CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral questions

Can-Cel shares investigation. Mr. Bennett — 2031

Indian cut-off lands. Mr. Gibson — 2031

Jurisdiction of rentalsman. Mr. Wallace — 2032

ICBC commissions for Clearwater. Mr. Curtis — 2032

Purchasing commission approval on supplies, Mr. Fraser — 2032

Columbia River investigation. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2033

Medicare payments to physicians. Mr. Wallace — 2033

Possible rentalsman intervention in Prince George property lease increase. Mr. Phillips — 2034

Committee of Supply: Department of Housing estimates

On the amendment to vote 102

Mr. Phillips — 2034

On vote 102.

Mr. Phillips — 2039

Hon. Mr. Nicholson — 2040

Mr. Phillips — 2041

Hon. Mr. Nicholson — 2041

Mr. Bennett — 2041

Hon. Mr. Nicholson — 2042

Mr. Wallace — 2042

Hon. Mr. Nicholson — 2042

Mr. Curtis — 2043

Hon. Mr. Nicholson — 2043

Mr. Curtis — 2043

Hon. Mr. Nicholson — 2044

Mr. Bennett — 2045

Hon. Mr. Nicholson — 2045

Mr. Curtis — 2045

Hon. Mr. Nicholson — 2045

Mr. Curtis — 2046

Mr. Wallace — 2046

Hon. Mr. Nicholson — 2048

Mr. Phillips — 2048

Hon. Mr. Nicholson — 2049

Mr. Phillips — 2050

Hon. Mr. Nicholson — 2050

Mr. Phillips — 2050

Mr. Bennett — 2051

Mr. Phillips — 2052

Hon. Mr. Nicholson — 2054

Mr. Fraser — 2055

Mr. Curtis — 2056

Mr. Bennett — 2057

Hon. Mr. Nicholson — 2057

Mr. Phillips — 2060

Hon. Mr. Nicholson — 2063

Mr. Phillips — 2064

Point of order

Conflict of bills. Mr. Speaker — 2068

TUESDAY, MAY 6, 1975

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. C. LIDEN (Delta): Mr. Speaker, we have in the gallery today a group of 35 citizens from Crescent Beach and I would ask the Members to make them welcome.

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of the Legislature today to two friends of mine from Kimberley in the gallery, Mr. and Mrs. Watson.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker, we have 20 students from the Western Washington State College who are sitting up in the gallery. I hereby, as Attorney-General of all British Columbia, order and enjoin said students to repair to my office at 3 o'clock for a quick refresher on the politics of the Province of British Columbia. (Laughter.)

MR. C. D'ARCY (Rossland-Trail): Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to join with me in welcoming two long-time Trail area residents, Mr. and Mrs. Joe Landucci. I believe Mrs. Landucci was originally raised in Rossland.

Oral questions.

CAN-CEL SHARES INVESTIGATION

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, to the Attorney-General: Can the Attorney-General now advise the House, in regard to the investigation into the Can-Cel shares which he named March 15, 1974, whether the 10 persons, Messrs. Morrison, Smith, Smallacombe and Campbell of the securities commission and the six officers from the RCMP, have ever met together in a meeting regarding this investigation?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The answer is no. They do not meet. The objective of an order under that particular section of the Securities Act is to name sufficient personnel who can conduct the investigation because their names are set out in the order. They do not all necessarily work on the investigation and they do not all necessarily work together. Some will do part of it, others will do another part and some will do none at all, but they are available if necessary. It was a massive investigation.

MR. BENNETT: A supplementary: did all 10 members participate or were any members replaced during the course of this investigation?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I will check that part of the answer.

MR. BENNETT: A further supplementary: when the investigation is completed, will the Attorney-General file the report in the Legislature?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, Mr. Speaker, I'll certainly be glad to give a statement on it. Whether it will be in one report form or masses of material…. You know, an opinion based on masses of material is something that I would want to give consideration to.

MR. BENNETT: Is it completed?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Quite frankly, it is not completed in terms of running down all of the share transactions of that massive organization. But the vast majority of those share transactions have been run down, checked with a list, including volunteers suggested by the opposition — or you had that opportunity — who might be possible insiders, and nothing really untoward has turned up in the investigation. But I can't say it's completed because all share transactions, some through trust companies and so forth, have not been checked.

MR. BENNETT: Will you table the report?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I'll give consideration to some form in which the final results can be announced.

INDIAN CUT-OFF LANDS

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Speaker, a question for the Premier. Pursuant to the meeting with the federal Minister of Indian Affairs, I wonder if the Premier could tell us if the province is now ready to acknowledge its responsibility to solve the problem of Indian cut-off lands?

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I've not yet had a full report from the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi), who met with the Minister. It is my understanding that Mr. Buchanan stated to the press that he recognized that it was essentially a federal problem. However, this matter will be discussed in cabinet when the Minister reports this week.

MR. GIBSON: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker: this, of course, is a provincial responsibility, the

[ 30050302032.gif" target="_blank" title="View the original Hansard page">Page 2032 ]

cut-off lands, but could the Premier say when that discussion in cabinet…?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I don't think argument is in order in question period.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you disputing that you can debate the question in question period? I think you know the rules. Please!

MR. GIBSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, the Premier made a statement of fact which is not correct, so it seemed to me that it is entirely proper to take a moment to correct it.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

JURISDICTION OF RENTALSMAN

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, could I ask the Attorney-General if he could confirm that he has been requested to investigate a charge that the rentalsman has far exceeded his jurisdiction in regard to a landlord in Courtenay by threatening a criminal prosecution and in effect attempting to extort a settlement?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, that matter has not been drawn to my personal attention, but I will check the matter.

MR. WALLACE: Could I now draw it to the Minister's attention? The communication, I believe, has been received in his office and seeks to explore a very serious matter of extravagant use of the role of the rentalsman against the rights of the individual in Courtenay.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I recognize it's been drawn to my attention — the allegation — and I'll look into it. Quite a few of the allegations drawn to my attention have no foundation in fact, but some have.

ICBC COMMISSIONS FOR CLEARWATER

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): To the Minister of Transport and Communications regarding ICBC: in his press release distributed in conjunction with the filing of the ICBC annual report a few days ago, page 4 of the release, the Minister referred to revenues accruing to smaller communities as the result of handling Autoplan. He specifically cited the community of Clearwater: "Clearwater will be paying a lower mill rate directly as the result of income earned by the municipality through Autoplan commissions."

I wonder if the Minister is aware of the fact that Clearwater is in fact not a municipality, Mr. Speaker. If he would comment on that…?

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications) : If you check the Clearwater paper, you'll find that's the claim which they made publicly.

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. I don't think we should operate ICBC or any other government agency on the basis of newspaper reports. Would the Minister indicate if he's aware of the fact that Clearwater is not a municipality? There is no tax levied as a municipality. Is the news release issued over the Minister's name a few days ago therefore incorrect in this regard?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I recognize what a major point you've just raised. I will check and see whether the newspaper report, in which they claim that great benefits had come to the community because ICBC was there, is correct, not correct or whether you're trying to create a mouse out of a molehill.

MR. CURTIS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Not another! What's coming now, another mouse?

MR. CURTIS: I resist the temptation to be argumentative. If the municipality's letters patent, the incorporation of communities, is a molehill, then we know how the Minister of Transport and Communications feels about it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. Not another speech, please.

MR. CURTIS: Will the Minister undertake to file with the House a statement of those municipalities, underlined, which in fact are receiving Autoplan commissions as the result of the procedure outlined in his press release?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, and I'll also give a list of the municipalities to whom we are paying full taxes, including North Vancouver.

PURCHASING COMMISSION
APPROVAL ON SUPPLIES

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Mr. Speaker, to the Attorney-General: to what extent, if any, are judges required to seek the approval of the

[ 30050302033.gif" target="_blank" title="View the original Hansard page">Page 2033 ]

Attorney-General's department before furnishing office suites in court houses through the purchasing commission?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: All purchases of government supplies should go through the purchasing commission.

MR. FRASER: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Do judges enjoy any special rights to authorize expenses for their office furnishings by unilaterally signing purchase or lease-rental agreements?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.

COLUMBIA RIVER INVESTIGATION

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): To the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources, Mr. Speaker: may I ask the Minister whether it is still government policy to proceed with the appointment of a commissioner to look into the whole question of the Columbia River treaty and the possibility of cost allocation to other government departments of costs undertaken in that development?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources): The statements made by myself today are still the position of the government, Mr. Speaker.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Minister whether any steps have yet been taken to seek out a commissioner for this task and to have him appointed? Has any person been requested to take the job and has any person refused?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Comment would be inappropriate, Mr. Speaker.

MEDICARE PAYMENTS TO PHYSICIANS

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the Minister of Health a question with regard to payment of physicians for claims submitted for medicare services: does the Medical Services Commission claims department have a specific list of physicians whose claims are handled on an individual basis rather than being put through the computer?

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Yes, Mr. Speaker, the Medical Services Commission does keep a record of doctors who what they call "balance-bill" and what I call "extra-bill." Based on that record, we have the option and the right under order-in-council to withdraw medicare privileges from that particular doctor. We feel that it's grossly unfair that a doctor habitually charges over and above the medical payments. That record is being kept at my specific instruction.

MR. WALLACE: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Has the Minister or the Medical Services Commission notified the individual doctors or the B.C. Medical Association of the existence of this different method of handling claims?

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, this is not a different method of handling claims. We handle claims in the way we've always handled claims. What I've asked the Medical Services Commission to do is to keep a record of doctors who act unilaterally in a different way than the norm. The medical association knows quite well that this is the only possible way we could establish a pattern, They've argued with me for some time over this order-in-council. I've argued that the reason for the order-in-council is to give us the right to go after people who abuse the system. There is the odd case where an extra billing is required because of some sort of undue attention that had to be given — that can't be recognized by the computers. But as a normal course of events we must keep a record of this sort. We are going to continue to keep it and we'll be using it from time to time to ask doctors to either live within the terms of reference or be opted out of medicare.

MR. WALLACE: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Could I have the Minister's assurance that on that list of names there is no other name for any other reason than the reason of extra billing?

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I can't think of any other reason. I haven't given any instructions, but I certainly can't give that specific assurance without consulting. I can think of nothing else, standing on my feet, that we would use for that reason.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): A supplementary for clarification, Mr. Speaker. Is the Minister saying that extra billing by physicians, which may include an acceptable sum of extra billing for specialist service where there is no appropriate fee, is abusing the system?

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I thought I made myself quite clear in the first place…

MRS. JORDAN: No, you didn't. That's why I asked.

HON. MR. COCKE: …so that the Member for North Okanagan could have understood. I said that where people have been habitually overbilling —

[ 30050302034.gif" target="_blank" title="View the original Hansard page">Page 2034 ]

extra-billing — we are keeping a record so that we can establish that this is a habit pattern. Where it is, we have the right to opt them out of medicare. Frankly, I think it's the only way to fly under these circumstances.

MRS. JORDAN: Would the Minister further clarify if, in fact, there are some services provided by a specialist for which there is no specified fee and that that, in itself, has been an accepted form of charging but is in essence called "extra billing"?

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the Member for North Okanagan brings up the very case that we except. That's not what we're talking about at all, because those cases are so rare that the person would come up on the list very, very occasionally. There are other persons, as the Member for North Okanagan realizes, who make a habit of this. We certainly are establishing that at the present time.

MRS. JORDAN: I wonder why the Minister is so testy.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

POSSIBLE RENTALSMAN INTERVENTION IN
PRINCE GEORGE PROPERTY LEASE INCREASE

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of Economic Development as a director of the British Columbia Railway. I have in my hand a copy of a letter from Mr. E.H. Rutley, supervisor of real estate for British Columbia Railway, written March 11, 1975, to Hogenberry Holdings of Prince George outlining rent increases on property. This company leases from the British Columbia Railway. I point out to the Minister that this property is in turn sublet to the Prince George school district bus system. Formerly this property was leased at a rate of $1,330 per annum; this letter advises that effective May 1, 1975, the annual rate is $3,790 per annum, an increase of 285 per cent.

Could the Minister advise the House if he believes that this rental increase, which, in effect, will be passed on to the taxpayers, falls in line with rental increase guidelines under the rentalsman? Can the Minister advise the House if the lessees will have recourse to the office of the rentalsman in this matter?

MR. SPEAKER: I don't think you can ask legal questions of a lawyer; it wouldn't be proper. But you can ask if it is a fact.

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Economic Development): Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member could provide me with the material he has, I will look into it for him and answer in due course.

MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you very much. I appreciate the answer, because there is another case where the rent went up 274 per cent and the lessee was going to put a warehouse on this. But now he will move, probably, to the Canadian National Railroad, and there will be a loss of revenue to the BCR.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. No speeches.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: May I ask leave of the House to file the report made to the Justice Development Commission by J.M. Cramm, outlining some of the problems in the justice system and some of the solutions.

Leave granted.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING
(continued)

On vote 102: Minister's office, $150,127 — continued.

On the amendment.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): I would just like for a few brief moments to explore a little further the house on the hill, Casa Loma. I'd like to ask the Minister once again if, over the evening and during the night, his memory returned to him, or whether he took time to call the general manager of Dunhill Development to recheck his calendar pad to see if there were any notations made with regard to the date of the first meeting with the directors of Casa Loma.

Was the Minister aware of the situation whereby 40-odd creditors were going to have to settle for 40 cents on the dollar? Was the Minister aware of this situation? Was he advised of the situation by the persons responsible for this acquisition through Dunhill?

I would like to know, Mr. Chairman, if the Minister was really aware of this situation, because we seem to have a great credibility crisis with this government. We have a credibility crisis with the Department of Housing. We have a credibility crisis with the Premier. We have a credibility crisis with the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams).

[ 30050302035.gif" target="_blank" title="View the original Hansard page">Page 2035 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member confine his remarks to the amendment?

MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We have a credibility crisis with the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Nimsick). But maybe the Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson) would like to retrieve himself and come clean and, as I asked yesterday, be candid with the House with regard to the house on the hill.

Again yesterday afternoon, Mr. Chairman, he stated that it was very necessary to provide housing for senior citizens, that the government rush in and acquire Casa Loma. But the Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) pointed out that the Minister had taken a large senior citizens' housing project away from the senior citizens. So there again we have the Minister incredible in his incredibility. Incredible!

Mr. Chairman, the Province of British Columbia at one time had the best-housed residents in all of Canada, and under this Minister they are now among the worst housed. I am not too impressed with the Minister of Housing, who stands in this Legislature and says that all the provinces in Canada have housing starts down. I'm not impressed with this statement, because this is the Minister, Mr. Chairman, who, right in this very Legislature approximately one year ago, told the Members of this House that he was going to solve the problem of housing in British Columbia. That's why he acquired Dunhill Development Corp. for $5.8 million, a ripoff of $2 million of the taxpayers' money.

That's why he acquired this corporation, to solve the housing problems in British Columbia. But we've gone from a housing crisis, which was created under this government in the first two years of office, to where we now have a housing catastrophe. Mr. Chairman, the responsibility for this housing catastrophe rests squarely on the shoulders of this Minister.

A year ago the Minister had all of the answers. What's he going to do now? He's going to call a conference. He's going to call in people who used to provide housing for British Columbia, the private enterprise people, the private sector of our economy, and ask them how the housing situation can be solved. This is incredible, because we told that Minister that the government would not be able to solve the housing problem, that what they should do if they wanted to solve the housing problem was to put Crown land on the market at reasonable prices. It would bring down the price of privately held land and then people would be able to afford the land; then they would be able to afford the housing. The Minister of Housing is very aware that I have pointed out that it is not the increased cost of construction of housing, that it is not really the increase in interest rates, but it is the increase in the cost of land that has taken British Columbia into the position of being a have-not province in housing. Land policies that are directly attributable to the policies of that socialist government….

We warned them what would happen, but, oh, the Minister had all of the answers. His great department was going to solve all of the problems. But it hasn't solved any of the problems; it has created more problems.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where's the Liberal Party?

MR, CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would point out to the Hon. Member that he is tending to be tediously repetitious — under standing order 43.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Chairman, when I spoke before, I don't know how you knew what I was saying because you had my mike cut off a week ago last Thursday night. So how would you know whether I was being repetitious or not? And I don't recall making these statements yesterday afternoon, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point of the standing order, Hon. Member, is that to repeat his own arguments or the arguments of others is what constitutes repetition.

MR. PHILLIPS: We have a very serious situation, Mr. Chairman, a very serious situation in British Columbia, and that Minister is not being candid with this House. He is endeavouring to tell us that he has the answers when he does not have the answers.

It's unfortunate, but the very people whom this government was condemning a few short years ago, and I'm referring to land speculators — what has happened now? This government has made British Columbia a haven for land speculators, a haven for them. There was always a very delicate balance in British Columbia between supply and demand for land. So what has happened now? We have 10 different government departments, including the Department of Housing and Dunhill, going into that short supply of land and buying up privately held land. By doing this they have inflated the price of that land by, in some cases, 500 and 1,000 per cent. This is what has created the housing shortage that we have in British Columbia today. This is what we have created.

Mr. Chairman, I would like the Minister to advise us how he is going to get himself out of this situation, a situation which he and the other Ministers of this government have created.

Mr. Chairman, we're comparing some statistics and we're comparing other cities in Canada, but I want to tell you that in British Columbia housing starts

[ 30050302036.gif" target="_blank" title="View the original Hansard page">Page 2036 ]

declined 27 per cent to a total of only 992 in the first two months of this year in the Vancouver regional district, and this is from a total of 1,359 in January and February of last year. CMHC statistics also show that the number of housing units completed in the two months declined 19 per cent to a total of only 1,943 from 2,418 in the same period last year. This is with a Department of Housing in British Columbia that had a budget last year of approximately $135 million.

But you recall very well, Mr. Chairman, that this Minister said he was going to solve the housing problem. You recall very well that he even predicted there would be a surplus of housing this year. So what has the Minister really done? What has the Minister done? I would like him to clarify that situation this afternoon and advise the House how he has set about to solve the housing problem.

Maybe he would tell us how his policies have failed. Maybe that is why the Minister has called this housing conference — because he realizes he has failed. The man who had all the answers is now going to go to the private sector and ask for their help to solve the housing crisis, the same crisis that a year ago he had answered. Units under construction at the end of February declined 20 per cent to only 9,790 units from a total of 12,227 at the same time last year. I realize that we could quote statistics until the cows come home, but the very point is that this Minister and his department had all the answers through their policy of the government's providing the housing and building the housing and owning the land and buying the land and leasing it back. They were going to solve the problems. They haven't solved the problem; they have made it worse.

We have to lose faith in this Minister, Mr. Chairman, and lose faith in this department. It has not done the citizens of British Columbia one speck of good. They have created more problems than they have solved.

Anyone who wants to make a quick buck today just has to go round and buy some land and resell it to the government. That's all you have to do. The government is paying abnormally high prices for their land. In a 13-month period from November of 1973 to December of 1974, the Department of Housing purchased 2,952 acres of land at a total cost to the taxpayers of British Columbia of $26,262,831 — 74 different parcels of land.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): How much per acre?

MR. PHILLIPS: You just be patient and you will have the opportunity to find out just how much per acre. I have a few questions to ask in that very regard, Mr. Member. Just be patient.

Mr. Chairman, the problem is that all of the various departments of government that are buying up privately held land are going around the province in an uncoordinated way. Public Works doesn't know what the Department of Housing is doing. The Department of Recreation and Conservation doesn't know what the Land Commission is doing. The Department of Economic Development has no co-ordination with the Land Commission. The Insurance Corp. of British Columbia is off on its own little tangent. We have the B.C. Petroleum Corp. who are off buying up good farmland in the Surrey area — 25 per cent of it good farmland.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): No, it's not BCPC.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, it isn't?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It's the Industrial Development Corp.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, they are buying it for the petroleum corporation. We have the Department of Agriculture buying up ranches, pinko Panco Poultry and all of their land, all uncoordinated; the Department of Highways is buying up land; the transit authority is buying up land. None of these departments that are frolicking in real estate in British Columbia are co-ordinated under any one Minister or one administration. They are frolicking throughout the province, gobbling up land like it was going out of style, completely uncoordinated.

The B.C. Land Commission alone last year purchased 8,028 acres at a cost of $10,874,400.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): Are you opposed to that?

MR. PHILLIPS: But the problem is, Mr. Chairman, that while they are buying up this land at these highly inflated prices, they are inflating the price of the remainder. We have a very unique situation in the lower mainland where we have approximately 1 per cent of the land mass housing 90 per cent of the population. As I say, the balance between supply and demand before the government went in there and started frolicking in this real estate, before they went in and started frolicking around, buying up everything in sight, was a very delicate one. Now the balance is out of order. The price of privately held land has skyrocketed. That is why I say, Mr. Chairman, you have made British Columbia a haven for land speculators. You have upset that very delicate balance.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, I'm not saying there wasn't the odd speculator before. But do you have to pass a bill, do you have to have passed policies, to take the

[ 30050302037.gif" target="_blank" title="View the original Hansard page">Page 2037 ]

right to own land from 99 per cent of the citizens because of maybe one half of one per cent who are doing something wrong? This is the fallacy of your policy. This is where you don't have any vision to see what you're doing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member to confine his questioning to the specific responsibilities of this Minister and to the amendment.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, the reason that we're debating this non-confidence motion is because this Minister has failed — failed in his promises, failed in his responsibilities, failed in his duties. He has taken the housing situation from the crisis that developed after a year and a half of his policies and made it into a complete catastrophe. This Minister has been a total and utter and complete failure, and you have to take into consideration all of the policies as well as the failure of them.

The problem is that the person now who wants to buy land for housing has to pay three times. His taxes that he pays in his general taxes in British Columbia are going to buy this land at highly inflated prices. This money doesn't grow on trees. It's the people's taxes that you're using to buy this; it's tax money. So not only do his taxes have to go in to buy land and to create inflated prices on the remainder of the land, but then if he does want to buy a piece of land, he has to pay through the nose for it because of the policies of this government. The land has been inflated, as I said, sometimes 1,000 per cent.

Then what happens after he buys the piece of land? This is why we can't have people owning their own homes in British Columbia today. What happens? There's less privately held land to pay the taxes, to run the school districts and the municipalities.

This is why I can see the Minister wanting to hold a conference and why he wants to bring the private sector in — the private sector that he put the run on. He didn't allow them to go ahead and provide the housing for British Columbians, as they had done for years and years and years and did an excellent job at. If they're going to build something now, he thinks he's creating housing by buying up projects that they have planned and are going to bring on stream.

What happens? A lot of people who sell their projects to this government take their money and the put it in housing elsewhere. They put it in housing in other provinces. They put it in housing in the States — in California and in the State of Washington. This is why we have a housing crisis in British Columbia today. This is why it's a complete catastrophe. This is why this Minister is a complete and total failure. He hasn't done anything to improve the housing situation in British Columbia. He has brought it to a state of complete chaos.

And now he's going to call a conference. He's going to have all the answers.

Mr. Chairman, I just have to condemn the people who sell their land to this government, because for a few bucks they are selling their birthright and the birthright of future generations. I do not condemn those persons who have been threatened with expropriation and forced by this government to sell their land. I do not condemn them, because they have been forced by this government to sell their land. But those who sell for the quick buck now are selling their birthright to this socialist government. They are selling their birthright and the birthright of future generations.

I don't condemn those landowners who have to sell because of excessive taxation. And there are many persons in this province in the past year who have had to sell their land because of excessive taxation brought in by the stupid, idiotic policies of that socialist government.

MR. C. LIDEN (Delta): I wonder where that's coming from.

MR. PHILLIPS: And the Member for Delta knows full well what I'm talking about. He just has to go back a year. He sat on the committee; he travelled around this province. He saw the people coming before this committee and crying because they were going to have to sell their land because of the Premier's bumbling.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Don't say that.

MR. PHILLIPS: Premier's bungling.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Don't say those things.

MR. PHILLIPS: Putting his hand into the assessment pot.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We're considering the amendment to vote 102.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, there's the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald). Harp, harp, harp!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The amendment to vote 102.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, are you calling me to order? Are you calling the Premier to order? Are you calling the Member for Delta to order? Now make up your mind.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would call all Members to

[ 30050302038.gif" target="_blank" title="View the original Hansard page">Page 2038 ]

order and ask the Hon. Member not to be put off from keeping entirely relevant to the amendment.

MR. PHILLIPS: Irrelevant or irrelevant?

HON. P.F. YOUNG (Minister of Consumer Services): Oh, you've learned the difference.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, and it's too bad you wouldn't learn something over there when you make a mistake. It's too bad you wouldn't learn, but you just keep on fumble-bumbling along and making the same old mistakes time and time again. Oh, yes, it was fumbling and bumbling by the Premier of this province, putting his sticky hands into the assessment Act…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: …that is causing people in this province to sell their land to this government. Forced sales.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member try to return…? Please do not allow the other Member to distract you from this amendment.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I'll try, Mr. Chairman. I'll try. But when you have the clown prince here, he's easy to draw your attention because he's a past master at joking and making jokes and putting on a play act and it does distract me.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I confess, he's beat me today.

MR. PHILLIPS: It is, Mr. Chairman, as I am pointing out, the policies of this government that have created this chaos in housing. I would like this Minister to stand in this Legislature in a few moments when I take my seat and tell me what firm, positive plans he has to undo this situation that he has created — to allow people to go back to the method of owning their own home and allowing the entrepreneurs in this province to build the houses. What's he going to do to bring down the price of land? People didn't buy his policy, Mr. Chairman, of leasing land and becoming serfs of the state. They haven't backed this policy. British Columbians are not ready to become serfs of the state. They want to own in fee simple the land they have a house on. This is what has created this problem.

Many people have had to lose their land through tax sales due to excessive taxation. That's shameful. But what is that Minister doing about it? His policies are not working. He must see that they are not working. So, Mr. Chairman, maybe the Minister would tell us where he is going to go after his budget is passed this year. And it will be passed because of the crushing majority of the socialist government. It will be passed; it will be crushed through this Legislature. What is he going to do? What concrete plans does that Minister have? Where is the Department of Housing going? What does he intend to do to solve the chaos — the catastrophe — that we have in housing in British Columbia today? I think it is his responsibility to advise the Legislature what new policies he's going to have for 1975. Your policies and programmes, Mr. Minister, that you had in 1974 didn't work. We're in worse shape now than we were last year.

[Mr. Liden in the chair.]

It's just not good enough for you to stand in this Legislature and say that housing starts are down in other provinces. We have the fastest-growing population rate of any province in Canada. These people are coming here and unless you put up a gate at the border they are going to come here. They are going to come here because of our climate. We should be way ahead of the other provinces in housing starts, so your policies haven't worked. We are not going to settle for excuses, Mr. Chairman. We want to know what new, innovative policies you are going to come up with for the coming year. How are you going to get the price of land back down to where it was? What policies have you got to invite the private sector in to do the job that you can't do?

You know, Mr. Chairman, the Minister will probably stand up and tell us about 3,000 or 4,000 or 5,000 housing units that he is going to create next year. Does the Minister not realize that we need every year in the Province of British Columbia not 5,000, not 10,000, but 50,000 new housing starts to keep abreast of our current needs? How is he going to create those housing starts? What new policies? How is he going to solve this problem?

Mr. Chairman, I will not accept from the Minister the fact that he is going to talk about interest rates, because it isn't the interest rates but the high price of land that is holding housing back. May I make a suggestion to the Minister of Housing? The Crown owns approximately 95 per cent of the land in British Columbia. Instead of going out and buying more of that 5 per cent that is privately held and inflating the price, why don't you sit down and be realistic and put some of that 95 per cent of Crown-owned land on the market…?

MR, CHAIRMAN: I bring to your attention that the green light is on. You are nearing the end of your remarks.

[ 30050302039.gif" target="_blank" title="View the original Hansard page">Page 2039 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: I just got up!

HON. MR. MACDONALD: A brief moment — 30 minutes.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I forgot, Mr. Chairman, that we do have closure in this Legislature now.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: You haven't asked your question yet.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, would you like to ask it for me? You're part of the problem, Mr. Attorney-General.

What policy? Why don't you take some of this Crown-owned land and put it on the market and bring the price of privately held land down? No way, with these speculators that you have created in British Columbia. All you have to do in British Columbia today, if you want to sell your land to the government, is just whisper it to yourself and some man from some government department will come running and buy it up. They're frolicking all over the province. Will the Minister tell us what new innovative policies he's going to bring in during 1975 to solve the housing problems of B.C.?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the amendment pass?

Amendment negatived.

MR. PHILLIPS: Just a second, Mr. Chairman!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! You've completed your 30 minutes.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, is the Minister not going to…?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't recognize anyone on the floor. You've had your say.

MR. PHILLIPS: The Minister is not going to answer any….

MR. CHAIRMAN: You know the rules as well as I do. The amendment has been defeated. Shall vote 102 pass?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

MR. PHILLIPS: Just a moment, Mr. Chairman, I have the right to…. (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: On vote 102.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: You bored people — drove them out of the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Member for South Peace River.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, they seem to be in a hurry, Mr. Chairman, to rush this thing through.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm recognizing the Member for South Peace River on vote 102.

MR. PHILLIPS: I think this is absolutely disgusting, Mr. Chairman. (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. PHILLIPS: I think it's absolutely disgusting.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You may have the floor on vote 102.

MR. PHILLIPS: I think it's absolutely disgusting that the Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Ms. Young), who should be interested in housing, wants to rush this vote through. I think it's absolutely disgusting, Mr. Chairman — absolutely disgusting. Great interest shown!

HON. MR. MACDONALD: You bored people; you drove them right out of the House. Where are they?

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I know where your cabinet is, Mr. Chairman.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. PHILLIPS: Maybe he's out fabricating some more stories.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: Unkind, but the truth, Mr. Attorney-General.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I want to bring the Member's attention to the fact that we're dealing with….

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! We're dealing with vote 102. The Member for South Peace River has the floor and shouldn't be interrupted by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) or anybody else.

MR. PHILLIPS: It is the Minister's salary, Mr.

[ 30050302040.gif" target="_blank" title="View the original Hansard page">Page 2040 ]

Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's right.

MR. PHILLIPS: I have here a list of a few parcels of land that the Department of Housing purchased last year. I'd like to ask the Minister who location 1239 in Terrace, purchased December 18, 1973, was purchased from. Who did the appraisal? In area, it's 1.504 acres. The cost is $40,000 to the taxpayers of this province, which works out to $26,666 per acre. I would like the Minister to tell me who did the appraisal and from whom the land was purchased.

Parcel 1456 in Maple Ridge, purchased on December 19, 1974 — 5.78 acres. The cost to the taxpayers was $185,000; the cost per acre was $32,006.

Would the Minister advise who did the appraisal on those two parcels of land and from whom they were purchased?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 102 pass?

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, just a moment. Come on! Just a minute. Don't be in such a….

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Minister.

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister of Housing): Mr. Member, the Terrace one, I think, goes back to 1973. I think that we discussed those earlier in last year's estimates but we'll endeavour to get some information on that, perhaps, in the form of a return.

The Murkley property, which you've referred to, in Maple Ridge was purchased from G.I. Murkley. I think that I've also filed this in answer to questions in the House. The appraiser was Michael Geddes.

MR. PHILLIPS: Who?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Michael Geddes.

MR. PHILLIPS: A qualified appraiser?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: It was purchased for co-operative housing — United Housing Foundation. I believe it's senior citizens' housing co-op, although I'm not sure. It's not designated. It is for a co-op.

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

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Member, a little bit more information on the other one, though….

MR. PHILLIPS: In Maple Ridge?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: The one in Terrace. It is a section 40 project under the National Housing Act — "anticipate construction of 40 units." So it's obviously multiple-zoned property. We're looking for a spring start; in fact, I believe that this one has already started. Yes, construction has already started here — 21 bachelors, 16 doubles, 3 handicapped units. It'll be three-storey wood-frame construction. It's senior citizens' housing under section 40 of the National Housing Act. Of course, CMHC would also have their own appraisals.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

MR. PHILLIPS: On these parcels, was the money paid out of the Department of Housing? Were there loans on the parcels from CMHC? Or did you purchase them outright through the Department of Housing?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, in this particular case, the federal government, CMHC, purchased it and they are billing us 25 per cent, although normally we do the first purchasing and bill them later.

MR. PHILLIPS: Just a couple of others, Mr. Chairman. Prince George: location 1507-2, purchased July 29, 1974, cost to the government, $95,960; 2.51 acres, cost to the government of $38,231 per acre. Who was it purchased from? Who did the appraisal? Were there any real estate fees paid?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: That was developed by the city; it was Crown land from the Department of Lands. The development was done by the city, Prince George. I don't believe any real estate fee was paid. It was really the servicing costs.

MR. PHILLIPS: How many lots are on this? There are only 2.51 acres, and if you are looking at 4.5 to 5 lots per acre, that would appear to me to be a little out of line — $95,960 for servicing only 2.51 acres. Isn't that out of line?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Member, there was quite an extensive subdivision done. This is one of the multiple-zoned parcels in the entire thing. There were other parcels which were single-family, and this was part of a general transaction.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, how was the cost determined? You advised me that the cost of $95,960 was for servicing this property. What was involved? What did you pay for it? Or did you pay out $95,960? Tell us; tell the House: what did you pay for it? What did you receive for this $95,960?

[ 30050302041.gif" target="_blank" title="View the original Hansard page">Page 2041 ]

HON. MR. NICOLSON: All right. This was an agreement between the city and the province. We purchased these. These were put on the market by the city. There was an upset price on them, and any profits go back into further development projects on behalf of the city. So anything that accrues is not going into anyone's pocket, other than to the City of Prince George.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, is this going to be used for just single houses? This property, is it going to be used for single houses? What's it going to be used for?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: No, Mr. Member. This one is a multiple site.

MR. PHILLIPS: How many housing units are going to be created on this particular piece of land?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: We're considering a proposal call project on these. They are zoned as multiple sites, and they would be at a reasonable density consistent with the price of the land.

MR. PHILLIPS: Have you any developer interested in putting…? Have you provided plans? Has anybody provided plans? You say you are going to put it on your recall programme. Has anybody showed an interest in it yet? Have you made the plans? Are you going to get somebody to build it? Is Dunhill going to build this project?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Member, we've had great response from our proposal call housing programme, and we don't anticipate any difficulties there.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, you say that you're going to have multiple housing. Are you going to specify what can go on that piece of property? How many storeys? Is it going to be a three-storey, or are you going into multiple storeys with elevators?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Member, we specify general guidelines, whether it is for senior citizens' housing or family housing. Normally we would specify heights of buildings, the overall density, and then we, of course, reserve the right to reject applications or accept applications. That's the way it has been done.

For instance, the one that you mentioned earlier — in Terrace. That was bid upon by at least four or six different firms and the proposal call selection committee, in conjunction with CMHC, we chose the particular proposal and it turned out to be using prefabricated, pre-engineered components. But we get a good response to this.

MR. PHILLIPS: Now I would just like to ask the Minister how many housing units Dunhill actually conceived the idea of constructing and go ahead and construct, or how many they started last year. How many housing units did Dunhill Development Corp. actually build or start to build last year?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: In answer to the question, I haven't filed this yet, but 22 units were completed at a total cost of $847,000; 566 housing units are under construction at an estimated cost of about $16 million.

MR. PHILLIPS: What was that last figure?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: There are 566 under construction directly by Dunhill. The proposal call programme under Dunhill's supervision has 206 units completed; 477 are under construction and 14,013 are in planning stages.

MR. PHILLIPS: Does Dunhill have a construction wing that is actually building these, or are they just supervising? Do they have their own construction company, and what's the name of it?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Yes we have a construction company. It's called Fisher Construction.

MR. PHILLIPS: Is this a Crown corporation under Dunhill?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: It's a wholly owned subsidiary of Dunhill.

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): To the Minister: were all of these units constructed by Fisher Construction?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Yes, these are all either Dunhill or Fisher. To elaborate a little bit, and off the top of my head, the 22 units completed at Lister and Inman, I believe, in Burnaby just off Boundary Road. The 4th and Wallace senior citizens' project, which I think is over 200 units in Vancouver, not too far from Jericho Beach, is being done solely by Dunhill — of course with hiring subtrades and such and putting subs out to tender. There are two projects in North Vancouver currently being constructed by Dunhill. Also, there's a project on Chesterfield and 1st in North Vancouver and also a highrise on East 2nd Avenue, and Pioneer Village in Surrey.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, could the Minister advise…all those units or developments seem to be at the coast or on the lower mainland. Is there any building activity by either Fisher or Dunhill in the

[ 30050302042.gif" target="_blank" title="View the original Hansard page">Page 2042 ]

interior of the Province of British Columbia?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Yes, just under their supervision, Mr. Member.

MR. BENNETT: Well, could you identify the areas in which there are actually units that were conceived and are under construction now by Dunhill or your department? Could you identify what communities or areas they are in?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: I think I just have, but I'll go through that again.

MR. BENNETT: No, in the interior.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: In the interior? Fully under construction by Dunhill?

MR. BENNETT: That you initiated and are under construction. There aren't that many.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: No, Dunhill is supervising proposal calls in these areas outside of Vancouver, but its direct construction…. There is one in the Victoria area that will soon be started under direct supervision of Dunhill.

MR. BENNETT: The question is: are either Dunhill or Fisher actually constructing any units in any part of the province other than on the lower mainland? Is there anything under construction by Dunhill now, or by Fisher?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: No.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Chairman, I just want to touch briefly on another question, other than specific statistics which other Members have been questioning. I was very interested in reading about one of our enterprising cities, the City of Penticton, trying to develop secondary industry — in the magazine Business in B.C. in May, 1975. There's a very interesting article on Mariner Homes Ltd., which is a company in Penticton which is developing sectional or prefabricated homes, I'm not sure of the precise description. But I made some inquiries of the company today because it seems to me that one of the primary problems, which seems self-obvious, is the cost of homes. We've heard that there are empty homes in Vancouver and Victoria, and the reason they're empty is that people can't afford to pay the price. So it seems very much axiomatic that if we can find cheaper homes, we'll be solving the problem.

I made some inquiries about these particular homes and I find that a two-bedroom home of 960 square feet can be completed at a cost of $14,400 up to $14,880 and that a two-bedroom home with 1,152 square feet can be fully completed at $17,280. That's f.o.b. Penticton.

When one looks at the price of homes in the newspapers these days, these figures look more attractive. One of the questions that we asked the company today was the whole question of whether, in the light of these very attractive prices, sales were rising on these homes. Apparently the answer is no. The company feels that there is a lack of both federal and provincial incentives for this kind of home.

I understand that the company met in Victoria with the Department of Housing quite recently, seeking to make the government aware of this particular modular home and trying to point out some of the real advantages of the savings in cost and construction time. A home can be put up in 30 days, I understand, depending on the time of year. As I say, this company has built senior citizens' homes in McBride. With particular references to senior citizens' homes, the square footage, which might at first glimpse seem limited — 960 — nevertheless, for a young couple with one or two children, the two-bedroom home with that square footage and that price seems to me most attractive.

I wonder if the Minister could comment on the apparent, shall I say, "lack of optimism," on the part of the department to try and encourage this kind of company or any other similar company. I think I quoted in a speech earlier this session about the same kind of company in London, Ontario, that was turning out sectional homes with great success.

It seems to me that while, perhaps, families want more space and they may want some of the frills that might not be present in this kind of unit, the real difficulty in the housing market is finding reasonable, economically priced accommodations for young couples and young families, just after they get married or in the early years of marriage. One of the things that has become clear in all our debates on housing is the diversity of approach that any government must take to housing: rental units, condominiums, single-family dwellings, apartments and the whole range for which there isn't just one simple approach, obviously.

It seems to me that since we so frequently hear of the difficulties of young couples with small children in acquiring their first home, this kind of concept and the fact that it has been tried and proven not only in British Columbia but in Ontario and other parts — and in England and Scotland, I know — could we hear from the Minister to what degree he is perhaps willing to provide some incentives?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: It is rather interesting you should bring up Mariner Homes. I think, from what I have seen of Mariner Homes, they have a very good

[ 30050302043.gif" target="_blank" title="View the original Hansard page">Page 2043 ]

product. We try to encourage them. They have been used in our joint federal-provincial rural and remote housing programme in Fort Nelson. They were brought into that rather remote area all the way from Penticton at a competitive cost. Also, some of these Mariner homes are being used in our leasehold and freehold lots, by the way. We put them up in an open auction in Revelstoke and they are being used in our leasehold and freehold lots in Revelstoke. People are making use of the modular home to quite an extent in the subdivisions that we are doing in places like Williams Lake and so on.

The 960 square feet for a family. Well, Mr. Member, I can quite empathize with people in this particular square footage of house. As I have said before, before coming down here, I had a fairly comfortable lot on which I lived, situated on a lakeshore. It was 756 square feet. I still own it, Mr. Member; 756 square feet for a family of four. I think this is one of the things that is wrong today. Too many bylaws require that minimum square footage must be over 1,000 square feet.

To point out the other side of the story on Mariner Homes, we had a very successful experience, as I have related to this House many times, with Penticton. Penticton went out; we provided interim funding. They acted as the developer. They marketed the homes using the federal government assisted home ownership programme. I visited that project just last week. People are now landscaping; there is a tremendous sense of homeownership. But it was no small disappointment in the City of Penticton that Mariner Homes seemed to choose not to make a serious competitive bid and lost our right in Penticton to a firm from Kelowna. So it came to pass that homes sold from $22,000 to about $27,000-$28,000 on that project. We've shown it can be done at $22,000.

We certainly cannot align ourselves with any one producer in this modular-home industry. There are many good, reputable firms — Westwood Homes, Irwin Homes, and others — up in the Prince George area. There is good industry up that way. There are some good ones on the lower mainland, in the Penticton, Kelowna and Okanagan areas and many parts of the province. Certainly a lot of this comes down to the availability of serviced land and transportation costs. We are looking into the utilization of these homes, especially in places like Kitimat where it is hard to attract a year-round building industry and where it's necessary because of short building seasons to get in and get out very quickly. I have met with the national association of modular-home manufacturers — the Canadian Association of Home Manufacturers — they are in the factory-built housing industry.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): I wonder if the Minister would take a few moments of the committee's time to bring us up to date with respect to a development in the Municipality of Saanich which has, to say the least, been stalled for an unreasonably long time — I have the chronology of the development. It is Roy Road. The Minister and I discussed this just about a year ago, towards the end of the spring 1974 session. Once the Minister is able to tell us what's happening with this very promising but now rather stale project in Saanich, perhaps I could have some supplementary questions.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Member, Dunhill Development is dealing with Saanich on this. There have been problems in recent months because of staff and because of the lockout-strike situation, so there have been some discussions, but it's been very much hampered by that particular….

MR. CURTIS: Thank you. Nonetheless, the staff problems which really date from late January with the CUPE strike-lockout situation in the several municipalities of greater Victoria would serve only as the reason for difficulties and increased delay from that point to about now.

I would like to remind the Minister, since I indicated it just a moment ago, that it was June 14 of last year when I asked the Minister about the statements made at that time in the press by the mayor of Saanich, Mr. Lum, concerning what he felt was provincial government inactivity on a major housing scheme in the Roy Road area. The Minister, as my notes indicate, at that point said that there is a liaison person in his department, Mr. Williams, for that particular project, which was agreed upon at a meeting that took place some time ago.

Then later I asked if there was still a degree of flexibility with respect to this proposal as far as the province is concerned — this is related to density — and the Minister said that was true. So we are just about 11 months after the last conversation on this floor regarding Roy Road.

I referred to the chronology. As I understand it, it was in the spring of 1970, five years ago, that the municipality took the first tentative steps with regard to assembling a significant parcel of land, replotting and related matters which would eventually provide some 400 to 500 serviced lots available at least on a cost basis for the people of greater Victoria and for those who wished to locate here — 400 to 500 lots.

Now the present government has been with us since September of 1972 — in other words, most of that period — and I think that it is a matter of record that from the spring of 1970 through 1971 and into 1972 a great deal of time was involved with, as I say, land assembly, replotting, negotiations with owners and all the complications that go with that. But we now see 1973, 1974 and a good portion of 1975 passing by and still — and correct me if I am wrong,

[ 30050302044.gif" target="_blank" title="View the original Hansard page">Page 2044 ]

Mr. Minister — not one house provided in Roy Road. There are 400 to 500 lots serviced and could have been sold at cost, but no action. Now I do hope the Minister will take as much time as is necessary in this committee to tell us where the problem exist. Put the strike to one side; put the lockout to one side, because that only relates from very late January of this year. What happened in 1973? What happened in 1974 and why are there no houses under construction on this site?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Member, as a former mayor of that municipality, you were involved….

MR. CURTIS: Up to 1973.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Right. Certainly it's my wish that property such as this be developed expeditiously, but assembly, purchases and negotiations were originally being done by the municipality. That's how that project got initiated.

I think it was hoped that about 100 acres could be assembled there. I think about 50 acres have been assembled. We would still acquire land and perhaps modify plans slightly. It's of concern to me, but I am informed that the original intent was in terms of long-term land banking. I think that the need, however, is now, but it should be borne in mind — and you can correct me if we misunderstand on that point — that the original intent was long-term land banking. I think the need is now, I agree.

I think we can also bear in mind that, not too far away, there is another project which was called, at the time that it was topical in the newspapers, the largest development of its kind ever in the capital area, and that would be Interurban-Marigold. It has received all approvals and should be underway very shortly so that…. It is underway.

But I agree, and we are in discussion on this. I think that we're pretty much in agreement on densities, et cetera. After all, we paid the bills; the municipality did the negotiation and put a great deal of their staff time and effort into it. Central Mortgage and Housing was, I believe, originally involved as the active partner in the federal-provincial partnership on this, and now initiative has been given to Dunhill. Hopefully we will be able to proceed with this summer.

MR. CURTIS: Do I understand the Minister to say they hopefully will be able to proceed with this summer?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, that's what I would hope. But, you know, the municipality has been involved in this. I think there are still some things to be…. Well, it hasn't gone through first, second, third and fourth reading. Beyond that, I don't want to presume something that has not taken place. I don't want to prejudice any discussions with the municipality by going into this too much.

MR. CURTIS: Then the strike-lockout situation in Saanich municipality notwithstanding, the project is running behind what the Minister would wish, I gather, in terms of schedule. Is this a problem with the municipality over 1974, is it the complexity of the development, or is it a difference of opinion, perhaps, between the provincial philosophy and CMHC philosophy? I think that may be the case. What, precisely, is the problem in this development, again putting the strike to one side for the last three to four months?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Okay, Mr. Member. I think the main problem has been over-densities, and looking at the cost and looking at utilization of available land. I think discussions were centering around the number of persons per acre. I think that we are close to an agreement in this particular area now. But when we look at the costs of that land assembly, the costs of servicing and trying to bring about something that's desirable, I would say that we have been discussing the concept in terms of densities. That would probably be the problem to date. That's just a normal process, as you well know. That has been, I think, the major holdup, but that's a thing that does have to be talked out in negotiations.

MR. CURTIS: The Minister earlier referred to the Marigold development, which I think is also commonly known as the Pempco property. I look to the Minister for confirmation of that. Pempco or Marigold, we're speaking of the same development.

I understand that, as the Minister has already indicated, is going to be very large. Is it not going to take some considerable time to be developed, in terms of two to three years before final completion in all stages?

The other point I would like the Minister to indicate: is this going to be, in the main, leased lots or will some be available for outright sale?

Large. Two to three years. Lease or sale. If a combination, what percentage of which?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Yes, the time frame would be about two years overall. Contracts have already been let for some of the servicing and construction of zero lotline subdivision portions. All of this project would be under a leasehold of one form or another. The zero lotline would be on a 99-year lease. There will be a significant amount of co-operative housing on the project and that would be on the normal co-operative lease. The

[ 30050302045.gif" target="_blank" title="View the original Hansard page">Page 2045 ]

multiple sites would be co-operative.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I was surprised at the Minister's answer because in the fancy report that Dunhill produced in 1974 they suggest that start of construction for the Marigold project would be February, 1975, and completion would be 1976. Now the Minister says that the fancy report that was just made available to the public is incorrect, that the information supplied by Dunhill Development in that report is not accurate and that already he is revising the estimates on the information. Now can the Minister clarify the situation? Is all of the information provided in this report suspect or incorrect, or are there new timetables and a new time frame?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, I don't know if the Member is attacking the auditors who…

MR. BENNETT: No, this isn't the auditors; this is your own work — your timetables.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: …report the financial statements. Are you taking….

MR. PHILLIPS: Come on now, don't be ridiculous.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, Mr. Member…

MR. BENNETT: You just gave a different timetable.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: …in my math class if you take one year and 11 months and you round it off to one significant figure, you come out with two years. You know, 1.8 years is two years in rounding off figures. If you start at February and you complete by the end of December of 1976, I believe that's approximately a couple of years.

MR. BENNETT: Did construction start in February?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Servicing has commenced now.

MR. BENNETT: Has physical construction started?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Physical construction has started.

MR. CURTIS: I hope that the Minister is right, Mr. Chairman, in his assessment, his statement to the committee today, that it should be wrapped up in two years. There are those in the municipality, at both the elected and staff level, who doubt that, who feel that it may well be three years plus before this particular project is complete.

MR. BENNETT: Another revised estimate.

MR. CURTIS: Yes, it may well be another revised estimate. But if the Minister would care to elaborate on his earlier statement, if he's confident that it's going to be two years, great. But he indicated earlier that construction had started; then he revised that statement, as I understood him just a moment ago, to say that servicing is underway. There's a difference between servicing of the property and actual construction. I do hope that this one isn't going to be sitting around for something in the neighbourhood of three years awaiting completion and occupancy by people who very desperately need housing in this area.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Member, when the rest of that group was in office and some of those Members were Members of this House, way back in 1968, they started a senior citizens' housing project, another highrise similar to Nicholson Tower in the West End. Now construction, I believe, was finally commenced under our government. There was so much red tape, stuff going back and forth….

Interjections.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, you know, I guess I have to be cautious in answering questions because I know that even with the great expertise that you people supposedly had when you were government and which you had wished to bring back to this province and restore, a project that was started in 1968 is only this summer going to be completed and occupied. It only really got underway when this group got into office.

MR. CURTIS: Answer the question. What about this one?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Member, we get used to pretty fast action. For instance, we bought a couple of pieces of property in North Vancouver, which I've got down here, I think, less than a year ago. We've got construction underway there already. You go over and see the Dunhill crane on the tower. It's going up one floor every four days, Mr. Member. That's the kind of a delivery system that we have.

We bought the 4th and Wallace property — the GVRD bought it actually, or did the negotiation. They had a plan, a pretty expensive plan, pretty good architecture. We went the normal route and there was only one solution: if it was going to come in at a kind of a cost, if we weren't going to get it into this type

[ 30050302046.gif" target="_blank" title="View the original Hansard page">Page 2046 ]

of procrastination, et cetera, then Dunhill Development would have to take over. That project is near to completion now, Mr. Member, and that's our kind of record. I think that with Dunhill Development I'm quite confident that, unless there are some very unusual circumstances, once we've got our land-use contract there should be no problems and we will be able to go ahead on schedule.

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, the Minister follows the same approach as his cabinet colleagues in this government. There is not a specific answer with regard to his responsibility but a reminder of the failings, real or imagined, of previous governments. I suggest that one of the problems that we face in housing in British Columbia is very clearly identified with a statement in the record, in Hansard, from earlier this session by this Minister whose vote we're discussing today. One of the very real problems is in terms of his relationship with municipalities because it shows his disdain for municipalities; it shows his mistrust of municipalities; it shows his contempt for municipalities. I refer to the statement when he was answering a question:

HON. MR. NICOLSON: In the first place you were asking me about whatever pressure might have come from the Department of Housing; now you're talking about Dunhill Development. I don't know why they would ask that it be confidential because it's rather naive to expect anything to remain confidential if you send it to a municipality.

And then he later says: "Well, when you grow up, you know, you'll find out the facts of life."

Now that is not the climate in which provincial and local governments could possibly co-operate to produce housing in the Province of British Columbia under this Minister's direction. I think that that one will stand in Hansard's record of debate in this session — it will stand for as long as this government is in power, which I believe will not be very long, as an indication, as I said earlier, of the contempt this Minister holds for local government and for municipalities. How can he possibly expect local government to co-operate, to be open and to be as helpful as possible when this kind of statement is made and stands in the record?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound — pardon me, Oak Bay.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: They all look alike.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, that was a dreadful Freudian slip on your part. The empty Liberal benches are keeping the Chairman distracted this afternoon.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): We're here.

MR. WALLACE: Oh, I beg your pardon! There's one solitary Liberal holding the fort.

MR. GARDOM: Order! That's unkind.

MR. WALLACE: The sentinel of the Liberal Party. (Laughter.)

Mr. Chairman, I just want quickly to try and get some of the detail that the Minister talked about yesterday but was, perhaps, sidetracked in the discussion that followed. I was trying to appreciate to what degree the Minister has an inventory of the projected types of accommodation and the number of units that are considered to be required in the next year or two and the number of units within the different categories that are presently under construction. I noted with interest the figure in the Dunhill report for total units completed, in progress or planned — 2,984. Let's say 3,000 for ballpark figures.

We discussed yesterday that 30,000 units a year is not an unreasonable figure; in fact, we did a little better than that in recent years. So taking round figures, the Dunhill units at the moment represent about 10 per cent of the kind of reasonable target figure that we might be looking at. It has to be at least 30,000, I guess, when we look at the 3 per cent increase in population.

I wonder if the Minister, yesterday, when he said that his department had done a fair amount of studies right down to small number of units…. If that information is available, it might not be appropriate to go into it in committee. But could, perhaps, the Minister file projected figures as to the number of units required, what percentage should be rental, leasehold freehold and so on? Because the great difficulty that we have, at least in the opposition in trying to be fair and bring constructive and productive criticism to the House, is that we don't seem to have any government game plan, if you might call it that, for housing in the next few years. I feel that there's a lack of long-range planning. Nowhere is this more obvious than in the field of rental accommodations.

While the Minister is not responsible for rent control, there's no question that that was just one more negative factor in the construction of rental accommodation. The vacancy rates of 0.3 per cent, or whatever they are, are not improving at all. The problems, as the years go by, with any specific incentive programme as long as there is rent control just don't hold much prospect of improving the rental situation. So my question is: is there some overall plan for the next year or two in terms of the numbers of units and the various types of units? Could we have these figures so that we could study them in the

[ 30050302047.gif" target="_blank" title="View the original Hansard page">Page 2047 ]

opposition?

Secondly, is there any specific incentive programme to encourage the construction of rental units other than some of the points the Minister has raised already?

Yesterday we talked about the federal subsidy on interest rates and the question of whether this government might also get into the business of subsidizing interest rates perhaps on a wider basis to encourage investment of capital in rental units.

We mentioned the basic home — the 1,000 sq. ft. home with no frills and no luxuries — and the difficulty sometimes of municipal bylaws. I wonder if the Minister could tell us to what degree at least the government is trying to take some initiatives in this direction, because it relates back to the principle I was trying to emphasize in regard to the modular homes by Mariner Homes Ltd. — that the price is right. The building may not have all the space or all the frills, but there are probably very few of us in this chamber who didn't start off our married life in pretty cramped quarters. I was certainly one of that congregation. I think 99 per cent of us in this chamber started off in pretty cramped quarters.

Without any disrespect to the legions of homeowners in Britain, the square footage which British residents seemed to be satisfied with is considerably less than is encouraged in the North American concept of the right way to live and what we should all expect in terms of space and accommodation and the luxuries which should go into our homes. I wonder if, within the very obvious realm of costs and inflation, the many citizens of this province are having to revise what they think their standard of living should provide in terms of accommodation.

That is not a politically attractive thing to say, but as far as I can see, with the inflationary factors not only in North America but elsewhere, and the state that our economy is in, and the interest rates being charged on money, and many of these other factors, I think it is absolutely essential that the government take some initiative in emphasizing that at this point in time the rather smaller, basic home without frills is where a great deal of emphasis should be laid. As far as the Conservatives are concerned, if we were the government, this is one particular area which we would emphasize because we reject the concept that an individual or a couple or a family can no longer own their own home. That is poppycock, as far as we are concerned.

The challenge is there. The fact is that we have to revise the kind of style of accommodation or the style of living. Too readily we have all accepted as being some kind of right that we should all have 1,800 square feet and three bathrooms and a whole lot of other luxuries with wall-to-wall carpeting, luxuries of a type which, as you go through your marriage and get a few kids and your income increases, it would be quite reasonable to add to the home. I think that it would be a sign of leadership on the part of the Minister to try and develop with the municipalities an understanding that this is not an attempt to develop "ghettos." I hate that word and the way it is always dragged into this kind of argument. It isn't the idea at all to create slums of ghettos, but to try and provide reasonable accommodation for young couples and young families who simply are trying to cut the coat according to the cloth. The cloth, in this case, is dollars.

I would like to hear a little more about this and about what optimism or otherwise the Minister feels there is to start to create 1,000 sq. ft. homes on perhaps smaller lots or with some of the other modifications — zero lot lines and other mechanisms — that make better use of the lot size.

Finally, I know it is a very difficult question, but the Minister has emphasized how much more we could do with more control of our own finances within our own provincial boundaries through some form of financial institution. This year, is it a total of $90 million we are putting into lease housing and development? I notice this $70 million. Again, in relation to this kind of overall plan that I have suggested the Minister might give to the House or file with the House, what kind of additional sums of money does the Minister consider would be needed to try and cope with the increasing population demand? At the moment we are just, I gather from what's been said, hanging in there, trying to make sure the situation doesn't get any worse, but not really catching up with the continuing population increase. If $70 million is the figure which we can afford alongside all the other priorities of government in education and highways and agriculture and so on, what does the Minister conceive as being the kind of figure that we need in this province?

To put it another way, what sums of money could we match with CMHC in addition to those they have been willing to provide? I gather that recently they just announced that their annual amount of money was all used up and they were unable to provide any more funding. I can't remember the exact date. It was a month or two ago. What I want to know is: within the current fiscal year, if CMHC had additional funding, how much more funding could we match with CMHC funds to try and realistically begin to solve our problems rather than just scrambling rather inadequately to make sure the situation doesn't get any worse?

I know that is probably even an unfair question but again, from our side of the House, We would like to know what the overall outlook is and what kind of sums of money really are involved — not the $70 million we have in this budget simply because it is the

[ 30050302048.gif" target="_blank" title="View the original Hansard page">Page 2048 ]

most we can afford at the present time.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: First of all, the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) requested some idea on housing starts. He mentioned that in the Dunhill report there was indication of an activity of about some 3,000 units and that that represented about 10 per cent of the housing starts in the province for last year. I think a desirable figure would be at least 40,000 housing starts.

I have said many times that I don't see the province providing the funds through social housing programmes alone to reach these targets. We hope to supplement and bring certain types of housing on the market to supplement the normal flow. I talked yesterday about things we feel we could do to help the private sector. We do set some target figures.

Then you started to talk about what we would expect from CMHC. On April 17, I did say that we had been advised by Central Mortgage and Housing Corp. that British Columbia would only receive 21 per cent of the amount we requested for social housing in 1975. We told CMHC the province will require $187 million for family rental housing; we're getting only $39 million. We requested $107 million for seniors, and we'll get $26 million. We'll also only get $10 million instead of $60 million for co-op housing and $12 million instead of $30 million for land assembly. I think that if those amounts were forthcoming, it could also be a significant help. But that alone would not make up the difference to the required 40,000 units between what we're producing now and what we're doing….

The financial institution. I would think that once it was brought in, one could not expect it to immediately raise the funds, get the delivery system and, if it were brought in this session, create the solutions this summer. But eventually it could have a tremendous effect. I have been informed by people in the mortgage insurance business, in the mortgage trust company business and so on that as little as $200 million could have a very significant effect in British Columbia. I would think $500 million could have a most substantial effect, but as little as $200 million could have a very substantial beneficial effect.

I welcome the Member's comments about Volkswagen-standard housing as opposed to the Cadillac standards, getting along with one bathroom and so on. The Greater Vancouver Regional District has a compact housing study, and I'm looking forward to that. I hope that they get cooperation from their member municipalities toward going forward with this proposal. I've also had some very encouraging discussions with some council members here in the greater Victoria area and with a couple of councils in the greater Victoria area, and they expressed the same type of concern. It can take many forms, but I think the time is becoming more ripe to re-examine these standards and look at them very carefully as to what the cost of this type of standard is to society as a whole.

MR. WALLACE: Incentives to rental accommodation.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Incentives to the private sector for rental accommodation. At the moment we would be looking to participate as requested with Central Mortgage and Housing on a subsidy of a quarter of the units. I would think that investment opportunities could be afforded by a provincial financial institution in order to make this more viable.

One of the major needs for a provincial institution, which I don't think I did mention yesterday, was that CMHC standards require sewered land, and there's a tremendous problem with some organized municipalities that have not yet got completely sewered facilities. You just cannot wait two years until they go through with their programme, which might already be approved. People need these programmes today. Also, of course, in the unorganized areas there are tremendous opportunities for people to build and to get involved.

It might also be of interest to you about the success of the leasehold programme. An article, which I believe was in a paper called the Williams Lake Tribune, says: "Owning the land isn't everything." It says: "Leasehold Lots and Why Nots." It's a very favourable article about one family. "Mr. Tony Nuji says he couldn't be happier." It shows him doing some of the finishing work on his project. It shows how he was able to keep costs down. "He put a lot of his own sweat equity into the project." Because he wasn't carrying the cost of the land, he only had to put $300 down to reserve the lot, which would be refundable, and was able to get this housing programme going. I would perhaps send it over; I think the Member would be interested.

MR. PHILLIPS: I would just like a few moments to discuss….

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Take your 30 minutes.

MR. PHILLIPS: Where's your Premier? Where's your leader? Is he out dreaming up some new fabrications?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Would the Hon. Member address the Chair? I would ask the Hon. Member to….

MR. PHILLIPS: Building some new fabrications to….

[ 30050302049.gif" target="_blank" title="View the original Hansard page">Page 2049 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Would the Hon. Member address the Chair and address the vote? I would ask other Hon. Members to….

MR. PHILLIPS: He's outside, Mr. Chairman, searching for someone to blame the housing crisis on.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. PHILLIPS: Blaming his own lies on somebody else.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. PHILLIPS: He blames it on the press, Mr. Chairman; then he is out to find somebody to blame the housing crisis on.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, my!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before the Hon. Member proceeds, I have not finished making a point of order.

MR. PHILLIPS: Do you want me to sit down?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member may be seated; I will only be a moment. He may remain standing if he wishes. (Laughter.) The Hon. Attorney-General (Mr. Macdonald): I would ask that he not speak except from his own seat.

MR. PHILLIPS: Be careful. Be careful, or you'll never get that cabinet post. But you are not going to be in long enough anyway. You've missed your chances now. He's just playing you for dominoes anyway — checkers, maybe.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member proceed relevantly?

MR. PHILLIPS: They're just using you, Mr. Chairman. He's going to take the nomination away from you and he's going to lose, too.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. He may run in South Peace River. (Laughter.) Would the Hon. Member proceed relevantly or "revelantly" to vote 102? (Laughter.)

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, and I'll try and keep all my remarks relevant. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

For just a few moments I would like to talk about Dunhill Development, and I have a few questions I would like to ask the Minister. (1) How many of the original management team of Dunhill Development still remain working for the corporation?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, do you mean to tell me that this $5.7 million…and you don't know how many of your…and your large contract…? How many more years do the management contracts run? Have there been any changes made in the management contracts since the acquisition of this company?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: All but two of the original management team remain and the management contracts run for two years.

MR. PHILLIPS: How many are left in the team if all but two of them have gone? How many people do you still have of the original management team? How many of the original management team are still working for Dunhill?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Member, how far do you want to go down the list? The senior vice-president, vice-presidents?

MR. PHILLIPS: No, I am just talking about the top management team.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: The people who we put under management contract?

MR. PHILLIPS: How many are left? We're talking about a fairly large contract, and the Minister of Housing should have that at his fingertips. How many are left?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, of the people who were under management contract, there would be one who has left and the other person who has left is my Deputy. There were five people under management contract.

MR. PHILLIPS: So there are three left?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: No, there are four left.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, one has been side-stepped now.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: There's Mr. Paulus, Mr. Dahlberg….

MR. BENNETT: Take your shoes off.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: There were four under contract, Mr. Member, and there are three left.

[ 30050302050.gif" target="_blank" title="View the original Hansard page">Page 2050 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: But one of those three is now your Deputy.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: No, he was not under management contract.

MR. PHILLIPS: So you spent $5.8 million for four people.

MR. BENNETT: And there are only three left.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: No.

MR. PHILLIPS: What did you buy? You know, the assets of the company when you purchased it were $2,978,982 as per the consolidated statement of retained earnings in the financial statement you put out. And you told me that I must believe the accountants.

In the statement which the Minister furnished us with, and he wants us to believe the accountants, it t states that the value of the company, assets minus liabilities, is $2,978,982. The Minister paid $5.7 million for the company, so the people of British Columbia have been ripped off to the tune of $1.7 million.

I have brought this point up in this House before, but the Minister said he had acquired a management a team. Now one of the management team has gone elsewhere, probably to run Dunhill's large housing corporation in the States — maybe he learned here. But I would like the Minister to advise me one thing further with regard to this management team. Have there been any changes in the original wage scale of this management group that he hired under contract? I What was the total cost of the contract? In other words, it was a two-year contract and you had four persons and now there are three; what is the total cost going to be to the taxpayer — of this management team, this expertise that you bought? What is the total cost of this contract, of this management team?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: I'll have to take that as notice, Mr. Member. It's a Crown corporation, Mr. Member.

If you read that report, you will see that there was a $2 million profit last year. Mr. Member, property values are in there at their book value. Some of those were purchased some time earlier, and last year I documented that the value of the properties, which was assumed — the difference between assets and liabilities — was in excess of the purchase price to the a corporation. That was quite thoroughly canvassed last year.

[Mr. Lockstead in the chair.]

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, we're not in question period. The Minister doesn't take questions as notice during his estimates, if he ever wants to receive his salary vote. He has the expertise lined up there. You don't take questions as notice during estimates. If he wants his salary he's got to answer the questions. He's got the expertise there; he can find out. We'll be on your vote for a couple of minutes yet. You can send out and find out.

I want to know what the cost to the taxpayers is for this expertise that you ripped off the taxpayers of this province for to the tune of $1.7 million, buying this company that hasn't created one single housing unit in this province.

Now the Minister says, Mr. Chairman….

HON. MR, NICOLSON: Stop misleading the House, Mr. Member. Are you doing that deliberately?

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm reading the statement. You told me to believe the statement. Somebody mentioned the statement here a moment ago, and you said: "Oh, don't you believe the statement." As a matter of fact, you got up on your high horse and pretty near rode over here.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Members please address the Chair?

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, certainly, Mr. Chairman. I'd be most happy to. Would you ask the Minister of Housing to address the Chair at the same time?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would like all Members to please address the Chair.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes. Now we notice, Mr. Chairman, that there is a $2 million profit in Dunhill past year. Where did that profit come from? Off the asks of the people who bought housing from Dunhill. Yet the Minister condemns this. He wants people to provide housing at no profit. That is why he's in the business; that's why he's buying the land; that's why he's building the houses. He doesn't want any profit. The government doesn't make any profit. Yet he gives us this financial statement, and the assets of the company, even after $2 million profit — which is an additional $2 million on the backs of the taxpayers of this province, Mr. Chairman — are still only worth $4,999,459. So the value of Dunhill Development Corp. is still not up to the amount which the Minister of Housing paid for this great acquisition, Mr. Chairman.

Not only that, we are paying interest on it. That's right. We're paying interest on that money. Every year that goes by, this deal gets worse. The Minister says: "Well, the assets are not in here at their true value." What is their true value?

[ 30050302051.gif" target="_blank" title="View the original Hansard page">Page 2051 ]

This is just what I've been talking about, Mr. Chairman, all day. The government is inflating the price of land. It's the government that's doing it. Dunhill is doing it. If the value of this land is worth more now and he's going to charge more for the houses, he is shoving the price of housing up in this province when this company and the government should be acting to bring the price of land down. They should be bringing it down, Mr. Chairman, not shoving it up.

Not only did we buy this corporation and rip the taxpayers off, paying nearly $2 million more than the company is worth, even after it makes an additional $2 million it is not worth what they paid for it. Now they are using this company as an instrument to inflate the price of land. Well, you know the old theory, Mr. Chairman: take all of the low-priced land, speculate on it, shove the price out of all reach of the common man, and who can afford the land? Only the very, very rich.

I thought this government was interested in providing housing for ordinary British Columbians, young married couples. But now we have created the situation through Dunhill Development Corp., Mr. Chairman, and through the Department of Housing where only the very rich can own land in British Columbia — a complete reversal of the stated policies of that Minister. It has made a haven in British Columbia for land speculators, a complete haven for land speculators, forced people off of the land by increasing the taxes and forced people off of the land by threatened expropriation.

Then we have the pride and joy of the Minister of Housing, Dunhill Development, and what of the management team that he acquired for this $5.7 million? One of the management teams has already left, and that's all he bought. He acquired, in his own words, Dunhill Development to buy some "expertise" to assist him with creating housing — much-needed housing — in British Columbia.

MR. BENNETT: At prices they can afford.

MR. PHILLIPS: At prices they can't afford.

So not only do we have a company that isn't worth what the Minister paid for it, even after a year and $2 million profit off the backs of the taxpayers of this province, or off the backs of those who wanted to buy homes, but the situation has moved from a crisis area when he bought the company into a complete catastrophe now.

How can that Minister justify it? Will the Minister advise the House how he can justify Dunhill Development, a company that doesn't really go and create housing, but a company that sends their $5.7 million worth of expertise around buying up projects that are created by the private sector? The Minister should hang his head in shame.

Will the Minister advise the House what the price tag is on the total contract of management? This contract for management is over and above the $5.7 million that he paid for Dunhill, and we still haven't got answers to the uneven trading patterns that surrounded the shares of Dunhill before the government purchase. It's another one of those areas where we really don't know when the government started dealing with Dunhill. It's like the house on the hill, Casa Loma. There's a shortage of memory as to when we really started dealing with Dunhill.

MR. BENNETT: Selective amnesia.

MR. PHILLIPS: It's amazing to me that the Minister can have such a short memory when he wants to have. He seems to be able to recall some figures out of the air about the number of houses, but on anything else the Minister has a shortage of memory. Well, maybe some day the Minister's memory will be jogged a little.

Will the Minister just advise me how much was the total price of that expertise — the contract for those great "expertists" — that he acquired with Dunhill?

MR. BENNETT: Further to what the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) was saying, the Minister and some of the Members on the NDP side of the House seemed to question that the price of housing was beyond the reach of the average person. I just happen to have on my desk a study: "Towards Permanent Solutions to the Housing Crisis." This was done by the Vancouver and District Labour Council, and it shows exactly what's happened to the cost of housing between the years 1971 and 1974. We know that they're worse now in 1975. If we take a look at these figures produced in this study, we find that what the Member for South Peace River said is true: no action is being taken to make housing more affordable, housing more available, housing that people can buy. No effort has been made to get housing to the people who have limited incomes.

In 1971 the average Multiple Listing Service price for a lot in Vancouver was $26,500. In 1974 the average MLS price was $57,000. The price of housing has more than doubled in just that very short period of time. This is exactly what the Member has been saying to the Minister: you've done nothing to bring the price of housing down; you've done nothing to make it more available, more affordable. There's a housing crisis; there's a shortage, and it's priced beyond the means of the people of this province.

When you take a look at what that extra price does to the end price — that is, the extra interest our people will have to pay — you find out that they'll be saddled with a debt for the rest of their lives. The 1971 house ($26,500) had a down payment of $2,500, a mortgage then of $24,000, prepayment

[ 30050302052.gif" target="_blank" title="View the original Hansard page">Page 2052 ]

period 25 years. The going rate of interest then was 9.25 per cent; NHA interest monthly payments $202: total payments $60,000. So ultimately that $26,500 house would cost $60,000. They pay $36,801 in interest.

But what about the same house today? From 1971 to 1974 it went to $57,000. Same down payment, but now we have a mortgage of $55,000 over 25 years. NHA interest rates in this study are 11.5 per cent, monthly payments $553.42, and the total payment for that house is $116,000.20.

MR. PHILLIPS: That's cheap housing.

MR. BENNETT: That's cheap housing, and that's affordable housing, and that's meeting the problem of the people of this province.

That is the average multiple listing price. That isn't selecting some category such as subsidized housing or any special housing with figures that can make it look good. That is the average. When we consider the average, that is what the average citizen of this province is faced with. It has made housing less available to our people. Instead of promoting and encouraging home ownership, we have housing less available than it was three years ago and continuing to escalate in price and become beyond the means of our people.

That isn't the government or the Housing Minister solving the problem. That isn't the young couples starting out being able to buy housing. That isn't people trying to buy housing.

MR. PHILLIPS: Real estate! Dunhill Development real estate!

MR. BENNETT: This Minister is great at selecting….

MR. PHILLIPS: They're the greatest ripoff artists in B.C.!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Please let the Member continue.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Ms. Young) doesn't even care that the price is beyond the reach of the average couple, the average person in British Columbia. Programmes should only be considered successful when the actual market is being satisfied, when our people are able to not only buy housing but have it made available, and are encouraged and have the programmes and pricing to make it possible. That is not possible today in British Columbia. It is less possible today than it was in 1971. Housing is now beyond the reach of the average couple in this province. This problem has accelerated while this Minister has sat on the portfolio. How can he claim success when this condition exists?

These are the figures provided by the Vancouver and District Labour Council. They say we have a crisis while he is the Minister of Housing. The situation continues to get worse, Mr. Chairman. Here we have housing that is more than doubled in price since 1971, our citizens can't afford it, and the Minister is trying to tell us that he has a successful housing programme and that he has done his job as the Housing Minister.

It is no wonder that we on this side of the House intend to vote against his salary when the vote comes. The non-confidence motion didn't go far enough, Mr. Chairman. It was only going to reduce his salary by $1. This Minister doesn't deserve a salary. He has done nothing to make housing affordable or available to the people of this province. The figures prove it but there is proof that is worse, and that is the people searching for accommodation and shelter who can't find it in British Columbia and can't afford it, builders who want to build but can't build and provide housing. He tries to say that Dunhill…. How many units did he say were completed — 22?

MR. PHILLIPS: Twenty-two units!

MR. BENNETT: Twenty-two units is his success story of Dunhill — 22 actually completed.

MR. PHILLIPS: That's less than two a month!

MR. BENNETT: That's his success story. We have seen housing go beyond the pocketbook and not be available to our citizens. This was in British Columbia, where the ultimate dream of every citizen was to own his own home. This Minister is creating some sort of confiscation in advance because nobody has housing expectation any more. They are going to end up as a tenant, either through lend-lease as a tenant of the government, or a tenant of Dunhill, or a tenant of one of the many corporations he is developing. They are certainly being denied the possibility of home ownership. That is a reversal in this province, a reversal in this country, and it is not meeting the hopes and the expectations of our citizens.

MR. PHILLIPS: I would just like to talk for a moment, Mr. Chairman, and ask the Minister if he would not consider some suggestions that would create low-priced land for housing in British Columbia. Take some of the $90 million that is available to this Minister. Instead of continuing on this suicidal course he is on — and that's what it is, a suicidal course — of buying land, escalating the price beyond all reach of the ordinary person in British Columbia, take some of that money, service Crown

[ 30050302053.gif" target="_blank" title="View the original Hansard page">Page 2053 ]

land, put it on the market at reasonable, affordable prices to the consumer, and let's get on with providing housing.

Why will not the Minister consider a proposal that will bring down the price of land and do away with the speculators in British Columbia? He has the authority under his Act to do this. He can assist municipalities and people who already own land to get the services in. Put that land on the market and bring down the price of privately held land and bring down the price of government-held land. Put it on the market. Let the people who want to buy it for housing have it. Let's get off of this kick, this theory, this thesis, that the government must own the land.

As I said before, Mr. Chairman, this is what has undone the balance between supply and demand. This is really what has shoved the price of land out of all reach of the ordinary British Columbian.

Even if we took the $6 million that he paid for Dunhill and went around and made that money available to municipal governments to service the land that is available…. I've given the figures in this House: there is sufficient land available in the Greater Vancouver Regional District to look after the housing needs and the projected population increase for 20 years without opening up any new…this is stuff that's available already. This is by their own report. I've given that information to the House before: enough land is available without opening up any more in the Greater Vancouver Regional District, by their own surveys, to look after the housing needs for 20 years.

The problem is that municipalities are not going to service this because of the taxation problem, because there isn't sufficient taxation. There isn't sufficient revenue to service housing. And as we've already argued in this House, municipalities are going broke; and they go broke providing more housing. But if the government would go in and assist these municipalities by providing the services, then we would have housing available to British Columbians.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask the Minister just a few questions about the Burke Mountain situation in Coquitlam. The government used some of its power to acquire this land. Would the Minister advise me exactly what is going to happen on Burke Mountain? How many acres are there? What type of a community or village, what type of project are you going to put in there? When is it going to be built? What compensation are you going to give to the landowners already in that area when their way of life is disrupted? Does this really matter to the Minister?

Mr. Chairman, I'm just referring to an article in The Vancouver Sun on January 29, 1975. The headline is, "Government Front Deceived Burke Mountain Sellers," which is more deception by this government — the way they acquired this land. More deception by this Minister.

The article says that it's a pass from Daon to Dunhill to Canada Trust, with B.C. receiving. Probably the same situation exists there as usually exists when the government goes in to buy land. Some of the owners are ripped off because they are not paid the going price, while others are given a bonanza because they are paid two and three times the going price. If the government were to announce that they were going to buy, it wouldn't inflate the price; it would have a going market price. And the government should pay that going market price if they're going to keep on with this land acquisition.

No, Mr. Chairman, they use devious means of acquiring land held in the hands of private individuals in British Columbia. Even after they acquire it…. I'd just like to quote from this article:

"Figures announced for the size of the provincial government's Burke Mountain housing scheme in Coquitlam are virtually meaningless, a Sun investigation has found. So far the government does not know how much the project will cost, how many homes it will provide, or how much land it will cover.

"The man in charge of the project for the government, Werner Paulus, president of the Crown-owned Dunhill Development Co. Ltd., said in an interview that figures given in December by the Minister of Housing, Lorne Nicolson, are just a broad brushstroke, not something that is definitely going to be developed.

"Nicolson gave the cost of the project as $1 billion and said it would provide an eventual 20,000 homes on 4,000 acres for a population of 70,000."

Would the Minister advise the House what the new figures are? What is this project going to cost? How is it going to be financed? What types of construction and what types of homes are going to be built there? How many people will this project accommodate, if the figure of 70,000 is out?

The article continues:

"In fact the government does not know at the moment how much land it will have nor how much of that is physically capable of being developed. It has only the haziest idea of what form the development will take. Nicolson has only been able to suggest the local council and residents look at the Helsinki suburb of Tapiola, which is described as a garden city."

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

Now Mr. Chairman, I have been talking about the expertise that we paid for when we acquired Dunhill Development, and here's another example of, not expertise, but another example of the non-existence of expertise from this $5.7 million acquisition. Well,

[ 30050302054.gif" target="_blank" title="View the original Hansard page">Page 2054 ]

maybe the Minister would fill us in on some of the highlights of the Burke Mountain project.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: To start with the Burke Mountain project, I said at the time — of course, anything is a ballpark figure until detailed studies and plans are made — that it will eventually provide up to 20,000 new homes for some 70,000 people. People would like to know what ballpark figures we are estimating for such a project. Those figures are definitely estimates and it definitely requires detailed study and planning.

If you want to get an idea of something more specific, I said a couple of years ago, almost as soon as I was appointed, that the government would look at developing the Riverview lands. Now we have all of the information and the proposals are in. We do have figures on housing types, densities and so on. We are at the stage where we are proposing this to the municipal council.

Another thing I said was that this was a 5-to-10-year development — 5 to 10 years, Mr. Member. In other words, we are not setting a hard and fast schedule but definitely indicating that it would take place over some lengthy period of time. I think that's enough there.

As for management contracts, you requested that I inform you of how much is being paid in the management contracts. Mr. Member, development business is a very competitive business. It's not my intention to disclose the amounts of the management contracts. Other development companies, I'm sure, wouldn't announce them to us either. We certainly cannot afford to have this expertise raided by the companies. We don't want to wave a red flag in front of a bull in this instance. You should know that, Mr. Member; you pride yourself on being a successful businessman. I know that K.O. Aspol built Aspol Motors into a very thriving institution. I don't know if you've run it into the ground; I maybe suspect that that's the case. I don't know how Fords are selling up in Dawson Creek now as a result of your tenure with that project. But you should know, Mr. Member, that in business that would be a very poor decision to make.

I think you try to intimate that Dunhill Development…. You know, we have made a $2 million profit. That isn't a ripoff, Mr. Member. In selling these at fee simple, as you say, there are a few things to consider, Mr. Member: how high do you sell and how long can you sell? If you sell it too high, for one thing, people might not buy. That's what's happening with a lot of developments. We hear of 1,500 vacant new units in the greater Vancouver area because the prices are too high. If you sell too low, then somebody else, if the market is there, will simply buy it, hold it for a very short space of time and sell it at a higher price. So you've got to try and responsibly set your price between those two areas.

Certainly, Dunhill Development is in a very competitive area. Some maisonette houses which are in the Simon Fraser Hills area are selling at $37 to $36 per square foot when other comparable things in the greater Vancouver area and West Vancouver area are selling for $65 and $69 per square foot. Arbutus Village in Vancouver, a good development — well, a fairly good development — $65 a square foot. A Wall & Redekop development, Aspenwood in Vancouver — $54 per square foot and $47 to $52 per square foot. Cherry West in Vancouver — again, $54 to $58. There are some that might come close: Edgewater Park in Richmond — $34.48 to about $40 per square foot; Quilchena Park — $39 to $38. So Dunhill is definitely in a very competitive area.

Other Dunhill projects which are close by there — really in the same development — have little bit higher standards. Prices range from $43, $44, $39 and $32 per square foot. Other comparable projects are $67, $47, $45, $73, $62, $75, $67; so these are the types of things you have to take into consideration in generating these.

Now you insist on saying that Dunhill has not built any housing. Now, Mr. Member, Dunhill completed other housing projects. The ones that were completed since started, turned over to them by the department: 22 units. But, Mr. Member, you can see and behold many projects which are now under construction by Dunhill and will very soon be completed. As far as our programme there is concerned, we are certainly getting full dollar value. You seem to insist on misrepresenting the….

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I am sure the Hon. Minister didn't intend to suggest that the Hon. Member for South Peace River was deliberately misleading ….

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, Mr. Chairman, he on one hand says that we only built 22 units — he admits that — then he turns around and says we haven't built one unit.

MR. PHILLIPS: You said that.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Now, really, Mr. Chairman, I try to assume that Hon. Members don't have vexatious intent. I assume that of Hon. Members, and I try to assume that that isn't the case with that Hon. Member, but I don't know why he says one thing and then he turns around and says another.

But, certainly, Dunhill Development has proven it's very competitive. Now while these 1,500 units are vacant and overpriced, one phase of Dunhill project

[ 30050302055.gif" target="_blank" title="View the original Hansard page">Page 2055 ]

in Simon Fraser Hills sold out in two weeks' time because it was fairly priced, Mr. Member. That actually was initiated in May of 1974. I don't include that in the units that were asked for in the question actually posed by the Leader of the Opposition. He worded his question very carefully so it would come out showing not too many, but actually here….

Interjections.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, he put such limitations in that question as to misrepresent the actual fact and the actual success.

MR. PHILLIPS: You're the Minister; you should tell us what they are.

MR. BENNETT: You're like the Premier; you'll say anything.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Here's a Dunhill Development project, 40 units, and these have all been completed.

Interjection.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, Mr. Member, these were not done for the Department of Housing, These were done for Dunhill Development and sold for profit, part of the activity of Dunhill Development.

There's Ashbee House; also another project in the same location — I believe about 150 units there — built and completed by Dunhill last year. But if you want to play political games, ask questions and qualify them in such a manner as to try to create the type of answer which you wish to solicit, we'll play your game; we'll answer your question as you've asked it.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Is it correct that we're dealing here with a motion to reduce this Minister's salary?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We have disposed of that motion and we are now on the vote. We are now considering vote 102, the salary vote for the Minister of Housing.

MR. FRASER: Reduce the whole salary. Take it right out. That's what should happen to him.

MR. WALLACE: Where have you been, Alex?

MR. FRASER: Oh, I've been around. This Minister certainly has got a great attitude, and I know that the Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis) mentioned his attitude with municipalities. I think that this is causing a lot of difficulty getting housing going when he treats the municipalities the way he's quoted as treating them.

I want to deal with this Minister's contention that there was nothing done about housing by prior governments until he came along with the new Housing department. I want to relate, Mr. Chairman, a success story in housing, and it happened in the central part of the province. I don't think the Minister knew anything about it, that it ever existed, and I'm going to tell you and this House about it.

I refer to the City of Prince George, the metropolis of the central part of British Columbia. In 1961, the then provincial government went into an arrangement with the City of Prince George to develop Crown land for housing. I think it probably still is the biggest success story regarding housing and the development of lots for housing. In that period of time, the provincial government and the City of Prince George developed and put on the market for sale, and sold, 3,300 lots from Crown land. The price was kept moderate and people were able to afford to buy their own lot and home.

I'd like to now tell you, Mr. Chairman, what has happened since then in this City of Prince George, which, no question, has the best record of any place in the province on getting lots on the market and for sale — not for lease — so consistently over a period of 11 years. So we come to 1973 with a new government, and they come along and say that these lots no longer can be sold from Crown land; they must be leased only. That was the end of housing lots in Prince George and, of course, the cost as well. Actually in 1974, I believe some 100 lots were sold and there should have been 300 to 400.

Because of the government policy of lease only, what happened in the City of Prince George? With the lots that were sold, the price had been $6,000. Immediately, because of the lease policy, the price advanced to $12,000 for the few lots that they did sell in 1974. They actually doubled in price — and this government and this Minister say they are doing something for housing! They sure are doing something for housing. They are bringing it to a dead stop; that's what they're doing.

Furthermore, when the leased lots were put up for bid, they never got one single bidder for the leased lots — a complete failure. They lost all in 1974. Somebody has got to the Department of Housing now and they've done a switcheroo. They're right back selling lots outright again in Prince George. So we will now probably see something advance, but they're right back to a policy that existed from 1961 to 1972. 1 want particularly to remind this Minister, because every time he's on his feet he says that nothing was done by prior governments regarding housing. But I can assure him that that is not the fact as related to the City of Prince George.

I'd like to read a portion of a letter from a

[ 30050302056.gif" target="_blank" title="View the original Hansard page">Page 2056 ]

contractor regarding leased lots:

"The Hon. Lorne Nicolson stated the provincial government would only get involved in housing where there was a need. And in the same speech, he stated that they would start in Prince George, the city that provides the lowest-priced serviced lots in the Province of British Columbia and, by admission of the provincial Housing department, has the most efficient building programme in the province. The result: a delay of 360 lots going on the market and an inflation of lot prices averaging over $2,000 on sales since."

I'd like you to particularly listen to this, Mr. Chairman, as it's near your riding.

"The NDP government claims the credit for providing $3 million of low-interest subsidized mortgages in Prince George. But had they not interfered" — "they" being the provincial government — "over $12 million worth of private mortgage money would, instead, have been made available. So where the provincial government claimed to have put in $3 million, they scared away $12 million of private investment."

And they say they are doing everything they can for housing.

Well, my colleague wants it read again.

Interjection.

MR. FRASER: Oh, the Member for Omineca (Mr. Kelly) wants to hear it again. It'll do him good because his riding isn't very far away from where all this mixup is taking place. He has to go to the great City of Prince George to get on a plane to come down here. I think he is pretty conversant with things around Prince George.

"The NDP government claims the credit for providing $3 million of low-interest subsidized mortgages in Prince George." This letter states that because of their interference and this injection of funds, $12 million was not invested by the private sector. This letter is from a contracting organization.

Interjection.

MR. FRASER: Right. Well, this is a contracting organization in the Province of British Columbia.

So I just want to say, Mr. Chairman, that I think if we abolished the Ministry entirely, we'd get a lot more housing in British Columbia than we have with this Minister and this department.

MR. CURTIS: The Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) has identified yet another area of difficulty between this Ministry and the municipalities, local government in British Columbia. He closed his remarks with a statement which I find quite acceptable. I think that we were making some progress when housing was attached to the Department of Municipal Affairs, particularly under the former government.

This is the kind of thing that must keep the present Minister awake at night. This is from The Daily Colonist, April 24 of this year. It's very recent. "Region Rejects Criticism; Nicolson is Culprit." It's a great headline to wake up to in the morning. The story goes on:

"An angry storm of protest against Housing Minister Lorne Nicolson broke out Wednesday at a meeting of the capital regional board, chafing under recent criticism from Nicolson, who accused municipalities and regional boards of not co-operating with his department. Capital regional board members retaliated: 'If anyone was responsible for the housing crisis,' the director said, 'it was the provincial government.'"

Then there is a quote of Mayor Pollen, who accused the Minister of displaying most reprehensible behaviour. He said that the Minister had never specified his charges that municipalities aren't doing their job in housing.

He goes on to say: "Our planner came to me almost with tears in his eyes, showing me plans for 16 low-cost housing projects in which the city has been involved recently." And then the board chairman….

MR. BENNETT: The Minister smirks.

MR. CURTIS: The Minister will smirk and some of his supporters in the government will smirk, but the relationship between local government, regional districts and municipalities and this department grows worse and very little can be accomplished in this climate.

Then, carrying on with the story, the board chairman, Mr. Campbell, said:

"It took the provincial government more than a year to approve letters patent giving the regional board jurisdiction over housing and land banking. This can only point to the provincial government's own incredible failure."

I don't know that either of the two gentlemen quoted are members of the official opposition party, Mr. Chairman, so let us understand….

Interjection.

MR. CURTIS: The Minister of Defence is tossing in his usual irrelevant remarks.

Let us understand that there is this concern in British Columbia at the local and regional district

[ 30050302057.gif" target="_blank" title="View the original Hansard page">Page 2057 ]

level among members of all political persuasions with regard to this Minister and this Ministry and its inability to clear away bureaucracy, red tape, confusion and political philosophy in the interests of providing housing.

There is no way we can support this Minister's salary vote. There's no way we could nor, on behalf of the people of British Columbia, should.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 102 pass?

Interjections.

MR. BENNETT: We didn't have the vote; I was getting up. Is there a time trial, some sort of time trial, Mr. Chairman?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Would the hon. leader proceed with his speech?

MR. BENNETT: I don't want to make a speech, but earlier I asked the Minister of Housing to identify the problem of the escalation of the price of housing. Within that I would like to know what plans his department has made to bring low-priced serviced lots on the market.

We see within the Dunhill report no attempt made to solve the housing problem in the interior of this province. We see a map with a lot of dots around the lower mainland. Yes, I agree, we have a housing crisis there, but it doesn't seem to extend to any completed units or units under construction in the interior of the Province of British Columbia.

I didn't hear in his answers whether there were programmes or whether there was any housing under construction by the development arm of Dunhill, Fisher Construction, for housing in the Kamloops area or housing in the Penticton area. The housing crisis covers the whole area of British Columbia, Mr. Chairman.

Before we vote against this Minister's salary, I think he should attempt to tell this House if there are programmes to initiate housing in all of British Columbia, if a serious attempt to bring housing to prices that people can afford, to bring down the cost of housing, to values that relate more closely to the values of 1971 when housing was affordable and more in relationship to the people's salaries and they could afford to buy housing. What programmes have they to make available not just a casual or minimal amount of land in British Columbia?

We know that the provincial government owns about 95 per cent of the land in the province. Surely we shouldn't have an artificial shortage of land in this Province of British Columbia, and surely we don't want the people of this province to be tenants in their own province. We want them to be allowed the privilege — not the privilege, but the right — of home ownership and the land under it.

What programmes are being carried out or initiated to bring this land on market, to make it available, to reduce the high price of serviced lots because of the artificial shortage that has been created, a shortage that was created because of the freeze, a shortage that has been accelerated because the Minister's own department and Dunhill are in the market competing for the purchase of property?

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, because the Minister's Dunhill is in the market competing and driving up the price of property, we have in this province, where we have so much land under the name of the province, the price of serviced lots and the price of land beyond the reach of the average British Columbian. It's now becoming available, but it is only available to those who can afford it, to the very wealthy. Instead of getting more land and more housing into the hands of the people, we find it being affordable to less and less of our population.

The Minister hasn't identified any programme to create a surplus of serviced lots, to encourage the purchase of serviced lots, to encourage the purchase of homes in this province. He doesn't indicate that they have any plans at all to make homeownership available on a broad scale. Instead, he talks about some isolated instances. We have seen and the figures indicate quite clearly that during his Ministry the price of housing and the price of serviced lots has escalated beyond the ability of the ordinary citizen to buy.

If the Minister is against homeownership, if his programmes are to discourage homeownership, if he doesn't believe in the private ownership of land, let him say so. Then we would have something to really debate in this Legislature. His policies seem to indicate that he doesn't want the people to own their own homes. When you have statistics that show the average MLS price jumping from $26,000 in 1971 to $57,000 in 1974, the government is the main culprit. Instead of helping, it is part of the problem. We have to question seriously the motives of the Minister. I would hate to think it is all lack of competence. I would like to suspect that perhaps there is a design in this Minister, a design to the way he is approaching the housing situation in this province. I think he should answer these questions.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, the Member can't even seem to look at a map and see that Kamloops was included in that map. If you look

[ 30050302058.gif" target="_blank" title="View the original Hansard page">Page 2058 ]

at the key of that map, Mr. Member, you would see that there were proposal call rental units being built there.

MR. BENNETT: Nothing under construction.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Pardon?

MR. BENNETT: Nothing under construction.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Oh, it is under construction, because I saw it last week, Mr. Member.

MR. BENNETT: Not according to your answer earlier. You stated something earlier in your answer. Now you are changing your answer.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, Mr. Member, something you might not get through your thick head…

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: …is that construction goes on so quickly in this province that within a three-month period, something that wasn't even existing could already be completed and occupied.

MR. BENNETT: Point of order. I would ask the Minister to withdraw. He made some allegation about getting things through my thick head. I don't mind being insulted by the Minister, because he must be trying out to be Premier now…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BENNETT: …and developing a use of language that seems to suit the office when it is filled by the NDP.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Minister withdraw the words that were offensive to the Hon. Leader of the Opposition?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: I will withdraw the words that are offensive to the sensitive Member.

All right, Mr. Member, if you want to know what's happening, it has been completed under the provincial family housing units….

MR. BENNETT: Dunhill.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Irmin and MacPherson in Burnaby — 6 units; Lister in Burnaby — 16 units; 102nd in Fort St. John (that's in the interior, Mr. Member; in fact, it's in the north) — 40 units.

MR. BENNETT: By Dunhill?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: It's in the Member's riding who isn't here. Kinney Avenue, Penticton, in which we are involved — 63 units; 4th and 8th in Port Alberni — 23 units; Sparwood — 18 units; Greenbrook — in Surrey — 127 units; 1040 7th East in Vancouver — 17 units. Total there: 310 units under construction right now.

Nearing completion. Meadowbrook — 176 units; 20th and 2nd Street, Cranbrook (that's in the East Kootenays, Mr. Member) — 8 units; 4th Street North, Cranbrook — 5 units; 14th Street South, Cranbrook — 11 units; various other locations in Cranbrook — 20 units; Stewart and Babine in Mackenzie — 30 units; 2nd East and St. George, North Vancouver city — 152 units; Valleycliffe, Squamish — 45 units; Valley Cliff and Brackendale, Squamish — 39 units.

Planning. On Mackenzie in Abbotsford — 38 units; Nelson in Abbotsford — 24 units; Government, Burnaby — 216 units; Simon Fraser Hills, Site 2, Burnaby — 282 units; Burns Lake — 40 units; Riverview, Coquitlam — 1,344 units.

MR. BENNETT: Meadowbrook?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Island Highway, Campbell River — 30 units. Springhill and Summit, Kamloops — 60 units. Willow and Stewart, Kamloops — 10 units; Windbreak and Fleetwood, Kamloops — 12 units; Ash Street, Matsqui — 49 units; Rau Road, Mission — 32 units; 2nd West and Chesterfield, North Vancouver city — 112 units; off Lougheed Highway, Pitt Meadows — 488 units; Gertrude in Port Alberni — 10 units; 8th Street in Port Alberni — 16 units; 5th Street in Port Alberni 16 units. Coast Meridian, Port Coquitlam (GVRD) — 205 units. It says Builford I guess, Port Moody — 150 units; Park, Prince Rupert (that's outside the lower mainland) — 175 units; Main, Princeton — 27 units; Glendower and No. 2, Richmond — 320 units. Glendower, Richmond — 138; Roy Road, Saanich — 108; Interurban and Marigold, Saanich — 232.

On 79A and 140th in Surrey — 228 units; 13th and Laurel in Vancouver — 14 units; 8th and Vine in Vancouver — 7 units; Main, Vanderhoof — 34 units; north of Nechako River in Vanderhoof — 18 units; 1209 Bay, Victoria — 12 units.

Provincial senior citizens' units completed in 1974. 1850 Rosser in Burnaby — 296 units; 700 Gordon in Nelson — 15 units; 1040 7th East, Vancouver — 1 unit; retirement centre, Penticton — 126 units; Oppenheimer 1, Vancouver — 146 units.

Under construction. 6077 Kingsway — 125 units; Keremeos — 25 units. Mr. Member, those are under construction. I've actually been in there last week in Keremeos. Lillooet — 20 units; McBride — 20 units; Old Yale Road, Surrey — 190 units; Kitsilano,

[ 30050302059.gif" target="_blank" title="View the original Hansard page">Page 2059 ]

Vancouver — 69 units; Barclay, Vancouver — 509 units started in 1968. Planned, Mr. Member, but built under this government. 4th and Wallace, Vancouver — 400 units; 15th and Esquimalt, West Vancouver — 61 units. The total there under construction right now: 1,219 units. So, Mr. Member, these things are all over.

AN HON. MEMBER: By Dunhill?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Some of them are constructed by Dunhill. The 4th and Wallace — 200 units I just mentioned; others went through the architect-tendering process, and so on and so forth.

There is a great deal of activity. That goes to senior citizens' housing. Then there are non-profit senior citizens' units being built. Mr. Member, under your government, do you know that in one project alone we made a grant equivalent to the entire budget that was in the dying years of the Social Credit government? For one project alone we have a budget of $10 million for elderly citizens' housing.

Interjection.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: I don't know if he thinks he's the Member…it's been so long since he's been back up to his riding, probably, if he's like some of the others. You might think you're the Member for Fort George but you're the Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser), Mr. Member.

This is an article about the land-lease programmes. You people continually misrepresent what we're trying to do with the land-lease programme. We're selling land; some lands are going fee simple. We're putting these up on an equal basis. Sometimes we put them up at a disadvantage. In Revelstoke, the real best lots, at the request of the municipality, adjoining the golf course were asked to go fee simple. We complied with the request of the municipality and went along with that. The rest we put on an option. We have a very good response. I think about 28 of those serviced lots went on the leasehold.

In your riding in Williams Lake, Mr. Member — in case you've forgotten — it says: "Owning the Land Isn't Everything; Family Saves A Bundle; Leasehold Lots, and Why Not?" It tells a story of one of your constituents, Mr. Tony Nuji, who couldn't be happier.

"'I'm happy, and so is my wife. We have a home of our own that we can afford,' says Tony, one of the satisfied customers who availed themselves of the provincial government's leased land housing programme."

There was a lot of confusion and misunderstanding about the leased lots at first; people didn't know what it was all about. That's your job, Mr. Member. You should be out there not spreading confusion and chaos but helping your constituents to take advantage of this fine programme which is aimed at assisting people in finding shelter — not having to be subject to a landlord-tenant relationship but being given the freedom to make decisions and have that possession and ownership of their own homes.

Interjection

HON. MR. NICOLSON:

"'I came from Europe where you don't own land anyway. How many people really own their house and land? The mortgage companies own them.'

"When the lease lots became available last fall, he and his wife had nothing to lose and decided to try it. 'We had no home and were renting. We had tried the trailer bit.' They thought the lease programme was a good idea. They went ahead with it and have absolutely no regrets.

"Once you pick your lot, you apply through the town to the provincial Housing department for your lease. This costs $300 to start out. You don't have to lay out $4,000, $5,000, $15,000, umpteen thousand dollars and tie that up. Then you get your house plans and determine the cost. The government allows up to $26.50 per square foot for mortgages. If you want to spend more, you're on your own."

He talks about the home acquisition grant:

-"'Any work you do yourself counts towards the equity,' he points out. 'The government seems to be really interested if you're going to do some of the building yourself.'"

That's what we're talking about; that's what we're doing for people in your riding, Mr. Member: giving them the freedom to build, the freedom which has been denied, I think, to a great number of people because of some of the high costs which are involved at this present time. We've taken that cost of land out of the equation for people who want to start their own home. If they have money saved up, if they've been prudent and saved up some money, then that doesn't have to be sunk into a lot; it can be put right into the building. They can get to work. Also, financial assistance is available through our leasehold mortgage programme.

So, Mr. Member, I suggest that you should get up to your riding. I'd recommend that, too, to the Member for Boundary-Similkameen (Mr. Richter). I heard that he hadn't been in Keremeos for two years.

Interjection.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, Mr. Member, we have to look after your riding because you people just aren't doing a job of it. Some of you people aren't; others are….

[ 30050302060.gif" target="_blank" title="View the original Hansard page">Page 2060 ]

Interjection.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Member, I'll do that one of these days.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: You know, I thought the Minister was naive before he made that last speech, but now I realize just how naive he is. He gets up and he reads one letter — one letter — and the Minister knows full well that his lease….

HON. MR. NICOLSON: I read out about 50 housing projects, Mr. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, yes. I'm going to get to that. Sure, you have 50 housing projects started by private builders, with their ingenuity, their planning, their financing. Then he moves in and he takes it over.

I'll tell you, Mr. Chairman, the reason that people are not buying your lease programme…. You say how cheap it is. I know how cheap it is. They're going to pay for the price of that land over and over and over and over again. And at the end of the lease they're still going to have nothing.

AN HON. MEMBER: They'll never own it.

MR. PHILLIPS: The people aren't stupid enough to buy that garbage. They know what's happening with the government's great giveaway programme: 8 per cent per year they pay, plus interest, and they pay over and over and over and over again. When they're all finished paying and have lived in it for 60 years, what do they own? Nothing.

If they want to sell it and move away in the meantime, they get down on their hands and knees. If they want to sell in the meantime after they've been there, if they're transferred with a company or something, they get down on their hands and knees, all fours, and crawl to the Minister's office to beg of the Minister: "What can I sell my house for? Can I sell it to this person?"

MR. FRASER: That's what Woody Woodpecker is doing right now.

MR. PHILLIPS: Beg of the Minister what the person shall pay.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, yes. How naive that Minister can be.

You know, he's, already admitted that his programme isn't working. That's why he had to change it. I remember the great day that you put the lease lots out in Chetwynd. How many of them went? One. The Minister should have taken my suggestion and gone in, assisted that municipality to provide the services and put those lots up for auction, the same as we did in Prince George for years. People went in and they bought them and they built their houses.

No, the Minister can stand and he can read his list; an accumulative total of probably, at the maximum, at the very maximum — what, 4,000 homes? Four thousand housing units at a maximum. And the Minister says he's done a great job.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications) : They were never auctioned in Prince George. Get your facts straight.

MR. PHILLIPS: Call that unruly Minister to order. Tell him that he can make his own speech.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Will that unruly Member keep quiet, please, and will the Hon. Member proceed with his speech?

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Oh, yes, the lots were auctioned off in Prince George. They were sold. They were auctioned off in Mackenzie; they were auctioned off in Fort Nelson. Everybody was happy, lived happily ever after and owned the land that their house was on. They didn't have to pay and pay and pay and pay. They weren't at the whim of the Minister or some of his bureaucrats in the department if they wanted to sell.

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, once a mortgage is there, you transfer the mortgage. You get your down payment; you sell to whoever you want to sell to, and you go happily on your way. But get tied in with that government on a lease project…. . As I say, if you want to move, if you want to transfer the house, you go on all fours, begging at the Minister's doorstep, asking: "Will you let me sell to this person? Will you let me sell for this price?" Oh, yes, we know all about that.

Before I leave Dunhill again, I want to straighten the Minister out for one final time for the record.

When the Minister purchased Dunhill, he wasted over $2 million of the taxpayers' money to buy what he said was expertise to build houses. That was a year ago. You know the sorry results. Housing has gone from a crisis to a catastrophe.

Dunhill Development, in my estimation, hasn't done one single solitary thing to alleviate the situation in British Columbia. The assets of Dunhill

[ 30050302061.gif" target="_blank" title="View the original Hansard page">Page 2061 ]

could have been purchased on the open market, the same as the Minister did, as I pointed out earlier this afternoon. There are government bureaucrats frolicking in land and real estate all over British Columbia, having a gay time, buying up everything in sight with no regard for prices, paying way too much in some instances and ripping off other people in other instances.

The Minister says the Burke Mountain deal is a five-year deal, I believe he said. Yes, I think he said it's 5 to 10 years away. Well, if it's 5 to 10 years away, why did the Minister have to deceive the people in that area? Why did he have to deceive them to acquire that land? I would have thought, Mr. Chairman,, there must have been some great urgency to acquire this land at Burke Mountain. I thought we were doing to develop it right away, because the Minister moved with a great deal of haste to move in there, as I say, Mr. Chairman, to rip off many landowners in that area and pay others exorbitant prices.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I think the Hon. Member is stepping over the boundaries of the rules. I think he's imputing an improper motive to the Hon. Minister in suggesting that he's deceiving the public or ripping them off. I would ask him to withdraw that imputation.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I'll withdraw it. I don't mean the Minister personally, but certainly his department. I don't think the Minister personally really has any control of that department, to be quite truthful. I don't think he really knows what's going on. Otherwise, he wouldn't make some of these stupid decisions. Or maybe I'm giving the Minister too much credit. Maybe that's it. But I wouldn't want to leave people with the impression that he was trying to deceive them, because I don't think he's that intelligent.

I'd just like to carry on with Burke Mountain. The Minister did not tell me, when he talked about Burke Mountain, why he used a front to go in there and acquire this property. Nor did he answer my other question which I asked with regard to how he was going to compensate the people who already live in there. They're going to change their way of life. Information I have is that these people who live in there and have small holdings are going to be taxed out of existence, something that I alluded to earlier this afternoon. They're going to be taxed out of existence. When this development goes in there, the taxes are going to skyrocket. People who had a way of life and had a little acreage and could enjoy their way of life are going to be taxed out of existence in another way. I suppose the Minister will move in, force sale, as I alluded to again earlier this afternoon, force the people off their land, force them into leasing land from the government or selling it to the government.

I'd just like to quote again from this article:

"The Sun's investigation showed also that while the scheme means money for some, it will mean misery for others. The government has used one of the lower mainland's largest private developers as a front to hide the fact it was buying land."

Now I didn't say that the Minister was deceiving, Mr. Chairman — far be it for me to say that. But I think that the intelligent people in this province will have to gather their own decision when they understand the facts.

The article says: "The government has used one of the lower mainland's largest private developers…." Oh, he uses private developers when he wants to use them for his own ends. Oh, he hates private developers when they provide housing for British Columbians, when they provide reasonable housing for the people of British Columbia. Oh, he hates them then, Mr. Chairman. Oh, they're bad guys then when they're out doing a job and making a reasonable profit and providing housing for British Columbians, housing within the reach of young people who are getting, married. Oh, they're terrible. They're ripoff artists then, Mr. Chairman. But when the Minister wants to use one of these private developers as a front to hide the fact that he was buying land, oh, that's justified. Oh, he condemns them. Oh, how he condemns these private developers. But he'll go in and use them for his own means.

The end justifies the means: that's the theory of a communist government, a socialist government, Mr. Chairman. That's the justification. The end justifies the means; it doesn't matter who you trample on. Who's right;? The state is always right, Mr. Chairman. The state is supreme. Complete disregard for the rights of individuals. The state is supreme. Use the private developer as a front to hide the fact that he was buying land.

I'd like the Minister to stand in this Legislature and advise the Members of the Legislature why he used this front to acquire this land in the Burke Mountain area. Would the Minister advise why he used this private developer as a front to hide the fact that he was buying land? Why was this front used to successfully deceive some of the sellers? Would the Minister explain this situation to the Legislature?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 102 pass?

MR. PHILLIPS: No way, not yet, no. We'd like some answers. I can get up again. Are you trying to bring in another closure this afternoon, to deny the rights…. .

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Would the Hon.

[ 30050302062.gif" target="_blank" title="View the original Hansard page">Page 2062 ]

Member…?

MR. PHILLIPS: …of the taxpayers' representatives…?

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

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I just want this clarified, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Chair has recognized the Hon. Member on vote 102.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I'd like you to ask the Attorney-General….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The Attorney-General does not set the rules.

MR. PHILLIPS: I want an explanation from the Attorney-General.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: I want an explanation from you. Are you denying me my rights to get…?

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member for South Peace River continue with his remarks to the vote?

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I've asked the Minister of Housing a question, and I'd like him to explain this Burke Mountain deal. I'll ask him again. I'll state it slowly this time so he will understand. I want to know why the Minister of Housing used a private development to hide the fact that he was buying land in the Burke Mountain area?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: I used a private developer to acquire the land to get the best possible, fairest price and the best expenditure of public funds as possible.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, he used a private developer. Now I want to know, Mr. Chairman, if he used a private developer to get the best price possible in the Burke Mountain deal, whether he used a private developer to buy Cumberland, location 1016, 18.13 acres for $22,195? Did he use a private developer in the acquisition of that particular piece of land? Did you use a private developer in Williams Lake when you paid $2,497 an acre for land at Williams Lake? Did you use a private developer when you paid $12,580 an acre for land in Saanich? Did you use a private developer to acquire land in Victoria at $117,449 an acre?

We seem to have a double standard here, Mr. Chairman. In one area he pays the going prices and uses real estate people. In others, he tries to get the best price possible. Mr. Chairman, if he tries to get the best price possible, how come for some of the land purchased in the Burke Mountain area the government paid more than the asking price? How come in some other areas you ripped off the people by not paying the market price?

What kind of a standard do you use in the Department of Housing when you're buying land? You must have some standard that you go by. There must be some rule of thumb. You must have some regulation. Or did you just go out on these 74 parcels of land that you purchased? What is your standard? What is your method? How do you determine what to pay? If you use a private developer in one area, why don't you use a private developer in all areas?

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: We need Ray Parkinson over here.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'd just like to read a little bit more from this article, because it's very revealing. One of the objectives of the scheme is to get control over future residential land prices in greater Vancouver as a whole. Control. An inflated price, so that the Minister can next year say that Dunhill Development made not only $2 million profit but a $5 million profit. He wants to control the price of land so that he can justify this waste of the taxpayers' money in buying Dunhill Development. Is that the control he wants? Control all the land. As Karl Marx says: "Control all the land and you control the people." Is that the ultimate aim of the Minister of Housing? Control the land and control the people.

"In land dealings in the area so far, one group which includes three U.S. citizens is looking at a profit approaching $3 million." That's why he used a private developer: to get the best deal possible for the taxpayers. A Yankee developer, a Yankee landowner rips off the taxpayers of British Columbia for $3 million. Is this the best deal possible? Is this why you used a private developer in the Burke Mountain area?

"In land dealings in the area, so far one group, which includes three U.S. residents, is looking at a profit approaching $3 million." Some deal! Some

[ 30050302063.gif" target="_blank" title="View the original Hansard page">Page 2063 ]

private developer! Some great deal for the taxpayers of British Columbia! "But people already living in the area are looking at a crash of dreams as they face being forced out of home and lifestyle." Some deal!

As I said earlier this afternoon, when the government starts dealing in the very sensitive area of supply and demand, they upset the balance. They are hurting more people than they are helping. They're hurting every young family that wants to own their own piece of British Columbia, own their own home and the land it's on. The homeowner doesn't want to have to come on his hands and knees to the Minister of Housing when he wants to sell his home, or when he wants to pass it on to his family. No, Mr. Chairman, all of this is taken away with the control which the Minister wants.

Oh, the Minister said that he used a private developer to get the best deal possible so that some of the people in that area would walk away with millions in the bank just like Dunhill, made instant millionaires overnight, just like Casa Loma — walk away with a big profit while the little people suffer. The residents of the area who have lived there and owned the land for a long time with the hope some day of building on it have been ripped off. They've been ripped off by this great little people's government.

Would the Minister explain to the Legislature how come this group can walk away with a $3 million profit when he was supposed to have had this front to get the best deal possible. While the government says it is prepared to buy any smaller properties offered to it, it is content to sit back and wait until rising taxes and decreasing livability force people to sell at perhaps lower prices. That is a sad and sorry and distasteful, disheartening situation — the way that Minister is conducting the affairs of his department.

I will just read that again: "But people already living in the area are looking at a crash of dreams as they face being forced out of home and lifestyle." I want the Minister to stand in this Legislature this afternoon and assure me that those people who still live in that area are going to have their dreams come true, and not have them end up in a nightmare because of the actions of that Minister.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, the Member has just given very good evidence of his inconsistency. He's talked about infilling in greater Vancouver, and the GVRD study. Then he says: "Don't change anything. Don't change the lifestyle." Mr. Member, I lived in Vancouver when Vancouver Heights was just contiguous…. In fact, I lived within one city block of the border of Vancouver in my childhood days. When veterans came back after the war, they altered our lifestyle; we had to give up some of that rural living. We used to have chickens, farm animals and such in our area, and there were cows, et cetera. There were bushes in which to play, huckleberries and such to go and pick, all very nearby. But when the veterans came back, through the Veterans Land Act residential subdivisions were put into that area, and there was a change in our lifestyle. As long as there continues to be an increase in population, there will be a change in lifestyle, and that's something you'd better get through your head.

Mr. Member, I would love to be able to turn back the clock to the days when the demand on land is not what it is today, when anybody could, perhaps, live in a single-family dwelling, when there weren't restrictive building regulations and people could build small cottages, could have backyard cottages adjoining their single-family homes, they could have illegal suites — they could do all of these things. But in today's society there have to be changes.

I have no doubt that development of Burke Mountain will bring about a change in that area, but be assured it will be done as well as possible. You compared the acquisition of a piece of land in Cumberland to the Burke Mountain assembly. Here we are assembling mostly raw, vacant land, or very low-density development area. Here is an area where a great amount of land is being assembled; it's an area in which there is also a significant portion of Crown land, and it involves the consolidation of several small or moderately sized parcels of land. The acquisition of a piece of land in Cumberland, one piece of land, self-sufficient in itself, or some of the other areas you mentioned, is a completely different matter. Land assembly — putting back together again — some of the assemblies which you have pointed out….

I would also point out that we have put into this stream hundreds of acres of land, a couple of hundred acres in Burnaby and several hundred acres in the Riverview area which are Crown lands which you say should be put on stream. In the Vancouver area, things just cannot be the way they were back in the 1930s. If we were to have developed Vancouver at that density, I dare say we would have residential subdivisions clear out to Chilliwack, and even Burns Bog would have to have been overcome by technological advance.

We are continuing acquisition in the area. People are coming to us. I am sure that not everyone is going to be able to welcome this. I know that where I live, people moved from there out to the Government Road area in Burnaby which was then agricultural land, pastoral land. Within about 10 years' time, it got developed. That is pretty much the way things are. This will continue, particularly at a rapid pace in British Columbia, because our annual growth rate is 3.4 per cent. If we are going to provide housing, we really do have to go ahead with some large-scale projects such as this. I know it has the blessing of the president of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. He is enthused about it. We are

[ 30050302064.gif" target="_blank" title="View the original Hansard page">Page 2064 ]

enthused about it. I think that it can be a very model type of a development.

I said that it is about a 5- to 10-year project. I didn't say that the starting of it was 5 or 10 years away, but that we envisaged this taking place, or certainly completion taking place, sometime between a 5- and 10-year span. I have pointed out that plans are very tentative. We are still gathering data and looking at ways in which this can proceed.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, the Minister still has not given an explanation. You have tried to justify your move in there but you haven't assured me that you are going to protect the rights of those individuals in there. You haven't given justification for the deceit that you used through a private developer.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I think it is not proper to attribute to the Hon. Minister an improper motive, either directly or to anything under his responsibility. Therefore, I would ask the Hon. Member to withdraw this imputation.

MR. PHILLIPS: I will withdraw the imputation and I will let people be the judge. I just want to quote some more from this article, Mr. Chairman. This is a very serious matter, because if you don't want to call it deceit, you can say that the people were misled.

"The government says it is prepared to buy any smaller properties offered to it, but it is content to sit back and wait until rising taxes and decreasing livability force people to sell at perhaps lower prices. Up to now it has been using traditional real estate practices to acquire land, hiding the identity of the real bidder by working through one of the flagships of free enterprise in B.C., Daon Development Ltd. Daon originally hoped to develop the area itself. Then it offered Dunhill part of the deal only to find Dunhill taking over the entire project."

Here is where the misleading part comes in, Mr. Chairman:

"By agreement with Dunhill, Daon and three companies owned by it appear most often as purchasers and holders of options on the land in the area. Later, the deals are transferred to Canada Trust, which is holding them on behalf of the provincial government. At least one of the landowners involved is hopping mad about the deception."

There was deception, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. PHILLIPS: I am just quoting from the article. There was deception. Certainly there was deception.

AN HON. MEMBER: You can't say "deception."

MR. PHILLIPS: The Minister….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I think the Hon. Member should make the distinction between quoting from an article and then making the remark his own. I would ask the Hon. Member to withdraw the imputation that deception was used…

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Any grants you would like?

MR. CHAIRMAN: …on any Member of this House by the Minister.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes. Well, all right, I'll take any imputation of deceit away from the Minister. But, you know, if the Minister could fabricate houses the way the Premier can fabricate lies, we would have all kinds of housing in British Columbia. It would be spread throughout the province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: You know, it would be fantastic.

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

MR. PHILLIPS: It would be fantastic.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The Hon. Member is not treating other Hon. Members in an honourable way. I would ask the Hon. Member to withdraw…

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I'm interested in housing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: …the statement that he made that….

MR. PHILLIPS: If the Minister…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I would ask the Hon….

MR. PHILLIPS: …is as capable…

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

MR. PHILLIPS: …as the Premier (laughter) in fabricating…. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask the Hon. Member

[ 30050302065.gif" target="_blank" title="View the original Hansard page">Page 2065 ]

to withdraw the words that he used in reference to the Hon. the Premier.

MR. PHILLIPS: What — that he was fabricating lies?

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's right. Would the Hon. Member…?

MR. PHILLIPS: What words shall I use? Maybe I could ask him for an explanation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I have asked the Hon. Member, under the rules of this House, to withdraw those words.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'll withdraw the words. I have to be careful here because I wouldn't want to accuse anybody of telling the truth in this House. I am on very touchy ground, you know. With the Minister of Housing and with the other Members of the cabinet…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: …you have to be very careful.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I accept the Hon, Member's withdrawal of the words. Would you proceed with the vote, please?

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to read you one instance of deceit and deception in this particular deal:

"New Westminster architect, Paul Hanson, thought he was dealing with Daon when he signed last summer an option to purchase his 38.7 acres on the Calgary Road for $330,000. Under the agreement, Daon paid Hanson $20,000 for the right to buy his property at any time within the next year. The agreement could be extended for a further 12 months by Daon on payment of a further $30,000, $10,000 of which would not be applied against the purchase price.

"Told the government now has the right to buy his land at these figures, Hanson said, 'I will fight to the end.' He added, 'In no way will I be a party to selling any property to such a lousy government, as a matter of principle. I will see my lawyer.'"

And Hanson is one of those persons who came from a socialist country.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: A former Social Credit….

MR. PHILLIPS: He knows about policies and the chaos it will bring. Regardless of who he is, he's an individual. In our party, we respect the rights of individuals. We don't go around saying that they did certain things when we know full well that they didn't do certain things. We have a regard for individuals in our party. We don't just go around flippantly accusing people of doing things….

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

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Chairman, he brought it up. We have a regard for the rights of individuals. We respect individuals. We don't go around telling lies about them. We don't fabricate the truth, What about all the rest of the people in this area? How are their rights going to be developed? You know, this government and this department of this government is the most hated government that we have ever had in the Province of British Columbia because of their policies and because of the actions of that Premier. The most hated government that we have ever seen in this province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member confine his remarks to vote 102?

MR. PHILLIPS: The most hated Premier.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We are considering vote 102.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Chairman, a lot of the problems….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Is the Hon. Member intending to follow the rules?

MR. PHILLIPS: A lot of the problems with that Minister, a lot of the problems with the Department of Housing is because he is trying to pattern himself after his leader, and that's where he is making his mistake. Trying to follow the leader. The leader doesn't know where he is going and has no regard for…

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask the Hon. Member to return to the vote, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: …the rights of individuals. That's why the Department of Housing is falling by the wayside, Mr. Chairman. There, the Premier just came in — whom that Minister is trying to follow.

Here we have a case where the people in this area

[ 30050302066.gif" target="_blank" title="View the original Hansard page">Page 2066 ]

were clearly deceived, publicly deceived. Can you condone that, Mr. Chairman? Do you condone that? Well, if you do, you surprise me.

This government has no regard for the rights of individuals, and they don't care who they deceive or who they lie about. It has happened every day. We just wait until the next paper comes out to find out what the next fabrication is going to be.

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

MR. PHILLIPS: If they could fabricate houses as fast as they fabricate….

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member remain seated, please?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, Are the Hon. Members intending to come to order? Otherwise, I will call a recess.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I would call the Hon. Members to order to observe the rules of decency in the House.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I order the Hon. Members to come to order.

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

MR, CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for South Peace River on vote 102.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

Interjections.

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. If the Hon. Members do not come to order, I will have to use my powers under the standing orders.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member be seated? The Hon. Members are, I think, fully aware of the standing orders.

Now, once again, I will recognize an Hon. Member providing the Hon. Member speaks to vote 102. If the Hon. Member fails to speak to vote 102, I will ask him to take his seat. If other Hon. Members are disorderly, I will have to deal with each one in turn, including the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) and the Premier.

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

MR. PHILLIPS: Will the Minister of Housing advise why the rush, why he used a front to go into the Burke Mountain? Is it because it is in the Premier's riding, and the Premier wants, before the next election, to unveil a great, grandiose scheme….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I am asking the Hon. Member to speak to the vote.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm talking about housing. Just because I'm talking about it in the Premier's riding…. Now, Mr. Chairman, I mean, I realize you have power, but I have rights. I realize that your government doesn't always respect the rights of individuals, but I would hope that you would, because I think you are an unbiased chairman. At least I would hope that you are, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member proceed with his remarks under vote 102?

MR. PHILLIPS: Here we have a situation. There must be an election coming because here the Minister of Housing goes out with a cover-up, a private developer — those people he has condemned, you know, a private developer. He uses him as a front to deceive the people in the Burke Mountain area. I'm quoting the article….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Clearly, the Hon. Member is suggesting that the Hon. Minister has used the method of deceiving the public. I would ask the Hon. Member to withdraw that imputation on the floor of this House. I would ask the Hon. Member to withdraw the imputation.

MR. PHILLIPS: All right, I'll withdraw it, but you're forcing me to…. I have no alternative.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. If the Hon. Member is making the charge against the Minister, the Hon. Member knows the rule that he must use a substantive motion.

[ 30050302067.gif" target="_blank" title="View the original Hansard page">Page 2067 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: Substantive motion! We discussed substantive motions in this House before and you know they always end up in the wastepaper basket.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. That was the method provided by the rules. The Hon. Member is…

MR. PHILLIPS: Then you had better change the rules. Substantive rules end up in the wastepaper basket.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The purpose of committee is not to change the rules. The purpose of committee is to follow the rules and discuss this particular vote. Would the Hon. Member proceed, please?

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I'll quote the article then, because if you don't want me to do it, maybe you'll sue The Vancouver Sun. I'll read it again: "The government has used one of the lower mainland's largest private developers as a front to hide the fact that it was buying land, and it has successfully deceived sellers."

MR. CURTIS: Now if that's wrong, let's sue the Sun.

MR. PHILLIPS: Now let's sue the Sun if that's wrong.

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: Okay, we've established that fact, I hope.

Now why did we move with such haste, as the article says, to deceive the sellers? I didn't say it; the article said it. I'll tell you why, Mr. Chairman, so that before the next election the Minister of Housing will use his little $6 million corporation, where he ripped off the taxpayers for $2 million and made instant millionaires overnight, to go in and fancy up some plans. Then, oh, he'll unveil to the taxpayers and to the people in the great riding of Coquitlam some great, grandiose scheme where people can own their homes for $100 down and $100 a month and be serfs of the state for ever and ever, amen. That is why there was such haste used in this.

The Minister of Housing says: "Five to 10 years," but the big plan will be in the local paper before the election. Oh, the Premier's going to provide low-cost housing. Will it be true? That's what we have to ask: will it be true? Or will it be more fabrication? Will it be?

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I'll tell you, there's another Minister. It'll stand on it's own feet, he says. The….

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

MR. PHILLIPS: Not one red cent of the taxpayer's money….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I am surprised at the Hon. Member being so easily distracted from the vote. Would the Hon. Member proceed with the vote, please?

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

MR. PHILLIPS: I realize that you have a problem with these cabinet Ministers. They keep yapping and yapping and yapping and saying nothing.

MR. BENNETT: They want to bring in some sort of closure.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: They keep yapping and yapping and that Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) is the worst of the whole batch.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm surprised at him.

Interjections.

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

MR, CHAIRMAN: I quite agree that it is difficult for the Hon. Member to stay on the point when he's being distracted. Therefore, we'll wait until there is no further distraction.

I Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

The House resumed, Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Leave granted.

[ 30050302068.gif" target="_blank" title="View the original Hansard page">Page 2068 ]

Ms. Sanford asks leave to withdraw Bill 18 standing in her name on the order paper.

Leave granted.

MR. SPEAKER: Before we conclude, I did want to mention the matter that had been raised by the Hon. Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis). There appear to be two bills on the order paper which cover the same subject matter.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The question is whether leave shall be granted to withdraw the first bill — I presume, Bill 26.

Leave granted.

MR. SPEAKER: I think we also have to have leave that the order for second reading be discharged.

Leave granted.

MR. SPEAKER: Also, with Bill 18, which the Hon. Member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) has referred to, I have to have leave of the House to discharge the order for second reading.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:54 p.m.