[ Page 2107 ]

CONTENTS

Privilege

Use of dining room facilities. Mr. Chabot — 2107

Mr. Speaker — 2107

Routine proceedings

Public Service Superannuation Act, 1974 (Bill 95). Hon. Mr. Hall.

Introduction and first reading — 2108

College Pension Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 96). Hon. Mr. Hall.

Introduction and first reading — 2108

Teachers' Pension Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 97). Hon. Mr. Hall.

Introduction and first reading — 2108

Municipal Superannuation Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 98). Hon. Mr. Hall.

Introduction and first reading — 2108

Public Works Fair Employment Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 87). Hon. Mr. King.

Introduction and first reading — 2108

Fair Sales Practices Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 65). Hon. Ms. Young

Introduction and first reading — 2108

Oral questions

Forfeiture of driver's licence. Mr. McClelland — 2108

Vancouver purchase of Orpheum Theatre. Mr. McGeer — 2108

Second reading of Bill 75 (rent stabilization Act). Mr. Wallace — 2108

Possible appointment of Mr. Calder as Deputy Speaker. Mr. Smith — 2109

BCTF expulsion policy. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2109

Vancouver Island Coach Lines. Mr. Curtis — 2109

Railcar shortage. Mr. Fraser — 2109

Expropriation of North Vancouver city property. Mr. Gibson — 2109

Arpro Developments Ltd. Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 2109

Government plans for North Vancouver. Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 2110

Sawmill at Burns Lake. Mr. Phillips — 2110

DREE projects. Mr. L.A. Williams — 2110

Crown corporation taxes. Mr. McGeer — 2110

B.C. Hydro bus system losses. Mr. Bennett — 2110

Income assurance for hog producers. Mr. McClelland — 2110

Tabling of DREE agreements. Mr. Chabot — 2110

B.C. Tel application to CTC. Mr. Smith — 2111

Planned Kokanee hatchery increase. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2111

Relief from higher oil prices for B.C. residents. Mr. Gibson — 2111

Government assistance for Okanagan fruit processor. Mr. Curtis — 2111

Coal Act (Bill 92). Hon. Mr. Nimsick.

Introduction and first reading — 2111

Committee of Supply: Department of Housing estimates.

On vote 111.

Mr. Bennett — 2111

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2112

Mr. Bennett — 2112

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2112

Mr. Bennett — 2112

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2113

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2113

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2115

Mr. Wallace — 2115

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2117

Mr. Wallace — 2118

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2118

Mr. McClelland — 2119

Mr. L.A. Williams — 2123

Mr. Phillips — 2126

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2126

Mr. Phillips — 2127

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2129

Mr. Fraser — 2129

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2133

Mr. Chabot — 2133

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 2135

Mr. Chabot — 2135

Mr. Gardom — 2136

Mr. Phillips — 2142

TUESDAY, APRIL 2, 1974

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker, I hope the Hon. Members will join in welcoming Mr. Frank Sims who is in our gallery today. He is the chairman of the Manitoba Liquor Control Board. This also happens to be his birthday, so I hope that the House will toast his presence and his birthday.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure of introducing to the House today my mother and with her my aunt, Mrs. Marion Craig, who has come to visit us from that great province of waving wheat and wavering politicians, Saskatchewan.

MR. C. LIDEN (Delta): Mr. Speaker, we have in the gallery today a class of high school students from Delta Senior Secondary School in Ladner, along with their teachers, Mrs. Tanner and Mrs. Lorenz. I hope the Members will make them welcome.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Up in the gallery is a group of citizens from the senior citizens centre in Oak Bay, and I would ask the Members to welcome them.

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): I think it's only fair that someone introduces to the Hoase the mother and father of our Speaker, Mr. and Mrs. Dowding.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege. Last night we sat fairly late and the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) and the Member for Columbia River went into the dining room to have something to eat for reinforcement as it appeared that we were going to be here for some time. We hadn't eaten from 6 o'clock on because we were going through this occupational health thing. We had to take some blood tests at 8 o'clock in the morning. When it appeared that we were going to be sitting fairly late, we wanted something to eat. We went to the dining room at 12:45 a.m. and found that there was a minimum of food, that there was no cook. The only thing available to us was crumpets, tea biscuits or toast, and coffee. However, we did manage; I took on some crumpets and the other Member took on toast.

My point of privilege is: I don't know whether it was because of a shortage of food or not, but it came to my attention that Sunday afternoon there were massive trays of food leaving the dining room out the front door of the parliament building. The trays were filled with fruit, vegetables, meat, sliced meat — massive trays were going out the front steps.

MR. SPEAKER: What has that got to do with last night? There was no food?

MR. CHABOT: Maybe all the food left on Sunday. It was most unusual to see — I've never seen it in the 11 years that I've been here — the dining room functioning on a Sunday, to see food leaving the dining room, especially. I could understand it functioning for some special reason, probably with leave of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! Are you suggesting that somebody was taking food that belongs to the Legislature?

MR. CHABOT: I'm suggesting that there was food coming out of the dining room in trays….

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce): By itself? (Laughter.)

MR. CHABOT: And I'd like, Mr. Speaker, if you could explain to me in view of the….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I'm glad to discuss the matter with you personally, any time you want.

MR. CHABOT: Well, in view of the fact that the food was leaving this building on a Sunday afternoon, and as you are in charge of the dining room, I was wondering if you could tell me just….

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, I know exactly what it was all about. It was my food. It was for a party the Speaker was holding, and it was bought by me. It didn't belong to this House and it didn't belong to the government. And I hired the people who were using it. Now if you'd asked me personally any time, I could have told you that. But you wanted, apparently, to make an issue of it.

MR. CHABOT: Well, yes, because the cook from upstairs was carrying the food out….

MR. SPEAKER: I paid for his services as well, sir.

MR. CHABOT: And what kind of a party were you throwing, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: For the Members of this Legislature and I intended to invite you to the next one. I'm starting to wonder whether I should. (Laughter.) The next point is: I couldn't come up

[ Page 2108 ]

there and do the cooking for you last night because I was helping your hon. colleague in the library, getting his books. (Laughter.) I can't do everything around here. (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell us about the bloodshed.

MR. CHABOT: One other point. They dropped one of those little strawberry tomatoes, and I stepped on it accidentally on the steps going up. (Laughter.)

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): I'm glad to see the Member fighting for his constituency.

PUBLIC SERVICE SUPERANNUATION
AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

Hon. Mr. Hall presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Public Service Superannuation Amendment Act, 1974.

Bill 95 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.

COLLEGE PENSION
AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

Hon. Mr. Hall presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled College Pension Amendment Act, 1974.

Bill 96 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.

TEACHERS' PENSION
AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

Hon. Mr. Hall presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Teachers' Pension Amendment Act, 1974.

Bill 97 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.

MUNICIPAL SUPERANNUATION
AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

Hon. Mr. Hall presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Municipal Superannuation Amendment Act, 1974.

Bill 98 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.

PUBLIC WORKS FAIR EMPLOYMENT
AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

On a motion by Hon. Mr. King, Bill 87, Public Works Fair Employment Amendment Act, 1974, 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.

FAIR SALES PRACTICES
AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

On a motion by Hon. Ms. Young, Bill 65, Fair Sales Practices Amendment Act, 1974, 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.

FORFEITURE OF
DRIVER'S LICENCE

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Speaker, a question to the Attorney-General. During his estimates the Attorney-General promised that he would look into a matter which I raised regarding Wesley Vaughan of Aldergrove, and also that he would look into the possibility of altering the regulations which allow the Motor Vehicle Branch to lift licences in the case of people who owe certain indemnities. I wonder if the Attorney-General has had a chance to look into that, and whether he expects any action.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I'm not prepared to make a statement at this time. It is still being looked into.

VANCOUVER PURCHASE
OF ORPHEUM THEATRE

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, some time ago the Premier took as notice a question we asked whether the provincial government would give assistance to the City of Vancouver to purchase the Orpheum Theatre. I wonder if the Premier could make a statement now, in view of the letter that the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford) wrote to the city yesterday.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The question is still taken as notice.

SECOND READING OF BILL 75
(RENT STABILIZATION ACT)

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact

[ Page 2109 ]

that many tenants are being given abrupt notice to vacate apartments because of pending legislation, would the Attorney-General give urgent consideration to giving second reading to Bill 75 in the very near future?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

POSSIBLE APPOINTMENT OF
MR. CALDER AS DEPUTY SPEAKER

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Hon. Premier. A few days ago it was reported that the Hon. Member for Atlin (Mr. Calder) is away from the House on leave attending a Commonwealth Parliamentary Seminar in London, England. It was further explained the purpose of the seminar was for the training of chairmen and speakers.

Is it the intent of the Premier, upon the Member's return, to appoint him chairman or Deputy Speaker of this Legislature?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. This is not a question that can be asked of anyone in the House. That is for the House to determine, not for the Premier.

MR. SMITH: Upon the authorization, Mr. Speaker, of the leader of the government.

MR. SPEAKER: Nonsense!

BCTF EXPULSION POLICY

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, last Thursday the Minister of Education took on notice the question that I asked her regarding her department's attitude towards the BCTF policy of expelling teachers from the federation if they "fail to cooperate with his or her professional organization." Now, as it's a requirement that you must belong to the federation to teach in the province, may I ask the Minister whether she's had the opportunity in the last six days to look into this matter, and whether she could report to the House at this time?

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): I have not. I answered a similar question yesterday for the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace), and I said I am setting up a meeting with the BCTF. I certainly cannot answer that question until I have done that.

VANCOUVER ISLAND COACH LINES

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, with respect to Vancouver Island Coach Lines in Victoria.

I wonder if the Minister could indicate if any provincial government official or employee is now involved in giving policy directions or recommendations, written or verbal, to the VIOL management

HON. J.G. LORIMER (Minister of Municipal Affairs): I will have to take that as notice.

RAILCAR SHORTAGE

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): I asked the Premier yesterday, as president of the BCR, if he had anything further to report on the acute railcar shortage, and if discussions were taking place between the CNR and BCR on this subject.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The report is, Mr. Speaker, to the Member, that the negotiations are going on very well. We are pleased with their progress and we hope shortly to have an announcement.

EXPROPRIATION OF
NORTH VANCOUVER CITY PROPERTY

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs, with respect to the very valuable 17 acres of North Vancouver city put under notice of expropriation by the province.

I wonder if the Minister could reassure the House and the city, or if he can't give reassurance right now, give urgent consideration to the question of the city not thereby losing any tax revenue. In other words, will the provincial government be paying full taxes on the property?

HON. MR. LORIMER: I want to thank the Hon. Member for giving me notice of this question. I am prepared to assure him at this time that the city will not lose revenue. As far as the other area of concern, everyone in the area will be treated completely fairly.

May I, Mr. Speaker, answer some questions that I took on notice a few days ago?

ARPRO DEVELOPMENTS LTD.

HON. MR. LORIMER: The Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) asked: could the Minister tell the House whether Mr. Parker, director of transit, was instructed to ask North Vancouver city council to drag its heels considering a request for Arpro Developments Limited in January to carry out a $25 million development near the Seaspan property on the North Shore? The answer is no.

The Hon. Member for Oak Bay also asked how long will the government indulge in negotiations before resorting to expropriation of the same

[ Page 2110 ]

property. The answer is as long as necessary. (Laughter.)

GOVERNMENT PLANS FOR
NORTH VANCOUVER

HON. MR. LORIMER: And the Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) asked: would the Minister advise the House if the National Harbours Board, the Greater Vancouver Regional District, or the Canadian National Railway were advised of this government's plans in respect to North Vancouver? First of all, the harbour master was consulted by the transit bureau in regard to the ferry system. Secondly, the property involved was the property set out by the regional district in their plans for the last four or five years.

SAWMILL AT BURNS LAKE

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. Some time ago the Minister was presented with a proposal regarding the construction and operation of the sawmill at Burns Lake by the British Columbia Association of Non Status Indians. l would like to ask the Minister if he has reached a decision regarding this proposal.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources): I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, that there were proposals from West Fraser Sawmill and Babine Forest Products, as well as the British Columbia Association of Non Status Indians. I will take the question as notice.

DREE PROJECTS

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: To the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce. Could he advise the House of the projects which have been approved under the general agreement with the national government concerning the Department of Regional and Economic Expansion? I gather from the agreement that the projects can only be approved up to March 31, 1974.

HON. MR. LAUK: I'll take that as notice and answer it later in the week, Mr. Speaker. I'll get the details for the Hon. Member.

CROWN CORPORATION TAXES

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) some time ago gave indication that there would be no more special tax deals of corporations in cities and municipalities in British Columbia. This has caused some confusion because some people believe that Crown corporations would now pay full local taxes, but evidently the Deputy Minister of Finance is not aware of this. Could the Premier clarify whether Crown corporations in British Columbia will now pay full municipal taxes?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Policy, Mr. Speaker, and I'll take the question as notice.

B.C. HYDRO BUS SYSTEM LOSSES

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): To the Minister of Municipal Affairs as a director of Hydro. In the Vancouver Sun of March 26 there was a report that the nine-month loss on the B.C. Hydro bus system was $11.4 million. Contrasting this with the 1972 to March 31, 1973, loss of only $4 million, I wonder if the Minister could tell whether that figure includes the $2 million government subsidy, or what additional costs are in that figure.

HON. MR. LORIMER: I'm sorry, I'll have to take that as notice. I'll get the answer for you this week.

INCOME ASSURANCE
FOR HOG PRODUCERS

MR. McCLELLAND: A question to the Hon. Minister of Agriculture. Since hog producers in the Fraser Valley are in serious trouble meeting their production, or at least getting decent prices for their production, can the Minister tell us whether or not he is near agreement with the hog producers for an income assurance scheme and whether negotiations are still going on?

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): An interim plan will be announced very shortly, Mr. Speaker, but it is recognized by the industry and by us that it's just interim.

TABLING OF DREE AGREEMENTS

MR. CHABOT: A question to the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce. Will the Minister be tabling in the House the DREE agreements signed with the national government?

HON. MR. LAUK: Yes, I'll table it in the House later this week.

MR. CHABOT: Later this week?

HON. MR. LAUK: Yes. You don't want the original. Can I table a copy?

MR. CHABOT: Yes, a copy will do.

[ Page 2111 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

B.C. TEL APPLICATION TO CTC

MR. SMITH: My question is to the Hon. Attorney-General. It is reported that B.C. Telephone is presently preparing a case to go before the CTC for an increase in the rate that they will be charging users of telephones in the Province of British Columbia. Does the Attorney-General, or someone from his department, intend to appear on behalf of the provincial government as an intervener in this particular application?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) is the Minister directly involved, but we've already conferred about the matter. I don't think we've been served with formal notice of the application, but I think it is extremely likely that this government will intervene in order to protect the consumers of this province.

MR. SMITH: A supplemental question on the same subject quickly, Mr. Speaker. Will the government as an intervener appear before this hearing and either support or oppose the application? Which side do you intend to take as government?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I think it's extremely likely that we will oppose the increase, because in my opinion the rates are already more than adequate for the telephone users of the province of British Columbia.

MR. SMITH: One more supplemental question, Mr. Speaker.

If that proves not to be the case, do you not feel you have a responsibility to the civil servants in the province whose funds you have invested in shares of B.C. Telephone?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, we will be protecting the consumer full out in respect to this application, notwithstanding any investment portfolio that might exist.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, may I welcome the Minister of Recreation and Conservation to the chamber?

MR. SPEAKER: You haven't got much time for that; you had better hurry.

PLANNED KOKANEE HATCHERY INCREASE

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Will he tell whether his department has plans for substantial increases in the Kokanee hatchery production in B.C.? It's a question of which I have given him notice.

HON. J. RADFORD (Minister of Recreation and Conservation): I'll take that as notice.

RELIEF FROM HIGHER OIL
PRICES FOR B.C. RESIDENTS

MR. GIBSON: A question for the Premier, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday the Premier advised us that the cabinet meeting this morning would take into consideration the question of price relief for the high cost of oil for British Columbians. I wonder if he has anything to report to the House on that.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we did take it into consideration.

GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE FOR
OKANAGAN FRUIT PROCESSOR

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Agriculture. Has he received a request or has his department received a request from Paradise Products Ltd. at Naramata with respect to government financial capital assistance? This firm is engaged in opening up new markets for processed fruit in the Okanagan Valley.

HON. MR. STUPICH: I'll have to take that as notice, Mr. Speaker. I'm not familiar with the name.

COAL ACT

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

Bill 92 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.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING

(continued)

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

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Chairman, last night at 11 o'clock when the

[ Page 2112 ]

House was adjourned for the first time, I had been asking the Minister of Housing some questions dealing with the lease of land. Unfortunately I never got a chance to regain the floor nor did he to respond to these questions. I wonder if the Minister can remember those questions which dealt with policy as to the intent of leasing, covering particular economic groups. Is the Minister prepared to answer those now? Or would he like me to re-elaborate on those questions?

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister of Housing): I believe I did explain some of the things. I think that the major aspect to the land-leasing programme is that we do want to give assistance. And where we give assistance there must be some opportunity for controls, because we recognize that our venture is not into the total market but in a limited sense into this market. We must therefore bring certain controls and measures with our action in this respect, or else we, in effect, end up printing paper money if we just give subsidies without certain protection to the people of the province.

As I have said before, we see this as an alternative to pure rental housing. That is, where the land is leased, the person does have the control over the maintenance, the alteration, the appearance and upkeep of the dwelling unit. They have a tenure which we feel is sufficient to ensure stability and security.

We also find ourselves blessed in certain areas with Crown lands. We will be able to make these lands available to people for reasonable cost where we have not had to incur all the costs of land acquisition.

We will also with this be able to distribute our total housing budget in this vote so that where in communities we are not blessed with this presence of Crown lands — such as we are blessed in Kamloops and in Williams Lake and places where we have either Crown land or B.C. Rail land or some other such land — we might be able to even out some of the costs and recover sufficient from our ventures in one area to perhaps subsidize to some extent another area that might prove to be more expensive. That is because we require land acquisition as well.

So we're looking and are very cognizant of the fact we do this within a real estate market which is very high. We're trying to come in with an alternative.

I must say that there are two types of criticism we get about the land-lease policy. One is that we're going to give too much away. The other criticism is that nobody's going to want it. I don't know how our critics can reconcile those criticisms, because obviously if it's too good, then somebody must want it.

There are many rationales for this, and we do have to be careful not to get into confusion of land banking as some people do with land leasing. But I think that perhaps the first and foremost rationale of this is that we can only enter into the market in a limited way. Until the real supply and demand problem is broken — and certainly we can't do that in one year; we have to be careful — we have to have restriction, and certainly leased land is an opportunity in this respect.

We also are encouraging people — and people have started even before we took office — to build cooperatives on leased land; we're trying to encourage this. We would not seek to come up with something that would prejudice the type of initiative that's being taken and which presently has some 1,600-odd units under construction or occupation.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, one of the questions I raised was that rather than the government buying a tremendous amount of land in landbanks, there should be some utilization of the municipalities themselves in developing their own development corporations. They could utilize their own landbanks or lands they have available in a programme of providing serviced lots. Recognizing the fact that they have the local expertise, you would only be duplicating a service if you took off the lands from them and then took it to the government and then developed it under their rules and conditions — and had to deal back and forth under another level of government.

What I was asking was whether you would consider making money directly available to the municipalities to develop municipal serviced lots with a municipal development corporation, recognizing that they are faced with and are aware of local needs. That was one question. Could you answer now?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Yes, I also flipped back to some of the other questions you asked.

W e are assisting municipalities and have demonstrated this in two instances with Greater Vancouver Regional District, who were a tremendous assistance to us in the initial stages of our land-banking programme, when we had to work under the old statute of the Housing Act, 1960.

We have agreed to sell them a piece of property called the Coast Meridian property in Port Coquitlam, and they will be entering into building family rental housing under section 15 of the National Housing Act. We will probably assist them also with interim funding capital so that the flow of progress payments from Central Mortgage and Housing doesn't impede their relationships with their contractors and such. There tend to be delays there, and we would like to see those delays prevented.

I've also pointed to the initiative taken by Penticton and the assistance which we have given to them — I believe up to $500,000 interim capital. The project was started last October and I imagine that our interim funding will be returned to us probably by June. It's being advanced to them as work

[ Page 2113 ]

progresses.

We've also had discussions with Port Moody, and we have made a tentative offer to them to assist them. They have plans for 15,000 dwelling units on their north shore. We have made an offer to assist them in proceeding with their enterprise in that area, in order that it might take place at a greater rate than what they might have been capable of with their limited borrowing powers; so we do recognize that.

One of the other questions you asked last night was about private holdings land lease. I'm not leaning toward that, but something that is being given some consideration is perhaps where land is held by some non-profit type of group in their title; we might be able to authorize their leasing to some cooperative or something. There could be some instances arise, but we're not looking towards continuing large landlords and such, which I think is contrary to the philosophies of both of our parties.

You did ask about the option to purchase. I have said earlier in the estimates that I am not giving that consideration at this time. We're looking toward a pure leasehold.

MR. BENNETT: Just one further question, Mr. Chairman. Dealing again with municipalities, in order to get these serviced lots onto the market to meet the crisis, would the Minister be able to deal with the Municipal Affairs Minister in getting enforcement of the 60-day approval clause in all property subdivisions? Part of the problem of getting serviced lots onto the market has been the failure of municipalities to react to requests. These requests and proposals have sat on their desks far beyond the 60-day requirement. Sometimes it's over a year and up to two years.

This isn't helping to solve the serviced lot problem. I think now, in the philosophy you have in meeting the crisis, you must show some direction to these municipalities so we don't have what we have in some cases where municipalities or local governments put heavy imposts onto certain service areas, making the cost prohibitive and holding up the serviced lots meeting the price requirement that we're concerned about meeting.

I wonder if you could tell me, through you, Mr. Chairman, what sort of action your department will take with Municipal Affairs in bringing this about.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: I could say that these are certainly some of the most serious problems that exist. We are looking at this, but in a more total sort of a way. I'd hate to pick on one segment and try and place the blame in one area, because I think that if blame is to be meted out it must go in many, many different directions. So we are looking at this, but in more of a total context.

We are presently gathering information, getting chronicles of approval hurdles that are being taken by many developers — projects that have been going on for two or three or more years, and then for shorter term projects. Mr. John Northy is assembling some hard data on these things. But certainly not all the blame lies at the municipal level.

MR. BENNETT: Is the provincial government prepared to enact a subdivision code of basic services for subdivision lots in the province specifically aimed at a lower price need? Now we agree that this is the area of market that isn't being served.

Again, many municipalities are demanding too many frills to meet the cost. They are dealing in an old supposition that everything had to be curbed and guttered, and with storm drains and underground wiring; and it put the price of these lots out of the reach of the area of market that we have to look after in this province — the area of need that we're all concerned about.

Would you consider a subdivision code of basic utilities for the province to meet this one area of need?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, again I find that your analysis of the problem is good. I could even point out other things, such as underground parking requirements in certain areas. For a third of the price of underground parking, one could provide tremendous recreational facilities within subdivisions and such. One really wonders what the priorities are.

It again is a matter that we are looking into. However, I haven't considered one uniform subdivision code for the entire province. I think that we do have to look at local needs and that there is a place for certain types of services.

In certain areas, for instance, overhead wiring is invisible. You go into Oak Bay where the place is very well treed and such and you don't even notice it, but in other areas where they lack some of these amenities, or some of the established type of foliage, it's very visible and very oppressive.

So I do think that municipalities should have a hand in planning and in setting some local standards. I am hesitant at this time to presume to run over municipal regulations, but some of them are definitely getting to be a little bit much. I've seen, as I say, where we spend much, much more for underground parking of cars than what we might be able to put into splendid recreational facilities. Heated indoor pools and such can be put into strata corporations for less money than we're presently paying for underground parking.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Chairman, the Minister mentioned in his speech during the budget debate that a substantial increase would have to come from the federal government. I believe he

[ Page 2114 ]

mentioned a figure of $73 million that came last year into British Columbia through CMHC or through the Urban Affairs department federally. In the intervening period — getting on for two months — he's had discussions with his federal counterpart. I wonder whether he could indicate at this time how much the new figure might be that they've arrived at, and what programmes in this budget might be cut or altered, depending upon the amount of money he receives from the senior dominion government.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, Mr. Member, we haven't been told how much will be forthcoming. I do believe that they are a little apprehensive that we've taken such an initiative. But I am sure that this is a programme which is going on in many different provinces across the country, and there will have to be more money forthcoming. We will certainly be taking up everything that is available, and then I think we'll have to be pressing for more.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, as the Minister says, the federal government is apprehensive; everyone in this opposition also is apprehensive about the construction of housing in British Columbia in the coming year. But the answer didn't really give me much in the way of guidelines to go on. Is there pressure one way or another that one form of housing is to be advanced rather than another? I remember that Mr. Andras, the former Minister, certainly devoted almost his entire budget to low-cost housing back in the early 1970s. Has there been any change?

I just wonder whether he could be more forthcoming with details, and certainly with figures, because $73 million is a tremendous amount of money. It's larger than the amount we're discussing at the present time, the provincial contribution. It would seem that the Minister at this stage should have a better idea than he's indicated to us as to how the two levels of government are going to coordinate the provision of funds.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, to the leader of the Liberal Party, I just say that for years and years there has been a lack of pick-up at the provincial level. Funds were available in excess of those which were taken up in programmes. I think last year was the first year in which we committed our allotted share and then more, because I imagine that in other provinces it was not taken up. So the budget was spent.

I think that now, instead of a pull, there will be a push from this province. We have made our intentions known. We will be asking for those moneys; we will be expecting those moneys.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: You can't expect the money if you don't reach an agreement on it.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: We will certainly be pushing for the moneys as we are in other areas. If worse comes to worst, we'll have to go to outside sources. But after all, most of these moneys we are anticipating are just under section 43; it's just a straight loan.

We are setting targets and we will be looking for participation in many more ways during the year.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I am disappointed that there is not more information on this forthcoming; it is somewhat central to the whole question of low-cost housing and assisted housing. I will leave that as the Minister is clearly unwilling or unable to answer questions.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: I wish we could get the commitment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Minister use his mike when he responds?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Sure. I will switch to another subject and ask about existing housing and the possibility of rehabilitation of older buildings.

We have had, Mr. Chairman, not far from here, the Roccabella, a large building up there close to the hospital, which was destroyed on March 2, 3 and 4. It was torn down even though it was providing low-cost housing for a relatively large number of people. It was a large, elderly building which in actual fact had a substantial amount of historic interest.

The request was made to the Minister's department for assistance to keep this building up and to make sure it was not torn down because, when it was torn down, the overall stock of housing in Victoria diminished. In addition, we lost an historic building which I think was a great loss to a city which prides itself on tourism and its connection with the past.

I wonder when the Minister is going to change from the policy he outlined in his letter of March 5. He sent a letter to the Heritage Committee the day after the building was torn down, saying:

"I wish to thank you for bringing the situation of the Roccabella Guest House to my attention. It is our policy to increase the supply of housing rather than to purchase existing dwelling units. Thus I regret to inform you that I will be unable to take further action in this matter."

This letter was dated the day after this building was demolished.

It seems a curious situation, a curiously rigid mental approach to the whole question of housing for the Minister to have no interest in preserving existing housing and to protect it from demolition. To be interested only in providing assistance in cases where

[ Page 2115 ]

a new building is going up seems shortsighted. In addition, being in an area of Victoria which had this building there, it seemed definitely the wrong thing to do.

I realize new buildings will go up on the same site, but there will still be a net loss of housing because the new construction could have taken place on some other site. I wonder whether the Minister has any plans to adopt a more flexible approach to the problem of housing and to change his policies so that he could accommodate existing buildings as well as assistance to new construction.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: I can quite appreciate the heritage represented by the Roccabella and for the residents of Victoria. I know of certain buildings in the City of Nelson where there have been rumours of tearing down or removing a top storey and modernizing and such. I can quite sympathize with that sentiment.

However, we apparently did have a look at the possibilities of relocation, having the building sawn into pieces and moved to another location, but it didn't prove feasible. I think there is a limit; we do have to have frames of reference. I think heritage is a worthwhile objective, but I don't know if that should be in the Department of Housing necessarily.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: We lost housing; we lost accommodation.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Yes, we are concerned about the loss of housing units or the preservation of existing housing units. Under the Neighbourhood Improvement Programme, there will be rehabilitation loans from Central Mortgage and Housing for people within those participating areas.

We would also be interested in seeing this concept, the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Programme, which is an act of the Neighbourhood Improvement Programme, operating outside of Neighbourhood Improvement.

We do have to set priorities in a first year of operation. Certainly we are participating in the Neighbourhood Improvement Programme. In those participating areas, there is the opportunity for rehabilitation. There will be more areas designated and will probably be announced sometime next fall for next year. This is an ongoing programme for the next five years and there will be many more areas in the province designated. Within Victoria now, there is the machinery by which such rehabilitation could take place.

If that had happened a little bit later on, or in the next few months, there would be something….

Interjection.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, that's true. There was not the enabling legislation. We have had a $20 million portfolio of existing housing offered to us. But I am sure if I were to have purchased an existing portfolio of housing, I would be criticized because I have not really created a new housing unit.

Interjection.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: I am sure one could have rationalized that it was future land banking and such for redevelopment some 20 years down the road. We do have quite a bit of existing housing offered to us and we feel we could spend the entire $50 million very quickly. I've probably had offered to me a good $30 million worth all together. We have had to set a target in terms of creating new housing units.

I feel that preservation of the Roccabella, for reasons such as you have mentioned…. I acknowledge that there is, as you say, a net loss in dwelling units; there is a loss of housing. But for the heritage reason, I think that should be under some other vote.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I don't have a great deal to add to the debate. I have tried to listen to all the comments made. The theme I detect from all the comments on this side of the House is that the problem is really simple in one respect: costs only soar when the commodity we are talking about is in short supply. With the population of the province increasing at 3 per cent per year, it stands to reason that shelter has to be one of the commodities that will have to be provided at a very rapid rate.

One theme that has run through this debate, particularly this vote, is that $50 million doesn't begin to look at the problem. We needn't repeat the figures that have been recorded over and over again: the $5,000 or so it costs to service a lot and the cost of land. I think we would be deceiving ourselves and we would certainly be deceiving the people of British Columbia if we were to give any kind of impression that this $50 million is going to go very far in solving the housing problem in British Columbia.

That is not to belittle the effort being made or to give an impression that $50 million is peanuts; I am not saying that at all. I am saying that in the general debate on this department and the comments made on this particular vote, it's clear the opposition parties have very serious reservations about two main aspects. First of all, is there enough money to begin to provide the supply required? Even with that $50 million, does the Minister have plans for the disbursement of this $50 million in the most appropriate way to get the greatest mileage under the circumstances?

The opposition is acknowledging that this will come nowhere near to meeting the need. Someone

[ Page 2116 ]

last night quoted a figure of $400 million which, of course, is eight times the figure being placed in this vote.

The Minister said quite rightly that this is the first year in this portfolio; these things cannot be suddenly arranged overnight. I don't think we are expecting him to arrange it overnight, but I think we could criticize the Minister for not asking the cabinet for a fair, reasonable sum of money to do the job. That is really what vote 111 boils down to.

Having not pressed for adequate amounts of money, there is no alternative but to suggest that the job which can be done with this $50 million will surely have to be centred on the most immediate need. Surely that is low-cost housing, as the Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) has just pointed out.

I find myself somewhat confused by rereading the original speech of the Minister on February 13 or 15, when he gave a breakdown of the kind of units that were to be built — 1,500 cooperative housing units, 3,000 senior citizens' units, and 2,500 family rental housing. I'll ask a few questions and perhaps the Minister can answer them all at once and then we won't be jumping up and down.

Of the 3,000 senior citizens' units and the 2,500 family rental housing, could the Minister tell us on these two points alone, which come within the ambit of low-cost housing, how much of the $50 million will it be expected will be used in the provision of these two particular needs?

He may have answered the second question some time in the long debate yesterday, but I wonder if he answered the degree to which a subsidy of mortgage interest is anticipated by the government. In other words, if the market rate is 10 per cent…. I think the First Member for Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) mentioned that you'd be lucky to get a mortgage in the open market at 10 per cent. I wonder to what degree or if to any degree a decision has been made on the degree of subsidy.

I wonder very seriously also about this whole matter of federal cooperation. Just to demonstrate the point, as recently as today, Mr. Chairman, we have a headline in the Province of today: "Non-Status Indians to Get Help." Many Members of this House in this debate and in recent years have talked about the desperate housing situation of the Indian people. So often we hear that Indian affairs are very much a federal responsibility, but the provincial government did make the home acquisition grant available to the Indians. When you read a release such as comes from the office of Ron Basford in the press today that $6 million is to be made available for housing…. The Minister may correct me if this is wrong, but I quote from one of the columns: "The provincial government…."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Could we have a little more quiet? Would the Hon. Member continue?

MR. WALLACE: You get the impression that nobody's listening, don't you?

"The provincial government is invited to make units available for private ownership on a purchase and rental plan, each related to the individual family's income."

It's the use of such words as "invited." It leaves certainly the reader with the impression that there hasn't been very much federal-provincial discussion before this plan was finalized. You get the impression that the federal government wants to take the glory for announcing $6 million worth of aid to housing for the Indian people, and that once they get the headline and once it's all across the news, then they invite the provincial government to get involved in some poorly defined way. Now I may be wrong in this — maybe you had all kinds of discussions. I don't know. But the fact of the matter is that the federal government has said that in this programme ultimately 7,000 housing units will be provided for the Indian people and that they will provide 75 per cent and the provincial government 25 per cent. This has not been mentioned so far by the Minister in any of his statements and I wonder if he would like to enlarge on this when he answers.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: The Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) says you mentioned this last night. If this is the case, I was probably out of the chamber. But in terms of federal cooperation, there has been a recent debate in the federal chamber regarding the proposal that interest rates on home mortgages be deductible from income tax or be made an income taxable allowance. I notice that the Liberal government rejected this proposal, but I wonder if the Minister could tell us whether or not it is any particular avenue which the provincial government has pursued in discussions with the federal government and what, presumably, the tax ramifications would be, whereby interest rates on mortgages might be given some consideration as tax-deductible allowance.

Of course, it's been mentioned many times, but I think still a factor is the question of the 11 per cent sales tax on building supplies. I know we beat this to death in this House. Every Member's spoken about it, but to what degree has the provincial government in discussions with the federal level tried to make any kind of deal, even to have the amount reduced? Yesterday the Minister explained how the government is circumventing problems with municipal taxation and senior citizens' housing, and how a system was worked out. I wonder if we're

[ Page 2117 ]

anywhere near to working out some kind of arrangement, even to have the 11 per cent sales tax on building supplies removed or reduced. When did the Minister last discuss this and when did the provincial government last raise this point with the federal government?

As far as that goes, the Minister made the point that for the first year we've accepted all the federal money that was available. I remember well that someone spoke in this House on the degree to which the former administration did not take up all the federal money that was available. To what degree is there continuing and regular consultation in this area? Again, I refer back to the question of this press release regarding the non-status Indians.

Another question that I think was raised but I don't know if it was answered was the project encouraging people to take training so as to build their own homes. Again, this certainly encourages individual initiative and it sounds like a good idea on the face of it, but to what degree has the Minister consulted with trade unions in the construction industry? It would seem to me that even with the best of intentions, this encouragement to have less than fully trained people indulge in a highly skilled enterprise, namely the construction of homes, would run counter to union philosophy.

I presume that when the Minister talked about encouraging the do-it-yourself approach this would include teaching the individual to do skills which people in the industry spend several years learning and getting the necessary qualifications. I wonder if the Minister consulted with unions in the construction business. If he did so, what was the response? How soon does he anticipate that this programme will be encouraged? At what specific date will people be able to enrol in the courses to learn carpentry and the various other skills?

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I just wonder if the Minister, before we wind up vote 111, would give us an approximate breakdown in the distribution of the $50 million and the direction of the different kinds of units that he outlined in his speech of a month or so ago. Out of that $50 million, how much of the land involved will be leased or made available for purchase? Or will it all be for lease? We've already talked at some length, and I think this side of the House makes it quite clear that they cannot see why leasing land rather than selling it will make a great deal of difference.

Secondly, it will create problems towards the end of the lease. While it may simplify — some problems of financing for the individual house occupier at the start, in the long run there are other problems which the Minister felt he could not make a commitment on regarding automatic renewal of the lease.

So I wonder out of the $50 million, of all the land involved, how much will be leased and how much will be available for purchase.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: The Member has talked about the short supply and what impact this will have. We're looking at a total impact of about 7,000 units under this particular vote. We've already discussed our target under the Elderly Citizens' Housing Aid Act. In addition to that I think you have to take into account the federal government Central Mortgage and Housing programme — the Assisted Home-Owner Programme. I believe that their target is somewhere in the neighbourhood of 1,000, but it could be more. So the public sector would certainly be looking at an impact of in excess of 8,000 units.

Going to a breakdown of these, we are intending to build, under sections 40 and 43 of the National Housing Act, approximately 2,500 family rental dwelling units. This is a market which is not being built for. There are apartments being built for young career people, or young marrieds without children or the mature residents only — that type of thing. It's not necessarily by outright discrimination but by invitation.

So this is the market which we feel is not being fulfilled, and if we don't do it, there's not much of it being done. If there is criticism to be levelled, it's that perhaps we are leaving it for the private sector to cream the most lucrative markets and we are taking the less financially attractive.

There are 1,000 senior citizens' dwelling units in addition to the Elderly Citizens' Housing Aid Act — 1,000 senior citizens' dwelling units under sections 40 and 43. We are setting a target of 1,500 lots for lease to cooperatives, and they would be financed further under Central Mortgage and Housing. This again is a sector of the market which is not going to be filled by the private sector.

Then there are 2,000 serviced lots on Crown and municipal land. The bulk of this will be in the rural areas where we actually have some Crown lands. Rather than just turn these over and sell them fee simple to some developer to go and develop and do whatever he would with them, we will be putting these on so that these would be again things that would not normally be put into the housing market.

So we see our main thrust as complementing, adding to, but not being something that would normally have been done by the private sector anyhow.

The remainder of the $2 million grant is to neighbourhood improvement — land assembly. That's where we get a focal point for non-profit societies to perhaps put forward proposals for either family rental housing or, as is more common, elderly citizens' housing. It's a focal point for the building of interest in the cooperative because it's nice to have something tangible about which to start building the plans and dreams and aspirations of a cooperative. If

[ Page 2118 ]

there is a piece of land, this is the focal point about which discussion can take place.

The Member talked about mortgage subsidy; certainly we intend to have subsidies geared to income. It would be somewhat similar to the assisted home ownership programme of the Central Mortgage and Housing, although we think a little bit more encompassing.

The Minister's — the Hon. Ron Basford's — announcement was as much a surprise to myself I am sure as it was to you. We had a meeting in my office, as I earlier said, last Friday. We discussed and reached agreement in principle on certain aspects. We found that we were in agreement on the building of new housing units, new dwelling units, and I believe it set a target of something in the neighbourhood of 188 new dwelling units to be built by BCANSI.

We were still discussing some of the terms of reference as far as acquisition of existing dwelling units by BCANSI. I find this quite shocking, really. I have not had a chance to talk with the Minister. I give him the benefit of the doubt regarding whatever misunderstandings might have come up. But we were certainly quite definite that we would prepare a joint release and release our intentions jointly.

There were many others at the meeting and I am sure that they were quite surprised by this action. I find it quite out of character, in fact. It could be more as a result of what is happening in Ottawa at the present time.

Interjection.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, we've signed no agreement.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would request that Members not ask questions without using their microphones.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: The 11 per cent sales tax, of course, is mentioned. It was mentioned by every province, I think, in a position paper at the tri-level conference held last fall. The federal government certainly refuses to move on this.

Now as far as the home-builders' programme is concerned: as it was outlined, there is built into this an education programme where the people will discuss many different things and how to act as a developer and how not to make mistakes. We have brought in Mr. Duncan MacIntyre, who has had considerable experience in this type of programme.

Now this is not going to solve the housing crisis, but it can be a meaningful, useful experience. I don't anticipate objections from the unions. We don't look upon this as being a huge programme. It takes a special kind of person. One of the best reasons for the education aspect is that you will get drop-outs from the people who think they are interested but, when they are faced with some real work, will tend to drop out of it. So this is one of the extra bonuses to the education aspect.

It is a very rewarding experience. Many of my friends have built their homes. I have assisted quite a few of them with some free labour or maybe just in exchange for refreshment, and I know what a rewarding experience it can be. We feel this is an opportunity that should be made available to people at this time.

We see as one of the major problems, of course, a shortage of skilled tradesmen and labour. Certainly at this time qualified tradesmen will, with the present climate, be well-engaged professionally. We are not looking for huge numbers for the home-builders' programme, but for an opportunity for those who would like to help themselves.

I believe I have given a breakdown on…. Well, I didn't give a dollar breakdown of the $50 million. So I'll go over it again:

Family rental dwellings, 1,000 under section 40, $7 million; 1,500 under section 43, $4 million; that's our share.

Senior citizens' dwelling units, 1,000 and broken down: 500 under section 40, $2.1 million; 500 under section 43, $0.9 million…I've got two pieces of paper here. Oh, $2.1 million and $0.9 million — a total of $3 million.

The lots for lease to cooperatives: this would be for servicing. Average cost per unit is $6,000; that would be $9 million. Of course, that starts to come back in terms of a 4 per cent lease rate; some of that comes back.

Two thousand serviced lots on Crown and municipal land — that would be $14 million; neighbourhood improvement, $2 million; and land assembly, $11 million. Does that add up? Well, probably $10 million for land assembly and $1 million for grants. That's to United Housing Foundation and such.

MR. WALLACE: A follow-up question, Mr. Chairman. I would like to refer back to this announcement by the federal government about the $6 million of which this government is reputed to be providing 25 per cent. The Minister mentioned that nothing has been signed. The point I was trying to make is that cooperation between the two levels leaves something to be desired.

Secondly, none of the money that is reputed to be put up by the B.C. government in the news release is included in the $50 million in vote 111, presumably. This money, if we take part in the federal programme, is in addition to what the Minister has outlined this afternoon.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, that's true. We

[ Page 2119 ]

haven't signed an agreement. That's not provided here. The Act does provide for the special appropriations from the surplus fund, but there has been nothing done. We have had excellent cooperation up to this point, I would say. We have watched releases, and one or two things did come out where maybe either party felt they had said something that might have been taken as offensive to the other. We have phoned each other and tried to clear these things up. I expect to be in touch with Mr. Basford.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Chairman, I have a few questions I'd like to ask and some statements I'd like to make under this vote.

First of all, I certainly agree with the Minister that we don't concentrate in this province on buying existing housing units. That isn't the problem and it won't solve any of the problems that we have.

We don't want to see the government get into the pure real estate business. That's another of the reasons I don't understand why they bought Dunhill Corporation, because all they did is buy a real estate development firm and that won't solve any of the problems we find ourselves faced with in this province. There has to be another reason they bought the Dunhill Development Corporation, and we'd like to know why.

I think it is important that this House find out what the government was really thinking about when it got into that bad deal of spending $6 million for a company it didn't even need, and for a company that won't provide us with any necessary housing in this province, and for a company which will probably just be a millstone around the government's neck. Certainly there was no need for buying that company on the basis of solving the housing problem, so there must have been another reason. We'd ask the Minister what that reason was.

I was happy, too, to hear the Minister say that they're not expecting to have huge numbers of people taking part in their programme of having people build their own homes. I think it's called the "sweat equity programme" in Nova Scotia. It has only provided in that province some 4,300 houses, as I understand it, since the 1930s — 100 a year or something, so it's no big deal. It's not going to be any significant programme as far as increasing the supply goes.

It was interesting too, Mr. Chairman, that that programme was announced on the day that the Premier got back from his visit to Nova Scotia. I've been wondering if he brought it back with him and whether it's another of his hot-line policies that he develops on the spur of the moment. He has a habit of doing that, Mr. Chairman. He gets on a hot-line radio programme or something, and a caller will phone in and say, "Here's a good idea." The next morning we have a major policy announcement in the House. So he got back from Nova Scotia with his "sweat equity programme" and the next day we were having it rammed down our throats again.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's the only way to fly — mouth open.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mouth open all the time, that's right.

It should be remembered that Nova Scotia certainly isn't unionized to the same kind of degree that British Columbia is, and that may cause some problems in relation to this "sweat equity programme."

I also understand — and the Minister will correct me, I know, if I'm wrong — that under the "sweat equity programme" in Nova Scotia they've been having some serious difficulties with the homes which have been built because they never get finished in many instances. People will build a house to a certain degree and then stop and you find half finished houses all over the place. I don't think that's what we want for British Columbia either.

[Mr. Liden in the chair.]

I'd like to make a few comments about real estate listings…well, not necessarily that, but in relation to housing costs and land costs. There are a lot of reasons, of course, but the cost of housing is escalating in this province faster than it is in any other province of Canada. It's becoming a more serious problem here than in any other part of Canada.

One of the reasons has to do with real estate, and perhaps when the Attorney-General is looking at the real estate business he might take this into account. It is the practice of the real estate industry as a whole to concentrate on listings rather than selling houses. One of the larger real estate companies in this province even pays bonuses to its salesmen for listings. On the Multiple Listings Services, commissions are higher for the lister than for the seller. What that does, of course, is create a kind of an unreal competition in getting listings rather than getting out of moving houses around in the industry. We find that people are given all kinds of reasons for putting their houses on the market. One of the major reasons, of course, is that they list it at an incredibly high price — a price which today is unrealistic in terms of the market. But as those listings all come in at those inflated values, then that actually does become the price.

If we can somehow turn around the real estate industry and get them back into the kind of business they're supposed to be in, that of selling houses for people, I think we'll go a long way toward reducing the cost of housing in British Columbia, get rid of this bad practice of this emphasis on listings, bonuses for

[ Page 2120 ]

listings, and certainly higher commissions for listings which do nothing but add to the cost of houses.

It's been mentioned on a number of occasions about the escalation of land costs and it's pointed out very well in this report from the Greater Vancouver Regional District with relation to housing. I won't go into it again except to say that the certain land costs in British Columbia cannot be allowed to continue to escalate in the manner in which they are right now.

One of the most recent reasons for this escalation is this government's action in relation to assessments in British Columbia. The escalating assessments which have resulted from Bill 71 have put an undue influence on the real estate market and is causing, in the high growth areas particularly, escalating costs of land and housing. These land costs in what really is a land-rich part of the province, part' of the country, are unreal. We have all kinds of land, as is also pointed out in this report from the Greater Vancouver Regional District and that isn't our problem.

The Minister's emphasis on buying land doesn't make sense either, given the kind of land that we have already available, already zoned, without encroaching on the agricultural bank of land that we have to look after this part of the province, where the growth is the worst, for 30 years. We really are land rich in terms of the availability, yet we see these escalating costs even though we do have lots of land, so there must be other reasons. I suggest that assessments is one of those reasons, as is that action….

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. I believe this matter is still before the committee.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Which committee is that?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Assessments. Bill 71.

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, l agree, and I won't offer any solutions to the problem, I'll….

MR. CHAIRMAN: You should be dealing with vote 111.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I am dealing with vote 111. It has to do with housing and development, and one of the easiest ways of providing housing to all of our people is to make sure that the price is right. If the price is wrong, Mr. Chairman, then those people can't afford to get into the kind of housing they need and deserve.

There are many reasons why land costs and housing costs have gone out of control in this part of the country. All I say about assessments is that's one of the reasons costs are going up.

Zoning is another, Mr. Chairman. I'd suggest for one thing that we have too much land, particularly in the lower mainland part of the country, taken out of reach of the people who need housing. Land is put aside for industrial purposes in areas which will never use that land for industrial purposes. It will sit there forever; never being used because local municipalities all think they need to zone large banks of land for industrial purposes. That isn't good planning to begin with and that too decreases the supply, so the price goes up.

Bill 42 was a major cause of escalating land prices, particularly in the lower mainland. Anybody who tries to get around that by saying that Bill 42 didn't increase prices just doesn't know what he's talking about. There is no doubt that Bill 42 within a very short while, a matter of two to three months, had escalated land prices in the Fraser Valley by as much as 50 per cent in three months. There were no other intervening factors, only Bill 42. That bill was the direct cost charge. That bill was directly responsible for increasing the cost of land again.

Mr. Chairman, it's been mentioned before about the surcharges which many municipalities put onto private developers and public developers as well in relation to building homes, building apartment units, senior citizens' homes, and all kinds of housing.

They do this in self defence because they're not getting the kind of help from the government that they deserve, so they have to find additional means of raising revenue. One of those means of raising revenue is one which has been chosen by a great many municipalities on the lower mainland and which, in my opinion, is totally discriminatory against people who are moving into the area, and is an extremely dangerous practice and is an extreme hardship, again, in preventing that spiralling cost of land.

In the budget debate the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) pointed out some of the charges that some of the municipalities have a habit of putting on new development. He mentioned Surrey which has a cost of $3,000 a unit for servicing alone. That isn't all of it — there's another $1.300 for parks development; $150 per suite or unit for water; $300 per suite or unit for drainage. If you're on a main road they charge you $200 extra; $650 a suite if you have to build a municipal road, and that's all on top of the actual servicing costs.

So what you are looking at is about $5,000 per unit before the developer even gets on the land to break the ground, and that is in many instances at least as much as a quarter and sometimes as much as a third of the cost of a building lot. That's a significant reason for the cost of a building lot in the lower mainland of British Columbia today.

It's not only because of the niggardly treatment that the municipalities get from this government; it's also because of this whole matter again of Cadillac

[ Page 2121 ]

subdivisions where the municipality demands a very, very high degree of servicing in new subdivisions and around new developments, with 66-foot-wide roads, almost freeways through residential areas, sidewalks, curbs and gutters, sewers, water, street lights, underground wiring, underground parking, the whole bit. Especially rural urban areas don't need that standard of servicing. That again is a significant charge upon the land that really has to be looked at in order to have it reduced. Maybe what this government should do is come up with some kind of minimum servicing legislation, minimum subdivision legislation so that at least there's some guidelines around the province.

Then, of course, the Housing Minister should get together with the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) and the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) and convince them to help the municipalities out a little bit more and you won't have that charge weighing so heavily upon the cost of land.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask whether or not the Minister has had any kind of a report yet from Mr. Glen Haddrell, who was appointed as a special consultant to the Minister of Housing with regard to cooperative housing, at a salary of $125 a day up to a maximum of $1,582. Have you had any report? Maybe that was the reason we're into a "sweat equity programme." Was that part of Mr. Haddrell's report to the Minister?

Through you, Mr. Chairman, the Minister mentioned the Neighbourhood Improvement Programme. I'd like to express my extreme disappointment again with the Minister in regard to the Neighbourhood Improvement Programme which was requested by the Bridgeview area of Surrey. I can't think of any area on the lower mainland that needed help as badly as the Bridgeview area. There isn't any other area which was in the kind of trouble that Bridgeview was in with regard to its drainage and sewage problems. As one of the aldermen in Surrey pointed out when that request for Neighbourhood Improvement Programme assistance was refused by the Minister, it was like pulling the blocks out from under the people.

Every government official at every level of government has called the Bridgeview sewer and drainage problem extremely serious. Provincial officials, health officials, municipal officials, federal government officials who have been in that area all say it's a disaster area with regard to its sewage and drainage problems. Yet this government passes them by, snubs that whole area in relation to its Neighbourhood Improvement Programme without consulting anyone in Surrey to get a little more information about the needs, and apparently not even consulting the Member for Surrey, who happens to be the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall). The Provincial Secretary, when he found out that the Housing Minister had turned Surrey down, said he was shocked and dismayed and he'd talk to the Minister right away. I wonder if he did talk to the Minister, Mr. Chairman. If he did, what was the result of that talk and will you reconsider, before the next NIP grants are announced, helping Surrey out with this problem? The people there can't live with that situation any longer.

I'd like, too, to emphasize again, Mr. Chairman, this problem that I raised briefly in another vote with regard to mobile homes. One of the best ways we can get out of the situation we have with regard to the financing of mobile homes is to quit designating mobile homes as always mobile. As long as we make in our designations the term "mobile" mean that those homes are always capable of being moved, then they'll never be able to get any kind of financing to the same degree that you can with a private home — a fixed home on a piece of property. We've got to recognize that those mobile homes in many instances are in fact residences which will never be moved and are anchored to that spot, particularly those homes which are on private land and not in mobile-home courts. Those people need some new methods of financing so that they can take advantage of the second mortgages from this government the same way that people who live in conventional homes can.

I'd ask the Minister to treat that as an urgent priority, Mr. Chairman, to make sure that the people who really need help… These people are the people who can't afford to buy conventional homes; that's why they're in a mobile home in the first place. So they probably need more help than anyone else and they deserve to get that help.

I want to mention briefly the possibility of putting housing on the UBC Endowment Lands, Mr. Chairman. I think that that would be a calamity and a tragedy for British Columbia. Here we are in this province buying thousands and thousands of acres out in the Fraser Valley for park purposes at vastly inflated prices. We're buying homes in the Fraser Valley at today's inflated prices to be someday torn down in favour of regional parks. I'm in favour of the regional parks programme, but here we have in the UBC Endowment Lands another Stanley Park. The priorities are mixed up. We're out there buying good houses to tear down for parks and we're going to build houses on a park that we already have at UBC Endowment Lands. Now what kind of sense is that?

AN HON. MEMBER: It's nonsense.

MR. McCLELLAND: That's right, it's nonsense. I say that this Minister has got himself locked in, Mr. Chairman, to a public statement made some time ago….

[ Page 2122 ]

HON. MR. NICOLSON : On a point of order, I believe that this is under the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) and that point has already been made earlier in debate on the Minister's salary.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's quite correct. That point was made yesterday. You can discuss the question of housing.

MR. McCLELLAND: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. When it comes down to the philosophical intent of this government with relation to housing and development I think that we must make it very clear that we must maintain the choices that people have in relation to the kind of housing that they wish to have. They must still have the opportunity to choose to own their own homes and to own the land upon which those homes sit. They must not be forced into the kind of situation which will see them only able to get leases to the land so that they will never ever own the land that their houses sit on. They'll be serfs of the state and they will never, ever be able to rest easy with the assurance that some day they will, in fact, own their land and the government won't come along and say: "I'm sorry, we've changed our mind about that land. We want it for some other purpose. Get your house off of it." That's not good enough, Mr. Chairman. We must always insist that that choice is available, that a person has the right to own his own home and to own the land upon which it sits.

This whole obsession with land from the Housing department, Mr. Chairman, is a little strange because we don't have a lack of land. We don't have a lack of money. The only thing we have is a lack of housing units and a lack of leadership, Mr. Chairman. Until this government realizes that and gets out and begins to put in the kind of initiative that it needs to get the private sector moving, it will never solve the housing crisis in British Columbia.

Incentive, Mr. Chairman, is what the private sector needs. People come here from Europe because home ownership is so rare. They never get the opportunity in Europe to own a home of their own, and that's one of the reasons that we attract so many people from other parts of the world.

The Member for Richmond (Mr. Steves) the other day said that single-family housing is an uneconomical form of housing. Well, so what? It's what the people want. The Hellyer people, the federal task force in 1968, studied this problem very carefully and they found all over Canada the experts saying: "Single-family housing is a thing of the past." The experts all told him that it was multiple units, multiple-land use, no more single-family housing, and yet on that same survey, all of the people they talked to told them they wanted single-family housing, that the single-family home was a dream that all of them had and hoped one day that that dream would come true.

Sure, the experts don't understand it, the socialists don't understand it, the socialists don't care what the people want — it's only what the bureaucrats want. That's not good enough for the people. What's good for the state is all important....

AN HON. MEMBER: In their mind only.

MR. McCLELLAND: In their mind only. So instead of encouraging people to own their own homes, this government is doing everything it can to discourage the people from awning their own homes.

Can a person come along today and buy a piece of land and hold it in the hope that someday he'll be able to put a house on it? No way! You're taxing him off that piece of land and you're forcing that land, Mr. Chairman, into the hands of speculators and developers because of your taxation and assessment policies.

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, you can own land, Mr. Member, that's right — if you've got enough money to be able to hold onto it while the taxes go up around you and know full well that someday in the future you'll be able to realize a great profit.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): If you're able to weather the storm.

MR. McCLELLAND: Or if you're able to weather the storm, sure. But you've got to have a lot of money to do that. You can't weather the storm unless you're rich, unless you're a developer, or unless you're a speculator. The person today who has sort of established his own little landbank, the person who held that land in the hope of someday soon building a house on it has been cut out of the goad Life in British Columbia.

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, we need rental accommodation. There isn't any doubt about that — and public housing and everything else. But don't ever lose sight of the fact that the people of British Columbia want someday to own a home of their own if at all possible.

I don't want to take up too much of the time so I won't read all of my notes; I'll save some of them for later. I do want to say a word or two about speculation. We agree on this side of the House that it's not right that rip-off profits should be realized from a piece of property which hasn't been improved, which has risen in value mainly because of the actions

[ Page 2123 ]

of the community and certainly not because of the activities of the speculator. We don't agree with that; we think it should be stopped.

But this government obviously doesn't agree with us or they would never have got involved with Dunhill. What they did there was to make some speculators rich, wasted $6 million of the taxpayers' money in British Columbia, and got taken in the bargain.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

MR. McCLELLAND: Then the government got itself into the real estate business again, sold the land and made a rip-off windfall profit from it. And how many houses did you provide for the people of British Columbia in that little deal, Mr. Minister?

This government has got to stop confusing the person who wants to own land of his own with rip-off speculators. Get him out of that category, because all he wants to do is live in this province in the manner in which he chooses to live. We can't allow this government to take away any more choices from people.

There are ways to put an end to speculation. I'd suggest most of them should come from initiatives from the federal level with relation to capital gains taxes. If the taxation policies are brought in line, you'll end speculation fairly quickly.

What about new construction techniques? Instead of going into this "sweat equity" nonsense, why don't you just get your researchers out working on new methods of construction so that private contractors can bring in housing at far less cost. That's the way to get around the cost problem, or at least one of the ways. Let's get your researchers out looking at new ways to build houses. Let's get your researchers out telling us why a house has to be 1,200 square feet. What's so magic about that? Why can't it be 900 square feet? Why does a municipality have to insist that it won't accept any smaller housing for small families? They can be every bit as attractive and practical as a great huge mausoleum somewhere on a viewpoint or waterfront of Esquimalt. Why can't you have a 900-sq.-ft. house?

AN HON. MEMBER: Who has a mausoleum in Esquimalt?

MR. McCLELLAND: I don't know if anyone has. I just mentioned Esquimalt as a matter of fact and as a matter in passing.

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: On the waterfront in Esquimalt, yes. Right. But I don't know if anyone owns any houses over there; I just happened to mention it.

In conclusion, at this point anyway, I just want to say that one of the real ways we'll bring down the cost of housing and land in this province — and I want to emphasize it very forcefully — is by helping the municipalities. If we relieve a major part of their financial burden, we'll relieve a major source of the escalating costs of housing.

Education costs should be taken off the land fully, not partially. This so-called progressive removal we've heard from this government is totally phony. It won't remove any taxes from land for education. Why don't they call it what it was: "son of homeowner grant"?

MR. CHAIRMAN: You're talking about legislation. You should be dealing with vote 111.

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I just want to say again that there are ways to break down the costs of land. There are positive ways. This government should get involved with. them as quickly as possible.

I would also suggest, too, in order to both increase the supply and bring down costs again, this government should revise its taxation and assessment procedures to end the penalties for people who choose to improve their homes. In Montreal, I'm told, they have a system of municipal subsidies for people who improve or in some cases even replace their substandard housing. Why not this government? How about it? Is this government planning on some kind of action that doesn't penalize people who really want to improve the surroundings of their community? Let's not tax them off their property. Let's not buy it from them. Let's not get into leased land. Let's get off of this obsession with land and get into the needs that we have.

Supply housing units; that's where the problem is. Until this government recognizes it, we won't solve the housing crisis in this province.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): I'll be brief. We've been debating the estimates of this Minister and his department for 20 hours now. I think it must be patently clear to everybody in this committee that the Housing department is not equipped, nor is the Minister, to solve the crisis that faces us in housing in British Columbia.

We are faced with a crisis of supply. From the very beginnings of debate, when the Hon. Member for Richmond (Mr. Steves) spoke, he indicated that we required 30,000 housing units in British Columbia to catch up and to get ourselves even. The Member for Vancouver–Point Grey spoke yesterday about the number of houses that would disappear from the

[ Page 2124 ]

housing supply because of over-age and diversion to other purposes. That indicated how great the problem was.

We have a situation with this vote 111 where the department has funds to the extent of $50 million for these particular purposes of housing development. But in order to even do the catch up work, we know that something in excess of 10 times that amount, in excess of $500 million will be required if we are going to even meet the current need.

I readily appreciate, Mr. Chairman, and I trust that no number of the public, no Member of this committee would think this government would be able to do it all itself. The private sector will still remain the predominant source of funds and the predominant source of energies in order to solve this crisis of supply.

The Minister himself recognized this when on Saturday he told this House that last year building starts were up from 6.5 to about 6.9 per cent. He said he realized it wasn't enough but that we've not only to build a certain number of homes for the people who are moving into the province with our increased population but we have to replace existing homes which are substandard and we have to make up for hidden losses which occur from the use of residential or other development. The Minister recognizes the problem. I was shocked last evening to hear the Minister stand in his place and announce to that House that housing starts for the next year were going to go down. That's precisely what the Minister said. He gave as the reason for the number of housing starts going down that there were going to be shortages of material and we were facing a labour situation in 1974 which was going to interfere with the productivity of the construction segment of our society so that housing starts were going to go down.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: A point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: State your point of order.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, the Member is saying that I made certain remarks the other day. If he would like to quote them in full context for the record, I think it might be acceptable but….

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think you can correct that when your turn comes to speak.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: As soon as the Hansard blues are available, I would be delighted to send the Minister a copy of precisely what he said in this regard because it was a shocking announcement for the Minister to make when considering the estimates for a department which is going to cost the people of this province something in excess of $75 million this year.

I wish the Minister would just be candid with the committee and tell us that he and his department are not yet ready to tackle the problems and provide British Columbia with the solutions — which is a solution to the problem of supply. Now we recognize that he's going to carry on with the continuing programme of providing specialized accommodation for senior citizens. Terrific. The former government started that programme, and any programme that wouldn't carry it on shouldn't be government.

AN HON. MEMBER: The government before that started it.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: And yet that's not where the big area of need exists — not for those citizens. They need help and it's help that the government should give; but it in no way will diminish the need for the 30,000 housing units that must be constructed in this province if we are to solve the problem of supply and make some attack upon ever-increasing prices.

The Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) talked about rising costs of land and all the factors that are going into the rising cost of land. I'm aware, Mr. Chairman, of one situation where a developer, subdivider, sold eight lots to a builder. Two homes were commenced, but inside of about three months, the builder found that he could dispose of the other six vacant lots at a greater profit than he could make if he held on to them and built the houses. Now that's a shocking situation, but that's what's going on. And that is what is escalating month by month the cost of housing and is the problem that confronts the people of this province.

If one thing shocked me, Mr. Chairman, about the acquisition of Dunhill, it was the admission made by the Minister in this House that the government is doing exactly the same thing as the house construction man, who, rather than go ahead and build houses on land that he owned, was rolling it over at a profit. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, the other night the Minister stood in this place and proudly proclaimed how much more the government had got for the Dunhill properties that it was disposing of than even the appraisals had indicated.

AN HON. MEMBER: Bragged about it.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Bragged about it. But we understood that the government spent $5.8 million of the people's money to acquire Dunhill to help to solve the housing problem. How do you solve the housing problem unless you create new units? You don't solve the housing problem. How do you solve the housing problem unless you create new units? You don't solve the housing problem by taking land that you acquire in a company such as Dunhill and

[ Page 2125 ]

selling it at an inflated price to somebody else, for them to take the responsibility of building housing units.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Do you give it away?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: No, you don't give it away. You do what you set out to do, Mr. Minister, and that is to take the land and built housing units on it. Why in heaven's name did you buy Dunhill?

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): To make somebody rich.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Did you buy Dunhill to get the accounts receivable? Did you buy it to get the tax deferment? Did you buy Dunhill to get a 50 per cent interest in Highland Realty? Did you buy Dunhill to get interest in an equipment company?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. I wish this Member would be present in the House. This has been ruled sub judice. While I'd like to respond to these remarks, in doing so we get entangled. There's no end to the questioning and where it leads to. And there are matters before the court. We have ruled on this fairly firmly, and I hope that you would use the previous Chairman's ruling.

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

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: The point of order is not well taken. I'm not talking about values; I'm talking about the incidence…

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Oh, my God.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: …of the assets that were acquired by this government when they bought Dunhill and which the Minister himself tabled with this committee — distributed to every Member of this committee. And now because it's beginning to hurt he wants to stand behind some order of the Chair which prevents us from discussing exactly what they bought in Dunhill. Do you want me to read you the properties? They're already on record.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I want to remind you that the ruling on the whole question of Dunhill was that it's sub judice. You get into the matter and you get expanding on it; the whole question should be out of order.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I'm not raising questions as to the values. I'm not going to go into the question of the appraisal documents. I'm not going to go into the question of how much per share was paid. I'm not going to go into the question of how much the people who sold their shares paid for their shares. That's the issue.

I'm only asking the Minister, Mr. Chairman, why they bought that company if it was not to take the land that that company owned and to build housing units on it — if it was not to avail themselves of the apparently skilled people in Dunhill Developments and to use their skills to build housing units?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. I believe the Member's asking a perfectly innocent question, and I would give him a perfectly innocent answer. But it is not for me and it is not for the Member to decide what is and what is not sub judice.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think the point is well taken. We're canvassing the matter with the Clerk. The whole question of just where we draw those lines is a difficult one. But the moment that you raise questions, you call for certain answers, and you get into that same question. If we could restrict the debate just to the question of whether or not the purchase should have been made, that might be all right. But the moment you open the question for debate, you get into trouble on the question of sub judice. I must rule the matter out of order.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Then I'll simply ask the Minister if he would please stand in his place when I've taken mine and tell this committee why the government bought Dunhill. And I'll ask the second question: did it buy Dunhill so it would have the opportunity to make a speculative profit on the sale of Dunhill land?

Mr. Chairman, the Minister's not doing his job. After four months his department is not organized to do the job that it was given by this Legislature when the department was established last November. I think that the only way to resolve this matter is for the Minister to stand in his place and admit to this committee and to the people of British Columbia that he and his department cannot do the job and that they shouldn't expect anything to happen in 1974 which will in any way resolve the crisis of supply which we in British Columbia are facing.

Having admitted that, the Minister should tell this committee that he will use all of his abilities to recommend to his cabinet colleagues that legislative steps will be taken to reduce the taxes on land, to provide initiatives for the private sector so they can get on with the job of building the housing units in British Columbia which we must have if the young people and the old people in British Columbia are to have adequate housing accommodation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 111 pass?

[ Page 2126 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: No, don't get panicky now. I thought maybe the quiet Minister over there would like to answer some questions.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Your discussion should be on vote 111.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, I am. That's right, $50 million.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, well, time will tell. Lots of time, Mr. Attorney-General. Be patient. We'd like a few questions answered, first of all.

I want the Minister to answer me as to whether Dunhill Developments is going to remain a public company or become a Crown corporation. This is very important, Mr. Chairman, and has nothing to do whatsoever with the case before the courts. It has to do with the ability of what is now Woodbridge Development Corporation to build housing in the province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I want to just bring to the Member's attention that what you're really discussing is legislation or the need for legislation. You're not discussing the vote that's before the House.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, yes, I am, Mr. Chairman, because you're asking me to vote $50 million here this afternoon to provide housing, Well, this government purchased, with $5.5 million of the taxpayers' money, a corporation to build housing.

MR, CHAIRMAN: But to create a Crown corporation would require legislation and that kind of discussion is out of order on this vote.

MR. PHILLIPS: Then, Mr. Chairman, it's going to remain a public; company. And if it's going to remain a public company, is this going to hamper or increase its ability to build private housing in this province?

If it's going to remain a public company, Mr. Chairman, what will the company's status be as a taxpayer? The Minister has already told me that once he purchased it — and he said this in the document that he filed here on Saturday — the corporation will not Dave to pay income taxes.

Now if the company is not going to pay income taxes, Mr. Chairman, he is going to have to make it a Crown corporation.

Interjection.

MR, PHILLIPS: Well, it's got to be one or the other. Public corporations pay income tax. It's clearly laid out in the documents which the Minister filed in the House that this corporation will not have to pay income tax. I've got the document here somewhere, Mr. Minister.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Publicly owned.

MR. PHILLIPS: Publicly owned? But not a Crown corporation? Well, if it's owned by the public... Well, anyway it clearly states in the documents that were tabled in this Legislature that this….

The reason that it is so important is this: As was just ably pointed out here a few moments ago by the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams, private sector — those in the construction business — are going to still have to provide approximately 90 per cent of private housing and, indeed, public housing in British Columbia. If this Minister is going to create a company that's going to receive preferential treatment from the government, is this going to hamper and hold back investment by the private sector?

I think these are perfectly legitimate questions, Mr. Chairman. I would like at this time to have the Minister give me some answers.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 111 pass?

MR. PHILLIPS: No! Mr. Chairman, I think we are entitled to know what this Minister's future plans are for Woodbridge Development Corporation, He says in this document that he tabled that federal income tax will not be payable once Crown corporation status is established. Do I understand then that he intends to make a Crown corporation out of it? The Attorney-General says "No." No, he isn't. Well, then low can he justify this statement that he tabled in this Legislature? How can he justify it?

I think, Mr. Chairman, that this Dunhill fiasco that the Minister got himself into was purchased to provide Dousing — that's a stated policy. If he's going to make it into a Crown corporation, then what will the new company's relationship be with the present construction industry? Will it indeed be a competitor in the private sector and in the public sector? Mr. Chairman, I think that the Minister should answer these questions and I would like to give him the opportunity.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: I perhaps listened a little more carefully to Mr. Speaker's ruling and to the decision also of the Chairman. I am not going to play supreme court judge or anticipate what is or what is not one thing or another. In answer to the Hon. Member's question, I am clearly on record in the newspapers and I believe by inference of the documents to which he has referred, I think my

[ Page 2127 ]

intentions are clear... It's not for us to judge which is or is not sub judice in this matter, as explained. I have certainly made my intentions clear in the press. I realize it should be said in here but I think the statement that you refer to also makes my intentions quite clear.

The Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) made certain comments. He referred to the hiring of Mr. Glen Haddrell, who works for the cooperative housing foundation. While the order-in-council specified him by name, he is seconded. He is not receiving $125 per day but he is receiving his regular salary from the cooperative housing foundation. This is the consulting fee which the organization is charging us and of course this goes to cover other expenses such as office overhead, secretarial assistance, and such at the foundation. I am still awaiting the report in its final form, However, he has been very helpful to us.

I can't see any of these people still in the House, but several times the questions were brought up of how we were going to distribute the $50 million and how it fits in with the private sector. I have explained it. I explained it again to the Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) and the questions from the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) were very similar to these. So it has been thoroughly canvassed.

MR, PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, on this same point, the future of what this government and how this government intends to use Dunhill Developments or Woodbridge Development Corporation has absolutely nothing to do with the case before the courts. It's in the future. What is behind you'll have to answer in court. What is in the future has nothing to do with that case whatsoever.

I am merely asking how the Minister intends to treat Woodbridge Development Limited. Are they going to receive, for instance, their money from the provincial government at preferred interest rates? The reason I bring this up, Mr. Chairman, is this. Ninety per cent of the housing in British Columbia is still going to have to be provided by the private sector. If this government is going to have their own Crown corporation, receiving preferential treatment from this government — preferential treatment by being given land, preferential treatment by being given special interest rates, preferential treatment by the government backing their mortgages — what attitude is the private sector going to take toward it?

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell us about your riding.

MR. PHILLIPS: Is the Minister planning on going and buying more development corporations and putting the private sector out of business entirely? This is all crucial, Mr. Chairman, to the crisis that we face in British Columbia today and the crisis that that Minister has developed since he took office. He doesn't want to give any answers because he doesn't know the answers.

As I said before in this Legislature, Mr. Chairman, he has heightened the crisis that we have in this province. He doesn't know where he is going, or if he does, he's certainly not selling this House because he has not given us any answers since we've started debating his estimates.

Mr. Chairman, I was interested, and I might say surprised, reading in this morning's Province: "Non-Status Indians to get Help."

HON. MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, this subject was thoroughly canvassed earlier and a full explanation given,

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think the point of order is well taken. The matter has been canvassed.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the Minister same questions about this announcement. This question has not been answered. It clearly states that the Hon. Mr. Basford said that the federal government grant of nearly $220,000 will be made immediately to the B.C. Association of Non-Status Indian Housing Limited, to provide 500 homes. Well, if I divide 500 homes into $220,000, it comes to $4,400 apiece. I would like the Minister to advise me what type of a hose is going to be built, because the provincial government is footing 25 per cent of the cost of these houses,

HON, MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, as I have tried to tell the Hon. Member, I have already answered then questions to the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace), We have signed no agreement with them and it was a unilateral announcement.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Chairman, I have a suggestion to make to the Minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! On a point of order before the Hon. Member continues, the point of order is well made. I don't know whether the Hon. Member for South Peace River was out of the House but this question has arisen already here this afternoon, I would ask the Hon. Member to continue.

MR. PHILLIPS: There is in the hands of the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) a proposal regarding construction and operation of a sawmill at Burns Lake....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! This matter is clearly not related to these estimates.

[ Page 2128 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: It is purely related. If you'd just let me continue, Mr. Chairman, I will tell you how it's related.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! What may be discussed under this vote is the manner in which this $50 million will be used or administered by the government.

MR. PHILLIPS: This involves it very closely if you'd just let me continue for just a few moments. One of the impacts of this proposal by the British Columbia Association of Non Status Indians is the social benefits….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. PHILLIPS: ...as it pertains to housing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would rule that you must discuss the vote as it relates to the administrative responsibility of the Minister.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, it is the administrative responsibility of this Minister to provide housing for native Indians and the non-status Indians in this province, Mr. Chairman. Clearly it is his responsibility. As a matter of fact, some of this $50 million will be going in that direction.

In this proposal before this government, one of the sections is on social benefits. Item No. 5 in that proposal says, "More and improved housing through the British Columbia Association of Non Status Indians Native Housing Limited," and directly through the sawmill auspices.

My suggestion to the Minister is that this would be one way for that government over there to really make great strides forward in a positive economic and social way to provide housing for our native people in this province.

If the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) feels this is too big a proposal, that there's too much involved, he has the power….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would point out to the Hon. Member that we're considering the estimates of the Minister of Housing and his responsibilities. Your questions are to be directed to….

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Minister, 6-ft. two-by-fours, boards, lumber to build houses. The Minister wants to provide housing for the natives of this province. This is a positive way he can do something. All he has got to do is talk to the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would point out to the Hon. Member for South Peace River….

MR. PHILLIPS: Listen! Just because the Premier comes in here and shouts orders… I'm making a good point here!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Be seated.

MR. PHILLIPS: You sure get fussy when the Premier comes in here and gives you a few orders, don't you?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will the Hon. Member remain seated until I make my point?

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Shame, shame.

MR. PHILLIPS: Shame on you!

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair's responsibility is to apply the rules correctly. I would point out to the Hon. Member for South Peace River that you may not ask one Minister to advise another Minister as to what he should do. If this were done, then of course we could talk about all of the estimates under one Minister's estimates. You must deal only with the responsibilities of the Minister whose estimates we are considering. Particularly under this vote, you may only consider those matters covered by this vote. I would ask the Hon. Member to continue.

MR. PHILLIPS: I probably shouldn't even ask the Minister of Housing to talk to the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. I'm suggesting to the Minister of Housing that this would be an excellent way to really make strides forward in providing housing for the non-status Indians and for the native Indians.

It was suggested in this article that we train some of these people as carpenters. I suggest you go even further than that and assist them in setting up their own housing corporation. It could be a construction corporation. In the vocational school facilities in the north you could train these non-status Indians and the native Indians to become not only carpenters but plumbers and electricians. They could form their own housing construction company. This is in your riding, Mr. Chairman; you should be interested in this.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would point out to the Hon. Member that under standing order 61(2), speeches in Committee of the Whole House must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration. We are considering vote 111, an expenditure of $50 million for certain programmes that the government has already indicated are going to be set in motion. Therefore, the question must be

[ Page 2129 ]

on these programmes.

MR. PHILLIPS: They discussed certain programmes and I'm suggesting another one.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: Any of the programmes they've suggested I don't think are going to work.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! That's precisely what the Hon. Member may not do. He may not suggest other programmes but rather discuss the programmes which are contained under this vote.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, some of this money under this vote is going to go to native housing.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): A point of order. Are you suggesting to the Hon. Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) that he cannot make suggestions to the Minister of Housing concerning alternate methods and means of providing housing in the Province of British Columbia under this vote? Is that what you're saying?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member may make suggestions providing that he's talking within the requests… A vote is a request for $50 million and for certain purposes. He can make suggestions as to how the money should be used within the intentions of this vote. However, he must confine himself to the purpose of the vote which is an allocation of $50 million for certain purposes. If his remarks are relevant to these purposes, and the Hon. Minister has indicated what these purposes are, then he is in order. But he cannot move into other areas.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'd like to have the Minister's comments on my suggestion. I think it's a positive one and I think it's a good one. It would go a long way toward providing housing. This government, even though they criticized lumber companies for ripping off the price of lumber for housing before they had their own corporation, don't seem to be doing very much to bring down the price of lumber today when they've got their own corporation. They don't seem to be doing much about taking off the 5 per cent sales tax….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. PHILLIPS: As a matter of fact, they're not doing anything constructive to provide housing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I've requested the Hon. Member for South Peace River to keep your remarks strictly relevant to the vote before us. I would just give you this chance. If you have nothing new to say relevant to this vote, take your place. Would the Hon. Member continue?

MR. PHILLIPS: In this vote there is money for the purchase of land. This Minister has purchased a lot of land in British Columbia and I would like to know where he has purchased this land for housing. I would like to know how much of it was purchased from municipalities. I would like to know how much of it was purchased from the private sector. I'd like to know how many parcels had appraisals on them.

Would he table in this House a list of the land he has purchased since becoming Minister, complete with locations and what he paid for them? Would he indicate that to me this afternoon? Would he tell the House that he would do this?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Yes, we did this during the last session. There are questions on the order paper and we will have this information brought up to date. We'll try and incorporate those questions which you've asked.

MR. AN. FRASER (Cariboo): Sit down, Mr. Premier, and rest.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. FRASER: I have been listening with a lot of interest for the last day or two on housing. The housing debate is very interesting if you are interested. I agree with a lot of the speakers. I hope you don't rule me out of order for being repetitious and so on, but the main problem, of course, is the lack of lots available for housing, particularly serviced lots.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would just point out to the Hon. Member that the words, I think, in the standing orders are "tediously repetitious." There's nothing the matter with being repetitious, providing you don't become tedious.

MR. FRASER: Fine, thank you. The answer to the overall problem, of course, is to create more lots, particularly serviced lots. I think this government created a lot of their own troubles under Bill 42. I said that the other night and I still believe it. However, that doesn't resolve the problem before us, and it has to be resolved.

I'm not very happy with what I see going on in the new Department of Housing. I'd like to comment there that this Minister actually is coming close to a year now in this office. He went into the cabinet, I believe, in May, 1973, as the Minister Without Portfolio in charge of housing. Of course, we're looking at the completely new portfolio of Housing.

[ Page 2130 ]

Fifty million dollars is a lot of money, and, during the debate, I'm sure most of the MLAs have been trying to find out what direction he's going to take the province in trying to relieve the housing crisis.

I want to emphasize the fact that there are no serviced lots available for building on. I think it applies mostly in urban areas of this province, not only on the lower mainland which I'll discuss in a minute or two. I might say that in my observation there is a lot of land available in the lower mainland, the North Shore and in the Interior for housing but it's a case of getting it assembled and put together. I realize, coming from the municipal side, that there are always problems in this and it all takes time. But I think this Minister should be trying to cut through the red tape — cut it down so this process can be speeded up.

The main point, as I see it, is the servicing and organizing the servicing. There really hasn't been anything accomplished in that area. The other problem is that it becomes more acute as each day goes by because of land values escalating and more people every day looking for accommodation.

I'd just like to relate to the House some of the critical areas that exist now, but I suggest there are going to be a lot more critical areas of the province. I saw information the other day on the population of certain areas and the projected population ahead. Probably the worst one is Delta where the present population was listed as 62,000 and projected to be 98,000 — a 50 per cent increase by 1986, a short period of 15 years.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about your riding, Alex?

MR. FRASER: I'm coming to that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Good.

MR. FRASER: The next most critical area in the province appears to be Coquitlam. I wonder what the MLA for Coquitlam (Hon. Mr. Barrett) is doing about that. They have 55,000 citizens now and are projected in 1986 to have 95,000 people — almost 100 per cent increase. Again, where are those people going to live? Where are they going to get the serviced lots and the accommodation to locate on?

Surrey is probably one of the worst of all, with a present population of 108,000 and going to 500,000 people. There is certainly land there but, again, there are lots of problems in Surrey about assembling the land and getting it available for housing.

Even in the Minister's own area of Nelson, I understand, there's a shortage of serviced lots. Kelowna is another place, moving out of the lower mainland, where there is a heavy demand for serviced lots.

The area I know better is Prince George where there is a very heavy demand. This is caused by new people still coming into that area and there is a heavy demand. I've heard this new Minister say nothing ever happened in prior years from government regarding housing. The City of Prince George, in my opinion, has done a terrific job in cooperation with the province for years. I refer to Crown land. They have made arrangements with the province, I believe, going back 15 years at least, where the city made an arrangement to purchase the Crown land. They set their minimum on it and the city put their services in and were entitled to a slight profit. Those lots were all snapped up and, I might say, stabilized the price of housing in that area. It has still done so today to a certain degree because of prior policies.

I think there will be some trouble in Prince George now, as an example. because of the change of government policy. Prior to this, when the provincial Crown and the City of Prince George made arrangements, those Crown lots were put up for sale and the citizens purchasing received title to this property. As I understand it, this system changed. These serviced lots are going to the citizens but they will only be on a leased basis. I suggest that the majority of our citizens are not going to accept it. Dealing with policy, they will put these lots up for auction on a leased basis and will probably find the people aren't receptive to it. Then again, this will create a further problem regarding housing in this area.

I see the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) here. I understand in his area there is a heavy demand there for serviced lots as well — and in Penticton and Nanaimo, giving examples of where the problems really are acute in the Province of British Columbia.

I have another observation I'd like to make for this new Minister which I feel fairly strongly about. Is he going to put the big arm on the municipalities of this province and take over their zoning power, so to speak? I hope he's not going to, but I notice from an article of a meeting he attended, I believe, in Abbotsford that he questioned what that council was going to do. Why the one-acre minimums which this council was discussing at that time regarding some development bylaw? He intimated that he wasn't happy with the one-acre minimum.

I would say to him that in every municipality in this province there are different conditions. I think the one who can best resolve that is the local government; I don't think the Minister should be thrusting his opinion on them. I really think the ones at the local level know what is best for that community. While the Minister is entitled to make suggestions, I hope he has no intent by legislation or regulation to move in on the councils. This, in my opinion, will only cause more chaos in the housing crisis than there is in the province today.

[ Page 2131 ]

I would like to say to those people who promote the policy of no-growth that they must accept partial responsibility for the housing crisis that exists in our province at the present time. I don't think they can have it both ways and I feel they have a lot of responsibility. In fact, we are having growth and this in turn is creating the housing crisis that exists here. It's just common sense to me that it cannot go on this way; we must find room for citizens to live in. Even if you advocate a policy of no-growth, in fact, it's not happening. I think those people in our community of the province who advocate no-growth have a very great responsibility in trying to help resolve this housing crisis, the greatest housing crisis this province has ever seen.

At the present time in Vancouver, as I understand, they h ave a zero vacancy rate for rental accommodation. I'd like to comment here, hopefully not touching on legislation before us. With the atmosphere we seem to have here in the province, private developers are wary about going ahead. Private developers, I think it was mentioned earlier, have to supply around 90 per cent of the thousands of housing units required this year and next. They have to do this because they have sufficient capital and expertise to do it. It seems to me that this is not going on and I think the Minister should find out again why this is not going on. Why are they not doing as much as it appears in the first three months of 1974 as they have done in the same period of 1973? In other words, are we getting cooperation from these people or not? I am very dubious that we are.

The Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce (Hon. Mr. Lauk) said earlier, "How about your own riding?" While the riding of Cariboo covers millions of acres, believe it or not, there are some areas in the riding that have housing problems, again in the built-up areas. I'm not referring to the Town of Williams Lake which is in the centre of the riding of Cariboo. I would like to say here that the Town of Williams Lake has had a bad problem building up for the last couple of years. Now it is of crisis proportions. Two or three things are wrong, in my opinion.

The municipal boundaries weren't expanded fast enough to take in the ground of housing, and other establishments could be put on. But the Town of Williams Lake is unique in that most of the vacant land in that community, and even the balance of the land that was left, was held by the British Columbia Railroad and other Crown corporations.

Now there has been good cooperation with the old Pacific Great Eastern Railroad and the present British Columbia Railroad, but still there is not enough land available.

I would just like to refer to a statement the Minister made last fall on this situation; it was made on August 23 or 28, and reported in the the Daily Colonist, which is no longer. The Minister announced on this day that some 350 housing lots at Williams Lake would be available for development on a 60-year-lease basis, starting this fall.

"Lorne Nicolson, Minister Without Portfolio, who is responsible for housing matters, said that the land had been acquired from the government-owned B.C. Railway. 'Forty-three of the lots will be ready for lease this fall. The cost of servicing the lots will be paid by the government,' said Nicolson, meaning that the cost of a house will be sharply reduced.

"He also said that similar land-lease schemes will begin soon in Chetwynd in the Peace River country, at Squamish on Howe Sound, north of Vancouver, Kamloops and other Interior centres. Earlier Nicolson outlined plans for opening the University of B.C. Endowment Lands in Vancouver and two other government-owned parcels of land in Burnaby and North Vancouver for lease to home builders."

Just another comment of the Premier at that time:

"Premier Dave Barrett conceded meanwhile that the housing situation has gone from bad to terrible in British Columbia during his NDP administration's first year of office, and is going to get worse."

So the Premier of the province knew in August, 1973, and I say to him and his Minister...you know, what really have they done about it?

Getting back to the Town of Williams Lake, and in reference to the Minister's announcement last year, some lots have been, ready in this town and as I understand it — and I stand to be corrected if I am wrong — some were BCR property and some was Crown Land; but I can be corrected on that.

The fact of the matter is, as I understand the situation at the present time, the Town of Williams Lake still doesn't know how they are going to deal with the citizens on this. They have not got the lease documents from this department. They are getting these ready, but really, you know, how do you turn around and deal with the public that will be wanting these lots — and they are desperately needed — without knowing the conditions from the parent body, so to speak, which is the Minister of Housing.

I would just say, through you, Mr. Chairman, to the Minister, that I think at this point there were 100-odd lots made available. As I believe, they could be quite soon ready to put on the market. They're badly needed. They still don't know what the lease documents are; they haven't seen them. It might not be the Minister of Housing's responsibility — maybe the British Columbia Railroad, I don't know.

But I am saying to the Minister of Housing that he

[ Page 2132 ]

would do a great service to the council of the Town of Williams Lake if he cleared it up with them so that they could get on.

This is of some help, but not nearly the help that this town requires for the future of that community. I refer to future building lots. There is a large parcel of land there, Mr. Chairman, just on the outskirts of the town to the west, and it is referred to locally — and I think in correspondence to the Minister of Housing — as the Moon Westhills Estate. It contains 527 acres and it has been bought by a firm from the original owners.

It is for sale and the Town of Williams Lake wishes to purchase it. It is a lot of money, admittedly; I think we are talking here of — $1.5 million of raw land. Then, of course, it has to be serviced after.

It is my opinion, Mr. Chairman, to the Minister, that this community of Williams Lake will certainly make use of it. In other words, they won't buy this land. They would develop it in sections. It will all be gobbled up for housing units in that area in the next four or five years.

The council of the Town of Williams Lake have had their problems negotiating with the owners, although I think that's resolved. But now they are in the area of negotiating with the Department of Municipal Affairs. Mr. Chairman, I know they are involved here because they are more or less the policemen of all the municipalities; but they have also had negotiations with the Minister of Housing.

It seems to me — this is the problem, Mr. Chairman — that the Town of Williams Lake is getting nowhere on this parcel of land, and it is quite serious because it adjoins their west boundary, this 527 acres. They just can't go on year after year negotiating to buy this because somebody else is going to come in and get it and the municipality loses out.

I say that the demand is there. I can't understand why the Minister of Housing and his department can't get something settled definitely with the Town of Williams Lake.

I will give you my version of the way they want it settled. They want to go under section 40 of the National Housing Act, which requires that for the land plus the servicing of it for subdivision, residential subdivision, 75 per cent of the money is supplied by the federal government and 25 per cent by the province. I believe there is another section in the housing Act — I am referring to section 42 — which provides a 90-10 sharing. I am not clear what the difference is; but in any case the vehicle is there, and the Town of Williams Lake cannot understand why they can't make use of that vehicle. The national government, through Central Mortgage, I assume it is, and the provincial government will deal with the 75-25 area. They want to go in there and buy this land which I mentioned earlier — I think it is $1.5 million or so — and then service it.

But when it is all finished, they want to be able to put these serviced lots on the market as title lots to the individual buyer. I am wondering, Mr. Chairman, to the Minister of Housing, if the lease policy that he has announced means that this cannot happen in a community like Williams Lake. In other words, the province will only put their 25 per cent up on a straight lease basis, and they will not entertain the fact of putting it up for title basis.

I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that I really think this is the root of the trouble in the Town of Williams Lake. They are very hesitant to say, "go ahead" if it is only going to be on a lease basis when these lots are put on the market to the public. I would like to hear from the Minister of Housing on that.

The other part of it is that I believe that there is some concern in government, not necessarily in Housing, but relative to housing, as to whether the community of Williams Lake can really handle this amount of lots. They have a terrific growth rate there. I don't think there is any question about Williams Lake.

It's a central place; there is mining there; there is a mixture of economy — forestry, mining, tourism, and — probably more important than anything — governments, federal and provincial, are regionalizing things located there. So I would think that that community has probably one of the brightest futures for growth in the central part of the province, mainly because of its geographical location, which is more or less halfway between Kamloops and Prince George.

I might say that if they have a few surplus lots for awhile it might achieve what we are all trying to do: bring the overall price of lots in that area down from the high levels that exist. They are not as high as the lower mainland, but they are certainly a lot higher than they were, say, two or three years ago.

So I would like to hear from the Minister on that as to what his department's opinion on the situation is. I can tell him that it is getting more acute all the time.

It is my understanding, by the way, that I don't think there is any trouble at the federal government level. It's up to the province to agree with the municipality and go ahead. I think the time has arrived for some downright serious negotiation.

Mr. Chairman, so it doesn't always sound like I'm talking locally of the riding, I would just like to mention the feelings of some of the people in the Interior about the UBC Endowment Lands which the Minister has said that he would like to see part of used as housing.

First of all, my colleague on my left, for that one reason alone, I wouldn't like to see you go ahead there because I'm afraid we'd lose him. I refer to the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) who says he will stand in front of a bulldozer, and that means maybe it will run over him.

[ Page 2133 ]

I don't think we want any accidents like that happening in this Legislature.

I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, the people in the part of the country I come from don't want to see anything….

HON. MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I don't wish to restrict debate, but it has been ruled three times now, I believe, that this debate will take place under the estimates of the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point of order is well taken. Again I refer to standing order 61(2) that speeches must be strictly relevant.

MR. FRASER: I don't know how these rules are made. That only complicates it that much more when you have to deal with the Minister of Lands and Forests.

Anyway, just closing on that subject, the people of the Interior part of the province don't want to see anything happen, and I'll repeat it again under the estimates of the Minister of Lands and Forests. They certainly want to see that left as a green area of open space. I refer to all of the UBC Endowment Lands.

Interjection.

MR. FRASER: All the people in the Interior of the province….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member….

MR. FRASER: Well, he keeps….

Interjection.

MR. FRASER: No, I didn't say that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

Interjection.

MR. FRASER: Councils of those communities pass resolutions which are sent to the Premier of the province, so I would say that they represent the majority. They passed resolutions last evening, for your information.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. FRASER: I'm just about finished now. To the Minister and particularly to you, Mr. Chairman, an observation on Dunhill which we're not supposed to talk about. I really can't see that a civil servant of this government can get in a civil action over this situation and cut debate off in, really, the biggest law court we have in the province, As an elected person I strongly resent that somebody rules here that debate be cut off. In effect that's what happened here. I don't think that's democracy in our province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. It's a point of order and I would ask the Hon. Member not to mention it in his comments.

MR. FRASER: Well, fine. I'd just now like to hear from the Minister on what I had to say.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: The Hon. Member did discuss various things. I didn't have a meeting in Abbotsford. But I would point out that that arose as a result of a developer having sued and won his case twice and expecting to go ahead with a proposal where there was already a zoning and registered community plan, I believe. They, having lost two law suits, turned around, I think with some petulance.

I do agree with your situation about no growth. We have to take a reasonable attitude towards growth. We can't have unhindered growth. We have to have planning and such. But I think those two things fit in quite closely together.

A little bit closer to your home, we have already authorized…. Of course, the 43 units should be ready shortly, if not ready right now. They have full authorization to proceed with the further 180 units.

The Member has mentioned about lease documents, and I respect the opinion. I know the difficulty it's causing, and we will be trying to have those out very shortly, especially as it's of particular interest in Williams Lake and Chetwynd where they're ready to go.

On the Moon West Estates: I think I would rather discuss some of this with you privately as I have some technical reports and such here that raise some questions in the area, and I don't want to get into an across-the-floor exchange and such on these matters. I welcome getting together on this.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr. Chairman, I want to speak very briefly about land banking….

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): You did last night, the day before and the day before that, too.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Columbia River has the floor.

MR. CHABOT: The Minister of Health apparently is not here very much of the time because I haven't spoken at all about land banking and land at any time. But I'm about to say a few words at this time.

[ Page 2134 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: How unusual.

MR. CHABOT: I raised the problem in my constituency to the Minister last fall, regarding the community of Athalmer and the problems faced by the people there in the low-lying area which is subject to flooding by the Columbia River, which creates a sanitation and health problem.

I think the best way I can explain the story is probably by reading the brief letter I wrote to the Minister on. October 19, 1973. I said:

"Dear Mr. Minister:

"Further to our conversation yesterday relative to problems being encountered by Mrs. Blank" — I'll use the word blank there — "of Athalmer in securing permission to build two additional rooms to her existing home, along with toilet facilities.

"Mrs. Blank lives in the community of Athalmer which is low lying and subject to flooding by the Columbia River.

"She has been denied permission to enlarge her home, and establish toilet facilities on the basis that the area is in the flood plain, and due to the fact that it is subject to flooding it presents a health problem.

"The building inspector as well as the health officer have both denied her permission to proceed with her plans. She has suggested that she is willing to move to either Windermere or Wilmer, both communities within four miles of Athalmer. I consider this to be a reasonable solution to the problem she is facing.

"If the government is concerned about health standards in the community of Athalmer, possibly it should acquire building lots in Wilmer, Windemere and Invermere to accommodate anyone wishing to relocate from Athalmer. The relocation of residents from this community should be on a voluntary basis and should involve government financial assistance to make it attractive to relocate. I would appreciate your examining this problem and coming up with a solution."

I did receive on October 22 a reply from the Minister, a copy of a letter he wrote to Mr. Williams, Homeowners Assistance and Public Housing, stating that it had been brought to his attention by the Member for Columbia River regarding the serious problem existing in the community of Athalmer. He suggests that Mr. Williams contact me — which he did — and also that he combine his forthcoming trip to the east Kootenays with some on-site investigation of this problem.

Well, his trip was made to the Natal area, I understand, but there's never been any on-site inspection of the situation at Athalmer by the Department of Housing.

The Department of Housing followed the matter up. Mr. Williams followed the matter up on December 20 by writing to the regional district asking their advice and their conclusions as to the problem that exists in Athalmer. It's my understanding that there was a reply. A copy of this letter was sent to me, which I appreciate very much.

I requested from the regional district that they provide me with a copy of their reply to Mr. Williams. They refused to give me a copy of that letter. I subsequently took the matter up with Mr. Williams' office to establish the content of the letter in question, and from discussion with his secretary, the letter is missing.

I am merely attempting to establish what the attitude of the regional district is regarding this problem and if there is some feet-dragging and red tape, and where it does exist — whether it exists in the Department of Housing or in the office of the regional district.

This is a serious problem; it's not a new problem. It's one that's been there for some considerable time. We're talking basically about 60 to 65 homes that are in this predicament of having sand points and septic tanks all very closely aligned in the community.

This particular problem which I brought to the Minister's attention was one in which the lady has a growing family and wants to add two rooms plus toilet facilities on her home. I don't blame her for wanting to add two rooms because the home she lives in now, I guess, can probably be best described as a shack. It's a home of about 200 square feet, 10 by 20. It's a real problem with three children in the home to try to live in 200 square feet. They merely want to add a couple of rooms to make it more livable for their family.

The question was put to the Minister in October. This is several months later, six months later. Still absolutely nothing has happened. I don't think that's good enough.

I was certainly pressured by these people in Athalmer as to what they should do. I was hesitant and didn't give any direction to them, but they did proceed and added two rooms to their existing home, which I don't blame them for doing because if they're going to wait for action from the government, it appears they'll be waiting forever and living in 200 square feet of shack. Now they find themselves in a position of being threatened by the regional district with a court case because they proceeded without permission of the building inspector to build this addition. I don't fault these people for doing what they did. I fault either or bother the regional district and the Department of Housing.

The Minister has talked a lot about land banking. There has been an accumulation of land in a great variety of communities in this province. I think more attention should be given to those communities that are facing more urgent and more pressing problems,

[ Page 2135 ]

such as the community of Athalmer. There is some urgency on the part of the government to move to provide alternative building sites or lots so that these people can relocate.

I'm talking about people that want to own their own home and what they own at the present time is all that they can afford. They're working people. They're the working poor and some consideration should be given to them. They purchased the little home they have in Athalmer and the lot because they were cheap and that's all they could afford. Adjacent lots and lots in other communities such as Wilmer would run probably $500 a lot, and in Windermere about $1,000 a lot. In the only incorporated. community in the district, the community of Invermere, lots would run probably about $2,000 a lot.

They're not anxious, many of these people, to stay in Athalmer. The only reason they are there is because that's all they can afford. Many of them are willing to move on to other surrounding communities because it's close to their place of employment, but they can't afford to move.

If this government is concerned about helping the working poor to own their homes, certainly some action should be taken to establish building sites and to assist in the moving of existing homes that are in Athalmer. That's all they ask. They are not anxious to defy the regulations of the Department of Health or of the building code of the regional district of East Kootenay, but they want adequate living space. If the government was to take some positive action by acquiring some lots in some of the adjacent communities…. I'm not talking about a lot of lots, because you won't get the people of Athalmer to relocate because the majority of them want to stay there. But I think you should take serious consideration of the plight of those people who have to expand their homes, or have to improve their homes, and allow them the opportunity to get out of the health hazardous situation that they have in Athalmer — those who want to voluntarily relocate.

This problem was first approached back in 1968 by the Department of Municipal Affairs. They did offer assistance for the community to move into other adjacent communities. They offered assistance to move their homes or buy out the homes if they are unable to move. But it fell through and the reason it fell through was because they needed a majority. They insisted, I should say, that a majority of the residents of Athalmer agree to the relocation project and it fell through.

What I am suggesting now is not that you attempt to get all the people to move, because you just won't succeed in that respect, but on a voluntary basis you should have a series of lots available in Wilmer, Windermere or Invermere. I'm sure you would prefer the incorporated community of Invermere, but many of these people would rather live in unorganized communities such as Wilmer or Windermere. I'm wondering if your department will take some action to look after the problems of these people who live in Athalmer that want to relocate on a voluntary basis by acquiring lots and assisting them financially to move their homes, or for the Department of Housing to buy out those homes that can't be moved. It's a reasonable request and one which would be on a voluntary basis. By taking that action I'm sure that in due course — not immediately, but in due course — you would eliminate entirely the health hazard that these people are living under in the community of Athalmer.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: I share the concern of the Hon. Member. It's a matter which he first raised, I believe, out in the corridor with me. I made some note of it and responded in writing. A member of my department has been up in the area discussing this with the regional authorities. Although at that time it was not springtime, certainly we have photographs which suffice. Here's a picture of the 1968 flood. The question which the member raises is certainly a valid one. It's not entirely unique in the province; there are other areas and others which have even been mentioned in this debate.

We don't feel that we should just solve this unilaterally, but we certainly are interested in this problem and I think that the Member's suggestions are quite valid. I think I recall him mentioning the individual case of that woman in the hallway, although the impression I went away with was just a general problem of seasonal flooding danger and health hazard.

The letter from the regional district of East Kootenay — I'll have a copy sent to you. I don't see anything much within it. I suppose perhaps they were following some sort of protocol. And perhaps I'll send other correspondence related this time. We'll certainly get on with looking into this problem and looking at solutions. I think that a voluntary opportunity for relocation is the only way.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, just one brief one. I've recently received a phone call from this lady. The house is framed and there's no roof. The rafters are there but there's no roof and she asked me whether she should proceed with the roof in view of the fact that she's been told by the building inspector of the regional district to desist from further construction. They are threatening to take her to court. I thought it was a reasonable thing to suggest to her that maybe she should put a roof on to protect the floor and the walls of her home. I was very reluctant in suggesting this to her, but I'm extremely sympathetic to the problems she is facing and I suggested to her that she pursue the matter, put the roof on and then wait for

[ Page 2136 ]

the regional district to take her to court.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! While the matter may be of some importance, I think that you're now stepping outside of the administrative responsibility of the Minister under this vote. Therefore I would ask you to make your comments brief.

MR. CHABOT: I'm just pointing out to the Minister what is actually transpiring and what the Member for Columbia River has suggested to this family. I don't know whether they'll make her tear the home down or not, but I hope that you will look at this matter. In fact, I will follow the matter up with you with a letter and a copy to the regional district. Even though they are not prepared to supply me with copies of their correspondence I will send a copy of my letter to the Minister to the regional district and plead the case on behalf of this person in Athalmer. It's a matter where either there's going to be an opportunity to relocate or they're going to be allowed to build their homes so that they're liveable for a growing family.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): I've some questions to the Hon. Minister. I would draw to the attention of the committee, Mr. Chairman, that on Saturday the Hon. Minister circulated a two-page document entitled "Dunhill Development Corporation Appraisal Increments."

I see on the second page that it refers to valuations as at the fiscal year end, October 31, 1973. I note, rather with surprise, that the Hon. Minister has not seen fit. to table the material he circulated in the House. When I sit down, I will ask leave at an appropriate time that the Minister's circulated two-page report be tabled in the House. I'm going to refer to it, Mr. Chairman, because I see on page 2 of the material the Hon. Minister delivered to everybody in the Legislature….

HON. MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order. Many times the Chair and the Speaker made a ruling on matters pertaining to Dunhill Development. It was difficult for us to sit in judgment of what is or is not sub judice.

MR. PHILLIPS: Point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: First of all, I'll deal with the point of order raised by the Hon. Minister on the matter which the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey is touching upon. The valuation of the property appraisals, et cetera, has been ruled by this House not to be discussed because of the fact that it is sub judice. I would point this out to the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. GARDOM: Thank you very much.

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

MR. PHILLIPS: My point of order is that the Minister of Housing should leave the matter of whether it's going to be debated in this House or not up to the Chairman. Why is he so jumpy about this Dunhill Development? Why is he so jumpy? I think he should leave it up to the Chairman. That's the point of order.

HON. P.F. YOUNG (Minister of Consumer Services): It's already been moved by the Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: He seems to be very jumpy, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. PHILLIPS: Leave it to the Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! On the point of order, it is the right of any Member of this House to raise a point of order at any time. The point of order was raised by an Hon. Member and the Chair ruled on the point of order. The point of order is well taken.

MR. GARDOM: I intend to speak to this point of order and my speech will be somewhat lengthy. I do hope you'll bear with me, Mr. Chairman; I'm speaking to the point of order raised by the Hon. Minister.

In the documents….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Before the Hon. Member proceeds, I would just point out that there is a ruling on the point of order….

MR. GARDOM: I shall come to that in due course; it's part of my statement, Mr. Chairman. There's no need for you to be excited about the thing; I intend to present this information to the House and to yourself, Mr. Chairman, in order that you may effectively make the ruling on this point.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member if we are re-opening something on which there is a ruling.

MR. GARDOM: Well, just sit tight.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would point out under the rules of the House that this is not possible.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, what I am asking is

[ Page 2137 ]

quite possible. I'm going to ask these questions. If we're going to have to sit until 2 o'clock this morning to have this come out, we're going to go right through it, I'll tell you that now. Make no mistake of that.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): No respect for the Chair.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Order!

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, can I not make my point? Is it not permitted for a Member to make a point? Yes, or no?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member may proceed on his point of order, providing that it's not recanvassing one on which the House has already ruled.

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: Thank you. I heard the Hon. the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) call me "an insulting ass." Would he please stand up and offer an unequivocal apology?

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Mr. Chairman, I did not say anything….

MR. GARDOM: I'm sorry, the former Minister of Highways. My apologies. It was not you, sir; it was not you. It was the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Minister of Transport and Communications. I would ask you whether, if you said the words, "an insulting ass," referring to the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey, you would withdraw these words.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): I used those words, yes, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member withdraw them, please?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I will withdraw them under the rules; I have no choice. I obey the rules of this House, unlike some other people.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey proceed?

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to refer to the 18th edition of Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice. I'm going to refer to the second page of the statement entitled "Dunhill Development Corporation Ltd.," referred to by the Hon. the Minister of Housing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member whether he's re-opening or attempting to re-open a matter on which the House has already ruled.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, I'm just wishing to make this point. Now, just bear with me for a moment, if you don't mind.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I'm asking the Hon. Member a question. Are you attempting to re-open a matter on which the House has already ruled?

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, I'm not attempting to open a matter upon which the House has ruled; I'm attempting to open a matter upon which the House has not ruled.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member may proceed.

MR. GARDOM: I'll certainly try, Mr. Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce (Hon. Mr. Lauk). Now, to recommence. You have to have the points, Mr. Chairman, or it's not going to be possible for you to make the ruling.

The Minister of Housing circulated this two-page paper. It has not been tabled in the House, which he should have tabled. Point (1).

Point (2). In it, it refers to audited statements by Dunwoody& Co. In it, it also refers to appraisals by Penny & Keenleyside Appraisals Ltd., and K.J. Chauncey, dated December 11, 1973.

The Hon. Minister in debate on Saturday morning, March 30, 1974, referred to the book value of the capital stock in Dunhill Development Corporation Ltd. as being $1,895,444. That is the figure we find at the top of page 2 of the document that he….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Member is using material in his point of order which is clearly out of order under the….

MR. GARDOM: I'm not quoting him; I'm not quoting Hansard. I'm saying what he referred to. Unfortunately, Hansard is behind and I haven't got the pinks in front of me.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member make his point of order?

[ Page 2138 ]

MR. GARDOM: I'm trying; I'm doing my level best.

He also stated, Mr. Chairman, on Saturday morning that he referred to the appraisals by Penny and Keenleyside Appraisals Ltd. and K.J. Chauncey, and said some of them were apparently taken on December 11, 1973.

Also on Saturday morning, Mr. Chairman, the Hon. Minister, upon response to a question put to him by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett), indicated to the House that he would like to bring into the House on Monday if he could these appraisals and table them. That was what happened on Saturday.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Minister of a point of order.

MR. GARDOM: Now, I would like to….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Before we hear the Hon. Minister….

HON. MR. NICOLSON: He is paraphrasing very inaccurately my comments.

MR. PHILLIPS: You're touchy.

MR. GARDOM: If the Hon. the Minister would like me to read Hansard…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Order, please.

MR. GARDOM: …I'd be very delighted to do it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. GARDOM: In order to be completely accurate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I'd make a point to the Hon. Minister that the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey is now speaking on a point of order. Would the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey state the point of order?

MR. GARDOM: Yes, I'm getting to it, just bear with me. You have to have the facts; you can't really rule upon it until you get the facts, Mr. Chairman.

The Hon. Minister said to me, and he just raised a great issue. Mr. Chairman, are you going to interrupt me again? He just stood up and he raised a great issue… I was.... . what word did he use?.... . "paraphrasing." So then, Mr. Chairman, let me please read from the blue Hansard to satisfy the Minister. It's fine with me.

MR. BENNETT: Earlier, Mr. Chairman, the Minister was going to get me some information as to which appraisals had not been authenticated by government appraisal that were used in the compilation of this list…

Obviously referring to the list the Minister circulated.

…which the Minister had circulated throughout the House, dealing with properties in the Dunhill Development Corporation. I wonder if you have the answer for me now.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: To be sure.

An Irish expression. "To be sure," he said.

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

I hope that satisfies the Minister. I intended, Hon. Mr. Minister, to do no disservice to you in paraphrasing. I much prefer the words the way they were stated in Hansard.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member state his point of order?

MR. GARDOM: Yes. We see in May that it is the responsibility of a Minister, when referring to material and quoting from excerpts from other material, to see that that material is laid before the House. I read to you, Mr. Chairman, an excerpt from page 421 of May's Parliamentary Practice….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Is the Hon. Member seeking to have material tabled?

MR. GARDOM: Just let me finish.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member whether he's presenting arguments to have material tabled. I would point out that it is not permitted to table material in committee and therefore the proper place….

MR. GARDOM: That's one of the requests. Mr. Chairman, there's been a transgression of the rules of this House by the Hon. Minister and I'm going to bring this to your attention.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Order, please. I would ask….

HON. MR. STRACHAN: You're breaking the rules of the House doing it, too.

Interjections.

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

The point I wish to make, Hon. Member, is that it would appear from what you have said so far on your

[ Page 2139 ]

point of order that this is not a point of order which can be raised in committee; it is a request for an Hon. Member to table certain documents. Since this is not permitted in committee, the proper place to do this would be when we are meeting as the House.

MR. GARDOM: In my view the Hon. Minister has transgressed the rules of the House and I think if I read the quotation to you from May you can take appropriate action and consider it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would rule that since it involves a request for the tabling of documents, and this is not permitted in committee, therefore it should not be raised in committee.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, I would like to read these four sentences to you from May. I tend to think, with every respect to you, Mr. Chairman, and to all the other Members of this House, that the best authority on the rules of parliamentary practice is Mr. May as opposed to yourself.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! In regard to the point of order that the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey has raised, first of all, I made the first point that the proper place for this point of order to be raised is not in committee but in the House.

The second point is that it must be taken at the time that it occurs. Since that time is past, the point of order should not be raised now, and certainly not in committee.

MR. GARDOM: I'm just getting to the second point of order. Are you going to prevent me from reading this excerpt from May, Mr. Chairman — yes or no?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I have made a ruling that the Hon. Member is bringing up a point of order at the wrong place and at the wrong time.

MR. GARDOM: I would like to ask you, Mr. Chairman, whether or not your ruling is germane to this statement in May. It is impossible for you to decide that without hearing it. And May says....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Is the Hon. Member raising a point of order in regard to the tabling of documents?

MR. GARDOM: Yes, that as well.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I have made the ruling that this matter should be taken up in the right place — that is, when we are meeting as the House. Therefore I would ask the Hon. Member to discontinue his remarks on this thing.

MR. GARDOM: I think it is a pretty sad thing in the Province of British Columbia, Mr. Chairman, when it is not possible....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The Hon. Member….

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, I'm not finished! I think it is a pretty sad thing…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. GARDOM: …in the Province of British Columbia, Mr. Chairman…. Are you going to stifle me?

MR. CHAIRMAN: If the Hon. Member has finished with his point of order he may continue in regard to the debate.

MR. GARDOM: I'm continuing on….

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair has made a ruling. The ruling of the Chair may not be debated.

MR. GARDOM: You can't quote May in this House?

AN HON. MEMBER: May who?

MR. GARDOM: Is that what you are saying?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I am ruling that this may not be a point of order in committee.

MR. GARDOM: What's happening to this place? It needs some fresh spring air.

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: I'm trying to destroy it? I certainly am not! You are, with your stupid catcalls!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Would the Hon. Member confine his remarks to the vote before us? If he has another point of order to raise, would he give the other point of order?

MR. GARDOM: Well, Mr. Chairman, it seems that May — since I am not permitted to quote it, I suppose I can paraphrase it — is exceptionally critical of Ministers doing exactly what this Minister has done.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Did the Hon. Member intend to obey the Chair or not?

MR. GARDOM: Of course I intend to obey the

[ Page 2140 ]

Chair. I always have.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask the Hon. Member to either take his seat or to obey the Chair.

MR. GARDOM: Well, Mr. Chairman, you have been talking a little bit about a statement of the Speaker dealing with this principle of matters being before the courts.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would point out to the Hon. Member that this was not a ruling of the Speaker; it was an order of the House.

MR. GARDOM: I'd like to refer to that, too, if I may. It would only take me a moment. I can do it quite easily without interruption.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member state his point of order?

MR. GARDOM: The point is this: the fact that these appraisals and these audited statements have been requested has nothing whatsoever to do with this principle of sub judice. The Speaker's ruling last night was not a ruling that binds you in any manner whatsoever; it has been left to the discretion of the Chair. The Speaker's ruling was an omnibus kind of a ruling. It related, Mr. Chairman, to some sort of an alleged case. It is not relating to the questions which I am asking now.

Mr. Speaker Dowding, and I say this with every respect, essentially relied upon hearsay evidence of some kind of proceeding, which this House does not know about, in some kind of court…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. GARDOM: ...this House does not know of, taken at some date which this House is not aware of, referring to a group of plaintiffs which have never been named in this House. We don't have a writ or an originating motion or a court document in this Legislature or in this committee. The only material that has been so far tabled in this House was tabled by the Hon. Member for South Peace (Mr. Phillips).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. GARDOM: The Hon. Speaker….

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Stop abusing the Chair!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Would the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey be seated for a moment, please?

I would make the point to the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey that there were two different things that occurred. One was that the Speaker gave an opinion only. However, there was a ruling made by the Chair. This ruling was appealed to the House, and the House upheld the ruling. That was that any matter pertaining to the valuation of the Dunhill Corporation was something which impinged upon a matter which was before the courts and was therefore sub judice.

It is apparent to the Chair at this moment that the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey is continually re-opening this whole matter. Therefore I would ask him to go to another totally different point of order or to another subject under the vote.

MR. GARDOM: Well, quite obviously, Mr. Chairman, the committee made a decision at that particular point in time with the evidence it had before it. You have the opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to make a decision this afternoon, which may be an adverse decision from the point of view of the opposition, which well could end up being that. In fact, I am starting to think that it is going to be that kind of a decision anyway. We have a name for those kind of courts.

However, Mr. Chairman, on the basis of the evidence that I am going to show you, you will be faced with only one fact, this afternoon, in all conscience, in making the ruling that it is quite permissible to request both of these documents be tabled and, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister answer questions about them.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I made the ruling a few minutes ago that any consideration of tabling of documents must be done in the House, not in committee. There is no provision in committee for tabling of documents. Therefore I would ask the Hon. Member to proceed to another subject under vote 111.

MR. GARDOM: You missed the second half of my point. I said that also by virtue of the material that I was going to show to you, Mr. Chairman, it is quite permissive for us to ask the Hon. Minister questions about the appraisals and the audited statements dealing with Dunhill. This is the reason why. I want to show you why. You will have entirely new material before you, Mr. Chairman. You've got to listen.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I ruled yesterday that any consideration or discussion of any documents or matters pertaining to the appraisals concerning the Dunhill Corporation or the purchase of this corporation or prior to the purchase of this corporation are out of order. Therefore I would ask the Hon. Member to move to another subject.

[ Page 2141 ]

MR. GARDOM: All right, Mr. Chairman. I am going to ask you this: would you please inform me what lawsuit has started, by whom, and in which court?

MR. CHAIRMAN: As was pointed out in the quote from the decision of the Hon. Speaker Irwin, in 1956, this is not a matter where we split hairs or seek to discriminate certain fine points. The general subject matter is one which is out of order under this debate.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, would you please inform me which court this is before, who are the plaintiffs, who are the defendants, and what stage this action is at?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! This would be a more appropriate question to be directed to the House, inasmuch as the House has upheld the ruling of the Chair.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would also point out that it has been the practice of this Legislature throughout its history to rule matters sub judice out of order for being sub judice at the time that the writ is filed. This is not necessarily the practice in other jurisdictions; however, this is the tradition and practice of this Legislature, which the House upheld by upholding the ruling yesterday.

MR. GARDOM: Where's the writ? What evidence do you have of the writ?

Interjections.

MR. GARDOM: This is the point I am making, Mr. Chairman. You see, it is one thing to follow the rules of this House and it is another thing not to follow the rules of this House. If you wish to rely….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would ask the Hon. Member to take his seat, please.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Will you stop abusing the Chair? Half an hour straight abuse of the Chair.

MR. GARDOM: Bah!

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member is seeking contrary to the rules to re-open a matter which cannot be debated or re-opened. I would ask the Hon. Member to remain seated or to move to another subject.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, I tend to think that in most democratic tribunals it always has been the accustomed practice to have evidence; and, Mr. Chairman, when a tribunal finds that it acts without evidence, it has an opportunity….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The Hon. Member is trained in law and knows full well that when the House has passed judgment on a ruling, he may not continue to debate it.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, where is the writ? Where is it? Who are the plaintiffs? What is their name? In what court was it started?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member take his seat, please?

MR. GARDOM: Who are the defendants? Where's the evidence of any matter being sub judice?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Would the Hon. Member take his seat? Shall vote 111 pass?

MR. GARDOM: No! Mr. Chairman, now look here, you're saying that something is sub judice and you haven't got a scintilla of evidence to back that up. None! Absolutely none!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The House has ruled that the matter is sub judice and I have….

MR. GARDOM: How could it be sub judice when you don't even know if there's a lawsuit out?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The Speaker read the details of the suit to the House about three weeks ago, something like that.

MR. GARDOM: There's no writ here. There's no writ here. Why did you quote that? Mr. Attorney-General wishes to make that as a point. If he thinks he can develop that as a straw man, let him quote Hansard.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member take his seat?

MR. GARDOM: What for now?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Because the Hon. Member is out of order under standing order 43, for persisting in irrelevance. I ask the Hon. Member to speak about matters which are relevant to this vote which are in order. The Hon. Member may proceed if he raises a new subject. However, if you raise the same matter again, I'll ask you to take your seat and to discontinue your speech.

[ Page 2142 ]

MR. GARDOM: You know, May spent a lot of time considering this point, Mr. Chairman. You have spent none.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I order the Hon. Member to discontinue his speech.

MR. GARDOM: What you have done is stifle debate. What you have done is stifle debate and you're flaunting the propriety of parliament. I think it's just a darned cheap attempt of this whole government to hide public debate behind the veil of some illusionary court action. Not one of you has got the guts to bring the writ in here. And you know it's not sub judice. This deals with an action of private citizens against a corporation, and this is now a public corporation. Which is the highest court in the land? Interjections.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Read Hansard; it's all there.

MR. SMITH: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. My point of order is this, Mr. Chairman; it's unfortunate that this House is subjected to the fact that we must be steamrollered by a majority vote on a ruling by a Chairman, which places the very process that we're involved in in a place second or third down the list to the courts of the land — even if you could prove that there was something behind the courts in this land.

This happens to be the highest court in the land, Mr. Chairman. As long as we don't impinge upon a suit that you suggest is before the courts, we should have the opportunity to discuss these matters here in this House.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On the point of order, I would rule that there is no point of order.

MR. PHILLIPS: On the matter of Dunhill, earlier this afternoon I asked questions of the Minister which I have not received answers on yet; so I'll just repeat them.

(l) Will Dunhill Development remain a public company or become part of a Crown corporation on housing? That's question (1).

Question (2) What will the company status be as a taxpayer? That is, will the company pay federal income tax, provincial income tax and provincial sales tax? — and municipal tax?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The Hon. Member for Delta on a point of order.

MR. C. LIDEN (Delta): Mr. Chairman, I submit that the points being raised are tedious and repetitious. They were raised before today. You must rule them out of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! On the point of order, I'm not ruling him at this moment out of order under standing order 43. However, I would point out to the Hon. Member for South Peace River on the first point that this is a matter of legislation and therefore cannot be discussed in committee. Would he proceed with his other two points?

MR. PHILLIPS: Question (3) What will this new company's relationship be with the construction industry? Will it be a competitor in the private sector and in the public sector?

Question (4) How will Dunhill Development obtain their financing? Will they obtain their money through the government at preferred interest rates at cost to the taxpayers, or will they obtain their financing through other means?

Now I'd like the Minister of Housing to answer those questions.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would caution the Hon. Minister that some of the points that were raised are not properly….

MR. PHILLIPS: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: who is directing whom? Is the government directing you, Mr. Chairman? Or are you directing the government? I'd like to remind you, Mr. Chairman, that the Speaker last night said that Members could talk about other aspects of Dunhill if they were careful not to tread upon the matter before the court — so that the debate would not prejudice the court case.

Well, as has been pointed out previously, just a few moments ago, we don't know what is before the courts. This is a matter of trying to sweep this whole debate about Dunhill under the rug on the part of that government. I doubt if that case will ever get to court. I doubt if it will ever get to court.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The Hon. Member for South Peace River, I'm just making the point that there are other rules besides the sub judice rule. I'm just making the point that any questions or discussion must be strictly relevant to the vote before us. If the Hon. Minister wishes to answer the question …. Shall vote 111 pass?

MR. PHILLIPS: No, I would like the Minister…. He was ready to get up a moment ago; these are straightforward questions. They pertain to the whole matter of housing. They pertain to how the private sector is going to provide housing, which has got to be about 90 per cent of the housing in the Province

[ Page 2143 ]

of British Columbia. It's a very, very important question, Mr. Chairman, and I'd like the Minister to answer.

MR. CHAIRMAN: While the Hon. Member for South Peace River may put the questions, there's no obligation for the Minister to answer. I would make that point.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, we're dealing with $5.8 million of the taxpayers' money here. The matter of whether that's too much money for that particular corporation and the rest of the deal has been swept under the table because it's before the courts. Now these questions here are straightforward questions as to the future of this company, Mr. Chairman. I would like to have an answer.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I would make the point to the Hon. Member for South Peace River that it is not permitted under the rules of the House to reflect upon a vote taken by the House, or to make any comment on it.

MR. PHILLIPS: What vote are you referring to, Mr. Chairman, on a point of order?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! It's on the point that the Hon. Member for South Peace River made of sweeping something under the rug. This is reflecting upon the vote of the House. Therefore, I would ask him not to make such comments.

MR. PHILLIPS: What vote of the House?

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, we want to do the people's business, Mr. Chairman, but when a government comes in and changes the whole lifestyle in the Province of British Columbia, and when we try to debate it peacefully, they try to say that we're not doing our job and that we're filibustering. You didn't have the mandate to do some of the things you're doing, and we intend to bring it before the taxpayers of this province. We intend to do it if it takes us all year — 12 months!

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: You're the one that's trying to steamroller over this opposition. You've got 38 Members over there. You've got a big, crushing majority and you're just trying to crush us little opposition people over here. We're going to go down fighting when we go down.

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: The means justify the ends. That's all you think about, Mr. Chairman, the means justify the end. You don't care what you do with the taxpayers' dollars.

Interjections.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Leave granted.

Presenting reports.

Hon. Mr. Levi files the annual report of the Department of Human Resources.

Hon. Mr. Cocke files answer to question 176.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House. Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:49 p.m.