, but I've had no answer from the Minister yet. I thought I'd bring some of these items up now and get some comments from him.

First of all, I notice in the Highways department report that the Cloverdale by-pass is as far as it can go now.

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: Why?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Is the Hon. Member talking about the capital expenditure?

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, the maintenance and operation of roads, bridges, ferries, wharves and tunnels.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's vote 101.

MR. McCLELLAND: Okay, I'll wait till the next one.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, maybe the Minister of Highways would advise me how much of this vote is going for helicopter trips.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. PHILLIPS: This is vote 100 and I was told last evening and this morning that this would be the vote to discuss it. Now that we're under this vote I would hope that the Minister would tell me how much money he anticipates to be spent by him on whirlybirding around the province.

HON. MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, I'll be spending out of that vote for helicopter trips just as much money as it takes to service this province properly.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'd like the Minister to be on the job. Let him get out there and do the work for you fellows.

Vote 100 approved.

On vote 101: capital construction, $110 million.

MR. McCLELLAND: The item that I related to the Minister was the Cloverdale bypass which, according to the Highways department report, had been held up because of further negotiation. I'd like the Minister to tell us whether that negotiation has been completed and whether the extension is going ahead on the bypass.

[ Page 1926 ]

I raised an item some time ago, too, Mr. Chairman, with the Highways department in connection with No. 10 Highway. Between about 180th Street and 186th Street on the No. 10 Highway there's an urgent need for a passing lane on that hill. I recognize, too, Mr. Chairman, that it's a very difficult engineering problem because of the nature of the houses which are back from the road. But looking at that highway, it would seem to me that there's enough maneuverability in the area to attempt to develop a passing lane without too much disruption of those old houses which are along the side of the road.

Now I was told last year, Mr. Chairman, that that item was in fact a No. 2 priority with the Department of Highways. Yet nothing seems to have been done there. I wonder if the Minister would advise the House and myself whether or not it has any priority with this government.

It's in one of the most rapidly growing parts of British Columbia, and a serious traffic problem is developing. It's also the nature of that area that that road is used by a number of farm vehicles and heavily loaded trucks. Because of that, those trucks and those farm vehicles can't negotiate that hill at very high speeds. So it's necessary that something be done about that before it becomes an insoluble problem.

In connection too, Mr. Chairman, with another bypass on the Fraser Highway around Langley city.... Now I recognize the Minister's comments, of course, about the difficulties which arise when development is allowed to happen alongside of inter-regional or interprovincial highways. Nevertheless, it's been historical in British Columbia that that's where the developments happen.

We see now developments in the City of Langley, for instance, which began, not in the last 20 or 30 or 40 years, but 100 years ago when that area was a stopping place for travelers who were coming out by stagecoach. The town developed around that stopping place. We can't now say all of a sudden, "Well, let's get rid of all the development that's there," because it's there already and it's being compounded by such other Acts of government as the Land Commission Act.

So the development is already there, and there will be more development forced into that area because of the restrictions by the Land Commission Act in other areas. Here we have the development, we have a major provincial highway going through the centre of that development, and it's an intolerable situation.

The people of Langley would love to have that road declassified, given to the City of Langley, because it isn't anything more today than a city road. It's a city street through a major, bustling city, regardless of the fact that it is designated a provincial highway.

The Department of Highways then must develop an alternative system for its highway system. It's partially developed now in a bypass situation, but the bypass doesn't go anywhere. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that when the Department of Highways has jurisdiction of roads which are in urban areas, then the Department of Highways must take the lead in developing highways which are compatible with the urban needs.

That's not happening in many areas and I include Langley city as one of those areas where it isn't happening.

In the five-year period which covered the last census, Mr. Chairman, the City of Langley experienced a growth in excess of 84 per cent. That's 84 per cent in five years. We are now experiencing in the City of Langley a growth rate of something in the order of 15 per cent per year. That's an incredible growth rate, and it's causing incredible problems, as the Minister can imagine, Mr. Chairman.

It's one of the further reasons why I would like to have the Minister and his staff come by car to Langley city and have a meeting with our people and talk about the needs of that constituency as soon as this House rises.

AN HON. MEMBER: In June!

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, June, you know; that's all right. Mr. Chairman, I also understand the dilemma that we find ourselves in because of a lack of being able to cope with the rapid growth in an area, we find ourselves with insufficient internal highway needs, internal traffic dispersal. So, we also need, I know, to develop those internal corridors and traffic patterns in conjunction with the Department of Highways who must make provision as quickly as possible for a bypass around Langley city. I wouldn't expect the Department to do that until some alternatives are also available within the City of Langley.

I ask again that the Minister offer the expertise of his department to try and help the City of Langley solve some of its internal problems as well. We don't want any orders from Victoria, but we do want the opportunity to have the expertise of the officials in your department. We want them to come out and sit down with the City of Langley, and say that they'll give us a bypass, but first we have to make arrangements to do this, and this, and this, and this, and this, so that, internally, our traffic problems can be solved as well.

I recognize that as a policy of the Department of Highways, and I think it's a good one, but I think we've got to get cracking on it right now. Get out to the City of Langley, for instance, and sit down there and do something not a year from today, but today or tomorrow — as quickly as possible.

It's a need that can't wait because the Fraser highway, Highway 1, which comes through the City

[ Page 1927 ]

of Langley now is creating unbelievably chaotic traffic conditions in that city. Even today — I think the latest survey showed that about 18 per cent of the vehicles which travel on that highway are attempting to travel right through the City of Langley to get to some other point. That's a pretty significant figure, and if we could get rid of that 18 per cent in the City of Langley many of our traffic problems would be on their way to being solved.

The Glover Road which goes from Langley city to Fort Langley is another road which requires some attention from the Department of Highways. It's in excellent shape from Langley city to the No. 10 bypass, but once you get by there, the condition of the road deteriorates somewhat.

Because Fort Langley is the second most-visited national historic site in Canada, that road is attracting more and more vehicles each summer. I understand the Minister's aversion to tourists. Nevertheless that attraction is there; they get there by road. There are no other connections with it, so everybody who goes to that facility goes by road whether it be in public passenger services or private passenger automobiles. And that road needs to be looked at by the Department of Highways.

Mr. Chairman, I mentioned this to the Minister on a number of other occasions by letter. There's also a need for the Department of Highways to consider taking the lead again in developing covered ditches along the Glover Road because that's in the centre of a major and busy city, also in an area of both attractive commercial use and attractive residential use. It's an area which the people in the city would like to see redeveloped where the residential use isn't quite as attractive.

It would seem to me that here's an area where the Department of Highways can take the lead and develop the necessities of an urban area. Covered ditches in that kind of attractive surrounding would seem to me to be a necessity. Also from the point of view of safety there is a need for covered ditches along that whole area.

The Minister has indicated that he will answer it. Okay, we'll continue.

I'd like, then, to get the Minister's comments about the day labour on Highway 13 which is north of the Fraser highway. And I will compliment the Highways department on the road south of the highway, it's an excellent job. I know there's some day labour going into the highway north. I'd like to know if that's going to be completed this year.

Also a particularly vexing problem, Mr. Chairman, comes with the freeway at Clearbrook. I won't get much support on this one from the officials in the Highways department, I don't believe. But I think there has to be a second look given to the on-ramp to the freeway at Clearbrook Road, an on-ramp going west. Now, there's an off-ramp at that highway, but no on-ramp. It creates an incredibly confusing situation for people who are visiting the Clearbrook Town Centre, and especially now with the Clearbrook Town Centre developing as the Minister and his officials are aware, into another pretty extensive town centre with new shopping facilities in that area. It's logical that more people are going to visit the town centre. When they come off the freeway on an off-ramp into the Clearbrook Town Centre, it's pretty logical for them to think they can drive back the same way they came in and get back onto the freeway again. But they may never get out of Matsqui if they do that because they'll be driving around forever because there's no way back onto the freeway from that area.

I understand that the Department of Highways owns a considerable amount of land in that area. And the engineering been done for an on-ramp I'm told, so it wouldn't be much of a matter to do it if the Highways department was of the opinion that they could.

I know too, Mr. Chairman, that the Highways department has insisted in the past on closing down the other entrance to the freeway, which is west of the ramp that I am speaking about. I don't really think that would be a logical move at this time. I think the people of that area, given the growth of that area as well, should be able to expect to have both of those accesses. I would ask the Highways department to take a second look at that whole situation.

There are also concerns in the municipality of Matsqui. I'm not aware whether or not your officials have taken any further steps for this, but there needs to be a link developed from the new Abbotsford-Mission Highway in the Matsqui area to come across what is known as the McClure Road right-of-way, and connect with the Mount Lehman interchange of the freeway. This again would create an east-west bypass route. It's a logical route. It's one that can be easily engineered and surveyed, and it's one which the municipality of Matsqui would like very much to see.

It would also be an alternate to the heavy traffic through the Abbotsford area town centre. That traffic is getting heavier too because of the opening of the Mission Bridge. So, it would seem to me that that would also be a logical extension for the Highways department to look into. It would also be an access to the B.C. Hydro Matsqui Industrial Park. So, it has a number of things going for it.

Once again, I think if there's a hang-up here that Matsqui, perhaps, hasn't developed the necessary traffic connectors within its own jurisdiction. Then I think, again, here's the opportunity for the Highways department to say, "Okay, we'll lend you the expertise again. We'll come in, sit down and look over the situation with you so that we can develop those

[ Page 1928 ]

alternatives." And the municipal staffs, incidentally, are interested, very interested in having that kind of input from your department. All they ask is that they be contacted now, and let's get down to work, particularly in regard to the City of Langley.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, I'm empowered by the City of Langley to accept an offer from you today that you'll come and meet with them as soon as the session is over.

Mr. Chairman, I asked a question about the Annacis Island bridge the other day, and the Minister didn't answer that question. I'd just like him to tell us what was the survey that was done for the Annacis Island bridge, and whether it's an ongoing thing. Can we expect to see some future action from the government with regard to the Annacis Island bridge?

In the report of the chief highway engineer on the Nicomekl River bridge, with design in progress.... I wonder if the Minister could just tell me what that bridge is, and where it is, whether it's the bridge over the Nicomekl in Langley city or Surrey. I'd like to know where that bridge is.

Also, Mr. Chairman, in the report of the chief highway engineer he has referred to bridge project 850 which is the Albion and McMillan Island ferry terminals. I just want to draw the attention of the committee to the fact that that's the busiest ferry in British Columbia.

In 1973, according to your statistics from the highways department, that little ferry, and it is a little ferry, carried almost half-a-million vehicles, 450,000 vehicles and 902,000 passengers.

I'll tell you that that little ferry is pumping today, because it's overworked. It can't stand the pace, and the breakdowns are becoming fairly prevalent. We've got to get some improvement in there and it should have been in there a year ago.

Now I notice, Mr. Chairman, that there is a mention of revision to marine structures to accommodate a proposed larger ferry for this service, and that the design has been completed. Now I'd like to know, now that the design has been completed, when I can go home and tell the people in my constituency that they're going to have a new ferry. I wish I could go home and tell them they were going to have a bridge, but I know that's not possible. So when can they be told that they're going to have a new ferry, because the poor old ferry that's on there now just can't take it very much longer?

I have a couple of other items — but I can bring them up perhaps under other votes — with regard to traffic lights and things like that. I'd just like the Minister to comment, perhaps, on a couple of reclassifications — one of them, 200th Street, the Carvalth Road from the Fraser Highway to 16th Avenue. Now the accelerated growth of Langley city and the Brookswood area of Langley municipality which.... I might tell the Minister it has a projected population of 45,000 people by 1976. By 1976 we expect that there'll be 45,000 people in that Brookswood area.

We've got a major road access going through that area now. It's a provincial highway from the Fraser highway north and we want to know whether or not the Minister and his department will consider that it be designated as a provincial arterial highway to the south.

Then, Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether or not he would comment specifically on the designation of 16th Avenue from the Freeway No. 99 to Highway 13. That road is substantially completed; it's there, most of it, right now and it's in pretty good shape. I don't think it would take very much from the freeway to Highway No. 13.

The volume of traffic using that road now as a connecting link between those two major arteries is increasing. I wonder whether or not any traffic counts have been taken, Mr. Chairman. But I would suggest that there needs to be some serious and urgent consideration taken of the reclassification of this road as well.

When the Minister commented yesterday about the reclassification of roads, he mentioned some fears of pushing through 60-mile-an-hour roads or 50-mile-an-hour roads through populated areas. I think that was a comment he made. High-speed arteries, I think, was the term he used. I wouldn't suggest that these roads have to be freeways of 50, 60, 70 miles per hour.

The Carvalth Road serves as an important provincial highway link, and with a speed limit set at 40 miles per hour, there are no complaints — not very many complaints, at least — any more. I felt that there would be some problems with that road because of the limiting of the speed limit, but there haven't turned out to be very many problems. It turns out that it was a pretty good idea the Highways had in lowering the speed limit on that road.

So it isn't necessary that these roads, once they're reclassified, become necessarily high-speed traffic arteries. They can retain many of their characteristics — urban characteristics and rural characteristics — that they have now without getting into too much trouble. On those specifics, along with the Glover Road, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to get some answers to those specific questions.

I haven't had the opportunity for a while to speak with the people involved, but I would like to ask the Minister to comment about the status of the access from No. 10 Highway to the proposed new golf course on the flats of No. 10 Road in Delta.

I mentioned yesterday that sometimes, because of lack of local knowledge, there can be mistakes made in Victoria. I don't want the Minister to take that as a condemnation of civil servants, because it isn't anything like that. It's only a recognition that

[ Page 1929 ]

mistakes sometimes get made — by the Minister, by the Members of this House, by public servants, by everybody.

I just wanted to relate that when I first brought up this matter of the access for this golf course, I was told that there could be access from another road. But when I went to investigate that road, it wasn't even there. It didn't go anywhere. There was a railroad track there, but no road. It ended nowhere and there was no middle to it either.

In order to get into that golf course property I had to drive four miles from the original point of entrance through a very beautiful and attractive residential development, with winding streets and dead-end streets, so that it took me, to cover that four miles, about 20 minutes — because I wouldn't speed through those residential areas.

The point, Mr. Chairman, is that that was obviously a bad suggestion from Victoria, because there was no way really to get to that golf course along the route that was suggested to the owners of the course. Unless we really get some local input into these matters, there can be mistakes made.

I don't know where the status of that access is at this time, but I'd like to suggest that there's only one practical access to that golf course and it's at a point right along Highway 10 where there is beautiful visibility for considerable distance on both sides, and where there's the opportunity to widen out Highway 10 at that area so that they could have a traffic island in there — a holding bay.

The people who are developing the golf course have agreed that they'll build it. They don't even want the Highways department to build it; they'll do it themselves. In fact, they'll develop anything the Highways department deems suitable. But it seems to me that in an area where there's all kinds of visibility, for a use which is designed to keep our greenbelt areas restored — particularly in that area which is right across the street from a greenbelt designation — it would seem to me that it wouldn't be too difficult for the Highways department to agree to this access for the golf course, if they haven't already done so.

Now, as I mentioned, I have a couple of other things I'd like to speak about under different votes, but in the meantime, I would like some comments about the items which I've raised in my own constituency, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. LEA: Running through the items that the Hon. Member mentioned, first the good news again. Cloverdale bypass is under contract for this year.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You can't let that contract until you get your estimates.

HON. MR. LEA: Well, I've got it in abeyance.

No. 10 Highway passing lanes….

MR. McCLELLAND: Don't interfere with the Member's constituency.

Interjections.

HON. MR. LEA: I've got to get back to work, that's for sure. I've got to fly somewhere.

But No. 10 Highway, the passing lanes; we're conscious of the problem there and this year we're negotiating for the property to facilitate it.

The Langley bypass: we are in communication with Langley — the city and municipality — and will be meeting with them as soon as the opportunity…. I've had letters from both men.

MR. McCLELLAND: What day can I put down to have you out there?

HON. MR. LEA: As soon as we're out, we'll arrange a date.

The Glover Road: you mentioned the ditching problem and the safety of children. That's where I've chosen, because of the safety factor, to put the money in there this year — $80,000 for ditching. Highway 13: a contract to pave this year.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's really making out, isn't he?

HON. MR. LEA: Freeway at Clearbrook: you've asked us to take a second look. We're doing that as we go along. We're in discussions with Matsqui right now, and the department is taking a second look.

You asked about other accesses and making more access available. We're giving serious consideration to access to the freeway. I'm sure you agree, the fewer the better.

AN HON. MEMBER: There's already one there.

HON. MR. LEA: The fewer the better, and we'll look at improving any that are there.

The Annacis Island Bridge: there's CBA engineering, a consulting firm, working for us now. Their deliberations, their data-gathering, is not complete. There have been no decisions reached. They're still looking at available sites and the feasibility of that site particularly and the ramifications of making a crossing there.

Four-laning of the Nicomekl Bridge?

MR. McCLELLAND: I just want to know where that bridge is.

HON. MR. LEA: You want to know where it is? Geographically?

[ Page 1930 ]

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes.

HON. MR. LEA: Is it okay if we send you a letter on that, because I don't know where it is either?

The street classifications: they're under constant study. I would hesitate to make any commitment here on a street reclassification. I would take your words under advisement and be in touch with the city. You know, to declassify does cost the city money, and I'd like to have some discussions with them before we do that.

The Albion ferry: the contract has just come in and been opened and is waiting on my desk for me to take a look at. It's gone out to bid and the contracts are in.

No. 10 Highway, the golf course access: I haven't heard of that.

AN HON. MEMBER: You have a letter on that.

HON. MR. LEA: I don't recall it but get together with me on that, Mr. Member. I think those are all the points that you raised.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, through you to the Minister, I asked him questions under his salary vote which he said he would answer specifically. I would ask him if he would do those and then I have some more to ask. Do you want to answer those first?

HON. MR. LEA: I asked the Member if she would repeat those questions to me at this time. I didn't write them down because it was the wrong vote.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, the Minister is hard of hearing. He is "Haile Selassie" of British Columbia — he doesn't know whether to stay or go.

Specifically I called about Black Rock Road, which is ready for paving and whether it would be paved. Then I asked about Appaloosa Road. These are all in the south end of the constituency.

HON. MR. LEA: Madam Member, you did go through them before. Would it be all right if my staff get all the information from Hansard and give you a detailed list on Monday? The staff have just offered to do that for you.

MRS. JORDAN: Fine. I would be glad to do that but I must have some explanation because these are the ones that are all….

HON. MR. LEA: We'll give you full details and all the explanations on Monday.

MRS. JORDAN: Also Echo Valley, Trinity Valley….

HON. MR. LEA: We'll give you everything that you mentioned.

MRS. JORDAN: Fine. Well, then I'll just ask you some specifics here about the new projects, through you, Mr. Chairman, to the Minister. One which I am sure the staff is aware of is Carr's Landing Road, which has been a five-year progressive project. This is in the centre of the constituency on Okanagan Lake. We had problems in land acquisition and that was straightened up and then we had problems in getting suitable gravel onto the site. This is a matter of having to transport the gravel from the Winfield gravel pit over some pavement which is going to break up.

This commitment to gravel and pave it was to go ahead two years ago. It was cancelled last year. What we have is a muddy, boggy roadbed ready for its final layering of gravel and paving. It was in our estimates this year at approximately $100,000. The people in this area have been very patient. They understood it was a five-year programme but they were left bogged down and it wasn't entirely the government's fault. It was this problem of getting this gravel in and I hope that there is some money there for that.

Also, I would like to know if the Vernon-Slocan Highway will be acted upon this year. I did ask the question under the Minister's salary vote as to what his policy would be in relation to gradually rebuilding major portions of the Monashee Highway, which we should be doing. We keep pouring money in and repairing and it is flooded out.

Just on that point while I think of it, too, Mr. Minister — and I meant to bring it up under your salary vote — there are some Indian hieroglyphics on the road between Lumby and Cherryville. They are on an outcropping of rock in an area where the road constantly washes away. We've always managed to save them. To take that rock off is a very expensive proposition, but the one thing I want to be sure of is that when the time comes, even under a new administration, those Indian hieroglyphics will be protected. They will have to come out in one massive chunk. The Minister did mention that he was engaging someone in the department to look at this and I would like this to be reported now and I'll also try and send a letter on it because we've protected them all this time. Actually it's very interesting and quite a deadly traffic hazard because people see it and they stop and go back. So far, we haven't had any accidents but we don't want to see them destroyed.

I would like to know whether, in fact, you will be allotting us funds to start a progressive rebuilding programme on Highway 6. Also, speaking of Highway 6, the Minister announced that there would be four-laning of Highway 6 between Vernon and Lumby. This came as somewhat of a shock to me because it has always been the mayor of Lumby, and Coldstream, and the previous mayor of Vernon who

[ Page 1931 ]

advised me that we would rather keep that just as an internal road for servicing local people and move the highway up onto the side of the hill.

There's an area that they call Gray Ditch. It's the old irrigation ditch. It's now dry and we felt that in keeping with what everyone wants to do in the protection of the lower segment of the valley, we should have the main Highway 6 from Vernon to Lumby going out to the Gray Ditch area to Lumby and that it would also follow it right around the hill going to Highway 97 north to Armstrong and that any bypass that bypassed Vernon would link up with that through the BX area. This would put our major highway and bypass right up on the side of the hill where I am sure the Minister would agree they belong.

However, I would like to know if he has funds allotted this year to meet that commitment as he announced it, or if he would consider moving the road up. I recognize that the mayor of Vernon wants the road down but I think that if it came to a choice of the people, the majority would want to see it up. We want to keep the traffic out of Vernon.

I might also add that I don't intend to fight it but the people of Vernon are not happy about having 27th Avenue declared as a secondary arterial highway. If the Minister put the new Highway 6 up on the side hill from Lumby, it would really be a relatively small matter to carry it right on to the junction of Highway 97 going to Kamloops or to the Armstrong-Shuswap area. Then we wouldn't be pushing all that truck traffic and commercial traffic along what we call Church Street, which is, in fact, a residential street and a school street and a church street and is the site of the court house.

I would ask his views on those three and what he has committed himself to do.

Westside Road, Mr. Minister, we were discussing earlier. In the north end of the valley, we would like to know how much money you have committed there for this year in round figures. We think it will be about $125,000 needed but those are based on…. I didn't want you to know how closely I was following the figures.

Again, I mentioned Creighton Valley Road. Okanagan Landing bypass is a priority in the area and I most sincerely ask the Minister to take another look at this. We don't expect miracles but if he can give us some indication of a progressive programme, I think he can count on the full cooperation of the people.

We have three bridges, Mr. Minister. Cherryville Bridge is to be reconstructed. It was a commitment of the former administration. Your staff would know about this — I'm sure you wouldn't. It was after we built the Sugar Lake Bridge, which ran from the main intersection of Highway 6 to Sugar Lake by the one little commercial area that we would do a progressive paving programme, at least from the corner to the bridge. Then the staff may well be aware that you go further up Highway 6 towards the Monashee itself and the main community road goes in from Highway 6 to the community centre.

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: Three Valley? It's a little far. Frankly, we'd just as soon you didn't put a road through that way, if you don't mind.

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, don't put a blacktop highway through there, thanks. We will let the Hon. Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) have all that traffic. We want to protect that ecological area that the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) is most interested in, I am sure.

Anyway, we would like to have paving from Highway 6 into the community centre. That bridge which is the Cherryville Bridge needs rebuilding. It's the one that's right by the North Fork Road. The thought was that if we-could get the pavement, we could live with the bridge for some time. Generally speaking, this is certainly the thought of the community. The only thing that would qualify that is whether or not the bridge will withstand the traffic, but the heavy logging traffic could be rerouted over the new Sugar Lake Bridge. In the end what we need is that half circle — horseshoe — paved but I would like to stress the pavement from Highway 6 into the community centre which goes by the park, the school and the community hall, and in Cherryville, that's a lot of activity. It is heavily used.

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, Mr. Minister, if you came out of hiding once in a while and came up there, we could show you this country so you would know what you were talking about. Actually, Mr. Chairman, the area of Coldstream is still suffering from some of the misdirection given by that Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) when he ripped them off on their plan, but that's not under this Minister's vote.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's unnecessary. Very unbecoming to you.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, Mr. Premier, it may be unnecessary but the people feel that way and they are very concerned. They want to hear from him when he is going to purchase the park. Maybe that'll keep him for a little while.

The next one is the redecking of Shuswap River Bridge and again we would….

[ Page 1932 ]

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, I think we have more fun on the Shuswap River than they do on the bridge over the River Kwai, although that makes a better movie. But my understanding is that this will be started this year, providing the Minister approves.

We have some minor points which I hope, Mr. Minister, will be in there. The main concern really is this corridor to Lumby, other than the ones I've mentioned. We have a problem between the City of Vernon and Kalamalka Lake. It was always the MLA's hope — and we did have many discussions — that this would be widened. There is a right-of-way maintained so that we could have a pedestrian area and cyclist path. It's not in the estimates from the department this year, but this is an extremely dangerous piece of road. It's heavily used by children and adults walking to the lake because it's just a three-mile area. It's heavily used by bicycles, and it's actually a fairly narrow piece of pavement. The reason we bogged down last time was because the underpass by the lake is owned by the national railway and is under the Department of Commercial Transport and it's substandard in size. We felt that it was best to get that problem solved first. But it's come to the point, Mr. Minister, where we've got to ignore that.

I would like to see the Department of Highways commit itself this year to widening this road. It's a matter really of gravelling and a little filling, with the view of paving their section next year to a cyclist path and walkway. If we can have this commitment then I'm sure I can encourage both the municipality of Coldstream and the City of Vernon to do our part. I would think the provincial government part is only about a mile and a half. It wouldn't involve a great deal of money, although it does involve some small amount of property acquisition. Perhaps the Minister would answer these specific questions and if I have more, I'll ask them.

HON. MR. LEA: Without trying to be facetious, I would like to commend the Member for going through all of those areas and just knowing them all.

One or two specifics I think I should answer now, but I would say to the Member that we're going to get all of these. You did raise a great many, and we'll send you all the information we can possibly send you on everything that you mentioned.

MRS. JORDAN: Just a point of order, Mr. Chairman. It doesn't have to be too detailed if the money's there. I wouldn't want to put them to a lot of work.

HON. MR. LEA: But you did ask us specifically on Westside road, and you said $100,000.

MRS. JORDAN: That doesn't allow for inflation.

HON. MR. LEA: Well, we'll catch up with inflation next year.

The Vernon-Lavington Highway 6 — $350,000 this year. And Lumby to Vernon, we'll take your advice on that, certainly.

MRS. JORDAN: I just think it should be looked at.

HON. MR. LEA: We'll look at it.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): I've got a couple of bridges, too. I'll just list them and maybe the Minister could indicate whether his staff could give me a report on this situation.

First, the proposed redecking of the bridges on the Squamish Highway. Has any decision been made as to how it will proceed and will there be traffic delays?

Second, for seven years, the government has been promising a bridge across the Mamquam to connect with a new routing of the highway to 99 at Cheekye Bridge. Now, I know that contracts have been let for work on the Cheekye, and I'd like to know whether the government is proceeding with the replacement of the Mamquam Bridge.

Third, there's a hill, known as Suicide Hill, and I suppose there are a million of them, but this one is just south of the village of Pemberton, where there is a continuing slide problem. I wonder if any work is planned to try to remedy that situation. It's a road that is used by the school buses, at least four a day, and it constitutes a continuing hazard. I think that some remedial action should be taken.

Those are the specific matters, but I've got some more on bridges.

Now, there are two highways that I'd like to discuss briefly with the Minister. One is the department's plan for a highway north from Pemberton. Is consideration being given to going through Railway Pass and on across eventually to Gang Ranch to come into the Williams Lake–Bella Coola highway? You can go from there to the highway to Prince Rupert and it would be very convenient. That's number one. I think that that is a route that should be given.

Second, in connection with that same highway routing, at the south end, in order to avoid the very difficult road problem that exists down at Howe Sound, is the department giving any consideration to rerouting that road so that it will come off existing Highway 99 at the Mamquam River and go across the rise and come out in the Arm? That's connecting on with Port Moody and the highway system east of the City of Vancouver.

It occurs to me that if this highway route were considered it would go a long way to resolving the

[ Page 1933 ]

difficulty that the Minister mentioned yesterday, namely inter-regional traffic corridors becoming clogged with local traffic. If we could bypass the route from Squamish south to Horseshoe Bay by taking this alternate route, then traffic heading east and south and wishing to avoid the City of Vancouver could do so by following that route.

If you consider the implications of that complete highway programme, then traffic from Bella Coola and Williams Lake could funnel down through Pemberton and then cut across, missing the City of Vancouver, and go east and south from there. I wonder if the Minister would care to comment on any of those subjects, or if I could have a report at some subsequent time.

HON. MR. LEA: The Hon. Member did indicate that he would accept a report. The chief engineer will get the Hansard and in detail and fullness answer all of your questions.

MR. W.R. BENNETT (South Okanagan): Just quickly on capital construction, when the new City of Kelowna was amalgamated, there were funds set up for capital costs for new links and then for some of the existing links for reconstruction. I refer specifically to places like Lakeshore Road where I received a major petition which was forwarded on to your office. I think it was signed by Mr. R.G. Lenny. With regard to roads such as the Springfield Road and major new connections with the city, could you give me some indication of how this budget is going to be allocated in this coming year?

HON. MR. LEA: The money in the budget that he's talking about is separate from this vote. It was an agreement signed by the government, by the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) and the City of Kelowna and will not be coming out of this vote but will be made available, as it is needed, by the Minister of Finance.

MR. BENNETT: Just one question further: are you working in concert with the Minister of Municipal Affairs? I'm sure there will be other projects other than those specifically mentioned in that municipal vote.

HON. MR. LEA: We're still negotiating with the City of Kelowna, but I think we have basic agreement on the highways that are to be done out of this agreement. I've been in touch with Mayor Bennett and it looks good.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Just one road for the Minister's comment at this point, he may be pleased to learn, and that is the major east-west arterial known as McKenzie Avenue, the easterly portion of which was constructed from the Patricia Bay Highway to the University of Victoria several years ago under a joint project involving the provincial Department of Highways and the municipality of Saanich. The question now is with respect to the western half of McKenzie which, when completed, will give a water-to-water route, east to west, through the entire municipality, at its western terminus meeting the Trans-Canada Highway in the vicinity of Acorn Street.

I believe the municipality has been in touch with the department, and I wonder if there is any planning money involved in this vote which would lead to capital construction at a later date. I would say that with traffic congestion in the entire greater Victoria area, the completion of the westerly half of McKenzie makes a great deal of sense and will ease pressure on a number of streets.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs, wearing his transit hat, not too long ago instituted a crosstown bus system which originates in the east, in the Cadboro Bay–University area, and finally terminates in the vicinity of Esquimalt dockyard. But it has to leave McKenzie Avenue and travel on substandard roads, purely local roads, as it finds its way over towards the western part of Saanich municipality and thence into Esquimalt. So what is the status of planning and eventual construction of McKenzie Avenue?

HON. MR. LEA: McKenzie Avenue is a secondary road, as I'm sure the Member realizes. If the community, the municipality of Saanich, goes ahead with the construction, we will pick up our share readily from the ratio specified under legislation.

MR. CURTIS: In response to that, is it not a fact that the municipality has approached the department, at least verbally, to determine if it could be classified as an arterial?

HON. MR. LEA: Not to my knowledge. I will check that out. Offhand I don't think I would agree to that.

MR. CHABOT: When I discussed a couple of projects in my constituency under vote 98, at that time, probably properly, the Minister suggested I raise the subject matter under vote 101. I'd like to know whether there's going to be any work done on Highway 95 just immediately south of Golden for that portion running from Golden to a point approximately 15 miles south. It is in desperate need of improvement — some kind of a contract to put a proper layer of asphalt on it.

I'm wondering if consideration will be given to the examination of the requirement of an overpass at Athalmer over the level crossing there which is

[ Page 1934 ]

blocked for some considerable period of time, up to 25 to 30 minutes. There are constant delays for a motorist at that level crossing caused by the frequency of trains because of the ever-increasing volume of coal moving from the Crows Nest Pass and from the southwestern part of Alberta.

HON. MR. LEA: I did mention earlier, I think, that there isn't this year anything planned for that section of Highway 95.

I've told you before I appreciate your remarks about Expo in Spokane maybe meaning more usage of that road. I'll take that into consideration and maybe we can work something out later this year because of what you've said.

The overpass at Athalmer. No, we don't have anything planned this year. But again, I think you've made a sincere plea for both of these. I will reconsider and take a look.

MR. BENNETT: I asked some questions about Highway 97 yesterday and I neglected one which is a serious hazard of reconstruction where we have Haymen Road, Bushby Road, and Highway 97 meeting. There's a hill involved that services a housing development created by the VLA for the returned men just after the last war.

There have been a series of complaints from my constituents and the people who live in that area. They have to contend with traffic not only going up and down hills, which is extremely hazardous with the icy conditions of the road in winter, but the coming on to a major highway at which there's an inadequate left turn to go up either of these roads. Unfortunately the junction, which is hard to describe here, is at the bottom of a hill right on to Highway 97.

These complaints have been filed with your department and with the local engineer, Mr. MacMillan. I wonder if you could give me some assurance that this is being looked at in this year's estimates?

HON. MR. LEA: My senior staff aren't familiar with it offhand. I will have them check it out and get in touch with you right away.

MR. FRASER: Are there any major contracts contemplated for Highway 97 from Cache Creek to Hixon in the north end of Cariboo this year?

HON. MR. LEA: No, Mr. Member.

MR. CHABOT: I'd like to take this opportunity to thank the Minister for his patience during these estimates and for answering all the questions I put to him.

Vote 101 approved.

On vote 102: vehicle damage claims, $125,000.

MR. MORRISON: Will 102 appear again next year or is this the last year for it?

HON. MR. LEA: The vote probably will appear but the amount probably will not be the same. There's some catchup to do from previous years. The vote will appear again because there are some cases where it's not covered by insurance: if the vehicle was standing still; it could be a machine that goes along, you drop the legs, you could knock out a main or damage some property. So it will probably appear there. Really, I don't know. It's an estimation; we may not spend it all this year.

Vote 102 approved.

On vote 103: highway signs, signals, traffic control, et cetera, $1,400,000.

MR. BENNETT: We are talking about traffic lights and highway signs. There's been an application in with the district of Westbank for traffic lights on Highway 97 where the community has grown up over 40 or 50 years around Highway 97. There's a serious problem because of the small business community and school traffic there. They've had a request in for a traffic light or a signal of some nature for some time. Can you advise if this will be looked at?

HON. MR. LEA: That's in for this year.

MR. McCLELLAND: I have made some specific requests; chambers of commerce and whatnot in my constituency have made some specific requests for signals. I think the one thing I'd really like to ask the Minister to do is give serious consideration to making sure there are flashing lights at least at every major intersection on heavily-travelled provincial highways, and perhaps warning lights when a major intersection 1s coming up.

I'm thinking of an area on the corner of Fraser Highway and the No. 13 Highway, from the freeway to Canadian Customs. At the moment, that corner has only a flashing orange light. The people in the department have told me on another occasion that, according to all their criteria, there isn't a safety problem. Yet there have been a number of accidents there; there have been some people killed. Despite the fact that the visibility is there, it's still a serious intersection.

What we should have is some kind of warning in advance of those kinds of intersections. If we can't have a light, let's at least get a warning ahead of time so the people know there's a possible congested area

[ Page 1935 ]

coming up and what could be a dangerous intersection.

On major highways where there are controlled traffic signals, I think we should always have the same as we have on the highway from here to the ferry that flashing amber light which warns that red light is upcoming. I think that should be at every intersection where there are controlled signals. I would ask the Minister to give some consideration to that.

HON. MR. LEA: I think those are comments made by the Member. I find those lights very helpful myself. We've only put them so far at high-speed highways of 70 miles an hour. But I think they are valuable comments.

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): This past year we opened the new Mission Bridge at which the Minister officiated and where the Premier was present. It was a great day for my constituency.

On that same occasion I had the opportunity to show the Minister of Highways an area that, because of the extra traffic which was now coming through the city of Abbotsford, because of the new bridge, because there was a school crossing, it needs a light. Could you tell me if that is in the estimates for this year?

HON. MR. BARRETT: That was the first bridge opening I was invited to after being an MLA for 13 years.

MR. SCHROEDER: I want to thank you for inviting me.

HON. MR. LEA: I remember the intersection you showed me. If it isn't in there it will be.

Vote 103 approved.

Vote 104: grants and subsidies, $24,610 — approved.

On vote 105: Purchase of new equipment, $8,000,000.

MR. CURTIS: As I read it, this represents a 87 per cent increase for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1975, as opposed to this year. It suggests to me that there is in the Department of Highways, or in Treasury Board through the Minister of Highways, a decision to change the emphasis quite dramatically from rental of equipment to purchase of equipment. The Minister indicates that is not the case and I'll be interested to hear his remarks.

But we do have a figure that was $4,500,000 last year and is scheduled for $8 million this year — again, as I say, a 78 per cent increase. One can't help being suspicious about this and ask if there is to be a decrease in the use of private equipment or a change of emphasis that will undoubtedly affect the private sector — the equipment companies, the various firms which rent trucks and equipment to the Department of Highways.

The Minister continues to shake his head negatively, but that certainly is the reading I think some Members on this side of the House would take from that fairly dramatic increase. I will be interested in his observations.

HON. MR. LEA: When I took over the department, the average age of equipment was 12 years old. I asked the department to assess the situation and I found out we were paying so much downtime. Not only did it cost a lot of money for downtime, for the parts and the labour, but we couldn't maintain the roads properly when the equipment was down.

We have to put a lot of roll bars into some of our equipment because of new…. Yes, that's right. This doesn't indicate in any way that there will be any lesser use of rental equipment from the private operators.

MR. CURTIS: Well, Mr. Chairman, can we assume from what the Minister says that the ratio established over the years between rented equipment and Highways department equipment will remain relatively the same in the coming year?

HON. MR. LEA: Relatively the same or up.

MR. FRASER: Well, I want to congratulate the Minister for the increase in this vote. I think only two or three years ago it was about $2 million. The Minister is quite correct; the equipment is too old and antiquated and consequently breaking down; we're having far too much downtime. I'm happy to see it.

I hope you can convince the government that they shouldn't, in the case of this equipment, always buy from the low bidder. You're not getting your dollars-worth from some of the low bidders you are buying from. I think we have to take a hard look at the specifications and the downtime you are having, even with the new equipment you are buying. You are buying the wrong make in a lot of cases. It certainly will show up.

Last but not least, I would like to know if you spent the $4.5 million in here for the fiscal year ending today or tomorrow. I know there are real troubles in getting delivery of equipment when it hasn't been spent.

HON. MR. LEA: Yes, Mr. Chairman, in helicopter blades. (Laughter.)

Seriously, yes, it has been spent. I must admit that

[ Page 1936 ]

a great portion of this money has been tentatively spent also. We've ordered the equipment already and we expect delivery this fall.

Vote 105 approved.

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING

On vote 106: Minister's office, $131,688.

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister of Housing): Unaccustomed as I am….

Mr. Chairman, in my remarks in the throne speech debate I provided a lengthy description of some of the various programmes in which my department intends to be engaged this year throughout British Columbia.

The Department of Housing, the first provincial department to be solely devoted to housing in Canada, didn't come into being until the Department of Housing Act received royal assent last November. In the months from May to November 1, I was given the task of serving as Minister Without Portfolio for housing. Although I had only two staff other than a secretary and executive assistant at the time — and indeed staff are now only being hired for the new department — I submit to the House that there were substantial accomplishments during 1973.

For example, in the area of land acquisition — and without land it is pretty impossible to talk about housing — approximately 742 acres were purchased in a great number of British Columbia communities. This land has a potential of approximately 3,100 housing units.

I've also been working actively with other provincial departments to obtain Crown land for housing purposes. We've acquired about 1,690 acres of Crown land in this way and it has a potential for a further 7,500 housing units.

This is also exclusive of federal-provincial land assembly projects, whose 440 acres, which we have jointly, have a potential of a further 1,300 new housing units. This isn't including North Vancouver's Blair Rifle Range.

Mr. Chairman, as far as actual dwelling units are concerned, the British Columbia Housing Management Commission now has 4,039 dwelling units under management. There are approximately 2,500 families in senior citizens' rental units in the planning or construction stages.

As far as cooperative housing is concerned, and this is a programme the provincial government is actively promoting, there are now 991 units in the planning or construction stage.

And so I think you will agree that we have not been exactly idle in getting housing underway for the citizens of British Columbia. Of course, what has been accomplished in the last few months is but a token of what lies ahead during the coming year.

The Premier announced the government will be engaged in one way or another with about two-thirds of the housing starts in the province in the coming year. Many of these new homes will be assisted by the home acquisition loan and grant programmes. Others will be helped through first mortgage and home conversion legislation that has yet to come before this House. Still others will be directly built on Crown land or through direct public initiatives.

At the moment, British Columbia has a home acquisition loan and grant programme unrivalled by any other province. It is true that we inherited this programme from the previous administration, but I submit to you that we have made it far more relevant to the needs of British Columbians. The other programmes which presently exist are family rental housing, and I'm going to see that a great deal more of this is built in the coming year — and senior citizens housing.

Although the government will continue to build senior citizens housing directly or jointly with CMHC, I am determined this will be mainly a non-profit programme assisted by grants under the Elderly Citizens' Housing Aid Act.

The servicing of Crown and provincial land subdivisions with sewers, water and roads has proved to be such a popular programme that we have decided to up the target for the coming year from 1,000 to 2,000 serviced building lots throughout the province. The latter is a programme which operates without the assistance of federal moneys.

As I said in my remarks in the throne speech debate, co-operative housing is no longer an experiment in this province. Co-operatives built with the development services of the United Housing Foundation have proved they can find a ready market in our urban areas. It seems many people are willing to trade using a home as a speculative gain for a situation in which they get a somewhat lower than market rate and stability of housing costs in the years to come. As far as I am concerned, co-operatives will continue to have first call in lands under the control of my department.

Today I would like to announce that the government will be launching a building co-operative programme that will provide citizens of the province with opportunities to build homes with their own labour. Building co-operatives have long been a feature in Nova Scotia where 4,300 have been built in this manner since the late 1930s. In Nova Scotia the programme has taken the form of groups of 10 to 12 people banding together to study building methods during the winter months, with the help of an adult educator, and then building their homes the following summer.

Mr. Duncan MacIntyre, the director of the building co-op programme in Nova Scotia, has been

[ Page 1937 ]

retained as a consultant to plan and implement the programme in British Columbia. In this connection he has already met with approximately 40 people in Squamish who are interested in building homes on 10 acres of Crown land that will be made available for this purpose.

Provincial government assistance to building co-ops will include consultant services provided by a special branch of the Department of Housing, leasing of serviced lots, interim financing and a first mortgage. It is likely that this programme will chiefly operate outside the Vancouver and Victoria metropolitan areas where land costs make the construction of single-family dwellings uneconomical or prohibitive. The individual families will be able to own their own homes once construction of all the dwellings in the building co-op is complete. They will also be individually responsible for the repayment of their mortgage.

I believe this programme will be well received as many British Columbians will welcome the opportunity to take a hammer and a saw to build a home of their own, as well as save substantial costs that could be involved.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again. It is not a filibuster, as you can see. Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The motion is in order, and the motion is that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.

Would the Hon. Minister state his reason for a point of order?

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): Yes. This House has passed some votes today. That motion is out of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think the motion is that the committee rise and report resolutions.

Would the Hon. Member restate his motion?

MR. CHABOT: If there is any dispute Mr. Chairman, I would….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member restate the resolution or the motion?

MR. CHABOT: I move that the committee rise, report resolutions and ask leave to sit again.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The motion is that the committee rise, report resolutions, and ask leave to sit again.

Motion negatived on the following division.

YEAS — 13

NAYS — 31

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, while reporting to the House, please inform the Speaker that a division took place in committee and ask for a recording in the Journals of the House.

MR. PHILLIPS: It's what I would consider almost despicable, Mr. Chairman, that at 5:45 p.m. on a Friday afternoon…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Would the Hon. Member for South Peace River get to vote 106?

MR. PHILLIPS: …after having three sessions every day this week, we would start to debate such a critical and important department as we are doing this afternoon.

However, I realize the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) has been away holidaying in Nova Scotia all week. He's back and he's fresh and I think that while he was in Nova Scotia he must have picked up one of those bull whips I used to play with when I was a kid. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's the bull.

MR. PHILLIPS: They still have them down there. They still have oxen down there and they...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. PHILLIPS: ...here these oxen with bull whips.

Interjections.

[ Page 1938 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: …and there's a lot of bull over there too, big bull.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member….

MR. PHILLIPS: Big bully.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Would the Hon. Member for South Peace River get to the estimates, please?

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.

MR. PHILLIPS: So we're being whipped into shape this afternoon.

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: Whipped into shape to discuss a department that this year will spend in excess of $115 million taxpayers' money, a department that is taking this very important segment of life in this great province of ours in new directions. This very important department; this very, very important department.

It took the new Minister of Housing a little over five minutes, if that, to explain the direction of this new department in British Columbia. As he explained to the Legislature late this Friday afternoon, it is the first department of housing to be created in any province in Canada. It took him a little over five minutes to explain the directions and what he intends to do with this department. If he had just explained what he has done since he became Minister of Housing….

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: Debatable. Maybe a little over a minute; maybe 30 seconds.

He's had some direction from the Minister of Finance. He's been told where to go. He was given complete, practically unlimited authority by this Legislature last fall when they set up his department under legislation. In the spring session he was given $10 million to spend in his department, but he's done nothing. He took maybe another four minutes to explain what he was going to do in a department, in a new department. A change from the routine. But I say, Mr. Chairman, more was accomplished under the housing in the Department of Municipal Affairs than this department has accomplished.

It grieves me a great deal, because in the Province of British Columbia today housing is probably one of the greatest crisis we are facing. I fear that these few short moments that that Minister took to tell us the way he is going to solve this crisis is not going to be the answer.

I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Minister on his appointment of a very capable man as Associate Deputy Minister. I refer to the appointment of George Chatterton as his Associate Deputy Minister. At least maybe there will be some ray of hope in this department.

Mr. Chatterton brings to the department a wealth of knowledge and experience. His background in planning, the time he spent in Ottawa as adviser to the government there on housing and municipal matters, will at least bring some ray of light into this new department. He's well acquainted with the provincial government home acquisition branch and I'm sure he will do an excellent job. I take this opportunity to wish him well in his new role.

For a moment, I'd like to just look at the real factors in the high cost of land for housing in British Columbia. Naturally, it's the shortage of competitively-priced land on the market and the willingness of the public to pay the high prices asked that has shoved the price of land for housing in British Columbia to an all-time high. I think we must recognize this as being a factor in solving the housing crisis in British Columbia. I think also we must explore some of the factors that contribute to this shortage of land available and serviced on which we can build houses for our population.

In British Columbia I think we probably have a unique situation in all of Canada where 95 per cent of the land mass is owned by the Crown. I'll admit that a lot of this land mass is not suitable for housing. Also, I think we must realize in British Columbia there are severe demands on this Crown land which removes it from the normal availability for housing and industrial development. I refer specifically to the demand in British Columbia for parks, forests, cattle grazing, for other recreational uses and, last but not least, land for agriculture.

This was the situation prior to Bill 42. Bill 42 put further restrictions on the remaining 5 per cent of land held in private hands by placing restrictions on its ultimate use and by placing further red-tape roadblocks in the way of persons or developers wishing to open this land for housing.

On the other hand, that land which is available and not held under the restraining legislative measure has skyrocketed in price because the shortage of needed land has become more scarce due to the government's policies. This is probably one of the biggest contributing factors to the high price of land in British Columbia which is available today for individuals to build their own homes on.

What I am trying to point out to you, Mr. Chairman, is that it is this government policy...

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'd like to answer that question.

[ Page 1939 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: …the policies laid out by Bill 42 and further red-tape restrictions that have made it practically impossible for a young couple in British Columbia to acquire land on which to build their own homes. Government ownership and government policy have driven up the price of privately-held land that could be available.

What does the government do? The government blames the high price of land on land speculators and developers.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm being interrupted and I wish, while I'm speaking, you would order the Member for Coquitlam (Hon. Mr. Barrett) to take his seat.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Point of information, Sir.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There is no point of information.

MR. PHILLIPS: Then I'll continue on.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You've just given me a point of information.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for South Peace River has the floor. If the Hon. Premier has a point of order, would he…?

MR. PHILLIPS: Putting the blame on somebody else for the high price of land is not going to solve the problem. If the government had the experience they say they have, if they had the knowledge of what creates a high price for a commodity, they would be able to see the error of their ways. Evidently, the government is not aware of the supply and demand situation.

Our Premier just came back from Ottawa where he attended a conference to fix the price of petroleum products in Canada for all the provinces.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Would the Hon. Member confine his remarks to the administrative responsibilities of the Minister?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'd like to answer that.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I regret that the government with their crushing majority, on a Friday afternoon, started to debate this very important portfolio. I don't know what kind of a message the Premier is trying to give me but he seems to be jumpy.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Would the Hon. Member…?

MR. PHILLIPS: It's the Premier who is jumpy.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I would ask the Hon. Member to confine his remarks to the Minister's estimates.

MR. PHILLIPS: As I was saying, we just went through a crisis in North America.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: It's all right for the Premier to be trivial and it's all right for the government to be trivial and to laugh and joke about this very important crisis facing British Columbia this afternoon. They treat everything lightly and with scorn. The people of British Columbia, the taxpayers whom I'm here fighting for will get the message.

Here we've just gone through a crisis in North America: a shortage of petroleum products. What was the end result of that shortage of petroleum products? The end result is, pure and simple, that every Canadian and every North American is going to pay more dearly for that product….

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The point of order by the Minister of Transport and Communications.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Chairman, the Member is talking about the price of petroleum and a conference in Ottawa. This is the vote of the Minister of Housing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The point of order is well taken. I would reply to the Hon. Member for South Peace River that he must confine his remarks to the estimates before us. I have twice warned him about being irrelevant and I would ask him to confine his remarks to the Minister's estimates.

The Hon. Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) has the floor.

MR. PHILLIPS: What I have witnessed on the floor of this Legislature is more typical tunnel-vision on the part of that government. I am trying to make a point, and when I get the opportunity to finish it without interruption I intend to point out to the Legislature why the price of land for housing today is so high in British Columbia.

The Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) got up and proved to me his ignorance of world economics.

[ Page 1940 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: Withdraw!

MR. PHILLIPS: His complete ignorance of world economics.

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, among other things.

AN HON. MEMBER: Regroup, regroup!

MRS. JORDAN: Nothing's wrong with our group. What's wrong with yours?

MR. PHILLIPS: Because what has recently happened to the price of petroleum products…

HON. MR. BARRETT: What's this? Mr. Chairman, order!

MR. PHILLIPS: …is exactly what has happened in British Columbia to the price of land.

AN HON. MEMBER: There's a direct relationship.

MR. PHILLIPS: A completely direct relationship.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Does it come out of a well?

MR. PHILLIPS: It's exactly, Mr. Chairman, unfortunately, what is going to happen to the price of metals, because here is another simile where restrictions are going to curtail development and production. Who pays in the long run, Mr. Chairman? Who pays in the long run? Who is going to suffer from the ill-fated policies of this government?

It is going to be, unfortunately, the taxpayer. I'll admit that the situation in the lower mainland is probably more crucial than in other parts of the province. I say this because of centralized development in the lower mainland. I say this because of the unique climate in the lower mainland area, particularly here in the lower part of Vancouver Island. This centralized development, caused by a very moderate climate, the most moderate climate in all of Canada, has brought to this area the great influx of retired people. It also has a tendency to keep the younger people of the province in the lower mainland. After being brought up and climatized in this area they are not desirous of going to the northern part of the province where life is more hectic, where life is tougher.

This is what has aggravated the price of land. Then pile on top of that the government policies that I have previously mentioned, and we have, Mr. Chairman, an almost impossible situation so far as individuals acquiring land on which to construct their own private homes.

But then, Mr. Chairman, I don't think the policy of this government is to allow individuals to build their own homes on their own deeded piece of property. I think some of the policies that this government has brought about which do aggravate this situation have been direct and calculated policies to aggravate the situation to such an extent that they will rush in under the guise of a crisis and say: "We're here to save you. We created this situation, so you can't save yourselves."

Mr. Chairman, not one single, solitary move on behalf of this Minister of Housing has helped to relieve the situation. As a matter of fact, his move to buy privately owned and deeded property has indeed further aggravated the situation. This is over and above the restrictions and red-tape policies placed on it by the Land Commission. This is further over and above, Mr. Chairman, the change in the assessments which again in this calendar year, with increased taxes, will further aggravate the price of deeded land.

Government purchased land has merely changed the ownership of that land and it seems the ownership, Mr. Chairman….

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, could I ask you a question?

MR. PHILLIPS: Are you going to allow that Member for Coquitlam (Hon. Mr. Barrett), Mr. Chairman, to interrupt me when I'm in the middle of a very, very, very serious debate?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The Member for South Peace River has the floor.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, that's right.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will the Hon. Member continue?

MR. PHILLIPS: Changing the ownership of land from private hands to public hands does not increase the amount of land available for housing. But to listen to the government you would think that as soon as they purchased that land that the rocks and the hills and the mountains just disappeared and all of a sudden it became beautiful land on which to construct individual housing.

But these moves, Mr. Chairman, have done absolutely not one single thing to increase the supply of land for housing development. All it has done, as I've stated before, is to increase the price, to put individual land ownership further out of the reach of taxpayers in British Columbia.

There are areas in the province, and there have been areas in the past, where the land was owned by the government. Crown land was made available.

[ Page 1941 ]

Some of this land was owned by municipal governments, and some of it was owned by the provincial government or by municipal government. But where this land was serviced with sewer and water and all the necessary services on which housing could be built, the shortage of that land in those areas was alleviated and land prices maintained an acceptable level. Another case, Mr. Chairman, of supply and demand. A good supply created a reasonable price so that an individual could buy that land either from the municipality or from the provincial government. This has happened in the past.

This is one of the reasons why British Columbia has had in the past the best record of housing of any province in Canada. Unfortunately that situation and that era have passed in British Columbia. I refer to such areas as Prince George where there was a boom created by the policy of the previous government in developing the north. In that area the provincial government went in and assembled land, serviced it, and sold it.

What did it do to the privately owned land? It held the price of privately owned land down so that an individual in that area could purchase it. This, Mr. Chairman, is what I'm talking about — the case of supply and demand.

Another area in our province where this worked very well, Mr. Chairman, was in Fort Nelson, in the instant town of Mackenzie and in Port Alice. Last, but not least, Mr. Chairman, in my own city of Dawson Creek it's been going on for years. There, years ago, the athletic association became the title holder of a large area of land. They have, over the years — this athletic association — sold this land in parcels from time to time to the city. The city has serviced the lots and sold them at a reasonable price. What has this done, Mr. Chairman? This has held the price of privately held land down so that an ordinary worker could afford to buy and own and build his own home. This, Mr. Chairman, is the ideal situation. But the direction that this government is taking, Mr. Chairman, is not going to allow this good situation to occur and it's unfortunate.

I'm not sure, Mr. Chairman, that the government actually realize the direction in which they are heading. I think they are spurred on by a philosophy. The philosophy, Mr. Chairman, looks good on paper, but in actual practise it hasn't accomplished what they want it to accomplish.

We have in British Columbia today, as I've stated before, a housing crisis of enormous proportions. I don't feel that this housing crisis is going to be solved by this Minister, because I don't think he has either the ability or the skill or the knowledge or the understanding to even imagine the immensity of the problem. He hasn't proven to me in the period of time that he's held this very important portfolio that he really knows what is needed to help this situation.

What have we had so far from this Minister, Mr. Chairman, of the government that had all the answers, the government that was going to cure all the situation, the government that was going to provide housing for the people? All we have are promises, promises, promises. This housing crisis that we have in British Columbia is of the government 's own making. All we have is the promise of high cost, big bureaucracy, patchwork efforts to catch up on the crisis. Mr. Chairman, as I stated before, purchasing of land by the provincial government is not going to improve the supply situation.

Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, once again the government has shown its incompetence in dealing with the problem. As a matter of fact, it has increased the problem. I realize that the Minister of Housing was thrown into a terrible situation, but the situation was of their own making, because of blind policies which they brought in, not being able to see what effects the end result would have on this province.

Increased costs of construction were caused by the Public Works Fair Employment Act and other sections of the new labour bill. The Minister of Housing, Mr. Chairman, has not explained to my satisfaction how he is going to alleviate this situation. He may have good intentions and I appreciate his new ideas which he brought back from Nova Scotia, but how many houses are going to be built by this method? A very, very, small fraction of the number that is needed. Housing starts in 1973 were up only 2,310 units over the previous year. This is an area that is growing at probably twice the rate of any other province in Canada.

In Nova Scotia in 1973 housing starts were up 2,600 units. Why were housing starts not up more than that in British Columbia last year, Mr. Chairman? I've already stated it. It is because of the policies of this government. Why are apartment starts not up from last year? Because, as I've said in this House many times before, Mr. Chairman, cold, hard investment cash for development, for apartments is a very nervous commodity. It goes where it's going to be the most secure.

Mr. Chairman, I wish the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley) were here so we could get the chirp down on the other end of the Legislature fixed.

Mr. Chairman, I've talked about the shortage of land available for housing and I want to point out that there's a shortage of serviced land available on the lower mainland. Buying up land by the Government of the Province of British Columbia with the idea of leasing it back so that the government has control and changing the ownership from private ownership to that of the government is certainly not creating more land.

In the past few months, Mr. Chairman, the papers have been full of articles on the housing situation. I'd like to refer for just a few moments to the report of

[ Page 1942 ]

the Residential Living Policy Committee to the Greater Vancouver Regional District, dated December, 1973. This is a report that was compiled by this committee for the Greater Vancouver Regional District and they went into practically every area of housing in the lower mainland in the area covered by the Greater Vancouver Regional District. Their terms of reference were practically all-inclusive. They were to study land for housing, sewage disposal, water supply, distribution and pollution control, and also the matter of parks and water supply and sewage disposal in the member communities.

They were to bring in a complete and comprehensive report, a report that would cover not only individual housing, but housing for the elderly, housing for the poor, housing for the disadvantaged, co-op housing — the whole issue.

What did this report have to say, Mr. Chairman, with regard to available urban land? I would like to quote from the report. This particular section is entitled "Available urban land." It reads:

"Various projections of the Greater Vancouver Regional District planning department indicate that undeveloped land, designated for urban residential use…range from 30,000 to 60,000 acres."

This land, Mr. Chairman, is available at the present time. It is not serviced, but it is available. And what did our Minister of Housing tell us just a few moments ago when he was taking that five minutes to explain his entire department? He said that in land acquisition from private sources he had acquired 742 acres, enough to build 3,100 homes. And this is, I understand, in all of the province. The Minister can correct me if I'm wrong. This is in all the province.

He has acquired 1,690 acres of Crown land, enough to build 7,500 units, and in joint ownership with provincial, and municipal and federal governments he has acquired 440 acres. This is a total of approximately 3,000 acres of land. Big deal, Mr. Chairman, when there are 30,000 to 60,000 acres already available in just the lower mainland, the area I've talked about. I presume the Minister is talking about the entire province, not just the Greater Vancouver Regional District.

I'm going to read further from the report, Mr. Chairman. It says:

"These projections exclude all areas designated for uses except such as industrial, commercial, parkland..."

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'd like to table you. (Laughter.) "...greenbelt, utility and railroad," et cetera.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Why don't you go home? Your mother wants you.

"Using the lower figure of 30,000 acres..." Does your mother know you're out?

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Does your mother know you're out, Mr. Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mr. Cummings)?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Will the Hon. Member confine his remarks to the estimates?

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, let that Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain quit chirping away. He's just like a squirrel down there!

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: It's orange juice. Would you like some?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: A point of order. The Hon. Minister of Housing.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: I believe it is against standing orders to drink other than water in this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The point of order is well taken inasmuch as the point was raised by an Hon. Member, and the ruling was made at that time that upon consulting the Speaker of the House I was instructed there was to be nothing brought into the House other than water.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point was made by the Hon. Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) that there was to be nothing brought into the House. I checked with the Hon. Speaker and he verified this fact that there was to be nothing brought into the House.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That was the ruling that I made at that time, based upon the advice from the Speaker of the House. That was the information. Now, obviously as long as the House does not object, then of course nothing would be said under irregular circumstances, but should the point be raised, then

[ Page 1943 ]

we must abide by the advice that I have been given. On a point of order, the Hon. Member for Columbia River.

MR. CHABOT: What was brought to the attention of the House a couple of weeks ago was a cup of coffee with a cup and a saucer, and a sandwich, and also a spoon. It's a noisy and distracting situation, but I think that in this House it has been historical that certain juices are used by certain Members because of their voice conditions. I remember very well….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I think the Hon. Member has made his point. But I must rule that…. I have been given further advice from the Speaker, this information is to the effect that they may have something to drink but not to eat, so will the Hon. Member continue his speech?

The Hon. Member may drink his juice.

The Hon. Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) on a point of order.

MRS. JORDAN: We'd like clarification on that "something to drink" — I assume that is in the nature of a non-alcoholic beverage?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, obviously it is not permitted to have alcoholic beverages on the floor of the House.

The Hon. Member for South Peace River may continue his speech.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, it seems that everybody is jumpy, and you know, as I said at the beginning, it is unfortunate for the taxpayers of this province that on Friday night at 5:45 we start one of the most important portfolios, a new portfolio.

I just get speaking and the Minister of Finance wants to pull the vote, so I continue. I'm on a train of thought here — I'll interrupt my speech and let the House go to dinner — but Mr. Chairman, it is unfortunate that this government with this crushing majority wants to push the opposition around....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Will the Hon. Member continue with his remarks relating to the estimates of the Minister of Housing?

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I move that the House rise, report resolutions and ask leave to sit again.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! In regard to the motion made by the Hon. Member for South Peace River, the motion has been made without any intervening proceeding. Therefore I must regretfully rule the motion out of order at this time.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm just trying to relate to the wishes of the House, but I certainly don't want to be accused, because the government brought this very important vote up at this time. I tried to have a dinner break, but I guess they want me to continue talking.

Legislation by starvation on a Friday. They won't let me adjourn for dinner. They won't let me adjourn for dinner!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. PHILLIPS: I want to tell you that this House goes further down every day, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The Hon. Minister of Health on a point of order.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, that Member was asked five times by the Premier at 6 o'clock, and asked by his own colleagues sitting in front of him, to pull the vote for dinner, and he just stood up there and filibustered along, and now he can continue all night.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Chairman….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The Hon. Member for North Peace River on a point of order.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, this vote was called at 5:45 this evening. Our first speaker got on to his feet. He should have an opportunity to develop a few of his arguments as well as anyone else. If the House Leader wishes a supper break, he's prepared to give a supper break, but we are certainly not going to have the Minister of Finance and the Premier of this province badgering the opposition, and harassing us every time we get to our feet!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. SMITH: No way!

MR. CHAIRMAN: There is no point of order. Would the Hon. Member for South Peace River continue?

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I just want it clearly understood that I was willing, after making a couple of points in my talk, to allow the House to adjourn for dinner, but the government won't let us go for dinner, so we'll have more legislation by starvation. Then when I do want to have a glass of orange juice, the Minister of Housing gets very jumpy.

[ Page 1944 ]

But I don't know really, Mr. Chairman, what this province or what this House is coming to.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Would the Hon. Member continue his remarks in relation to the estimates before us?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: A point of order by the Member for North Okanagan. (Mrs. Jordan).

MRS. JORDAN: Could the Hon. Members of the government tell us who the House Leader is at this moment?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I'm recognizing the Member for South Peace River. Will he continue with his remarks? If you are not intending to say anything, will you take your seat?

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Inasmuch as there has not been an intervening proceeding, I must regretfully rule the motion out of order.

AN HON. MEMBER: I challenge your ruling.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, in Committee of Supply, while considering vote 106, a motion was put that the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again. I ruled the motion out of order inasmuch as the previous motion had been defeated and there had been no intervening proceedings.

Mr. Chairman's ruling sustained on the following division

YEAS — 23

NAYS — 13

AN HON. MEMBER: I request the division be recorded.

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

On vote 106.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, as I was saying a few moments ago, reading from this report:

"Using the lower figure of 30,000 acres and assuming a density of only six dwellings per acre, there is sufficient, largely" — get this — "unserviced land, designated land to meet single-family dwelling needs in the region for 30 years."

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Chairman do now leave the chair.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 13

NAYS — 23

AN HON. MEMBER: I request the division be recorded.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 106 pass?

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I rule that the motion is in order. However I have to decide whether or not it is an abuse of the rules. I will accept the motion, assuming it was put in good faith.

[ Page 1945 ]

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 13

NAYS — 24

AN HON. MEMBER: I request the division be recorded.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Mr. Chairman, on speaking to the vote for our new Housing Minister, first let me….

AN HON. MEMBER: Defend him.

HON. MR. COCKE: He doesn't need my defence, Mr. Chairman, through you to that unruly Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) or thereabouts. He's hopeful that he can retain that riding, Mr. Chairman.

Anyway, Mr. Chairman, I want to first congratulate the Minister of Housing, who I'm sure will do a needed job in a province where not too much foresight has been shown heretofore. You know, that old government that was here just a mere 18 months ago and is fading so badly left a heritage behind them that has little with which to compare it — a heritage of complete preoccupation with their friends in big business.

Mr. Chairman, I'm interested in what the Member across the way says. After the war, in 1945, a Labour government was elected in Great Britain. The first Housing Minister of that new Ministry was….

Interjection.

HON. MR. COCKE: Britain was on her knees for no such reason. It was completely overlooked by that group that you represent, my friend.

Interjections.

HON. MR. COCKE: You know and I know, if you know anything about history, that it was the Americans and the big business attitude that brought Britain to their knees. It was nothing to do with the Labour government.

Anyway, the first Minister of Housing was Mr. Bevan. You know, big business tried so hard to overturn some of the plans that he had. The people were chirping away over on the other side, including Winston Churchill, who I guess by that time was over the hill.

Mr. Chairman, the same kind of chirping away and the same kind of individuals, friends of big business, is going on against this new Housing Minister.

Mr. Chairman, there has been a Housing Minister for a very few months. We think, unlike that party across the way, that it's an idea to have some plans. Plans, I think, are very important. We have to put together an organization, as one of your members indicated tonight. The Minister of Housing is just now putting together an organization to do the job. Everything that he's done has been criticized by a carping group who so desperately want to serve the interests of big business, who so terribly, terribly want to see to it that the rip-offs take place, that all of the traditional, silly kow-towing to the large empires continues on in this province.

The Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland), who sighs so beautifully, who gets up in this House and makes such a mockery of the whole parliamentary system….

Interjection.

HON. MR. COCKE: That's right; that's precisely the kind of attitude….

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for Langley on a point of order.

MR. McCLELLAND: The Minister of Health should be asked to withdraw any imputation of this Member attempting to make a mockery of parliament. I don't think that's proper procedure.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! On the point of order, if the remark is generalized and not specifically directed to….

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If the Hon. Member feels this is an imputation, I'll ask the Hon. Minister of Health to withdraw it.

HON. MR. COCKE: All right, Mr. Chairman, I'll withdraw it.

But in any event, the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland), the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) and the Member for North Peace River (Mr.

[ Page 1946 ]

Smith), touchy and all as they are, have represented a group who for years in this province have done little to serve the people in housing or any other area and a lot to serve their friends.

So when they criticize the Minister of Housing, when they try to put roadblocks in his way, it is trying to put roadblocks in the way of the little people in B.C. I hope the people of B.C. understand precisely what they are doing; I hope they understand that when the Minister of Housing goes to work with his group he put together and begins to develop the real plans, hard plans for what I consider to be one of the greatest needs in this province, he must recognize that this group will, in fact, be going around the province trying their best to do what they have traditionally done.

One of the things we need is a look at the housing proposition. As the Minister of Health, I recognize that probably one of the first stages of good health is good housing. There are many people in this province who don't even border on good housing. As a matter of fact, there are people in the constituency in which I reside and which I represent who have housing yet with no floors. There are dirt floors in some of the housing in this province. People have been badly neglected. There are any number of housing units which are so marginal they create a real problem in health. I've seen houses in one area of my constituency where the rats run in and out from under the floors. I've seen areas in my constituency where people suffer disease and illness because of the inadequate housing in which they live.

We think medicine is important; we think care after illness is confronted is important. But I suggest to you that a real preventive piece of medicine is housing. I commend to the Minister's attention the whole question of the preventive aspect of what he is doing.

The second point I would like to discuss is the whole question of what our younger people face. Not only do they fact the possibility of inadequate housing in which to bring up a family to keep their family healthy but they also fact the proposition that housing is so highly expensive they can't possibly afford it. Therefore this government, with some wit and some wisdom, decided we would try our very best to help. And we don't need the hindrance from across the way.

All over this province there's a real growth rate, but the growth rate in the lower mainland and in the areas such as Surrey, Delta and Coquitlam is rising at a critical level. I would hope, and I hope against hope, that the municipalities will see this as an opportunity for them to play a part in the whole question of housing.

I might bring to your attention, getting back to Aneurin Bevan, the one thing he got — and it took a little time and it took a little effort — was some real assistance from the counties, from the municipalities or their counterpart in England. Virtually all of them took real responsibility, and that's precisely what is needed in this province: real cooperation from the cities, the towns, the municipalities, the regional districts. Everybody should be putting their shoulders to the wheel; nobody should be bucking this whole housing question.

When we buck it, we're in effect saying to our children who haven't the same kind of opportunities we had as far as obtaining houses: "You have no chance; you have no opportunity. You have no real look-in on an opportunity to bring up your children in a good, healthy climate, in nice, dry circumstances, with nice surroundings, and with all of the things the young people of this province should have as their heritage."

I smile when I think of the hue and cry raised by that opposition to a government which recognized the need and rose to that need — from a group which didn't even have a department of housing.

I do hope the municipalities such as New Westminster, with very little ground left but still some in need of urban redevelopment in some areas — and I'm pleased to see that's taking place — will make that land available either directly or indirectly at prices that won't make it impossible for people to afford. I hope the Minister goes around to all of the municipalities — I know he has started talking to them — and really talks to them about their share of the obligation. If they don't share in this obligation, Mr. Chairman, I suggest to you that we're in real jeopardy with our housing programme. If we jeopardize anyone, it is not you and I sitting in here, because the age level in this House is such that most of us in the past generation already have houses, but the young people.

Those few units available are at an exorbitant price. I hope we can put together a housing proposition in such a way as to provide housing that isn't exorbitant any longer.

One way that housing can be on a basis people can afford would be on a co-operative basis in terms of 50 or 40 or 30 or 70 people — it doesn't matter how many — getting together with the assistance of the Minister of Housing and his department and acquiring land, hopefully with some help from the municipality. If they can get together and cooperate for their sources of financing, technical help and all the rest of it, and if they can get help in zoning and all the areas in which they are required to be helped in order to expedite the matter, then I really think you can reduce the cost of housing for those people who are interested in co-operating.

Co-ops have traditionally succeeded until such time as they forget what they originally were intended to do and started going in a different direction. Mr. Minister of Housing, I would, if I were

[ Page 1947 ]

you, encourage co-operatives as much as you possibly can. Encourage them to build, encourage them to acquire land, encourage them in every way you possibly can.

Mr. Chairman, I suggest that this will be the way for a lot of people, and I'm particularly interested in those people in the urban areas where there's any number of people who can get together. Form your co-operatives, write to the Minister of Housing, and put it all together. I know that there are some going. There are some in Surrey, some in New Westminster, and one in Abbotsford. But I just want them to hang in there because co-ops have a difficult time.

In this House we have our differences, and that happens occasionally in co-operatives. But let me say this to those people who should be co-operating and should get their co-operatives going that the best way to do it is to give a little. Just give a little. If you'll do that, we can get some housing going on a co-operative basis. Once you're in there I think you're set.

So, Mr. Chairman, I suggest to you that we need the Housing Ministry to afford the housing starts, to afford the housing opportunities in this province, to be preventive health care, to be all of those other things, and particularly to get housing available to the young people in British Columbia who desperately need it.

MR. H. STEVES (Richmond): Mr. Chairman, I, too, would like to enter this debate on Housing and commend the Minister for his budget this year. I am very pleased to see the emphasis that the government is placing on housing. We are faced with a housing crisis in British Columbia. I understand that we require around 30,000 to 35,000 units of construction per year to be built to maintain an equilibrium, to see that the housing shortage is curtailed.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: How many?

MR. STEVES: I think it is around 30,000 or 35,000 units to catch up over the next few years.

I'm pleased that a budget has been set up that will enable us to do this. I'm hopeful that we'll be able to get going fairly quickly to start instituting this programme this year.

One of the questions I would have of the Minister in responding, is: how soon can we get this programme going, and how much housing does he think could be provided this year?

I also would like to know how the municipalities and the cities throughout B.C. are responding to the housing crisis and to the programmes that we have been proposing. I'm particularly concerned with one suggestion that has been made that I think could be a very good stopgap measure, and that is the legalization of illegal suites.

In my own community there are somewhere between 1,200 and 1,500 or maybe even more illegal suites. Of course, due to the fact that basement suites in single family areas are discouraged rather than being encouraged, I think that somewhere along the line we could set up a programme to request or ask the municipalities to recognize these illegal suites instead of cracking down on them, and to encourage duplexing in some of these areas.

In past years in my own municipality, when I was on the council we turned a blind eye to illegal suites, depending on the council of the day. Some councils would turn a blind eye, and the next time you would get a council that would set up a programme of checking them out and trying to clamp down on them. So it fluctuated back and forth from allowing illegal suites to be used, to clamping down on them and stopping people from renting out basement suites.

I think that in the immediate future, this is a very good area for expanding the housing in the province and providing housing to young people, and actually to older people as well, because the way housing is being built, in my community at least, and in a lot of the newer areas, we are finding that the way the zoning has gone, the way the municipal councils have organized in the past, that we have, in effect, built some very drastic problems which are actually helping to create the housing shortage. We have very well-designed subdivisions with all the roads, the services, the sewers, and 60 foot by 100 foot lots, but what happened is we have encouraged very large houses on it and we have provided very little housing for small families, for young couples. We have provided very little housing for old-age pensioners, people whose families have grown up. So we end up with a surplus, or at least a large amount of housing for people with families wanting to buy their homes, but very little housing for families starting out and for families or people who are retired or old-age pensioners, and so on.

I think the idea of duplexing might help so that young people could live in basement suites, and old folks could live in duplex suites, and so on. I would like to see some encouragement for this.

I notice the Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) was in a meeting in Vancouver and suggested that some form of incentives might be set up to encourage municipalities to set up duplexing programmes, and I would ask the Minister that this might be considered — maybe some kind of per capita grant that has been suggested by the Minister, or some other method of encouraging the town and the municipalities to allow duplexing in their communities.

In allowing this, I think that certain regulations should be met. As far as illegal suites are concerned, because they are illegal right now, they are not meeting the proper standards of housing in many cases. If they were legalized they could meet certain minimum standards of fire protection and health and

[ Page 1948 ]

public safety. So I think this would be desirable where they are not legal from the point of view of protecting the citizens as well as providing more housing for them.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the Minister also to seriously consider land assembly programmes. In my community, and I think throughout the province, we've a lot of backlots. I was talking to a property owner on Wednesday night, when I was back to Richmond for a meeting, who was complaining that he owned a two-acre parcel of property and it was frozen in by all the homes in the area.... There was a quarter-section of land, and every opening along the road all the way around had a house on it, and there was no place they could get a road in. There were probably around 100 acres of back property behind those homes that could be developed for housing if some type of housing authority were set up to go in and assemble that land, put the back properties together and probably buy out an older home, or there might be a vacant lot or a piece of property someplace between some of the homes so that they could get a couple of roads through to service the area.

We have a lot of areas in my community that are like that, that could have housing built upon them, but are very awkward to service.

I think in looking into the housing problem we are going to have to have some kind of housing corporation to actually develop and service land, to actually assemble the land. I think we should consider going into the construction business ourselves as well, through some kind of Crown corporation. I would suggest that the Minister should look into that as well, particularly in the area of rental accommodation, because over the last three or four years there's been very, very little rental accommodation built in the greater Vancouver area.

People today are saying that this problem has just arisen because we are bringing in landlord and tenant legislation, but I would suggest to them if they check the statistics that they would find that actually this is a problem that has arisen several years ago, and very little rental accommodation has been built in the last few years. I think that the government is going to have to get into this area and provide rental accommodation, as not everyone can afford to own their own homes.

I think that we have to have a home construction programme, of course, and we have to provide leased lots for single family homes, and particularly for duplex homes so that people can have the type of housing where they are free from pressures of apartment living, but also we have to provide for the young families, and for a lot of people who want to get closer to the city, a fair amount of rental accommodation in apartments.

In doing so, I would hope that we are able to design communities where we can provide day care centres and recreational facilities — facilities for old and young — provide a good housing mixture, have some rental accommodation in an area plus single family housing, duplex housing and so on.

I would also hope that the Minister would be able to work with the Minister of Industrial Development (Hon. Mr. Lauk) in the decentralization of housing throughout the province, but this would require a decentralization of our industrial base as well. I think this should be considered, because if we build all the housing in the Greater Vancouver area, and if we end up with all the jobs in the area and housing in the area, that's where the people are going to be. So we have to provide jobs in areas outside Vancouver, and housing for the people there. We need both jobs and housing throughout the province.

Now, Mr. Chairman, with those comments on it I would like to move that the committee rise and report progress.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The motion is that the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again. Unfortunately there have been no interceding proceedings since the previous motion that the committee rise and report progress. Therefore I would regretfully rule the motion out of order under standing order 62.

MRS. JORDAN: I listened with great interest to the Member for Richmond (Mr. Steves). I appreciate his concern, but I certainly feel his philosophy shows through. Never once did he talk in terms of the right of the individual to own his own home and land on the family unit.

British Columbia is one of the most bountiful land areas there is in North America. While we like to talk about the approximately 7 per cent of arable land, we have thousands and thousands and thousands of acres in this province that can be developed reasonably and with ingenuity to provide private homes for people, homes of their choice and homes that reflect individuality rather than the state philosophy.

I listened with interest to the Hon. Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) who got up and so sweetly called on the municipalities of British Columbia to put their shoulder to the wheel in this crisis situation. He hoped they would meet their responsibilities and help the plight as it is today. It was very impressive, Mr. Chairman, but it reminded me very much of the definition of the true politician: one who comes along and upsets your boat, throws you into the water and dashes back with a lifejacket, making a hero of himself by saving you. That's exactly what this government is trying to do and that's exactly what the Minister of Health was trying to do in speaking to this vote.

While there was a certain slowdown in apartment

[ Page 1949 ]

building in British Columbia following the change in the federal Income Tax Act, it was after this government took responsibility and power and started leaking little innuendoes from the Premier's office about rent and profit controls. It was after this government took slashing moves to slash the confidence the individual investor and the individual family had in this province as a climate in which to put their hard-earned money to build their homes and for people who wanted to build a duplex (talking about duplexes, Mr. Member), to take their savings and build a duplex so they could rent one part of the duplex to a suitable family or a mutually-interesting family or an older person in order to help pay for their little investment. It was this government that destroyed that natural process which allows individual rights and individual buildings and homes in this province. It was this government and its foolish fiscal policies and its foolish off-the-cuff statements that destroyed so much of the investor's confidence to build apartments.

If you look the world over, whether it's Sweden, West Germany, East Germany, Russia, anywhere you look in the world, you see it's a matter of an abundant supply of housing to keep the cost down.

The Minister of Housing gets up and extols the virtue of leasing land and government corporations for building and controlling houses. We have all seen what happened in England where the government under Labour control made massive moves to purchase land and build what turned out to be nothing but housing ghettos. What is the price of land in England today in relation to what it is in Canada and British Columbia? It's three times as expensive. When you put it in relation to the income of the people, it's even more expensive.

Government control of land in England and housing has not kept the price of housing down within the reach of the average income earner in England. Government ownership and control of land in England has not kept the price of land down within reach of the average earner. Whether you want to suggest it's the land prices which are inflated or the income of the working person in Britain which is deflated because of the policies of the government, I leave that to you to choose.

By and large, until we had some of these nonsensical statements and disruption in the economy in Canada and in British Columbia particularly, priorities were there, to purchase a home or rent an apartment.

Let us not also forget that at that time it was a matter of priority. I remember three years ago a meeting in Vancouver with a number of ladies who all worked for a bank in British Columbia. There were about 300 and we were talking at dinner.

One young lady said, "Well, you just simply have to have $15,000 before you can get into a house in Vancouver today." I was quite taken aback at this.

So I said, "Do you mean to say that you have to have $15,000 to get into a house in Vancouver today?" This was in 1970-71.

She said yes.

I asked her, "Well, how could this be?" I had seen the ads and I had been out to look at some houses myself.

She said "Well, you can get into the house for $2,000 or $3,000 but you have to have the furniture, you have to have the curtains and you have to have the carpets."

At that time, Mr. Chairman, one of the problems of many people was that it was their priority. Surely we have to recognize in this that if people felt they couldn't have a house until they had all the furniture and the drapes to go with it, then of course it was going to be more expensive for them. If they wanted to drive big, fancy cars at that time, then naturally that's their choice — as it should be. They made that choice as opposed to a home and that's their right.

But today, 18 months of this government put the price of land in British Columbia at such an exorbitant rate that today the only people in British Columbia who can buy land are big companies and big government. Just look at the prices this big government has been paying for land in British Columbia.

In the constituency I represent, in September, 1973, there were dozens and dozens of lots for sale from $3,000 to $5,000 each — serviced, view lots overlooking beautiful Okanagan Lake, some of them overlooking Kalamalka Lake and others in the country area in appearance. It's a small community; very desirable living. Schools were well-planned in accordance with the growth of our community. Then came the discussion by the Hon. Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) about land freezes and those prices went up. Following the land freeze, those lots overlooking beautiful Okanagan Lake are now selling between $11,000, $12,000, $13,000 and $15,000 each.

I don't know what it takes in the way of evidence to prove to this Minister of Housing and this Minister of Finance, who is directing the Minister of Housing, that the crisis they talk about in terms of land has been fuelled and fanned and flamed by themselves. Not in their intent to try to do the right thing, but in their complete lack of ability to know how to go about doing the right thing and their complete lack of ability to understand the complexity of the marketplace and to understand human reactions to land.

The result is, as I said before, in British Columbia today the majority of people who can afford to buy land are big companies and big government — and this government created it. That's a very sad, sad situation.

[ Page 1950 ]

It's the same for houses. You don't have to be a magician; you just have to walk the streets of Vancouver. I and many Members have been over to Vancouver on several occasions since this government took office and talked of land freezes, looked at houses, talked to agents, talked to individuals who are selling their houses, to try to find out what is happening to the housing market. One of the things that comes out very clearly is that every time this government makes an announcement about what it's going to do in housing, such as raising the grants — but has done nothing in creating housing or encouraging a confident climate so people will want to build their own houses or duplexes or apartments — the price of houses goes up.

If you talk to many people who are selling houses privately and as agents in Vancouver, they tell you that every time that Premier opens his mouth the price of houses goes up. He brought in rent controls and immediately the price of houses went up. The Minister has shown no understanding. He hasn't tapped the Minister of Finance on the shoulder and said, "Mr. Minister of Finance you're upsetting the balance." They just blunder on and on and on. Then they stand up and say there's a crisis.

They talk about duplexes, co-operative housing and leasing of government land. When you look through this, you realize they have created a crisis, either ignorantly or intentionally, which is playing in to their philosophy.

This government has never denied, during the debates we have had in this House on Bill 42 and in other areas, that they are not moving to completely control profits, to completely control land and to completely control the people of British Columbia. This is one of the ways you do it: by creating artificial scarcities and by feeding those scarcities, by making it impossible for the average man to move, by feeding on the emotionalism, and then coming along like the perfect politician and throwing him a life raft.

We would like to know what this highly-paid educational expert has done in the field of housing in British Columbia that is concrete for the average family. We would like to hear this Minister stand up and not talk in terms of pushing co-ops — and I'm not opposed to co-ops — but pushing the leasing of land and putting the chain of socialism around the average family's neck.

We would like to hear this Minister stand up and talk in terms of offering incentives to municipalities to service some of those 35,000 acres unserviced in this province and to encourage individual families into their homes so they will own them. Help the municipalities to help the people and the individual families. We have no objection if they want to adopt the formula the leader of our party put forward at the beginning of this session: offer incentives to municipalities to cost-share in servicing; allow people to build their own homes or individuals to build apartments and then put a ceiling or a limit tied to the cost-of-living index should they sell those homes after a period of five years.

We don't ask for any giveaways, but we would like to see this government acknowledge the rights of the individual in this province. Everywhere you go in this province, the thing that concerns people — whether they be farmers or accountants or the majority of schoolteachers or shop-owners or service station operators or doctors or nurses or members of the union — is that the state is reaching into their house, around their shower-curtain, under their bed, and taking away their individual rights.

They are sugar-coating the whole message, and this is what this Minister is doing in housing. We would like to know, Mr. Minister, how many housing starts you yourself have initiated in this province. I would like to know what you are doing about the senior citizens' housing that is proposed by the Legion in Kitsilano. You've flapped around that area without the courage to make a decision one way or the other for months, unless you've changed your mind in the last few days. How much encouragement has this Minister given to individual groups other than what was started under the same formulas brought in by the former administration to encourage individuals?

The government was going to take taxes off the land and all they've done is tax individual homeowners more. The people of British Columbia are concerned about this, and I will have a good deal more to say on this during the debate.

I challenge this Minister to stand up in this House now and answer the questions of the Hon. Member who spoke before me and to answer my questions. Say this government believes in the right of the individual to own their own land, to to own their own home. Say this government puts this as their high priority. Say they will support cooperatives and senior citizens' housing and that they will do it on a positive basis and leave the people the right of choice so the public can make their decisions. Then you don't have to put in rent controls which are putting a higher rent on senior citizens' apartments. You don't have to keep putting your sticky fingers into the lives of people. The people of British Columbia have always proven that when the challenge is there and the encouragement is there, they not only meet the challenge but improve on it.

There are a lot of people out in this province right now who want to see this government produce serviced land, not buy up a lot more expensive land for control, not muck up the University Endowment Lands that they have no right to touch. They want to see you, Mr. Minister, not talk in terms of theory. They can read, they know what's happening in Switzerland in government-controlled apartments,

[ Page 1951 ]

they know the blackmarketing of apartments that goes on over there.

Government control hasn't been the answer. Nowhere has government control of the housing field been the answer. I defy the Minister to prove otherwise.

I hope to speak again, but I hope the Minister will tell me particularly how many new, individual family homes he has initiated and started in this province, how many senior citizens' rental units he has initiated — not those that were on tap, not those following along on the programme of the former administration — but are a response to his new actions and his new directive. I would like to know how many duplexes his actions have initiated.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: I will work my way back through these.

The Hon. Member for North Okanagan has asked the cost of land in England today. Three times as much, she claims. I would point out to the Hon. Member that the population there is considerably greater and the land area is considerably less than it is in Canada or in British Columbia.

I think it's a known fact that where large numbers of people congregate in places such as New York and Los Angeles and Hong Kong, land values become very high and that in less dense areas land values tend to be lower. I think this is perhaps a natural geographical fact rather than due to any particular type of policy.

Perhaps I'm not as widely travelled as the Member but my impressions from people I have talked to about council housing, which is, after all, municipally-initiated and not run by central authorities, is that it is quite successful. Nothing is perfect but I hear that people accept it as a way of life there and appreciate it. I haven't heard English people talking about it as ghettos. Perhaps a few tourists who might go through have some preconceived ideas, but the people I talked to, both professionals and working people, seem to find it a way of life.

The Member suggests we should give incentives to municipalities. I would like to point out a few things which have been done in the Greater Vancouver Regional District.

We are encouraging the regional district to apply under section 15 of the National Housing Act. We have made a very good piece of land available to them so the Greater Vancouver Regional District can develop it for family housing. We would be willing to enter with Central Mortgage and Housing into an agreement for subsidies where rental subsidies would be needed for families who perhaps need some sort of assistance. The remainder of it could be set in equitable rents. This will be under the initiative of the Greater Vancouver Regional District. This is proceeding; there are, I believe, about 70 units in that instance.

As recently as the middle of October, at the tri-level conference in Edmonton, I had discussions with mayor Frank Liard of Penticton. He brought a proposal to us where they needed some money for interim funding to build a mobile-home subdivision. We provided that capital to enable people in that area to take advantage of the Central Mortgage and Housing-assisted home-ownership programme.

This is something that's a little difficult to take advantage of in certain areas because it has upper limits on it in the neighbourhood of $30,000 or $32,000. But we've moved ahead. We've encouraged, of course, Greater Vancouver Regional District to take on this as just a beginning and we hope that they will build, under section 15 of the National Housing Act, more family housing. We hope that their thrust will be in family housing.

We will be encouraging…. We have right now about 43 serious inquiries concerning the. Elderly Citizens' Housing Aid Act around the province. We're hoping to get a great deal more of this off the ground in the greater Vancouver area. We're looking for the main thrust in senior citizens' housing to come under the Elderly Citizens' Housing Aid Act.

However, we will continue to use section 40 and section 43 and build these projects, such as the ones which we have presently underway in West Vancouver, 60 some odd units in a highrise on Esquimalt; we have a project moving ahead in the Jericho area, 4th and Wallace.

You asked what we're doing in Kitsilano; we have two projects going ahead in Kitsilano under section 40 of the National Housing Act. In addition to that we've had continuing discussions with — what I believe you were referring to — the Shalom Branch Legion and with the City of Vancouver and with Central Mortgage and Housing.

I believe that we have agreement, although I don't think it has been ratified by a resolution of council yet, for closure of Maple Street for building of a low-rise structure in the area. It will not be one highrise in an area which has otherwise been down-zoned to three storeys, or 35 feet.

I'd like to say about that: there has been a great deal of difficulty with getting certain materials, especially for building highrises. You talk about economies. The economies of building highrise concrete structures are very poor. You get much less for more. It depends, I suppose, on whether you're profit motivated or looking for good housing for people. But certainly, from our point of view, the economics would dictate that lowrises are more desirable, are probably cheaper to us in the long-run, and probably provide a better quality and more square feet for less dollars.

That doesn't mean that we won't build highrises in certain areas where the zoning dictates it. You do

[ Page 1952 ]

have to look for certain densities to justify prices of land. But once you achieve certain densities, the land values can be looked after. Trying to increase density to justify land cost beyond certain limits is rather uneconomical.

Interjection.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Which limits?

It depends on each project — how much the land cost is; and, of course, it depends on zonings and other factors.

You talk about emphasis on government control. But our plans call for hiring people to assist, not just our social housing programmes, but to assist the private sector.

The Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) mentioned the "Infill" study done for the Greater Vancouver Regional District. That was based on a more technical report done by Thompson, Berwick, Pratt & Partners, I believe. Of course, a lot of the problem of this infilling is land which is simply being held off the market due to local resistance, the attitudes of people who are well housed.

We have had discussions with various municipalities. We're getting quite a bit of cooperation with the new councils that were elected last November and they have been reporting to us. For instance, I understand that housing starts in Delta are up for the first couple of months of this year. The number of permits that have been issued are up. I appreciate this coming from Delta — their attitude — because they do have tremendous problems of growth there, and we certainly hope that others will take their share of the responsibility for growth.

There are many, many pieces being held off the market, and lots of rationalization takes place for keeping these things off the market — for delays. There are studies ordered, there is public input and reports waited for. When those reports are brought down, something else is asked for and these delays can go on for two and three and four years.

It takes about five months to build quite a few of the subdivisions, but it takes three and four years sometimes to get approval before they can go ahead.

We've hired an expediter for the Greater Vancouver Regional District, Mr. John Nortley. He is a planner and he's had extensive experience working in the Vancouver planning department. He's also had municipal experience. Mr. Nortley will be helping in an area which I think is quite important. In fact, it's an area which I have been involved in myself to some extent, as Minister, trying to re-establish dialogue between certain developers and municipal councils where I feel that the developers do have a good proposal, but I think that it is being held up, sometimes, as I have said, by municipal and provincial government red tape. In both instances I have tried to assist.

In one case I think it has got a 500-unit zero lot-line project, involving 250 duplexes, back on the tracks. It has cut down the time and it will cut down the eventual expense and carrying costs. Another area in which I took a personal interest was in the case of a zero lot-line project in Coquitlam. The municipality also was taking a very strong interest there. When changes were necessitated in the land-use contract for the purposes of refinancing, I assisted by seeing that these very small technical changes were handled in very short order, thereby cutting down the time and cutting down the expense to the developer and to the eventual consumer. So we have placed a great deal of emphasis on the private sector. We will be hiring people with the type of expertise of Mr. Nortley throughout the province in order to help expedite housing matters.

The Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) asks what we've done. We do have various things in the works with 55 different municipalities. I think that our thrust outside of the greater Vancouver area has certainly been considerably more than was the experience with the previous administration. I believe that, as one of the other Members suggested, we do have to decentralize. One of the most positive things that we can do to help solve this congestion in the greater Vancouver and in the Capital Regional District area is to provide very good housing opportunities outside of these two metropolitan areas.

Prince Rupert is one place in which we have several projects going. We have a land-servicing programme; we have proposals for two rental apartments; we already have, I think, almost a couple of hundred units of public housing in the area. We recently cut a ribbon up in Port Alberni on a new public housing project, 23 units, and the contracts were let under my administration.

We have 70 units of co-operative housing building out here in Victoria West. They are almost ready for occupancy; and these were initiated last October. I've mentioned activity in Penticton which is almost complete, and it was again initiated just in the very talking stages only last October. So we have responded in many, many ways.

We also have brought on 18 units of public housing in a small apartment that was going nowhere in Vancouver. Some of these things I've mentioned before. We are on the brink of announcing several major acquisitions and projects for rental housing.

Dunhill Developments will be changing with some of its new acquisitions. These will be going toward rental housing. And we will be soon announcing some specific projects in this area; they're quite well along in the formulation stage. We're moving in many ways.

I've mentioned today a way in which people will be building several units co-operatively under Mr. MacIntyre in the Salmo area, building their own homes — having the satisfaction of that experience.

So there are, I think, about 900 some-odd projects

[ Page 1954 ]

there, one a little further ahead than the other.

There is a potential there for upwards of 2,400 units; we might call that three projects. But there is some question in my own mind as to whether we should aim for that high a density. Perhaps it would be better to look for something a little bit less.

In all in the province — I've said 55 municipalities…. For instance, in Alert Bay we are looking at land-servicing projects. In Burnaby we've got five land-servicing projects and two public housing projects. In the capital region we have the land-assembly projects. In Chetwynd we have two land-servicing projects. In Chilliwack we have an elderly citizens' housing unit. In Coquitlam we have land servicing, neighbourhood improvement and co-op housing; in Courtenay, land servicing; in Cumberland, land servicing; in Duncan, neighbourhood improvement; Fort Nelson, two land-servicing projects; Fort St. John, a public housing project.

I must say that people from Fort St. John and most of these municipalities — especially rural municipalities — are being most co-operative and are most anxious to get on with the job.

The Member for Richmond also talked of encouraging the duplexing of existing residential accommodation — what are sometimes called illegal suites. Illegal suites usually exist whether we recognize them or not. One of the virtues of this, of course, would be that they could be brought up to a standard. They could be decent places in which to live. I welcome the Member's encouragement in this area. It is one in which we hope to create approximately 3,000 of these suites by expenditures and commitments to programmes in this upcoming year.

His suggestion of a per-capita grant to encourage duplexing I think is a good one. It's something we'll have to consider.

MR. PHILLIPS: Are you going to duplex yours?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, I've lived in these illegal suites. In fact, I don't know what I would have done when I started out in the first five years of my married life…. I suppose I could have lived with my parents or my in-laws. Well, maybe that would have been illegal. But fortunately there were these so-called "illegal suites" in Kitsilano and in Point Grey in those days and I was able to use this.

And those were great years, if I might digress, Mr. Chairman. I think that we became part of the family which lived downstairs as well. It was a very large family, very extended, a very rewarding experience and one that both my wife and I will never forget. We had our own facilities upstairs and downstairs and even in the basement I believe.

The Member has mentioned the problem of infilling and how replotting of back lots in Richmond could open up a tremendous amount of land. Certainly a great amount of the land which is indicated in the GVRD study is in Richmond and a lot of it has been cut off or a lot of it has been developed in terms of very long, narrow lots of maybe two acres where the frontage is maybe eight feet or even less.

This is certainly one of the real problems of the type of development which has gone on in the past. It's something that we are interested in, and we have, in fact, asked the Greater Vancouver Regional District to submit a proposal for replotting. We would like to see replotting in Richmond and in Surrey and we'd be most anxious to co-operate with the regional district in that regard.

It was that Member who suggested decentralization. We want to provide housing opportunities, because when you go to a place like Gold River, when you go to a place like Prince Rupert…

MR. PHILLIPS: Tahsis, Ocean Falls.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: …Tahsis — so many of these areas — there is nothing and there is no place for people to live. They go up and find a job, but they can't locate their families there. They're not going to live in bunkhouses. But we have had discussions just the other day with the community of Tahsis and the mayor. We're looking at a mobile home park proposal for the area, among other things. We also told them that other things were possible in the area. Unlike Gold River, where they don't have any senior citizens, they do have them in Tahsis. We suggested that perhaps a senior citizens' housing project would be in order there as well.

So we started talking about one thing and that led to another. I met with two different councils that day and we're meeting with these councils from all over the province, various municipalities, and having dialogue with them — especially emphasizing the decentralization which can take place.

When we tell a person to "go north, young man," there should be some place for him to live when he gets there, and some place for him to bring his family, and some place for him to raise his children.

Well, I think that's it.

MR. CHABOT: This is the first opportunity I've had to speak of the housing crisis which we have in the province. It's a very serious one indeed. I think it's unfortunate that we should be debating this late on a Friday night, at 8:10 at night.

Interjection.

[ Page 1955 ]

MR. CHABOT: Well, no, it's a housing crisis. When we have only nine people across the House who are interested in listening to the problems of the people of British Columbia who are without homes, it's quite evident to me that there aren't too many who are interested in some of the solutions and some of the programmes and…

HON. MR. BARRETT: There are only two over there.

MR. CHABOT: …the ideas that are being suggested across the way. What bothers me most of all is the fact that some of these Members…and I hope they will speak out. I doubt very much that they will, but I hope they will. This is a situation that should get the attention of all Members of this House. I hope that the Premier has not whipped his backbench into line so that they won't speak up.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Where's your leader?

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, this is extremely important. I think it's very unfortunate that we should be debating it late on a Friday night when a great number of the Members of the New Democratic Party, which happens to be the government of the day, are not present. In all fairness to these Members who aren't present, who are unwilling, probably because of circumstances…

MR. STEVES: Where are your members?

MR. CHABOT: ...to be present to listen to this situation, Mr. Chairman, I have no alternative but to move that this committee rise, report resolutions and ask leave to sit again, so that we can come back and discuss the thing when all Members are present in this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The motion is not in order.

MR. CHABOT: Oh, Mr. Chairman. On what basis is it not in order?

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That matter has been dealt with and there has been no intervening.... I recognize the Minister of Labour.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Order!

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman!

MR. CHAIRMAN: You may rise on a point of order.

MR. CHABOT: I'm rising on a point of order, if you insist.

MR. CHAIRMAN: State your point of order.

MR. CHABOT: I had the floor. You turned me off. What are you — a dictator or something? You're supposed to treat both sides of the House fairly and equally. You are failing to do that, Mr. Chairman, tonight.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. CHABOT: I want to say this....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I'm asking you to take your seat, temporarily.

I want you to understand that when I rule that the motion is out of order…. You've spoken; you've moved a motion, and I recognized the next speaker.

MR. CHABOT: I challenge your ruling.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You may challenge my ruling.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, there was a motion made that I ruled to be out of order. It was that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again. I ruled it out of order on the basis that it had already been dealt with once and there had been no intervening business. My ruling has been challenged.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Shall the ruling of the Chairman be sustained?

What is your point of order?

MR. CHABOT: Standing order 61(3) states: "Words used in Committee to be reported to the House must be taken down in writing." I failed to see the Chairman reporting to you in writing as to the dispute that arose in the committee.

MR. SPEAKER: I don't think that rule applies to the question of a ruling that has been challenged. What it does apply to is words spoken in committee that must be taken down and reported to the Chair, where the words concerned are those that are out of order. Here it is a question of simply asking the House itself to sustain or defeat the ruling of the Chairman.

I can't go into any words spoken. All I can do is ask the House whether the ruling of the Chair shall be sustained. That's all the power I have.

[ Page 1956 ]

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, further on that point of order, maybe I should read the whole subsection (3).

MR. SPEAKER: You are referring to which standing order?

MR. CHABOT: Standing order 61.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes.

MR. CHABOT: It says:

"The Chairman shall maintain order in the Committee of the Whole House, deciding all questions of order subject to an appeal to the House without the committee rising; but disorder in a Committee can only be censured by the House on receiving a report thereof."

MR. SPEAKER: Are you saying that there was some disorder?

MR. CHABOT: No, I'm not suggesting there was any disorder, certainly not. There is a period after the word "thereof" and it goes on:

"...words used in Committee to be reported to the House must be taken down in writing."       

MR. SPEAKER: That may be used at some time but in this event I don't think it's applicable, because the whole of the section appears to deal with sustaining or maintaining order in committee. Because, you see, it starts out:

"The Chairman shall maintain order in the Committee of the Whole House, deciding all questions of order subject to an appeal to the House without the Committee rising; but disorder in the Committee can only be censured by the House on receiving a report thereof."

Then it says:

"words used in Committee"...which are being reported to the House…"must be taken down in writing."

So they're dealing with the question of disorder, words that are being taken down and then reported to the House. But it's nothing whatsoever to do with sustaining a ruling of the Chair as to whether it accepts a motion in the committee where that motion in that committee is out of order.

The motion was out of order because no other intervening business had taken place. This is what I have been told by the Chairman, and that's all I know.

MR. CHABOT: Well, Mr. Speaker, you are a lawyer and I'm not and you know….

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: I have to bow, to probably the greater wisdom and the greater ability to use words and come around to a conclusion. I apologize if I've misinterpreted subsection (3) of standing order 61. For that I apologize if I've abused the ruling and the time of the House….

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: On a point of order. I understood, Mr. Speaker, that when the Chairman reported to you he stated that the motion was to report progress. Is that correct?

MR. SPEAKER: He said, as I understand it, that he has refused a motion because it was out of order and that there had been no intervening business. If that is so, and that's his ruling, all I can do is put it to the House whether they shall sustain the ruling of the Chair and that's what I want to do.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I must just relate, Mr. Chairman, that I understood that it was to report progress rather than report resolutions.

MR. SPEAKER: I don't think that that is the point upon which he was basing his decision. His decision, as I gathered from what he reported to the House, was that there was no intervening business since that motion had been put. Now, I don't know what happened in committee; I can only ask the House, which knows what happened, whether they sustain the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. Chairman's ruling sustained on the following division:

YEAS — 24

NAYS — 14

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

On vote 106.

[ Page 1957 ]

MR. STEVES: I would like to take exception to a comment made by the Hon. Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) in her interpretation of some of the comments I made earlier. To start with, in no way and never, never would I suggest that people should not own their own homes. I was suggesting to the Hon. Minister that we should be developing a certain amount of public housing, that we should be building apartments because private industry has not been building apartments for a long time, they have not been building rental accommodation for at least two years — in fact, for about a year or two before we were elected. Since before we were elected, if you look at the statistics, you will find that this is so. In fact, the rental accommodation has slowed down and the trend we're going towards is actually taking rental accommodations and developing strata titles and accommodation selling the apartments and so on has nothing to do with recent events. The trend was started several years ago. I had not stated that we should not have individually owned homes.

The Hon. Member suggested that she supported the right of the individual and I would suggest that in this particular instance she was supporting the right of the individual to be ripped off.

When I suggested leasing lots, Mr. Chairman, I was suggesting that there would be considerable saving to the individuals if they were to be able to lease lots rather than purchase them. In my community a lot costs around $20,000 if a person wishes to purchase a lot to build a house on. I think that under a leasing programme and I would suggest….

MR. PHILLIPS: One of your lots?

MR. STEVES : I would suggest that the Minister look into the fact that under a leasing programme lots could be leased for as little as $5,000 to $10,000 which would save between $10,000 and $15,000 for lots for the individual. This would be a considerable saving. The homeowner would be able to build his own home, he would own the equity and the improvements on the property but would lease the lots from service lots from the government in a land assembly programme. This would save a considerable amount of money to the individual.

By continuing with the present system as we have it now, in my opinion the individual is being grossly ripped off and young people starting out in life cannot afford to build their own homes when they have to pay that kind of price for a single-family lot.

The Hon. Member also suggested about the prices in housing that we were at fault with this because of Bill 42 and some of the landlord-tenant legislation we're bringing in and so on. I would suggest that this is utter nonsense. The problem is the crisis in housing is really being caused by the fact that the land that is available is not being put on the market. A lot of this land is being held by speculators and an awful lot of this land as well is land that needs to be infilled or land that cannot be developed because the private developers are not interested in going into those areas and developing it.

There's land, about 3,000 acres of land, that's available in my riding that could be developed by an infilling process and this could provide accommodation for at least 100,000 people. In the greater Vancouver area there's enough land available without going into agricultural zones, by going into poor lands and infilling and things like that to provide accommodation for a minimum of a million people and up to 13 million people, depending on the type of housing you build there. These from the Greater Vancouver Regional District statistics. If you went to single-family developments throughout the region, you would have land available for about a million people. If you put it all in highrises you get 13 million.

What I suggest, of course, is somewhere in between where we develop a housing mix both of single-family housing, of duplexes, of cluster-housing and so on. When I'm suggesting cluster-housing and condominiums, these again are privately-owned properties, not necessarily owned by the government, as the Member was suggesting. They would be developed under the Strata Titles Act and it makes it a very available method of housing for people at a much lower cost than buying the large lot in single family communities that have a high degree of costly servicing but are very uneconomical, taxation-wise and uneconomical to purchase for the homeowner.

So, Mr. Chairman, I was very, very disturbed by that Member's comments. When I was talking about setting up a housing corporation, I was hoping that we might see some type of corporation with regional input that could develop a programme such as I am suggesting, an authority that could perhaps have regional branch offices throughout the province in a decentralized way so that we develop housing and different types of housing mix in each community along with job opportunities; a corporation which would develop privately-owned properties but preferably on a lease basis so that we could get it at a lot lower cost.

We could develop, through such a corporation or such a housing authority, smaller lot sizes instead of the massive 60-ft. lots with the big three-bedroom homes on them. Not everybody needs a three-bedroom home, but this is the type of thing that is being developed under our present system. We could have smaller lot sizes, 33-ft. lots, 40-ft. lots and so on, for old age pensioners, for small families, for young couples and old couples. Unfortunately, under our zoning bylaws in the greater Vancouver area this is generally regarded as illegal. The minimum lot size is generally around 60 ft. by 120 ft. I would hope,

[ Page 1958 ]

perhaps, that the Minister might consider trying to encourage the municipalities to develop their subdivisions with a mix of these smaller lot sizes.

In the community where I happen to live, the township of Steveston was originally developed on 33-ft. lot sizes and there were some lots available in recent years that have been put on the market, and a lot of homes have been built on these 33-ft. lots — excellent homes — and you find a lot of families benefiting by it. The cost of the lots, of course, is not quite down to half the cost of a bigger lot, but it certainly is a substantially lower cost than housing on the bigger lot sizes.

By being critical of single-family housing, Mr. Chairman, I was not saying that single-family housing could not be owned by the people who live in it. I feel that perhaps there is a lot of financial waste in the type of single-family housing we've been building. There is a lot of waste in the community services provided to that type of housing. The fact is, in most communities there is a tax loss on single-family housing that has to be made up from industry and from the farming community and so on. We figured it out in my community that a single-family home creates a net loss of about $150 per year per home. Of course, if you have apartment living, through the taxes paid by the tenants through the landlord to the municipality, there is very little loss per home. This $150 per home and single-family housing loss per year, of course, has to be made up by the industrial base of the community and by the farm community and so on. In my opinion, it is a very uneconomical form of housing.

As far as illegal suites and duplexing is concerned, I have one further comment on that. I wonder very much if Members of the opposition have ever lived in an illegal suite. I understand from the Hon. Minister that he has, and I would like to say that I have as well. I lived in Vancouver East as a matter of fact, on East Pender Street, in an illegal suite for a year or two. It was a very nice suite. We had the entire basement to ourselves, we had very good landlords, we had excellent facilities and yet…. Of course the doors to get in and everything else were on the side of the front stairs, and I guess they put them that way so people didn't notice they were there too much, because of course they were worried that if anybody ever complained that suite could be closed down. If the city fathers heard about it and they sent out an inspector, they would lose the revenue from that suite.

What would have happened, of course, would be that the occupants — which happened to be ourselves at that time — would have been evicted and had to find some place else to stay. The old age pensioners who happened to own the house would have lost income that was helping them in their old age. What was happening, really, was we had an old couple assisting a young couple just starting out. I think this is a very desirable aim, and I'm very much ashamed of the Members of the opposition who seem to be opposing this particular idea.

MRS. D. WEBSTER (Vancouver South): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I too would like to say a few words concerning housing. I am very pleased that the Minister of Housing has given us a run-down of the large amount of land that he has ready for assembly for housing and for servicing, and also that the Housing department is interested in going into co-operative housing. I'm very pleased with the co-operative housing that is in the De Cosmos Villa in my area. I have been in several of the suites there and they are very well built. The rooms are quite spacious and the price is very, very reasonable. You can't get it at a more reasonable price anywhere.

I understand that a two-bedroom suite is about $149 a month. Of course, they have to put down an equity payment of about $1,700 to be able to join the co-operative. The newer co-operative which is going to go up on another part of the Champlain Heights area will be a little bit higher. I understand that suites of similar size will probably be about $15 a month more than they are in the De Cosmos Villa. But even that, in comparison to what other housing sells for or rents for, is exceedingly reasonable, particularly when you consider that they get new homes.

Another advantage of co-operative housing is that written into their contract, when they decide to move they get back their equity, but what they have put in by way of monthly rental is depleted. They don't get any of that back, but it means that the next person coming in does not have to pay at an inflated price to get into that co-operative. That is one thing that will help take some of the speculation out of the housing market.

I feel it's rather sad that housing, shelter, like food and like clothing — our three greatest essentials — and health care, are the ones that are being exploited today more than some of the luxury items. These should not be luxuries. These should be essentials for every person in British Columbia, regardless of whether they live in the far north, whether they live on an Indian reserve, or whether they live in a large city or a small town. They should be able to get it within the feasibility of the income that they are actually earning.

This increase in the cost of housing, inflation, isn't something that has started suddenly. Let me read something. These are statistics from the Greater Vancouver Real Estate Board. From 1966 to 1972, within a six year period, land — and this is the figure from Richmond — went up 186 per cent in cost. Construction went up 73 per cent. Interest — the cost

[ Page 1959 ]

of money, that is — went up 80 per cent. The actual house price for a multiple-listing went up 107 per cent, but wages and salaries did not go up at that same rapid rate. Most of it was inflated because of the cost of land, construction, and interest rates. Wages and salaries went up 54 per cent, and at that time rents had gone up 52 per cent.

However, since then there has been more rapid inflation, and that is not something that is peculiar to Vancouver alone, that is peculiar to all of Canada. That is peculiar not only to all of Canada, it is peculiar to the United States also and to Britain. Part of it is because of the instability of the monetary system in our entire western economy, the change in the value if the American dollar in relation to the gold standard. These are some of the things that have greatly inflated some of these costs.

Another thing that has made a difference is the fact that shortages are starting to appear very, very suddenly. We were warned of this about 10 or 12 years ago, but I don't think we paid too much attention to it and now we're starting to reap from the seeds sown a number of years ago. Through foolhardiness we haven't taken advantage of doing something to offset that.

Let me say this isn't the first housing crisis we've had. Right after World War II when the soldiers started to return from overseas we also had a housing crisis. To offset the shortage of housing at that time, they went into a great deal of monolith and prefabricated construction for housing as we felt housing should be sold fairly inexpensively to the returned soldiers.

Is there no way that something of this type couldn't be done now to create a volume of housing on the market that would be a little bit less expensive than what is being put up? I realize our standards are rising constantly and, because of rising standards and costs of serviced land for housing, it does make a difference to the actual price of the house. Surely, to be able to provide housing rapidly, something of this type might be able to offset the shortage and also be able to give proper shelter to people who need it.

Apartments. Again, from the Greater Vancouver Real Estate Board, the boom peak for apartment construction was 1969 in Vancouver. At that time, 12,000 units were built. That started to slump almost immediately afterwards, and within three years the construction was down to about one-half and has slowly gone down ever since. It was after the construction started to go down that these apartments started to be converted to condominiums.

I'm hopeful the Minister of Housing will be able to assist with the construction of apartments so that once again we'll have the type of units desirable, for instance, for single people or for couples or for people who are too busy or do not desire to have a single unit house of their own and would rather live in an apartment.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: As I listen to the debate this evening I am filled with a growing sense of frustration which I'm sure must only be equalled by the sense of frustration which is being felt by those citizens of this province, young and old, who are in dire need of housing accommodation. The debate so far this evening has talked about all kinds of esoteric ideas — co-operative housing, infilling, establishment of regional offices throughout the province, this idea and that idea. But what is so frustrating is that the solution appears to rest with the Department of Housing and they haven't come forward with one concrete proposal to produce one housing unit in the Province of British Columbia.

Interjections.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: It's absolutely frustrating to hear this and to hear the chatter-chatter about what's happening to Mission. But quite obviously the Members don't even recognize the extent of the crisis facing this province. The Member for Richmond (Mr. Steves) spoke a few moments ago and clearly indicated the extent of the problem that faces this province and this Minister. He said that in order to catch up we need 30,000 housing units in the Province of British Columbia. In fact, he said it might even be 35,000 housing units.

What the Minister told us in his earlier speech in this House and what he told us in his opening remarks tonight indicates he's not even approaching the beginning of that problem.

The carpenters' union in British Columbia produced a 12-page booklet a couple of years ago which is very interesting. It deals with the various elements of the cost of housing. They make a comparison of the cost of housing in 1961 and the cost of housing in 1972. This is a so-called "guinea-pig" house: 1,200 square feet. To build enough 1,200 square-foot bungalows in 1972 would require a total cash input of $870 million. If you could get 80 per cent of that money by way of mortgage, you'd have to have $696 million in mortgages and $174 million provided by the homeowner for down payments. That's an enormous undertaking.

We hear about all of the cost of land. In producing these figures, the carpenters' union included a land cost of $9,667. If we take all the land costs out of that proposal, then 30,000 housing units of 1,200 square feet each would require $576 million: $461 million by way of mortgage and $115 million by way of direct cash input by individuals. That, as the Member for Richmond (Mr. Steves) said, is just to catch up; it doesn't indicate the requirements we have in order to keep abreast of growth in this province.

[ Page 1960 ]

What did the Minister tell us that he has done so far? He's acquired enough land for 11,900 housing units. I appreciate that those won't all be single-family dwellings. But if they were, to acquire that land and to service that land in the lower mainland municipalities — and I fully appreciate that all the land is not in those municipalities — and the Minister would also have to provide $59 million in order to service those lots. He hasn't got that much money in his budget. There isn't that much money provided by the provincial government, nor will it be available from the provincial and the federal governments combined, to do this work.

The Minister talks about having a co-operative home-building project scheme such as they had in the Province of Nova Scotia. He brought out some consultants from the Province of Nova Scotia to institute this in British Columbia. What he said earlier this evening was that since the late '30s under such a scheme, Nova Scotia has produced 4,300 homes. Terrific. That's an average of 122 a year.

Welcome as the scheme will be to some people, welcome as it will be to those who understand how to use a hammer and saw (a level would be a bit of a help as well), you create a few problems for those people who might want to build in the larger urban communities. You certainly create a lot of problems for individuals who will have to have their homes plumbed by plumbers who belong to unions and wired by electricians who belong to the unions. That may work fine in an area like Squamish where you have a lot of very handy people around. But to suggest that this is in any way going to attack the problem of the 30,000 dwelling units required in British Columbia is utter nonsense.

What we need is for that Minister to stand up and say he is going to get together with the people in this province who know how to build houses and work out agreements with them to get to work upon the land the government has available and get some housing units constructed.

There are development companies; he may have to deal with them. There are builders and building companies. The Minister is going to have to deal with them.

We can acquire land and provide money, but you won't get a blessed thing done until you get the man with the tool in his hand who knows what to do to install the water and the sewer, dig the foundation, pour the concrete and do the rest of the tasks needed to put together a dwelling. Those are the people who have to be energized.

Don't talk about infilling as being the solution; the solution is to get workers on the land. That's not going to happen until the Housing department gets together with those who know how to energize and assemble the workers and how to do the job.

We want to hear from this Minister at what stage in negotiations he is with anyone in the building or construction field with respect to the development of housing in British Columbia. When will he be able to announce not some beautiful scheme about co-op building societies but that a construction organization is going to go to work on land which the government has made available to build housing units?

The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) spoke about co-operatives and he was quite right: co-ops can work provided they keep their goals.

He expressed the hope that municipalities would see fit to engage in co-operatives. The Minister of Housing indicated he hoped that municipalities and regional districts would begin to move on the matter of housing. But why is the Minister of Housing hoping they will do these things? Has he called together the leaders of our municipalities in any of the areas of this province? Has he sat down with them in his office and made clear to them the nature of the problem that faces British Columbia? Has he discussed with them the desirability of moving quickly to change zoning and building bylaws to enable housing construction of the kind he envisions to take place? Has he discussed with them the desirability of lowering their standards so that we can have some housing units of 950 to 1,000 square feet constructed?

Has he said to them that he recognizes it is the desire of municipalities to have larger and more expensive homes constructed because that increases our tax base? But has he said to them: "We're prepared to assist you in this regard if you'll get some smaller housing units underway in your municipality"? Has he done these things?

Has he received agreement from any of the municipalities in respect to these matters? Can he announce that municipalities are prepared to do this and in turn announce to the building industry that they can construct some of these less-expensive units?

Those are the positive steps towards a solution that would get, as I said a few moments ago, the worker with the tool in his hand on the land, building houses.

Has he discussed with the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) the wisdom of making some of his projects work by acquiring materials and making them available without the 5 per cent provincial tax? We know the federal government has consistently refused to remove the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials. More the shame to that government, but what excuse is it for us in the Province of British Columbia, who are now proclaiming how wonderful it is that we have this first Housing Ministry, to keep our tax on these vital materials? That's what they have become, Mr. Chairman. Building materials….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would just

[ Page 1961 ]

remind the Hon. Member that the 5 per cent sales tax is under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Finance. He may refer to it but not….

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Will you remind the Minister of that? Maybe he will have the wit to talk to the Minister of Finance about taking it off.

Interjection.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Wit.

Interjection.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: No, the wit, you know? Half-wit, or whatever it is. He should just talk to the Minister of Finance about taking the 5 per cent tax off a vital material, the building materials.

That would be a step the government could take which would ease the burden. The burden is not insignificant when you consider the breakdown of costs in 1972 for this guinea-pig home which I mentioned a moment ago. In 1972, materials accounted for 18.5 per cent of the cost of a house. Take 5 per cent off the cost of the house, which then was almost $29,000, and it's a significant amount of money when you multiply it by the 30,000 units we need in order to catch up.

What we need is less talk, less theory and more action among the people who can really do the job. We certainly can't do it in this House. The Minister can't do it. He doesn't even have a department that is equipped — he admitted today that he is still assembling his staff — to administer the solutions. So he'd better get busy and start talking and dealing and coming to agreements with the people who can provide the solutions.

Interjection.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: You're right — when they want to do something they can move.

There are other interesting examples of the way this government moves to attack crises. ICBC is one. There's no difficulty pouring in millions of dollars to get that thing going. There's no difficulty, when they suddenly recognize rapidly-accelerating world petroleum and energy costs, in establishing an energy commission and a petroleum corporation, in taking over the gas at the well heads and in making Westcoast Transmission into a public carrier — that was done in about 21/2 weeks. There's no difficulty in moving in that direction in a crisis, Mr. Chairman.

For some reason or other, in the housing crisis we've had a Minister in a department since last November and he hasn't even got a staff yet. It didn't take that long to staff the Energy Commission, I'll tell you, with very competent, responsible men and women. So what's the problem with the Housing department?

It isn't good enough for the Minister of Housing to say the Department of Housing was only established last November. He had been the Minister Without Portfolio in charge of housing since last May. He can't indicate to this committee that he hasn't had time; he certainly has had time at least to assemble competent people who can recognize the problem and provide some solution to the problem.

All we have heard so far is the enormity of the problem and a lot of esoteric ideas about how it can be resolved.

I don't know how many hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of man-hours have been spent in assessing the problem. The Minister referred to the report produced by Thompson, Berwick, Pratt & Partners concerning land infill. Berwick and Pratt are very competent architects, but I would rather the Minister had gone to Berwick & Pratt and had them spend as much time with their competent staff in designing inexpensive homes that could be placed in the hands of builders to build as they spent in producing this report, and then sat down with builders and concluded agreements with them to get the job underway.

In December, 1973, the Greater Vancouver Regional District produced a report from the Residential Living Policy Committee. That was the result also of many man-hours of work by people throughout the entire region. What they say on page 119 is interesting:

"The housing crisis is of our own making. The fault lies not in our stars nor in the immutable laws of economics. On the contrary, the fault is firmly rooted in our own folly. We have the land, the materials, the skilled labour and the money but not, apparently, the will."

I think that's what the problem is with us today in this committee. We've got a Minister who's been given money. There certainly is a pool of skilled labour in this province. We certainly have the materials. The Minister proclaims loudly that he has the land. We just don't have somebody who's got the will to put them all together.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, perhaps the Hon. Member missed some of my remarks. Certainly we've been active and we haven't looked for a panacea, as you seem to suggest. It was the Hon. Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) who brought up the infilling report of the Greater Vancouver Regional District. I think that there is a lot of merit in that report, but there's no simple answer to the housing crisis and I haven't suggested that there is.

I haven't said that co-operative is a panacea. I

[ Page 1962 ]

haven't said that a build-your-own-home programme in rural areas is a panacea. I haven't said that just leasing land is the panacea. But in putting all of these things together, when you look at the initiatives that have been taken since last May…. Maybe I have to read them all out: Albert Bay, 6 acres, potential development, single family, 24 units — cost $100,000 — in the planning stage; Burnaby — Inman Lister, a potential eight duplexes, 16 units of housing, land cost $144,000 — in a stage of planning; Burnaby — another six; Burnaby — Gaglardi Way, 18.2 acres of multiple residential, 500. We have physical plans, and dialogue taking place between our consulting firm and the Burnaby area.

So I want you to get up and say what you think. Where should we move? Are you telling me to override all municipalities, override community plans that have been registered with the Department of Municipal Affairs? If that's what you think, then I welcome your remarks.

Are you telling me to go in and make sure that some specific piece of land in your riding gets developed over and above local residents' objections? Are you telling me to go down and force the municipality of White Rock to open a piece of land which they're holding off the market for a particular developer?

Are you telling me to go down and tell Surrey to get off it and get large holdings? There are hundreds of acres being held by one particular developer, being held by Western Realty off the market, the ones from New West Developments that are being held off the market, the ones from Dionne Developments that are being held off the market. I've had dialogues with all of these and many, many more developers.

We have been talking about these problems and we've been talking to the municipalities. And as I said earlier this evening, I have had reports from the municipality of Delta that housing permits for a comparable period for the beginning of this year over last year are up. That's as a result of a new council, dialogues that we've had with that council, bringing together people from the development industry in that area. We're talking about problems related to drainage, related to diking and co-operation that's going on with the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources.

These things are moving ahead but it's a rather simplistic approach to take that when development has been taking, at the minimum, two years to get approvals over the past few years you suggest that we should have these going since last May. In spite of that, we have got projects going since last May right in your own riding, Mr. Member, as I've said before and I'll say again. I contacted Mr. Teron and contacted Mr. Basford directly. I tried to contact Mr. Davis but he was unavailable but I got co-operation from Mr. Basford and Mr. Teron as I normally do.

The project is going ahead in your riding — a rather expensive project for senior citizens — but we feel that it should go ahead even if it is in a little riding.

I want you to specifically point out areas. Don't just get up and make very general statements. You say you want us to lean on the municipalities and override all of these things. If that's what you think, get up and say it. If you want to disregard local pressures — and that means University Endowment Lands, that means Burnaby Mountain, that means the District of North Vancouver and many, many other areas — I'd like you to be clear about your remarks and just where you want to go in that area.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I'm glad the Minister wants to engage in a debate, but he doesn't listen. I asked him how many municipalities in the lower mainland he has met with and explained the problem to. How many of them have you discussed the changing of their zoning and building bylaws in order to permit the construction of smaller, less expensive houses? That's one of the problems.

That's one of the problems that's causing land to be held off the market and that's one of the solutions.

I also asked you how many development or construction companies you met with in order to see whether or not some agreement couldn't be reached so that they would go ahead and develop some of the land that you've got. Who have you met with? Are you close to agreement? When are you going to announce an agreement?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Starting with municipalities. I've met with Delta, Surrey, Langley, Burnaby, Vancouver and the District of North Vancouver. I wouldn't officially say that I've met with the City of North Vancouver. I was at an opening and I did have remarks with most of the council members in West Vancouver but that's been left out for now. Burnaby, Coquitlam, Port Moody, Maple Ridge, Mission — of course, I'm talking about the lower mainland. I've met with Kamloops….

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: What was the result of those meetings?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Result of the meetings? As I've said, things seem to be moving ahead in Delta this year.

Interjection.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: That's right, and they've had a 20 per cent growth rate in past years. They've had the largest growth rate of any municipality in the lower mainland. The City of Port Moody has a plan in which they're looking to development of 15,000

[ Page 1963 ]

units in what they call their North Shore area. We have many projects going ahead with the City of Vancouver. Either I read all of the projects out of report, which would take some time, and some summary....

MR. CURTIS: Read them out.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Members not speak from their seats?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Now, you've also asked how many developers I've met with. Well, I've met with New West, I've met with Block Brothers, I've met, of course, with Dunhill Developments….

Interjection.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: No, I don't believe so. I've met with Dayon, Western Realty, Lisogar, Community Builders, and many, many others whose names escape me. That's in the greater Vancouver area. I've also met with some of the developers from the Capital Regional District and I've met several times with the Victoria Real Estate Board and other people in the area.

We are, as I said, intending to bring forth a programme calling for builder proposals in order to bring on fairly vast amounts of rental housing. These, of course, are all part of several different kinds of programmes, as we've said — co-ops, servicing land, rental housing. There is not a panacea but there's no way to tackle this problem — no single best way.

I might say that another municipality I've met with is the municipality of Saanich. We're engaged there with a land servicing programme. We've gone to a land acquisition programme in the area. We're now looking at planning and we've had discussions. We have some firm, concrete proposals which are being discussed at this time so that the involvement numbers in several thousands of units of potential development. Some things are in the construction stage at the present time. Some things have even been completed in my short period of responsibility dating from last May and we look this year to see considerable construction and completion in our sector, but as I point out one of the most important things is to keep the private sector on the move.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): By rent control.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, remember that about 20 per cent of people in the rental market rent by preference. If there are alternatives, they will be able to take advantage of them. This is largely related to our social programmes and also making use of the social programmes which are available from Central Mortgage and Housing and through the National Housing Act.

As I've said, in Penticton we were discussing at the tri-level conference with Mayor Frank Liard of Penticton, in the middle of October, that there are units there which are almost ready for occupancy now. We've given them the bridge funding to service lots where they will then be able to take advantage of using double-wide homes, manufactured…. I think the contract went to a Kelowna manufacturer of factory-built homes. Those are going to be occupied, I would say, within one or two months. So that's for openers.

[Mr. Gabelmann in the chair.]

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I just have a very short question for the Minister at this point, very short indeed. I was glad to see that he recognizes there is a problem because he used the word "housing crisis." I'm glad to see that he recognizes that a housing crisis does in fact exist.

Things have been rather vague so far. I'd like him to specify how bad the housing crisis is and how many extra units a year would be needed to cure the housing crisis.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: I believe that a study that I've had done indicates that in the greater Vancouver area — which kind of breaks down to half of the provincial problem in some respects — starts were something like 14,000-odd or almost 15,000. They should be running around 19,000-some-odd. So the shortfall is somewhere between 4,000 and 5,000 a year for about three years. That would put us into a catch-up position. If that were done in a three-year period, I believe that we would be able to level off a little bit, all things being equal and neglecting friction.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I don't have too much to say because a lot of the ground has already been covered. But one interesting observation I have is perhaps the failure to learn from other countries. But certainly the old country years and years ago was accustomed to providing low- and moderate- income groups, citizens in society, with subsidized housing. It was a most accepted part of the social structure in Britain, as I'm sure the Minister well knows.

There were subsidies involved in constructing the houses, and the tenants in those houses would pay a subsidized rent. I've just been reading some of these clippings and they talk about one of the disadvantages of former developments. I'm just reading The Vancouver Sun on March 9, and they say: "Failings of past developments were that you get monotonous rows of housing and forests of highrises."

[ Page 1964 ]

Well, I can't speak about highrises in the old country; that's a recent development…certainly monotonous rows of houses. All I know, Mr. Chairman, is that many of these people had a very comfortable home and a good roof over their heads. I think that leads me to another aspect of our society today, which maybe is worth mentioning at this point. While housing is certainly expensive and we hear how difficult it is for young couples to get started with a house or to find accommodation, I think we also have to recognize another fact of life in 1974, and that is the lifestyle of many young people and the lifestyle which they demand or expect.

The fraction of their income which they're willing to put into housing, granted, is a freedom of choice which they have. But this same article points out the fact that many of the younger people in our generation expect at a very early age to own a car and to go skiing at the weekends and to have holidays in Hawaii.

This is all very well, Mr. Chairman; I think that's a great idea, if you can afford it. But I sometimes wonder to what extent our young people, and our young couples and young people getting married…. My own unmarried teenage family worry me in the way they seem to expect that because older age groups enjoy some of these lifestyles, it's just the common thing to expect that they can enjoy them.

I know I'm sounding terribly old, right-wing and conservative. But as far as I'm concerned this is a factor that should be discussed when we talk about the cost of housing, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: An impoverished father.

MR. WALLACE: Well, I'm also an impoverished father, but that's self-inflicted. I don't want to belabour this because I'm sure that the challenge to a society and to a civilization is that if we have the know how and the technology to produce luxuries — so-called, in quotation marks — at a lower price, it's rather pointless if society can't find a way to make them available to a widest scope of our people, young and old.

But I think this is a point that probably not enough statistics are available about as to the percentage of total income today which, let us say, young people have to pay to rent an apartment…$150 a month. I wonder how that figure compares as a fraction of their total income to what our forefathers or we were paying 20 years ago for the kind of accommodation. It's just a point that I think is worth touching upon.

As far as single-family dwellings are concerned it's obvious as can be that the inflationary psychology…. I really can't blame anyone for having an inflationary psychology. In our recent debates when we've criticized Ministers in this House, how often have I heard the comment, "Well, Mr. Minister, this vote is only up 10 per cent; that barely takes care of inflation"?

We've all just got so completely accepting of the fact that we expect everything to go up 10 per cent at least, that if it goes up less than 10 per cent we're wondering what's wrong. There's where the value of your dollar is dropping annually by 10 per cent.

Then I look at the housing situation and the single-family dwelling situation and people of course realize that it's the best investment there is these days. There's no way you can lose by investing your money on housing. The selling and the reselling of single-family dwellings is in itself as good as gold these days, or almost.

So we needn't kid ourselves when we weep and look at the ads or see what a house is selling for. There are houses on my own street — a house near to mine — similar to mine for $95,000. I know that's about two-and-a-half times what I paid for mine just eight years ago.

Now this kind of inflationary psychology: there's no way any planning in the world is going to beat that, because people have decided that that's where to put your money these days. And it does keep up with the 10 per cent inflation — or better.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Well, I'll get to that in a minute. The problem is always easier to describe than the answer, Bill; you know that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, I know.

MR. WALLACE: It's much easier to talk about the problem than give you the answer. But I'll try.

These two points, I think — lifestyle and inflation — are two factors that just shouldn't be sort of….

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Why don't you go and shoot a grizzly, Alex?

Of course, the third factor is that whether we like it or not, we also have an increasing population and an urbanization practice all across Canada. We all know that pretty soon 90 per cent of the population will be in five large cities. This is like trying to hold back the waves, too, to suggest that you can stop that trend. Although, again, if you refer to Britain — and I'm no expert on the new towns situation — I know that to try and at least modify the urbanization problems of huge populated centres in Britain, they developed a concept of new towns, smaller satellite towns. They provided incentives in the form of subsidies to industry and secondary industry to locate in these towns and encourage people to go and live

[ Page 1965 ]

there. I don't know to what degree we've looked at that. I know we have geographical problems — living in valleys and below mountain tops and so on. I recognize this, but maybe on Vancouver Island there isn't quite that same problem.

I think it's unreasonable to stand up and ask this government — or any government — to overlook some of these three or four or five very fundamental factors that influence the housing problem.

Again we've talked several times that our population is increasing at 3 per cent instead of the average of 1.5 per cent.

A lot of the problems are doubled right there compared to other provinces. Somebody says: "you sound old-fashioned, tired and quite conservative". Shocking! It's anonymous. (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: And there he is, there he is.

MR. WALLACE: Anyway I know we are all getting tired and I shouldn't wonder. But I think the Minister of Public works says: "what are the answers?" Well, I think there is certainly a diversity of proposals and since basically two of the outstanding problems are the cost of land and the cost of money I would suggest that these would have to be the two areas you start with.

Dealing with the cost of land, this is one problem which I do believe has been exacerbated by the rather sudden and blanket way in which the land freeze was applied. We did it to all of it but some parcels of land within the land freeze, sections of that land, are by no means suitable for farming and the sooner this land is restored to the marketplace for accommodation is a very important factor.

The Minister of Agriculture in his debate on his estimates did say that this was moving along fairly well but there has been quite a debate. The other factor, of course, as I say is the cost of money. Again, if we look at Britain, they do subsidize as they did in the years I lived there to provide municipal housing or council houses. The municipal council operated and managed the municipal housing schemes and the cost was subsidized through the central government.

I really don't accept the all too facile argument that because it's council housing subsidized through central funds that it has either to be monotonous or it has to be a ghetto or it has to be anything else. I think that that's maybe largely an excuse.

Of course, the whole government in Canada is a little different from what happens in Britain and we have a federated government, three levels of government here. In Britain you only have two — it makes that system a little easier to translate into action. I accept that that's the case but, nevertheless, even with three levels of government it seems to me that this is more than feasible in this country.

The Minister has said that he sometimes has difficulty reaching the federal Ministers, and there again it's a huge country here compared to the small country of Britain so I don't want to over-paint the comparison. But I think some of the principles really should be applicable here in British Columbia.

The mortgage rates at the moment, I assume, are around 10 per cent or more and I wonder if the Minister could tell us, for example, what kind of cash cost we would be involved in if, say, the mortgage rate was subsidized at a level of say 6 or 7 per cent — in other words, if the government met the 3 per cent on the mortgage money on these, I think 12,000 total units, that the Minister outlined in his throne speech.

Some of the other positive proposals have already been mentioned. I wonder how much it would cost the Minister of Finance if we removed the 5 per cent sales tax on building materials. How much would it reduce the price of a single family dwelling if we did persuade the federal government to remove the 11 per cent sale tax?

The Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) has mentioned that the federal government has consistently refused us. But I would like to know to what degree the Minister is pounding on the door of the federal minister and when he last pounded on the door and when he is going to pound on it again and say that this is something we believe would help the cost.

What about increasing the degree of the second mortgage which is available? I think it's a limit of $5,000 at the present time. In the units which the Minister envisages — the single family units — if that were increased to $10,000 what would be the additional figures?

Of course, there has been quite a bit of discussion on the whole question of rental accommodation and I do feel, again, that much of the responsibility rests at the door of the federal government in removing the tax write-off incentives which have led to not a complete cessation of apartment construction, but the amount of apartment construction has slowed down very considerably.

Whether it is this socialist government or any other government you do have to deal with private builders and with private developers and these particular individuals and companies respond to incentives. I would feel that somewhere along the line you have to find incentives to get them back into the apartment construction field.

Now just a last point that I think has been mentioned, but it's extremely important. It is this question of urbanization, people moving to the suburbs and developing subdivisions and then after they have been there a little while they don't really want to see the area around about them continue to grow so they put ever increasing pressure on municipal councils to increase the tone and strength of regulations — making rezoning more difficult,

[ Page 1966 ]

insisting on more open space and so on.

To a degree, of course, that inevitably puts up the cost of any unit that is constructed. So that the other point the Member from West Vancouver–Howe Sound made was that a lot of the problems are of our own making and a lot of it's related to our own individual selfishness.

Many of the suburban areas that have been developed for housing a few years ago, the residents in these areas don't want to see the area continuing to mushroom. As I say they take steps and put pressure on the municipal council to make further construction more difficult. Much as I would like to see the government do more, build more units more quickly, I think that some of these basic problems that slow down the pace and the interminable delays that the Member for Saanich (Mr. Curtis) has talked about in terms of just red tape bureaucracy in dealing between the different levels of government, these are some issues that really will have to be solved first.

If we had all the money in the world to pour into housing, and this is a substantial sum. We are talking about $115 million total this year and that's a very substantial sum of money. But even if we doubled it or tripled it, does the Minister feel that some of these other obstacles that I have mentioned would require two years before you start planning and you actually construct the units? These are valid obstacles which have to be dealt with regardless of the amount of money available.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: As opposed to the former speaker, the Member's spoken somewhat in favour of council housing and I think that for some of us tourists that were maybe born and raised in Canada, a person such as myself if they were to travel to England, they might have a different view. But for people who really live there and know what it really is and have had the experience, I have had very few complaints about council housing, no matter what walk of life people seem to come from.

The talk of the suburb pressure for restrictive bylaws: the Member is a former member of a municipal council, I believe. I'd like to know how he responded to that pressure

MR. WALLACE: I usually gave in.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: You usually gave in. It certainly is one of the very big problems. I've said that these are significant social programmes which we will be bringing but they are not the total answer. But where we are going to give subsidies we have to have some kind of control. You can't just print paper money. You know, $1,000 home acquisition grant is fine, but there's a limit to how much you can do in that respect without somebody else actually picking up the benefits. It doesn't really benefit the consumer but benefits the vendor, perhaps.

We feel that these programmes for rental housing, for encouraging organizations such as Greater Vancouver Regional District and municipalities or cities such as Penticton to get directly involved in housing — and the same invitation has gone to places like Port Moody — we feel that these programmes will be of significant benefit. We should have co-operative housing, but the effect of all of these things will be lost if we don't take the measure, which I think we are taking, to look at the problems of bylaws.

I was talking with the Mayor of Surrey the other day and just as we were travelling along in the same car, I think there were three of us, and it came up in conversation about the fact that they had, somewhere along the line, brought in the restriction on Lochside that a previous Member mentioned, that you could no longer build a house of 900 square feet there. Many of the starter homes that all three of us in the car had started out in — the first home that we had purchased — would no longer be possible to build in the municipality of Surrey. That goes for many, many others in the lower mainland and municipalities throughout the province.

These restrictive bylaws are something that do have to be re-examined. I feel that this is happening and again we could jump in precipitously perhaps and override all municipal objections, go into specific areas and set aside all municipal regulations, imposts, and all of these things. But we have been in dialogue with municipalities. It takes a little bit of time, but having spent some of that time and starting to see some of the results, I would be most reluctant to turn my back on that kind of work.

I am confident that there is a growing awareness and sense of responsibility in the municipalities, and I am starting to see results. I am starting to get suggestions from areas which I didn't expect to get that kind of suggestion from. For instance we had in mind the duplexing programme where we could change single-family dwellings into two-family dwellings with suites.

Some members of the Surrey council suggested that this might be a good programme in part of their area. This was before we actually announced the programme. When we were thinking of this programme we had in mind areas like Vancouver and Burnaby. It was encouraging to get that kind of response from the municipality of Surrey.

We are looking for re-examination of these things. The municipality of Coquitlam was more or less a pioneer in the Vancouver area with zero lot-line approach in which they threw out all of the zoning bylaws and hang-ups and regulations and came up with something that lowered service costs, gave more community property to be shared by the residents. It gave a feeling of privacy, with at the same time smaller lot sizes, smaller road widths, better planning,

[ Page 1967 ]

better use of the contours and the siting of the natural site.

I feel there is a great deal that can be done in this area, but I do feel that municipalities are starting to change.

One of the most difficult things about this, of course, is that municipalities can be short-lived, or I should say, councils can be short-lived. Attitudes can change in a very short space of time. I would hope to be firm where municipalities just show no recognition of the problem. I see that most of them are trying to make some very conscious effort in these regards.

I have Mr. John Northby who was with the City of Vancouver planning department. He also happens to be the mayor of Port Moody, so he has ideas. He also had experience in working with private development companies, so he has some idea of this. He is working as a kind of an expediter, in sort of a four-way liaison with developers, municipalities and provincial government.

This is a concept which I hope to expand. He has brought some very interesting problems to our attention, and he is working towards solutions whether the problems be within our department, the approvals which come to various departments at the provincial level, or take place at the municipal level.

Certainly in one case, as I pointed out earlier, there is a 500-unit subdivision. It's not the cause for a press release to go out, but I did bring about a meeting with one of our government departments, and something that looked like it was going to be shelved is back on the track again. It's just as important to build 500 units of housing that way, Mr. Chairman, as it is the 500 units of social housing that we propose to build in some location.

We are trying to attack this from many different levels. I shouldn't leave the impression with the House that I am that staff-poor. I have some very good staff. We have the services of an engineer, a planner, and an architect. We have the skeleton staff, and an appraiser — a very fine appraiser. It's still rather a small staff, but we have been able to get many things initiated. We're in various stages with some 50 municipalities for social housing projects is only one facet of what we see as attacking the problem and getting a better dialogue between the private sector and the municipalities and the provincial government approval authorities.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): I would like to take a few minutes of the Minister's time in this debate. I certainly want to see him get his salary. We've had a couple of meetings in his office, and I think he's off and running in the right direction in many ways — particularly, of course, with the 65 acres in Kamloops that is being developed in conjunction with the civic authorities.

We've had a lot of bad experience with housing in Kamloops. Mr. Minister, if you're up there and you have a little spare time, I would certainly like to have the opportunity to show you some of the bad ones, because we have a lot of them.

I know that the Hon. Member from North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) was up there yesterday and part of today. I hope he had time to look at some of the Housing and not spend his whole time talking about mining, and insisting that mining companies are entitled to huge profits — not reasonable profits, huge profits.

Perhaps he had time to look at some housing too, and maybe he will be making some comments on that.

One of the things that I am concerned about, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, is your reference to the private sector. We have an excellent example up there of the private sector. When Lornex put their open-pit mine in, 10 miles away was a beautiful open valley with rolling hills and a small lake in it.

They decided to design the community, tie it in to some of the hills with a view of the lake, a shopping centre. It was a completely pre-planned community. Of course, they called in the private sector to do the building.

Now, the steps and the porches were all precast concrete. You can hardly find one that hasn't got about 5 in. of it worn away already, with the structural steel sticking out of it because of the rotten concrete put into that type of construction.

In the first 80 houses that were built I would say there were 40 or 45 that got a swimming pool in their basement for no extra charge. It does cut down on their storage quite a bit.

That company that built those houses had to leave off $1,000 on each house as a guarantee that they would come back and do the necessary repairs. The repairs were so extensive and so bad that when they couldn't get their money, they pulled out without it. That's the quality of the housing that those people moved into, in what should have been an ideal community, planned from the beginning.

There was one case where the earth washed out from under the man's carport, and the concrete floor hung on the posts attached to the roof and warped all the rafters and broke some of the roofing along the edge.

When the 65 acres is being developed in Kamloops, I just hope I get the chance to have a few words with you about some of the builders who should not be used on the project.

We have another area, too, up there that the private sector took care of. The leader of the Liberal Party made reference to it in the question period the other day in his usual grandstanding fashion by asking an ambiguous question of the Minister of Municipal Affairs about flooding.

[ Page 1968 ]

Well, you know, the developer went out there to put in a housing subdivision called Greenacres. It's not a very big one. The main road is called Greenacres. The Highways Department said, for that many houses they could have one access to the road, that is sufficient for the number of homes going in there. The developer put one road towards the hills and one across the hills, right across the face of the gulley where the water naturally runs down in the spring.

They put another road across the bottom and plugged off the natural watercourse. The developer put one culvert under one of the streets, but the builder that put the house across the street put the driveway of the house right over the end of the culvert. It doesn't drain very well that way, and if it does it washes away the other man's driveway.

We've had many cases in the rainy areas of the North Thompson river within the boundaries of Kamloops where people have finally got the down payment together, they've arranged for the financing and they get to the stage where they can move into the home. Perhaps the blacktop driveway isn't there.

After calling the builder three or four times, they found out they weren't going to get the driveway. But the builder had been released his final money by the mortgagor, he wasn't interested in coming back, and there are others who have three and four hundred dollars worth of work they can't get done. The only one who had any success with the contractor was the man who had $2,000 worth of work unfinished, and it was worth his while to take the contractor to court. So for a $500 legal fee, he was able to get $1,500 of the $2,000 that should have been put on this house.

There's many, many cases like it up there: houses that have been built on the hillside without proper drainage so that their lawns are furrowed in the spring with runoff water and their driveway washed away so they can't park in it.

We have all kinds of farmland, of course, that has gone under housing. The impression always remains down here that we have a tremendous traffic system for people in the subdivisions. We don't have it. We have a very poor system up there of bringing the people from these new suburbs that are developing into the core of this tremendous development that has gone into this area in the last 15 years.

We have another little system up there, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman. Most of the available land is owned in large blocks by developers. There's very few little lots here and there that can be bought by the individual builder. These developers in the private segment will sell a man a lot to build a house, but he has to sign an agreement to resell the house and lot back through the same real estate agency. I've taken this up with the Attorney-General's Department, and I understand that the real estate board is moving on this. But they've been carrying this on for several years in the area. They sold you a lot, and then you had to guarantee to resell back through the same outfit so that they made a profit on your building as well as the lot that they sold you in the first place.

We have many cases that I know of where real estate companies have deliberately talked people into three and four thousand dollars more for their house. Because of the shortage, they knew they could get it. This has certainly contributed to the higher cost of them.

We're not too badly off for rental housing. I think in one of the larger areas that was sewered about five years ago, we have quite a lot of apartments that have been built. One was opened for rental about three months ago, and there is still a sign on it that they are renting. There are some apartment blocks that have "for rent" signs in the window. This has had a fairly good affect on the size of the rents, and I think we're not too badly off for apartment units. For rental homes, of course, they're very short, and this 65 acres will be an excellent start. But, as I said before, we've got another 2,000 over on the north side of the valley that we can put quite a few houses too.

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I think before I make a couple of other observations, I would like to congratulate the newly-appointed Deputy Minister in the Department of Housing, Mr. Chatterton, and also to comment on the fact that from the previous government,. and since this government came to power, there has been assembled quite a good senior staff for housing matters in British Columbia. In a way, this strong staff helps us in our misgivings about the competence of the Minister who carries the portfolio at the present time and there are considerable misgivings, I think, in the province, Mr. Chairman.

Nevertheless, I don't want to take too long at this particular time. There may be some other observations I can make later. But the earlier discussion with the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams), and a reference also by the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace), spoke about problems in municipalities and the difficulties associated with municipal restrictions. I wonder if the Minister would like to comment on, and hopefully agree with, the fact that it isn't just a problem with a municipality; it is rather a problem with individuals in the municipality, because councils do come and go, and regulations and restrictions are changed. But in many instances, it is the municipality, the city, whatever, which is responding to the insistence of residents with respect to the kind of environment they want in their neighbourhood, in their community.

I don't say this in defence of municipal councils, I simply identify it as where the problem really exists. I

[ Page 1969 ]

know I have proven very unpopular on more than one platform in previous work when I have said that there is this commitment to the sanctity of the single-family dwelling, once you have it. That, I think, is a problem which is really going to tax this Minister, his senior people, and whatever individuals succeed him down the years with the housing portfolio because we do have that, if you wish to use the word, snobbery, once someone locates in a single-family dwelling. And anyone in this chamber, anyone in this Committee, who has attended a public hearing or who has been involved in a public hearing with respect to rezoning from single-family use to duplex, or single-family to apartment — whatever other kind of housing accommodation it may be — you know very well that that's when the troops come out.

They get upset occasionally about a service station or some kind of shopping centre, but it's when the apartment threatens their neighbourhood that they come out in droves. It doesn't have to be a highrise; it can be a very tastefully designed, quality lowrise, but it's the introduction in the neighbourhood of something foreign, to quote those who will speak at hearings of those kind.

They like the idea of everything being precisely the same: three bedroom, a family room in the basement, one-and-a-half or two bathrooms, a front yard, a back yard with a neat little fence; all in a row. And when someone suggests the finest kind of apartment development nearby, then the balloon really goes up.

The municipalities, depending on the strength of the councils — members of council, depending on the strength of the planning departments, have been able to overcome this or have succumbed to it. I also have the feeling that it isn't something to be found just in a so-called higher-priced neighbourhood; it can be found in the whole spectrum of single-family development.

This is the challenge, through you, Mr. Chairman, to the Minister, one of the major challenges: to overcome this feeling that if you live in anything other than a three bedroom, single-family home, you are a second-class citizen, you're going to make more demands on the police department, somehow your children aren't going to be quite as well-behaved in the neighbourhood as others, costs are going to go up, costs of servicing the property are going to go up. You know well, Mr. Minister, they will also submit that property values will go down. I think a number of studies have indicated that, providing the apartment is tastefully developed, that is not the case. Now, this is the challenge to you, apart from finding more units for more people. It's to overcome that deeply ingrained resistance to anything other than that which is occupied by the people in the neighbourhood at the present time. I would be interested in your comments on that.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Yes, I'd like to comment for the Hon. Member for Saanich (Mr. Curtis). In spite of any personal opinion he might have of my competence, I do agree with him in the other areas, other than the first remark that he made. The municipal councils do respond to people and people pressure. When these meetings are held, and if you ask the question "Who here does not have a nice single-family home," you don't find any of them, you don't find the people who are unhoused, or the people who are ill-housed; you find those who by-and-large are comfortably housed. I've been to those meetings, and I confess I've been on both sides of meetings of that kind.

It's a consciousness which we will have to create in people, and I do believe that some people are becoming aware of this, Mr. Chairman, that there might be another voice at some of these meetings in the future. Things do evolve. A few years ago we didn't have this kind of community involvement, although these hearings on rezoning perhaps go back some time, and the magnitude of this type of public hearing has certainly accelerated. It's been one-sided, and I hope that senior citizens who are looking for a new senior citizens' home will have some say in whether or not there might be some change in zoning.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

The wish to preserve the rural nature of some neighbourhoods is one with which I can feel the utmost sympathy. But it's also very difficult to justify it when we know that people are ill-housed and this is how we can do most to help people improve their standard of housing.

The resistance that would come from some sectors toward duplexing of existing dwellings would probably be sponsored mostly by these prejudices. Yet that very type of activity could forestall the redevelopment to an extremely high-density situation and could preserve an existing neighbourhood for a longer period of time so that it is still recognizable to a person who once lived there 30 or 40 years ago.

I simply have to agree that this is the largest single problem. I wouldn't play down the role some of our own provincial approving authorities also play in this, but by-and-large I would say it is an expression of the people. We must take things in a gestalt sort of way; we must think of the greatest good for the greatest number. While it might be in the best interest of somebody in a particular place at a particular time, if they were to take an overview of the situation, we will have to be more charitable in sharing space with our fellow man.

I've moved from a rural living situation into a city which I thought I might find confining, but it's not

[ Page 1970 ]

that bad. We have to work toward ways of getting slightly higher densities but still preserving a sense of privacy and a sense of living with the environment instead of just going to the normal, rectangular type of subdivision and single-family lot.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Capilano. Did the Hon. Member speak previously? Is he repeating or is he adding another comment?

MR. GIBSON: I'm quite prepared to have the Hon. Member for Cariboo go ahead.

MR. FRASER: First of all I want to congratulate the Minister on the appointment of his deputy. I think that will be the real strong part of that portfolio. He's an excellent appointee and I'm sure he will contribute a lot.

I want to comment on the Premier of our province. I realize he hasn't been in the debate yet, but he seagulled in from Nova Scotia to take part in this debate. He pulls a housing vote at 5:45 p.m. on a Friday. I resent that completely. I've been suffering it out while he was out there gladhanding everybody in Nova Scotia to vote NDP and kissing babies. I'd like to have been with him but I was here.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. FRASER: I wasn't kissing any babies.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. FRASER: I was doing the public business of British Columbia.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Would the Hon. Member get on to the vote, please?

MR. FRASER: I don't think he's got the right to seagull in here and put us to work on Friday night, Saturday and Sunday after he's been out there since Tuesday.

Interjection.

MR. FRASER: That's quite unfair, quite unfair. I just want to get those remarks on the record.

Now, we'll get into serious business on housing.

Interjection.

MR. FRASER: I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, what the trouble in this province is. We didn't have any trouble in housing until Bill 42 came along. Have you heard of that, Mr. Chairman? That's what caused all our troubles. Lots have trebled in price since Bill 42, a year ago today. That good Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) told you that a year ago but you wouldn't listen. Now you're trying to come in with solutions. I realize you are in a jam. I feel sorry for the people of British Columbia.

You don't go along with what you preach. I just want to quote from a recent article here. Just a short quote, Mr. Chairman. I think he's referred to as the Whip here, too, but he hasn't whipped anything as far as I can find out this session.

I have to take them off to read but I have to put them on to see you, Mr. Attorney-General.

Interjections.

MR. FRASER: The NDP don't practise what they preach. I want to read from Jack Wasserman of Friday, March 22, in The Vancouver Sun:

"The latest example of unconscious political fakery by the West Broadway agitators is their attack on the condominium development which they describe as luxury suites. The price tag is $50,000 per unit, which is a lot of money, but it hardly represents luxury in these days of high-rolling prices. The unreality of real estate prices is a well-established fact.

"For instance, there is Emery Barnes, the Vancouver Centre MLA who played a main role in the NDP caucus successful campaign to get temporary rent controls. He is also selling his house on a 57-foot lot in Port Moody. It's on the market for $74,500."

MRS. JORDAN: Rip-off!

MR. FRASER:

"The Multiple Listing Service has it advertised as the House that Emery Barnes built. There is no doubt it's a fair market price, but let's not kid ourselves that things are normal when homeowners can ask and get three times what they paid for a home a few years ago."

That is a fact of life, Mr. Member for Vancouver–Big Mountain.

Interjection.

MR. FRASER: No, but I might get a little madder later on.

I just want to say on housing that this province had the best housing programme in Canada until this government took over. Ever since they took over — and it started with Bill 42 — we've had a complete muckup. The individual can't afford the lot, let alone to build on it. I feel sorry for them.

What is your government providing, Mr. Minister? You're providing leases and all the rest of it. I never

[ Page 1971 ]

heard you mention that anybody could get title in this province. You want them all to be serfs to the state. Lease! Rent! So on and so forth! I suggest to you that the majority of the population of British Columbia, when they're entering into a housing agreement, end up with a title eventually. I'd like to see a plebiscite on that in the province today. I appreciate the fact that there are a lot of people who don't want this but I suggest to you you're playing to a minority with the programmes you're trying to put on.

As an ex-municipal authority, Mr. Chairman, you suggest that you convert homes in a place like Shaughnessy to duplexes. I'll admit that, if you can get away with it, the services are there and you will provide more accommodation. But I also tell you that those people who want single-family dwellings and are prepared to pay for them are not going to break them down into duplexes. You're not going to gain any housing out of that at all.

I think your policy on the University Endowment Lands is ridiculous. I'm waiting for my friend here, the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer), to be back on the plate in the morning.

Interjection.

MR. FRASER: Oh, has he? I don't think that land should be cut up for housing in any shape or form.

Interjections.

MR. FRASER: Another comment I have is that you have put up a lot of smokescreens about the municipal councils of this province and how they have mucked up the scene. I suggest to you that that is not a fact. Sure there is red tape; there has to be red tape when you have rezoning and so on. I've sat through more rezoning applications on a municipal council than you will ever see in the rest of your life on a municipal council. They are ruling for the benefit of the majority of the citizens of their municipality, and it usually turns out right.

I don't know whether you are suggesting, through you, Mr. Chairman, to the Minister, that you are going to take over zoning controls. But it sounds to me that you want to take over the zoning control in municipalities. I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, to the Minister, that on the route you're going you've got trouble ahead if you're going to try that.

Interjection.

MR. FRASER: Well, you know, he's strong-arming municipalities, saying that they have to relax and so on and so forth. I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that they know a lot more about their local situation than you'll ever know. You'd better be careful of putting the big elbow on the local government. Well, that's right. That's what's trying to go on so he can achieve his goal of more housing. I think they can achieve it far better than you can.

The main thing I want to emphasize, Mr. Chairman, to the Minister — and to the Premier, who just seagulled in from Nova Scotia to get in part of the debate — is the fact that the people of this province want title. I don't buy the deal the socialists are peddling all over this province that nobody can afford to get into housing. You bet your life they can.

Thanks to the affluent society we've got here, a young couple working…you bet your life they can afford even today's prices, in my opinion. And they will afford it and they will find their accommodation. So don't peddle that stuff that you've got to turn around and give public money away…

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Crocodile tears.

MR. FRASER: …for all the people because we have a lot of young people there that have got a lot of enterprise within themselves. With both working, you bet your life…. I realize prices are high. But they can still get into accommodation that they can own, and that's what they want to do. That is why they are working today. But you aren't offering anything from government to help those kinds of people who want to help themselves.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I'm glad that the dictator is back. I've missed him. He's been gone all evening. He sets the House to work on a new portfolio at about 5:40. He starves out the poor new Minister. Look how pale he is. Look how pale the new Minister of Housing is.

AN HON. MEMBER: He had supper.

MR. PHILLIPS: Did he? Oh, he had supper before he came in.

MRS. JORDAN: He always looks after himself.

MR. PHILLIPS: But anyway, the dictator is back here. Oh, the dictator is even whining tonight. He's still alive. I thought maybe he'd go to sleep after that plane trip and everything down in Nova Scotia — eating lobster, living off the fat of the land up there in Cape Breton Island, hobnobbing with all those coal miners.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member to confine his remarks to the Ministry of Housing and the responsibility of the Minister of Housing.

[ Page 1972 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much.

HON. MR. BARRETT: There's a phone call for you.

MR. PHILLIPS: What was that chirp there from the Minister for Coquitlam, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member not pay attention to the asides, but rather address himself to the responsibilities of the Ministry of Housing?

MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

It was very interesting between 6 and 7 o'clock that we tried to get a break for dinner but…

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: …the Premier in his usual dictatorial way put the old…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. PHILLIPS: …thumb screws on this little small opposition over here.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Again I would ask the Hon. Member, for the third time, to confine his remarks to the responsibilities of the Ministry of Housing.

MR. PHILLIPS: I was very interested, Mr. Chairman, to listen to the remarks of the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) who is becoming known, Mr. Chairman, as the Minister of Defence in that jackboot army over there.

He got up, Mr. Chairman, and he wanted to defend his little incompetent Minister of Housing. So he tried his best. He tried his level best. He tried to talk, Mr. Chairman, about the heritage that had been left by the previous administration. He tried to say, Mr. Chairman, that this new communist regime over there that we've got had been left the heritage of poor housing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: They have absolute…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. PHILLIPS: ...power in the Province of British Columbia.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would ask the Hon. Member to withdraw the term communist regime.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, if it irritates comrade Barrett, I'll withdraw it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member for South Peace River to withdraw the term without comment. Just withdraw the comment.

MR. CHABOT: He's already withdrawn.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: I've withdrawn it. I've withdrawn it, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. BARRETT: We want Marshall.

MR. PHILLIPS: You want who?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Marshall.

MR. CHABOT: The people don't want him, though.

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: But anyway, the Minister of Defence — what do we call him, sergeant-major? No, what do we call that Minister of Health over there? Anyway, he got up and he tried, he tried his level best. He really put his best foot forward which isn't very good at all. But he tried.

AN HON. MEMBER: Then he tripped over it.

MR. PHILLIPS: Then he tripped over it and fell down. What he really wanted to say, Mr. Chairman, was that they were having difficulties because they had been left the heritage of the best housing plans and developments in all of Canada.

They were having trouble twisting the screw around to make it look like they were going to be the saviours. So what did they do? No, they didn't screw around. They brought in Bill 42. They upped the assessments and had a land freeze so that they could shove the price of land for housing sky high — so that they could come in in their usual glorified manner after creating a horrible situation and say, "We are the saviours; oh yes, we are the saviours." They are the great Messiahs.

He went on to say, Mr. Chairman, that we were trying to overturn the plans. Every time, this little, but very efficient, opposition that we have in this

[ Page 1973 ]

Legislature….

AN HON. MEMBER: Where is yours?

MR. PHILLIPS: Where is your leader?

AN HON. MEMBER: Moscow?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: Moscow?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member confine his remarks to the Minister of Housing's responsibilities?

MR. PHILLIPS: Anyway, he keeps saying that this little but efficient opposition over here…which is a thorn in his side, you know. We're so efficient that he keeps trying to hammer us down, to have legislation-by-exhaustion. He tries to starve us to death. He works us three sessions a day while he's off flitting around in Cape Breton Island.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, would the Hon. Member discuss the responsibilities of the Ministry of Housing or I'll have to ask him to discontinue his speech? Would the Hon. Member continue, but relate his remarks to the responsibilities of the Minister?

MR. PHILLIPS: He said, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister of Housing has only had his portfolio for a very few months. What he didn't say, Mr. Chairman, what he didn't refer to, is that when that dictatorial group over there took power…. That's what they did. They didn't come here to govern. They came here to take power — power over the people.

There was a very efficient department of housing working under the Minister of Municipal Affairs. This very efficient department of housing under the Department of Municipal Affairs was doing one of the best jobs in any place in Canada.

But he tried to make excuses, saying the Minister had been in his office for just a few months. Well, the Minister was appointed in May of last year — 11 months ago, 10 months ago. What has he done, Mr. Chairman? He's done absolutely nothing. He hasn't even put together an organization yet.

You know, Mr. Chairman, he keeps telling the House that it takes a lot of time to put together an organization. I'll tell you why it takes so long to put together an organization, Mr. Chairman: because they haven't worked long enough to create the crisis yet. Once it's a crisis and everybody is up in arms, then they'll move very swiftly.

The Minister of Housing would try to lead the people of this province to believe he invented landbanks. Yes, if one was naive and didn't know the history of British Columbia, didn't know the history of land assembly, didn't know the history of greenbelts, didn't know what a fantastic job the previous administration was doing in preserving land for the people, one would probably believe him.

But who invented landbanks? Who was the first administration in North America to start landbanks? Yes, that's right, the Province of British Columbia under Social Credit. They were the first people to start landbanks. Certainly.

HON. MR. COCKE: Oh come on!

MR. PHILLIPS: There's the Minister of defence over there saying, "Come on." Let's take a look at the record.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The Hon. Member for South Peace River has the floor.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, tell the Minister of defence to just be quiet, withdraw his tanks for a little while; the flack is getting in my ears. Who started landbanks? Who started incentives for people to build their own homes? Who started home acquisition grants? Oh, I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that legislation brought in by that great previous administration is trying to be copied all over the world today. Innovative, new, imaginative, bold, courageous — giving this province the greatest record of individual homeownership of any jurisdiction in North America.

The Minister of defence said we were trying to throw roadblocks in the way. We're not trying to throw roadblocks in the way; we're just trying to point out to that wayward government over there the fallacy of their policies. We have in British Columbia this housing crisis which the Minister has referred to, which the Minister has created. But I want just to point out to you and to the House and to all the taxpayers in British Columbia just what the history is of home construction in this great province of ours.

Way back in those years when the west was young, way back in 1957, when they had tailfins on the cars, British Columbia under Social Credit brought in what is known as the provincial homeowner grant, new in all of Canada, to assist those people who owned homes to pay their taxes. A dividend from the resources of this great province of ours which we were returning to the people of this great province. But we had control over our resources in those days, not like today under the socialist regime where they're drying them up.

Individual residents and homeowners, became eligible for the annual $28 rebate. It was small in those days; that's back when a dollar was a dollar. A

[ Page 1974 ]

five cent chocolate bar was worth five cents. New, bold, imaginative, courageous policy on the part of that great little government in those days.

Individual resident homeowners became eligible for the annual $28 rebate on municipal or provincial property taxes. The provision stated, however, that in no instance would we give something away for nothing. In no instance would anybody pay less than one dollar.

In that year it was estimated some 267,000 — imagine that in those days — resident homeowners would receive a total of $7,490,000 in that first year of operation.

This government today, with inflation what it is and a dollar probably only worth 50 cents to what it was then — are going to give a piddly little $30 million to reduce taxes for the homeowner. And they think they've done a great thing. What a snow job! They don't want to help people own their own homes. No way. They want to own the homes and collect taxes and rent for 60 years. At the end of that period, that poor little young couple who started out still won't own their own home or the property it's situated on.

I have to point out these figures because the Minister of Health has a short memory. He seemed to forget all of these wonderful things that were done as incentives to help the people of British Columbia own their own homes.

The next most significant year was 1960 when the Provincial Home-owner Grant Act was amended and the rebate maximum was increased to $50. In three short years the homeowner grant was increased from $28 to $60, a significant increase — all part of the incentive to let the citizens of British Columbia own their own homes and the property on which those homes are situated. Assistance to those people who lived in this great province of ours.

In 1960 the amendment extended the credit to owner-occupied apartment buildings on behalf of resident apartment owners, where the registered owner was a corporation and whose purpose was exclusively to provide such apartments.

What was the estimated expenditure in the year 1960? What was the resource dividend?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Is the Hon. Member tracing the history of the housing activity of the previous government? I would just caution him that this would be out of order. I would ask him to address himself, rather, to vote 106, the administrative responsibilities of the present Minister.

MR. PHILLIPS: What rule are you referring to, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Standing order 61(2). All debate must be strictly relevant to the matter under consideration. The matter under consideration is vote 106, the administrative responsibilities of the Minister of Housing.

MR. PHILLIPS: You know me well enough that sometimes it takes a little while to make my point. I need to bring in a background; I have to relate things as to what has happened before. But you know me well enough that in the end I always relate my background material to the point I'm trying to put across. You know that, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please! I would ask the Hon. Member, then, to keep his background remarks as brief as possible and to the vote that we're now considering.

MR. SMITH: On a point of order. What rule?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Standing order 61 (2): that the comments in committee must be strictly relevant to the matter that we're considering. We're considering vote 106, the salary and administrative responsibilities of the Minister and of his office. I would ask the Hon. Member to make his remarks relevant.

MR. SMITH: Surely, Mr. Chairman, in making a point on the floor of the House any Member is permitted to expand on a point by referring back to something that happened previously and bringing it up to the present time. After all, that is part and parcel of the parliamentary process. I think you would agree that sometimes you have to refer back to what has happened in the past as well as what is going on now, and suggest solutions that you might have in mind for…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. SMITH: …correction of those particular problems.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I have not yet ruled the Member out of order. I'm merely cautioning him that he's tending to stray away from the point. I'm just simply calling his attention to this fact. I'm asking him to return to a more relevant discussion of this vote.

MR. PHILLIPS: I was just wondering, Mr. Chairman, if you had brought in a new rule in that book against the homeowners.

What I'm discussing with this committee tonight are incentives which have been on the statute books of this government for some number of years, to assist people — little people, Mr. Chairman, individual people, workers in the province, taxpayers in the

[ Page 1975 ]

province — to own their own homes.

I'm sure you're not against that, Mr. Chairman — not in your riding. You have a lot of workers in your riding, Mr. Chairman. You have a lot of people who carry a lunch pail every day and they like to come home at night into their own home — their own home. You know that old song "Home, Sweet, Home?" That's as relevant today, Mr. Chairman, as it was the day the song was written.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I have to trace the history of this great incentive. In 1964….

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, there's the third Minister of defence over there.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Members please not interrupt the Member for South Peace River?

MR. PHILLIPS: You take your own seat if you want to yap, will you?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. PHILLIPS: Take your own seat, will you?

MR. CHAIRMAN: There's a point of order by the Member for North Peace River.

MR. SMITH: Will you tell the Hon. Member over there, if he wants to interject to do it from his own seat? There's certain parliamentary procedure in this House, and I'd expect that that Member above all, being a lawyer, would understand what it's all about.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point of order is well taken on standing order 17 (2), that the Hon. Member should not interrupt the person speaking. And certainly if they're going to make comments, they should be from their own seats.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, would you have the Minister of Public Works take his seat too? He's been rapping on his desk.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! There's nothing wrong with them being in a different seat providing they don't speak from that seat.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, he was speaking with his hands. (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Would the Hon. Member continue his speech?

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, Mr. Chairman, and I would appreciate your keeping some decorum in the House so that I can continue my speech in an uninterrupted manner. I've worked on this theme for quite some time and I'd like to develop it without being interrupted. I would appreciate it if you would allow me to continue.

Now, Mr. Chairman, to get back on track after those rude interruptions by Members on the government side of the House: in 1964 the homeowner grant was increased to $85. Now that's an increase from the original $28 up to the $50. So you can see, Mr. Chairman, that we're progressing. We're more than keeping up with inflation.

Now I want you to pay particular attention to the next sentence I'm going to give to this committee. In the next year, which was 1965 — less than nine years ago — the homeowner grant again was increased another $15.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would make the ruling that tracing the history of the homeowner grant is not relevant to this vote. Therefore, I would ask the Hon. Member to make his remarks relevant to the vote under consideration.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The Hon. Member may refer to it, but certainly to trace it step by step is quite out of order. I would ask the Hon. Member to confine his remarks to the present responsibilities of the Minister of Housing.

MR. GIBSON: Point of order. One of the Acts for which the Minister is responsible is the Provincial Homeowner Grant Act. It seems to me that the development of that Act….

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: That's not according to the civil service manual of administration.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The point of order is well taken in the respect that the Minister certainly is responsible for the administration of this Act. However, the remarks should be relevant to his responsibilities in administering this Act.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, you know, in the interruptions that I've had just recently, I was searching my soul and my mind, searching my soul and my mind….

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: I've been thinking about all the

[ Page 1976 ]

homeowners here in this great province of ours and how those homeowners have benefited over the years. You know, there are many of them today who remember those increases. They knew there was something more on the horizon. That's why they had the courage to go out and build their own homes, Mr. Chairman. That's why home-ownership made the great progress that it did in this great province of ours.

MR. PHILLIPS: Anyway, Mr. Chairman, in 1965 the homeowner grant was up to $100 a month.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I made a ruling, Hon. Member, that continuing to discuss the step-by-step history of this grant was out of order. I would ask the Hon. Member to move on to consideration of the responsibilities of the Minister of Housing, or I will have to ask him to discontinue.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I certainly, as you know, always abide by your rulings. Far be it from me to ever even challenge you. But I do want you to give due consideration to the crisis that we have here in British Columbia tonight. I want to develop a theme, Mr. Chairman, if you'll just give me a few short moments. I want to develop a theme which I'm sure, when I'm finished, even you will agree with, Mr. Chairman. I'm sure you will agree with it, Mr. Chairman.

In 1966 it went up to $110.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I specifically informed the Member for South Peace River that tracing the step-by-step history of the homeowner grant was not relevant to the present administrative responsibilities of the Minister of Housing. Reference to the history, if it were kept very brief, could be made relevant, but I would just say this is my last caution. I'm sorry, Hon. Member, but I'll have to ask you to discontinue your speech if your continue on that line of reasoning.

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: Don't you want to hear the truth, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Chairman, as I said, I'm trying my best to abide by your ruling but, you know, I fail to understand your ruling, because millions and millions of dollars are being paid out by this government in homeowner grants this year. And it's relevant to individual home-ownership. As a matter of fact…

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: ...without it we would be in the disaster that other provinces in Canada were in 1972, when we had the best record of any province in Canada, Mr. Chairman.

In 1967, Mr. Chairman, it went to $120 a month.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, now, Mr. Chairman, I'm through….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I have repeatedly asked this Member to discontinue a line of reasoning, and that is: tracing a step-by-step history of the home-owner grant. Now, Hon. Member, I've warned you and you've simply ignored the Chair, so I'll have to ask you to discontinue your speech.

MR. PHILLIPS: Ah, but I'm there where I wanted to be, Mr. Chairman. I'm into the year 1967, and something happened that…. Not the homeowner grant — no way.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. SMITH: Now, just a minute. Please be kind.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would ask the Hon. Member to take his seat. I will allow him to speak again after I have recognized someone else. But I would just like the Hon. Member to take his seat, since he's refused to obey the Chair at this time.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, you are anticipating debate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. PHILLIPS: I am about to talk about the home acquisition grant.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member be seated?

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I don't know whether I will or not. I'm telling you I don't think you're being at all fair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. PHILLIPS: Arbitrary and dictatorial all day, that's the way you've been. You don't want to hear the facts.

I want to talk right now about the home acquisition grant.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member be seated?

[ Page 1977 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: Now, it's late at night and you're tired and so am I. Now let's not fight.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I ordered you to take your seat.

MR. PHILLIPS: Can I get up again if I do?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I ordered you to take your seat.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well I want to know if I can get up again. Will you tell me first if I can get up again or not?

I'm talking about the Department of Housing here, Mr. Chairman, and I….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you going to obey the order or not?

MR. PHILLIPS: I want to know my rights here. Where is my lawyer? Mr. Attorney-General (Mr. Macdonald)….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I'm asking the Hon. Member to sit down.

MR. PHILLIPS: All right. My lawyer said that I should take my seat so… You better not have advised me wrong there Mr. Attorney-General. (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask the Hon. Member to remain seated. I will give him another opportunity when other Members have been heard.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well I don't think anybody else wants to speak, do they?

Interjections.

AN HON. MEMBER: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. PHILLIPS: I think we all want to go home. We're tired…three sessions a week. The Premier's been away and this is legislation by exhaustion. I haven't even had my dinner yet. Have you had your dinner yet, Mr. Chairman?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for North Peace River on a point of order.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. As a chairman of committee I suggest to you that you have the right to caution a Member about the line of argument that he is using if it is not relevant. But I suggest to you that as long as the argument is relevant and it relates to the estimates and the responsibility of the Minister whose estimates are under question at this particular time, you have no right to rule that Member out of order.

I've been in this House since 1966 and I've seen and heard all kinds of debate on the floor of this House that was completely irrelevant. I've heard the same question asked 67 times by one Member who happens to be the Premier of this province today.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member has made his point of order.

MR. FRASER: You don't like the playback….

MR. SMITH: Now, if that was fair then, for goodness' sakes allow the Member to develop his course of argument on the floor of this House. You may not like what he is saying personally, but as chairman you are required to listen to what he has to say and the line of argument that he is developing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Will the Hon. Member be seated?

MR. SMITH: On what basis, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member has made his point of order and I would like to comment….

MR. FRASER: In that case I'll take my seat, Mr. Chairman.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Now I think that this time we can prevent….

MR. PHILLIPS: Taking orders from the dictator over there. Now why don't you listen to the dictator over there? He's always giving orders to the Chair, telling you what to do. Sending you notes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Will the Hon. Member remain seated?

In speaking to the point of order raised by the Hon. Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) in which he was defending the right of the Hon. Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) to use a line of reasoning, providing that it was relevant to what the Minister of Housing was responsible for, I quite agree.

The point of order is well taken in that respect. However, in tracing out the step-by-step history of the homeowner grant, I ruled that this was not relevant to the present responsibilities of the Minister of Housing.

However, in the development of the argument, this

[ Page 1978 ]

was apparently extremely important to the Hon. Member for South Peace River and therefore I would say that he's concluded that particular line of reasoning, is he now prepared to make it relevant? I'll give him that opportunity at this time, to rise and make his remarks relevant to the present administrative responsibility of the Minister of Housing.

MR. PHILLIPS: I may be brow-beaten, Mr. Chairman, but I'll continue to fight for the taxpayers of this province. You can try to beat me down, beat me into the ground.

Mr. Chairman, I want to tell you that something happened in this great province in 1967. Something that was to carry it to new heights of home acquisition by the individual, by the workers, by the taxpayers.

That was a great step forward, Mr. Chairman. It was the introduction of the provincial home acquisition grant. More return of the resources of the province to the taxpayers of the province. Innovative! Courageous! Returning the results of the development of the resources of this province so that individuals could own their own homes.

In that year, Mr. Chairman, the fund of $25 million in the fiscal year 1966-67 was laid out. What did we do with this fund of $25 million, Mr. Chairman? The provincial government offered in that year, 1967, a grant of $500 to all qualifying purchasers of living conditions. The maximum grant was to increase to $525 on April l, 1968.

This is known as an incentive. It's an incentive to taxpayers and would-be homeowners in this great province of ours.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would appreciate it if the Hon. Member could think of something that is presently the administrative responsibility of the Minister of Housing so that I wouldn't have to rule him out of order again. Surely he can interject some comment on the present administrative responsibility and relate his remarks….

MR. PHILLIPS: Now, Mr. Chairman, in the year 1974 that same Act is the administrative responsibility of the Minister of Housing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Excellent! (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: Just remember that line.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, but Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Housing's responsibility today doesn't stop at $25 million like the Home Acquisition Act. No. His administrative responsibility has been increased and increased every year.

Now our new Minister of Housing has to administer that Act. It's his administrative responsibility. What did the Premier of that day say, Mr. Chairman? He said that Indians in British Columbia should own their own land and their own homes. He said, Mr. Chairman, that we should do everything we could to assist our native Indians to build their own homes. Now this responsibility, this great new idea that was started back in 1967, now falls under the administrative responsibility of the new Minister of Housing.

There was another significant responsibility that happened in 1976 and it was the formation of the Division of Housing and Urban Renewal, which is now the administrative responsibility of the Minister of Housing. And it shifted housing, which had up to this time been under the wing of the Department of Finance, to the Department of Municipal Affairs.

These three innovations in that great year of 1967 were probably three of the greatest steps forward in assisting the people in British Columbia to own their own homes, that had never been introduced, never brought in by any administration in North America, or indeed in the whole world.

Mr. Chairman, there was another innovation that same year: the introduction of assistance for senior citizens in Vancouver by calling for proposals from developers. That is now the administrative responsibility of the Minister of Housing.

In that same year there was a provision brought in to accelerate the provision of housing for families receiving social assistance by direct purchase of existing homes scattered throughout the community. Everything that I have mentioned thus far is new, innovative, courageous, of far vision to assist the people of this great province of ours to own their own homes.

In that year also, Mr. Chairman, something that is now the administrative responsibility of the Minister of Housing was the creation of the British Columbia Housing Management Commission. This housing commission, Mr. Chairman, which is now the administrative responsibility of the Minister of Housing, was started in conjunction with the federal government. And, Mr. Chairman, it would affect all classes to the new housing.

It encompassed — and I am referring to the new housing commission — within it — and I want you, Mr. Chairman, to pay particular attention to this — a land-assembly scheme — this is what I was leading up to, Mr. Chairman — a land-assembly scheme where lots would be leased back to individuals; and if circumstances changed, the house built would be sold back to the tenants, so those people eventually would have the right and the opportunity to own their own homes. There were no 60-year leases, where a person pays for 60 years and still winds up as though he had rented the house. There was provision so that these

[ Page 1979 ]

people, who this government of the day was helping, could eventually own their own homes.

Mr. Chairman, the reason that I have to point out these which are now administrative responsibilities of the Minister of Housing is because the Minister of defence, the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke), when he stood in this Legislature this evening said that we have left him a legacy of "do nothing in the field of housing for individuals."

MR. CUMMINGS: Do absolutely nothing.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, there's the chirper back there. Where is that Minister of Public Works? I sure wish he'd get rid of that chirp back there, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member confine his remarks to the present administrative responsibilities of the Minister of Housing?

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, yes. That Little-Mountain squeak down there bothers me once in a while because he upsets my train of thought. But I realize you can't order him from the House. So I'll just continue.

MR. CUMMINGS: What thought?

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, there he is again.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yak, yak, yak, yak! Why doesn't he stand up and say something constructive once in a while?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Members not to interrupt the speakers, please.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.

MR. CHABOT: Stop that chirp there.

MR. PHILLIPS: Now, Mr. Chairman, this great housing commission that was set up this year was also the vehicle for implementing future programmes. And I want to outline to you, Mr. Chairman, the statute….

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: There's that chirp again. Why don't you go sell an ice-cream cone somewhere?

You know, you'll never make the cabinet. The Premier ….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Would the Hon. Member confine his remarks to the administrative responsibilities of the Minister of Housing? And I would ask the Hon. Members not to interrupt.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would ask the Hon. Members not to interrupt the Hon. Member for South Peace River.

MR. PHILLIPS: The statutes set down by this commission, Mr. Chairman, are very important indeed because they lay the basic groundwork. And I want you to understand this perfectly well. Here is the groundwork for a great future development of housing in British Columbia. This is where it started, this is why British Columbia has such a great legacy in providing individual houses and homes for all these great citizens of ours who live in British Columbia. The municipalities would now have to apply to both provincial as well as federal governments for approval of housing projects.

Mr. Chairman, if you'll just pardon me; I don't usually read a speech, but I don't want to get any of these statutes to be read into the record in error; so you will have to forgive me for a moment.

"The commission comprised two provincial, and two federal representatives as well as local members added for specific projects in municipalities in regional districts."

Now we're spreading our housing area further afield. For the first time, Mr. Chairman, since the Veterans' Land Act, we are starting to get the federal government involved in individual housing; this is the start. The provincial government is going to be involved and I realize they were involved in the Veterans' Land Act. But for houses for anything other than veterans, when you mentioned it to the federal government up to this time, it's been unheard of. They wouldn't even talk to you.

MR. CUMMINGS: A point of order. How do you prevent a sane man from not interfering in this sort of garbage?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! That is not a point of order. Would the Hon. Member for South Peace River continue?

MR. CUMMINGS: Oh, okay.

MR. CHABOT: Why don't you go to bed!

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I am very disappointed in the comments of the Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain when I'm talking about something as important as housing, and he gets up and says it's garbage.

[ Page 1980 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Would the Hon. Member for South Peace River confine his remarks to the administrative responsibilities of the Minister of Housing?

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: Does he bother you like that in caucus, or do you let him into your caucus meetings, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Would the Hon. Member continue his speech?

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I'm not even in your caucus and he embarrasses me.

Mr. Chairman, the hour is late. It's after 11 o'clock. It's been a long day, it's been a long week; so I would like to move — and I'm sure the Premier will go along with this — that the committee rise, report resolutions and ask leave to sit again tomorrow morning.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The correct motion is, "Rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again."

MR. PHILLIPS: All right, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The motion was incorrectly worded. The motion is that the committee rise, report resolutions and ask leave to sit again.

However, I would point out that since the last time this motion was moved there's been no interceding business. Therefore, I would rule the motion out of order.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I move that you do leave the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The motion is that the Chairman leave the chair. I would rule that this motion is in order. Therefore I would put the motion that the Chairman do leave the chair.

Motion defeated on the following division:

YEAS — 14

NAYS — 29

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, when you report to the House I request that you inform the Speaker that a division took place in committee and ask that it be recorded in the Journals of the House.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise, report resolutions and ask leave to sit again.

AN HON. MEMBER: Division, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Those who supported the motion, please stand.

Those who opposed the motion, please stand. I declare the motion carried.

MR. CHABOT: In reporting to the House….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! We have to have the reading of the vote.

YEAS — 37

NAYS — 6

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, thank God we are adjourning. You called the decision before the roll was called, but I would hope that when you report to the House you will say that a division took place in committee and ask that it be recorded in the Journals of the House.

[ Page 1981 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point of order is well taken. The result of the vote should have been announced after the roll call.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: On the same point of order, Mr. Chairman, would you please report disunity in the backbench? (Laughter.)

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports resolutions and asks leave to sit again, and further reports that a number of divisions took place in committee and asks that these be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I move that the House at its rising do stand adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 29

NAYS — 14

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, our standing orders do not prescribe with any precision what occurs with respect to Saturday sittings and I would direct your attention to May, 18th edition, on page 297 where under rules of the British House it indicates the time for adjournment of the House on Saturday and Sunday is not prescribed by standing orders. The time of adjournment is usually specified in the resolution appointing the Saturday or Sunday sitting. In that respect I would be pleased if the Speaker would indicate whether or not the motion which was passed was appropriate under the circumstances.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, their standing orders are quite different from ours and consequently, where the wording says "on Friday sittings the same procedure is followed, 4 o'clock being substituted for 10 o'clock," it is set out in their standing order. Under our standing orders, we have a totally different method on Friday which reads: "The House shall adjourn on Friday at 1 o'clock p.m."

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! Order, please!

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! I hope the Hon. Members will let me read the rest of it before I proceed. "The House shall adjourn on Friday at 1 o'clock p.m. and it shall stand adjourned unless otherwise ordered until the following Monday." So the provision was made in our rules specifically, regardless of any British rule or regardless of May. Because it is, in effect, open to otherwise being ordered, I see no way that I can say that the motion is out of order and that the decision of the House is incorrect.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, on that same point of order, at 1 o'clock this afternoon this House adjourned and it was ordered to return at 2 o'clock. I would suggest that that order completely consumes the power of the House with respect to Friday and leaves no opportunity for orders with respect to Saturday and Sunday.

MR. SPEAKER: I'd like to give that consideration, because I have great respect for the Hon. Member and his opinions. I suggest that there be a short recess while we consider his point.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm prepared to take a 10 minute recess.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I think that would be appropriate, Mr. Speaker, because it would appear that under our rules, having adjourned at 1 o'clock and gone back at 2, we are obliged to sit directly through until the next sitting day because we have no power to order otherwise.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I would bring to your attention that the words "unless otherwise ordered" cover all of the orders or decisions of this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No way! No way!

[ Page 1982 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Go back to Nova Scotia.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Order, please. I think if there are any other contributions any Member has before we consider the point, I always appreciate all the help I can get. So I'll declare a short recess for 10 minutes.

The House took recess at 11:28 p.m.

The House resumed at 11:38 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: I have examined into the point of order raised by the Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound and also examined in more detail than was possible in the chair originally, the citation in May on page 297 of the 18th edition.

I would first point out that the British standing orders are quite different from ours in regard to the times of adjournment. On Saturday and Sunday they make no provision or prescription in standing orders. They deal only with Friday and on standing order 5 in the British rule, the hour of 4 o'clock is fixed by that rule for adjournment of the House in Westminster.

However, under our standing orders, we have a different rule for Friday which clearly sets out that the House shall adjourn on Friday at 1 o'clock p.m. and it shall stand adjourned unless otherwise ordered until the following Monday.

The purpose of subsection (2) of standing order 3 appears to be to provide for interruption by the clock where no other order is forthcoming. In other words, it's mandatory unless any other order is made. It ensures that the House will know when to return should no other time be fixed.

The House having today fixed its next sitting at 12:58 p.m. for 2 p.m. the same day, it thus follows that the purpose of subsection 2 is no longer required and the next sitting can be ordained by the House any time after it adjourns from the afternoon sitting — that means tonight. If that means Saturday is fixed tonight, the House having inherent power to regulate its own sittings, it may so fix the next sitting for whatever hour or day it chooses — whether it be for 10 a.m. Saturday or six months hence, because the House has that inherent power.

Now the point I'm really making is that the House can adjourn for any length of time it wants. It has that inherent power providing it is not in the bind of having not disposed of its next sitting time.

On April 13, 1973, this matter came here before us when a motion was made that we adjourn until 10 o'clock on Saturday. There was a division on that and a vote on it and it was approved, and the House did sit on Saturday. But I don't take that as any binding basis at all because the House had not that point of order before it.

However, I must rule, I think, that we have that inherent power and that we could adjourn to any time we fix.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order with respect to your ruling — which I accept. There is not in our rules any provisions with respect to adjournment of a Saturday sitting as in the case of Friday. I would respectfully refer you to May, 18th edition again, at page 287. Dealing with British standing order 5 it says: "A sitting on either of these days," that's Saturday and Sunday "is not subject to any rules of the House regulating in the hour of meeting, interruption and adjournment, such matters have been provided for in the resolution appointing a Saturday sitting." I would respectfully ask your ruling as to whether or not the motion to adjourn until 10 o'clock tomorrow does not oblige the government also to appoint a time for adjournment.

MR. SPEAKER: I wish we could have had a bit of time to consider that one too. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. BARRETT: On the same point of order, if there were indeed a resolution in front of the House specifying a Saturday sitting, that resolution as referred to hopefully in May would have not only stipulated the starting time but a conclusion. But since we are moving in the House's business from a single motion — that is for an opening time — "unless otherwise ordered" means that the House can sit again right through until Monday. Of course the House itself then must be in control and determination of when it wishes to end its Saturday sitting.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, under our rule, it is different than standing order 5.

May I point out that standing order 5 of the British rule says "The House when it meets on Friday shall at its rising stand adjourned until the following Monday without any question being put."

We have these two questions every time we adjourn. First, the question fixing the time, and then that the House adjourn. In the British House they very often end up with a debate on the adjournment, where under our rule it forbids adjournment debate. Consequently, these departures in the rules lead me to the conclusion that we can fix the time for adjournment at the time that the House decides to stop, and that would be some time tomorrow.

MR. CHABOT: On a different point of order which came to my mind as the House proceeded a few moments ago. I noticed on a vote — and this is the question I wanted to put — there was a vote here with, according to the list, about six Members. I think it's unparalleled in the history of the Commonwealth

[ Page 1983 ]

parliamentary system for a Whip to vote against a government motion.

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: Just a moment, I'm making my point of order. I'm wondering if whether under the circumstances it's necessary for the Whip to resign his position. I'm being sincere about that, Mr. Speaker. I think it's a very serious technicality.

MR. SPEAKER: I can't find it in May. Is there a citation from May on that?

MR. CHABOT: Yes, just a moment.

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I have the floor.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! I don't think it's a point of order.

MR. CHABOT: Are you prepared to examine any possible precedent and report back to the House? Has it ever happened before for a Whip to vote against a government motion? I think it's untenable for a Whip to continue in office after having defied a government motion.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. It's not a point of order.

MR. CHABOT: I thought it was very appropriate.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The House cannot possibly have any control over officers that are not appointed by the House. That Member is playing cheap politics, and that's all there is to it. It's despicable.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. No person under our rules can cast reflection on another Member for the way he votes. As for Whips, there's no such officer in this House. There's no such thing as a Whip. Not under our rules. There's no such thing. All this is done behind my chair.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:46 p.m.