[ Page 6233 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Tabling Documents

Ministry of Labour annual report, December 31, 1979.

Hon. Mr. Heinrich –– 6233

Oral Questions

Lottery Fund Applications. Mr. Hall –– 6233

Release of McAlpine report. Mr. Barnes –– 6234

Mr. Lauk

Queen of Oak Bay purchase. Hon. Mr. Fraser replies –– 6237

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing estimates. (Hon. Mr.

Chabot)

On vote 149: minister's office –– 6237

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. Kempf

Mr. Levi

Mr. Davis

Mr. Skelly

Mr. Mitchell

Ms. Brown

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, we have a person in the gallery today who in other years would have been far more comfortable at the Clerks' table. I speak of a good friend of this assembly who served as a former Clerk Assistant and has had a long interest and a long association with our assembly, having worked for many years with another esteemed member of the Clerk's office, Mr. E.K. DeBeck. I'd like to ask the House to welcome Mrs. Evelyn Miller, who is in the gallery today.

MR. COCKE: Yesterday it was drawn to the attention of the House that you were a Gemini and that it was your birthday. I would like to draw to the attention of the House that there's another member in the House who is very close to your place in the sky: another Gemini, the good doctor from Burnaby–Edmonds (Ms. Brown). I hope that the House will join me in wishing her a happy birthday today.

MR. RITCHIE: I wish to introduce three gentlemen representing the Royal Bank: Mr. Bob Corlett, Mr. Gerry Conly and Mr. Dave Laundy. Would the House please welcome these gentlemen to the Legislature.

MR. BARRETT: I'm not sure if my mother is in the precincts at this moment, but she may be arriving shortly. It was her birthday yesterday too, Mr. Speaker. I just wanted to mention to the House that she was greeted earlier in the day by the second member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Hon. Mr. McGeer), whom she claims to have an old friendship with. I'm looking into this matter and will report to the House later.

HON. MR. CHABOT: In the galleries today we have Mr. and Mrs. Werner Rombach from Windermere. I'd like the House to join me in welcoming them.

MR. SKELLY: I would ask the members of the assembly to acknowledge the visit today by students from the Maquinna Elementary School in Port Alberni. Maquinna is the school that my son goes to kindergarten at. I would ask the members to pay the students of Maquinna a warm welcome.

MR. BARRETT: So that Hansard will not defame any member, it's the first member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Hon. Mr. Gardom) who....

I also have the privilege of announcing that the new leader of the Liberal Party is in the gallery today, Mrs. McLoughlin. I'd ask the House to welcome her if she's in the gallery, I understand she's accompanied by another Liberal. That's two.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Ed Broadbent. [Laughter.]

MR. BARRETT: Well, you win some, you lose some.

The other Liberal is the regional vice-president of the party, Irma Dunn. I would hope that the other Liberals on the floor of the House would welcome them.

MR. HOWARD: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, and draw Your Honour's attention to a situation arising out of yesterday's proceedings — in particular, a point of order that I had raised with respect to standing order 25, the ruling of Your Honour and the subsequent division. Following that division, the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) rose on a point of order asking, basically, how many people were required for a recording. I saw two standing, and there were only two standing. I think Mr. Speaker then said: "I think only one is required for that request." However, standing order 16(3)....

HON. MR. GARDOM: Everybody understands that.

MR. HOWARD: Yes, I'm sure everybody understands it. Standing order 16(3) says: "Upon a division, the yeas and nays shall not be entered upon the Journals unless demanded by three members." I think the point of order made by the member for New Westminster was correct and right on the mark, yet I see in the Journals for Tuesday, June 16 — yesterday afternoon's sitting — that the division is so recorded in the Journals, even though three members did not rise to request it. I think perhaps a correction should be made to the Journals in that regard.

MR. SPEAKER: In order to refresh all members of the proceedings, the member for New Westminster correctly questioned how many members needed to stand to request a recording. I raised a finger to indicate that it was my impression that only one was required. Only one is required when requesting a division, but three are required for recording. I immediately sent a message to the hon. member for New Westminster to make that correction so that he should not be misled. However, in his asking yesterday how many should be required, just so that we would not be recording something in error, I checked to be sure how many people were standing, and before I said "so ordered," there were at least four people standing, one on this side and three on that side. It was at that point that I said "so ordered." If the members wish to refer it again to the House, I would be pleased to do so, but I sought to be sure that there were no errors.

Hon. Mr. Heinrich tabled the annual report of the Ministry of Labour, December 31, 1979.

Oral Questions

LOTTERY FUND APPLICATIONS

MR. HALL: I have a question for the Provincial Secretary. The ombudsman reports that several applicants for money from the Lottery Fund were granted approval in contravention of the minister's guidelines, and other applications were rejected on the basis of those same guidelines. Why are some organizations able to get grants in contravention of the guidelines while others are not?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's question. I'm a little surprised that I would receive a question in question period today; however, I'm quite prepared to answer the question.

The member asks why some organizations receive grants and not others. The guidelines are just what they say: they're guidelines, and they apply to most grants. One of the basic

[ Page 6234 ]

guidelines of lotteries grants is that they are not approved for regular, ongoing operational funds of an organization. It is in this respect that a particular grant associated with the ombudsman's report was refused. That grant application applied for a staff of three people, which would have been an ongoing expense. I think you will find that Dr. Friedmann approved of the reasons for that grant having been refused.

I don't have full details on the other grants he referred to, but they have to do with short-term, one-time-only applications of an emergent nature such as a handicapped association, the YWCA and a number of others, on which I could give details to the member, where they were not intended to be ongoing — "one time only" is the point I want to make, Mr. Speaker. They were considered to be acceptable on that basis. These guidelines are not considered to be rigid; they are distributed to the applicants in complete detail, and they're under the heading of grants not normally approved. I think these have been distributed some months ago to all members of this House in terms of attempting to make clearer to applicants what the basic guidelines would be.

I might say, Mr. Speaker, if the member is concerned that bias or favouritism is applied, all he has to do is look at the full disclosure which the ministry puts out every three months — full listing and details of all of the grants — and decide for himself whether or not they are really fairly distributed across the province. I think all members of this House have had experience with approaching the lotteries branch and this minister in terms of grants and would probably agree that there has been fair treatment.

MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, the point of the question is to bring to the minister's attention that there are ministerial guidelines which are being applied in some instances and not in other instances. We wish to know why some organizations are able to get grants and why some are not able to get grants using the self-same set of guidelines the minister has ordered to be used as rules for that committee.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I thought I had explained that one of the basic requirements of lotteries funds is that they will not be supplied to cover operating expenses. I think you'll find that any of those not approved might have had that as one criterion they failed on. If the member has a concern over certain grants that were approved that didn't fit the guidelines, I wish he'd bring them to my attention.

MR. HALL: I'm not concerned about the grants that were approved; I'm concerned about the grants that were not approved. Has the minister decided to file a list of the rejected applications that have gone through his committee that have been rejected on the basis of the same guidelines under which other applicants have been accepted?

HON. MR. WOLFE: I can give that every consideration, but I think the member should realize that there are a great multitude of applications. Last year there were 700 general grant applications plus 2,500 for travel assistance. Of the 2,500 something like 70 percent were approved. Others did not qualify. Of the 700 about 57 percent were rejected and the balance were approved. I just wanted him to know that it's a sizeable undertaking which we might not be able to respond to.

MR. HALL: The ombudsman recommends that under the statute an advisory committee be appointed at arm's length from government to administer fair guidelines for all applicants. The minister has advised the ombudsman that the government would not do so. As a result of the ombudsman's report being received, has the minister decided to discontinue the use of the Lottery Fund as a pork-barrel and apply these public funds in a fair manner?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the Provincial Secretary wish to answer?

HON. MR. WOLFE: I'll choose not to respond to the last part of that question, which I categorically deny. I think the member knows better than anyone in this House that fair treatment is accorded in the distribution of lotteries on the basis of need. The basic premise on which this government approaches lotteries is that they are there to address problems people have that aren't addressed in other programs of government. For that reason, the flexibility is required to respond to local situations of an emergent nature, and that's the very basis of lotteries. The member asks about the advisory committee, which is one of the main points made by Dr. Friedmann. I would say in answer that it probably was not clear in the minds of some members that one of the ombudsman's recommendations was that a lotteries advisory committee be established not only to advise on guidelines and criteria for grants, but also to administer the entire granting system. It seems to me that abrogates the responsibility of any minister of this government who has a responsibility to stand up and answer for those grants. We are not prepared to accept that premise on behalf of this government. That's why the response went forward as it did. No other advisory board of the many in this province has this much scope and power not only to recommend but to approve the grants they are associated with. The minister, as the elected official, has that decision-making responsibility.

MR. HALL: Mr. Chairman, if the minister refuses to operate a section of the statute, breaks his own guidelines, awards grants to certain applicants and denies grants to other applicants who meet the same guidelines, how else can this opposition characterize it but as a pork-barrel?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the purpose of question period is to ask questions and not to make statements.

RELEASE OF McALPINE REPORT

MR. BARNES: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. The minister has said his reason for not releasing the John McAlpine report was that it contained "contentious issues." Have those contentious issues to do with suppressing the fact that the report criticizes his ministry as well as the Ministries of the Attorney-General, Education and Provincial Secretary?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, the report covers a number of areas. I appreciate the concern which the member has and I regret that they missed my presence here yesterday. I will tell you that the government is taking this with a great deal of concern and has every intention to follow through.

[ Page 6235 ]

MR. BARNES: Supplementary to the Minister of Labour, Mr. Speaker. The human rights branch officials have submitted a brief to McAlpine indicating that prosecutions under the Human Rights Code can proceed without amendments to the code. Has the minister decided to prosecute?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The information I have is to the contrary. It seems to me that that question was asked a couple of weeks ago by the member. I thought I made it clear. As a matter of fact, the information I have from the branch is that the code is deficient with respect to the problem which we are attempting to address.

MR. BARNES: I have one final question to the minister. Does the minister have any objections to the immediate release of the John McAlpine report?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I have mentioned on a number of occasions that the report will be released in due course.

MR. LAUK: To the Minister of Labour: does the McAlpine report indicate that amendments should be made to the Human Rights Code?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I think that everyone is entitled to look at the report at the same time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. HEINRICH: If I'm going to disclose the contents of the report in its entirety, what's the validity of hanging on until we're in a position to respond?

MR. LAUK: Does the McAlpine report state that the English as a second language programs are so seriously underfunded that they directly or indirectly lead to racial tensions in schools?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I'll repeat that the contents of the report and the concerns which it expresses will be made available to the House in due course.

MR. LAUK: To the Minister of Education, has the minister read the McAlpine report?

HON. MR. SMITH: Yes.

MR. LAUK: Does the McAlpine report state that the English as a second language programs are so seriously underfunded that they directly or indirectly lead or contribute to racial tensions in schools?

HON. MR. SMITH: As my colleague has said, the report will be filed in due course. My friend opposite knows that the English as a second language programs in this province are well supported and well funded.

MR. LAUK: To the same minister, his friend opposite does not agree, nor does anyone else involved in the English as a second language program. Obviously McAlpine doesn't agree either. Has the minister decided to take immediate emergency steps to provide adequate funds to English as a second language programs before the racial tensions, particularly in the city of Vancouver, reach proportions that are uncontrollable by the government?

MR. SPEAKER: That portion of the question which is not argumentative is in order.

HON. MR. SMITH: There are no simple answers to racial tensions in schools or society. One step that this ministry has taken this year is to support a pilot multiculturalism course which is being developed by the Council of Christians and Jews. We expect it will be available for schools in the lower mainland this September. We have supported that. That is a positive step. I would welcome positive suggestions from the first member for Vancouver Centre, instead of innuendos which may in themselves increase racial tension.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I am completely and utterly offended by the remarks of the Minister of Education. I've spent my life working in civil rights, and I demand that he withdraw the implication that anything I have said today will lead to racial tension in the city of Vancouver. I demand him to withdraw that implication, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The only power the Chair has regarding withdrawal is to ask a member to withdraw any improper motive imputed to a member. Therefore I will ask the Minister of Education if any such improper motive was imputed.

HON. MR. SMITH: No, I did not so impute, but if he thinks I did, I withdraw what he thinks I imputed.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, my point of order relates to an answer by the Provincial Secretary and Minister of Government Services (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) to the question from the member for Surrey (Mr. Hall). The Provincial Secretary quoted from a list. I think the YWCA was on that list. As I understand the rules of this House, when one is quoting from a document, it is an obligation that the document be tabled, and I ask that the document be tabled.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, any document which is quoted in the House is required to be tabled. Any document which is only referred to in the House is not required to be tabled. However, that is at the discretion of the minister as well.

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the minister acknowledged in his own words that he was quoting from a document. He referred to the document, and even when I raised the point of order he nodded his head again until he heard fully what I said. I'm saying that he read two names from a document. The rules clearly state that the document must then be tabled, and I am so requesting under the rules of this House.

MR. SPEAKER: In the eighteenth edition of Sir Erskine May at page 421, the authorities state:

"It has also been admitted that a document which has been cited ought to be laid upon the table of the House if it can be done without injury to the public interest. A minister who summarizes a correspondence but does not actually quote from it is not bound

[ Page 6236 ]

to lay it upon the table, and the rule for the laying of cited documents cannot be held to apply to private letters or memoranda."

Therefore if a minister has summarized correspondence or if he has cited it but not actually quoted from it, we cannot ask him for tabling. The minister must decide whether or not he has quoted from the document; the Chair cannot tell.

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, he quoted from the document. It's not a question of his deciding whether or not he quoted from it. He referred to it and gave a name off the list. He quoted from the document. It's not a decision according to the rules you read, and not made by anyone except by the practice of the House. The minister is clearly responsible to table that document.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair is powerless to know whether the document was quoted from or not, because the document is not in the hands of the Chair.

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, it is impossible for the Chair to have every document in its hands, and the Chair couldn't have the document unless it was tabled in the first place. The Chair saying it is impossible for the Chair to make a decision because the Chair didn't have the report is not consistent with the rules requiring the tabling. What I would ask the Chair to do in this dilemma is to go back over the minister's words in Hansard and see whether or not he did quote from a document and say that he was quoting from the document in his answer. If indeed he did, as I think he did, it would be appropriate that he then table the document in accordance with the rules of this House.

MR. SPEAKER: The point of order is well received. Perhaps a quicker way of dealing with the dilemma is to ask the minister at this point in time whether or not he quoted from the document. I simply ask the minister: did he quote from a document?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I simply referred to a list.

MR. SPEAKER: We have the minister's word that he did not quote from a document; he simply referred to a list.

MR. LAUK: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, in the nineteenth edition of May at page 431 the rule seems very clear. "Citing documents not before the House. Another rule or principle of debate may be here added. A minister of the Crown is not at liberty to read or quote from a dispatch or other state paper not before the House unless he be prepared to lay it upon the table." It was only after that that it states: "It has also been admitted that a document which has been cited ought to be laid upon the table of the House if it can be done without injury to the public interest." The rule Mr. Speaker quoted to the Leader of the Opposition was the only exclusionary part of the general rule, which is that it must be laid upon the table. He's not entitled to read from it unless he does.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the general rule is referred to by the first member for Vancouver Centre. The exceptions to that rule have been cited by the Chair. We have the minister's word that he did not quote from a document, and therefore the matter rests.

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I did not ask the minister to state now what his intent was. I asked that the Hansard be checked. That is still my position. That's what I'm making the request on, based on his original statements, not what he's saying now. I request the Chair to please check the Hansard and see if indeed he did refer to that document on the basis that I originally raised under the point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: It would be very difficult for the Chair to undertake what the leader of the opposition is now requesting, because in order to do that the Chair would have to have the tabled document in hand to see whether or not it was quoted properly. Hon. members, I do not have that document, and therefore we must rely upon the word of an hon. member of this House. I so rule.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I so rule.

MR. HOWARD: My point of order, Mr. Speaker, is that in an identical case with respect to the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) Your Honour took the opposite course. You can't have it both ways.

MR. SPEAKER: If members of the House wish the practice of the House to follow other than the authorities that have been cited, I would recommend that the matter be referred to the committee on standing orders and be clarified to an even greater degree than that which the authorities have already provided. Hon. members, the same citation has been referred to several times in my hearing, and I do not recall any time when the decision has gone other than the way it has gone now. If members have such a decision, I would be very happy to look at it.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, we have not dealt with what I heard, as I understood it, as a ruling from you on this. The member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) has raised the point that this ruling you have made, if left, contradicts an earlier ruling made by yourself relating to an earlier incident with the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development. If the matter is left there, then we are going to have a contradictory ruling by yourself in the Chair on the same issue.

MR. SPEAKER: I have nothing in hand, and neither has the member for Skeena put anything in my hand, that would indicate a contrary decision.

MR. BARRETT: Well, are you asking then that we challenge a ruling that we know is contradictory to an earlier ruling by yourself?

MR. SPEAKER: That avenue is open to every member.

MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Speaker, there is no other course. I don't want that to happen. Can you advise us from the Chair how we can deal with this without having a recorded vote on a matter on which you decided one way, and then exactly the opposite on the same matter?

MR. SPEAKER: We have no indication that we've gone two ways on the same matter. However, hon. members,

[ Page 6237 ]

perhaps in order that the House can go on with its business, the Chair will undertake to sit down with the member for Skeena and see whether or not a variance of ruling has actually taken place. If that has actually taken place we will deal with the matter at such time as is convenient. Is that undertaking satisfactory?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to have the leave of the House to answer a question that was asked me a few days ago in question period.

Leave granted.

QUEEN OF OAK BAY PURCHASE

HON. MR. FRASER: I would like to provide information and answers to questions asked of me by the members for Mackenzie, Skeena and New Westminster regarding the financing by the B.C. Ferry Corporation of the Queen of Oak Bay.

First, the financial arrangements regarding the Queen of Oak Bay have not been finalized, and I do not propose to enter into negotiations in the House. However, I am appreciative of the opportunity to answer questions from the hon. members so that I can clarify some misstatements made by some of their colleagues. Briefly, the B.C. Ferry Corporation acquired the Queen of Oak Bay at a cost of $24 million and is currently negotiating to finance that acquisition. An alternative being considered is a sale and leaseback transaction which would retain the vessel under the management, direction and use of the B.C. Ferry Corporation while financing it at a very attractive rate of approximately 14.95 percent, almost 2 percent below alternative financing sources in today's money market.

Secondly, to our knowledge no government in Canada has made any special taxation concessions, nor are they contemplating any, regarding the financial proposals we are considering for the Queen of Oak Bay or any other ship of the fleet. What is important is that the B.C. Ferry Corporation is managed by a strong board of directors and an excellent management. They are using legitimate, intelligent methods to finance a growing fleet to meet the ever-increasing demand for ferry services in British Columbia. They are conducting themselves within the terms of reference of the British Columbia Ferry Corporation Act, which gives them borrowing power of up to $250 million. This authority was passed by this Legislature.

The Ferry Corporation is simply conducting itself in a straightforward, businesslike manner. I can appreciate that some of the financial arrangements made by the Ferry Corporation — or any other Crown corporation in this province, for that matter — are not simple, especially when non-financial experts are examining incomplete information. I can summarize, therefore, by advising this House that the corporation is arranging its affairs in a very commendable, businesslike manner within current law and taxation practices to obtain the use of a new jumbo ferry at the lowest possible cost to the British Columbia taxpayer.

As I told this House during the discussion of my estimates for 1981-82, the B.C. Ferry Corporation is involved in one of the most ambitious expansion programs in its history to provide additional, improved service to our citizens. I fully support the expansion and the methods chosen by the board of directors of the B.C. Ferry Corporation to finance this expansion from revenues of the corporation over a term which more closely approximates the time that the vessel would be used by the travelling public. All of the financial arrangements are consistent with good business practices, assuring the people of British Columbia the best possible deal in acquiring the new jumbo ferry. In simple terms, the method of financing is not unlike that used by many citizens who find they must mortgage their existing homes to add extra rooms or whatever.

The Ferry Corporation is receiving $24 million for the Queen of Oak Bay — exactly what it cost them. We'll still have control over and use of the vessel, and will be able to invest the $24 million for the short term at today's rate of 19 percent — well above 14.85 percent — at a profit, or we will be able to utilize the funds at this very low rate to make further improvements or additions to the fleet. I think that's just good business.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
LANDS, PARKS AND HOUSING
(continued)

On vote 149: minister's office, $156,974.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if we could determine how much time I have left.

MR. SKELLY: This is estimates; you have 30 minutes.

MR. GABELMANN: Okay. I misunderstood the rule; I thought it was a continuing thing.

MR. SKELLY: This is all new.

MR. GABELMANN: Okay. I don't intend to take the full 30 minutes, however, Mr. Chairman. The member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) is happy about that.

We began the debate on the Housing estimates yesterday afternoon. I want to continue my participation in this debate by talking about a few of the problems that exist in the housing crisis facing British Columbia that can and should be dealt with by the provincial government. Obviously, as I said yesterday, some of the problems are beyond the control of the province. The notable one there is the cost of money.

One area where we have serious problems that can be dealt with is in the provision of land. I want to read this into the record. I ask the minister to make some comments about the following information. It relates to the amount of land available for housing with the Greater Vancouver Regional District. One often hears that we have a housing crisis because the agricultural land reserve has taken land off the housing market that could be used for housing. That argument is demonstrably inaccurate, and I would like to read some figures to back that up.

In the Greater Vancouver Regional District alone there are 4,075.5 acres of vacant urban land available for housing.

[ Page 6238 ]

If one were to argue that ten units of housing could be provided per acre — which I think is a reasonable figure, when you include the variety of housing that could be built on these acres — you must then multiply ten units times 4,000-plus acres; assuming that there will be 2.7 people on average in each of those units, which is a fair average, you're talking about 1.1 million people who could be housed in greater Vancouver within the GVRD, using available urban non-agricultural land.

That land is there; it is not on the market, by and large. Some of that land is Crown land; some of that land is municipally owned land and much of the rest of that land is privately held; much of that land happens to be land that is being held in small ways by ordinary people who many years ago may have bought a double lot, built on one and are holding the other. There must be programs developed by the government to make sure that that land — obviously not all of it; we don't need a million additional people in greater Vancouver immediately — is available. It is not coming onto the market quickly enough. The government can play a part, because it has control of a great portion of this land, and it can by various policies make it attractive for much of the rest of the land to come onto the market. That, I would argue, should be a priority of the government.

Similar situations exist around the province. I quote the figures for greater Vancouver because it is in greater Vancouver that the greatest crisis exists. One of the things that also needs to be done around the province — and in many ways it's one of the major policy failings of the Social Credit government — is a proper assessment and evaluation of all the land in this province so that we know for years to come which land will be used for forestry, which for farming, which for industrial and commercial purposes and which for housing. When I am in Port McNeill, for example, which has virtually no housing lots available in the middle of thousands of acres of land, it is very difficult for me to explain to people why housing lots of 60' x 120' are costing $30,000 and upward.

Across the water in Alert Bay, where there isn't a housing crisis, fully serviced lots are on the market for $9,000 each. A few miles away in Port McNeill, serviced lots are $30,000 and up — many of them are much more than that; that's the minimum figure. People say: "Well, look at all this land." As a responsible politician I say to them: "Well, wait a minute; much of that land is in the forest reserve." And they say: "Well, some of it has got to come out for housing, doesn't it?" Vancouver used to be all forests too. So did Campbell River and so did many other cities. So we obviously do have to alienate some of our forest land in some of these communities, but nobody knows which land it's going to be. Because we haven't done the kinds of studies and definition, the government can't even tell us who owns all the land in this province, much less what its best use should be.

There are going to have to be some trade-offs in some of these communities. One of the ways we can bring down the cost of that land is by providing a surplus of supply. If Adam Smith were around he'd be surprised to find a Social Democrat arguing that, but I do. We require a surplus of supply in serviced land in order to bring down the price. It works in a little community like Alert Bay, where the municipality itself is involved in servicing, because they have a surplus of supply. So what does a lot cost? It costs $9,000. In other communities in my constituency there are lots available for $12,000 and $14,000 and are serviced by the municipalities, because there's a surplus of supply. In most of the communities in rapidly growing parts of this province, including some of the towns in my riding, that surplus of supply does not exist. It is the government more than any other agency that can directly and indirectly assure a surplus of supply.

In these estimates last year I said that the minister's main interest was with Crown land disposal — making Crown land available to the people. He's far more interested in that than he is in parks, housing or any of the other stuff. He likes to give Crown land away to the people.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Oh, really.

MR. GABELMANN: "As fast as I can," he said. But where it counts, it's not happening. We're not making that land available. That is something that the province could do to assist, in very real terms, in bringing down the cost of housing. In fact, I think we would have an actual drop in some of the land prices if the ministry had an active program to do that.

There are other things that the province could be doing. The other evening, along with some of my colleagues, I met with some senior financial people in this province, one of whom is a very senior person in the money-lending business. He said to me that he is convinced beyond any shadow of a doubt that the flipping that goes on, particularly in the Vancouver area, has been a major factor in causing the escalation of house prices. I was going to say "values," but they're not worth that much so I won't call them house values.

The government has done nothing at all to bring in rules, regulations or laws prohibiting that kind of activity. He cited examples of people involved in the flipping business who didn't even have to lay out any money before they turned it over again. In some cases the house was purchased and sold within 30 days, even before some of the legal agreements were completed. One increase he cited to me was in the order of $50,000 for a house. He cited another example of an apartment building that was on the market for $390,000. It was flipped three times in six months, and its last sale was $790,000. That's more than double. Who pays for that? The tenants do in that instance. Society and all the social values get struck down by this kind of crisis, as I argued yesterday. I'm not going to repeat those arguments, but I think historically those will be the most profound impacts and effects of the housing crisis that we have now. Families are in crisis as a result of it. Families are delayed as a result of requiring two incomes. What kind of policies are those?

Another area where the provincial government could act, as other provinces have acted, is in preventing foreign ownership of land in this province. I'm very concerned about foreign ownership of farmland, but in this instance I'm particularly concerned about foreign ownership of our housing stock. I'm not arguing about a landed immigrant who comes here and buys a house. That's fair enough. That's fine. But I don't understand why somebody with disposable capital, living in West Germany, Hong Kong, the United States or some other part of the world who feels he would make a better investment of his money by putting it into housing in Canada should be allowed to do that. Maybe that's free enterprise. If it is, it's part of Adam Smith I wouldn't agree with, having agreed earlier about supply and demand with respect to land prices.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

[ Page 6239 ]

The fact is that people with immense reservoirs of capital in marks, U.S. dollars or other currencies are able to come in here on our deflated dollar and purchase housing at prices far in excess of their Canadian market value, or even their Vancouver market value; they easily and gladly write a cheque for $300,000 Canadian for a house that might have sold for $250,000 or $200,000. There is example after example of that. That's something the government could have done something about by saying: "You can't buy those homes unless you live in this country or are coming here to live and are a landed immigrant." Nothing whatsoever was done.

I haven't yet talked in these estimates about government programs for co-op and public housing. The minister and I have had these exchanges before, but I refer briefly to the fact that the province has agreed to take seniors and handicapped housing and leave public and co-op housing to the federal government. There are activists in the co-op field who agree with that, and I'll admit that right now. They don't want two governments involved; they want one, because it's quicker and easier to deal with. But one of the problems about leaving that essential element — and it's an element; it's not the total answer by a long way, but it's an essential ingredient — solely to the federal government is that they generally, with minor exceptions, treat the problem as it affects the whole country, and housing isn't in as much of a crisis in the whole country as it is in Vancouver and British Columbia. Therefore we get from the federal government programs that might well be adequate in other provinces but are not adequate here. Even with the additional funding the federal government was prepared to provide for co-ops in this province, it's not nearly enough. For that reason I would argue that the province has to be involved in a greater way, not just in the provision of land, which it's now obviously involved in, although very slowly — and I'll get to that in a minute — but also in the provision of dollars. While co-op housing isn't the be-all and end-all, and while a great many of us don't want to be involved in co-op housing, there are a significant number of people who do want to be involved in co-op housing. They don't now have the opportunity. The waiting lists are thousands of people long. Once again, I would appeal for the minister to find B.C. taxpayers' dollars to put into co-op housing in a significant way.

The minister does get involved in co-op housing in the provision of land — slowly, like pulling teeth with your fingers.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Nonsense.

MR. GABELMANN: Nonsense, he says. What's happening at UBC? There's an urgent need and two co-op housing proposals for the endowment lands at UBC. I won't go through all the details of those two particular applications, but they can't get the land. I didn't think it was even true, it sounded so outlandish. The latest excuse from the minister appears to have been that there's some discussion about whether or not to create a municipality at UBC — to turn the UEL into a municipality, or maybe to attach it to Vancouver. I don't know what the minister has in mind. Because there are discussions about what kind of....

HON. MR. CHABOT: There are three options.

MR. GABELMANN: There are three options. He's going to attach it to Columbia River.

AN HON. MEMBER: Make it a regional district.

MR. GABELMANN: It's already a.... Never mind, let's not get into that; that's another issue.

That should be no excuse for delaying the provision of absolutely urgently required land out there. When the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) wanted to build a hospital out there, they sure found the land and got the hospital up in a hurry; but the people who work in that hospital have got no place to live. Yesterday I referred to people having to drive from Haney, Aldergrove and other points down the valley to work in the hospital. I know of a woman who works four hours a day and who drives in from Aldergrove. She's a single mother who wants to live in Vancouver — another one of those situations — who works four hours a day, and who would like to live in a co-op in and around the university because that's where she works. She can't do it.

We create the jobs, but we don't provide the housing. Apart from the impact on the people concerned — if you're not going to concern yourself with how that affects their emotional health, livelihood, lifestyle and living conditions — think about what it does to the rest of the taxpayers in the need to provide transit, in the need to provide additional serviced land way the hock and gone down the valley, when there is available land that is basically serviced already in the lower mainland, closer in, here in the university area. Land is available, but the government for all these years has been unable to make a decision about what it wants to do with that land.

We get two applications in this case for a few acres on which to put some affordable co-op housing, and what happens? One delay after another. One of the delays a few months ago was that there were two competing groups, said the minister, and they've got to get their act together. Well, they got their act together. So he found a new excuse: "Well, we're thinking about municipal status or something else." He said there were three options. Come on, that's not good enough. The minister is smiling. I don't want that to be misinterpreted. I realize he is not smiling against what I'm saying. It's amusement. Get on with it. We've got a crisis out there.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Let's go. Stop talking. Let's act.

MR. GABELMANN: So I should stop talking, and you'll get on with it. If I thought for a minute that if I sat down right now this problem would begin to be dealt with by the government, I'd sit down right now and I wouldn't say another word.

MR. LEVI: The problem would then get up.

MR. GABELMANN: The problem would then get up, as the member for Maillardville–Coquitlam just said.

Get involved in co-op housing. If you're not prepared to get involved with funding, then at least get involved with providing land at cost — not at market value necessarily, but at cost. I agree with those people in the co-op movement who say that they don't want two levels of bureaucracy to have to deal with, because it takes forever now and it would take twice forever if they had that. So don't get involved at the bureaucratic level. Let's just have the one bureaucracy. I don't care particularly whether it's federal or provincial. One

[ Page 6240 ]

can be a funding agency and the other can be the bureaucratic agency, and I don't care particularly which is which. But we've got to put more money into it.

I wonder how hard the minister has argued for the alleged 10,000 units at B.C. Place to be affordable, and not market. Market housing in B.C. Place and the False Creek area is going to cost an arm and a leg plus. I can't see housing in that area at market value and at a price very many people could afford — not even MLAs, I suspect. How many of those 10,000 units are earmarked for affordable housing? I think they should all be — 75 percent minimum, but I think they should all be. I wonder how many are going to be.

What is happening in the development of Vancouver is that more and more service jobs are being created downtown — which I wonder about anyway — and increasingly people who work at those jobs with that kind of income have to live 15, 20, 25 or 30 miles away. They can't live where they work. It's only in North America. You don't find that in the rest of the world. People have an opportunity to work and live in their own neighbourhood in most parts of the world, but we have this insane idea that we should have different communities for different kinds of people. Rich people can live in one community, people without children can live in another, old people in yet another, and working people in yet another.

If we don't integrate all of the lifestyles and incomes and different kinds of people and family situations, we're crazy. What we do is we have a neighbourhood which starts out as being a family neighbourhood. Then it changes its character. It becomes a neighbourhood where families aren't allowed anymore. What do we do? We tear down all the schools, and we have to build a whole bunch of new schools somewhere else. And it keeps happening. We keep changing the style of neighbourhoods, and we keep having to change the kinds of services that are provided as each differing group of people goes through — at immense cost to society.

We need to have programs that allow all levels of income in virtually all areas. I'm not arguing that we should build affordable housing in British Properties. I'm arguing something less than that. I'm arguing that the government's lack of policies is creating a variety of ghettos for families, for single people and for rich people. That's not smart, but in fact that's what's happening.

As I said yesterday, I could go on for hours. I'm not going to do that. There are other of my colleagues who want to be involved in this debate. I think I'll sit down at this point and give the minister an opportunity, should he choose, and carry on a bit later this afternoon.

HON. MR. CHABOT: The member has asked several questions regarding housing in the province. I'll attempt to respond to most of the questions he's put to me. First of all, I'll answer commencing with the questions that he put to me last night in which he expressed a concern for people in the city of Vancouver who work and wish to live in the city of Vancouver. Because of the lack of housing and land, they have to commute to communities such as Surrey, Coquitlam and Richmond.

The major problem facing the city of Vancouver is the question of the bulk of their land being fully utilized and fully occupied by housing at this time. I forget the precise figure, but 91 or 92 percent of the land base that is designated for housing in that city is already being utilized. There's very limited land in that city. Consequently what should take place now is that the municipal government of the city of Vancouver has to address the question of zoning. They have to address the question of density within that city. Unless they do so, they will not have any additional housing constructed in that city.

It's one which I've put forward to the mayor of the city of Vancouver on a couple of occasions. The government of British Columbia is addressing that problem of increasing densities in the city of Vancouver. In fact on December 6 last year I made an announcement in the city of Vancouver that we were going to be putting a modified building code into place, hopefully to better utilize existing space within the core of that city; in other words, to better utilize commercial and industrial buildings in that city. In cooperation with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, we are putting together a modified building code at this time. In fact, I just announced step one. It's moving as fast as I'd like it to move, but we've announced a modified building code as far as residential conversions are concerned. Through discussions with the mayor of Vancouver and the mayor of Victoria, I know that I have their complete cooperation in getting a modified building code in place in order to increase the ability of people to live in the core of the cities of Vancouver and Victoria.

However, I don't know how the city of Vancouver is going to react to increased densities. They have a habit — I guess rightfully so — of putting that question to the ratepayers in the immediate vicinities of areas in which they want to increase densities. In fact just last fall the city of Vancouver had contemplated the construction of a multi-unit complex of land that they own in Vancouver East. Because of pressures from the residents, they opted to sell the land as single detached-housing lots. It commanded a very substantial price. Twelve little lots were sold — little lots that we wouldn't even consider in the area I come from; 33-foot frontage and 100 feet deep — for single housing at $102,500 each. That's not affordable housing. I think sooner or later cities are going to face up to the realities if they're going to continue to grow. If they're going to be able to convenience the people who work in their cities, they're going to have to address this delicate problem of densities.

I think most people are in favour of increased densities, except those people in the areas in which densities are proposed to be increased. We've had an example of that recently in Oak Bay where they've had three large public meetings in which they were suggesting an increase in density in that community. There was a lot of opposition to the increased densities by those people in the areas in which densities were proposed to be increased. So it's a delicate problem but one which the cities are going to have to address sooner or later if they're going to continue to grow and convenience the workers within their communities.

Yesterday the member talked about housing starts. He said we haven't kept up in this province. I want you to know that in 1980, with over 37,000 unit starts in British Columbia, we exceeded the provinces of Ontario and Quebec combined. Housing starts in British Columbia were 25 percent of all the housing starts in this country — so we haven't fallen behind. CMHC officials are predicting that this year we will have at least 40,000 — some are predicting higher — housing starts in British Columbia this year. Certainly some other provinces have escalated this year. You mentioned Saskatchewan with a large escalation of some 100-odd percent increase in housing starts in 1981 as compared to 1980. Well, I don't know how many starts.... They probably had an insignificant number of starts in 1980 to compare it to. It's the number of units that are started that is important.

[ Page 6241 ]

I said yesterday while I was talking that we're not getting enough rental units constructed in the province. That's one of our major problems. As far as unit starts are concerned, we will have a substantial number this year, but I don't know if it's enough to meet the need. Because of the buoyant and strong economy we have in the province, we have a tremendous in-migration of people from other provinces. Last year net migration to British Columbia was 51,000 people, and it hasn't abated during the first quarter of 1981. So that poses some very dramatic problems for people and for the industry as well. I don't know just how many units industry could put in place, but I suggest that industry is almost at full capacity in building the units they're building at this time in the province.

On the question of affordability of rental units, I interjected yesterday whether 25 percent of the rental units being built in the province would be sufficient to meet the problem of affordability. The member responded: "No, it should be 100 percent." That was his response. I have a little article here and I'm prepared to table it after I listen to the little ruckus I hear even louder this afternoon. I'm prepared to table this, but I'm going to read it anyway.

MR. GABELMANN: You should know that I misunderstood that exchange at the time.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Okay, but it made me pull this editorial, which I've been saving on my desk for about six months for an opportune time to use. It's from the Times-Colonist of Friday, January 30, 1981, and it reads this way:

"One traditional dream in North America is to own your home. The traditional dream in Britain, it seems, is to snuggle down in digs owned and subsidized by the state, in the fond belief that you are somehow getting something, if not for nothing, at least for less. Nearly six million families — almost 40 percent of Britons — live in houses or apartments owned by government and administered by local councils. A program which was intended to provide housing help for people who really were in need has over the years gone mad.

"Because rent for council housing runs about $80 a month, there are hundreds of thousands of people on the waiting list; the queue is expected to grow to two million by 1984. Somehow Britons have been able to ignore the other half of the equation. About $12 billion a year is siphoned from taxpayers to subsidize those rents. Does anyone doubt that the cost of running such a bureaucracy means council housing is, in fact, more expensive than private ownership?

"Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher is dedicated to withdrawing government from this landlord role. The Tories have stopped building council housing and last year enacted legislation requiring councils to sell their housing to interested tenants at one-half to two-thirds of the market value. The government also whacked about $160 million off housing grants made to local councils, a move expected to push rents up about $10 a week next year and, hopefully, stimulate tenants to buy. Yet occupants and the Labour Party-dominated councils are fighting Thatcher tooth and nail. The council feels it is morally wrong to sell council houses when there is a waiting list of 8,500 families, said one Greenwich council member. Managing to ignore the real dilemma, a shortage of housing, council housing typifies the worst aspect of socialism — the pretension that somehow the state can do routine things better than the individual. If Thatcher can win this battle, one which hits almost half the British people where they live, it will stand as a monument to her and to common sense."

In response to the member, after reading that editorial and his suggestion last night that the government resurrect that discredited, do-nothing Crown corporation, the B.C. Housing Corporation, I suggest you're putting forward a proposal which is found wanting in England and is costing the taxpayers of that country $12 billion a year. Is that what you're advocating for British Columbia? The B.C. Housing Corporation did not result in housing being built. Its record of four to four and a half years of existence was putting about 1,350 units in place — not essentially construction, but primarily buying off bad developments by developers.

I suggest to you that the housing initiative program, which was an incentive for people to build their own homes as well as to build rental accommodation in the province, is the better of the two programs. One is a free enterprise program. The other was a socialist boondoggle that didn't work. The HIP which dispensed 9¾ percent money, produced over 5,000 units of housing in this province in a period of three days, while the B.C. Housing Corporation in its four and a half years was responsible for only about 1,350 units, mostly broken-down developments from near-bankrupt developers throughout the lower mainland.

We're still living with the results of the B.C. Housing Corporation. We're still living with those facts. We're still living with those bad developments which B.C. Housing Corporation bought in the years of the NDP. We have one particular project which was paid for with $3.5 million of taxpayers' money. It would be cheaper to rip it down than continue to lose money on it. That's the evidence we have of the B.C. Housing Corporation. Government involvement in construction and the buying out of developers who are having difficulty in selling inadequate developments throughout the lower mainland doesn't work.

The member wanted to be apprised of what's happening in the lower mainland. He suggests that we should get on with making land available. I want to assure him that we're active in the lower mainland. In fact, through the Crown Land Fund, we have allocated over $31 million for land development for housing in the lower mainland. The number of developments under construction at this time is seven. The number of lots under construction is 30,770. The number of developments proposed is five, which will produce between 5,000 and 7,000 units of housing.

The major one which we're actively pursuing at this time is, of course, Riverview. We had hoped to market 1,050 single lots this year. This has been delayed by a labour dispute in that community, which has put it off. Instead of having the ability to market those lots this fall, hopefully we'll now be able to market them in January, February or March of next year.

We are actively doing our planning for development of Westwood Plateau, which will result in 5,000 to 7,000 units of housing there. We're actively involved in the communities of Port Moody, Surrey, Richmond and Pitt Meadows. We haven't been standing still in development of land. I recognize that because of the tremendous influx of people coming into the lower mainland we haven't been able to keep up, but

[ Page 6242 ]

we're actively attempting to get ahead of the market in order to stabilize land prices.

The member mentioned co-op housing. There is a limit as far as the number of units that CMHC allocates for British Columbia. I believe it's 5,000 units for 1981. The province of Quebec has been allocated 13,000, and with any luck, if they don't build that many units in Quebec, maybe we'll be able to have some of those units transferred to British Columbia. Hopefully we'll be in place with land to meet that need for co-op housing, which is affordable housing. We've made land available for the Harold Winch Park. In fact, we've made two enclaves available for co-op housing. We hope to make land available for 100 units of co-op housing in the Songhees development, which is just starting to get underway here in the city of Victoria. Our ministry supports co-op housing, because co-op housing is affordable housing. When you look at the market value of land you have to take into consideration that there is already a deep subsidy applied to co-op housing by CMHC — 2 percent money — so they already have a substantial incentive to make those housing units affordable. My ministry is prepared to make some enclaves available for co-op housing in the Riverview development. We're prepared to get involved in land assembly and availability of land for co-op housing, because we know it provides affordable housing units. However, there's a limit on how many subsidies you can give. Essentially, we're not prepared to write down land values, because there is already a deep subsidy on co-op housing. In order to assist co-op housing, we're prepared to proceed to lease the land on a long-term basis, which in most instances makes it more economically viable to proceed.

UEL and the regional park is a complex issue. Whether there should be a municipality there, whether it should be attached to the city of Vancouver or whether it should continue to be administered by my ministry are issues that are current and being addressed at this time. Just a few days ago — sometime last week, I believe — the financial statement of the administration was made available to the ratepayers of the University Endowment Lands by my senior assistant deputy minister, to resolve that issue. You say we should make the land available for the co-op project to proceed. We also have a request before us from the University of British Columbia to make land available for faculty members coming on stream to that university.

You've talked about commuting. I don't know what your views are. Talking to some of the people who are proposing the co-op there, they don't believe it should be restricted to the staff and faculty of the university but that everyone should have free access to those units. I think the number one responsibility there, when you're talking about co-op housing, would be to took after the needs of the staff as well as faculty.

I think there's a strong consensus of opinion in UEL that we shouldn't make any land available for housing and that all the uncommitted land should go for the establishment of a regional park. I've indicated that I'm not prepared to accept that. I think there's a need for housing, and in not too long a period of time we'll know whether it is feasible for a co-op housing project to proceed on what I consider to be reasonably expensive land.

I've had preliminary discussions with officials of B.C. Place — Mr. Narod and Mr. Hardman — on the question of making some units of affordable housing available there. On that kind of pricey land — probably the most expensive land in British Columbia — I think it would be foolish to suggest that all 10,000 units proposed for that area be affordable housing. What I have suggested to them is that they attempt to make a substantial percentage of that land available for affordable housing units. The meeting took place two or three weeks ago and they are in the process of attempting to address that issue. I feel relatively convinced that we'll be able to have a substantial component of affordable housing at B.C. Place.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, there are over 365,000 square miles of land in the province of British Columbia — over 29,000 square miles in my constituency alone. Ninety five percent of that land is owned by the Crown. Realistically, much of that 95 percent is either provincial forest, in major parks or standing on end, and for those reasons it is not available for private ownership by our citizens. But there is not a land shortage in this province; a situation does exist in most areas of British Columbia where there is not enough land available for housing. Because of that, land and lot prices have soared beyond belief. To my mind we in this province have created a monster. We have created a fictitious land shortage, and because of this fictitious land shortage we have created a fictitiously high land value. To top that, we in government, with what little Crown land is sparingly doled out to our citizens, have used this situation to place that fictitiously high land price on Crown land. We are literally pricing our people from the land. On land for recreation lease rates are far beyond what can be paid by our citizens. In the north, where there are hundreds of lakes on which countless thousands of recreational lots could be made available to our citizens, there is a shortage.

On the leases held at this time, there are lease rates far beyond reason for a piece of British Columbia which in most cases — particularly in the north — can only be utilized for four or five months a year. Lease rates are increasing in many cases by 1,000 percent on the anniversary dates, causing many of our citizens to have second thoughts and to drop their leases, not being able to pay $100 or $200 per summer outing. So they drop their leases.

While on the subject of recreational leases and land for recreation, let us talk about Hudson Bay mountain in Smithers and recreational lots for skiing. For ten years, through three consecutive governments, lots have not been made available — not one lot.

MR. GABELMANN: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, we do not have a quorum in the House. I believe it is essential that the cabinet be here to listen to this important debate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point of order is well taken, hon. member. I will ring the division bells and see if we can acquire a quorum for the committee.

I once again recognize the member for Omineca, who will continue his speech.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, I was talking about Hudson Bay Mountain and recreational lots for skiing. I was saying that for ten years, through three consecutive governments in this province, not one Crown lot was made available on Hudson Bay Mountain for utilization by our citizens in an area soon to become B.C.'s most popular ski area. Then one citizen, fed up with the bureaucratic double-talk and red tape, built on one of the surveyed lots. Yes, there were surveyed

[ Page 6243 ]

lots existing on that mountain for ten years. They were not made available to the people of this province, or to anybody else for that matter.

What happened when, through utter frustration of having tried for years to obtain one of the surveyed lots legally but without success, he built on one? He has been threatened. His cabin has been broken into, the lock changed and his belongings taken away to he knows not where, and he's been told to either move his cabin or have it burned down — all this before ever having been tried in a court of law in this province. He's been tried and convicted by a field bureaucrat.

I must give this minister some credit — not all, but some. This has gone on for some months during which this individual has made three special trips to Victoria, literally throwing himself on the mercy of government, pleading to be allowed to pay a fine or go to jail. Finally, as recently as yesterday, he has been given some measure of assurance that justice will be served — but not until after a hell of a lot of fighting on my part and a lot of anguish on the part of the citizen. Finally, after ten years of not making one lot available at Hudson Bay Mountain, and because of the initiative of one citizen, 20 lots will now be made available. When the bids are in, I would suggest, there will be no less than 100 of our citizens looking for those lots — 20 lots on a mountain in this province on which you can stand and look for 20 miles in any direction and see nothing but vacant Crown land. A land shortage? I don't believe that. When are we here in Victoria and in this chamber going to understand what really exists out there in this great province and what the problems really are that are faced by our citizens? When are we in this chamber going to have the intestinal fortitude to overrule those who are supposed to be our servants? In this situation I have just outlined, certainly the reverse is a fact. They're supposed to be our servants, but they constantly believe that they know more about the wants and the needs of the citizens of this province than do the elected representatives. I think it's a shame.

Crown land for agriculture. Here again is a total reluctance on the part of the bureaucrats to allow anyone, if they can help it, to own a piece of this province — to own their own land, even though in many instances government policy dictates that that happen. Here again we have a land value problem. Those lucky enough to get through the bureaucratic maze, the negative philosophy and the government red tape, are asked to pay a preposterous price, in my estimation, for that Crown land. Again, it's a fictitious price based on a fictitious shortage which has literally forced the price of privately owned land to sky-rocket. What else can happen? If there's a shortage of anything, the price goes up.

This is particularly a hardship on our northern farmers and ranchers. In the first place, after years of horrendous development costs ranging as high as $350 an acre, only a single yearly crop can be grown after all that — and in many cases a poor crop at that. In many years there's no crop at all, depending on weather conditions. Prices for land not only make it nearly impossible for existing farms to expand, but make it absolutely impossible for new or young people to get started in agriculture. It's a fictitious price created by a totally fictitious land shortage.

Land for housing. We heard that talked about earlier this afternoon in this chamber. There is a horrendous pressure, and horrendous profits are being made on the existing available land for housing. Again, if you have a shortage the price is going to go up. It's logical. At this point I would say that therein lies the primary reason for the housing shortage that we face in British Columbia.

The other major reason is the horrendous problem of municipal and regional district bureaucratic red tape, but we can't talk about that in these estimates. As government we must get at the root of the real problem and admit that the band-aid approach of pouring good taxpayers' money after bad down socialist program rat holes is not the answer.

MR. LEVI: Order!

MR. KEMPF: Why did you move from England? Was it because you couldn't get a home of your own? Is that why?

MR. LEVI: Socialist Jim! You're attacking the heck out of him.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the committee to come to order, please, and I remind the member for Omineca that personal allusions are quite unparliamentary.

MR. KEMPF: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I'll remember, that.

Mr. Chairman, the answer is to admit and face the real problem in this province, to face the real reason we have a housing shortage, and to do something about it.

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: The member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell) chatters away. He's never been off the rock. How would you know what happens out there in the province? You've never been off the rock, let alone north of Hope. The only way to bring down the exorbitant price of land for housing in this province is to make land available. The member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) was correct: you have to make land available. But I'll get to him. The only way to bring land prices down, whether it be for housing or for agriculture, is to make sure that there is more on the market than is needed. It's the only way. Maybe your kitchen-table way of figuring out the economics of this province doesn't show that, but I want to tell you that's the way.

The free market system will prevail, and if there's a lot of anything on the market the price will go down automatically. You don't have to spend good taxpayers' money to ensure that people get houses; you just have to make sure that the climate is right and that there's enough land. That's the only way you are going to assure the people of this province of affordable housing without grandiose government handouts of the taxpayers' hard-earned dollars. Coupled with that, you have to have some restraint on the ridiculous and cumbersome regulations and red tape at all levels of government. That will bring back from Calgary and Seattle our own developers and builders, who were driven there by the madness we see happening in British Columbia. That will change our housing situation in the province of British Columbia. That and only that will change the picture. I don't care how much of the taxpayers' money you throw down that socialist rat hole, and I don't care which government provides that socialist rat hole either. It's still a socialist rat hole, as far as I'm concerned.

You can't talk about housing, you can't talk about a reduction in the price of land, both private and Crown, without talking about the agricultural land reserve. I heard the member for North Island mention it a few minutes ago. I want to tell you he won't like what I have to say about it. Again I say — and I've said it before and probably will say it again — that I am not against the preservation of viable

[ Page 6244 ]

farmland in British Columbia; on the contrary, I was born, raised and lived 20 years on a farm in this province, and I am certainly not against the preservation of viable farmland. The ALR is a must, but it must be reassessed and brought into the 1980s. We have land all over this province which, while within the boundaries of the agricultural land reserve, will never make a farm. Even the minister's staff agree with that.

A few weeks ago I had in my possession a computer printout from which I got some information, before the bureaucrats found out what I was doing with it, and I haven't seen it since. The information I got from that computer printout proved quite conclusively to me — and I have some of that information here today — that there's an awful lot of land within the agricultural land reserve that will never make a farm. Do you know how I know that? I know that because the staff of the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing has turned down many applications for agricultural land. Do you know why? Because that land is deemed not arable. I was able to take this information, get maps from the mapping division and find out where those pieces of land are. Lo and behold, they're within the agricultural land reserve. Would you believe that? I'm sorry I didn't have that computer printout for very long, because I'd have been able to bring a list that long into this chamber. But it proves quite conclusively that there is much land — I've said this before and I'll say it again — within the agricultural land reserve which is not farmland.

Mr. Member for North Island, you were here at the time the agricultural land reserve was brought in, and I'm sure you're quite aware of why it was brought in. It was not to preserve farmland in the province of British Columbia. You know it, and the leader of your party knows it. The last time I brought it up he ran from this chamber.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I ask the member to address the Chair, and I will also advise the member speaking that the Agricultural Land Commission comes under a vote already discussed in this committee. As arable land relates to the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing that debate is relevant.

MR. KEMPF: One-third of this minister's responsibility is for the land of this province, Mr. Chairman, and that's what I'm talking about.

We must release those lands now within the ALR which are not farmland. We must take them out. I say here today that that will have a very positive effect on bringing down the price of land in this province. It will give competition to those holding the only land available for housing, and in many cases holding the people of this province up to ransom for that land. Take away ridiculous, burdensome regulations, free available land for housing and bring down the price. That will solve many of our housing problems in this province. Entice our own builders and developers back into the province, and we will have housing for our people.

I will have more to say on lands, on parks and on housing in these estimates, but for now I will make the floor available for those I am sure will agree with the argument I have put forward and the issues I have raised.

MR. LEVI: We have just heard an incredible dissertation. I'm having trouble trying to define what it was he said, but I think what he did was manage to create for us a new definition in economics. I would suggest we might try the phrase macrocephalic economics." He starts attacking that poor, helpless minister over there who stood up and gave us the most incredible rendition from a slip of newspaper that came from the John Birch Society newsletter, about socialism and public housing.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: It's the same thing. That's no different.

He's some contribution to the housing problem. He gets up and he keeps wanting to go back in history and raving about the Housing Corporation. Why is it that you are right and all other nine Housing ministers across Canada are idiots? Or is it the other way around? Each province has a Housing Corporation, and you say it doesn't work. It doesn't work in Toronto, in Alberta or in Saskatchewan. Only you know. You have some God-given gift and insight which you have been able to glean from those high mountains in Columbia River, and you know better than anybody.

Then the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) comes down. He's been here six years, and he hasn't learned how to get something out of this government. He hasn't learned one lesson from the member for Delta (Mr. Davidson). He was bright enough to say in the middle of an election: "If I don't get a bridge, I'm going to resign." All we've had from him is a lot of puffery, and all he wants is a hundred lots. My God, there's a heck of a difference between that and a bridge which costs $130 million. But he hasn't learned anything. If you don't learn in this place, you destroy yourself. We don't have to wait for the gods to destroy us. He hasn't learned a thing.

Then he talks about socialist rat holes, and they've been in government for six years. Who's pouring the money down what rat hole? That is the kind of opposition that we get from your side. He has one or two good arguments, but he doesn't back it up with anything. He was doing quite a number on the minister, Mr. Chairman. The minister isn't too bright either. The Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) is sitting there....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I'll have to ask the hon. member to withdraw the last comment about another hon. member.

MR. LEVI: I withdraw.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs has been sitting through this debate, also suffering the scars from that member. Who's he talking about when he talks about bureaucrats, red tape, money down rat holes and socialist rat holes in a Social Credit government? You've got some hidden closet socialists over there, and I want to know who they are. I know it isn't that fellow. Sorry, he's not a closet socialist.

He did a stupendous job of attacking his own government. The only thing he's got to do now is to get some of that intestinal fortitude that he talked about everybody lacking. Get it in your hand, boy, and walk to the middle of the floor, and you can have 30 percent of the action in this province anytime. You don't have to sit over there. You're not going anywhere anyway.

Now let's talk about housing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please do.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, with all respect, he went all over the lot. He even found himself in the ALR accusing this

[ Page 6245 ]

side of not bringing it in to protect farmland. That's a tough one. I would hope one day he'll come up to me in the coffee shop and say: "Come on, Norm, let's sit down and I'll tell you why you brought in the agricultural land reserve.

MR. KEMPF: I already know, my friend.

MR. LEVI: Why? We don't know. Anyway, you can get up again later on in the debate.

Let me ask the minister something. One of the key factors that we've talked about today is affordable housing. "Affordable housing" is a term that started to be used about ten years ago when there was a real effort being made by any number of governments in this country to provide housing for people who didn't have the money to go to the open market and compete. That's where the phrase came from. Today when we talk about affordable housing — ten years later — who are we really talking about serving? We've already been through it in this House. There isn't one member of this House, despite his salary — excluding cabinet ministers — who could get a mortgage. They would not be eligible.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: No. He's complaining. My God, this guy's a griever.

MR. SKELLY: He gets $4,000 more than the rest of us.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll ask all members of the committee to not interrupt, please.

MR. LEVI: On the business of affordability, ten years ago we were looking at a particular target group: low-income people. Today we are not looking at a particular target group. Nearly two-thirds of the earners in this province are the target group for affordable housing. It's no longer low-income people. If you can't afford to finance a mortgage — if you haven't got an income of $42,000 — you simply cannot enter into a mortgage. You don't qualify. That's one of the major questions. What is going to happen to all those houses that are being built in 1981? Who's going to be able to afford them? The logical answer to that question has to come from the government. If those houses are going to sit empty because nobody can afford to pay them, what are they prepared to do as a government? He has said that the government is interested only in seeing the private-enterprise system do everything. Meanwhile he is up to his hips in $40 million of taxpayers' money involved in the building of housing. What we are saying to you is that at this time you're going to have to go a lot further than that.

Take the neighbouring province of Alberta. By no stretch of the imagination is Alberta a socialist province. It was a Socred province, but they got rid of them. They've got Peter the Red, a rather interesting individual who has an incredible interest in oil — but he built the heritage fund. Let me read something to you that you can think about, because you read something from the John Birch Society. I'm going to read from the other John Birch publication, the Vancouver Sun of November 13, 1980. It's headlined: "Alberta Spending $1 Billion a Year to Get Houses Built."

"The B.C. government could learn 34 things from Alberta in stimulating housing supply. Our neighbour and fellow free enterprise traveler" — this is free enterprise — "is now allotting no less than $1.08 billion a year for 34 housing assistance programs that are so comprehensive that 45 percent of all new housing in the province is now subsidized." What are they subsidizing? They are subsidizing affordable housing for those people who go away beyond the low-income groups. The article goes on to say: "It is the largest and most ambitious government housing policy in Canada and makes B.C.'s housing policy look downright anemic." Well, we're up here arguing for a transfusion. "The scope and the effectiveness of the Alberta programs are more impressive when you consider that all but eight of them have been introduced since 1976."

You haven't introduced one housing program. You got rid of a couple; you're going to tell us all about SAFER in a minute, and that's a housing program that's....

AN HON. MEMBER: HIP.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

MR. LEVI: What are you talking about — HIP? Seventy-two hours and it went; it hip-hipped out of the way. We're talking about sustained programming, which you know nothing about and you don't want to know anything about because you've said that it's not the role of government to get involved in anything. Yet your colleague over there — I think he is a colleague; I didn't say he was your friend — is accusing you of the most monumental crimes in terms of all sorts of socialist rat holes which you have in your office and down which you're pouring the taxpayers' money.

Now let's talk about the Alberta one for a minute:

"The scope and the effectiveness of the Alberta programs is more impressive, when you consider that all but eight of them have been introduced since 1976, but more importantly, the programs have won widespread acceptance from the Alberta housing industry" — private enterprise — "which in better economic days would have fought to the death to keep the government out of the private sector. All 34 programs are designed to increase supply and make housing more affordable for low- and medium-income families as well as the handicapped and the elderly. All those sectors generally are acknowledged to be the most harmed by rising prices and lower apartment vacancy rates."

That's in Alberta; in British Columbia we have to add the group right here in this chamber and people up to $43,000 a year, in terms of the ability to get a mortgage — that is a necessity for affordable housing. That's what they are doing in Alberta.

Now government intervention in terms of affordability in this province came briefly a year ago. In January 1980 they tiptoed into that great pool which he would probably characterize as a rat hole; it wasn't. It was a first attempt by the government. They didn't want anybody to notice what they were doing. They did it so well that when they announced the program the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing was in New Zealand learning a Maori war dance, and they just kind of snuck it out and announced it. All right, what did they do? For the first time in four years of government they took a realistic look at what they had to do to get involved in the housing market. They had to provide some stimulus, not only because they needed more housing starts but because people needed to have mortgage subsidization. It's not a dirty word;

[ Page 6246 ]

it's a necessity. Alberta has moved towards that with its 34 programs. That's a free enterprise province. They have the cooperation of the housing industry. You told us before that the program created about 2,200 homes and the rest were in multiple dwelling. Those are the figures I have. You didn't create 5,400 houses. You created about 2,400 or 2,600 houses, and then you had another 2,200 multiple-dwelling units. Nevertheless it's there; it's in place, and you did it. There are some problems, and they are presumably being looked at. How do you expect to go beyond the provision of affordable housing that you've talked about if you don't do some kind of intervention? Every government across Canada is doing the intervention, and you're not. You can't expect that somehow building 3,800 units.... Who is going to live in them?

The Lands, Parks and Housing fourth-quarter report, which you put out in March 1981, on page 18 says: "Demand Outlook. The overall demand for housing in the lower mainland region...." I'm going to get a little annoyed that all we keep reading about in these things is the lower mainland region. There are other areas that have just as serious problems — this one particularly, which is not in the lower mainland. However, the report says:

"The overall demand for housing in the lower mainland region over the next 18-month period is expected to exceed 24,000 units. This is not appreciably higher than the forecast in the last supplement. Immigration to the lower mainland region should be moderated somewhat by the expected economic recovery in eastern Canada in 1981. This, coupled with a shortage of rental accommodation and high housing prices in the lower mainland region, will serve to deter many would-be immigrants."

That's an interesting way of keeping people out. It's true. It's happening all the time. Today we had an example in the public accounts committee of the inability of government to hire sufficiently well-trained staff to work for this government, because people simply can't make the move. They sell a house for $75,000 in Toronto, and they can't get into the housing market under $170,000 or $180,000. There are some serious problems.

One of the things that Alberta recognized in the programs that they started was that a basic concomitant with development and expansion of the economy is a housing program that will house all the people who are going to come. That's one of the reasons they went into it. I was very surprised to read the other day that the population of Alberta is 2.2 million. In the last eight years that has gone up over a million. We have about 2.6 million; they've got 2.4 million. In terms of permanent settlement they are probably the fastest-growing province at the moment. They will probably be well ahead of the three-million mark before we are, unless we can come to grips with the kind of housing program that they are talking about. They're talking about a variety of housing programs. The minister failed to talk about affordable housing and how he would provide the money to that system. He spent no time talking about mobile homes or modular units — manufactured housing, which is something one has to look at. We certainly have to look at those two, because they are lower cost: and for a lot of people, if the land is available, they are things that can happen in a much quicker way than if you're talking about the regular single-dwelling house. The co-op was not adequately explained. There's no reason the province cannot get into a co-op housing project as well in the short-term program of getting people in there reasonably quickly.

Then comes the basic one of municipalities, which the minister and I have discussed because of a problem we have in Coquitlam. We've heard some loud, brave words from his colleague about cutting red tape and getting the municipality to do one thing or another, but particularly in relation to mobile homes, which is the thing that I discussed with the minister. It is now an accepted lifestyle all over North America. We have in this province, as I understand it, about 55,000 to 60,000 people living in mobile homes, and more people would live in them if they could find the pad to live on. We've discussed with the minister a project which I'm hoping he is going to announce pretty soon in the area I represent with the member for Coquitlam–Moody (Mr. Leggatt).

Interjections.

MR. LEVI: Yes, an exchange, as I understand it.

The main thing is that there has to be that kind of drive from the government, because, frankly, somebody has got to whip the municipalities into shape, particularly around the mobile-home question. But they can only be whipped into shape if they really believe that the government is serious about the provision of affordable housing and a range of things. Are you prepared to push the whole question of mobile homes? Are you prepared to do the land exchanges? You have to be prepared to take a number; one has to agree on a number, say up to 200. Are you prepared to strata-title some of them so that there is a mix of people living in them? That has to come from government leadership.

Then with your colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) you've simply got to go after the municipalities about this thing. We're not only talking about mobile-home pads now. When you start talking about manufactured housing, it is a viable option and an extremely good option in terms of the development of the economy. It's somewhat cheaper, but then you're going to run into all sorts of zoning problems and building-standard problems, and I've met the building-standard problem.

I think that the role of the minister is to be much more of a leader. He's a pretty low-profile minister. A lot of people out there are extremely dissatisfied with him.

HON. MR. CHABOT: A little like Howard Hughes.

MR. LEVI: You're not likely to wind up like Howard Hughes; you don't even like watching TV.

You simply can't talk about a program here and a program there. We've got a lot to learn from Alberta and Saskatchewan, not only about their successes but also about their mistakes. But frankly, in the five years that this government has been in power, they have done nothing whatsoever in terms of social housing. They have complete disregard for it. Regardless of what you say in the quote which you read from that newspaper clipping.... Don't talk about what you don't know; go see it. I was raised next door to those kinds of things. That's a right-wing newspaper interpreting the lifestyle that exists for almost 20 million people over there. Don't talk about what you don't know, and don't repeat the garbage that they repeat; go see it; that's housing. You may not like the housing. It's not the housing we know in North America. Public housing was not something that we thought of as a necessary adjunct to the super free enterprise system in North America. Now we realize that it is, and that everybody, even people with incomes as high as $43,000 a

[ Page 6247 ]

year, is going to have to find some subsidization if they are going to get into a home. That's the reality of our economy today. Affordable housing no longer applies to people on low incomes; it applies to people earning about $40,000 a year. That's incredible. That's where the major problem is going to be.

I want to read you a quotation from a recent book on housing policy, Canadian Housing Policies, 1935-1980, by Albert Rose of the University of Toronto, now retired. In talking about the political context, he says: "No government is likely to take the requisite action to provide housing for those who require societal intervention" — that's subsidization — "unless there appears to be a political advantage or unless the pressure for action on the government in power is so strong that it can no longer be resisted." Then he talks about Canada: "The intervention of government in the 1930s was fundamentally a response to economic problems which spawned very significant political problems."

The housing problem in this province is moving towards an extremely serious political question for the government. It's gradually building. Coupled with that, we have the threat of the removal of rent controls and the high cost of mortgages. We have all the ingredients for unrest, as the mayor of Vancouver said. I'm telling you that you're going to have a political group of people build in such a way because of this. Then you will move, eventually, when you realize the political reality. You're going to have to move. Who does it include? It doesn't just include those people who are looking for houses to live in; it also includes people who want to work in the construction industry. That was the first positive tentative result of your mortgage subsidy program, but you haven't gone anywhere near it since.

Despite what your colleague the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hyndman) said, you've done nothing to pull the banks in. The government deals with nine chartered banks in this province. You've had no meetings with those people. Never mind what goes on in Ottawa. You deal with people here and say: "What are you people prepared to do in terms of mortgages?" That hasn't taken place.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: The minister says: "The man next door." No, you're part of cabinet. You have to talk to them about that kind of thing. They have a billion dollars of government moneys invested in their securities. You have an entrée to those people. Go and talk to them and see what they are prepared to do to be socially responsible.

There are so many things that you have to do to make this thing work, but you've taken none of those steps whatsoever. The only answer we get from the minister is the old historical argument of the B.C. Housing Corporation. We, of course, know better than anybody else in Canada. We're the only province that doesn't have a housing corporation. We know better than Peter the Red and all the people across Canada.

Let's leave aside all the past history and talk about what you're prepared to do now. I'm asking the minister if he has participated in discussions with the banking people and his colleague the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs about what they are prepared to do to assist in this very serious problem. So far we've had no indication other than a look at their asset and profits statement which came out last week, which shows the incredible increase in assets and profits as a result of the mortgages they're carrying. Those are the kinds of discussions you're supposed to be having, and those are the kinds of questions we'd like you to address. Don't say in one breath that you're only interested in the free enterprise system doing it when you're up to your ankles in this business right now. You're spending $40 million, or $31 million. You're going to be spending more. You'd better participate in the total picture. Don't try to pretend to people that you're leaving it all to the free enterprise system, because you're not. You're in it, but you're not in it sufficiently to be able to meet the demands that exist out there.

You have a range of questions. Let's leave out your friend from Omineca's (Mr. Kempf's) definition of the rat hole, because I don't want to hear any socialist proposals from you. It would be terrible; you'd ruin my dinner.

MR. DAVIS: I agree that our number one problem today is affordable housing. Our population is growing by leaps and bounds. This is largely a product of our relative prosperity compared to the rest of Canada and the continent. We don't have enough readily available serviced land on which to build houses. But worst of all we're up against record high interest rates which make it virtually impossible for the first-time owner to finance a roof over his or her head.

Land, as I've said, is a problem, but it's not our biggest problem. The cost of money is. The monthly payments which a new homeowner must make are. They're out of sight. They're prohibitive in that they take up too large a proportion of the average family's income today.

I said land was a problem, but the lesser of two problems, the other being the high cost of money. It shouldn't be a problem in a land-rich province like British Columbia. We have a population of 2.5 million. We have a vast territory larger than the state of Texas and larger than all the New England states combined. Geographically speaking British Columbia could swallow a dozen United Kingdoms. Theoretically it could accommodate a population running into tens of millions of persons, but mountains, narrow river valleys and red tape all stand in the way of suitable, cheap, easily developable land for housing purposes.

Many of these difficulties are difficulties of our own making. Land, once developed, cannot easily be converted to other purposes. We insist on the highest possible standards when new lots are being opened up: drainage, sewage disposal, fully paved roadways, finished sidewalks, buried powerlines and the like. Gone are the days when one could start from modest beginnings and improve one's own home and surroundings as one's earning power improved. Now one has to leap full-blown in the Cadillac class, if I can call it that — either that or buy an old home in an outlying area which has managed to escape all the refinements which new technology and a busy bureaucracy have forced upon new homeowners in British Columbia. We can relax some of these legal and other requirements. At least we can release them in stages. We can release land for housing which is by no stretch of the imagination agricultural land. We can open up our gravel benches and our tree-covered slopes, land which will never be used for farming but which, in our haste to establish an agricultural land reserve, was classified as agricultural in the early 1970s. This, together with the redevelopment of old areas, the redevelopment of areas with single-family homes into multiple housing, can at least help solve our land problem in B.C. Of course it would take a willingness to cut red tape and a determination to let local people plan for local

[ Page 6248 ]

needs. It takes a new community planning act, if I can call it that, which decentralizes decision-making. That's in line with the private enterprise philosophy which we on this side of the House endorse.

I think that the agricultural land act should be changed. The poorest land should be available for housing purposes also. Take categories 5, 6 and 7, for example. Why, if that land is close to a heavily built-up area, can't it be developed for residential purposes — a higher purpose? It has little or no commercial value otherwise. It can't sustain a viable farming operation on its own, so why do we add unnecessarily to the cost of housing in this way? At least it's an option which we should consider. It shouldn't be an absolute prohibition, as it is under the Agricultural Land Commission Act now.

What about small plots? I'm told that no farmer can make a living on less than five acres; some say ten. There are a great many small parcels of about one, two and three acres. These also should be made available for housing, if and when the local authorities agree that this should be so. The value of land for agricultural purposes varies from one part of the province to another. Close to a large centre of population it can fetch one figure. Way off in the interior or the north it may be of little agricultural interest whatsoever. Small in size and poor in quality, for farming purposes it may be well-nigh worthless. But open it up for housing and it has considerable value. This is true especially if community-wide services are available nearby and the cost of extensions can be kept to a minimum by including small and relatively barren parcels of land of this kind.

I'm not saying that agricultural land should be turned over to housing wholesale. Indeed, that's far from my intention. All I'm trying to say is that we should distinguish between poor land in small parcels near existing urban centres and the rest of our agricultural land reserve, a reserve which everyone agrees should be reserved in perpetuity for agricultural purposes. As I said before, these are matters which we can and will resolve by changing our own laws and giving local governments greater freedom to act reasonably and help solve the land-for-housing problem here in this province.

Finances are something else. Money — even more than land — is the real stumbling-block to increased homeownership, especially for the young. Down payments are difficult enough, but monthly payments for the new homeowner today are incredible. With inflation running at 12 to 15 percent a year, interest charges are bound to be in the 15 to 20 percent range. This means annual outlays in the order of $20,000, even on a modest $100,000 home. It means payments of upwards of $1,500 a month. It calls for family incomes of at least $60,000 a year. Only a small percentage of our population makes that kind of money nowadays.

One way for governments to help the prospective homeowner is to subsidize interest rates. But there's a limit to this kind of help. After a few years the government would find itself so burdened with making interest payments on its own that it would be unable to meet many of its other obligations, let alone continue a benevolent program of this type.

However, another approach has merit. The government could become a joint owner of the residential property in question. It could be a partner along with the eventual sole owner. It could take up a share in this individual homeowning business. It could be an equity owner in the sense that it participated along with the home occupier or first owner in the rising market value of the home as time went by. Of course, there would have to be a time limit put on the period during which the government was a partner. Let us say this was five years. For the first five years homeowner number one — the eventual sole owner — would only have to make payments on the first mortgage. He or she wouldn't have to make payments on the government's equity in the home. If the latter amounted to a quarter of the original cost of the home, then the monthly payments during that five-year period would be reduced by at least 25 percent. After five years were up, the government's equity as homeowner number two could be converted into a second mortgage. This second mortgage would, of course, reflect inflated fifth-year market value of the home. It would also bear interest at the government's borrowing rate. But it could be paid off over a 20-year period. This would help keep down the monthly payments after year five. As homeowner number one's income would be higher at the end of the five-year interval than it was at the beginning, he or she would obviously be in a better position to carry a first and second mortgage at that time on the home. The government would have seen its equity appreciate through inflation. Also it would get all its money back when the second mortgage it held on this home was eventually paid off

The big catch, of course, is the initial funding of the government's share. Large sums of money would have to be borrowed on the open market by a government agency or corporation. It could be accumulated in what might be referred to as a housing equity fund. This fund would pay the lender interest at the government's ongoing borrowing rate. Eventually it would be replenished as the government's five-year equity in individual homes was realized, and as the second mortgages which it held in older homes were paid off. A program such as this, Mr. Chairman, should be limited to certain classes of homeowners at the outset. They could be first homeowners only; they would have had to have a reasonable period of residence in the province — at least in my opinion; and they would also have to put up, say, 15 percent of the initial price of the home. That, together with the government's 25 percent, would mean that their first mortgage would be limited to 60 percent, an amount which could be financed in the private capital market.

A program of this kind could be expanded, of course; it might be used to help older people finance or refinance their homes in later years. They could sell part of their equity in their home to the government, a government agency or corporation on the understanding that the latter would share on a pro rata basis with the original owners in the enhanced market value of that home when it was eventually sold. Again, the government would be made whole, financially speaking, when the transaction was completed. It would have been a partner in the process; it would have held part of the equity in the home for a time. Its principal reward would be the sharing in the appreciated value of the home due to inflation, largely a product of rising costs nation-wide and continent-wide.

This government partnership approach, interestingly enough, does not head off or cancel out any other forms of assistance to homeowners. Crown land can be made available at reduced prices and the financial advantage of this type of assistance is capitalized as part of the government's contribution in the form of equity. Interest rates on first mortgages can be subsidized as well. Interest rates can be recognized as a cost by individuals preparing their provincial income tax returns. But these forms of assistance tend to be gimmicky, as compared to a government's equity-sharing plan. Such a plan

[ Page 6249 ]

— an equity-sharing plan — I believe, is relatively straightforward. It's easy to understand, it's self-financing over the longer term, and it can be adjusted so as to minimize monthly payments in the earlier, more difficult years of homeownership in B.C.

The government, naturally, will be taking a risk. But homes aren't a major risk these days; home values are bound to rise with inflation. What better partner can a homeowner have than the rest of the people of the province, all of whom will benefit in one way or another from new home construction and a greater degree of home ownership in the province? I'm talking perhaps about a B.C. Housing Fund; I may even be talking about a B.C. Housing Corporation — one which would have to manage a lot of money. By the end of the 1980s it would be dealing in literally billions of dollars; it would need a billion dollars each year in order to provide the matching equity for 40,000 new homes. This money would, of course, be raised by selling bonds guaranteed by the government of British Columbia, bonds which paid the lowest interest rate possible at the time — a low interest rate made possible, for example, by the province's triple-A financial rating. This would keep the costs of the plan to a minimum, both in respect to the equity stage and the later second mortgage stage in each home-building transaction.

Again, this is a lot of money. I'm talking about billions of dollars, as if the word "billion" didn't really matter. But British Columbia's current housing stock is worth about $30 billion — $30 billion to $40 billion, I'm told — and its value is rising with inflation. A billion dollars could only buy 3 or 4 percent of our present stock today, but a 3 or 4 percent addition to our home inventory every year for a number of years could do a great deal towards making it easier for young British Columbians to own their own homes and therefore have a stake — a very meaningful stake — in the province's economic future. And what's wrong with using the province's excellent credit rating in this way? It's a kind of "social credit" based on the economic viability of our B.C. community as a whole. It's the kind of credit which we will be extending to the B.C. Hydro and Power Authority in billion dollar gobs year after year in the 1980s and 1990s. It's the kind of credit we are extending to our other Crown corporations whenever they borrow on the open market. It's the kind of credit which the provincial government will also be extending, as I understand it, to B.C. Rail, when it builds the so-called Anzac spur to carry northeast coal to our developing export markets, including those in Japan.

What's good enough for the users of electricity marketed by B.C. Hydro should be good enough for B.C. residents and homeowners in this province. What's good enough for B.C. Rail and our developing coal industry in the north should also be good enough for British Columbians in general. We're not taking any more risk as British Columbians in this way; homes will be needed in increasing numbers, just as more electricity is needed. Perhaps even more homes will also be needed in this province, even when coal is replaced by other sources of energy and we're less dependent on foreign sales of raw materials in order to earn our livelihood.

Mr. Chairman, I'm not convinced that we need to set up a government-owned and government-run corporation to do this job. We can use the private sector to manage many of the financial details, but the equity concept is important. It's the main point I'm trying to make. As I see it, it's the only way we can get more of our people into housing which they own themselves during a period of rapid inflation and certainly during periods of high interest rates. The government can help by lending its credit. It can help for a while and then get out without having lost a cent. It can be made whole as a result of a contract or series of contracts of this kind. All we would really be using is the credit-worthiness of the province. This is high, and it will remain high, especially if it is used for such worthy purposes as improving the housing stock of our people.

As I said at the outset, housing is our number one problem right now. It's a problem partly because of our prosperity. A thousand people a month are coming into B.C. to take jobs that are here for the asking. They need housing, and we should be able to house them all well. By changing some of our laws we can make enough land available. By setting up some kind of B.C. housing fund, B.C. housing corporation or equity fund, we can make ownership a meaningful part of their lives. Our credit as a province-wide community — our social credit — can be used effectively to that end.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, I always appreciate listening to what the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) has to say. It's unfortunate that the member for North Vancouver–Seymour makes excellent speeches in this House and excellent suggestions to the ministry, and yet is very seldom listened to. It reminds me of the definition of a dictatorship: everybody is entitled to his own opinion in a dictatorship, provided he doesn't vote based on that opinion.

AN HON. MEMBER: Provided he doesn't disagree with the dictator.

MR. SKELLY: Provided he doesn't vote based on his opinions. The member every time, makes constructive suggestions which are always ignored by the government, and every time he votes for the government. It simply doesn't make sense. I wish the member for North Vancouver–Seymour all the best, but unless he realizes the consequences of what he does, it really doesn't make much sense for him to do anything in this Legislature. If this Legislature means anything at all, he should start voting based on his opinions. If the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing isn't doing what the member suggests he should do, he should vote against his salary and turf him out of office. It's as simple as that. Otherwise the member's opinions mean precisely nothing.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: I'm talking about the vote on the minister's salary. If the member doesn't vote based on his opinions, then he's wasting his vote in this Legislature.

As for the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), it's very difficult to say whether he's wasting his vote or not, because his opinions are indecipherable.

I was interested in what the member for North Vancouver–Seymour said about the problem of small acreages of marginal agricultural land inside the agricultural land reserve. I think this is a problem with some of the members on that side: they don't look at the value of that land over the long term. There are definitely some areas in the agricultural land reserve that are of marginal agricultural value now. Because of the problems of drawing maps, naturally those areas are included. To the extent it's possible to exclude them by fine-tuning the reserve without violating the integrity of the reserve, it has been done over the years and continues to be done.

[ Page 6250 ]

I think we should look at the economics of those parcels over the long term. We have to admit that farming in this country, and in North America in general, as it's presently structured is based on the availability of cheap energy and petrochemicals for mechanization, the use of insecticide and herbicide sprays, petrochemical-derived fertilizers, etc. A great deal more energy is put into food crops on this continent than is taken out in terms of caloric food energy, so we're really putting an energy subsidy into agriculture. When the price of energy increases to a certain point, these marginal farmlands are going to become more and more valuable for agricultural purposes, especially small holdings where individual owners.... If we're talking about free enterprise and being free enterprisers, we should concern ourselves with these individual owners who are willing to put a tremendous amount of their capital, energy and labour into intensively cultivating small parcels of marginal farmland, because that's where a great deal of our food production is probably going to come from in the future.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Elsewhere in the world people climb high mountains, terrace mountains in Indonesia and cultivate small, relatively infertile plots in Third World countries and yet produce a tremendous amount of food from those plots with very little energy input compared to what we do here. That's possibly the way agriculture is going to go in the future, at least a part of it. We should be protecting as much as possible of our agricultural land, even the marginal land, because the economics are going to change in the future as energy prices and petrochemical prices increase. In the future we're going to wish that we had saved those marginal lands, because at that point they will be economic, and there are always other ways of solving the housing problem. Unfortunately with this government there are probably no ways of solving the housing problem at all, because they don't seem to have the initiative to do so.

Looking at the history in Port Alberni over the past few years — and I've written to the minister about this over the last few months since December — there has been a decline in the number of residential building permits issued in the Alberni–Clayoquot regional district and the city of Port Alberni. The number of housing permits has gone down since 1975. That doesn't mean the need for housing has gone down. There are as many people there as there were before, and even more. The need for housing in the area continues to increase, and yet the number of permits issued is going down. The people who are hit the hardest are those who cannot afford to get into the market at the present mortgage rates and the present cost of housing. It's unfortunate from one point of view that Port Alberni has one of the highest average incomes in Canada. Every year when the tax statistics come out, Port Alberni is second to some of the automobile producing cities in eastern Canada and Ontario in terms of the average income of its residents. That's unfortunate, because not everybody in that city cleaves to the average amount. There are a large number of people who fall below. There are people who depend on industries other than the forest industry or the secondary manufacturing jobs in the forest industry. There are people whose work is highly seasonal, such as fish harvesting and processing. Their income falls well below the cutoff levels you require for borrowing money to get involved in housing or to buy a house. That's a serious problem for people in the Alberni valley.

The people who are hit hardest there are those who cannot afford to get into the housing market. Up until 1975 we produced low-income housing in Port Alberni. A number of units there are now managed by the B.C. Housing Management Commission. Unfortunately there's a long waiting list to get into those units, and the minister seems to lack the initiative to get involved in that kind of housing to assist people at that income level to get into housing they require. Again, I suppose we're talking about affordable housing. The private sector is not going to build that kind of housing. They're not going to build housing that people can't afford to get into. It's as simple as that. Somewhere along the line there is a responsibility on behalf of the government to provide affordable housing for those who, because of the cost of housing and the cost of money, simply cannot afford to get into that market.

I made a presentation to the city council in Port Alberni on January 26, 1981. I suggested that the city council get in touch with the minister and try to get him interested in social housing for the city of Port Alberni again. They wrote to him, and they got the same excuse I got — and it is an excuse — that they're not interested in social housing here in Victoria. He talked about the housing that had been built before under the NDP and housing that was built and is now managed by the B.C. Housing Management Commission.

MR. KEMPF: Socialist rat holes.

MR. SKELLY: Yes, something the member for Omineca calls socialist rat holes. It's good housing, housing that's needed by people in Port Alberni, housing that's occupied by people who vote every way — Social Credit, NDP, Liberal and Conservative. They don't consider them socialist rat holes. They're very happy to have a roof over their head and a place to live. They're not rat holes, but affordable housing for people who need it and for people who vote all across the political spectrum.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. I would remind the hon. member for Nelson–Creston (Mr. Nicolson) and the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) not to interrupt the member who is speaking. Is that clear?

MR. SKELLY: There is no doubt that that housing was built by the taxpayers' money, but not all of it comes out of individual pockets. There are natural resources that this province produces — timber, mineral products and natural gas that are sold at a profit in foreign markets. Some of that profit, through stumpage and royalties and other revenues, comes back into the public coffers to service the public need. Payment for somebody else's housing doesn't come out of my pocket. It comes out of resources which are the common property of all of us, to service the needs of all of us. The fact that I don't need that housing at the present time doesn't mean that I should limit the expenditure of revenues that were derived from common property resources to provide for the housing needs of others who cannot provide for themselves — not because of their own fault. Many of these people are single parents: mothers with families whose husbands have been injured in work accidents, divorcees and that type of thing.

[ Page 6251 ]

It should be a matter of some pride to the member for Omineca that many people who have gone into this housing on a subsidized basis — the shelter part of their rent being subsidized — have now received jobs, are working and paying market rents. That is one of the problems with housing that's been produced by the government. Once a person is paying market rent, then where does that person go? There should be some government programs to assist these people with buying housing of their own. If this government really believes in the right of private property and the right of an individual's private ownership of his home, then what are they doing to assist those people to move out of low-income housing into homes of their own?

There should be a continuing program that goes beyond low-income housing. Even many people who are living in public housing look upon it as a stigma, which is unfortunate. Probably the reason they do that is because there is not enough of it and therefore it is too identifiable in the community. But if there were more public housing, with more access so that more people could move into this type of housing, then it would not be such a stigma. If there was a government program to assist people to move out and to purchase their own homes, then it would not be a stigma at all, because people would be moving from one level of dependency on the government to independence from the government. That's what we would like to see in this society. That's not socialism or Social Credit or anything else. It's what we all desire as individuals: to be as independent as possible of the government.

Somewhere along the line, as a result of the revenues we generate from resources that we all own, the people of this province who find themselves in unfortunate circumstances should have the right to have some of the revenue from those common-property resources invested in housing and shelter subsidies to get themselves through the pinch and independent again. That's what we expect of this minister. It's not very much. But the minister, in the case of Port Alberni, is doing precisely nothing. When I write to the minister or contact him, he comes back with excuses. When the city writes to the minister, he does nothing. He comes back with excuses. Between 1972 and 1975 — before that there was no Minister of Housing until the NDP created it — when the city of Port Alberni contacted the Minister of Housing, he was on the spot looking at the problems. He spent a couple of days up there. When the city contacted him, he came up there to look at the problem and action was taken to resolve the problem. They write to this minister and they get back nothing but excuses.

I've made two concrete suggestions to the minister that he get involved in more public housing in Port Alberni. B.C. Housing Management Commission knows how many people are on the waiting list and they know what the need is in the area. They know that people are being given increased shelter allowances from Human Resources to stay in motels. We've got people living in motels in Port Alberni. It costs a tremendous amount for this government to keep one family with five or six kids staying in a motel in Port Alberni.

We have inadequate low-income public housing because the minister doesn't have the initiative to get involved. Nothing could be further from the truth than to say he doesn't have the money. This province is wealthy enough to provide for the housing needs of those citizens. We have the natural resources and the revenue from the natural resources. There is no excuse at all, other than distorted spending priorities on the part of the government and its ministers and lack of initiative on the part of that minister. There is no reason at all that we don't have more of that kind of housing in Port Alberni, at least to fill the need. There are 100 people now on the waiting list for public housing. Many are staying in motels and paying a tremendous amount on a monthly basis to stay in those motels. And yet the minister sits on his hands and does nothing. At least he could go up and meet with the city council, find out what the problems are on a first-hand basis and take some action to solve the problem.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Let me out of here and I will.

MR. SKELLY: The minister's saying that he can't function while the House is in session. He's got a department. He's got people who are experts. You can get out of here any time of the day or night — before 10 in the morning, Tuesdays, Thursdays and Fridays.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: It's your idea. Go up there to Port Alberni. They'd be willing to meet with you. They'd designate the land and do all the necessary engineering. You'd be into public housing in Port Alberni in no time. On Monday and Wednesday you don't have to come into this Legislature until 2 o'clock in the afternoon. You have all day. You have the jet that the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) uses to commute back and forth to his house in Richmond. You have the ability to get up there.

When we were in government, it was done. When the minister was called up to Port Alberni, he was on the spot. He made the arrangements, and action was taken by that minister. That's why we have the public housing in that city that we have now. The thing is that the population has grown. Problems have grown under Social Credit and a lot of people need the kind of housing that we built in Port Alberni during our term of office. I ask the minister to respond positively to the request from the city of Port Alberni. No more excuses. Go up and at least take a look at the sites. Take a look at the problem. You've got people here in the B.C. Housing Management Commission to assess the waiting lists and the need and get to work building some housing up there that people can afford to move into.

There is vacant housing in Port Alberni as a result of problems that the AHOP program got involved in a few years ago. It's a development called Spencer Park. I'm not suggesting that the minister take over the Spencer Park project and turn it into low-income housing; but I am suggesting that the minister develop a program whereby people can buy condominium units that are presently available in Port Alberni through assisted government programs. Get them out of the low-income housing — they're now paying market rents — and give them homes of their own. They'd willingly move if the government was prepared to assist them. In some cases all that's needed is a little bit of counselling and a little bit of assistance with lending agencies. Yet there seems to be none of that available through the Minister of Housing and no initiative to provide it.

I'd like to talk about one more thing before I sit down and let the minister comment on those suggestions. One of the problems in housing or shelter now is not simply the cost of providing the house, but also providing the energy to heat it. I see that the Minister of Energy (Hon. Mr. McClelland) is now

[ Page 6252 ]

in the Legislature. Unfortunately, no emphasis seems to be given in this province to the question of residential energy efficiency. There are still houses being built that are very inefficient in the way they're sited, in the way that subdivisions are oriented and in the way insulation and heating equipment is provided in those houses. I noted recently that the minister has refused to allow the off-oil program for conversion to electrical heat to be used on Vancouver Island. I'd like the minister to discuss this problem, especially on Vancouver Island. As I said, the shell — the actual house itself — is not the major problem; it's one of the major problems. The energy needed to heat that house is another problem.

There is a system of heating called hybrid oil and electricity. During peak periods of demand for electricity, you can shut off the electrical heating in your home and the oil comes on for a three- or four-hour period of peak electrical demand. During the winter it's a serious problem on Vancouver Island. There's a hybrid system in which you can leave the oil-heating system intact and just have it operate on a three-hour-a-day basis. It was suggested by the Canadian Institute on Public Affairs that in certain areas we look at cutting back oil consumption by using electric-oil hybrid heating systems. It seems senseless to me that B.C. Hydro will not provide off-oil funds for hybrid systems that combine electrical and oil heat, when Vancouver Island is one of the areas in British Columbia that could profit most from that type of home heating. So I'd appreciate the minister's comments on that.

One problem we've had recently is that Port Alberni has been almost isolated from the increasing housing costs that have affected the rest of the province. In Vancouver the cost of housing is out of sight; in Victoria it's the same way. For a long period of time housing costs remained relatively low in Port Alberni. Demand was low because people were moving out of the Alberni Valley into areas such as Parksville or Qualicum Beach — out of the smog and into the sun, so to speak. Because of the low cost of housing, people are now starting to move back into the Alberni Valley. People are also becoming interested in the Alberni Valley because of the fact that housing is very cheap. Vancouver money is now buying houses in the valley, and it's driving prices up through the process that's called flipping. It's interesting that we now have researchers going through land registry documents to find out exactly who is involved in this flipping and the rising prices of housing. Interestingly enough, former Social Credit candidates have come up — one changing houses, flipping titles, as many as 13 times, holding one for only three weeks and earning $11,000 on a single house.

The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hyndman) has talked about putting the lid on flipping, yet there are a lot of people in his own party who are getting away with it. I'm wondering why the delay in legislation against flipping when it's such a serious problem, when it causes such serious housing problems.

HON. MR. CHABOT: You're in the wrong ministry.

MR. SKELLY: You're in the wrong ministry, Mr. Minister. You're not doing a darn thing about housing in this province. You should get off your duff and get to work.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing come to order, please, and not interrupt the member who is speaking. I remind the hon. member for Alberni that we are discussing the estimates of the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing. If we maintain relevant debate, we can also maintain orderly debate.

MR. SKELLY: We are talking about the Ministry of Housing, Mr. Chairman. We're talking about the minister's responsibility to make sure that affordable housing is provided to the people of this province, and that abuses that are taking place in the transfers of titles are eliminated. This minister has as much responsibility to eliminate those abuses — if he's to call himself a Minister of Housing, if he's to be worthy of the title — as anybody else in that government. We're asking that minister to act as quickly as possible to eliminate that abuse, that practice of flipping, so that the housing prices in certain areas of this province, such as Port Alberni, aren't driven beyond people's ability to pay. It is becoming a serious problem. People are flipping over titles 10 and 12 times in a single year, driving up the price each and every time, changing the rents accordingly and driving people out of their homes as a result of that practice. If that isn't the responsibility of the Minister of Housing, what is?

So I'm asking the minister to take action as quickly as possible to curb that abuse. Don't leave it up to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs — he doesn't seem to be doing a darn thing about it — but get to work. Bring the legislation down during this session. We have lots of time, and we'd gladly welcome that kind of legislation and get it through here as quickly as possible. Those are three suggestions: provide additional public housing in Port Alberni; look at some of the AHOP units that are now available and empty in Port Alberni, and assist people who are now paying market rents to buy those units; and eliminate that abuse of flipping, which is causing exorbitant increases in housing in the city of Port Alberni right now.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I tried to point out through interjections to the member for Port Alberni.... Apparently he doesn't recognize which ministry has control of the Real Estate Act. I tried to identify the fact that it's the Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Nevertheless he persisted in suggesting that I have a responsibility to deal with the flipping of real estate. That's the minister there. If you weren't here and were holidaying or campaigning up in Kamloops while his estimates were up, don't blame me and don't bring your questions to me. They should have been more appropriately put to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. If you were holidaying in the Bahamas or somewhere else....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. One moment. The committee and the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) were cautioned by the Chair that he was in fact discussing another vote.

HON. MR. CHABOT: You allowed him, and so I'm just responding.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. minister, the member was cautioned. Now I would ask the minister to address the Chair in his comments and in fact be relevant to the vote before us. I'm sure the minister and all members of the committee can maintain relevant debate.

[ Page 6253 ]

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I'm just responding to the question of flipping. He's liable to persist in asking the question in the wrong place, because he was absent when the Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs estimates came up. That's not my problem; that's his problem.

MR. SKELLY: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I was here during the minister's estimates. I challenge that minister to read the Hansard of this Legislature. He'll find that I was there and did question the minister. He may have been in the Bahamas at the time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of order. The member for Alberni will have ample opportunity to reply to debate. Once again the Chair will recognize the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing, who will be discussing vote 149, the minister's office.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, in response to that flip-flop member over there I'd like to say first of all, regarding the great activities of the former Minister of Housing, who doesn't happen to be here at this time, that he had lots of time to go to Alberni when he was Minister of Housing. He was only given odd jobs by his deputy minister. I recall saying when I sat in opposition that the only reason another member was appointed to the cabinet was to make that Minister of Housing look good. I suggested that the performance of that minister in the acquisition of the Casa Loma project by B.C. Housing Corporation was a disgrace and an abuse of taxpayers' money. That former Minister of Housing should have been bronzed and placed in front of that project.

MR. SKELLY: You're a waste of time.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Having reflected upon the great contribution made by that former Minister of Housing, the member for Nelson–Creston (Mr. Nicolson), I'll go on to respond to the questions that have been put to me, outside of some of the socialist rubbish that was passed on by that member for Alberni.

First of all, he talks about the kinds of energy-efficiency programs underway. The question of energy-saving is an issue that is presently being addressed by HUDAC, and they have a program underway at this time.

MR. SKELLY: Is that a government agency?

HON. MR. CHABOT: No, that's private enterprise. Have you got something against private enterprise?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes, he has.

MR. SKELLY: That's the people who give you odd jobs.

HON. MR. CHABOT: The member addresses the question of housing affordability, suggesting that we should go to Alberni and start constructing some social housing in that community. That's the point he made. I don't know if he was here when I talked about B.C. Housing Corporation and the kind of activities they pursued for about four and one-third years in this province. We don't want to repeat that disastrous performance undertaken by B.C. Housing Corporation. He talks about going to Port Alberni. I have to have an invitation first. The member invites me; that doesn't mean I'm invited by the municipal council to go to that community.

I suggest to him that if he's concerned about affordable housing, maybe he should look at the co-op program in which subsidies are provided by CMHC. But that isn't what he wants. He wants a resurrection of that discredited B.C. Housing Corporation, which will never be revived by this government. He talks about AHOP. AHOP housing is a direct responsibility of CMHC, and the units that are vacant up there are no doubt for sale by CMHC. I think you should talk to them. It's the federal agency responsible for housing. Talk to them or talk to Mr. Cosgrove. You go on talking about social housing needs in Port Alberni. I want to suggest to you that public housing is an expensive and inefficient way of redistributing income. The major responsibility for income redistribution in this country rests with the national government. They have that responsibility, and I want to suggest to you that the most appropriate vehicle that the national government could utilize in income redistribution would be a shelter allowance. It's far less costly and far more efficient than going through the social housing construction field.

The member suggests that we don't assist people in the province with affordability problems. This government has a long history of helping people afford housing in British Columbia since the early days. I recall when the NDP fought the homeowner's grant. They were opposed to the homeowner's grant as relief to the seniors and other residents in this province. The NDP opposed it, but eventually they were told by the people of this province: "Stop this foolish opposition of something which we need, something which helps us afford our houses a lot better." They made a flip-flop on that issue.

MR. HALL: That's false, Jim, and you know it.

HON. MR. CHABOT: That's the truth. The former member for Alberni was violently opposed to the homeowner's grant.

MR. SKELLY: How did he vote?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Are you telling me that he talked out of both sides of his mouth at once — that he talked against the program and then voted for it? Is that the policy of the NDP — inconsistency? Is that what you people stand for?

This government assisted 47,568 people last year. I'm sure the member for Alberni is not interested in hearing this; he walks out as I speak. He doesn't want to hear the facts. He doesn't want to hear how many people are being helped in British Columbia. Some 47,568 were helped to own their own homes and to make housing more affordable. Several thousand — 16,000 or 17,000 people — were helped in paying no more than 25 percent of their gross income. You suggest we are doing nothing about affordability. I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that the member for Alberni doesn't know what he's talking about.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, I have been looking forward to joining in this debate dealing with housing. I find it very strange that I have to support the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf). It's not too often that I must look around and listen to what he says. And don't rule me out of order, Mr. Chairman, because it's not too often that I will be supporting the member for Omineca.

The record of this government of making Crown land available has been a disaster. I'm not going to deal with other

[ Page 6254 ]

parts of British Columbia, but I would like to deal with the part of this province that I come from. I would like to deal with the Esquimalt–Port Renfrew riding and the record of no action by this government in providing Crown land for people to build on. When the NDP were in government — and I'm not going to fight that battle — they did purchase and assemble large tracts of land in the Western Community to build satellite cities and bring on stream land that was available for mixed types of housing. But what has this minister done now? Last year, when I brought to his attention the need for some of this land to be made available for manufactured housing and mobile-home parks, I happened to mention one large tract of land on the Latoria Road area — 200 acres. What was the record of this government? Did this government make that land available for mobile homes, manufactured homes or any type of development? No, they put it on the market and sold 200 acres for $2.5 million to a West German land group that is assembling large tracts of land in the Western Community. Was there any input from this minister or his ministry to say that the people of this province bought this land for housing? Was there any input to say what's going to happen to this land?

Out in the Western Community we need available land and houses. What is the record on land out there being sold by private developers? The lots are selling for $69,000 to $89,000. What Crown land, developed in small parcels by this ministry for housing, has been made available up in Masset? In Masset you can buy lots of 7,200 square feet from $4,000 and lots up to 14,000 square feet for $11,000. If this ministry can develop Crown land in other parts of British Columbia and bring it on the market at a price that is available or affordable, why can't the same ministry develop the land purchased in the Western Community for people, instead of selling it to large developers? This has been the whole crux of the program in the greater Victoria area. There's been a complete lack of coordinated planning by this ministry and this government on what is needed to develop this area.

Until this government and this ministry take a broader approach to what is needed to develop affordable property, we are going to stumble from one disaster to another. Maybe you're going to rule me out of order, Mr. Chairman, but the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing cannot plan proper land development without coordinating his activities with those of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, the Ministry of Environment and with economic development.

In my own riding we have a study being made by Dome Industries to build a shipyard to develop an improved merchant navy that is going to create jobs and may create industry. It'll create a spinoff. There may be 3,000 new jobs created, but you cannot have a proper development that is going to create jobs or new industry unless you have housing available. With the problems that we face in this area, without an expanding economy we are not having housing made available for people from all walks of life.

I suggest to this minister that he change his approach from developing small parcels of land and small subdivisions in various areas strictly to build now and sell, and that we look at the development of satellite towns in greater Victoria and the Western Community and the development of single-family housing, townhouses and apartments. This ministry should sit down with Industry and Small Business Development and with Highways and lay out a proper plan so that we can have a large area of mixed housing. We can develop the transit system in that area. Not only will people be able to get in and out with public transit, but the highway network will be put in. We can go to industry and say that in this area of greater Victoria we have these proposals of satellite cities and areas that are going to be developed. There will be a mixed type of housing available: areas for mobile homes, areas for manufactured homes and areas for the higher-income group. There will be a transit system. We won't have plugged-up roads, because in its wisdom the government sat down and did some long-range planning to solve some of the problems of housing in general.

Housing is only a part of a problem. Jobs are a part of that problem. I listen many times to the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) talk about his computers and the chip industry. If we are going to have a development of the chip industry in this area, again you are going to need a mixed type of housing. As the minister knows himself from reading the papers, there are many highly paid jobs going begging in areas like Vancouver because of the high cost of housing.

This is the problem we are faced with. This is the problem this government doesn't seem to want to consider a long-range program for. This is what they missed out when the member for Nelson–Creston was Minister of Housing and was laying out satellite cities in the Western Community. In conjunction with the Environment people, he was laying out how they were going to get rid of sewage in this area. You can't do it on a few subdivision lots. You have to took at it as a social problem, a social development, part of highways, part of economic development. We in this area must take this approach.

I sincerely ask the minister, instead of standing up there condemning the past or using a lot of political propaganda.... We heard it all when the Marguerite was being debated a year or so ago, what a great disaster it was — but the pressure of the general public made this government take a different approach. It made this government took at the Marguerite from the economic point of view and how it helped Victoria. I say it is important that this government look at housing, planning, highways and environment. We must sit down together and not condemn this as some socialist plot to destroy the country or free enterprise. I'm not asking this minister to go out and build all these apartments, build these houses, manufacture and sell all the mobile and manufactured homes. He must lay the groundwork for industry to fit in, and work it so that the private developers can have lands to build on, so that there can be land available at the prices he's making it available in Masset. Without that approach, without that over-encompassing cooperation from the government.... Leadership must be given by that minister. That minister must sit down with his colleagues and with the technocrats of the government and come up with a different approach. I say that the minister should seriously consider planning and developing some type of satellite city as a program, as a model that will encompass all the various types of buildings and housing we need. With this broader, more intelligent and more progressive approach I know, Mr. Chairman, that he'd be successful.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, just in response to the few questions put to me by the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew — and I'll be very careful how I respond to that member, because he has a habit of writing articles in the Goldstream Gazette and kind of twisting the facts a little bit....

[ Page 6255 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I'll have to ask the minister to withdraw that remark.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Oh, no. He twists the facts a little bit in the paper, not in the House. I didn't say he was twisting them in the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You said it, hon. minister, and I'll ask you to withdraw.

HON. MR. CHABOT: But he does.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I ask you to withdraw.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Well, if it offends you, Mr. Chairman, I withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Just one more thing: I remind the hon. Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing that good temper and moderation are the characteristics of parliamentary language. Parliamentary language is never more desirable than when a member is canvassing the opinions and conduct of his opponents in debate.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I'm not canvassing his opinions and conduct right now.

MR. MITCHELL: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the minister for reading my articles, and I hope I spelled his name right.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of order.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, in response to the questions put to me by the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew.... He talked about mixed housing — I guess a modular home here, a mobile here, a townhouse here, a multi-unit here and a single detached here — is that what you mean? I don't know what you mean by mixed housing. You kind of confuse me, but I strongly suspect you shouldn't be talking to me about mixed housing. You should be talking to some of your friends, if you have any, on the Capital Regional District. The people on the Capital Regional District are responsible for zoning in the Western Community. They'll determine whether there will be a mix in that area. They determine that, not me.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

The member talks about Crown land. He attempts to leave the impression in this House that there is an abundance of Crown land in the Western Community. There's very little Crown land in the Western Community. There are a few blocks of land that were acquired at excessively high prices by a former government for land-banking purposes. We are attempting to sell them off, because we're not in the land-banking business, and we don't believe in land banking. We're trying to sell them off so that some housing will be built rather than keeping them in a bank. Hopefully we'll be able to get our investment out of those lands — I'm talking about six or seven years later. They were far too costly when they were acquired for land-banking purposes. I want to dispel the myth that is being perpetuated by that member that there is an abundance of Crown land in the Western Community.

The member feels there should be a comparison between land values in Masset on the Queen Charlotte Islands and Colwood and Langford in the Western Community. I have some difficulty with that reasoning and suggestion. Maybe the member could expand on what he's driving at. Why should land in the Western Community have the same price as land up in Masset?

Contrary to what the member has had to say in the Goldstream Gazette, I'm a strong supporter of modular housing and mobile homes, because it's another affordable type of housing, contrary to what the member suggests in the Goldstream Gazette. He suggested that I wasn't interested in that type of housing, or words to that effect. We're in the process now of addressing the problem of mobile-home parks throughout British Columbia and the problems associated with the various closures that are taking place in some communities of British Columbia.

I want to say that in your constituency we looked at the possibility. In fact we engaged a consultant to took at the possibility of establishing a mobile-home park in the Highlands area, which was land-banked and which we're attempting to dispose of now. Anyone who purchases that property would have some difficulty because of the zoning imposed upon that land by the Capital Regional District. The consultant told us that essentially because of percolation problems, the cost of development per pad in the Highlands — the area that was examined — would be $43,000 per pad. I suggest to you that those aren't affordable mobile-home units when you have to pay $43,000 per pad for development.

I want to leave the House with the point that we have attempted to develop a mobile-home park in that area. We're attempting to move. With some degree of cooperation, hopefully from the municipality of Saanich, we hope to have some mobile-home units established there. Sometimes you have to prod them a little bit, but I don't know whether you want to give me the kind of stick which would allow me to establish mobile-home parks on Crown land and in various regional districts or municipalities. I don't know what your reaction would be to that. I can just visualize what your reaction would be to that if I were to bring legislation to the House giving me some degree of authority over Crown land in municipalities and regional districts. I can just hear the hoots and hollering of that opposition.

Nevertheless, I want to say that we are interested. We're going to do what we can under the legislation, the guidelines and the problems we have sometimes with zoning of municipalities to make more mobile-home pads available in the province.

The member brought up the question of Latoria Road. We didn't believe in disposing of the 200 acres there in a hodgepodge fashion. We believed that it was more useful to dispose of it as one parcel of land for the purpose of housing. There was nothing sinister about the sale of that land, as you might attempt to convey through erroneous reports in the paper. The purpose of selling that land was so that developers would get on with the construction of housing in the Western Community, where there is a need as great as in any other region of the province.

You talk about policies. We have underway right now one of the most comprehensive reviews of housing policy ever undertaken by any government in Canada. It's not an ad hoc review to address short-term problems. It's a review that, once we've reached a consensus or a conclusion, will address not only the short-term problems but the problems of the eighties.

[ Page 6256 ]

MR. MITCHELL: I'd just like to note, Mr. Chairman, that I've talked to this minister about a mobile-home property in the Western Community in 1979, 1980 and 1981. In 1979 he said that it wasn't needed — that there were lots of pads.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Don't stretch it.

MR. MITCHELL: I'm not stretching it; I'm just bringing the facts. This is why I feel we should take a long-range program on housing. You talk about doing a study on one piece of property. I realize that there was a study on one piece of property.

You're against land-banking, but Mr. Campbell from the capital region has asked that a land-banking policy be set up in that area. Was the capital region considered to take over some of this land for a long-range land-banking program?

I don't care how it's developed, but there has to be a program that is going to have mixed housing in it. If you have some great program that you're going to bring out of the air, we're all looking forward to it. The leadership has to come from this government to the capital region — the leadership, the input and new technical ideas. I know that if it is presented for the overall development of the capital region, you will get support for any program. But at the present time there has been no overall program. You're taking some cheap shots at certain people on the Capital Regional District board. I don't know what particular individuals in the Western Community you feel you want to take a shot at, but....

HON. MR. CHABOT: You.

MR. MITCHELL: I'm not on the Capital Regional District board. Mr. Chairman, would you like to bring to the minister's attention that I am not on the Capital Regional District board and don't decide their policy? All I'm saying for the people out there who vote, who live, who have children, who are looking for jobs, and who are looking for development is that leadership has to come from this government. I know this minister, with a little bit of effort, could get something going and not take one or two little pieces of property and run a whole speech on that. That is not what asking for. I'm saying you have to take a new approach to development that will take in all parts — transit, highways, environment — and look at a satellite city as a development and not just one or two pieces here and there.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I do not share the optimism of my colleague for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew, because if we're waiting for some leadership from that minister over there, we're going to be waiting until heaven freezes over, if not longer. The Minister of Housing takes no responsibility whatsoever for anything that's not happening in housing. He blames the municipalities, the federal government, the previous administration, Mount St. Helens for erupting, the weather, everybody. He is not responsible for anything, and he's quite right, because he hasn't done anything, Mr. Chairman, not one single thing. We have a housing crisis in this province, and all we hear from the minister is that it's the municipality's fault or Vancouver's fault because they won't increase the density. Obviously that minister hasn't visited Vancouver recently. If he had, he could compare the Kitsilano area of today, for example, with the Kitsilano that existed before, or the False Creek area, Mount Pleasant or any of those areas, and he would see that Vancouver has increased its density. I know about those areas, because that's the area I used to represent before the great gerrymander of 1978. I know that area quite well. Look at what's happening in Burnaby, which I now represent, and what's happening on Mount Burnaby. If the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) were here she would tell you that the Burnaby council has increased its density. The only person who has not done anything whatsoever about the housing crisis....

HON. MR. CHABOT: Careful, you're getting reckless.

MS. BROWN: I'm not getting rattled; it's just that I'm trying to see if I can generate some enthusiasm and put some energy into that Minister of Housing over there. Get something moving! Get something going!

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, but the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt), that great advertiser for lanolin....

Worst of all, what do I hear from the Minister of Housing? That the solution to the housing crisis lies in a great big SAFER program. Those are my worst fears being recognized.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I didn't say that.

MS. BROWN: You said that in a program where the homeowner is subsidized.... The federal Minister of Housing, Paul Cosgrove, sees this as the long-term solution and is offering something in the order of $500 million to the provinces to get on with a shelter-allowance program for senior citizens and people on fixed incomes. Instead of saying to Mr. Cosgrove that that is only one solution and not the solution to the crisis which seniors and people on fixed income are experiencing in Canada today — and in British Columbia in particular — the Minister of Housing stood on the floor of this House, in response to the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly), and said that the solution lies in this kind of shelter-allowance incentive. Well, maybe what the minister should do.... We'll look at the Blues tomorrow, and if I'm wrong I will withdraw it. I've been so terrified that you were going to buy this program, that I was listening very carefully to see whether the provincial government was going to be sucked into this program or not. You said that you saw shelter aid as a solution to the problem of people on fixed income and seniors. It is not a solution. Talk to the people who are presently receiving the SAFER program from this provincial government.

Chuck Bailey, who writes "Prime Time," is not an NDPer; he would be the first one to tell you that. He writes his column for seniors in the Sun every day. What does he say? First of all he says that housing is fast replacing health as the number one most serious concern facing senior citizens. In fact, senior citizens waiting to get into low-rental senior housing are having to wait up to three years, and he adds that that's enough time in which to die. In fact, a lot of them are dying while they're waiting to get into seniors' housing. Again, it is because this Minister of Housing is not making any contribution at all to the construction of seniors' housing. He goes on to say: "Action is needed. Construction of low rental seniors' housing is what is needed. Presently there are only 114 one-bedroom units underway in the city of Vancou-

[ Page 6257 ]

ver." I don't know where he gets that figure from. With all of the expert bureaucratic advice that he has, he should be able to set the record straight if that is not correct.

He says: "The reason for the slowdown was a decision by the provincial government. It decided to use SAFER three years ago to ease the demand." He goes on to say that fewer and fewer people are finding themselves eligible for SAFER, because the criteria for eligibility are becoming tighter and tighter.

Let me explain the SAFER formula to you. Under the SAFER program three-quarters of a person's rent is paid if that rent exceeds 30 percent. That sounds fair enough, except that the government then puts a ceiling on that. For a single person the ceiling is $225 a month, and for double occupancy it's $245. What do we find? The Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing does a survey of rents throughout the province and finds that most seniors are not eligible. Most of the rents being charged for single units and double-occupancy units are above the limits set by Human Resources, or this government, in its SAFER benefits. One of the things the minister said was that he couldn't be responsible for all the decisions made by his government. Certainly in this instance the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing and the Ministry of Human Resources should be putting their heads together so that if a program is supposed to work, at least there should be some kind of continuity. The ceiling, if such a thing must exist, should at least be relevant to the actual rents being paid, and the person who knows what those rents are is the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing, through the survey done by his own department.

If I can quote from an article on SAFER, I want to say that, first of all, "There is not one single senior couple coming on stream in Vancouver today who is going to qualify for SAFER." It goes on to say: "After July 1, unless the formula is adjusted, a number of people who are on are going to be lopped off." I just want to bring to the minister's attention the fact that if he's planning on using SAFER as a solution to the housing crisis as it is experienced by seniors and people on fixed incomes, it's not going to work, because the formula doesn't work. You've done an excellent survey. The Lands, Parks and Housing review has all the statistics there and all the information that shows the rent being charged is above the ceiling offered by SAFER. It also shows the kinds of crises that seniors and people on fixed income are experiencing. The request, which comes from the seniors themselves, is that the government get into the business. If I can quote again: "Action is needed. Construction of low rental seniors' housing." I want to add to that — not just for the seniors, but for seniors on fixed income, whether they're seniors or not.

I'm going to wind up my remarks so that the Minister of Housing can respond to the fears which I have expressed about using the SAFER program to deal with this. I just want to suggest to him that he doesn't have to shout when he is responding to me. I'm not deaf. I'm 51, but I'm not deaf. I can hear.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: Before we proceed, hon. members, the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) rose yesterday under standing order 35 to ask leave to move adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely the closure of certain provincial schools. The member then handed a written statement of the matter to Mr. Speaker, in accordance with the provisions of standing order 35(3).

When the matter was first raised in the House the Chair observed that the statement appeared to contain argument, and an examination of the written statement confirms the Chair's earlier impression. May, sixteenth edition, page 370, states that a matter raised under this motion must not import an argument. Accordingly it is my opinion that the matter raised by the member for Skeena does not qualify under the stringent guidelines relating to standing order 35.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:56 p.m.