[ Page 2029 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

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

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2029

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

Introduction and first reading — 2029

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

Introduction and first reading — 2029

Oral questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suggested distribution of Waffle Manifesto. Mr. Phillips — 2031

Investment of KBC premiums. Mr. Morrison — 2031

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

WCB computer contracts. Hon. Mr. King — 2032

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

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

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

Committee of Supply: Department of Housing estimates.

On vote 107.

Mr. Phillips — 2033

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2034

Mr. Morrison — 2034

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2035

Mr. Wallace — 2035

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2035

Mr. McClelland — 2035

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2035

Mr. Bennett — 2036

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2036

Mr. L.A. Williams — 2036

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2036

Mr. L.A. Williams — 2036

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2037

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2037

Mr. Bennett — 2037

Mr. Wallace — 2037

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2038

Mr. Bennett — 2038

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2038

Mr. Gibson — 2039

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2039

Mr. Bennett — 2040

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2040

Mr. Bennett — 2040

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2041

Mr. Wallace — 2041

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2042

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2042

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2043

Mr. Phillips — 2043

Mr. Gibson — 2045

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2045

Mr. Gibson — 2046

Mr. Morrison — 2046

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2046

Mr. Morrison — 2047

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2047

Mr. Gibson — 2047

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2047

Mr. L.A. Williams — 2047

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2048

Mr. Smith — 2049

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2050

Mr. Phillips — 2051

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2051

Mr. McClelland — 2051

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2051

Mr. Phillips — 2051

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2051

Mr. Phillips — 2051

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2052

Mr. Phillips — 2052

Mr. McClelland — 2053

Mr. Phillips — 2053

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2054

Mr. Schroeder — 2054

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2054

Mr. Morrison — 2054

On vote 108.

Mr. Phillips — 2054

Mr. Wallace — 2055

Mr. Phillips — 2056

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2056

Mr. McGeer — 2056

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2056

Mr. McGeer — 2056

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2058

Mr. Gibson — 2058

Mr. Phillips — 2058

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2059

Mr. McClelland — 2059

Mr. Gibson — 2059

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 2059

Mr. Bennett — 2059

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2059

Mr. Phillips — 2059

Mr. Gibson — 2060

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2060

On vote 109.

Mr. McClelland — 2060

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2060

Mr. Wallace — 2060

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2061

Mr. Wallace — 2061

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2061

Mr. Phillips — 2061

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2062

Mr. Phillips — 2062

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2062

Mr. Gibson — 2062

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2062

On vote 110.

Mr. Phillips — 2062

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2062

Mr. Phillips — 2063

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2063

Mr. Phillips — 2063

Mr. Chabot — 2063

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2063

On vote 111.

Mr. Phillips — 2063

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2063

Mr. Bennett — 2064

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2064

Mr. Phillips — 2064

Mr. Bennett — 2064

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2064

Mr. Phillips — 2064

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2065

Mr. Bennett — 2065

Mr. Phillips — 2065

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2065

The House met at 2 p.m.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I would like to share with the House a telegram sent this morning to Hon. Frank D. Moores, Premier of the Province of Newfoundland, Parliament Buildings, St. John's, Newfoundland.

DEAR MR. PREMIER:

ON BEHALF OF MY GOVERNMENT AND THE PEOPLE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA, I WISH TO EXTEND SINCERE CONGRATULATIONS TO YOUR GOVERNMENT AND THE PEOPLE OF NEWFOUNDLAND ON THE 25TH ANNIVERSARY OF YOUR ENTRY INTO CONFEDERATION MARCH 31.

MAY WE ALWAYS WORK TOGETHER FOR THE UNITY AND FUTURE GOOD OF OUR GREAT COUNTRY.

SINCERELY YOURS, THE PREMIER.

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): Mr. Speaker, I would like the Members to welcome today a class of students from Smith Community School, an independent school in Port Alberni. They are here under the direction of their teacher, Mr. Russ McLaughlin.

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

I would ask you also to welcome Darwin Charlton, who I believe came to this land with his father, a disciple of early John Ruskin, and set up the first co-op enterprise in British Columbia before the turn of the century, where we now have Ruskin, B.C.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): Mr. Speaker, seated in the gallery today is a visitor from Kamloops, Mr. Don Ellsay, who has a long history of civic involvement in the city. He's down here now on behalf of SPEC and STRAADA, who are trying to get a study done of the Shuswap-Thompson river basin — a study which I endorse. I ask the House to welcome him.

Introduction of bills

SPECIAL FUNDS APPROPRIATION ACT, 1974

Hon. Mr. Barrett presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: amendments to Bill 7, intituled Special Funds Appropriation Act, 1974.

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

Leave granted.

Amendments to Bill 7 read a first time and placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

EMERGENCY HEALTH SERVICES ACT

Hon. Mr. Cocke presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Emergency Health Services Act.

Bill 93 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

POLICE ACT

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

Bill 91 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral questions

COMMISSION FEE TO WISENER AND CO.
ON PURCHASE OF WESTCOAST SHARES

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Was the Premier aware of the commission rate booklet used by all security firms in Canada when he authorized the $404,993 commission fee to Wisener and Company on the purchase of Westcoast Transmission shares?

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

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to go further because we've had information tabled in this House dealing with that transaction. If the Premier is aware of the commission book did he know he overpaid Wisener and Partners Company Limited by $259,000 at least over the maximum commission?

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

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

[ Page 2030 ]

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

MR. BENNETT: Yes, I'd like to know further if Wisener and Partners Company Limited are going to be official brokers since they've bought a seat on the Vancouver Stock Exchange and I notice they are now buying B.C. Telephone shares for the Province of British Columbia.

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

COST OF NEW FERRIES

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): To the Minister of Transport and Communications, Mr. Speaker. I refer first to his press release last week indicating the cost of building the new B.C. ferries at approximately $40 million. May I ask the Minister whether this is the expected total delivery price?

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): Yes, that's a firm price. We had the alternative of taking a lower price with an escalation clause and it was the judgment of the management that in view of the uncertain circumstances it was best to take a firm price for the whole contract.

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

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

INVESTIGATION OF IMPASSE AT
MILLS MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, could I ask the Minister of Health in regard to the serious situation at Mills Memorial Hospital in Terrace whether he has taken any decision regarding the appointment of a public administrator to investigate the situation, inasmuch as both the medical and general staff are much distressed by the attitude of the board of trustees?

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

As I understand it, the board has put their house in good order. They have a better understanding of their duties. I understand that everything is fine in Mills Memorial Hospital at the present time, and there's no need to put that hospital under trusteeship.

AQUACULTURE PROJECT
FOR BOUNDARY BAY AREA

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Recreation and Conservation. I notice by a press release that the Minister and the Minister of economic development (Hon. Mr. Lauk) are going into a study of future development of the aquaculture industry. I'd like to ask the Minister if there are any plans to develop any kind of a pilot project in this relation in the Boundary Bay area.

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

MR. McCLELLAND: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Are there any plans to purchase any further property in that area that you're aware of? Or are there any plans to move the Boundary Bay dike back to flood a larger area in the Boundary Bay area?

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

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: A further supplementary, Mr. Speaker, on the press release. May I ask the Minister what special features of the Chuchitzeny fish hatchery have caused this to be singled out for a special visit? That's the Chuchitzeny fish hatchery near Nekko — the one you sent your press release out on.

Can I ask the Minister then what the special features of the trout hatchery at Lake Chuchitzeny near Nekko are that have caused him to have a special visit to that particular operation? I've seen it; it's a very small one. I wonder why it's got such special features that require a visit by cabinet Ministers of British Columbia.

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

CUSHIONING THE IMPACT
OF HIGHER B.C. OIL PRICES

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): A question for the Premier, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the Premier could advise the House if a decision has been made on the ways and means of cushioning the impact on British Columbians of higher oil prices.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, also at the request and the same question from the Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis), I expect that it will be on the agenda of the cabinet meeting tomorrow morning.

[ Page 2031 ]

MR. GIBSON: On a supplementary then, Mr. Speaker, could the Premier advise the House whether this cushioning will apply to other energy costs such as home heating oils as well as the price of gasoline?

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

FEDERAL SUBSIDY FOR
NEW FERRY CONSTRUCTION

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, to the Premier and Minister of Finance. I wonder if he would indicate whether the provincial government's apparent failure to inform Ottawa of its Burrard Inlet ferry plans will reduce in any way the possibility of receiving federal subsidy assistance in the construction of the two vessels to be used in the service

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

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

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

SUGGESTED DISTRIBUTION
OF WAFFLE MANIFESTO

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to address my question to the Provincial Secretary. I wonder if the Provincial Secretary would give consideration to having printed, to meet the growing demand, at least 20,000 copies of the Waffle Manifesto.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sure that question is out of order. I don't think it's within the administrative responsibility of the Provincial Secretary.

INVESTMENT OF ICBC PREMIUMS

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Transport and Communications. I wonder if the Minister could tell us where ICBC has invested the surplus premiums the income — that has been received to date. I'll take it as a return if he'd like.

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

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

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

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

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, there's a way of getting a return. You put it in the order paper.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. SPEAKER: I would point out to Members that if you ask an oral question you may get a return. On the other hand, it should be done by motion.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: That may be true. Usually if it's a lengthy answer it should not be given in oral questions, but should be in the form of a return. Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Minister please be seated now? That can be dealt with by him later.

STATUS OF NEGOTIATIONS
ON BCR RAILCAR SHORTAGE

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Mr. Speaker, a question to the Premier who is president of the British Columbia Railroad. Where are we at with the CNR negotiations over the shortage of railcars?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, since the federal Minister's statements the negotiations have taken on more meaning. I haven't had an up-to-date report. I will try get one overnight and report back to you.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: A supplementary. Could the Premier please indicate when he will be releasing the documents concerning the original agreement between BCR and the two national railways which BCR terminated, and which led to the troubles we've had for the last two years?

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

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

HON. MR. BARRETT: What day?

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

[ Page 2032 ]

you want.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, would you check that, Mr. Member? I'll check back with BCR and find out if such documents or formal arrangements were in existence.

WCB COMPUTER CONTRACTS

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) asked a question last week which I took as notice. He asked whether the Workmen's Compensation Board has awarded any computer contracts to any corporation without tender.

I would advise the Member, Mr. Speaker, that the Workmen's Compensation Board contracts of that nature do not come within the purview of the Ministry of Labour. They are quite free to enter contracts independently of this department, except with respect to land contracts which must be approved by the department. So the question should really be directed to the chairman of the Workmen's Compensation Board.

DEFINITION OF DRIVER'S POLICY

MR. MORRISON: Mr. Speaker, my question again is addressed to the Minister of Transport and Communications. Could he tell us whether the driver's policy is considered an insurance premium or a driver's licence charge?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: There's a specific definition within the Act which makes it very clear that it's a driver's licence insurance premium. It's part of the overall insurance package.

MR. MORRISON: Mr. Speaker, a supplemental. I'd like to know, then, what risk it covers. Secondly, what form of an insurance policy will the driver receive?

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

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

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out to Hon. Members that you should try to avoid asking two questions at the same time, because it makes it difficult.

SELF-REGULATORY POWERS
OF TEACHERS FEDERATION

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the Minister of Education, in light of the fact that the BCTF has passed a motion, in effect, giving them authority to discharge a member from the BCTF for what is considered an internal breach of discipline in the classroom or teaching too many pupils in a class, and since the right to teach involves membership in the BCTF, could the Minister tell the House whether she has had discussions with the BCTF to give them this degree of self-regulation and discipline?

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): I haven't had any specific discussions with them on that. This somewhat relevant question was asked me last week, and I took it as notice. But I hope to have discussions with them, and then I will answer.

MR. WALLACE: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Due to the fact that this motion has been passed by the BCTF, could I ask the Minister in the meantime whether, in effect, the BCTF has the authority to discharge somebody from membership and hence put them out of the teaching profession in this province? It's a very serious consequence of being discharged from the BCTF.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I don't believe it's quite as rigid as you're suggesting. But, as I said, I took the question as notice because I intend to meet with the BCTF on this.

PREMIER'S INTENTIONS
FOR AN EASTER RECESS

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Premier. In view of his impending visit to Japan on government business, and with a little bit of pleasure thrown in, could he indicate whether it is his intention to adjourn the Legislature while he is away or permit it to carry on?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I understand that that's a matter for the Whips to discuss. But I would hope, since there's been a breakdown in the Whip system, that perhaps some love and peace will come back this week and we can come to some arrangement with the Whips. In any event, it is the government's intention to press on with the estimates. If we're not finished with the estimates, of course, we must consider a break and then come back after the break and finish off with legislation.

MR. CURTIS: A supplementary. Can I take it

[ Page 2033 ]

from what the Premier has said, Mr. Speaker, that if the estimates are not concluded when his departure date arrives, he would consider a termination of the House?

HON. MR. BARRETT: It's not a question of a departure date, Mr. Member. It's the question of an Easter break in itself. If the House can't get the work done, then we'll have to consider such a break.

MR. CURTIS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I feel that the Premier could be a little more direct in the answer. During your absence in Japan from Victoria is it your thought that the Legislature should adjourn while you're away or carry on as normal?

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

I don't know if this is proper in the question period, Mr. Speaker, but I'd be pleased to answer. There's a great deal of work to be done. We must, of course, have interim supply so that civil servants, welfare recipients, Mincome people and others do not go short because of this House's inability to conclude its work.

We reach to Easter; if we're not there in time then, of course, we must consider interim supply to enable the business to go on. Then I think we should have a recess for all the Members to relax for a while and have an Easter break. It has been the longest session in the history of this province. We don't want to exhaust the Members. We understand that they are not having enough time to eat or to sleep; that's the complaint we've been getting, therefore I think they need a break.

MR. CURTIS: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. The question was not asked with respect to the stomachs of the opposition Members, but the business of this Legislature, and your….

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

MR. CURTIS: An observation.

Orders of the day

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING
(continued)

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

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Chairman, the purpose of purchasing Dunhill Development Corporation, now Woodbridge Development Corporation, was, I presume, to give homeowners in the province assistance in purchasing their houses, to see that that corporation would be building through their management team a large number of low-rental homes. In this way the homeowner would be assisted. In order to assess the situation, to determine in my mind and in the mind of the official opposition if this is going to be of assistance to homeowners in the province, I would appreciate the Minister at this time tabling the appraisals that he had done before purchasing this company — appraisals on both land and buildings. In Hansard of Friday last, Mr. Chairman, the….

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. It's my understanding that the House came to some agreement to raise the opening of this on vote 111. What we're dealing with now is a separate vote on homeowners assistance. It's my understanding that we agreed on vote 111.

MR. PHILLIPS: I think it's only fair. The Minister said he would table the appraisals in the Legislature so that we'd have opportunity to study them before vote 111 comes up. I'm just asking the Minister if he would table the appraisals at this time. He said he would. As I say, I could quote it out of Hansard here where he said he would table these appraisals on Monday.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where?

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, all right:

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

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

...was going to get some information as to which appraisals had not been authenticated by government appraisals that were used in the compilation of this list, which the Minister had circulated throughout the House, dealing with the properties in Dunhill Development…and I wonder if you could have an answer for me now.

The Minister says:

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

Again, in response to a question by the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot):

You don't have the information now….

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: State your point of order.

[ Page 2034 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: I think the questions are appropriate, but they are appropriate under vote 111 — that is where we agreed. I appreciate today is Monday, but I want to stay in order, and I suggest the question be raised on vote 111. We're dealing with the home grants on this one, homeowners assistance. When we get to vote 111 that's the appropriate time, Mr. Member.

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

HON. MR. BARRETT: Look, Mr. Member, let's try to keep some order in the House. Mr. Chairman, I ask you to call the Member to order. When we get to vote 111, then it becomes in order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm afraid that I can't recognize agreements between groups, as Chairman of the committee. If the proper discussion takes place under this vote, homeowner assistance, I'll have to rule on the basis of whether or not the Member is in order or out of order.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: State your point of order.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: The Home Owner Assistance Branch is in no way connected with Dunhill Development Company. It gets no direction from that branch, so it would be most inappropriate to get into that discussion at this time.

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

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, your point is certainly well taken and I want to abide by your decision and be cooperative, as I always am. The point is well taken, but I did want to advise the Minister that we will expect those appraisals in the House, because they were promised.

Mr. Chairman, I would like the Minister of Housing to advise the House this afternoon what definite plans he has to give further homeowner assistance to our native citizens.

There have been patchwork announcements made from time to time, but I don't feel that this is really going to solve the problem. We have incentives that are made available to the majority of our citizens. Evidently these incentives are not enough to provide adequate housing for our first citizens.

I would like at this time to ask the Minister if he would advise what plans he has as an overall umbrella, not just a patchwork sort of development here and a patchwork development there in cooperation with the federal government so a Minister can come out and make an announcement. Shouldn't we have some overall plan that's going to solve this problem once and for all, so that our first citizens know what's going to happen?

I don't want the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) to get up and say that you were the first ones to make available the homeowner grant to our native citizens. That's very commendable; I commend the government for that. But I'd like to know what the overall plan is. Where are we going? I think the organizations of first citizens throughout the province would like to know.

It is stated policy of the government that they intend to see that our first citizens are provided with good housing. I think it's appropriate under vote 107, which is homeowner assistance, if the Minister would advise what his overall policy is going to be. I'd like him to, advise at this time if he would be so kind, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: We are presently in negotiations with the federal government concerning a programme proposed by BCANSI (B.C. Association of Non Status Indians). We're in fairly general agreement, just nailing down a few nuts and bolts. We should be making an announcement rather shortly, but as we're still in negotiation on this, I don't think it would be proper to go into details. But what we are generally looking at is a home-building programme for a certain number of units, also looking at alternative ways of housing people, especially in the north where the building season is short. There's quite a bit of scope left yet in terms of what we will be doing.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the Minister could tell us what form the homeowner assistance will take to those people who, perhaps, will be acquiring homes but on land which is leased land. Will they still be entitled to any form of homeowner assistance for the house itself? Is there any other form of assistance for people who might be building on zero lot lines? This is a very complex part at the moment.

I'd like it if he could give us detail on what the programme is. Would it apply to co-operatives? — where a co-operative might be going into some form of a building programme where the people will own some equity or something in the co-operative, who will be building new homes which essentially will be their own homes although the co-operative will own the entire outfit. Will they qualify for any form of homeowner assistance and what form will it take?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Co-operatives

[ Page 2035 ]

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

MR. MORRISON: Could you detail it?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, $1,000 grant on a new home, which is usually what they opt for. On the mortgage, as a non-profit par value, co-ops qualify for 8 per cent money from the federal government. It isn't usually opted to take our second mortgage. Usually these are not on used homes where they would have to have the normal renting of two years previous to acquisition.

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

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Yes, on leased land. The Member asked also if the assistance would be forthcoming to people who are building on leased land. This will be available on Crown or municipal leased land.

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

MR. MORRISON: You answered it.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Under homeowner assistance, could the Minister tell us if there are any plans specifically directed towards help in refurbishing or rebuilding old homes? Rather than take the attitude that seems to be that you pull them down and build new ones all the time, often at inflated prices because of the price of the land, is the government considering or does it have any plans in the mixer for a specific programme of assistance for the upgrading of older homes? It has been attempted in Oak Bay, I understand, just on a pilot plan basis by a private developer, and financially it seemed to make it a very reasonable project. I wonder to what degree the government might do that.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: I'd like to answer the Member by saying that we are looking at the whole mortgage field, as I suggested to someone on Saturday. We are looking into home improvement loans as one of the needs.

There will also be, under the home conversion loan perhaps, some improvements made. A person might have to raise a basement to a reasonable height so that there might not be complete separation of the money that is going into conversion and what might be an improvement.

Further, under designated neighbourhood improvement programme areas, residents within those areas are eligible for loans of up to $5,000 for home improvement in Central Mortgage and Housing money, half of which is forgiveable if their income is $6,000 per annum and one of which is forgiveable if their income is $11,000 and within those ranges. So these are programmes which are available.

Also, if we can reach an agreement with the federal government to designate a certain area, in specially designated areas that same rehabilitation programme can be made available.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): I'm wondering if the Minister would care to comment briefly on some of the problems being experienced with grants for mobile-home owners. It's a very difficult area, Mr. Chairman, because the mortgage requirements from banks and credit unions and places like that make it almost impossible for some people to get enough equity to qualify for the government's second mortgage.

It seems to me that those mobile homes that are placed on privately owned land in this day and age certainly have far more equity than we recognize officially because of the rapidly escalating cost of the land itself. I'm just wondering if perhaps there's some possibility of some changes to make it easier for those people who do have a five-acre piece of property which is vastly undervalued as far as the government goes.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Member, it is a matter of concern to me and it's one with which we're quite frequently confronted. It causes some difficulty.

These people do qualify for a grant rather than a mortgage. So they're not completely forgotten. However, there are some real difficulties in these cases where the chattel mortgages, which are the first mortgages, leave us in an insecure position. Where these chattel mortgages could perhaps cut into the land value and such, we find it very difficult to secure second mortgages, even when these are on privately held land. It would be virtually impossible in the case of a mobile home situated in a mobile-home park, although it could be possible in some cases where someone is situated on their own piece of land. It's a very difficult thing to administer and look into. It has been very difficult up to this point.

MR. McCLELLAND: A quick supplementary, Mr. Chairman. The problem with the grant is that quite often they've dissipated that amount in the type of mortgaging they have to go into for their second sometimes, and also for legal charges. I'm just suggesting that if perhaps the land was valued on a more realistic basis, then the equity would be there and you would be able to secure that second mortgage.

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

[ Page 2036 ]

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): We're speaking about helping people with older homes. There was a programme developed in late 1967 that was going to help selected welfare recipients to own their own homes, and I talk about widows with their families or disabled people. They were going to be able to purchase their home and build up an equity by using their rental supplement in the $550 provincial home acquisition grant and obtain a special mortgage. This was negotiated with the federal government, but I understand it ran into problems with CHMC. Are you still actively pursuing this special category, and is this programme continuing to be worked on? Are you trying to overcome the objections of CMHC?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: There have been some changes made. I believe that the maximum price has been raised from $20,000 to $24,000. I think the one that you're referring to was called the GVRD 300 programme.

The trouble with the programme is that the take-up has been rather small. I believe it's less than 100 units out of the 300 target that were ever taken advantage of, for a couple of reasons. One is the difficulty of finding homes — even condominium units now — at that price.

The programme, however, has been somewhat taken up on a larger scale by Central Mortgage and Housing in their assisted home-ownership programme, which now gives loans up to $30,000 for people within certain income limits. The income range varies from area to area throughout the province, and it would be difficult to go into that. Generally I think it is from $6,000 to something up around $12,000 or $13,000 per annum. I know that within the Nelson area the lower limit is fixed at something like $9,000-odd.

So this programme is still there, but it's one of these difficult programmes that finds trouble in keeping up with the inflated costs of housing.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): I'd like to continue the discussion with the Minister on the subject raised by the First Member for Victoria (Mr. Morrison), namely the availability of home ownership assistance in respect to leased land. I gather that the Minister's response to the Member's question was that such assistance was available in respect of lands leased by a municipality or by the Crown. I would like to inquire from the Minister as to the reason for this rather severe restriction.

There are other owners of land who might be willing to make that land available on a leasehold basis for housing construction which would assist in the reduction of the total cost of the housing unit. I fail to recognize the significance of the refusal in cases such as that.

The system of leasehold land tenure has been practised in Britain for centuries. The concept of fee simple ownership is something which is really a western innovation. Substained homes and buildings are constructed upon leased land. There's no hesitation in making a significant investment for improvements on the part of people in Britain. It's a system which we could readily copy in this country to the very great benefit of people who are at the moment in need of residential accommodation. I would wonder if, therefore, the Minister would indicate why, rather than encouraging such a programme, the policy of his department is to deny support in this particular case.

As well as land, which is available for lease from private owners, there is another public enterprise which is a significant lessor of lands: the British Columbia Railway. I have raised this with the previous government; I raised it a year ago with this government. I would like to know from the Minister why, when British Columbia Rail is the owner of lands and leases those lands for the purposes of the construction of dwellings, this government is not prepared to extend to the tenants of that land home acquisition grants. I know there was, and indeed still is, a statutory bar to such grants being given, but I would hope the Minister would support me when I urge the government to change the legislation so British Columbia Rail land can be available in the same way as Crown land is for home-acquisition-grant support.

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

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

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: When?

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

The land lease. Making the provisions of the home acquisition grant available on privately leased lands is one which we haven't had full time to look at all the pros and cons on. We are examining this and giving this some consideration. However, I think I see some problems in it. This does have to be looked at and we are looking at this.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I thank the Minister for indicating they're looking at this particular problem. Of course there can be problems, but it seems to me that if the length of the lease is long enough to cover the period required to redeem the amount of the mortgage, say, rather than the grant and you have all the same protection with respect to change of ownership which you currently have, it would be very

[ Page 2037 ]

valuable to encourage owners of land to make their land available for the construction on a lease rather than a purchase basis. It certainly cuts down the initial financing cost and the long-term mortgage expense which is so often one of the major problems in young persons deciding whether or not they're going to proceed with residential construction.

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

There have been persistent rumours, I understand, as promoted by hotlines, that there's the possibility of a programme similar to the rent-control programme whereby the owner of a house who has taken advantage of the homeowner assistance programmes by the government would be unable to sell his house for more than 8 per cent more than the assessed value of that house on December 31, 1973. I wonder whether the Minister would like to indicate to the House whether or not this is a programme of his department as we're dealing, of course, with the homeowner assistance.

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

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: I should make a point. That last question raised was really a question of legislation and not something that should come up under the estimates.

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): I'd just like to comment on the proposal of the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) on leased land. I was a little concerned. When we developed fee simple in North America, we were getting away from the class system. Everybody had a right of ownership and we were getting away from the serf concept. Whether one is a tenant of the state or of the large landholder, they still would never have a chance to own a part of their country or participate in the growth against inflation that land bears.

I think any lease programme should encourage people to eventually purchase the land. I disagree entirely with the government putting government grants out to private landholders so they can own land forever and have these people as tenants of large corporations. You're never going to encourage people to develop homeownership and you're going to encourage a very few large landholders to own the land forever. I'm not in favour of that at all.

In fact, even where the government leases land for people for housing, I believe this should contain within it, if it's used as a means of getting people into housing when they can't afford a down payment, some encouragement with an option to purchase so those people will eventually be able to own that land and own their house.

Quite frankly, I don't think the ultimate should be people never owning their property. Quite the contrary; I think every encouragement should be given to the citizens of the province to own their own homes and the land under it, and not to become serfs of either the large landholders whether they be private or the state.

MR. WALLACE: That opinion just expressed perhaps best differentiates that side of the House from this side of the House. I would certainly join with the Leader of the Opposition in saying that we certainly feel homeownership is a very desirable principle in itself per se. Whether we have ideological differences or not, a person's home is their castle.

I think that very deeply ingrained feeling in individuals is something that should be encouraged and developed in our modern society at a time when men as individuals are losing their identities in a variety of ways in the face of technology, urban congestion, pollution and all the other problems the individual citizen in society is faced with. I feel, as the former speaker did, that there should be encouragement and incentive given to the individual not just to own the building but to own the land on which the building sits.

We needn't rehash old arguments in this House as we've already talked about the effect of Bill 42 reducing the amount of available land and so on. But as a principle, I wonder if the Minister could tell us to what degree the original lease arrangements will include either incentives to purchase at a later date or what time factor might be involved in which the resident could enter into a purchase agreement, or if in fact this government with any leased land is totally opposed to the day ever coming when the owner can actually buy the land.

I'm sure there are all kinds of examples in other areas in the business sector where a person can rent equipment or rent various forms of assistance in their work and finally purchase it. The money paid out initially in the form of a lease goes to some degree towards the down payment.

I think this is certainly something very close to the hearts of individual citizens in our society today. It's a further alienation or a further depressing effect on their initiative and their wanting to be independent and to look after their own affairs if they are denied any realistic opportunity to own the land as well as the building. I hope the Minister would perhaps enlarge on that comment.

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

[ Page 2038 ]

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, replying to the two previous speakers, it's probably true that leasehold tenure has appealed more to those with means than those without. British Properties, the Musqueam Indian band reserve, residential properties and such are on leasehold, I believe. The District of North Vancouver has been using a lease or purchase basis for accepting bids. It has actually occurred to a surprising extent already; it's nothing new.

We are not considering purchase options such as they have in Ontario. In fact, in Ontario they appear to be moving further away from that.

In the first instance they allowed an option to purchase at the original price after five years occupancy. Now they have reviewed that so that it's an option to purchase at the current appraised value, which might tend to dampen the incentive. So with these trends away from this, we are looking toward a purely leasehold policy. Persons will own their home but not the land.

We already have, in addition to that, people in cooperative housing. They have opted for this. We would hope that by doing this we could offer them some financial advantages in return, so that their investment would not be upon their housing. Money that would be left for investment would be perhaps directed in other directions.

Certainly the concept people are using today that land is the only thing you can invest in is perhaps dangerous thinking. Perhaps people thought they couldn't lose on the Dow Jones in 1929 and perhaps people at some point are going to overestimate the value of land. There could be some very serious repercussions to that as well.

I might also say, though, that we haven't been completely hung up on leasehold, as I explained in Penticton. We have assisted them in a project with interim funds. That being disposed of, fee simple, under the CMHC Assisted Home-Ownership Programme. So we have announced certain targets for leasehold land and mortgages on leasehold land and we can only get into these things to a certain extent in our initial years. So we feel that this is a good alternative we are bringing forward. There is still lots of fee simple land.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, just pursuing the point: I think it is a valid question to ask whether the lease programme and the assistance for homes is to encourage the people to get more than a home — to get a part of the community, and a permanent part of the community that doesn't have a life span like a building has where it has to be replaced on the land under it.

Is it just to provide temporary shelter or is it to give them a sense of permanency? When we are looking for government funds going out to leasing, the leasing programme should be looked upon as a form of helping a person who has no equity — a young married couple — into getting into their home without having to come up with things like down payments. But as they develop some sort of assets — and this would be subsidized by the government; it's a subsidized programme — the encouragement would be that they would eventually own it. This is more than just the economics of housing; we have to take a look on the social side of this and at exactly what we want for our communities: whether we are trying to develop permanency.

Now the Minister mentioned 1929 and the fact that land is the only investment. I know that many families survived through the '30s because they owned their own property. Where they didn't own it, where it was rented, the people felt free to move, and you had a highly mobile society. But the one sense of permanency there to this country was the sense of ownership. There was a sense of belonging in those people that did own their property. They owned their home and they did feel strongly the social implication of this beyond mere shelter. I think the government should be making a policy statement in this regard when it talks about assistance for lease programmes.

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

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, Mr. Member, we are looking for ways and means of giving people a control of their shelter. As the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) has indicated there is a difference between the two sides of the House on this question. I think that in assisting people, when we look at rental, and rental management, we have some difficulties there. It is something that we recognize: we will always have to provide rentals. I understand preference studies show that 20 per cent rent out of preference; and 80 per cent of tenants would prefer some sort of ownership.

In order to give this I say that we cannot print paper money; we cannot give things away. What we are trying to do is come up with something that will be part of the solution to dampen inflated prices and speculation. We have to work toward this end within certain budget limits. We have a tremendous amount of money in this budget, but we certainly can't do the entire job. We have to look at the way in which that money is spent so that it doesn't become a part of the speculation and appreciation in property value.

But what we are looking for is where we might have had to put a person into a rental-tenancy situation, they will be able to have the management of their own home, the responsibility of what repairs to do, the standard of maintenance they want to keep up. It will be their home and it will be their home to dispose of, and also the improvements at such time as they move. They will have to consider that the maintenance of that home will be part of the

[ Page 2039 ]

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

So toward a more responsible attitude on behalf of the person being housed, I think it is desirable that we have some stake, some modified equity in the housing, and that we supply the need which is there for rental accommodation. But we should provide the alternative of people being able to purchase some equity in their home on leased land, not for speculation, but so that their costs will remain as constant as anyone else's. Once they get into a mortgage situation, their costs will be level, relatively — other than, perhaps, some periodic reviews of ground rent. So they can look toward a fairly predictable, stable dollar figure in terms of provision of shelter as anyone else who is purchasing a home can do.

We would be looking toward a system of helping people, especially at the beginning — when their earning capacity is probably least — when we could probably anticipate that they would require less assistance as they go along.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Chairman, pursuing this point of leasehold tenure, I would like to ask the Minister some very brief but very practical questions.

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

How will rental be determined during the term of the lease? Will payments be on an annual basis or will the lease be fully pre-paid as some of those that have been sold by municipalities?

At the end of the lease will there be a guaranteed right of renewal? If there is no guaranteed right of renewal, will the improvements revert to the Crown or to the owner of the land, as is the case with many private leases?

I would ask the Minister, once he has fixed his desirable term for the leases, how he thinks a person could sell their home in the last 25 years or so. It might be difficult for the purchaser to raise mortgage money to assist in that transaction.

I would ask the Minister why a homeowner would do any maintenance on that home for the last 10 years, if he had to accept the fact that at the end of the 10 years he might completely lose his house, unless there was a guaranteed right of renewal. Under those circumstances, under that kind of leasehold situation, why would anyone do any maintenance?

I ask these questions out of a genuine concern because I have some knowledge of leasehold problems in other parts of the world and in Canada, inside the national parks, where questions exactly such as these have been very vexatious. I would appreciate any practical comments the Minister has on how one gets around these problems which, of course, are automatically solved with private ownership.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, I don't know if I can answer all your questions directly at this time, but certainly you have brought up some of those troublesome aspects of leasehold tenure.

The term which we are considering is 50 years. We are looking at regular monthly payments, and we believe that this can be done quite easily through arrangement — pre-authorized chequing arrangements.

The right of renewal — well, your last four questions: right of renewal, reversion to Crown, sale in last 25 years and maintenance in last 10 years. They certainly revolve around the question of whether or not there is reversion to Crown, or whether there is compensation. I am not prepared at this time to make that. But certainly I appreciate the difficulties that you have pointed out there.

They are well recognized, especially in Great Britain at this time, where I understand quite a few of the 100-year tenures have come up. There have been problems of lack of maintenance and creation of slums and such. I assure you though, Mr. Member, it's with this in mind that we will be tackling that basic question of whether or not to have reversion to the Crown.

MR. GIBSON: If I could just follow that up for a second. Given these admitted problems, I wonder if the Minister could make a short statement as to what he sees as the advantages of leaseholds which are worth these problems on the other side, given the fact that private ownership does, as I say, avoid most of these problems.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: It does keep the consolidation of parcels of land within one ownership. One of the most difficult things which developers go through today is the assembly of small pieces of land scattered about. Lacking the power of expropriation, they have a great deal of trouble there. Though as I said in the first instance, we would seek to give assistance to people in housing to give them some right of self-fulfilment and self-management.

The art of property management is a very difficult one. I understand that most property management firms are constantly trying to steal good personnel from each other. It's a very difficult and sensitive area. It's even more sensitive in the case of public ownership in terms of rentals. We feel it is more desirable that people have some control of their own destiny and can express their individuality in terms of landscaping, repairs and of maintenance or additions.

Some of these properties will be built by the individuals. Largely these lease lots will be outside of the extremely high-cost areas and I am hoping to prevent speculation on the land, although allowing people reasonable appreciation of improvements where replacement costs continue to rise and

[ Page 2040 ]

maintenance is satisfactory.

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

MR. BENNETT: I would just like to pursue this further. The Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) suggested that this is where there is a difference on two sides of the House, and this was something I was trying to pin down.

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

I think we should be looking for the stability of home ownership. The Minister mentioned studies about a percentage of people preferring to buy. But is that broken down into age groups? I think there is every indication that as people get older, their sense of wanting to acquire a place of permanency becomes more pronounced. Perhaps the percentages in this survey are not very accurate when they're representative of the mature citizen. Most people, by the time they reach a certain age, wish to have a place of permanency; they are looking for home ownership.

Could the Minister expand and tell me if there is a hardline policy of his government and of his department on home ownership and land ownership, and how the surveys he has taken and refers to break down into age groups?

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

We do have some difficulty when we have large tracts of Crown land. The experience has been in the District of North Vancouver or Alberni or anywhere else, when a municipality goes to dispose of serviced land, they are subject to two kinds of criticism and they can't win. Either they sell it for what it's worth — in the case of the District of North Vancouver around $30,000 a lot — and are criticized for selling for too much. If they sell it for what it cost them to service it and, considering the carrying cost they might have had through the years, perhaps they could dispose of it for $15,000 or $20,000. But immediately somebody else could buy that up and sell it for a profit. In fact, this even happens with developers. Quite often when they are disposing of condominium units, people are just lined up. They buy them; they resell them the next day for another $1,000 or $2,000 profit and turn it over pretty quickly.

Where we do bring lands on to the market, we would like to dispose of these at reasonable figures, not necessarily at cost, to try to give the people a choice, an alternative, and try to add something.

For instance, in Kamloops there are many alternatives going ahead: there are some semi-rural developments going ahead at fee simple; there are normal developments going ahead. We have 65 acres under planning with the city and I expect it will be going ahead this year. Now, that is Crown land. According to some people, it might be some of the most valuable land in Kamloops, but it is also a splendid residential site. Some parts of it, of course, are ravine and other parts are rock but it is a very splendid site.

We want to bring that on the market at a price average people will be able to afford but on a different basis than in the case of comparable transactions in, say, Port Alberni or the District of North Vancouver. We don't want to give it away and let somebody capitalize right away; we want to keep the cost down and we want to make it available to people at a reasonable price. It's for this reason that we are looking at leasehold land.

To answer your question more specifically, Mr. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett), it is not the hardline policy of this government that everyone should have to lease land. There is fee simple land; we still give assistance to people on fee simple land. We haven't changed the policies of the previous government. In fact, we have expanded them, and I think that has to answer that question.

MR. BENNETT: When you talk leasing, you are comparing apples and oranges. In North Vancouver leasing, you're talking about a leasing programme for upper middle-income families. When you first started talking about leasing last fall, you talked about leasing as a use to meet a particular economic group, the people who couldn't afford high-priced lots or to lease lots in that $30,000 range. That's an entirely difference programme.

I understood last fall, when you spoke in the Legislature and the Department of Housing was developed, your lease programme was designed specifically to meet the needs of people with lower incomes or low to middle incomes who couldn't compete in that North Vancouver market. I am asking if you are using the policy to meet the need of an economic group. Is the government going to encourage home ownership for that economic group or shall home ownership only be the privilege of the people who can buy in North Vancouver? Is the government recognizing, to meet the needs of that group, we are going to have to subsidize the early leases to get them involved in home ownership? Is it prepared to say those people can eventually own their own homes?

There are many mechanisms you can work into the lease or the purchase agreement so they can't speculate after they have taken advantage of the government programme. I want to know whether this lease programme is there to meet this particular need and whether you will, as a policy, encourage home

[ Page 2041 ]

ownership for this group. Will they be forever cast in the role of renters in this province so that home ownership will only be for those privileged people who can deal with $30,000 lots in North Vancouver?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: This is home ownership on leased land. I have spoken in terms of middle and lower income although I would not necessarily rule out the people of higher incomes who might choose this alternative. We would certainly try to satisfy the demands of people on lower incomes. We must balance this against isolating people on the basis of income into one large homogeneous group. We would like a more heterogeneous distribution in terms of income and socio-economic backgrounds, especially within large projects.

You mention methods by which you can prevent speculation. Indeed, these methods have been used traditionally in company towns where buy-back provisions have been stipulated if the property were to change hands within less than, say, five years. These, I think, are more restrictive, at least in some aspects, than what we visualize in terms of a land lease programme.

So that is another example of a type of tenure which we have in the province which is, I guess, technically or eventually fee simple on an agreement for sale, but in fact there is a tremendous turnover of these properties in some of the company towns, with the resultant effect that the cost of housing is kept down to a reasonable level but it tends not to be available for people such as professionals or bakers or people who are required for infrastructure in the communities and it works counter-productively to the community.

MR. WALLACE: I'm still not clear in the Minister's answer to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) and earlier comments. I gather that the whole thrust of leasing land on which the owner will own the home is primarily to deal with speculation. If I'm wrong on that I needn't say more, but this is the emphasis that I detect from the Minister's comments. If we're dealing with lower or middle-age income groups, surely the answer to the housing problem is to create more housing so that there isn't this panic on the part of people, first of all to wonder if they will ever get a home, and secondly to be willing to pay an inflated price because there is a shortage. I'm not sure that there are two issues in conflict here.

I'm like the Member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson). I really can't appreciate the degree to which this philosophy of leasing the land without any option on the part of the purchaser to buy the land really solves anything, other than maybe this so-called ideological difference that we have. The Member for North Vancouver-Capilano has pointed out that there are certain very definite disadvantages in the long haul which would not apply if the person owned the home and the ground, for the very obvious reason as he pointed out, that if there is not automatic renewal of the lease, then there is a complete lack of incentive to the owner wondering what's going to happen when you get close to the the end of the lease.

You were asked — I forget by whom — and with respect, Mr. Minister, you avoided answering. You said you weren't prepared to answer, but we have to assume on this side of the House that you don't even know the policy yourself.

What is going to happen at the end of 50 years? You may own the house, but if you can't control the land on which it sits, then you're in a pretty dicey situation. I find this whole matter, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, rather contradictory.

In one of your comments you said you want people to have control over their own shelter. Another comment you made was about control over their own destiny. You're talking like a Conservative when you say that. But the fact is what you're doing is not giving them that kind of control; you're giving central control to the Crown that leases the land. I don't see how you can suggest in one voice that you really do support the concept of an individual having the maximum amount of control over his destiny and over his own shelter when you insist on keeping government control over the land. It's a contradiction, Mr. Chairman. You can't make that kind of statement.

The Minister also stated that 80 per cent of renters would like to own their own home if it were financially possible. I know we're not talking about renters in this case, but I'm sure that of all the people who are left with no choice but to purchase a home and lease the land, I would strongly suspect that at least 80 per cent of them would very much enjoy having the opportunity at a later date to buy the land as well.

I can see an ideological reason, I suppose, but I just wonder if you could give us some practical reason, other than the ones that have been given and the emphasis you've laid on speculation. Most people in a lifetime don't go around buying and selling homes for speculation.

I'm talking, Mr. Chairman, in case I haven't made myself clear, about the great majority of individuals who are neither speculators in land nor speculators on homes. I'm just talking about the ordinary family — the man who has to provide a home for his wife and kids. In a lifetime he probably does that on the average three or four or five times. I just don't see why the housing policy of this government is so blinded to the emotional aspect of land ownership and the whole question of speculation, rather than accepting the fact that the great majority of families want to own their own home and want control over

[ Page 2042 ]

it. In leasing the lot they can't have control over their own destiny or over their own shelter. So I wonder if the Minister could give us some more definite practical reason other than just the ideology as to why.

I think you avoided answering the Member for North Vancouver–Capilano, and the reason you didn't answer I would like to know. Either you haven't finalized the policy about automatic renewal of the lease, or you're not willing to tell us whether you've finalized the policy. The other point is: are you absolutely opposed to any form of option to the owner of a home on leased land at a specific time in the lease to be given the opportunity to purchase? Is that a flat, total absolute no in the view of this government?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Member, I acknowledged the existence of the problem, as pointed out by the Member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson). I am quite aware of the problem. I consider it a problem. But at this time, to answer you, I am not prepared to commit the government on that decision.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before I recognize another speaker, I'd caution the House that we seem to be straying quite a distance from vote 107. That should properly be considered under vote 111.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I'll try to stick within this area of home ownership, which is, of course, what we are essentially discussing. Assistance to home ownership under this particular vote.

I appreciated the Minister's clear indication that there's a great deal of uncertainty in his mind on many of these questions. He gave three reasons for rental rather than ownership. One was the ease of assembling land a century hence. I would like to ask him what difficulty the government has had in assembling land by way of expropriation in the last quarter-century, for example. Have we had trouble in that back-up area behind Roberts Bank? How many highways have not proceeded because we could not expropriate land? Was it difficult for your colleague to get after North Vancouver and try to expropriate land there? Are we facing real problems in expropriation? If we are, your argument makes sense. If we're not, your arguments don't make a great deal of sense to me, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman.

The second of the points that you've discussed, Mr. Minister, was raised by the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace), and I won't repeat it. But then we get on with the question of speculation, Mr. Chairman.

The Minister's arguments on speculation were that the private sector would be a great deal smarter than the public people who were selling the Crown land. That's the basis of your argument. It worries me because speculation can only take place when the seller has no idea what the value of the land is, or should be. The private person speculating, or indeed a public body speculating, takes a long-shot or flyer on what the future values will be worth, and he can only do that when the seller doesn't understand the true value of the land. He can only profit when the seller doesn't understand the true value of the land. This is really quite frightening because it's an admission by the Minister, in my mind at least, that he doesn't think the government in selling land will be able to value it properly and therefore they have to have a scheme in the future, other than expropriation, namely a leasehold scheme to take advantage of the government incompetence at this stage.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to talk just for a quick moment on that $30,000 or $15,000 problem that the Minister raised in North Vancouver. He puts in a nutshell the problem. The problem is the opportunity costs, the extra value of land due to an inadequate supply of serviced land in British Columbia. I think he's raised that quite well but he's not given us any answers at all in terms of government thinking. Surely the true value of the lot which cost $15,000 to service properly, as the Minister indicated, wiping out all rental value in the economic sense, is $15,000 rather than $30,000. That was the Minister's point. The way to bring the cost of the land down is surely to service enough lots in the rest of the community so that because of an adequate supply the price drops down to where the cost level is, rather than our present situation where, due to uncertainty, the cost level is almost irrelevant. It's the cost level plus opportunity cost which raises the price up to something like $30,000 a lot or even more.

He simply didn't deal with this except to say that it's very difficult to give the initial buyer a subsidy, which I completely agree with. I don't necessarily think he should be doing it.

But rental, Mr. Chairman, doesn't deal with the problem either because if the rent is economic and a rational rent in the economic sense, it simply is based on the capitalized value of the land and interest rates and other things of that nature. So rental simply doesn't overcome the problem either. I just don't see how that could be put forward as an argument in favour of rent control by government when it's clear that government rental schemes in many areas in the past have simply been failures, due to a lack of real initiative on the part of the public sector in comparison with the private sector.

It's the type of lack of initiative that we discovered very recently with Dunhill Developments when Daon beat them to a deal. The argument given was that because they were a public company, they

[ Page 2043 ]

had to move a lot slower than a private company. It's the type of initiative which the public sector obviously, from your own purchase of Dunhill, simply doesn't have.

I wonder whether the Minister could once more go back and try to indicate to us where it is that he sees the advantage of renting as opposed to ownership, because the expropriation argument doesn't make any sense to me. I don't think it holds water. And the speculative argument doesn't make any sense to me and doesn't hold water. The Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) and the Member for North Vancouver (Mr. Gibson) made it pretty clear that pride of ownership is obviously an argument which indeed supports ownership rather than rental.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: There are difficulties in expropriation. Expropriation should only be used where negotiations fail and where something is needed badly enough. It is no way of saving money and usually results in slightly higher overall costs and takes time.

Speculation: you know, I find it hard relating some of these arguments to this vote, but I did discuss the supply and demand situation in my Ministerial vote to some extent. I pointed out that we're not attempting to solve the whole problem with just social programmes, which largely show up in dollars and cents in these estimates. We are looking at ways and means of assisting the private sector, particularly through an expediter and with increasing dialogue between both municipal and provincial governments and approving authorities. So certainly other approaches have to be taken in addition to these.

You kind of intimated that I didn't know how to appraise land. I'm not an appraiser, but we do have a very qualified appraiser on staff and we can certainly get appraisals. I think the appraisals in the Dunhill acquisition are being borne out in terms of disposal prices and such. We know what things are worth.

The problem is not in getting what the market will bear, but in trying to assist people who need assistance without just handing them excess money and grants, which tend to eventually escalate costs. We feel that the best way to do this is by servicing some of our Crown lands. Some we've had to acquire especially for this purpose; others have come out of other government departments or Crown corporations.

Also we'll have a special programme for mortgages which will eventually come under this department and under this vote in order to further that aim. It will obviously have to assist those who need the assistance most. Those people who don't need so much assistance, whose income is a little bit higher, will get less. Some people will get no assistance, but would have to pay what could be expected as a market amount.

MR. PHILLIPS: You know, from listening to the answers that the Minister has given so far in this entire debate on housing, I find it very difficult to understand where this department is going. I think the Minister is floundering in his own indecision. He hasn't given us a clear-cut answer since we opened up this department.

We're looking at a vote this year which is supposed to be homeowner assistance. This year that vote is $301,476 — a reduction from the previous year of some $35,000. Here's a new department, a brand new department, as the Minister in his own words said. "Oh, yes, it's unique in all of Canada. As a matter of fact," he said, "it's unique in all of North America."

The whole idea I thought, Mr. Chairman, was to give homeowner assistance, and here we've reduced the budget. The Minister comes in and he wants to change the entire direction that housing has been headed in British Columbia. Now I think he's headed off in all directions at the same time, and he doesn't know really where he's going at all: complete indecision, and the Minister is floundering.

I asked the Minister a few moments ago what his plans were to assist our native citizens in obtaining homes for themselves. What did I get? I got a nothing answer. The Minister surely to goodness must be taking some direction from his government, or he must be in a position to make some decisions for himself. But we certainly haven't seen it.

Mr. Chairman, since this government came to office there have probably been more surveys done by groups in British Columbia about what is required to upgrade housing in British Columbia than ever before. The Minister has had some really good reports prepared for him, but he isn't listening to the information.

He isn't paying any attention to the surveys. He's going off in his own unique way, floundering in his own indecision, going off in all directions at one time, and what's happening to the housing crisis in British Columbia today? Every week that goes by the crisis becomes greater. I thought, while we were in this particular department discussing his estimates, that he would outline for us some of the policies which he must have thought out by now; and we've got nothing.

Mr. Chairman, the report recently given to the Minister, which clearly outlines what was happening to Greater Vancouver housing costs, was a well-thought-out document. It explained what had happened to the prices of houses. It's the same thing I've said: land cost is the main increase.

I'd like to quote from the report. I bring this up, Mr. Chairman, because we're talking about homeowner assistance. If you're going to assist the homeowner to get his own home, you've got to have

[ Page 2044 ]

some incentives. Instead of this, this Minister has, as a matter of fact, brought in stumbling blocks, not incentives. He's brought in stumbling blocks by his policies, as I've outlined before to this House, having increased the price of land beyond the reach of a normal wage earner. In this document, Mr. Chairman, it states very firmly

"How come monthly housing costs have skyrocketed 242 per cent while disposable income has increased only 85 per cent?"

They're talking about the period from 1963 to 1973. It goes on to say, as I've said in this House before:

"The cost of construction increases for materials and labour were in line with increases in disposable income. They were up 84 per cent from $12,540 in 1963 to $23,064 in 1973 for a standard bungalow. So that's not really the problem. Interest rates have taken their share, they've increased from a yearly average of seven per cent in 1963 to an average of 9.5 per cent in 1973."

That is significant and I'll discuss that later under another section, Mr. Chairman.

"Property taxes 1973, considering the provincial homeowner's grant. What's the real problem? Where is the real incentive needed? It's land. The cost of land has increased 525 per cent over the past 10 years from $4,000 in 1963 to $25,000 in 1973 for a typical lot in Burnaby. What is even more significant" — and this is what we've been saying ever since this government took office — "what is more significant is that half of this 525 per cent increase occurred in the year 1973."

Now that's laid out by the committee. This is a committee that sent in the report and tabled it with the Minister of Housing. So what I'm saying, Mr. Chairman, is that here we're going to have homeowner assistance where the price of land in the last year has increased about 225 per cent and the budget for homeowner assistance has been cut down from $395,000 last year to $360,975 this year. Now I ask you, Mr. Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I have to suggest to you, Mr. Member, that you're out of order on that. This is administration expenses of that department only, not the assistance itself.

MR. PHILLIPS: I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, you're out of order because we're on vote 107 which is homeowner assistance. It's $395,060 last year and $369,076 this year. If we want to go back and open up the Minister's salary, I'm all for that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: This vote is only administration, Mr. Member; it has nothing to do with land costs.

MR. PHILLIPS: Is the Chairman running the House or is the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan)? If you've got a point of order, why don't you stand on a point of order and conduct this House in a…. You're one of the longest Members in this House and you sit over there and yap, yap, yap all the time. If you want to raise a point of order, raise a point of order. Don't sit over there and….

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): The point of order I want to raise is that that Member just doesn't pay any attention to the rules of order of this House and never has.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's not a point of order, Mr. Minister.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I would like that Minister to withdraw that remark unless he has something specific to say. It's a reflection on my character and on my actions in the House. I ask that it be withdrawn forthwith.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: What he has been doing today is a philosophical debate on housing which belongs under the Minister's vote. The Minister's vote is passed, and this vote you're talking on is not the place for a philosophical debate on housing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point of order is well taken.

MR. PHILLIPS: At least I've never been accused of lying in the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask the Member to stick to the administration of homeowner assistance.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Member for South Peace River continue on this vote?

MR. PHILLIPS: You would think, Mr. Chairman, that the Members of that cabinet over there, particularly the Member for Cowichan-Malahat (Hon. Mr. Strachan), would be setting an example in this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Member, that does not refer to homeowner assistance. Would you continue on homeowner assistance, please?

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I want to get a clear-cut answer from the Minister of Housing as to where he is going. I want to know what his plans are. I can't

[ Page 2045 ]

accept the fact that he's having dealings with the federal government and he's got....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Member, order, please! That is a policy matter and does not come under the administration of homeowner assistance. Would you please stick to vote 107?

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, is he going to give any assistance to our native Indians? In what form? We're talking about homeowner assistance so I would like the Minister to give me a clear-cut answer.

I'd also like the Minister to tell me what he's going to do in the way of assistance to help that homeowner buy his own piece of land so he can build his own home. Or tell me and outline to the House: is the policy of land ownership out the window? We can't have it both ways. We want to know what the policy of this government is and we want a clear-cut policy.

He has $50 million special appropriation for mortgage money. There's no shortage of mortgage money; that's not an assistance to homeowners. The problem is that the interest rate is too high. If he would read this report, and I'll refer to it later, the principal interest and taxation in relation to income in 1973 jumped from….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, Mr. Member, please! Would you stick to vote 107? Interest and mortgage has nothing to do with the homeowner assistance administration.

MR. PHILLIPS: But it has, Mr. Chairman, because that is what the home acquisition grant is all about: to assist the person to acquire, to get the down payment. I would also suggest to you that the homeowner's grant is homeowner assistance. What bothered me is that this vote is down from $395,000 to $360,000. That's why I have to believe the Minister is floundering in his own decision. I'd like him to give us some clear-cut policies this afternoon.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I'd appreciate your guidance on this point. Earlier on we were discussing the general question of leasehold tenure in some detail. One could bring it up later on under vote 111 but it would be convenient if we could continue the discussion at this point. Could I have your guidance on that?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'd ask the Member to continue, please.

MR. GIBSON: Just some short questions to the Minister here on leasehold tenure. I might say a few minutes ago, Mr. Chairman, I looked across the floor of the House and chills ran up and down my spine because there was the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) consulting with the Minister of Housing. I said to myself, "Are we going to have a royalty on the transfer of government leases?" Perhaps he was just preserving his right to dig for minerals underneath.

The Minister put the problem very well that governments, be they provincial or municipal, have in selling lots. Should they be sold at market value, in which case they're criticized for selling them at too high a price, or should they sell them at some artificially lower price, perhaps their cost, in which case they're in effect giving a subsidy to people? Ratepayers complain a little bit about that. He saw leasing as the solution to that problem.

I would immediately ask him if he is going to lease below economic value on the lease. If he is leasing below economic value, then he is still giving a subsidy to the people who are lucky enough to be able to acquire that particular kind of lease. All the rest of us in the province would be paying for that subsidy. So I would ask the Minister if that is his plan.

Is he going to lease at a rate of 4 per cent? If 4 per cent is thought by the Minister to be the right percentage, could he cite the line of thinking which led him to that number, given that usual lease rates are much higher than 4 per cent of value?

I would also ask if it would be his plan that these monthly lease rents he speaks of would be adjusted during the term of the lease or whether they would remain constant over the whole 50-year term. If they are to be adjusted, on what basis would they be adjusted? Would it be with reference to economic value?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: To the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips), as I did answer him earlier on this vote. To be as specific as I can about our plans for assistance to Indians, I was in negotiation in my office with the Hon. Ron Basford last Friday afternoon. We reached some tentative agreement and we're going to formalize those things and make an announcement. I'm not going to take anything away from him by making a premature announcement, even though the Legislature has very high rights. I think the Member will understand that it should be a joint announcement.

Interjection.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, this will be a policy for the next year or two for assistance specifically to non-status Indians, BCANI (B.C. Association of Non-Status Indians).

To the Member for North Vancouver–Capilano, the 4 per cent rate of market value is policy for cooperatives. There will be adjustment, not of the rate but of the appraised value. The conditions under

[ Page 2046 ]

which that would take place I again would have to hold for some time.

MR. GIBSON: Would the 4 per cent rate then apply to all government leased land or just to cooperatives?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: No, it just applies to co-ops on government leased lands.

MR. GIBSON: Has a rate been struck for general leasing for residential purposes?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: We have formulas. This will be announced later, Hon. Member. It ties in with that other question of termination of lease period renewal of tenure or provisions for renewal. This will have to be announced at a later time.

MR. GIBSON: It's very difficult for us to intelligently debate the Minister's estimates if he has in his mind figures which will be announced later after the estimates are concluded.

MR. MORRISON: I'd like to ask the Minister a number of questions but first concerning the cooperatives, I noticed on this 4 per cent we're talking about, it's called a mortgage and it has a term. What exactly happens at the end of that term? Does the land revert back to the Crown? What exactly is the score on that question?

Do you expect much of a demand for homeowner assistance in the outlying areas, particularly the ones you referred to earlier where you might be having a development of private housing on leased land in an outlying area where land is relatively inexpensive? I wonder if you could give an indication as to how much demand you anticipate, just for the homeowner, since that's the vote we're on.

I'm curious to know on that leased land, who makes the decisions as to the type of roads that will be put in, the general layout of the land, the hiding of the wiring and TV and where the sewers will go? Who will make decisions as to where the schools will be located, if any, if the development is large enough? Who will handle the road maintenance and snow clearing, that type of thing? Will that area come under a general governmental area or will they have their own city council, municipal council, regional council or whatever, or will it be handled by the government itself?

To change the subject. Briefly, I would like to know if he could give us an indication how long it takes now to process a second mortgage agreement. From the time that the individual first comes in with the application, how long does it take to actually process it for the second mortgage to be finalized? Could he also give us an indication of what the delinquency is that they are experiencing on the existing second mortgages? Is there much delinquency at this moment, and what do they anticipate in the future?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: The process of acquiring a second mortgage sometimes appears to be long, but he must have title, he must be in occupation, and it takes about a week to get a letter of intent on that.

MR. MORRISON: How long after the letter of intent? Three weeks? Two weeks?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: He gets it as soon as the mortgage is registered but that takes about two or three weeks. I know that there are delays. I get letters where people have said it has taken them four months or so, and they add how much they've paid in bank interest at, say 11 or 14 per cent. And we are looking at this question.

Quite often when you go into the individual case, it's due to the fact that the person has not taken occupancy or has not actually got title, and there can be other difficulties.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

MR. MORRISON: What about the delinquency on that? Are you getting much in the way of….

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Going back….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Members not speak from their seats?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, maybe we could have another go at this later.

We do not anticipate these leasehold lands as being a special governing area. They will pay municipal taxes, maintenance and such will be under the municipality. In fact the municipality has been, up till now … say in the case of Kamloops, they brought a proposal to us for development of those lands, and then we mulled that over. There is a tremendous amount of involvement at the municipal level in terms of the planning.

In the case of Chetwynd, the municipality did just about everything — called tenders and everything for us — just subject to our approvals. We made progress payments to them on that basis. It's very much in cooperation with the municipalities, or at that least has been the way we are working.

With cooperatives, they are 50-year leases. They do terminate and there are reversions to the Crown provided in those cooperative leases at present. That's as much their idea as it is ours at this time. That, largely I would imagine, evolved from the situation in Vancouver where the model was taken

[ Page 2047 ]

from the Amor de Cosmos Co-op where the City of Vancouver drafted a similar type of agreement to that cooperative. Since then we have sort of stood in the position that the City of Vancouver did in the original agreement.

MR. MORRISON: On that cooperative again, where they have a 50- or a 60-year term, could you give me an explanation of this Pembroke one which is using houses which have a life expectancy of perhaps 10 years — they are being moved from another area? They are already old houses, and the mortgages on the houses, I gather, are for 10 years, but the Pembroke Co-op are, I believe, having a 60-year term on their mortgage. What happens in the intervening period, whatever that might be? Because they're paying, obviously, a 4 per cent return for a 50 or 60-year period, but the houses which are going on it, obviously, have no life expectancy equal to that term. There seems to be quite an area there that I'd like explained, if I could.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: We haven't drawn up the lease for that, but we recognize that the life expectancy of the buildings is a problem. We would probably make the lease at least five years in excess of the life expectancy and any terms for mortgaging of the buildings, because they'll have to get some sort of financing in order to make the required adjustments to those buildings. I think what they plan to do is change them into duplexes, each of those four buildings.

Interjections.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Just one. Four will be regular.

MR. GIBSON: A question to the Minister. Given the fact that on these cooperative mortgage approaches, at the end of 50 years the improvements revert to the Crown, what in heavens is he going to do at the end of 50 years? I appreciate that it will be the problem of some other government and some other Minister, but how is he proposing it be handled then? Will all those people then have their housing taken away from them?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: I think that would be rather difficult, but these terms are written into some long-term leases, sometimes into industrial leases. I would think that the government of the day would….

MR. GIBSON: Have a mess on their hands.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: I don't think they'd have a mess on their hands. They'd have this very good housing and they could put some sort of a period on it, or rent it at some economic rent for the remaining life expectancy. But these people look to have their investment out of it and during the last years they will be building up an equity because their mortgages will have been paid off. In the last 10 years they will have a period in which they might opt, and they're talking this way now, although they know that it's presumptuous for even the present Members to predict what will happen, say, 40 years down the road. But one of the possibilities that they are talking about is building up a fund in those last years so that they would have an equity when they get out.

MR. GIBSON: I'm just finding it so difficult to follow the Minister. I don't understand how you can have an equity in something that reverts free of charge back to the government. It's a very great puzzling statement.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Okay. Fair enough. Co-ops are very puzzling, that's a fair enough statement. The basic concept is that they take out shares proportional to the value or square footage of their home — something in the range from, say $1500 to $2000. At some time, say five years down the road, they get their shares back at constant dollars based on some economic indicator which is decided upon within the cooperative.

But these people have self determination. These are the conditions that they accept. What they will be doing is paying a certain rent. Somebody else comes in later on down the road, he would buy in those constant dollars. The people who happen to be there for the last years could be in there for nothing almost. They'd have their maintenance costs, of course, which would have escalated by that time.

There's only one trouble with this co-operative. It's going to be too good a few years down the road, especially as they get into the 40th to 50th year. At that time there would be no more mortgage payments to make, and at that time they could if they wished, continue paying at those rental levels that have been established, put that into a special account so that they could pay themselves out with, perhaps, several thousand dollars at the end of the 50-year period.

This is a joint federal-provincial programme, federal Central Mortgage and Housing mortgages, and has leased land advantage. The only problem they seem to create is that the cost is too low at the end and what do you do with that tremendous advantage that is built up at the end. But that's a problem which, compared to the troubles we have today, I think we can look forward to.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Is the Minister suggesting that government will only lease lands that it controls to co-operatives?

[ Page 2048 ]

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Will it only lease lands to co-operatives? No.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, aside altogether from co-operatives, may I enquire into the policies that we will find with regard to the leasing of land to individuals for the purposes of constructing homes? The Minister, I am sure, is aware that following the construction of a home, the increase in value to that property, aside from increases due to shortages of supplies, inflation and so on, comes from the labour contributed to that home and homesite by the owner. That is the landscaping, the maintenance, the improvement of the interior — all of the sophistications which are added to the structure by the owner. That is a significant factor in enhancing the value of that property.

While I mentioned earlier the question of leasehold tenure being a British institution, we must also recognize, Mr. Chairman, that in Britain the people are not nearly as mobile as they are in Canada. In fact, there are families which have been born and raised and died and the second and third generations born, raised and died in the same home or home community. However, that's not the experience in Canada. I'm not sure what the most recent statistics are but back a few years ago it was found that people in British Columbia, at any rate, were changing homes every five to seven years.

Now, I pose this proposition to the Minister and I would like to know what would happen. If the government leases land to an individual who constructs a home and that individual improves the property — both the grounds and the buildings — and then by reason of a change in occupation or a change in family circumstance that person moves from that person moves from that home, will the government permit that person to sell the leasehold interest and the improvement at its then market value?

I would specifically like to know whether the Crown lease of the land will contain a provision prohibiting assigning or subletting, which is not unusual in leases. If such were to be the case, then individuals taking leases of Crown land and building residences would be placed in a very, very hazardous position. The government, in effect, could become and insist upon being the purchaser of that property in the event that the first owner decided or was obliged to move.

If that is not the case, if the Minister can assure the committee that once the land is leased and a house constructed the owner — first owner, second owner, or any subsequent owner — will always be at liberty to transfer the property for whatever its value may be, would the Minister then indicate what the situation will be as you reach the last few years of the lease? Even though the residence may be of significant value as you approach the tenth and the ninth and the eighth and seventh and sixth last year of the lease so that the Crown is going to acquire the rights not only to the land but to the buildings — in other words, the reversion then will become vested in the Crown — what will happen to the value unless the government is prepared to indicate quite clearly that that lease will be renewable?

In addition to that, Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the Minister could indicate in such a situation whether or not the land lease will be for a fixed annual rent over its life or will that land lease be subject to escalating annual rentals. Perhaps the extent to which the rentals might escalate will depend upon the length of the lease. I want the Minister to indicate what the government policy is in this respect.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: I'm afraid I will have to answer you in somewhat the same manner as I answered the Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson). You have certainly picked out one of the alternatives — either you allow assignments or you guarantee purchase by the Crown. We certainly recognize that and the resulting options of both of these.

As I said to the Member from North Vancouver–Capilano when he asked about the last 10 or so years of the lease, we also recognize the problems of maintenance and of reassignment within those last years for the owner, or the land tenant. He pointed out those problems, as I see them, very well.

That's as much as I am prepared to answer that at this time. I certainly have a very definite opinion as to how it should go. It's difficult that we announce these things piecemeal. Once you are committed on assignment versus guaranteed purchase, I think that all the other things pretty well fall into place.

The fixed annual rent would not be fixed throughout the 50-year term of the lease but the basis on which the adjustments would be made I would not make at this time.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Point of order. This is dealing with a taxation matter rather than philosophy. It was my understanding that we were going to deal with the leases and housing under vote 111. Now, are we going to repeat the same debate?

MR. CHAIRMAN: On the point of order, I just took the chair a short time ago and this discussion was already in progress. I would suggest that the Hon. Members try to bring this particular discussion to a conclusion as it doesn't seem to be very relevant to vote 107, strictly speaking.

MR. GIBSON: On a point of order, the matter was raised earlier with the Chair since the discussion already had started in terms of leasehold arrangements under this vote. It seemed more

[ Page 2049 ]

convenient at that time to carry on.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I think we had best stick to some form of order. It is my understanding there is an agreement on vote 111 to deal with these matters at that time.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, they are out of order, in that case. It was my understanding that there was a House agreement to go to 111.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would like to comment on the point of order. It is my understanding that those who were in the chair before me were calling attention to the fact that they should be strictly relevant to vote 107. I might point out that it is the administrative aspects or matters pertaining to homeowner assistance. I would request that discussion be relevant to the administrative aspects of homeowner assistance.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: On the point of order, I won't delay the Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) very long, but I just wish to assure the Chair and the Hon. Premier that this discussion arose out of a matter dealing with a home acquisition grant on leased properties. The Minister has been good enough to allow us to continue the matter of discussion of his leasing policy and I, for one, Mr. Chairman, have concluded my questions on that matter. It will save time on vote 111.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point is that the Chair wishes to avoid repetition.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): I don't think there is any intention for the Members to repeat in vote I 11 the line of debate they are taking in some of these other votes, but we do have a few things we wish to discuss and this is the first time this afternoon that I have had an opportunity to get to my feet in this debate. I have tried for an hour-and-a-half.

I would like to draw to the attention of the Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, a few problems that I think are important in this matter of homeowner assistance.

I would like to start by saying to the Minister that there is a great deal of conversation and interest and suggestions about what government should do to attract people into northern British Columbia. I think that it's not only the responsibility of the Minister of Housing but the responsibility of a number of Ministers to try to come up with programmes which help solve the problems of living in remote climates under adverse weather conditions.

It seems to me, Mr. Minister, that some of the problems, whether intentional or otherwise — or some of the solutions to some of the problems — are glossed over very lightly with respect to such things as homeowner grants and first and second mortgages to people who live in the north. The people involved, for one reason or another, run into endless problems trying to qualify for homeowner grants or for first mortgages or for second mortgages under the existing provincial legislation.

Now some of it has to do with the form of tenure that they have to their land. That's true. But that shouldn't restrict those people or prohibit them from exercising the same privileges as anyone else in the Province of British Columbia who happens to be fortunate enough to live in more urban surroundings.

I'd like to quote to the Minister from a letter I just received, not because this problem won't be solved. I think it will be. But this is a letter written to the collections officer of the Department of Housing in British Columbia concerning a second mortgage payment that's in default. The fellow indicates that he signed a monthly debit slip with the Bank of Commerce, Fort Nelson, and probably if the debits are not going through on a proper basis to the account, then somebody in an accounting department somewhere in Victoria is at fault. I agree with him. Probably somewhere in the administration area there's a mix-up, so he's getting letters now indicating that he's in default on his second mortgage payments.

But the thing I want to bring to your attention, Mr. Minister, which I think is more important than this particular little matter which can be solved, I'm sure, is the fact that this fellow says:

"Sir,

I have been thrown back and forth for over two years on this government second mortgage. It took me two years to get it; and now after filling out a form which authorized your department to take the monthly payment from my bank account, you advise me that I am in arrears."

And he goes on to say,

"Check your files, because I think that there's some mistake on your part rather than on my own."

Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, really I can see no valid reason why a person living in Fort Nelson should take two years to become eligible for a second mortgage loan. I don't know what happened in this particular case. I haven't been able to check out all of the details. But this is just one of the disadvantages that people suffer when they live 1,200 miles from the seat of government. Not only that; branches of government that we take for granted in many parts of the province are not there. They do not have anyone other than their MLA or their

[ Page 2050 ]

government agent to go to to try to help them solve the red tape, as they call it, that's involved in a number of these situations.

I don't think it is good. These people have as much right to attention and consideration and perhaps more so, because of the area that they live in, than other parts of the province.

I would also like to draw the attention of the Minister to another chap in Fort Nelson who is having all kinds of problems with respect to registration of a second mortgage. His problem comes about as a result of the fact that he's applied for tenure to Crown land under a pre-emption certificate. The man's name is Roy Manette, a person settling in Fort Nelson on 166 acres of land. He's built himself a home which cost him $14,000 to build. So that is certainly equity on his particular quarter-section of land.

Now he wasn't able to qualify for a conventional first mortgage loan because of the fact that he does not presently own the property. The title is still in the name of the Crown, and until he's been in residence for one more year on this particular piece of property he'll not be able to have title issued in his own name. But it just so happens that if he'd been on a lease-purchase basis, then he would have qualified for all of the conventional mortgages.

This chap has had to go to the bank and borrow the money that he needed, with collateral other than his home, in order to get his home built. He needs the second mortgage to help pay the expenses of additional improvements that he wishes to make to his home. But because of a technicality over the type of ownership that he has applied for, he's ineligible to qualify for a second mortgage loan.

Now it seems to me, Mr. Minister, that if it was a lease-purchase arrangement with somebody other than the government, there might be some reason to disqualify his application. But, No. 1, he's applied for Crown land under the form of tenure that was then available to him, which is a pre-emption of Crown land. No. 2, he's completed some clearing on this 166 acres of land that he has to do to qualify for a title issued in his name.

He's built a home which has cost him $14,000 in cash for the actual physical equipment that is there. So he does have equity, substantial equity, in a home on a piece of Crown land; yet he is refused the second mortgage registered against his particular property. He can't register the first mortgage against it. He went to the bank and borrowed that money, using other collateral to qualify his loan.

Now it seems to me, Mr. Minister, that if we are really vitally concerned about housing in this Province of British Columbia — and I think we are — surely we should be able to devise some method of removing these stumbling blocks from in front of people who are genuinely interested in becoming residents of British Columbia. In effect, he is a pioneer of this generation. The fact that the type of land tenure he has changed from a pre-emption to lease-purchase has nothing really to do with the particular problem. It's just one form of tenure or another, the result of which will end up in ownership by this particular man and his family.

Now if he didn't pay off his second mortgage, who would be the beneficiary? Obviously the Government of British Columbia would, because their land would return to their name, and so would all the improvements on it, including a $14,000 home.

I think it is unfair that this fellow, who has worked hard, who moved to the north because he likes northern living conditions, should have to face this type of a proposition. While I don't wish to prolong the debate, I can give you literally dozens of similar problems that people have brought to my attention because of the penalty they face for living and choosing to live somewhere other than an urban centre in the Province of British Columbia — to the extent sometimes that they've been ruled out completely; they've had to put in their own sewage system, for instance, and their own water supply. Well, this doesn't happen in other areas of the province. Yet they are discriminated against, in my opinion, because of the fact that the facilities are not as far advanced in these areas as in other parts of the Province of British Columbia.

I'd like to have the Minister reply to these specific cases, because it does give an indication of whether you are going to do something about it, or whether you can do something to assist these people qualifying for the type of loan that everyone else seems to take as a matter of their right in the province.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, I have had this matter brought to my personal attention, of the person who is proving up the 166 acres, and I'll certainly be looking into it further. It creates some problems, but I would like to thank the Member for his remarks.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would again just remind the Hon. Members that we are considering the administrative aspects of homeowner assistance.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, just a ruling. That area we were involved in earlier on leasing, and some of the philosophy behind it: so many were speaking it was difficult to maintain my position in the debate. Should we wait until vote 111 then?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would request that you wait until vote 111, which is more appropriate to this discussion.

MR. BENNETT: Yes, but the only thing is that

[ Page 2051 ]

the flow of the debate will be gone.

MR. PHILLIPS: I wonder if the Minister would give some indication of what interest rate he plans on charging for the money he's going to put out to give lower-income families assistance with mortgage money. I would like to know if it is going to be just a percentage point over the prime rate. Is it going to be subsidized by the government? Just what interest rate is he planning?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I think that question also would be more relevant under vote 111.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: There is legislation before the House pertaining to this. It will eventually be coming under this vote, I would imagine.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, just a brief question to the Minister with regard to assistance for native Indians. I understand that in order to finally qualify for the grants or mortgage people living on an Indian reserve have to submit those applications to their band council for approval first.

Is there any way, Mr. Chairman, that the native Indians living on reserves could be treated the same way as everyone else and just handle their own applications, or is that an absolute necessity of procedure?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: I think this is necessitated because the legislation was made retroactive and it was only through the band councils that we could determine which buildings were built, I believe, in the last five years. I think it was back to 1968 or thereabouts.

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: I know that; I know what's going on. That's got nothing to do with the question I asked, Mr. Chairman. It wasn't necessary for the Premier to jump up and chirp a little.

Is it true that it's no longer necessary for those people applying for the grants now? They just submit them the same way as everyone else.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: It is impossible for us to register these grants without getting into a legal tangle as it is reserve land in these cases. The procedure is that we always register a mortgage or a grant against the title, and before it can be transferred that has to be cleared with the Land Registry office. It is for this reason that we have to involve the band council.

MR. McCLELLAND: I understand that too. But the problem is that there is quite often a very serious delay in time in getting those grants approved because they may sit on the desk of a band council member for weeks and never get submitted to this office. I don't see how the provincial government can ever completely secure itself because it's always on a reserve. It's always under the jurisdiction of the federal government, so I don't see that that gives you any further protection.

I'm just wondering if there isn't a way that the application entry from the individual to Victoria can be speeded up, because it's slow enough as it is when it gets over here and if we delay it any further by going through band councils and getting delay there, then we're just making more hardship for the individual.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: We'll look into that.

MR. PHILLIPS: I asked the Minister earlier to somehow justify reduction in this vote 107. As I pointed out, it has been reduced from $395,000 to $360,000. I realize that the director of the homeowner assistance programme is now an executive, an Associate Deputy Minister. However, there is still an administrative officer, which was not in the vote last year, for the amount of $15,876. But the overall vote has been decreased. I would think that if the government is now going to go into the administration of mortgage money, is going to continue with the home acquisition grant Act, with the homeowners' Act, going to introduce a direct subsidy to the homeowner to relieve school taxes, and yet the overall administrative vote to the homeowner assistance and the number of persons involved in the department is reduced by some $35,000, I wonder how the Minister can justify this in view of the fact that he is going to give more assistance.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: There is going to be legislation before the House. When that legislation is passed we will be making representations to increase staff and to get the money for that staff. But we can't anticipate that increased staff within this vote.

MR. PHILLIPS: Now come on, the government has a majority and the legislation it brings in…well, they know it will get passed. It will be debated; we'll certainly bring up the good points and the bad points. But I think the Minister has to anticipate that the legislation is going to pass and I think there should be provisions in it because we get a little sick and tired on this side of the House of not having…. We might as well not even discuss the estimates if they're not going to be true estimates. I think that's a very poor answer. I'd like to know why this vote is reduced when there is going to be more responsibility under this department.

[ Page 2052 ]

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Member, there have been changes in the staff and there will continue to be. I would estimate that the impact of the new programmes will require about an additional 24 or 25 staff. I asked this question prior to preparation of estimates, and it's apparently not proper that you anticipate legislation in preparing estimates.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would point out to the Hon. Member for South Peace River that the point the Minister has made is correct. Therefore it is not evidently proper to include anticipated costs under possible increased legislation in the vote. We're considering only the vote as presently authorized.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I could go through these estimates which we have before us and I could find places where there is legislation going to be brought in and there is provision made for this legislation in the estimates. If the Minister of Finance wouldn't allow for the additional 24 or 25 people he is going to have to administer this new legislation, I don't….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would point out to the Hon. Member that it is not proper to discuss something which is not in the vote. The time to bring it up is when it appears in another vote where it shouldn't be.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'd like to know what other vote these extra 24 or 25 people are estimated in, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The estimates before us are what we're being asked to consider only, not any possible legislation that might happen in the future.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, we are discussing the Department of Housing and its estimates for the forthcoming year. I think that anyone with any intelligence at all would realize that in order to discuss these estimates intelligently and the personnel that is going to be required by the Department of Housing, particularly under the home assistance vote, which is 107, the estimates should be intelligently prepared.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: Now, I'm suggesting that they're not.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: They're misleading.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I would point out to the Hon. Member that we're not considering hypothetical situations; we're considering an actual vote of money before us, and what that money is intended to be spent for. That is what we're discussing. I would ask the Hon. Member to keep his remarks relevant to what's contained within this vote.

MR. PHILLIPS: I would suggest then, Mr. Chairman, that it would be very difficult. The government should bring in legislative programmes so that the Minister can properly prepare his estimates.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We are not here to consider possible legislation. We are here to consider this vote before us. I would ask the Hon. Member to keep his remarks relevant to what's contained in the vote.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, as I pointed out to you, there have been many times and many instances in this House where the government has brought into the estimates projections of legislation that is going to be passed. In view of the Minister's remarks I'm….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! You are continuing a debate that is out of order. I would ask the Hon. Member to confine his remarks to this vote.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Chairman, I don't know how it's out of order.

MR. McCLELLAND: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

Do I understand you to say that we can no longer, as an opposition, question the adequacy of the estimates if, in fact, we feel that the amount of money is not adequate to meet the needs of that particular department? I suggest that is not correct at all. That's a part of the job of the opposition.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On the point of order, the proper time to consider whether or not there is an adequate amount of money provided is in the budget debate. It's for this reason that the estimate books are provided to the Hon. Members at the time the budget is introduced. When we are in committee we are only empowered to consider the specific vote before us, and the amount contained within that vote.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I would suggest….

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for South Peace River on a point of order.

MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, it's not a point of order. We're discussing a particular

[ Page 2053 ]

vote here. The budget gives you the overall view.

I thought the purpose of discussing the detailed estimates of the Minister was to discuss such things as we're discussing right now. I suggest it's raining out, not snowing out, and I would be almost tempted to challenge your ruling on it because — unless somebody can advise me otherwise — that is what the detailed estimates are for.

Here we have a clear case where the estimate really is not a projection of money that's going to be spent under vote 107, homeowner assistance, because as the Minister said, he's going to require an additional 24 or 25 persons.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I made a ruling to the Hon. Member that we must confine our remarks to the vote before us and what's contained in the vote…

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I am confining my remarks to the vote before us.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. ...and not to speculate on what should be in it or what might be in it as a result of legislation, but rather to consider only the items and the amounts contained within this vote.

MR. PHILLIPS: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

I would suggest that I'm not speculating at all because the Minister has told me that he's going to require an additional 24 or 25 staff to administer further programmes under the homeowner assistance. I'm saying that they're not in the estimates; therefore the estimates aren't worth the paper they're written on, or the ink it takes to put them on the paper.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to ask the Minister, through you, whether or not during his conversation or consultations with his counterpart in Ottawa the subject of having Indians own their own lands on reserves has come up. If not, will the Minister make it a priority part of his programme?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. That is not a matter which we can consider under this vote.

MR. McCLELLAND: Why not, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Because we're only.…

MR. McCLELLAND: But they're directly on homeowner assistance, Mr. Chairman. It's the problem of Indians not owning their own land which creates some of the difficulties in getting quick access to homeowner assistance. I suggest it's perfectly relevant under this vote.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The matter, though, is one which would obviously have to be done by legislation, by legislative change on the floor of this House.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, the question is very simple: he's been in consultation with his counterparts in Ottawa. All I'm asking is if that subject has come up, and if not, will he bring it up? It's a legitimate question to ask about a legitimate problem which exists in homeowner assistance.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I must rule that we must debate only those matters which are contained within this vote 107, and that is not a matter which is….

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I beg to differ. It certainly does have to do with this vote because we've been talking about assistance to Indians who live on reserves. We talked about it in the past and this afternoon and you didn't rule us out of order at that time. Obviously it was in order then and obviously it's in order now. I just asked for a simple answer to a simple question from the simple Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. If the remedy for this problem which you raised was one which could be changed by a regulation under the Minister's responsibilities under this vote, then it would be in order, but since it's obviously a matter for legislation — federal-provincial discussion — it's not something that should be discussed under this vote.

MR. McCLELLAND: Nothing should be discussed under this vote.

MR. PHILLIPS: There is one further point that I would like to bring up before we move off this estimate — and it's not a very good estimate at that.

In this report that was recently handed down to the Minister — I refer to the report on why we haven't got housing in the lower mainland — it's a report that was prepared by the UCS board of directors. Their first recommendation, which I think it is certainly very appropriate under this vote, is to adjust the per capita grant to municipalities based on the number of families moving in and out of the assessment base of that municipality. This certainly would be an assistance to the homeowner and assist those municipalities who have private deeded land available. Has the Minister given any consideration to this first recommendation in this report? Is he aware of the report?

[ Page 2054 ]

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, I don't really feel that comes under the homeowner assistance branch under this vote. I'd be pleased to discuss the report with the Member at some other time.

MR. PHILLIPS: Vote 111 then, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Perhaps the Hon. Member could raise it at that time.

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): I understand that the interest rate for the assistance, the second mortgage, that goes to new homes, that the original regulation on these interest rates is that they shall not be greater than the interest rates that prevail at the time by CMHC. As recently as this year the interest rate for a second mortgage through the homeowner assistance grant is in the neighbourhood of 8.5 per cent. CMHC rates prevailing at the same time are 9.5 per cent. Since the homeowner assistance interest rates do not agree entirely with those rates charged by CHMC, is it not possible that these rates could be reduced even lower, and that rather than them being 8.5 per cent, they could be, say 5 per cent? Does the government have any projection at all, or are they giving any consideration to making this second mortgage, which is in the neighbourhood of $5,000, available at a rate of 5 per cent?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: There are no plans at this time. But the current interest rate is 8.75 per cent, however with the forgiveness features under the programme, the effective interest rate on a 25-year mortgage would be 7.5 per cent.

MR. MORRISON: Mr. Chairman, I'll be brief. Just before we leave this vote...earlier when we were talking about cooperatives and the 50-year term at 4 per cent interest, will you normally be taking a mark-up on the land that you have purchased when you re-lease it? For example, again referring to that case of the Pembroke Development, the property was bought at a certain figure and the long-term mortgage on that one, the long-term lease was....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would again caution the Hon. Member that we are trying to confine the discussion at the present to the administrative aspects of homeowner assistance.

MR. MORRISON: I think that's exactly where it belongs. I can't see any other vote where this question would belong and that's why I'm anxious to get it into the Minister's vote.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps the Minister could indicate....

HON. MR. NICOLSON: We have pretty well agreed, I think, to carry this on in vote 111.

MR. MORRISON: Could you not answer that one?

Vote 107 approved.

On vote 108: renters grant, $12 million.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, this is a deviation from the previous grants. It's going to, as I understand it, allow a renter of rented premises, apartments, et cetera, to receive from the government $30 a year, approximately $2.50 a month. I don't think this is going to in any way solve the problems of the renters, because if there is no space available what good is $2.50 a month going to….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would draw to the attention of the Hon. Member that Bill 8, Elderly Citizen Renters Grant Amendment Act, 1974, would be the proper place to discuss the principle of providing the renters grant. The administration of this grant, of course, can be discussed under vote 108.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, what I'm saying is: what is the good of this particular vote if the rents are going to go up? And rents are going to go up because there's going to be no new construction. And there's going to be no new construction because of pending legislation. I'm suggesting that this whole vote of some $12 million, the good that it was originally going to do, which is small enough in itself, is going to be completely lost because of this government's attitude. The way to bring down the price of....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I tried to point out relatively quietly that this matter should properly be discussed under Bill 8, not under this particular vote. This merely provides the renters grant of $12 million. It is the bill that deals with the amendment to the renters grant Act.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Chairman, it's under the administration of the Minister and it….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. It's a question of appropriateness, Hon. Member. That is, the place to discuss something is in the most appropriate place. And the most appropriate place, clearly, is the consideration of Bill 8, not this particular vote.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Chairman, the purpose of the Act…. We're being asked to vote on the sum of $12 million to provide rental grants. I'm suggesting that in providing $30 to a particular renter is not going to in any way really alleviate the situation that

[ Page 2055 ]

we have. That's what I'm trying to point out, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. That is the principle of Bill 8. However, there is already a renters grant Act in existence and this money is provided under that Act. Therefore it would relevant to talk about it, providing you don't discuss the proposed amendment contained in Bill 8.

MR. PHILLIPS: All right, then we'll talk about renters grants in general. Would that be all right, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The name of the Act is Elderly Citizen Renters Grant Act.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I'm not talking about elderly citizens, I'm talking about renters grant, period. I certainly want to cooperate with you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to abide by your decision, but here you're asking this Legislature to okay the sum of $12 million. What I'm trying to say is that I think the effects of this $12 million of taxpayers' money is going to be lost. The reason I say that is because of the shortage of rental accommodation. That is what is really going to drive the rents up, and this $30 a year or $2.50 a month is going to be lost.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I have made a ruling that the principle of this bill not be discussed under this vote, inasmuch as bills take precedence. There is a bill before us now on the order paper and therefore we cannot anticipate the debate to come up under that bill. Therefore I must regretfully rule him out of order.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Chairman, I feel that if renters' grants are going to do any good at all, this figure should not be $12 million but $360 million so that it could be $30 a month instead of $30 a year. I'm suggesting that this isn't enough money.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would also point out to the Hon. Member, and I am sure the Hon. Member well knows, that in estimates it's not permitted to propose an increase to a vote but only a decrease to a vote.

MR. PHILLIPS: You mean I can't say that I don't think this is enough money, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The place to discuss the adequacy of the amounts of money is in the budget debate, not in the actual consideration of the votes. These are the rules of the House.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, what can we discuss under this vote, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: You can discuss the administrative responsibility of this particular grant as it exists under the present Act and also propose a decrease if you favour it or indicate that you think it's enough.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I'll ask the Minister of Housing if he feels this is enough money. Let the Minister answer; he must have something to say. If we're going to give him $12 million, let him say a few words to alleviate the….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! There is going to be a full debate on this whole matter when we come to Bill 8 and therefore....

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, you're anticipating legislation. Now, you just told me a little while ago that….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The Chair is not anticipating legislation. It's legislation on the order paper now and therefore…

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! ...automatically rules out of order any consideration of any matter covered by this bill.

MR. WALLACE: On this vote and the administrative aspect of the vote, could I ask the Minister what the administrative mechanism will be whereby the $30 will be made available to the renter. Is it in any way attached to the amount of rent or people under 65? Are they all treated alike?

What are the factors? What are the administrative plans of your department to provide the $30 to each renter? Is there any length of residence in the province, for example, or do you get it as soon as you come in?

There are 100 questions which go through my mind as to how the administration of this $30 grant to renters will be applied.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! In regard to the point, this matter is relevant only as it applies to the existing legislation. Therefore he could only describe what's happening at the present time.

MR. WALLACE: With respect, Mr. Chairman, a minute ago you said we could talk about the administrative responsibility of the Minister in relation to the renters' grant. I am asking the Minister how he is going to administer the renters' grant.

This debate is becoming absolutely farcical; you can't talk about anything in this debate. I am asking a straight question in relation to your guidance which you gave from the chair a minute ago. Now, no

[ Page 2056 ]

wonder this House is falling apart.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I have no control over the introduction of bills.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): On a point of order. The Hon. Members should understand that this estimate deals with the Minister's job of conducting the present renter's grant. It has nothing to do with that $30 a month. You will be given every opportunity to debate that under Bill 8.

If you want to talk about the elderly citizen renters' grant, that's what you talk about under this vote. You have been talking for 2½ hours over there, all over the place. You talk for three or four days, all over the place.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

HON. MR. COCKE: What a ridiculousness!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The point of order was well taken. What may be discussed at this time is what is already in existence.

I also would like to point out to the Hon. Members that the Chairman does not introduce legislation and therefore has no control over the fact that this bill is on the order paper which automatically rules out debate on certain points.

MR. PHILLIPS: Does the increase in this vote 108 from $3,500,000 to $12 million take into consideration an increase, which is legislation, to $30 a month?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: I think that's a rhetorical question. What we are doing is putting $12 million into this fund. There could be a surplus in there if we don't find some other way of spending it other than at the rate of $50 on elderly citizens. Should there be an increase in the elderly citizens' grant and other increases as a result of other deliberations in this House, there would be sufficient to provide for 50,000 grants of $80 to elderly citizens. Perhaps grants of $30 would be left over for some 260,000 other persons.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would make a point in terms not only of the questions but of the answers. We should not anticipate what might or might not happen as a result of a bill coming before the House in the near future. We are only concerned....

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, just a minute. I have a point of order I would like to raise.

Here in vote 108 we have a clear indication of allowances made for anticipated legislation — clear-cut and dried. Anybody would be stupid not to recognize it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. PHILLIPS: Yet in vote 107, I was cut off in debate because there wasn't sufficient money to administer new legislation that's on this. It's no wonder, Mr. Chairman, that we get frustrated here in the opposition. The estimates are as phony as $2 bills and they are not worth the paper they are written on.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, we're not dealing on a point of order with anticipated legislation. The legislation is on the order paper; it is Bill 8.

In answer to that Member's question, there is already an administrative procedure in the Department of Finance to allow these rebates to go out. If the Member would check the anticipated passage of this bill — and I think the bill will pass; there doesn't seem to be any opposition to the concept — the formula and the method and the procedure already exist. It expands the availability, that's all. The Finance department administrative people will carry the expanded responsibility for the new eligibility but the method of application will still continue.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): I gather from what the Minister said a moment or two ago that there are approximately 300,000 individual grants being allowed for in this particular vote. Would that be right, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! That would be a question to direct to the Minister.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Trying to be constructive, that's about the size of it. Yes.

MR. McGEER: Do we gather from this, then, that there are approximately 300,000 rental units in British Columbia today?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Eligible recipients.

MR. McGEER: Three hundred thousand eligible recipients? How many legal rental units would there be in British Columbia?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 108 pass?

MR. McGEER: We're keen to know, Mr. Chairman, what the total number of units is because

[ Page 2057 ]

it bears on the potential size of this grant.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. McGEER: It's something we might want to debate on the bill when it comes up.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. McGEER: This information will be valuable.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The question may be asked.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: A point of order. This will depend on the definition of an eligible resident in the legislation, so once again we are talking about legislation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I believe the question of the Hon. First Member (Mr. McGeer) was how many are presently on the renters' grant of the elderly people. Is that correct?

MR. McGEER: No. What I asked was how many grants were being allowed for with the $12 million. The Minister answered that question; he said 300,000. What he didn't answer for me — and a piece of information I need to know before I would be happy about seeing this vote pass — is how many total rental units there are in the province. Then we will know what percentage of people who are renting would be....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Had I understood the question, I would have ruled it out of order in the beginning.

MR. McGEER: Why is that, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The question is clearly out of order in that it is beginning to trespass into the area covered by the proposed legislation.

MR. McGEER: No. We are merely seeking information, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The information which the Hon. Member may seek is that which is already in existence, that is, say, how many people are now presently covered by the renters' grant. That's all.

MR. McGEER: But what he's got to do is try and sort out…you see, it's an estimate, the $300,000, Mr. Chairman. The Minister said it was an estimate. Here we are dealing with the line-by-line expenditure and we're asked to vote here $12 million. Mr. Chairman, that's the sum of money we're thinking about. Well, I'd just like to pause and consider $12 million and try to understand, if I may….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey has been in the House longer than many of us have, and I'm sure he understands that when there is a bill on the order paper covering the same subject matter that it precludes discussion of any matter that may be brought up in the bill.

MR. McGEER: No, no! What it does, Mr. Chairman, if I may, Sir, it precludes debate of that bill. I'm not debating the bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: You are.

MR. McGEER: No, I'm not.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I'm making a ruling that you may not raise any matter which is trespassing upon the subject matter covered by the bill.

MR. McGEER: Well, I'm not.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would rule that the question that you have directed to the Hon. Minister of Housing is out of order on those grounds.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, are you trying to tell me that it encroaches on the material in a bill to ask how many rental units there are in British Columbia? Next it would be out of order to ask what the population of the province is or how many….

Interjections.

MR. McGEER: No, but it would be that you would find no place in the estimates where you could ask how many people there were in British Columbia. I'm asking something I feel is very important to know before we pass $12 million. That is, how many rental…. You know something, Mr. Chairman...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I will make the ruling….

MR. McGEER: ...I'll bet the Minister doesn't know the answer to that question. It's pretty practical to somebody who's involved in housing, and you're trying to cover up for him. He doesn't know and you're trying to protect him.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

Interjections.

[ Page 2058 ]

MR. McGEER: No, he's trying to protect that Minister. He's on his feet, preventing him from answering questions.

AN HON. MEMBER: Would the Hon. Member remain seated until I've made my remarks?

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's quite obvious under standing order 43 that the Hon. Member was being tediously repetitious. I ruled you out of order and you continued in the same vein. I would ask you not to continue on that same vein again. I have made the ruling that any questions about matters which would be more properly brought up under Bill 8 should be left until that time.

MR. McGEER: Debate on Bill 8 is going to be pretty broad-ranging. I'm making a list of the things here that we're to debate on Bill 8 because we aren't asking them in these estimates. But I'd like to ask then, of the 50,000 who are now receiving the extra money, not the $30 but the $80….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. These 50,000 are not yet receiving $80. They're receiving only that which has been covered by the previous existing legislation.

MR. McGEER: Well, okay. Let's go over the ones who are on the existing legislation. Is that group growing? What is our increase in the number of people over the particular age group who are receiving this? Is it growing rapidly?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: I can tell you that there were 47,890 applications last year. We anticipate an increase.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, there's something doesn't add up here. There's 50,000 recipients under this figure of $12 million, more or less, did I just understand the Minister to say? And the grant is $50 a year. As I multiply that out, it comes to $2.5 million — not $12 million, which we're being asked to approve. I wonder if the Minister could reconcile the figures. Exactly how many people are receiving this? Is he closer than a factor of six, perhaps? Could he give us a guess a little bit closer?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would make a ruling that the question is quite improper in this respect. There is a bill on the order paper which does anticipate this matter. The connection between the figure and the bill I think is clear in the Member's mind, or ought to be. But the point is we may not discuss the subject matter or any matter which will be covered by the subject matter of this bill.

MR. GIBSON: But, Mr. Chairman, I understood you to have told the House that this $12 million in the estimates is the amount provided for the existing programmes. So, Mr. Chairman, I'm asking, what's the existing programme? How many people are there? How many are covered by it? And how does that add up to $12 million? That's a very simple question.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'll maybe phrase the question in a different manner. There are $12 million in the renters' grant, and I'd like to ask to whom is the $12 million going and how much for each individual? Now that's a pretty simple question.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would rule again that the estimate clearly anticipates the bill. However, in….

MR. PHILLIPS: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Order! When the question was raised previously in regard to vote 107, the Hon. Minister indicated that he preferred not to include the additional possible administrative costs, because he didn't think that it was proper. In this case, it is included…

MR. PHILLIPS: May I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

…and therefore I think it's quite clear what's here. Now what the propriety of what the Minister has done is not something we should discuss at this time. Therefore, unless there's a new matter to be raised, in order, under vote 108, I'll put the vote.

MR. PHILLIPS: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. You just stated that this amount of $12 million clearly anticipates legislation.

Now I was ruled out of order on vote 107 because there weren't sufficient funds under vote 107 to look after a piece of legislation that is before the House. You said that these estimates couldn't anticipate legislation. Now, Mr. Chairman, you are an intelligent man. I want you to put yourself in my place, trying to work for the taxpayers of the province and intelligently debate the estimates of a new department. One minute you tell me one thing and the next minute you tell me something else.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, while I clarify the point with the Hon. Member. I pointed out the appropriateness of either including or not including funds in the estimates is a proper discussion under the

[ Page 2059 ]

budget debate. But when we're considering the vote, we're considering only the particular item before us, whether we're going to approve this amount or whether we're not.

MR. PHILLIPS: I challenge your ruling, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member state what ruling he's challenging?

MR. McGEER: He's challenging your right to tell him to shut up. (Laughter.)

MR. PHILLIPS: Your ruling is this…. I guess you got me there (Laughter.). You've already ruled me out of order on one issue, and you turn right around the next moment, Mr. Chairman, and tell me something else.

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: So I will ask again, Mr. Chairman. To whom is the $12 million going and how much to each person? Now that's a....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm being asked to vote yes on $12 million. I ask a simple ordinary question and I get no answers from a new Minister. Now I want an answer, Mr. Chairman, and if the Minister doesn't know, well say so.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Obviously the money is going to the people of British Columbia.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, to whom in the Province of British Columbia and how much is each one going to get? Now that's a simple, basic, elementary, grade 2 question.

AN HON. MEMBER: Under Bill 8.

MR. McCLELLAND: I wonder why, I'd like to ask the Minister perhaps he can tell us then, how many people are going to get this grant, today? How many people are going to get this grant?

Interjections.

MR. McCLELLAND: You've given us a number of different figures, Mr. Chairman. We'd like to settle for one.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The matter we're being asked to consider is the vote before us, whether we're going to approve the $12 million. The Minister has been asked and he has indicated that it predicts or at least anticipates what is contained in Bill 8. And the Chair has ruled that we may not discuss any matter that is covered by Bill 8.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, are you telling us that this House is being asked to vote funds that it cannot debate? Surely you're not saying that.

MR. PHILLIPS: Sure he is.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I realize the Member is new. I realize the Member is new and doesn't realize how the system operates. There's money here which may or may not be used for a certain purpose. But no matter how many vote for this particular vote, you're not going to expend any money by passing this vote that is not legally authorized. There is legislation existing which allows the expension of certain moneys under the existing legislation. Now there's also legislation that's on the order paper, dealing with some proposed new programmes.

No matter how much money is in this vote, it cannot be spent, even if this vote passes without the passage of Bill 8. That's where the debate should take place; that's really when you are authorizing the government to spend the money. Even though this vote passes, the government can't spend the money until the legislation goes through the House.

MR. BENNETT: I just question that from the Minister of Transport and Communications because there is a bill that Bill 8 is replacing. So if we pass this money, it could be spent under the previous bill. This renters grant just has the loose title "renters grant" which could refer to the elderly citizen's renter grants or any new legislation.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Of course it refers to the renters grant. But the only legislative approval we have is under existing legislation. Bill 8 is an amendment to the existing legislation. Without approval of Bill 8 by this House, nothing beyond would exist in legislation that could be spent. I think we're pretty clear on that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The point is that we're being asked to vote on the information provided to us by the Minister.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'd like you to clarify now a point which I brought up before. This is for my own clarification, so I abide by the rules of the House. You told me a moment ago that the estimates couldn't anticipate legislation. The Member who just took his place, the Hon. Minister of Transport and Communications, told me clearly that this vote

[ Page 2060 ]

indicated proposed legislation. I'd like just a clarification, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, the point is, Hon. Member, that you may refer to legislation if it clears up a point in regard to the estimates, but you must not discuss legislation or propose things which are matters of legislation.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, what can we discuss then under vote 108? We can't ask to whom it is going. We can't ask how many. Well I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that under vote 107 and the other votes here, it's very detailed. In preparing this vote 108, I'm sure that the Minister of Housing just didn't reach into the air and pull out a figure of $12 million; at least, I would hope that he wouldn't. All we're asking is that when he was preparing this estimate, he must have anticipated….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. This matter has been disposed of.

MR. PHILLIPS: Disposed of? My foot it's been disposed of!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The matter was raised with the Minister and the Minister has given his answer.

MR. PHILLIPS: The Minister has given no answer; that's not true. If you'd just let me finish, Mr. Chairman, for a moment. I just want to say….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Order! The Hon. Minister could not proceed any further with this without trespassing himself on Bill 8. Therefore, unless you are prepared to discuss the administrative responsibilities of the Minister in regard to this vote as it now is authorized by present legislation, then you should take your place.

MR. GIBSON: Leaving aside Bill 8 completely, I wonder if I could ask the Minister to say how much of this $12 million is authorised under existing legislation and to how many recipients it goes?

MR. CHAIRMAN: That question is in order.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: There's no limit set out in the existing legislation, the Elderly Citizen Renters Grant Act.

MR. GIBSON: But how many payments?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: How many payments were made last year? There were payments of $2,346,355.

MR. GIBSON: Well then, by quick division, that's roughly 50,000 recipients. I'd just like to ask the Minister if there are any particular administrative problems in sending out this number of cheques, if there have been any complaints received by him or his office and if there are any improvements in the system being set up before it expands to the much larger number of people that may be contemplated.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: There have been no great difficulties — some little delays, and we've made improvements in terms of computer preparation and such, and we're looking to a better operation.

Vote 108 approved.

On vote 109: Grants in aid of construction of homes for elderly citizens, $10 million.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to ask the Minister if he could advise me what the present status is of the Canadian Legion Kitsilano senior citizens' housing project at 7th and Maple in Vancouver.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: We've had discussions with the people of the Shalom Branch Legion. I received a letter from them and I have sent a return letter to them. I think there is agreement in principle on scaling the project down to a three-storey building. There's agreement in principle from the City of Vancouver to close off a section of Maple Street which would allow approximately the same number of units to be built on a three-storey, or possibly with a four-storey section in it, but under the 35-ft., zoning which has now been brought in for the rest of the area, although not legally binding on them.

MR. McCLELLAND: Supplementary: you're confident that negotiations will be successfully concluded on the project then?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, I'm pretty optimistic at this time that we will be able to work something out, yes. As I say, the City of Vancouver does have to close a road. I can't speak for them, but we have agreement in principle. We're looking at their cost to date and a few things. I'm optimistic about it.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I presume that the considerable increase in money is to provide a third of the capital cost for a larger number of homes than have been built in previous years. By my calculation, this would provide 1,250 units. Actually, in the Minister's speech on February 14 in the House, I think he mentioned 3,000 units for senior citizens. so I'm just wondering if there's a discrepancy there.

[ Page 2061 ]

Beyond that, I'd like also to ask what the Minister's decision is, or if there is a decision, regarding the fact that there should be tax exemption for senior citizens' residences which have been built with the aid of one-third provincial money. Would he care to comment on that? It's my impression that there's been some discussion as to whether or not this should be permissive on the part of the municipalities or whether it should remain obligatory.

Certainly the municipalities feel that if it becomes permissive, it is simply that the provincial government is transferring a responsibility for raising of tax revenue on property, when in point of fact they should either leave it the way it is or they should make a transfer of payments to the municipalities to compensate for their requirement to raise that tax revenue themselves. I wonder if you could comment on that.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, this is only one of the thrusts for senior citizens' housing under the sponsorship route for sponsored senior citizens' housing. This doesn't preclude housing which can be built under federal-provincial partnership agreement under section 40 or 43 of the National Housing Act. So our estimates here are approximately 1,500 senior citizens' dwelling units at an average cost ranging from $20,000 to $30,000, and then divided by one-third. That's looking at some considerable increases in construction costs. I think that's allowing f or considerably higher cost than has been experienced in the past.

On a change to permissive legislation on new dwelling units, on new projects built under this, the onus would be that the people would have to pay taxes; the sponsoring society would have to pay taxes. This would mean increased rentals. There should then be a subsidy agreement between the federal and provincial governments. We're willing to share 50-50 in this where, under the permissiveness allowance, the taxes are being paid. So there should be a subsidy based on ability of the residents of these units to pay — putting the subsidy on the individual, rather than on the unit.

MR. WALLACE: Just a quick supplementary. Do I understand the Minister to say that — and correct me if I'm wrong — but my understanding at the present time is that the municipality cannot charge municipal property tax on a unit that was built with one-third of the funds coming from the provincial government. Is that a correct understanding?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, in that case….

MR. WALLACE: Maybe the question should be more basic. Has the government any plans to change that, and if so, why?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Yes, I intend, on new projects, to have a change which would make this permissive, and where these taxes have to be paid, there would be the necessity for higher rents.

That would require the subsidy programme which I mentioned in order that we not price this out of the range of the people whom we most intend to assist.

The reason is that there is tremendous foot-dragging in certain areas. Some municipalities have been very frank about it; they see this as a burden and that can take many.… Well, I hesitate to say devious ways, but there can be foot-dragging of many different kinds in terms of approvals, in terms of okaying plans or okaying, perhaps, road closures. The cooperation which has been received to date actually is remarkable in light of this, and there has been quite a great deal of cooperation.

Certain municipalities have not allowed this to go through at quite the rate others have. Some have just never questioned this and have, as a consequence, a lot of this type of housing in their municipalities.

MR. WALLACE: Just a very quick comment. Would it not be just as simple to provide grants in lieu of taxes to the municipalities, since this is done in many other government properties? I know this isn't a government property we're talking about but government money is involved. Why go through this "left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing," or so it seems to me. It's a very roundabout and bureaucratic way. In point of fact, all you are trying to do is keep the rent in the housing unit down. Why not just give the municipality grants in lieu of taxes?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: The machinery exists by entering into a subsidy agreement with the federal government, whereas grants in lieu of taxes would probably be borne 100 per cent by the provincial government.

MR. PHILLIPS: May I ask the Minister if he feels that self-initiated programmes by non-profit societies is the best method of providing housing for elderly citizens, or is the government going to initiate projects on its own? What is the policy?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: I think you've paraphrased the policy. Our first approach is through non-profit societies. Government has built some senior citizens' housing through the federal-provincial partnership, but it's our first choice to have it done through a non-profit sponsor.

MR. PHILLIPS: If the government builds them itself, will there by any difference in the formula for working out the rent?

[ Page 2062 ]

HON. MR. NICOLSON: In the ones which we are going to be working out for ourselves — straying from this vote — we will be looking at a revision of the rental formula. We're looking to a change toward a rent-to-income formula where there will be an economic recovery rent set by Central Mortgage and Housing but assistance would be given to individuals below that.

At present, the policy has been to set the rates of contiguous projects. If there's a federal-provincial project contiguous to a sponsored project, and the rent in the sponsored project is $80 a month, then the federal-provincial project has been $80 a month although it might not really be related to the actual costs. If the contiguous project is $40 a month, then the federal-provincial project tends to be $40 a month.

It has not been on a consistent basis within and we would look toward moving toward subsidies for individuals up to economic recovery, which is, of course, still at pretty reasonable rates because you have reasonable interest rates.

MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you. On the same point, I'm glad to hear the Minister say this. If a non-profit society provided a rental unit and the government put one down the street with much lower rent, the tenants might have a tendency to move out. The unit which was originally contracted and had a mortgage on it could be left vacant. So I'm glad to hear the Minister.

Where the government is going to provide rental housing on its own land and put up its own unit, on what basis will grants be made in lieu of taxes to the community where that unit is going to be placed?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: I might just go on with the last question a little bit too. In some cases we're even looking for non-profit sponsors to look after the management of contiguous federal-provincial projects.

Repeat that last question.

MR. PHILLIPS: Where you have a project which is completely government-sponsored, on what basis are you going to provide grants in lieu of taxes to the communities where these exist?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Full taxes have always been paid by federal-provincial government-sponsored projects.

MR. GIBSON: A point of clarification. With regard to the federal-provincial projects, section 43 of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act, did the Minister say there are funds for that purpose to be found in this vote or elsewhere in the Minister's estimates? The Minister shakes his head. Where will they be found?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: No, they would be found in vote 111, I believe, in the housing fund.

MR. GIBSON: With respect to the funds used under this vote, the $10 million for one-third of the cost of 1,500 units, the balance of the two-thirds of the fund would come largely from the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Would that be correct? The $20 million or so, in other words?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Yes, that's correct. I think a grant of $10,000 and financing on the balance.

Vote 109 approved.

On vote 110: grants in aid of construction of special care homes, $2,000,000.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'd like the Minister to indicate to me why there is no increase in this grant. I'm going on the presumption that special-care homes could be intermediate care.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: No.

MR. PHILLIPS: Would the Minister explain the grant to me, then?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: This will be used for hostel-type homes, some of which might have provision for some light nursing care. There's a real gradation of responsibility between my department and the Department of Health here: the Department of Health picks up where we leave off. Intermediate care in not envisaged here, but perhaps provision for regular visiting nursing care may be included in something built under this. Many of these are simply the hostels which are built. With hostels the grant can be 35 per cent rather than 33 1/3 per cent.

MR. PHILLIPS: Everybody in these particular homes, then, would be completely ambulatory.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Yes, they are supposed to be completely ambulatory and certainly would be at the beginning. There is trouble which occurs in these people hesitate to leave. We have an interdepartmental committee coordinating anything that touches upon the care facility.

MR. PHILLIPS: How much of this grant was spent last year?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Grants last year totalled more than $3,786,000 in aid of eight projects. That

[ Page 2063 ]

was 35 per cent of the total cost of those projects.

MR. PHILLIPS: You are then anticipating a cutback this year. Don't you anticipate spending as much money as you did last year?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: As I say, we're sort of delineating this. I think some of this will come up in the Health vote where it really is getting into care. We're trying to make a separation. There is a grey area there, and there will be more care, especially in intermediate-type care which you talked about at the beginning of your remarks under the Health vote.

MR. PHILLIPS: I don't wish to prolong the debate on the matter, Mr. Chairman, but there was no increase; there was only $1 million in the Health vote for intermediate care also. I don't think we will make any progress in this area of intermediate care, and it bothers me.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Could you point out why this allocation of funds is in your particular estimates instead of the Department of Health estimates?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, this was under the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall). The administration for this vote is under the Elderly Citizens' Housing Aid Act, which was transferred to me. It comes together with the other funds for the elderly type of self-contained suites and such. We are going to, as I say, cut off the responsibility of this; we are not going to enter into Health care. These will be boarding hostels.

Vote 110 approved.

On vote 111: housing and development, $50,000,000.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: This is the one! This is the one!

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would like the Minister to table the appraisals for the individual parcels of land and the individual projects that were purchased when he purchased Dunhill Development Corporation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I'd just point out to the Hon. Member that we may not table any documents in committee. This must be done when we're meeting as the House. When we reconvene as the House....

MR. PHILLIPS: All right, I'll say he doesn't have to table them if you'll just have them copied and passed around like he did the other day, so we can have a look at them. Or we could adjourn the House right now so the Minister could have the opportunity to table these documents because he said he would table them on Monday, and I asked him about it earlier. Maybe he should have tabled them at the beginning of this afternoon's sitting.

I don't really care how it's done, Mr. Chairman, as long as we get the copies of the estimates. There are some questions that we'd like to look at in this purchase of Dunhill Development, which is now Woodbridge Development Corporation, the purpose of which, as stated by the Minister of Housing, was to buy a management team so that housing in British Columbia would be able to take off to new heights and help solve the crisis which we have.

He tabled with the House, on Friday last, the results of the appraisals which he had done and he indicated to the House that he has, indeed, been dealing with Dunhill since last September, although the actual purchase was not made until sometime in January.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: A point of information, Mr. Chairman, I at no time indicated that I was dealing with Dunhill in September.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! That would be a point of order.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order then.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Minister made the point of order that he did not.... Would the Hon. Member for South Peace River continue, please?

MR. PHILLIPS: There were appraisals carried on where certain assets of Dunhill were appraised in September. I would suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that in preparing an ordinary financial statement where the company has just recently purchased certain assets, it would not be necessary to have them reappraised because I would suggest that they would probably have an appraisal done before these assets were purchased. So, I fail to understand why Dunhill would have these appraisals carried out in September. As I say, in dealing on your financial statement you work from the cost, and unless you were trying…like on D-day for income tax purposes, everybody had their assets appraised so that they could start from day I for income tax and capital gains purposes. Maybe the Minister could explain to me what Dunhill had in mind when they were having these appraisals carried out last September. I'd be quite willing to have the Minister explain that right now, at this time.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: I understand that their

[ Page 2064 ]

fiscal year ended October 31, I believe, and these appraisals were done to bring their assets up to date for their annual financial statement which was subsequently audited following October 31.

MR. BENNETT: To the Minister. Unless a company is changing its accounting procedures, their inventory for taxation purposes must be taken on a consistent basis. If I remember the statement from Dunhill, they were always done at cost. Why would they change their procedure this year and go to an appraisal system, unless it was for some other purpose?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: I don't know for what reason they would ask for these. I think it might be good business practice to have some idea how much all these lands were worth. I know that they were reaching the end of their tether with some lands in Richmond which they were planning to dispose of and subsequently did. That was in process before we had any meetings with them. I would imagine this is probably the reason.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, on the same point; the new appraisals do not seem to show up in the financial statement that they tabled. Maybe I've got the wrong document here, but it's Dunhill Development Corporation Ltd. and subsidiary companies, financial statements for the year ended October 31, 1973, and it's Coopers and Librand. Had these appraisals shown up in their financial statements as of this date, then the increased payment by the government from $2.3 million to $5.8 million would not be justified, if the new appraisals were in the financial statement. What I'd really like to know, Mr. Chairman, is at what date did the Minister start dealing with Dunhill.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I would just elaborate on that point. If the appraisals were done, as the Minister said, for a change in their bookkeeping system for taxation purposes, why were not these appraised values used in this financial statement?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: I have suggested if that is the reason, I imagine they were disposing of properties at this time — sites in Richmond among others — disposing of the Lac la Hache property which we indicated. They were, I suppose, looking to the disposal of.… Those were properties which were not developed and whether they decided to have a complete appraisal done at that time is something that I don't know.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, if they were just having one or two difficult properties appraised I could see it. But apparently, according to your statements in the House the other day, they had all their properties appraised — not just the problem properties but all of their properties appraised, some of which you had a second appraisal on. Perhaps this matter will become clear to us when you produce these documents before the House, as you promised to do last Saturday. I wonder if, before we come to the debate again, you could find out the reasons for these appraisals because I can't see an appraisal of all properties if it was specifically just problem areas with just one or two.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: I'm sorry, I think I've created some of the misunderstanding here. Penny and Keenleyside did appraisals of the Mission property; the OMI, Simon Fraser hills, and 4th and Clarkson in New Westminster. Those were the ones, I guess, that were done in September. Mr. Chauncey did the remainder.

I would have to check out some of the others, but I believe that Mr. Chauncey did the remainder.

MR. BENNETT: Then it's not correct that these appraisals were done for taxation purposes.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: I would have assumed that they were doing it for some purpose related to, maybe, future taxes or something. But that was maybe an assumption on my part. I don't really know what they were doing last September and why they, were doing it.

MR. PHILLIPS: Would the Minister advise the House if he was dealing with Dunhill when the appraisals that were carried out in early December were ordered by Dunhill?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would again point out to the committee that the matter of the transaction of the purchase of this company is now before the courts. I would ask them to be careful not to trespass into an area that is sub judice.

MR. PHILLIPS: That's why I'm being very careful in trying to word the questions in such a manner that it won't transpose on the matter before the courts.

The Minister indicated to us on Friday that the remainder of the properties which were not appraised in September were appraised in early December. I'm merely asking the Minister to indicate to me: when these appraisals were carried out, what was the purpose of Dunhill Development Corporation in having these further appraisals carried out? Were they also problem properties? Or were these properties appraised not by Dunhill Development or under their direction, were they, indeed, appraised by order from the Minister of Housing?

[ Page 2065 ]

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, I think that most of this is sub judice. I would just point out that the appraisals done in December, to my understanding, were done by Mr. Chauncey, who was an independent appraiser hired by Dunwoody and Company and hired by our side. So the appraisals done in December were done by Mr. Chauncey.

I find this rather difficult. I could answer some of these questions, but I'm afraid it could be sub judice. It certainly seems to be heading in that direction.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The line of reasoning, I think, is the cause of concern to the committee. I would ask the Hon. Member, when he's putting his question, that he relate it to the specific administrative responsibility of the Minister, but avoid any development of the reasoning which seems to lead to the matter before the courts.

MR. BENNETT: Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm not aware of the exact details of any matter before the courts, or where we would trespass on the actual action. But I know that the appraisals were brought up as part of the value of Dunhill toward the government. All we're trying to find out is when those appraisals were initiated. The Minister has indicated that he'll table the appraisals in the House. I think the question doesn't relate to any wrongdoing. It's a question of the government's appraisals and when they initiated them, and the general discussion of the negotiations.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would point out a matter of order to the Hon. Member that none of us are really in a position to differentiate between what is in fact relevant to the court case and what is not. Therefore, any matter which even comes remotely close to, or even borders on the area which is before the courts, I must regretfully rule out of order and ask him to confine his remarks to the strict administrative responsibilities of the Minister.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, to my understanding of the parliamentary procedures, this committee is not aware of any matter being before the courts. Maybe someone would have to advise this committee. The committee is discussing the estimates of the Minister of Housing on some matter that might be before the courts. I'm not aware of all the matters that are before the courts; therefore, this committee is not aware of any matter before the courts.

I'd like again to ask the Minister of Housing: were these appraisals carried out by Dunhill Development Corporation? Were they carried out with the thought that Dunhill was going to be purchased by the provincial government?

He talked quite openly and quite freely about these appraisals on Saturday. As a matter of fact, yes, it was Saturday morning — Saturday afternoon? Well, it was sometime on Saturday. He clearly indicates in Hansard, Mr. Chairman, that he said he would table these appraisals. So I think that the appraisals are certainly appropriate matter for debate in committee, the committee not being aware of what goes on outside or even in the House.

On two occasions, Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Housing indicated that he would table these appraisal documents, so if they're going to be tabled I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that certainly they were subject for debate in committee.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would point out to the Hon. Member, in regard to the point he raised about whether or not we know whether something is sub judice in committee, that there are two points. One is that it is public information that there is a court case involving the principals of Dunhill — a lawsuit, as I understand.

Also the Hon. Minister has indicated that there is a serious possibility that the matters raised are sub judice, and therefore the Chair must make a ruling. I would rule that continuing this line of reasoning is out of order.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, if this matter could be referred to the Speaker, since there are previous House rulings on matters sub judice, and with the understanding that this could be referred to the Speaker, I move the committee rise, report resolutions and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports resolutions and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:55 p.m.