[ Page 2069 ]

CONTENTS

Committee of Supply: Department of Housing estimates On vote 102. Mr. Phillips — 2069

Division on vote 102 — 2089

On vote 103. Mr. Wallace — 2089

Division on motion that the committee rise and report progress — 2091

The House met at 8:30 p.m. Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING

(continued)

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 102 pass?

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): I thought you were going to pass me by there for a moment, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: Never!

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, that would please the silent backbenchers! The only time they make any noise is with their hands, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: They cough from time to time.

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, would you call that Member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) to order. She's not in her seat; she's speaking loudly.

I was just looking at an article from the Colonist, April 30. The headline is: "Nicolson Says B.C. Bank Answer To Housing Crisis."

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Any answer will do.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, that's about right — any answer will do, Mr. Member.

It's interesting to follow the Minister's comments, because one time it's Ottawa, the next time it's the builders, the next time it's the developers and now there's no money. I wonder, Mr. Chairman, just....

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: What's that, Mr. Minister?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member address the Chair, please?

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Which — the Minister or the Member?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is dated Kamloops.

" 'A provincial bank, which may come sooner than expected, is part of the solution to B.C.'s housing crisis,' Housing Minister Lorne Nicolson said today. He told the real estate institute of British Columbia annual convention: 'The problem is financing. The money we have is not enough to build the houses we need.'

"He criticized federal housing policies because they are dictated by the Finance Minister. 'What we need is a provincial financial institution. We would be more independent of finances from Ottawa, so Finance Minister John Turner's fight against inflation would not be a fight against housing,' Nicolson said."

Mr. Chairman, I just have to ask the Minister this evening....

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of ~he Opposition): Where's the Premier?

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, where is the Premier this evening? Where is the Premier?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Vote 102.

MR. PHILLIPS: Is he out fabricating houses?

MR. CHAIRMAN: 102.

MR. PHILLIPS: 102?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Vote 102.

MR. BENNETT: Is he out telling stories in the hall?

MR. PHILLIPS: Maybe he's attacking the press in the hall, Mr. Chairman.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Is he telling the truth, though?

MR. BENNETT: Fairy tales.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'd like to ask the Minister.... He seems to have built up a fair-sized bank in British Columbia — a bank of land. That land bank he's built up by buying real estate from private hands has done more to slow down construction of housing in British Columbia than any other single factor that the

[ Page 2070 ]

Minister has brought forward. I'd like the....

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): Poppycock!

MR. PHILLIPS: Some of the Members say: "Poppycock!" Well, just one Member.

I'd just like to ask the Minister how he feels a bank is going to help the situation and how much money this bank is going to have to have. This bank he is proposing, at what interest rate will it loan money for the construction of housing? How much money is the bank going to have to have? I just have to look at his budget over the last two years and think that if that money were, as I suggested this afternoon, put into houses, put into land development, put into servicing land, would not bringing down the price of land do more to assist housing in British Columbia than any airy-fairy scheme of his with regard to a bank?

I'd like the Minister to advise how much money is needed. How much money is going to be needed by this bank? Where is the money going to come from? What interest rate does he propose? Who is going to subsidize the interest rate? Is it going to be the Department of Housing directly? Is it going to come out of general revenue? Or is it going to come from the interest on the money that the Premier is borrowing from the OPEC countries? Is he going to continue to borrow money from the OPEC countries to subsidize the interest rates and put it out at a lesser fund? Where is the money going to come from?

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, thanks, Mr. Minister. Just how does he propose that this bank is going to assist housing in British Columbia? Maybe the Minister would advise us what the interest rate is going to be and where the money is going to come from.

MR. CHABOT: I just have a few brief questions to the Minister of Housing. I was reading excerpts or — what do they call it here? — "notes from an address in the debate of the Department of Housing estimates," dated Thursday, April 17, 1975, in which the Minister had quite a bit of oratory to give about the kind of action that his department is taking in producing housing in the province. In the bottom paragraph on page 2 he says: "That's over 7,000 units of family housing in the pipeline" — that's one of his new terms now — "over three times as many as were built in all the years of the Social Credit administration." Well, I haven't checked those statistics. They might be true. But I'll tell you, that's where we differ. Your philosophy and our philosophy are radically different when it comes to that.

We believe in the private ownership of land. We believe that individuals should have the right of owning their land. We don't believe in state farms. We don't believe in state-owned homes and land. I want to assure you that's where the big difference is in your philosophy and ours. We believe in encouraging people to acquire their own land at a reasonable price — not the kind of rip-offs that we see on the state-owned lands such as Meadowbrook Village.

This department over her, Mr. Chairman, suggested that it's in the business of providing low-cost housing. I'll tell you, they are forcing people into these state-owned homes and state-owned lots because of the scarcity of lots, because of the philosophy of that government. That government believes that everything should be owned by the state and everybody should rent from the state. We find now that because of the situation of the scarcity of land and its high cost, the government is forcing people, against their wishes in many instances, no doubt, to enter state-owned villages such as Meadowbrook Village. And there's nothing low-cost about it.

I have your price list dated August 19, 1974, for Type D homes with three bedrooms. It's $34,700 — a reasonable price — with a down payment of $4,700. But here's where your state-owned philosophy is wrong. The annual ground rent is $1,216, and it's a 60-year lease. Would you believe that over that 60-year period of time an individual will have paid, for the lease of a state lot, $72,960? And he still won't own it. And you suggest that you are doing something for those people of low income? You're ripping them off. $72,960 — you should hide your head in shame. That's where your crazy socialist philosophy is abusing the people of this province by your high-cost rentals on land.

I want to ask the Minister a couple of questions regarding things that are happening up in Burns Lake. On March 12, a memo was written to Gary M. Begg, Deputy Minister of Housing, regarding the Burns Lake water system. It reads as follows:

"Hon. Lorne Nicolson had indicated to me that there are some funds available in the estimates of the Department of Lands for land servicing. These funds must be used before the end of the fiscal year. Normally the funds are available, providing the invoices are submitted before the end of April.

"In contacting Mr. Norman Pearson, Associate Deputy Minister of Lands, it appears that the proposal is that the Department of Lands would purchase some of the lots in our existing subdivision which we have already serviced. In effect, the Department of Lands has reimbursed us for our costs for servicing and in turn these lots will be given to the Department of Lands, which presumably they would dispose of by a 99-year cash lease."

No sale — a lease.

"The funds we would receive would be used by the Department of Housing to subsidize the

[ Page 2071 ]

water system in the Village of Burns Lake. The required subsidy is reported to be in the order of $300,000 to $350,000."

MR. PHILLIPS: What is there? A state-run temperance movement?

MR. CHABOT: Well, what is going on in Burns Lake? That brings a great question. Is the government trying to subsidize the forest industry involvement in Burns Lake from subsidies through the Department of Housing on a water system in the community of Burns Lake? Is that what's happening?

AN HON. MEMBER: Where's all the money going?

MR. CHABOT: It goes on:

"It is my view that it is not the function" — according to the writer of this letter — "of the Department of Housing to subsidize water systems in any municipality.

"We would carry the normal off-site cost that could be attributable to our own development and we would be quite prepared to do this for our proposed housing subdivision and mobile home park at Burns Lake.

"As a matter of expediency it might be possible for the Department of Housing to advance these funds on an interim basis, but I believe some other agency of government must provide the subsidy for the village water system.

"Mr. Pearson did indicate to me that the Department of Lands might be prepared to finance part of the off-site services for our proposed development at Burns Lake. The Department of Lands would have to receive a number of lots, proportionate to their financial contribution.

"Mr. Proctor from Dunhill had indicated to me that they should be able to provide invoices before the end of March, and I suggested that those invoices be referred to the Department of Lands for possible payments.

"Signed, George L. Chatterton, Associate Deputy Minister."

Carbon copies to: the Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson); the Department of Municipal Affairs; also Mr. N. Pearson; Mr. J. Webster; Mr. J. Williams of Dunhill; L. Bell, the secretariat; and Mr. Crerar. So the letter has had wide circulation and, I presume, in its circulation has reached me through one of the departments.

But I'm wondering, really, what's happening in Burns Lake. Is there special treatment for that municipality over other municipalities? What is the double-shuffle? What is the double-shuffle between departments? What is really taking place and who is going to end up holding the bag for the subsidy you're making for a water system in the community of Burns Lake? Why does the Department of Lands have an interest in acquisition of land? I thought it was the Department of Housing which was involved in the business of servicing and putting lots on the market.

If you're really in the land business, I don't know.... Every time I turn around, Mr. Chairman, I find that the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) has got his finger in practically every portfolio in this government.

MR. PHILLIPS: He runs the government.

MR. CHABOT: He's in the skiing business and now he's in the business of swapping and fiddling around with lots in the community of Burns Lake. What is the involvement of the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources in Burns Lake? Is he trying to make a forestry complex a viable operation through the subsidy of the water system in that community? Why?

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't forget his boating greenbelts.

MR. CHABOT: Will the same kind of consideration as far as subsidies are concerned — and we're talking about a $300,000 to $350,000 subsidy for the community of Burns Lake — be given to other municipalities in the province? Or is it only where the government wants to shore up some possible forest operation in which they're involved in communities?

No, I just want to know what's going on — what kind of shenanigans are going on in the community of Burns Lake. I want to know whether your department has made any advances in the order of $300,000 to $350,000, and what kind of switch-flop is taking place between the two departments — the Department of Lands and the Department of Housing?

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to take part in this debate because, naturally, hearing Kamloops mentioned a few times in this debate.... It had nothing to do with the Minister of Housing but, nevertheless, the reference was brought up when we listened to the little breeze blowing from the Peace River that we always listen to, and the big wind from the Columbia. They always seem to go through the chambers at various times here.

When we have all this usual diatribe and meaningless talk going on which simply uses up the time — the time that the opposition have been complaining about for days and days and days — I

[ Page 2072 ]

thought we should get a few facts into it. It will be very difficult for the opposition, but once again after listening this afternoon I made a few phone calls to Kamloops during the break...

MR. CHABOT: Is this your swan song?

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: ...because I happen to know a few people who purchased lots in the Oak Hills subdivision. And we all know about Oak Hills, where the dike built under the previous government collapsed in the first high water and flooded the residents out, and this government stepped in and built a suitable dike that will protect those people for many, many years to come. It's up to federal and provincial standards — not simply a pile of dirt that we got under Social Credit, and some of that dirt we're still getting, mostly in this chamber. But as the Attorney-General has said: "Watch it, because he who throws dirt loses ground." But now we have a situation where we have proper lots, properly protected and put on the market by this Minister.

Now we heard all about Chetwynd: no one ever will lease lots in Chetwynd. Well, maybe it has something to do with the MLA who represents that area. Maybe he's telling those people that they don't have a decent thing going for them in this leased lot. Maybe it's an educational process that has to go on.

AN HON. MEMBER: They are leasing them.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: Well, I'm glad to hear they are leasing them because that, of course, refutes the argument.

Nevertheless, of all the lots in Oak Hills that were put up for lease by our Department of Housing, there are only one or two left — and that was a month ago; they may be gone now. But the particular person I contacted during the supper break was one of these very foolish people who doesn't want to own land. He decided that instead of paying the price in Kamloops, which is now $12,000 to $20,000 for a serviced lot, he would go along for a lease on this lot, a fully serviced lot, fully protected by a dike, for $50 a month. And he could save all this money that's required for the down payment.

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Economic Development): That makes sense.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: So he got a serviced lot in a well-protected subdivision at the present time for $50 a month, no payments to make for a year — no payments to make for the first year. He got a government mortgage. He's not a high-income person, but he got a government mortgage.

He was allowed, under that, as we heard him called, "rip-off Minister," this working person in Kamloops, with a wife and two children, was allowed a $30,000 mortgage to complete the construction of this house at 5 to 10 per cent interest, depending on his income. Isn't that a terrible deal? Isn't that a terrible rip-off?

HON. MR. LAUK: What have you got to say about that?

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: The total price for the house was estimated at $22,000 because, although he is not a tradesman, he was allowed the opportunity to put his own labour into the place and have money allowed for this labour. When he started to build the home, it rose to $24,000 total price because of increased costs of materials. He has done a tremendous amount of work, yet he is faced with a total cost for his home of $24,000 with the interest between 5 and 10 per cent. I would suspect it would be somewhere around 7.5 because I happen to have a fair idea of his income. The final payment on the mortgage is going to be done when the painting is brought up to standard. This man has lived for five years in Kamloops in a mobile home, and there aren't too many good mobile homes in Kamloops. There are some, but some of the older parks have these mobile homes jammed up side by side with no room for children and no recreation area, and he wanted a home of his own for his family.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ripped off.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: He's got one now on a standard-sized lot at a payment he can afford and at a mortgage he can afford with a decent rate of interest. He does not feel that he has been ripped off in the slightest.

It doesn't matter how heavily or lightly the wind blows in from the Peace River or the Columbia River; if you can get a few of these facts on record, people will know and people will hear and people will pay very close attention at the next election.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for Saanich and the Islands.

MR. CURTIS: No, no, I'll defer to the Minister. For the first time this evening, Mr. Chairman, he appears ready to comment on his portfolio.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) referred to headlines which were penned; I think the term used was "banked." I did not refer to a B.C. bank in any discussions that I can recall. But I have referred to a financial institution, just as much as has been discussed by the Premier. I support the Premier's stand on this and I think it is very wise.

[ Page 2073 ]

It is not for me to say what interest rates should be at this time, nor is it to say where the money should come from. I think there can be a multiplicity of areas where funds could be raised, and a tremendous amount of interest. I must say that the Real Estate Institute of British Columbia welcomed that. I would also say that the president of the Real Estate Board of Victoria, Eric Chairman, said that while he might differ with this government, this would be one thing on which he and the real estate industry in Victoria would be pleased to, he used the term, "get into bed" with this government, or to give the government all the support in the world on this. It is realized as a very necessary step toward the proper development of British Columbia.

Regarding the references made to Meadowbrook, Mr. Member, the qualifying income for people in Meadowbrook is under $9,000. These people can afford, with the leasehold mortgage and the rental payment, to pay this at less than 25 per cent of adjusted family income.

MR. CHABOT: And never own them.

MR. NICOLSON: This is cheaper than rent in a good many instances or almost anywhere in the province. Of course, this is self-determination. These people have their own yards; they are looking after maintenance. I have visited the place several times since the opening and talked with the people there, who are very proud and very happy.

Earlier today I read an article which was in the Williams Lake Tribune, I believe. It was about leasehold lots in Williams Lake. It showed how a person, without having to put maybe his life savings into a lot and then go scraping around for mortgage funding, was able to build and put what savings he had into construction, put his own sweat equity into construction and, with the assistance of the provincial government's leasehold mortgage, he is into his home; he enjoys it....

Interjections

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Could we have decorum in the House?

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member for South Peace River to observe the normal decorum.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, I know the Member likes to waste the time of the House in estimates and interrupt, and that's fine.

MR. PHILLIPS: We are just trying to protect you from falling.

HON. MR. LAUK: Do you want the answers or not? You asked the questions, not me.

MR. PHILLIPS: I just wanted to know where the Premier was.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Member, there is perhaps quite a difference of opinion there.

MR. PHILLIPS: Who is he attacking now?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Member for South Peace River, please observe the rules of decorum.

AN HON. MEMBER: No decency!

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Does the Hon. Member wish to speak?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Does the Hon. Member for South Peace River...?

MR. PHILLIPS: There's chaos in this province.

HON. P.F. YOUNG (Minister of Consumer Services): Explain what decorum means.

AN HON. MEMBER: Throw him out.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Minister continue?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: The Member has asked if Burns Lake is getting special treatment. Mr. Member, I think all the municipalities under this government are getting very favourable, very special treatment with the sewerage treatment plant assistance Act, with the sharing of natural gas revenues, with increased per capita grants and more flexible application, with transit subsidies, with the Community Recreational Facilities Fund.... I'll be attending an opening of a swimming pool in the City of Nelson this weekend, with one-third capital funding from the provincial government from that fine Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford) that we have.

MR. PHILLIPS: Where did they get the money to build it?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: So I think that all 2074 municipalities in this province are in for very favourable treatment from this government. I pointed out that with interim funding we've helped communities like Penticton to build housing. In the case of this particular project, it is Crown land, under statute. We're servicing Crown land; extra services are required to bring that servicing to that Crown land. Whether it be done through a vote in the Department of Lands, Forests and Water Resources or in the Department of Housing, it's quite in order.

You talk about special treatment — the special treatment that you gave Fort Nelson, for instance, where you imposed incorporation on a village that could ill afford it. You forced them to take on a water system where the intake was downstream from the sewer outfall, and that type of thing. They were promised special assistance and they got just special neglect from that government over there.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who was the MLA for that area?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Member, with the type of special treatment they've had from this government, there has been assistance. Of course, with the sharing of natural gas revenues and others, they will be able to pull their heads above water and they will be able to solve this terrific problem, this onerous burden which you levied upon them.

I would say that pretty well covers the remarks raised to this point. I certainly cannot say what interest rates would be at some time in the future.

MR. PHILLIPS: Ask the Premier!

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Member, I think that it's recognized as a very necessary step in this province, and it has great support from the small investors of the province, the people of this province, the people who want mortgages, especially in rural areas where CMHC and NHA insured loans are not available, and it has the support of the real estate industry, too.

MR. CURTIS: I think that it's very tempting to digress from the Minister's vote which is before us in committee now — as he has in the last few moments — to talk about the taxation situation facing municipalities. I have the collection of black headlines from around the province about the extreme pressure that municipalities are facing this year as a result of this government's ineptitude. As an example, a lower mainland municipality alderman is quoted as calling the tax increase for this year "obscene." It's obscene, according to a member of a council in discussing the tax increases.

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

MR. CURTIS: Well, Mr. Chairman, we look for fairness from your chair. The Minister rambled on about the taxation situation in municipalities and I'm replying to that particular point. What is fair for that side of the House is fair for this side.

I wonder if the Minister would care to tell the committee about the Highlands. Earlier today in committee we discussed a number of greater Victoria area projects which were of concern, and the Minister helped us in that regard. The comments made by the Minister and by regional district people — that is, the Capital Regional District people — in the period from February 21 this year through to just a few days ago — April 22 as a matter of fact — caused some confusion in the area with respect to the Highlands. The Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer), as I recall, answered a question on behalf of the Minister of Housing with respect to this area.

The project goes back at least a couple of years — I'm subject to correction on that precise time, but at least a couple of years — where land was acquired for long-term development and to provide a way out for the housing demands of this area, again in the longer term rather than the short term. So perhaps the Minister would just bring us up to date on that. I think it's very pertinent to his activities in this area.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Yes, Mr. Member. The intent has been for long-term development. We have had a study made of the area. It points out the problems and also the potential. Also, of course, talks and negotiations are continuing with the Capital Regional District concerning sewer servicing in the area, which is of utmost importance.

That, of course, would also service some parts of the Colwood-Langford area as well as the Highlands. A sewage treatment plant would be located at the outfall, according to present studies.

I believe that we have helped to finance some of these preliminary studies; that discussions are taking place as to ways of assisting the Capital Regional District with further work and with the sewer study. There is the determination of which areas have to be brought on stream first, and it would appear that the logical way to proceed is with some infilling in the Colwood-Langford area. I think you will have noted, perhaps, from some of our returns that we have acquired some lands in those areas and so the sequence of events would be to develop them, looking at the Highlands on the long term.

I might say, also, that certain rather key areas in the Highlands have been acquired as they were available on the market and they were recommended to us by the Capital Regional District. We have purchased them. They are very key to the preservation of a major part of the watershed of the

[ Page 2075 ]

Thetis Lake Park, and also some parts of those lands acquired are within a development area.

MR. CURTIS: Just following that up briefly with the permission of the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot). So the various news stories which suggest that the Highlands project for housing has been "killed" are not correct. Is that the case?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, Mr. Member, that is the case. A starting time on the Highlands certainly has not been set, but I don't see it as being killed. We have a great deal of information. There is a lot more to be done there, both in terms of acquisition, further planning and discussion.

MR. CURTIS: I take it, therefore, that the time frame has been set back. The Minister seems hesitant on this point tonight, but it would be helpful, I think, to understand precisely what the Department of Housing has in mind.

I was a member of the capital regional board when the acquisition programme was commenced, and again I emphasize, Mr. Chairman, that it was not suggested that this construction would take place within 12 to 15 months. It was, I emphasize, a longer-term proposition. But has it been moved back still further because of some of the problems the Minister has outlined this evening? Indeed, has any of the land which has been purchased or optioned been permitted to slip away from public ownership, or is it securely in place for later use?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, Mr. Member, I'm informed that nothing that has been purchased or optioned.... I'm sure that nothing that has been purchased has been allowed to slip from public ownership. I would hesitate to say that about options, but I'm also informed that that hasn't been the case. No, we haven't abandoned it, and we would pursue further acquisitions in the area.

It has been looked upon as a long-term project. I would have hoped that what might have appeared a logical impediment, or might have appeared an obvious impediment, might have been solved. That is so that we could perhaps proceed at an earlier date with the Highlands. But it appears that the obvious and logical type of thing, with some infilling and building the servicing up to the Highlands, is the only way to proceed.

MR. CURTIS: I indicated earlier today that some members of the capital regional board were quite unhappy with the Minister in matters relative to housing in this area, although the Highlands were not specifically referred to.

Is there any conflict between the Minister and his senior advisers at the provincial level and the regional district with regard to the eventual type of development in that area, the concept for the Highlands, or is that matter well settled?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: No, specific development there hasn't been discussed as yet, but I think there is a great deal of cooperation going on between the department and staff. Also, meetings have taken place at fairly regular intervals and, in addition to that, I've recently met with the Victoria housing committee.

MR. CHABOT: Just a few remarks. First of all, the Minister, certainly in his statements, didn't convince me that it is in the best interests of British Columbians to be established in state-owned housing, which basically they will never own because of the high cost being imposed by this department. When an individual has to pay $1,216 a year for annual ground rent on a state-owned lot in his state-owned house that is subject to increase, depending upon the increase of the value of the land surrounding it, over a period of 60 years it will cost that individual $72,960. You can't possibly convince me that that is low-cost land for individuals.

It's simply a rip-off of individuals who are forced, because of an extreme shortage of housing in British Columbia, to move into those state-owned homes which you are attempting to establish throughout the province. You've got the people in a serious dilemma. There's a shortage of housing in the province and now all the people, because of the shortage and against their will in most instances, are forced to move into state-owned housing on state-owned lots which they will never acquire.

Mr. Chairman, that's a serious departure from the philosophy of individuals. This has been a long-cherished thing: an individual buys his little lot which he.... I don't care if the state makes it available to him at a reasonable cost, but I don't like the philosophy that the state must own the land. As I said before, it's a long-cherished thing for individuals to be able to own their own land and build their own homes. But we see the destruction of that philosophy with the superimposition of your philosophy of state ownership of land and state ownership of buildings as well. I'll tell you, you'll never convince me that your philosophy and your forcing of people into state-owned homes is good for the people of this province. I assure you of that; you'll never convince me of that.

You're doing nothing for the establishment of low-cost housing when an individual has to pay $1,216 a month for the rent on the land that is subject to escalation, and that is only for 60 years. You're doing nothing towards low-cost housing.

I could cite you example after example of housing units which you've purchased from developers in this province that an ordinary, low-wage working man

[ Page 2076 ]

can't possibly afford when you're talking in the vicinity of $50,000-odd per unit. When he pays his principle, interest and taxes, how can he even afford to pay that annual ground rent on the state-owned lot?

MR. CURTIS: Subject to revision.

MR. CHABOT: Yes, subject to revision on an annual basis, depending upon the increase in the value of land in the immediate area.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's it — pay for everything.

MR. CHABOT: Okay. No, that philosophy is wrong. You can't even deliver reasonably priced trailer pads in this province. We see the large development you are establishing in the community of Squamish. Do you consider $116 per month reasonable rent for trailer pads? Certainly not. Part of your principles are that you're going to provide low-cost housing and low-cost trailer pads. You're far more extravagant than the private sector is when you're going to charge $116 per month for your trailer pads. If that's the kind of cost you're imposing on people who must live in trailers in this province, I wish you'd get out of the business of establishing trailer parks in this province and let the private sector deliver trailer pads for people in this province, because they can deliver them a lot cheaper than you can.

I asked the Minister a question regarding a piece of correspondence I have here and he beat around the bush. He went on to the business of the recreational facilities fund Act, he went on to the business of assistance to municipalities. I didn't ask him that question; I asked him a simple question regarding a communiqué between the two top officials of his department — between the Associate Deputy Minister and the Deputy Minister — in which there is concern.

There is the "required subsidy" as they say in their letter, the "required subsidy for the community of Burns Lake in the vicinity of $300,000 to $350,000." I asked the Minister a very simple question, and that has nothing to do.... The Minister tried to play around with the idea that it was for the normal off-site costs — a contribution to the normal off-site costs of servicing state-owned land in Burns Lake. It has nothing to do with that; it's a direct subsidy which your department is considering advancing to the community of Burns Lake.

Is your department going to advance it? Has your department advanced this $300,000 to $350,000? Or have you made some kind of a switcheroo with the Department of Lands so that they can purchase some of the lands which you are supposed to be marketing to individuals on a state-owned basis? But did they provide you money so that you could give a subsidy to the community of Burns Lake? Is that kind of treatment going to be given to every municipality in this province — what you are attempting to give to the community of Burns Lake because your Department of Lands, Forests and Water Resources is establishing a forestry complex in that community? Can every municipality in this province expect to get the same kind of — on a per capita basis if necessary — treatment that this government has given to the community of Burns Lake? I think that's a very important question and I don't take very kindly to the Minister beating around the bush. It's a very simple question.

This was placed in the community between the Deputy Minister and the Associate Deputy Minister, that there has been some form of subsidy given to that community for its water system. It has nothing to do with the sewerage facilities Act either, so don't use that as an excuse. It's a straight subsidy to assist that community with its water system. Can other municipalities expect that kind of help when they encounter problems in financing extension of water systems in their municipalities? It's a very simple question, Mr. Chairman, and I think the Minister should be in a position to tell us if other municipalities can expect the kind of treatment that appears to have been given to Burns Lake.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 102 pass?

MR. CHABOT: Maybe he wants to answer the question. He beat around the bush the last time. Maybe he wants to answer this time.

Could the Minister also tell me whom he bought that four-fifths of an acre from in the community of Revelstoke for the sum of $103,000? The piece of land is residential in nature, not commercial, extremely expensive, four-fifths of an acre of residential land in an interior community the size of Revelstoke. Certainly it doesn't have a value of the $130,000 an acre. You know that, Mr. Chairman. You come from an interior community as well. That's an unrealistic price. I am sure that if you were standing in your place you would agree with me. You can't as Chairman; of course you can't. But if you were standing over there, I am sure you would agree with me that there's something wrong with a payment of over $130,000 for an acre of residential land in an interior community in this province the size of the community of Revelstoke. I asked the Minister here a few days ago when his estimates were up before: who was this land purchased from?

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, is that the Minister of silence?

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): We could never

[ Page 2077 ]

say that about you, Don.

MR. PHILLIPS: Is he going to answer the Member's questions or are we going to have a conspiracy of silence? Well, at least if he's silence he won't be fabricating some of the supposed events that the Premier has been fabricating lately. At least we won't have any fabrication of the truth, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will the Hon. Member apply himself to vote 102?

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, certainly, Mr. Chairman. Certainly. I sometimes think we should even challenge the Premier's right to sit in this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: The shame that he's brought to the honour of the Premier of this province, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We are considering vote 102. Would the Hon. Member keep to order, please?

MR. PHILLIPS: I know you must hang your head in shame.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, while the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) is in the House, maybe he will explain to me why the Landlord and Tenant Act does not come under the Department of Housing. Why does the Landlord and Tenant Act not come under the Department of Housing?

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, is it because the Minister is incapable of administering the Act? No, I'll tell you why, Mr. Chairman. I'll tell you why the rentalsman and the Rent Review Commission are not under the Department of Housing. It's because the Minister doesn't have to adhere to the Act in this state-run housing and state-run trailer parks. The Minister doesn't have to pay any attention to the laws of the province. The Attorney-General turns a deaf ear. When the Minister goes in and builds one of his state-run trailer parks, the cost for a pad in a state-run trailer park is approximately 33 1/3 per cent more than those run.... More than that, the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Lauk) says.

HON. MR. LAUK: More than what?

MR. PHILLIPS: More than those run by private industry.

HON. MR. LAUK: Name names.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, all right, let's look at the trailer park in Pitt Meadows. How much is it going to cost in there? About $130 a pad. When the Minister builds housing, he doesn't have to pay any attention to the rentalsman.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: They're all lower. About 90 per cent of them are lower.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member address the Chair, please? I would ask the other Members of the House not to interrupt him.

MR. PHILLIPS: There's a double standard, Mr. Chairman, and that's why the Minister of Housing doesn't administer his own Acts. I think he should be responsible for not only individual housing and trailer parks but also for rental accommodation. I would suggest that all Acts of the Legislature that have to do with providing housing should be administered by the Minister. At least he couldn't mess it up any more than you have, Mr. Attorney-General.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Would the Hon. Member address the Chair and address the administrative responsibilities of this Minister?

MR. PHILLIPS: I am trying to point out that maybe they should be the administrative responsibilities of this Minister, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. COCKE: You're a phony baloney.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would point out that the Hon. Member must discuss those present administrative....

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, there's another Member of the cabinet making personal attacks...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. PHILLIPS:...this time outside the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. PHILLIPS: I am not somebody who can't defend himself.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

[ Page 2078 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: At least I can defend myself, Mr. Chairman.

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

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

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I wish to point out to the Hon. Member that it is not permitted in estimates, when in Committee of Supply, to advise that certain responsibilities be transferred from one Minister to another. Rather, you must deal with those present responsibilities as contained under this vote.

Would the Hon. Member continue to speak, if he so wishes?

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I want to bring up the $2 million rip-off again, $2 million of the taxpayers' money ripped off to make millionaires of the directors of Dunhill Development. Not only were the taxpayers ripped off in the original purchase, Mr. Chairman, but now this development corporation is trying to ride roughshod over the rights of individual councils in this province.

I would just like to remind the Legislature of a little deal over in Seymour. An article happened to come to my attention out of The Vancouver Sun on March 5: "Keep Dunhill Out of Seymour Area." I would just like to tell you, Mr. Chairman — and this is certainly within the administrative responsibilities of this Minister — where the Dunhill people go in and they want to ride roughshod over the residents of that area. More state control. I would just like to quote very briefly from this article, Mr. Chairman, with your permission. The article is from The Vancouver Sun of Wednesday, March 5. "Keep Dunhill Out of Seymour Area" is the heading.

"Nearly 400 Seymour residents in North Vancouver district delivered a strong message to council Tuesday: Keep the Crown-owned Dunhill Development Corp. out of their area.Dunhill has three alternative development proposals for a 32-acre site it owns in Seymour Heights which would add a maximum of 129 single-family units or approximately 400 people.

"Opponents of the housing project dominated a three-hour public meeting in the packed Maplewood Elementary School gym to explain why council should reject a rezoning application by Dunhill.

" 'This is spot rezoning, which is out of context with any overall plan,' said Marilyn Baker, an executive member of the Seymour Planning Association, a citizens' action group. 'It's not even of help to solving the housing crisis. Everyone loses.'

"Dunhill president Werner Paulus estimated the market value of the property was in excess of $2 million. He also prompted cries of 'Threat! Threat!.... .' "

AN HON. MEMBER: Wolf! Wolf!

HON. MR. LAUK: You're a great stand up comic, Don.

MR. PHILLIPS: "...when he stated flatly...."

Interjections

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, the Members may laugh when a Crown corporation goes in and threatens the residents of an area. To the Members of the NDP backbench this is a laughing matter, because the state rules supreme in their mind. Disregard, complete disregard, for the rights of individuals under their rule.

Interjections

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

MR. PHILLIPS:

" '... Threat! Threat!' when he stated flatly Dunhill would sell the land to the provincial Housing department if the rezoning application was defeated."

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh!

MR. PHILLIPS: What would the Department of Housing do, Mr. Chairman? The Department of Housing would flex its muscles and use some of the awesome power that has been given to itself by legislation passed by this Legislature, legislation which we spoke against, Mr. Chairman. But now they have the power to move in and override the rights of residents in a community.

"Paulus made the statement after Allan Bain, Dunhill senior vice-president for

[ Page 2079 ]

operations, told Mayor Ron Andrews that a turndown from council would result either in a sale to the Housing department or a holding period of several years while a comprehensive overall Seymour plan was formulated. The plan will be sold to the Housing department if there is a turndown."

So we have the tandem twins now: the Housing department and the rip-off Dunhill corporation, putting the squeeze play, as it were, the squeeze play, the jackboot, iron foot...!

AN HON. MEMBER: Iron heel?

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Where has democracy gone in this province?

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: You killed it, Mr. Minister of Housing, by endeavouring to make the residents of British Columbia serfs to the state, as I said this afternoon, so they will have to come on all fours begging at your door, hoping that you will throw them a bone.

HON. MR. LAUK: You certainly have a way with words, Don.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, will you bring that Minister to order? (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Chair will be happy to bring anyone to order. I would ask the Hon. Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) to observe standing order 17(2).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PHILLIPS: Another statement was made at this particular meeting, Mr. Chairman, which I'd like the Minister to answer, and I'd like his comments on it: is it fair to put the interests of a corporation above the interests of a community? Is it fair to put the interests of a Crown corporation above the interests of the community?

MR. BENNETT: How about people who need homes?

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, how about people who need homes? That brings up a very important point. How about people who need homes? If that Minister was sincere in providing homes for the residents of British Columbia, he would listen to some of the positive suggestions that were made in this Legislature this afternoon — suggestions that he hasn't had the intestinal fortitude to stand up and contradict. He knows they're right, but because they don't agree with his particular pet philosophy of state ownership, state control, he can't defend them. He hasn't said one word during his whole estimates to defend his policies that have taken British Columbia from a have province in housing to a have-not province in housing! Not one word has that Minister said, Mr. Chairman! Not one word!

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): "I'll huff and I'll puff and I'll blow your house down!" (Laughter.)

MR. PHILLIPS: Getting ready for another champagne party in the ICBC building? Or is he going to have another champagne party to celebrate yet another communist victory?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will the Hon. Member relate his remarks to vote 102, please?

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask the Minister to give me his comments on this meeting that took place in Seymour, where the president and vice-president of Dunhill Development threatened the residents of that area with using the muscle and the power of that socialist government over there to overrule and override their rights and their privileges. Would the Minister comment on what would happen if this were sold to the Department of Housing?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: The Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot), who apparently wants to ask questions but doesn't want to hear answers, and who's out of the House, asked some more about the Burns Lake programme for housing. There is interim funding being provided. I understand that the municipality will be applying to the Department of Municipal Affairs for the financing of some of the sewerage programmes so that....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Could we have the Hon. Member for South Peace River practise what he preaches and observe standing order part 2? Also the Minister of Transport and Communications.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: We paid for some off-site servicing in places like Saanich, in conjunction with the Marigold subdivision. It's quite a common policy.

MR. GIBSON: The Member for Columbia River is back. You might mention it.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Oh, yes. He's wafted back into the chamber here. (Laughter.)

[ Page 2080 ]

In Revelstoke, Mr. Member.... I know that you did ask before for that person's name and I'll get that for you. I believe it was two people, but I can inform you that it was Central Mortgage and Housing that recommended the purchase, with the executive committee in Ottawa having already approved the acquisition. We were assured by CMHC that the price of $109,000 was supported and could be confirmed by their appraisal. I believe it involved two properties. I understand that one of the properties had a hallmark and sold for $40,000. It is on the bank of the river; it's a fine view lot. It's also very handy to the downtown area of Revelstoke, which we feel is most important.

This is a section 40 CMHC project, Mr. Member.

Interjection.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: There will be, Mr. Member, 50 units of senior citizens' housing constructed there. If you want to divide that out, it is about a $2,200 per unit land cost, and that is quite acceptable. Central Mortgage and Housing is putting up 75 per cent of that particular project, and we're anxious to encourage all of the money coming from Central Mortgage and Housing.

I know it was the policy of your government to do as little as possible on that, and that's why we fell behind Ontario three-to-one during your reign.

MR. CHABOT: State farms, state homes — everything is state homes.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Because of your doctrinaire principles, you refused to avail yourself of funds which were coming from Ottawa. You wouldn't go along with those radical Liberal and Conservative housing policies which emanated from Ottawa, but we're going along with those policies, Mr. Member. We're availing ourselves not only of our share of sections 40 and 43 housing, but also we are taking some of the share of those other provinces that are slackards, such as you were slackards in your 20 years in office, Mr. Member.

It is in that spirit of cooperation with Central Mortgage and Housing that we have entered into this agreement on behalf of senior citizens and the needs of senior citizens with the support of the council and the urging of the council as well as their interest and involvement, and with Central Mortgage and Housing, and with the Central Mortgage and Housing executive committee. Mr. Member, I will try to get you the names of those persons and the breakdown of those property acquisitions.

MR. CHABOT: The Minister indicated, and I don't know how many times I have to tell him, that he's provided more state-owned homes in this province than the former government did, and that I have to agree with. But I want to tell you emphatically now, and for ever after, that we are opposed to state-owned homes, state-owned lots, state-owned farms, state-owned processing plants. We're opposed to that. That's against our political philosophy, and the majority of the people of this province as well are opposed to the state owning everything.

HON. MR. LAUK: That's not what he said; he wants a Crown corporation in housing.

MR. CHABOT: Now, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, you keep evading the question I put to you about Burns Lake. You consistently evade the question I put to you.

MR. BENNETT: You don't know what you're talking about.

HON. MR. LAUK: You say he wants a Crown corporation one day and then you say he doesn't want it the next day.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: Draw that Minister of economic undevelopment to order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I would ask all Members to observe standing order part 2, and if you don't know what it says, then I'll read it to you. It says: "When a Member is speaking, no Member shall pass between him and the Chair nor interrupt him, except to raise a point of order."

Now the Hon. Member for Columbia River on his follow-up points.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, the Minister evades....

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: I'm speaking on behalf of the people of British Columbia who are being ripped off by that Department of Housing and that Minister over there, who doesn't understand what the word "low-cost housing" means. All he understands is state ownership of land, state ownership of homes, state ownership of farms, processing plants, you name it. They believe in state ownership. Now we even have state farm holidays.

HON. MR. LAUK: What about state fairs? What about post offices?

MR. CHABOT: Now, Mr. Chairman, that Minister consistently evades the question that I put to him.

[ Page 2081 ]

The question has to do with the proposed subsidy on the water system in the community of Burns Lake. The Minister consistently talks about making a contribution for the off-site costs and the servicing of the state-owned lots in Burns Lake, while in this letter here it says very clearly that the community is expecting from the government, be it from the Department of Housing or be it from the Department of Lands, Forests and Water Resources, a subsidy in the amount of $300,000 to $350,000.

How many times must I read this to you for you to understand it? It's in very simple English, as far as I'm concerned. It reads: "The funds we would receive would be used by the Department of Housing." That is on the basis of your selling some of those state-owned lots in Burns Lake to that state-run Department of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. It says: "To subsidize the water system in the village of Burns Lake the required subsidy is reported to be in the order of $300,000 to $350,000." It carries on: "It is my view that it is not the function of the Department of Housing to subsidize water systems."

Now they are talking about an outright subsidy for the water system in the community of Burns Lake, and they go on: "In any municipality, in fact..." — they don't only talk about Burns Lake; they talk about any municipality in the province — and they go on to say: "... we would carry the normal off-site costs that could be attributable to our development. We would be quite prepared to do this for our proposed housing subdivision and mobile home park at Burns Lake."

[Mr. Kelly in the chair.]

Well, certainly we expect you to carry your own off-site costs that are an imposition on the municipality because of your establishment of state-owned trailer parks, state-owned housing and state-owned lots. What I want to know is: how come the village of Burns Lake is to receive an outright subsidy for their water system which has never been given to any other municipality in the province? How come Burns Lake? Is it be cause the Department of Lands, Forests and Water Resources is establishing a state-owned sawmill in that community? Is that why the special treatment, this special subsidy, is to be given to the Village of Burns Lake?

If Burns Lake is to get this kind of subsidy, why do not other municipalities qualify for the same kind of treatment on a per capita basis? I'm not asking for any more than fair treatment on a per capita basis.

It shouldn't matter whether there's a state-owned sawmill in the community or state-owned lots or a state-owned trailer park. I want to know why this subsidy is going to be given to the Village of Burns Lake. Can other villages, other towns and other cities in other municipal districts in this province expect the same kind of treatment as apparently is being given to Burns Lake?

MR. ROLSTON: In this state-owned Legislature, I want to say something to that Member. He should come this Sunday to Maple Ridge at 2 o'clock to the opening of the 57-unit personal-care home that this government with state funds put nearly $250,000 into. He should come with me; I'm making an invitation. I would certainly go with him to a state-owned mobile home park in Pitt Meadows.

Interjections.

MR. ROLSTON: He really should. He can't take it; he just can't take it. In an area in Pitt Meadows, long before I was elected, a company called International Land Corp. owned property, a property which was really a gravel pit where a lot of the gravel was taken to do the fill in the initial roadbed of the CPR. That property sat for a long time. I remember being told long before the election that there was going to be a mobile home park there, Mr. Chairman. We waited and waited. For various reasons it just didn't happen. But last year this government and this Minister with the help of Dunhill Development Corp. were able to get that gravel pit with all the great ideas and get, I think, a remarkably beautiful 162-unit, state-owned — if not co-op-owned, in a sense — mobile home park which is a quality park. I want that Member to go with me this weekend, I really do, to see a beautiful park with, I think, $40,000 in landscaping, with curbs, with a fantastic underground effluent and storm sewer capacity, paved streets....

MR. CHABOT: Will you let me speak?

MR. ROLSTON: You let me speak; you've been up. I want that Member to go with me to see the Meadow Gardens Co-op Mobile Home Park in Pitt Meadows, a beautiful unit.

Interjections

MR. ROLSTON: Oh, he doesn't know. There's a beautiful unit over in that Member's.... I have here some notes about the Town and Country Mobile Home Park in Ladysmith, a beautiful unit. I went to see it.

In housing, for instance, this government's trying to change some of the somewhat slummy images that there were during the previous government's time about the mobile home park. Here's a quality mobile home park with a swimming pool, a little post office, a little store, a games room....

HON. MR. LAUK: Is that a state-owned post office?

[ Page 2082 ]

MR. ROLSTON: A state-owned post office. With tennis courts, with cable television. It's beautifully landscaped; it has a mini-store and it has a fantastic sense of community. The bank manager from Hammond — the bank manager from Hammond — is selling his house and moving into this co-op mobile home park. One of the patriarchs — let's get it straight — of Pitt Meadows is Andrew Skelly. I think he topped the polls in the last municipal election as an alderman. He just recently retired and is the chairman of that co-op mobile home park.

Interjections

MR. ROLSTON: That's right. Isn't that remarkable? We have more people wanting to get into that beautiful Meadow Gardens Mobile Home Park that this Minister was able to get going. That place sat there as a gravel pit; there was nothing happening. If anything, it's maybe a little too plush. If there's any criticism, maybe they've gone too far to dissuade some of the negative images of the past of this type of housing.

Interjection.

MR. ROLSTON: This group didn't face the fact that one in five in this province for various reasons want to live in mobile home parks. Who knows, maybe some MLAs here live in a mobile home park. But we aren't very happy — I've got to point in the right direction — with mobile home parks that we've seen out on Highway 1 leaving Victoria. There needs to be some work done. I'm saying that this Member should hear.... Too bad! He's left the House. He should know that there's a prototype, I think, for the future. On many occasions, this Minister has said that this form is one in five of all housing. We as a government are eager to help; we want to break some of those negative images.

I'm looking forward to an opening ceremony, probably in a month or maybe in six weeks, out in Pitt Meadows. Let's hear who comes from that group to be positive, not just the "huff and I'll puff and I'll blow your house down" kind of hot air but positive about this.

We should have had that Member go out to the legion to see a fantastic, beautiful unit that was opened recently at the legion out in Maple Ridge. These are semi-state owned and semi-publicly owned. I want to know why so many people are flooding this type of housing. Not all the people, by no means. I hear that there is a possibility of another alderman in Maple Ridge going to the co-op pioneer village in Maple Ridge, a leading citizen, a man who, for some reason, it is his own reason, wants to move out of his single, detached home and move into an 84-unit — I think it's 84; I've got to get it right — pioneer village that this government helped get going, and which was opened, I think, about two months ago. Why is it such a tragedy to move into this kind of housing?

Interjections.

MR. ROLSTON: This group is a flat-earth group. This group really can't cope with the fast-changing lifestyles in British Columbia. They just can't. That's the trouble. They are a non-thinking, non-responsive, non-imaginative group.

MR. PHILLIPS: Why don't you go have another champagne party?

MR. ROLSTON: Really, it is not a case of whether you live in a co-op, whether you live in a double-wide, or whether you live in a great house in Shaughnessy, there is going to be a variety of housing units. I think this government is intending to meet that kind of pressure.

If I could just ask a question. I have never understood the gobbledegook that still seems to exist in the CSA standards for prefab modulars. Now maybe between Housing and Consumer Services, you are both here tonight, the MLAs should know that there is still kind of a jungle on zoning. There's the AZ77 CSA standard for prefab modulars. I believe this meets the national building code. I gather that there is a less stringent Z240....

Interjections.

MR. ROLSTON: Look at that — they don't want to listen, Mr. Chairman.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, order!

Interjections.

MR. ROLSTON: They don't want to listen.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. ROLSTON: This group doesn't want to face a serious problem of housing. They want to make a lot of noise.

AN HON. MEMBER: You don't know what the truth is.

Interjections.

MR. ROLSTON: They have no sympathy for my

[ Page 2083 ]

sore throat as I try to speak here.

HON. MS. YOUNG: Order, order. Behave yourselves!

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, what a spitfire!

MR. ROLSTON: Order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. PHILLIPS: You better watch it, Mr. Chairman; she's after your job.

MR. ROLSTON: I'm simply asking, Mr. Chairman: could a pamphlet be produced to get out to the public, and certainly the municipalities, to clear up the kind of difference between the AZ277 and this Z240 for mobiles, this less stringent thing? I didn't realize until I dug through some orders-in-council that actually the Z240 really exempts units from the local building code.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. ROLSTON: That really needs to be interpreted, I think, a little more to the community. But you know, by George, it gets me pretty upset to hear people in this House blame this Minister or Dunhill or the government for what is happening in housing.

Last summer in Ontario I heard even more alarming problems in housing, alarming statistics. I have relatives who tell me what has happened to the inflationary value of their house in Midland, Ontario, or in Toronto or in other suburbs there. There is a problem which is very serious. But, by George, you know, very little is ever said about what actually happens to the value of the land.

Very few people admit what the real estate people told me when I moved to Mission in 1968: "Peter, you buy some lots — that's what you should do. You should hold on to some lots. Pick up some lots for $2,600. You just wait, wait, don't do anything." That's not free enterprise. Just sit on those lots, pay nominal taxes, and, by George, today those lots are worth $16,000. That's free enterprise?

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

To me that is just sitting back; that's a form of usury. I don't hear much criticism of that. I don't hear much criticism of the guy who simply just milks that young couple. I don't hear enough praise for people whom I think are really contributing, the people who are putting in the services. This government is willing to pay some of those services. That is work. That is enterprise, whether it is the variety of services in a developing area like Mission. I don't hear much praise for the fact that that Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) says that we will put in money to help pay for some of the water services now with that natural gas money, or for some of the sewer services.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member to confine his remarks to vote 32.

MR. ROLSTON: Well, it's okay. Let's just complete this little comment by saying that that Minister is getting a lot of social housing. I gather about 15,000 units are in planning; over 3,000 residential lots are well on the way.

You know, last night at an engagement I heard people asking what we are going to do about Colwood and Langford. That Minister is dealing with those areas — Colwood, Langford, other areas which have just sat in a semi-depressed state, a state with very little planning, very, very short of services, really very short of social capital from the state to build up that area of Victoria. Mr. Chairman, it couldn't be more than eight or 10 miles away. My goodness, you know?

In Harrison Hot Springs we have tertiary treatment. Yet, out here in the so-called Highlands next to the capital, there is simply the septic. I think that this government really appreciates the tough work in this very tough, often unappreciated Department of Housing. I support voting on this vote.

MR. CHABOT: It was very interesting to listen to the dialogue from the Member for Dewdney. He is a great Viet Cong sympathizer. He celebrated the victory of Communism over South Vietnam the other night.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. CHABOT: He talks just like his beliefs are when he talks about....

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

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I wish you would stop interrupting unnecessarily when I touch a very sensitive point.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The Hon. Member is out of order! The Chair was not interrupting unnecessarily.

[ Page 2084 ]

MR. CHABOT: The Chair is very touchy tonight, Mr. Chairman, I suggest to you.

I asked a few questions of the Minister and he seems to consistently evade the questions I put to him. There's another thing, too. He talks about state-owned homes down in his constituency and we have this great state-owned trailer pad up in Squamish at a rental of $116 per month, but I maintain that the private enterprise system can deliver trailer parks at substantially lower rates if given an opportunity. But no, they are not given an opportunity. We've had these....

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): Slums.

MR. PHILLIPS: Are you attacking all the trailer parks and calling them slums? More nasty attacks!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the two Members to observe standing order 17(2).

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, we have witnessed the experience in the community of Chilliwack where a trailer park was charging $50 per pad, which is substantially less than the $116 which the government proposes to charge in its state-owned trailer park in Squamish. That trailer operator, because of rising costs, attempted to get a reasonable increase over his $50, but he was stopped by the rentalsman from getting beyond 10.6 per cent. Yet we see the government maintaining that they are filling a vacuum. They're not filling any vacuum; they're ripping off those people who could be getting reasonably priced trailer accommodation in this province by private enterprise.

MR. PHILLIPS: Right on!

MR. CHABOT: They've closed the door for individuals to establish private trailer parks in this province because they want to gouge the people of this province through their state-owned trailer parks. Double fees — that's what they are charging to the people of this province. They suggest they are delivering low cost housing in low cost trailer parks. It's a sham — that's what it is, no two ways about it. It's unbelievable that they have the gall to stand up here and suggest that they are delivering low cost accommodation to the people of this province. Nothing is further from the truth.

MR. PHILLIPS: It's sick!

MR. CHABOT: Is the Minister going to answer the questions I posed to him on the question of the subsidy in the Village of Burns Lake?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Member, as I have said, the Department of Lands, under statute, did fund Burns Lake. This should be brought up under that. I have also told you that it is my understanding that the municipality is applying to the Department of Municipal Affairs for funding. This was an interim procedure. I think if you want further details you should bring it up under the vote of the Department of Lands.

In the matter of Squamish, that is what the cooperative is charging and the cooperative is, of course, membership-run. It cost the Department of Housing $8,200 per pad. We are charging $52 per month — that is, without a maintenance shed. There was quite a controversy about whether people wanted those or not, so it went on an individual basis. If it is with a maintenance shed it's $57 per pad per month, so there's a difference of $5 per month depending on whether or not they have a maintenance shed. That's what we are getting. Now for operating expenses, maintenance and other programmes that the cooperative is planning, that makes up the difference.

In terms of current costs, which are certainly quite high for the projects that are just recently constructed, that's what the return is to the province, so the province is not ripping off anybody in that area.

MR. CHABOT: Regarding the Squamish mobile park, unfortunately the figures are not readily available here, but I will dig them up. The figures that you suggest as costs of site preparation in Squamish are not correct. The projections are on site $7,500, off site $1,854, for a total of $9,354. Those are the figures. The monthly charge on the park by BCHMC is $116.63. I forget exactly the distribution of between cooperatives and BCHMC but the cooperative's charge is $93.63 per month. That's the projected cost there, and it is $116.63 by the B.C. Housing Management Commission. So your figures don't quite hold water with the projections I have here.

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: I'll give you a breakdown. The Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Lauk) apparently knows nothing about this, so I will give him a breakdown as to how this figure is arrived at.

The monthly charge on the park operated by the BCHMC is $80.63 per month, amortization at 10.375 per cent over 40 years. The operating estimate is $36, so it's $116.63. That's how it's made up, Mr. Minister of Economic Development.

Now I'm wondering, has the Department of Housing sold to the Department of Lands any lots in the community of Burns Lake? If so, how many, at

[ Page 2085 ]

what cost and what was the money used for?

Did you get those? I'll repeat those, because the Minister was busy talking, Mr. Chairman. Did the Department of Housing, which apparently is in the business of leasing land and leasing trailer parks in the community of Burns Lake, enter into any arrangement with the Department of Lands, Forests and Water Resources for the sale of land — subdivided land or raw land? If so, how many lots or how much land was sold and at what price? What was the money utilized for?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: The answer to the last question is no.

HON. MR. LAUK: N-O.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: On the Squamish, there were some preliminary figures when it was assumed that we could perhaps get some funds from Central Mortgage and Housing. Their current interest rate at that time was 10.375 per cent. At present we are planning to dispose of these mobile homes in Squamish through the mobile home cooperative. If there is a balance left over, they might be rented through B.C. Housing Management Commission, and the figure which you give would be an upward figure.

MR. CHABOT: Your department is quite interested in this Burns Lake situation and the need for assistance to that community. I'm wondering whether there has been any money, any assistance given for the water system over and beyond the cost incurred on site, off site for extension of water lines by your department in the servicing of lots in trailer pads in that community? It's a pretty clear indication that someone is going to be giving a subsidy to the community of Burns Lake for the water system in the amount of $300,000 to $350,000. I'm wondering if the Minister can tell me whether there's been some financial assistance of any description given to that community from the Department of Housing.

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: Well, the Minister of Economic Development is pretty chirpy tonight, Mr. Chairman. If the Minister had been in the House a little earlier when I made the point.... I was suggesting that there's favoritism being given in the community of Burns Lake because we're going to have a state-owned sawmill in that community. I hate repeating for the benefit of the Minister of Economic Development who's only here from time to time. I'm suggesting that if assistance is going to be given to the municipality of Burns Lake in the form of a subsidy for its water system, there are many other municipalities in this province in dire straits for financial assistance. I could name you a dozen real quickly.

AN HON. MEMBER: For water systems?

MR. CHABOT: Yes, for water systems and assistance, the kind of subsidy which, apparently, is being given to Burns Lake. I'm suggesting that if there's largesse for a community such as Burns Lake where the government is going to have a state-owned sawmill, why can't other municipalities get equal treatment?

AN HON. MEMBER: Fair question. Good question.

MR. CHABOT: Well, just one brief question. Will the Minister tell me that he has not given 1 cent of subsidy to the community of Burns Lake for a water system and that there have been no financial arrangements whatsoever with his department as far as subsidy, which was talked about in correspondence between the Associate Deputy Minister of Housing and the Deputy Minister of Housing? They talked abut their concern; they expressed their concern about the need for assistance in the form of a subsidy. I'm wondering whether there has been any kind of financial arrangement made with that municipality by your department.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, to answer the Member's question: as I said before, it has been funded through a vote in the Department of Lands. My department has not forwarded that funding from our department.

MR. CHABOT: The subsidy is given by Lands.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: I didn't call it a subsidy, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHABOT: Oh, he didn't call it a subsidy.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Chairman, I was just wondering if the Minister would give me the courtesy of replying to my questions regarding the meeting in Seymour where Dunhill has threatened those people over there. Does he bestow this power on Werner Paulus, the president of Dunhill, to go into these communities and threaten these communities?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Unlike the previous government that came into the quiet little peaceful town of Nelson and threatened to take over their electrical light system, which they depended upon for years and years and years — they had the first electric railway system in British Columbia — unlike when the former MLAs for the area, Wes Black and Mr.

[ Page 2086 ]

Williston, came in and laid on a heavy message....

Interjection.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: No, I don't think that's our policy, but I'm very concerned. There is a piece of land in that area that wouldn't be an intensive development; it would be a single-family development, as proposed. It's fairly low density. If it's not suitable for that, then it certainly is suitable for residential development. We're concerned about that area; we know they have legitimate concerns. Some of the very legitimate concerns are that there has been a shortage of secondary school space. They've had to go on what they call a four-day week in order to utilize the existing school building, Thank goodness for the programmes of the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) which no longer require referendums; there should be no impediment to the expansion of that service, and there are other things.

There will be a meeting tomorrow evening. My Deputy Minister and Mr. Paulus will be there. Other concerned departments will be there, and the MLA for that area; all will be meeting with the concerned residents of that area — the Seymour Planning Association.

HON. MR. LAUK: A little different than the previous administration, eh, Don?

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Chairman, I wish the Minister of Economic Development and the Minister of Housing would, you know, realize that this is 1975. How long are they going to keep referring to the past administration and living in the past?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Are you ashamed of it?

MR. PHILLIPS: You've been governing now for close to three years.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: I haven't seen you....

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

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): It's about time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: And I would ask the other Hon. Members to....

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I want to tell you that that Member for Shuswap, who ran on a promise of having the egg marketing board changed, having legislation changed to benefit himself, should not be talking....

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You're taking over my job, Hon. Member. I'd just ask the other Hon. Members of the House not to interrupt the Member when he's speaking.

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, but it makes me a little peeved when....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I agree that you should have the right to speak without interruption, and I will try to bring them to order.

MR. LEWIS: Control your temper.

MR. PHILLIPS: Particularly that Member, Mr. Chairman.

This is 1975. They are the government; they must be responsible. The Minister of Housing must be responsible for the actions of — what is that rip-off company, Dunhill? It's the one that when he purchased it he ripped off the people of British Columbia for $2 million. We should call him the instant millionaire Minister, Mr. Chairman, because he creates instant millionaires: Dunhill, Casa Loma, Meadowbrook, Burke Mountain, Riverview. The instant millionaire Minister.

We have another situation I'd like the Minister to comment on — one in Kamloops. And the Minister was just up in Kamloops. I'm quoting from an article, Mr. Chairman: "The provincial government has proposed a 500-unit, $19.2 million housing development on 88 acres of Crown land in the heart of Kamloops, Mayor Al Thompson revealed Wednesday."

The only catch is, the city doesn't want the development, but wants the land turned into a park that can eventually become similar to Vancouver's Little Mountain.

"Thompson said that the proposal came at a meeting Tuesday between the city and Housing Minister Lorne Nicolson. Originally the government had proposed about 300 units, but now they have doubled their density. The mayor explained that the site is the only natural space left in the centre of our city. 'It is behind the Royal Inland Hospital, is on steep land and would be ideal as a central park as it is already surrounded by housing. We're the third largest city in B.C. and now we need a central park.'

[ Page 2087 ]

"Thompson said the city has been fighting the provincial government since last year over the development and there is now a possibility that the government will dedicate the land for a park."

Has the Minister made a decision? Or, again, is this a case of dictatorship where the Minister and his awesome powers can go into a community and force the people of that community — shove it down their throat, as it were? What does the Minister have to say about this situation?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, the first thing I have to say about this is that the former council requested that we develop those lands that we were in negotiation on with them, We continued to talk with the present council. In fact just as recently as yesterday and today Mayor Thompson was down here meeting with our officials and also looking at some of the projects as a guest of both the department and Dunhill Development with some of his staff and people. I would look forward to more cooperation.

I'm not going to take the words as they were read out in that press release. I know that sometimes when it's their wont people will tend to exaggerate — to paraphrase — statements as they might tend to see them in reporting. I would be rather surprised if those were the remarks, though, of Mayor Thompson. We've had very pleasant meetings....

MR. PHILLIPS: Are you disputing the press again? Are you condemning the press?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: They interpret what they see....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The Hon. Member has made a point frequently that he's been interrupted. I would ask him to observe the same standards himself and not disrupt the Minister.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: There's a good reason for that. Mr. Chairman. When his election was in the balance, he said he wasn't interested in coming down here anyhow. He didn't know if he would come down or not. So we have to make special allowances in this House for that Member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

HON. MR. NICOLSON: That was in The Vancouver Sun, or do you dispute the veracity...? Are you attacking the press or denying that, Mr. Member?

MR. WALLACE: He's very silent on that one.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Yes, he is rather, on that.

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

HON. MR. NICOLSON: You would have had a good Member there, Mr. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace).

MR. WALLACE: I think you got him on that one.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Anyhow, discussions are continuing there. Of course, that particular property is not the only one under consideration, but it's a new council there and I think it looks like a good council. We've had some good meetings and I look forward to further good cooperation with that council, frankly, Mr. Member.

I think this is one of the problems. You say we're not building housing but there's a place where we're ready to go ahead and we're still discussing it with the council. I'm not out to escalate anything with the council; I don't want to heat the flames. Certainly they're encouraging us to go ahead on Bachelor Hills. We'll probably do that. Maybe we'll do this one as well. But we'll continue to talk to them and get their input. There was quite a change up there in the last election. They haven't been a party to all these decisions. That's one of the troubles with municipal councils, and that's also one of the good things with municipal councils. There is a breath of fresh air once in a while and that's all for the good. But it does have its commensurate problems. So that's about the situation there.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr., Chairman, if everything is so happy with the government, how come this was just May 1 that this article was released where the present mayor seems to be unhappy? I don't think, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister should be allowed to attack the press, following in the footsteps of his leader, the Premier, and not have it brought to the attention of the Legislature.

I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that I'm very happy I'm here, because we have to fight the spread of communism in British Columbia. We have to stand up and fight for the rights of individuals....

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

MR. PHILLIPS: We have to stand up and fight.

Mr. Chairman, in April, 1974, the Department of Housing purchased 1.26 acres of land in Duncan. For this 1.26 acres of land the Department of Housing paid the tidy little sum of $160,000. That works out to $126,984 per acre for land in Duncan. Does this land have a gold mine on it or does it have an oil well

[ Page 2088 ]

on it? To me that sounds just a little bit excessive for land in Duncan — $126,984 per acre. That's pretty expensive land in Duncan. Did that include an apartment building?

AN HON. MEMBER: What does the Minister for that riding (Hon. Mr. Strachan) have to say?

MR. PHILLIPS: The Member is very quiet on this. I'd like to know who owned this land in Duncan that the government paid, using taxpayers' money, $160,000 for an acre and a quarter. Maybe he's going to resell it. He'll never resell it to the Minister of Transport and Communications at that price, and if we are going to provide low-cost housing....

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, maybe. Maybe they are going to put an oil refinery on it, or a poultry farm. You never know what they are going to put on it. You never know what this government is going to do, Mr. Chairman. Maybe the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Lauk) is going to build a sawmill on it.

I'd like to know who the land was purchased from, who did the appraisal, and how the Minister can justify land at the rate of, well, we might as well say for round figures, Mr. Chairman, $127,000 an acre in Duncan.

The Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) looks off into the wild blue yonder.

AN HON. MEMBER: What have you got against Duncan?

MR. PHILLIPS: I've got nothing against Duncan, Mr. Member.

AN HON. MEMBER: What have you got against us?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I could show you a list of what has happened to properties in Duncan.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I can tell you what's happened all over the province since 1972 — you and your land policies. Oh, yes, your land policies — "we're going to assist people to own their own homes." You've inflated the price of land out of the reach of every young couple in this province. You've created the problem. You've taken British Columbia from a have province in housing to a have-not province. You've taken a crisis which you created in housing and made it into a catastrophe. You're government. You're ignorant government.

The Member for Dewdney (Mr. Rolston) talks about being in tune with the times.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: You're a ding-dong.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I'll tell you, he's not in tune with the times, Mr. Chairman, because he doesn't realize what his government is doing. He doesn't realize what his government is doing to the young people in this province who want to own their own homes. It's your policies that have inflated, as much as 1,000 per cent in some instances, the price of land. This is an instance right here, Mr. Chairman — $127,000 for an acre of land in Duncan.

Who was it bought from? Who was it purchased from? Who did the appraisal on it?

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: Not me.

MR. PHILLIPS: Was there a real estate company involved? Was it purchased by Dunhill?

MR. LEWIS: Phil Gaglardi.

MR. PHILLIPS: There's that chicken farmer again, that ran in this Legislature to grind his own axe.

MR. LEWIS: Withdraw! Shame!

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

I think the Hon. Member for South Peace River did impute an improper motive to another Hon. Member, and I would ask him to withdraw the remark that he is here for his own personal....

MR. CHABOT: He said so himself.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm just repeating what he said.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will the Hon. Member withdraw?

MR. PHILLIPS: I'll withdraw.HON. MR. STRACHAN: You're a ding-dong.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, this 1.26 acres in Duncan is in a neighbourhood improvement programme area. We've purchased it on behalf of a non-profit society. The sponsor is, in fact, comprised of members of council in Duncan. On their recommendation we are undertaking this. The proposal is for 132 units, which means that the per-unit cost will be less than $1,000, which is pretty good today. This is being done with the encouragement of the council in Duncan.

All these remarks about our attitudes towards councils, et cetera, and towards municipalities.... This is another example of the tremendous cooperation which we are getting, particularly from

[ Page 2089 ]

some of the small villages and district municipalities. The particular ownerships and where this came from, I cannot supply you this evening — who did the appraisals and so on, and from whom each of these were purchased — but certainly I could file this in the form of a return if I don't have another opportunity to do this.

Vote 102 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 31

NAYS — 14

On vote 103: general administration, $2,939,174.

MR. WALLACE: I thought it might be good to have a change. Although the government is applauding me right now, they probably will not do so after I make my remarks.

They have general administration which is...

AN HON. MEMBER: See? It's backfiring already.

MR. WALLACE: ...increased by eight times, from $361,000 to $2.9 million.

AN HON. MEMBER: Wow!

MR. WALLACE: We have an increase of staff from 44 to 140.

AN HON. MEMBER: Wow!

MR. WALLACE: We have three Associate Deputy Ministers plus a Deputy Minister.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Any carpenters? Bricklayers?

MR. WALLACE: There are two information officers, nine technicians, and I could recite the whole number. There isn't even a partridge in a pear tree, but there is everything but.

AN HON. MEMBER: Any plumbers, carpenters, bricklayers?

MR. WALLACE: But, seriously, Mr. Chairman, this has to be the most rapidly proliferating department. I notice that the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) smiling because she knows I am pretty well repeating the speech I made about general administration under Education. The principle is the same. We on this side of the House are very worried about a tremendous increase in administrative staff in the office of almost every Minister in government. Vote 103 says it very, very clearly.

When we look at some of the expenses, we have office expenses up by threefold and travelling expenses, which were $2,500, are going to be $140,000. Advertising is going to $150,000; consultive services, $ 100,000; printing and publications, $250,000. I have already mentioned that we have two information officers. When we look at the amount of money the government is spending in a variety of promotional services of one kind or another, I gather the figures for the total budget are somewhere between $6 million and $11 million involved in advertising of one kind or another. This was compiled by one of the members of the press gallery. His effort comes in very handy at the present time. He went through the different estimates of the different Ministers, trying to find out how much this government is spending on advertising its own supposed merits.

AN HON. MEMBER: Any research and development in that thing?

MR. WALLACE: It came to somewhere between — since the specifications are a little difficult to define — $6 million and $11 million for the total budget. Certainly, under the last six items I have mentioned, they add up to close to $800,000 for office expenses, travelling expenses, advertising, printing and publications, and consultative services. I would agree that with an expanding responsibility, the Department of Housing obviously would require more staff and more expenses. But eightfold? Anyone trying to be objective at all would have to wonder how general administration could increase by eight times.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): While housing starts are in half.

MR. WALLACE: I have some questions that I

[ Page 2090 ]

would like to ask. First of all, I would like it to be clearly on the record that none of the administrative staff in this vote are employed by Dunhill Corp. I would assume that Dunhill is a separate entity owned and operated by the government, but we are not talking about any Dunhill staff in this vote of 184 employees, which is an increase of 140 over last year. In the total housing efforts of this government, we are talking of the department staff plus whatever staff Dunhill employs.

First of all, I would like to ask why the department requires, in effect, four Deputy Ministers whose combined salaries add up to something like $140,000. There are a Deputy Minister and three Associate Deputy Ministers. There are 19 senior officers between levels 1 and 3 and there are nine administrative officers between levels 1 and 4, plus the two information officers and a planning officer and two research officers, plus all the supportive staff of clerks, clerk stenographers and clerk typists. Looking at the sudden explosion of staff and expenses in this department, particularly when we relate it to the number of units that have been created and the Minister's own admission that perhaps we can have 30,000 units — actually the more realistic figure is 40,000 — we have to ask the question: is this kind of expenditure of money and the employment of that number of administrative staff justified in the light of the continuing difficulty in meeting the real housing needs of the province? In particular, there are the two or three items where I would like the Minister to tell us why he reached the figure he did. There's advertising of $150,000. Despite the fact that earlier in the vote there are the various senior positions that I mentioned who surely would have a great deal of expertise and knowledge, we are allowing $100,000 for conclusive services. Last but by no means least, printing and publications: $250,000. If these items are specifically for advertising and the publication of various documents and pamphlets and brochures and so on, I wonder if the Minister can tell us what kind of programme of advertising he has in mind. Is this because there is some kind of special project this upcoming year, or is this the kind of expenditure we can anticipate for that item year after year after year?

Certainly the general impression that vote 103 has on any objective reader is to take his breath away at the tremendous increase in spending and the real concern one would have, particularly in the latter part of these last three or four items. I think the House would like to hear the Minister's breakdown of these costs.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: I think the Hon. Member has brought forward legitimate concerns. It should be borne in mind that since last year's estimates the Public Service Commission and Treasury Board approved 76 positions to administer Acts which were passed in the past couple of sittings of the Legislature, both last fall and last spring — Acts such as the Leasehold and Conversion Mortgage Loan Act and the Department of Housing Act, which took over the housing Act which was federal-provincial, and the Elderly Citizens' Housing Aid Act, the Provincial Home-owner Grant Act, and then the Elderly Citizen Renters Grant Act, the Provincial Home Acquisition Act and the Housing Incentive Fund Act. We got into new programmes such as the renters' grant going out universally.

MR. WALLACE: That needs all that further staffing?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, there was extra staff required. I think in last year's estimates we already transferred the staff from the Department of Finance to fit the 44 members in the home acquisition branch. Those 44 people that you see there virtually are all in the home acquisition branch, which administers the second-mortgage programme and the home acquisition grant and the elderly citizen renters grant up to that time. We are also responsible for the homeowner grant in terms of legal interpretations and such. It appears from the current estimates that the staff position increase is 140 — that is from 44 to 184. The actual increase in positions from last year is only 66. The difference of 76 positions has already been approved by Treasury Board and the Public Service Commission in line with the programmes that we started in the previous year.

It contains provision for field staff in five regional offices which would coincide with CMHC offices around the province so we can co-ordinate a little bit better and have a presence in the regional areas. We have filled some of those positions, but not all, and, of course, the necessary support staff.

Also, because of building construction taking place on leasehold lots for leasehold conversion mortgage loans, there are building superintendents who offer assistance as w ell as supervising that the improvements made secure the mortgages that are being forwarded on these leasehold lots, which is very critical when there is no equity other than the person's down payment. There is no equity in the land, so it is very crucial that we have that supervision.

Travelling — it is necessary because we are in quite constant contact with municipalities. There is a fair amount of travelling involved by the department.

With advertising, it is necessary to inform the public of programmes. There will be a change in the renters grant and such. Just to make people aware of the renters grant last year there was a fair amount of advertising, although the administrative costs of the renters grant were not that great when you consider

[ Page 2091 ]

the $30 grant that we were getting out. We managed to keep it down fairly reasonably. It is necessary to advertise when we extend the homeowner grant. We feel it is an obligation. I certainly look at these as upward figures, but I feel there is a responsibility to make available to the public the services that are being offered.

Consultive services are normally things such as consultive work which we commissioned in the case of the sewage service feasibility study with the Capital Regional District — certain studies which we have hired consultants to do. It could be preliminary soil samples. There are all kinds of things for which we might commission — sometimes in conjunction with a municipality or sometimes on our own. Not all of these positions are filled at the present, then. The actual number filled at this time is 95, Mr. Member. This is the total programme at this time.

MR. WALLACE: What about that last item?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Which one?

MR. WALLACE: Printing and publications.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: It is necessary to get out certain brochures and such. I think they have to be readable.

We put out "Housing for People." There's one criticism that's been made and that's that skewing the graph to make it more aesthetically pleasing made the previous administration look too good. I would see a reprinting of that with some improvements made in that regard.

It is necessary to get these programmes out to explain the programmes that are available. Municipal councils change. There are new mayors, new councillors, new housing committee chairmen. They want to be informed of the federal programmes, the provincial programmes, of cooperative housing, of land-lease and all of these various programmes. So it's very necessary that we get these things out to the public. I know a quarter of a million dollars is quite a fair amount of money, but we feel that what we do should be well done. We find it very necessary. There are tremendous requests for this type of information.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, some of the questions that I was going to ask have already been answered, but I just want to note, Mr. Chairman, that there's not much wonder there's a shortage of housing in British Columbia because the number of persons employed by this Department of Housing has increased from 44 last year to 184 this year — an increase of 140 persons. There's an increase in salary for these persons, Mr. Chairman, from $301,476 to an astronomical figure of $2,150,674. And that, Mr. Chairman, does not include an additional $690,240 for salary contingencies.

I notice that the Minister has here a "property negotiator, " one of the lowest paid persons on his whole salary schedule, at $13,788. I think he would carry a great responsibility in negotiating the numerous parcels of land that the Department of Housings will be presumably accumulating again next year — acquiring, I should say. How come one of the chief negotiators for this department in the lower income bracket, Mr. Chairman?

Would the Minister also advise me why he feels it necessary to have a Deputy Minister at $43,000 and three Associate Deputy Ministers, one at $39,000, one at $35,000 and one at $30,000? What is the difference in the responsibilities of these three Associate Deputy Ministers? How come one is worth $9,000 more than the other? Does the Minister have different responsibilities for these Associate Deputy Ministers? What areas are their responsibilities? Does he have one in charge of land acquisition? Does he have one in charge of Dunhill? Does he have one in charge of his public relations? Does he have one looking after his constituency problems? How come this Minister has four assistants, directly involved? What are their duties and what are their responsibilities?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, there are at present only one Deputy Minister and one Associate Deputy Minister. With an expansion, the financial control of the department should be the responsibility of ... there should be a full Associate Deputy Minister there for social housing programmes and also for property acquisition and programme planning. At the present time there is one Deputy Minister and one Associate Deputy Minister, and that will continue for some time.

You have apprehension about the property negotiator being a fairly low rate of pay. He is supervised by a qualified certified appraiser who is at the senior officer 1 level. There are actually a couple of people in that position.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise, report resolution and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 31

[ Page 2092 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: When reporting to the Speaker, would you advise him that a division took place in committee and ask that the division be recorded in the Journals of the House?

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The committee reports resolutions and asks leave to sit again, and further reports that two divisions took place in committee and asks that they be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: The order of business, when we finish with the Minister of Housing, by request then we will move to the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke). But I would like to point out to the House that the Minister of Health will not be here from Thursday on.

In answer to the question about whose request, we acceded to the request from the official opposition for their order of Education, which you had, and we had a request from the Conservative Leader for Health. We had no other requests. We acceded to the official opposition's request and we decided we should also accede to the Conservative Leader (Mr. Wallace).

MR. SPEAKER: What is the point of order, please?

MR. SMITH: We made no official request of the government leader or of the House Leader at any time. They can follow the schedule as they see it, but don't try to involve the official opposition in whatever manoeuvres you are making.

MR. SPEAKER: I think we all know that it isn't a point of order. This is unofficial.

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): There's an honourable and distinguished guest in the gallery this evening. I would like the House to join me in wishing a belated happy evening and an enjoyable experience to the self-appointed mayor of Gastown, Mr. Aison, and his distinguished assistant.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11 p.m.