[ Page 6259 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

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

Chabot)

On vote 149: minister's office –– 6259

Mr. Hall

Mr. Cocke

Mr. Ritchie

Mr. Mussallem

Ms. Sanford

Mr. Kempf

Mr. Hanson

THURSDAY, JUNE 18, 1981

The House met at 10 a.m.

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. HALL: Mr. Chairman, I think I have just a few more questions to the minister on housing before we go into a detailed examination of lands policy and administration, and then perhaps towards the end of the week into a detailed examination of the parks policy, and then the lands policy again, and maybe another revisitation on the housing policy.

Mr. Chairman, housing is an important item in the provincial budget, and it's an important ministry. A lot of questions have been asked and suggestions made by this side of the House on housing, and I certainly don't want to repeat or even bore the House with some of the items that have been put forward. There is, however, one section of the housing industry that I want to dwell on for a little while with the minister. That's the particular section that used to be called the mobile-home industry and is now called the modular-home industry. Call it what you will. When I first spoke about this in 1968-69 hardly anybody knew anything about it or ever discussed it. At that time there had been a presidential inquiry in the United States that showed that about 16 percent of the new homes put on the market on the continent in that year were of this manufactured variety. I think the percentage on the continent now would be close to 30.

I think the province has more than our proportionate national share of those manufactured homes. The minister knows of the problems in the province with pads and the people who live on those pads, because they've all written to him. My point to him would be best put this way. I think it's time for us to have a second Audain inquiry. That excellent inquiry was applauded by both sides of the House, by the industry and by the residents of mobile homes. Very few of the recommendations were implemented. Some of the recommendations, I think, need a second examination now in the fullness of time — in the six or seven years that have passed since that inquiry. I think we might even approach Mr. Audain again, although that's not for me to say; that's for the minister to look at. Certainly I think it's time to have a revisitation of the Audain commission.

I also think it's time for us to use whatever agency the minister wants.... He's got a hangup about a housing commission, obviously; he's got a serious ideological hangup about a housing corporation or housing commission. He can use whatever agency he wants, but somebody in his ministry has got to go around and talk to some people who've got some money and are prepared to sit down around a table and discuss some cooperative ventures to get some housing going. After all, he's heading up a Ministry of Housing, and no affordable housing is being built.

I've spoken to people who've got lots of money at their disposal in the trade union movement and the credit union movement, and who are prepared to put their money where their mouths are in terms of cooperative development, including mobile homes. There are thousands upon thousands of dollars in trade and credit union funds. I can think of the building trades themselves. The building trades move the building trades unions, grouped together as they are. They have literally hundreds of thousands of dollars that could act as seed money for this kind of work, helping people start to help themselves. I would commend that idea to the minister. I've been approached. There are aldermen south of the river who represent the people I'm talking about, who would be glad to sit down and talk to the minister. I won't make their names public because I haven't got their permission to do so, but I'll give the minister the aldermen's names if he wants.

While all this is going on, I do plead with the minister to do one thing as well; that is, stop once and for all the kind of thing going on whereby a person who wants to move out of a mobile-home park and sell his mobile home finds himself completely at the mercy of the person operating that park. They're at the mercy of some jacked-up tin god operating the mobile-home park who's getting a rip-off commission, who's got some deal going so that a poor, old-age pension couple or young couple starting off life in a mobile home who don't own the land it's sitting on are at the complete mercy of somebody who says: "You can't sell that unless I approve of the buyer. You can't move it until I approve of the mover. You can't do a thing unless I say so." I'm suggesting to you that a close examination of the act indicates to me that there's a loophole somewhere.

I'm going to wander here, for one second, away from the estimate and say that I've approached your colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hyndman). He shares my view that there's something wrong there somewhere and that there has to be a tightening up of the regulations to do with the registering of those people who can sell mobile homes — the people who actually can get involved in the yes and no situation and who can inject themselves into this deal. I see members on the opposite side nodding their heads in agreement with me. I've got colleagues on my side of the House agreeing with me. I think this is a growing disease in mobile-home parks, particularly in the lower mainland.

Mr. Minister, I want you to have a look at that. This particular narrow sector of the housing industry is something I think we can do something about very quickly. It takes very few dollars to spark it off.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I rather thought that the minister was going to jump to his feet and give us a few friendly words this morning, answer some of the questions that he got last night, and maybe answer a question or two from the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall). But he's indisposed at the moment. I'm sure he will be up there flailing away in answer to some of the questions that I'd like to ask him. In that group described as Social Credit, there are very few people who could possibly provide any kind of future for housing in British Columbia in terms of the government fulfilling obligations in that area. You see, they're depending totally and completely on the side of the industry that really isn't interested in developing housing at the moment. The reason they're not interested is that it doesn't happen to be very profitable. It doesn't happen to be very profitable by virtue of the fact that the governor of the Bank of Canada, Mr. Bouey, believes that the way to fight inflation is

[ Page 6260 ]

to heap lots of gas on the flames. I'll describe that by saying that keeping the interest rates up fans inflation, it doesn't dampen it. Anyway, that's what we're stuck with.

Having said that, I would wonder why it is that the government doesn't involve itself in the area where it can assist. Yesterday the minister indicated very clearly that he's not the least bit interested in my view. Anyway, I was interpreting what he had to say. Sometimes it's very difficult to understand. But in any event, he indicates that he is not all that tempted to get involved in housing directly or indirectly. There is no question that the dismantling of the Housing Corporation was a very bad mistake. It was a mistake made before he took over the responsibility, however. The area where he could be of some assistance would be in the whole area of cooperative housing. In New Westminster where land is scarce, I have seen only one cooperative housing development, and it's been a mighty success. It's been in an area which was designated for urban renewal. It has been a real success. The rest of the area has still remained in limbo. Meanwhile, one of the colleagues of that minister, the member for South Peace River (Hon. Mr. Phillips), who is in charge of the Economic Development Corporation and through that is also interested in urban renewal in New Westminster, has not indicated in any way, shape or form that in the mix.... There's to be a very large housing development downtown, uptown and particularly down along the shores of the Fraser. I have heard nothing whatsoever about any cooperative housing.

With the cost of land — and that's one of our problems; interest rates are of course another problem — being exaggerated in this province in the areas where there is dense population, the only possibility for many people to get their own housing is to do it on a cooperative basis. A number of people get together, form a society and set up a cooperative housing scheme. To describe the one in New Westminster would be to say it's a marvellous mix: some suites, some townhouses and fine use of common land for playgrounds recreation and so on. The limited amount of land that's required for this kind of development makes it the very best that people on a low-income economic level can afford. It's the only way they can afford to get in.

I've seen housing jump from $75,000, $80,000 a little over a year ago to where the same house in the same area is now $150,000 to $200,000. The houses in those areas — and I'm talking about New Westminster and Vancouver — despite the fact that there has been a mighty drop in the last little while, are still absolutely out of reach of anybody earning less than $25,000 or $30,000 a year, just by virtue of the fact that they don't qualify for a mortgage. A mortgage of say, $100,000, with a 19 or 20 percent interest rate, is just absolutely out of reach. Therefore, if the minister would get serious about cooperative housing and give some assistance and leadership, if nothing else.... You know, we've urged the government to utilize some of the funds that are at arm's length from government but still within their area of responsibility, such as pensions funds and so on. Some of these funds could be directed through a corporation which, incidentally, has already been set up by legislation but has never been proclaimed. These funds — and some leadership, Mr. Chairman — would be very helpful for the people, who otherwise can look forward to renting and to rents that are going absolutely sky-high. It's a wonder to me that we don't have people living in tents all over, just by virtue of the fact that housing is so scandalously out of reach.

If the minister can assure us that there is going to be some movement in this direction, I would be very happy. But I've seen no sign of it yet — no sign of any kind of a responsible housing direction or policy, none. There has not been one cooperative housing development in New Westminster since 1974. That's a shocker.

HON. MR. CHABOT: There isn't one in Invermere either.

MR. COCKE: At least you don't have the problems in Invermere with the price of land that you have here. If you do, then get to work up in Invermere. Otherwise they'll do what they should have done a long time ago, and that's kick you right out of office.

HON. MR. CHABOT: You guys have been trying for 18 years, and you've never succeeded.

MR. COCKE: You've been trying for me for 12 years, Jim, and you've never succeeded. We'll see. Maybe one day they'll get us both.

In any event, Mr. Chairman, I really believe that a very responsible, hard-working minister working toward more cooperative housing, and a lot of it, in this province in the near future could give some people out there a sign that maybe they have some hope. Otherwise it's going to be more of the same, and the same is not good enough. I would urge the minister to give us his comments in that particular area.

MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, I'll be very brief. Any debate I've listened to so far from the opposition benches has been one-track, with the exception of the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke). I thought he had a very good idea that I'm sure the minister will be looking at. But their whole trend of thought is down the line of government involvement — government housing. I would like to say that I have seen countries where government has taken over housing. As a matter of fact, I think it would be rather fitting to talk about one that I visited — Cuba.

AN HON. MEMBER: Broadbent was there.

MR. RITCHIE: We know that the leader of the national NDP was in Cuba. He studied the situation and seems to want to associate himself with that trend. Knowing of course that the NDP in British Columbia associates itself with Broadbent, I'm not surprised that this is the trend — government involvement in building those government houses. Well, we don't want them. We don't want the government in housing in that way at all.

MR. COCKE: What were you doing in Cuba?

MR. RITCHIE: I was visiting. I was down there to take a look at the things that you people are trying to promote in this country, and we don't want any part of it. If that's what you want, you should go there.

MR. COCKE: What were you doing in Cuba?

MR. RITCHIE: I was down there to see first-hand just exactly the type of socialism that you people are attempting to bring to this great country of ours, and I am bitterly opposed

[ Page 6261 ]

to it. I want to go on record as saying to the minister that I will bitterly oppose any great move of this government into the programs of government housing that these people are recommending. I don't want any part of it.

There are three basic problems, as far as I am concerned, with respect to housing. The housing problem really has been brought on by a booming economy. We didn't have this problem in 1974 and 1975, because people were leaving us. There were surplus houses — lots of them — for sale at any price, because people were leaving. Now they're coming back in droves, and of course the old law of supply and demand means prices go up. That's further aggravated by the fact that we have a Liberal government in Ottawa setting ruthless banking policies that make it very hard for those people who want to buy their own homes. The NDP of British Columbia aligns itself with the Liberal Party of Ottawa and must take some of the blame for those policies that are now hurting people who want to have their own homes in British Columbia.

I think one of the things we have to look at with respect to housing is the land situation. We have to have land to build houses on. Therefore it's going to be necessary to take a look at the whole land situation in British Columbia, and undo that monster that was brought in by the NDP when they were in office, and make sure that we are not causing hardship in the area of land needs when it comes to housing. I will continue to strive to convince my government to bring about some changes that will make sure no land is being held in the freeze that should not be — that would be much better used to ease the burden on people who require affordable housing.

Another area in housing that concerns me is regulations. We have regulations that have us strangled something terrible. They must be looked at — zoning regulations and all sorts of regulations that make it very difficult for the individual to acquire a home he can afford.

Then, of course, comes financing. I believe this is where it's going to take more than just handing out money. Handing out grants is not the way to do it at all. I think we have to take a look at the whole area of financing and recognize the fact that we are in a volatile time as far as interest costs are concerned. We see that the lender is afraid to go too far in lending, and of course the borrower is in a very uncertain position, because they don't know when they're going to be faced with a big increase in their monthly costs.

This is where I would like to refer very briefly to some of the comments made on the floor yesterday by one of our members here. When we speak of a different approach to acquiring a home, whether it be a single family, an apartment or whatever, it is on the equity approach. I know that may have its pitfalls, but it has to be investigated fully. Equity participation has worked extremely well in other areas, and I don't see any reason why it wouldn't work here. I would hope and expect that we will explore those areas very carefully and make sure we come up with an alternative to what the socialists would like to have — the government putting up their own company, setting up their own real estate offices, building their own houses and then telling people, "Here you are; this is yours," but it never is theirs.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Chairman, it's a pleasure to be recognized by you. First of all I must say how much I appreciate the work the minister has done in the area of housing and development in British Columbia. It's all very well to mount an attack in this House; of course it is the form to do it in. No one can take away the right of the opposition to oppose. In that form they are at their best and have always been so, but in the form of total construction and creating housing they never were very good. As a matter of fact, during their three and a half years of office.... I do not want to touch on their days of office, because three and a half years of the last 30 is not very much. You can't expect too much.

AN HON. MEMBER: They didn't get too much.

MR. MUSSALLEM: They didn't get anything, but they're great for ideas. I've got to compliment them for their ideas. Some of their ideas aren't bad, but it's left for us to develop them. We will develop good ideas; it doesn't matter where they come from — the opposition, the socialists or anyone else. If the ideas are good, I believe we should. It must be left to us, because only a party of our kind that is constructive, that does things and that is creative makes things run in British Columbia. We have done so in the last 30 years. The prosperity of British Columbia proves that.

I want to say to the minister that his problem is this. When you have a province in what I call total prosperity with a waste of prosperity in the North American continent, naturally you'll find problems, because people are moving in here at the rate of 60,000 a year. You hear from the minister in his opening address — I've checked these figures, and they are correct — that 45,000 housing unit starts are forecast in British Columbia this year if the program continues, and it will. That's more than Ontario and Quebec combined and more than the prairie provinces combined. When you think that British Columbia, with 10 percent of the population of Canada, will have more housing starts than all of Ontario and Quebec and more than the prairie provinces, I think that's a record the minister can be very proud of. Our problem is not one of not building houses; our problem is one of prosperity. Everyone wants to move to British Columbia at the same time. It is posing a problem, but I think it's a better problem than having the reverse when no one wants to move to British Columbia, and we have no need of much housing and much housing on the market at any price. That would be a very sad situation. That is the situation that develops under socialist regimes everywhere in the world. The member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie) was touching on that subject. That is a situation we must avoid here. The problem of prosperity is one we can live with. You saw an article in the paper just today, Mr. Chairman, saying that executives needed here are not moving to British Columbia because of the cost of homes. That's a problem, but those problems we must face. We have all kinds of problems in not being able to supply the demands of technicians, and that's part of the same problem.

The hon. member for New Westminster suggests many things, but he doesn't touch the nub of the problem. All the NDP had in their day was the Housing Corporation. I was not a member of the House during those years. The Housing Corporation was a great corporation, all right; it was a great name but it never built a single house — not one in three and a half years. So let's forget that part. The name doesn't mean a thing.

Let us look, then, at the problem. There is a problem and I admit there's a problem — in the high cost of land, the high cost of lots. I almost tremble at the idea of what I'm going to say now: fictitious high prices. What created these prices? Why are the prices in Washington half of what they

[ Page 6262 ]

are in British Columbia? It's a country that's much the same as ours in every respect. Why are they half the price?

MR. KEMPF: That's where our developers are.

MR. MUSSALLEM: That's where our developers are — where Daon is, where many of them are. Sure, that's right. Our developers go where they can do developing; they're not hemmed in.

Basically, what is the reason? The reason is the shortage of usable land in the area where it is needed. What created the shortage? At this point you have to be very careful in bringing before this House the problems created by the agricultural land reserve — a product of the NDP government. There is nothing wrong with the agricultural land reserve. I hate to say that. But when land is frozen that is non-agricultural and that could be used for housing within municipalities, then we have put a burden on the shoulders of our people that is intolerable. That is the problem. That is what created the problem.

The agricultural land reserve had a purpose. We in the previous Social Credit government did not call it the agricultural land reserve; we called it planning. We were planning the reserves, step by step, municipality by municipality. But during the three and a half years when that government, for political purposes, threw on a blanket reserve all over British Columbia, what happened? It froze the price of land and skyrocketed real estate. I tell you, it was a developer's dream. All over the province property doubled, tripled and quadrupled. And that was the cause of it.

We still need agricultural land. Don't misunderstand me. I can be chastized for saying: "Take away agricultural land." But it's not agricultural land. I'm saying that the freeze — the careless slapping on of a reserve all over British Columbia.... Mr. Chairman, do you know that most of British Columbia was not covered in any way? They used the federal land inventory, which only covered half of British Columbia. So a great part of British Columbia in the north, the greatest agricultural land in British Columbia, is neither in nor out of the reserve. For example, Telegraph Creek is one — a tremendous area. Huge areas in the Peace are not covered by the agricultural land reserve. So we have a fictitious situation here, which is political and appealing to the public — that they did freeze agricultural land. Well, they did not freeze agricultural land; they just froze the land needed for housing. Yes, some agricultural land should have been developed.

The municipality of Pitt Meadows had already been properly organized in our time. Agricultural land was frozen as agricultural, and other municipalities were in the process.... Instead of using an orderly process, there was the sudden, helter-skelter slap-on of an agricultural land reserve without knowledge of the facts, following the federal land inventory, which was not complete but was used, and leaving more agricultural land out of the reserve which should have been in and is not in it was not even considered — and we call that an agricultural land reserve. When we mention adjusting the reserve, the hue and cry starts, the newspapers start, the columnists start — strictly emotional. It's an emotional thing. We must get out of emotion if this country is going to continue to prosper. We must get out of emotion if we are going to get housing for our people. We must get sanity on this ALR question. We must be basic. We must use sanity. We must get out of emotion. It's all emotion. Yes, protect the farmland. You hear the people in the cities howling for farmland; but when you ask them to be taxed for it, it's a different thing.

During our time as government we recognized the necessity of farmland and greenbelt. We had the Greenbelt Act, which the NDP threw out — I want to tell the minister that. We were buying land, huge tracts of land along the freeway, in the marshlands, in the interior, in the Peace and all over British Columbia. We were buying greenbelt that would be in the public domain forever, to be used for agriculture or for whatever purpose that was orderly. Slapping a complete freeze on the agricultural land reserve — using the federal land inventory, created by the federal people, without consideration as to whether it was good or bad, and only doing one half of the province — is what caused the problem that we have today. The price of property is beyond the reach of our people because we only have a little bit of property to sell to the public. It was all frozen.

Now you may say to that minister, whom we're attacking all the time "Release more Crown land," but the land he is able to release would not solve the housing problem. There are vast areas in the interior of the province, and spots here and there in the lower mainland, but not land that could be used for housing. Although I still think he should speed up the release of this land, it will not solve the problem that we're discussing today. The problem is the need of land within the municipal areas of Vancouver, Maple Ridge, Surrey, Chilliwack and the surrounding areas, and in Kelowna, Prince George and Penticton. There is frozen land there that has no right to be frozen. There is land in the north that has no right to be frozen.

The ALR is the problem in the congested areas of British Columbia, in Maple Ridge. Areas right in the centre of the municipality have no need to be frozen. Nobody is living on them — five acres, three acres, two acres which could never be farmland. It's too small and impractical, yet it is frozen. That's where the problem started. It also started with the opposition. But we did not have the courage to remove it, and we do not have the courage to remove it. I do not say we should remove it entirely, but we should adjust it. The time has come for us to move a motion and get down and recognize the facts. Retain the farmland, all of it, every bit of it forever. But let out the parts which are of no use for farming.

A widow lives on two acres in Maple Ridge; one lady, two acres. She wants to cut it into two one-acre parcels but can't touch it because of the agricultural land reserve. She would get a few dollars to augment her income. No way. Three acres, four acres, five acres — no way. It's frozen forever. Why? It's not farmland and cannot be used as a farm. It's right in the middle of a municipality. Other municipalities have the same.

I appeal to the minister to consider this very vital point. The ALR is a good thing, but it was wrongly applied and incorrectly considered. It requires adjustment — you might call it fine-tuning. Everybody jumps on the bandwagon and attacks, as if we were taking food from the mouths of babies. I'm telling you, it's disgusting and ridiculous and shouldn't be allowed to be considered by sensible people.

We have a little piece of land in Pitt Meadows. It's called the Somerset property.

Interjection.

MR. MUSSALLEM: The history of it? I didn't want to go into that, but I'll tell you the history. That was another one

[ Page 6263 ]

of the housing developments of a good friend of mine — the Minister of Housing under the NDP government. The government bought that land from one of their friends. I won't go into it too deeply because I can't; the thing is under investigation at the present time. They bought it for $178,000 and within a very short time they sold it to the government for $3.6 million. That was a government where there was no conflict of interest. I won't go into that any more deeply,

HON. MR. CHABOT: No conflict of interest?

MR. MUSSALLEM: I won't go into conflict of interest. I went into that in another parliament, and I don't want to make an issue of it again.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I'm sure the hon. member realizes that we're on vote 149, administrative responsibility.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Chairman, I'm delighted to talk about it, and I thank you for allowing me to speak.

I want to say this about that land. It was bought, yes. It was very profitable for the fellow who was lucky enough to own it. But for the Housing Corporation to develop it at that time was impossible, because it was way beyond the value of the land — five or six times more than the value of the land that the Housing Corporation bought to make housing in Pitt Meadows. It could never have been used, but in the intervening seven years, as I've been relating, the price of land has increased very rapidly. None of it can be developed, because the price is out of sight. The minister should consider having this land sold and developed.

I caution the minister: please, when you sell that, do not allow it to be sold to one developer. We must allow that land to go in the hands of private operators, five or six or seven lots at a time, and not into the hands of one developer. I think we should consider the small operator in British Columbia. That should never be allowed to be sold. If it's put on the market to be sold at auction or at a fixed price, it will be too expensive for any single person to buy. It should be adjusted and sold in the proper form so that small operators can each have an opportunity to buy that land. I do suggest to the minister that he take this point of view under consideration. I think it's time that that land was put on the market. The municipality of Pitt Meadows has, over the last seven to ten years, had no taxes on this property. They are suffering a great deal from it. I appeal on their behalf that it not be held off the market any longer.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I would like to give a word of advice to the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem). I would like him to try his best to understand what he's talking about, and then maybe we can understand what he's talking about. He tells us that the agricultural land reserve is a good idea, but we should chip away at it. He knows, I know and everybody in this House knows that there's a way that municipalities can deal with land that's locked in to the agricultural land reserve. We had the guts and the courage when we were government to put in agricultural land reserves for the protection of the future generations in this province who need to eat. As long as that member and his archaic ideas....

MR. MUSSALLEM: What about Tilbury Island?

MR. COCKE: There were areas taken out of the land reserve. There are areas continually being taken out. But what does that member want? He wants his favourite people treated a little bit differently than somebody else. They've been government for five and a half years; we were government for only three and a half years. What have they done, if it's been so bad? No, of course they haven't taken land out of the agricultural land reserve the way that member would like to, but they've taken out a lot that I'd prefer had been left in. Housing is a problem. He doesn't even know that there are 4,000 acres in the lower mainland that could be used for housing and that are not in the reserve. Why doesn't he start talking about utilization of some of that land? Nonsense! All he wants is to do a favour for a pal.

I get so sick and tired of listening to all of this stuff coming up in this House and always going back to between 1972 and 1975. You know, I know and most people know that the only time we've ever had a progressive government in this province was during that period. It's going to happen again just as sure as day follows night, because the archaic, naive stupidity over there in terms of any kind of development leaves one almost breathless. That member leaves me particularly breathless. I'm going to leave the rest of this discussion to the former Housing minister and let him give them a lesson.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing.

MS. BROWN: It's about time.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Thank you very much for the opportunity to respond to the few questions that have been put to me, some of which were put last night. The member for Burnaby-Edmonds suggests that it's about time that I answer some questions. She raised a couple of questions in her chit-chat last night. One dealt with the question of affordability and availability of housing for seniors in the province. I'm sure she, being a millionaire, doesn't have that affordability problem.

MS. BROWN: I'm not a senior yet.

HON. MR. CHABOT: No, but you talked about affordability as well. You plead the cause of the underprivileged from time to time. As you're a millionaire, I have some difficulties seeing the role you play.

However, on the question of senior citizens' housing, last year we constructed 600 units throughout the province. There are seniors all over the province and we have to look after their needs. There are limitations as far as the number of units is concerned to which CMHC will subscribe and participate financially in. Because we know that there is a demand for more than 600 units in the province, we have been urging CMHC to escalate the number of units which they're prepared to allocate and assist in funding in this province.

You mentioned the SAFER program which, of course, is not under my ministry. However, last year the SAFER program helped 13,500 seniors in the province. One other point that you raised and which I want to respond to is the question of shelter allowance. You mentioned that Mr. Cosgrove, the federal minister in charge of CMHC, has suggested that there is $500 million available in some kind of a program to assist people in the question of affordability of housing. Well, I

[ Page 6264 ]

happened to be in Ottawa at a Housing ministers' conference just a couple of weeks ago, and that shelter allowance program, which has appeared in the press with a $500 million price-tag attached to it, wasn't discussed by the minister. We asked him for some details of his proposed shelter allowance program and whether the provinces would have an involvement in this program, and I want to say that there was no information forthcoming from Mr. Cosgrove at that meeting.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I want to repeat the words that I said — and which you're attempting to change — about public housing versus shelter allowance. I said that public housing was a very inefficient and expensive way of redistributing income and that a more logical way for income redistribution, for which the national government has the prime responsibility, would be through a shelter allowance. I'm not pushing for a shelter allowance, but I'm saying that it would be a more beneficial way in which to redistribute income than the creation of public housing.

The second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) talked about a major review of mobile homes, manufactured homes, modular homes and so forth, and said that we should possibly engage Mr. Audain. I want to say that we did consult Mr. Audain in our major review of housing policies in the province, and that this government is supportive of mobile homes as an affordable means of accommodating people in this province. Some 25 to 30 percent of all the housing starts in the province are manufactured homes. We have put together a model bylaw for municipalities, hopefully as a means of encouraging them to adopt mobile-home bylaws in order to allow this type of accommodation to be located in their municipalities. Because of the problems we're having with some mobile-home parks closing down in different locations of the province, we're attempting to establish new guidelines on mobile homes and parks. This issue will be discussed next Tuesday at the economic development cabinet committee, and hopefully the guidelines will be approved at that meeting.

The member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) talked about housing starts and said that we're not getting enough housing. Well, just this morning in the Vancouver Province there was an article saying: "B.C. Overbuilding, Facing House Glut." Though I've always said that basically we have a two-pronged problem in British Columbia — we have a supply problem and an affordability problem — from the information conveyed in this article in the Province this morning, it appears that our supply problem is relatively well in hand at the moment. I'd have to study the details to see whether there would be sufficient rental accommodation coming on stream to look after those needs. So if the facts contained in that article are relatively accurate as far as single detached housing is concerned, the major problem we're facing is affordability.

The member for New Westminster also mentioned the Housing Corporation of British Columbia. I'm not going to go into my usual tirade about the B.C. Housing Corporation, except to say that I think you people have heard me express my views in the most forceful way about its effectiveness. I want to say that we have a housing vehicle in British Columbia. The B.C. Housing Management Commission administers 8,000 units of housing — primarily family housing, affordable units. It makes provisions for affordability. It helps 8,000 families in the province.

The member talks about co-op housing assistance. It's a question of land availability, of course. Our ministry is prepared to entertain land assembly to convenience co-ops — to acquire private lands, if need be, for the purpose of establishing co-ops; to lease rather than sell, which in many instances is of assistance to societies wanting to put co-op housing in place. So we have a determination to assist. There are limitations imposed by CMHC on the number of units allocated to the province of British Columbia; 5,000 units is the limit at this time. Later in the year we might get some units rolled back from other provinces that haven't utilized theirs. I hope this ministry will be in place with sufficient land, after having consulted with co-ops for the purpose of being able to accommodate any additional units that might be offered to this province.

The only matter that bothers me about co-ops is that some people with high incomes — $50,000 or $60,000 — take a vantage of a deep subsidy by CMHC. They sell their own homes at inflated prices and then expect to get 2 percent money from CMHC. Possibly there should be some limitations as to income for people living in co-op units.

Our ministry has offered financial assistance to the municipality of New Westminster for the purchase of the former B.C. Penitentiary property. If it's the will of that municipality to have co-op housing on that property, we're prepared to support that.

To the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) — who has disappeared momentarily — on the Somerset property in Pitt Meadows, after our negotiations with the municipality of Pitt Meadows we've determined that 320 units of housing would be acceptable to that municipality, to be located on that 65-acre tract of land. That will proceed this year, with proposal calls this summer. We'll take into consideration the member's recommendation that we offer smaller enclaves, rather than a 65-acre chunk of land, so that small developers will have an opportunity to build housing on that property.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, one issue that really divides this side of the House from the other is this issue of housing and providing accommodation for the citizens of British Columbia. The member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie) categorically stated that he didn't want the government involved in any way, shape or form in housing in British Columbia. It seems to me that any government worth its salt should be providing basic services to people, and certainly the provision of shelter is a basic service. This government has failed miserably in that category.

This morning the member for New Westminster expressed surprised that there weren't people living in tents around the province, because of the critical shortage of housing, about which this minister has done nothing. I wanted to let the minister know that indeed in my constituency, in spite of this weather, a young woman came to me just last week to explain why she has had to move into a tent. There is absolutely nothing in the Courtenay area available to rent that she can afford. As a result, today, in this rain, she is living in a tent in the Courtenay area.

One of the questions posed to me most frequently relates to housing: "Why does the government not do anything about the critical housing shortage?" This minister remains adamant. He is not prepared to deal with the problem. As a result, people are paying exorbitant rates and accommodation is at a premium.

[ Page 6265 ]

What I want to raise with the minister this morning is the issue surrounding the Buckley Bay dryland sort, and the log dump as proposed by MacMillan Bloedel. This is an issue that I've raised with this minister and with the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers) on a number of occasions.

HON. MR. CHABOT: No, just once before.

MS. SANFORD: I don't think the minister treats this issue very seriously. I can assure you that the people in the area of Buckley Bay are very concerned about it. After all, that area of British Columbia is one of the best oyster-growing areas in the world. For the government to proceed in a callous fashion, allowing log dumps to take place in the midst of that outstanding oyster-growing area gives some indication of their concern for environmental matters. I can assure the minister, as I did the Minister of Environment during his estimates, that officials within the Ministry of Environment remain vehemently opposed to this proposal, because it is one of the best oyster-growing areas of the world. He may shake his head. He may laugh. He may carry on as though it's an issue of no concern, but let me assure you, it is. The ombudsman has been concerned and has been involved in the way the minister has handled this particular application.

On May 29, Des Kennedy of the Baynes Sound Protection Committee wrote to the minister asking that they be granted the right to question the officials during the final stages of decision making concerning this particular application. That letter has not been answered. I'm wondering if the minister can give me the assurance today that the committee members who have made this request and have been given assurances that they would be advised and consulted all the way along in the various stages of this proposal will, in fact, be invited to meet with officials during the final stage of discussion on this particular proposal. I'm making that appeal to the minister today.

The Baynes Sound Protection Committee is an amazing group of people. It's made up of people who are economists, environmentalists and university graduates — many of them have doctorates — who are living up in that area, and who are very concerned about this proposal. They have put out this publication, which I received only a couple of weeks ago. It is an economic analysis of alternative methods to haul, sort and boom Northwest Bay log production.

The minister does not have this report. They have sent a copy to the deputy minister, Doug McColl — or one of the officials. I'm not sure what his title is. They did not send one directly to the minister. I think they should have, because I wish the ministry would undertake to provide the information which is contained in here, and the kind of research and analysis that has been done by this group of people. The ministry relies on information that comes from the company. They look at their figures and proposals. They make determinations, with respect to the Baynes Sound area, based on what they learn from MacMillan Bloedel.

The Baynes Sound Protection Committee very clearly point out the discrepancies in the proposals made by MacMillan Bloedel. For instance, in 1979 the economic assessment of the alternatives, as expressed by the company, indicated that the dryland sort at Buckley Bay would cost about $3 million, the highway haul to the Northwest Bay, where there's already a log dump, would be around $4.6 million, and the rail alternative would be about $4.9 million. In 1981, two years later, the Buckley Bay dryland sort, according to the company, is now going to cost about $4.6 million, the highway haul $4.9 million, and the railway haul has gone up to $8.6 million. What on earth has happened? For heaven's sake, in that two-year period there was an increase of 25 percent in the costs of Buckley Bay and the trucking options, but the rail option has gone up by 90 percent. Obviously the company has bent over backwards to demonstrate to the minister that the railway-haul option is not an acceptable one. I think if the minister has the time and can get some information — maybe just a synopsis of this report — then certainly he will have a better understanding of the work that's been undertaken by this committee, will have an appreciation of the kind of analysis and the kind of knowledge that's brought to a study like this, and will certainly have second thoughts about the information provided to him by MacMillan Bloedel. Obviously they have a route that they want. They want the dryland sort and the log dump. They have done everything they can in their economic studies to demonstrate that that's the best way to go.

I have one final question. On July 9, 1980, there was a press release from the minister's office with respect to the announcement of the moratorium on establishing any further log dumps after this one — that sort of thing. But that press release also contained information about a study — it was an announcement — and "the securement of a mariculture policy for the sound," meaning Baynes Sound. It is now almost a year later. I'm wondering what stage this ongoing study of the securement of a mariculture policy for Baynes Sound is at the moment. It was announced a year ago. Could the minister please give me details as to how much work has been done? Have any preliminary reports been issued? How much longer does he expect that this study will take?

MR. KEMPF: It's too soon, Mr. Chairman. I'm surprised at the opposition, who have gone around this province for months castigating this government for the lack of housing and for the housing problems. Early in the second day of debate in this minister's estimates, they're willing to let his estimates go through.

MS. SANFORD: Who said? Take your seat.

MR. KEMPF: I'm astonished, but I'm not willing to do that, Madam Member for Comox.

I'm going to talk a little more about land. Before I do that, I'll just say that we heard some talk this morning about senior citizens' housing. I've got to give the minister a lot of credit where senior citizens' housing is concerned. Under this minister's direction and that of the former Housing ministers in this administration, several new senior citizens' facilities have been built and are under construction in my constituency of Omineca. We built new senior citizens' homes in Houston, Burns Lake, Fraser Lake and Vanderhoof, the latest being Silver Birch Lodge in Fraser Lake, which the minister and I had the pleasure of opening a few weeks ago. The foundation is about to be laid for a similar facility in Fort St. James. I'd like to commend this minister and this government for addressing the problem of senior citizens' housing in my constituency.

I want to talk a little more about land, because 50 to 60 percent of the problems which cross my desk on a weekly basis are land-related, pointing out very clearly that particularly in my constituency we have a very real land problem. Yesterday in debate I was talking about land and its

[ Page 6266 ]

fictitious shortage, and because of its fictitious shortage, its fictitiously high price. I want to continue on that subject this morning. Before I do, I want to respond to something the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi) said in response to what I had to say yesterday. I'm sorry that he's not in the House this morning because I'd like him to hear this. I've forgotten the exact words, but what that member said in effect was that by standing in this House and saying it the way it is and speaking on behalf of those who sent me here — and I recall his words now — "you destroy yourself." Well, Mr. Chairman, that is just the difference between the parties on the opposite sides of this House. I've seen the little arguments going on between members opposite wanting to drop this member's estimates, wanting to get them through even though they scream about the housing problem and housing shortage in this province. That's just the difference between the parties on the opposite sides of this floor. On this side we are able to get up and speak our minds. I don't speak for anyone but myself. That's what I was elected to do. I say the same things here as I would say to my constituents in the area I represent. I don't know what it is the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam is saying to his constituents, but if I were his constituents I would really want to find out what he says here in this House. Even if the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam is correct and I were to destroy myself by saying it the way it is in this House and not following party line, then destroy myself I will, Mr. Member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich). I strongly believe — as you should and as should everyone else in this chamber — that I was sent here for one reason and one reason only, and that's to talk for my constituents. Whether or not that destroys me, that's exactly what I shall do as long as they see fit to return me to this chamber.

Yesterday I spoke of the horrendously high price of land in this province. I pointed out some of the reasons I believe that to be so and some of the hardships that is causing the citizens in my area. Individuals are having to relinquish their recreational lakeshore lots because they can't afford the lease increases. These are horrendous increases on a small piece of lakeshore, which in many cases, as you know, Mr. Chairman, they can only use four or five months a year in the north.

Purchase prices for agricultural land are far beyond the ability of a present farmer to expand or a young couple to get on the land, and prices asked for small land holdings for the purpose of building a homesite are the same. I must cite the situation of the people of Germansen Landing. Germansen Landing is 135 miles north of Fort St. James — 135 miles from civilization, you could say. It is 135 miles over a dirt road which takes in excess of six hours to drive. You can just tell by that what kind of a road it is — when it's passable. Many of these files — I've just picked out a few, there are many more than this — are for those who live on a 12-mile stretch even further north, north of Germansen Landing. In the wintertime, from mid-November to the end of April, there is absolutely no road at all and absolutely no road maintenance; they're snowed in. We as a province are asking those citizens to pay $600 to $1,500 per acre for homesites — for raw land which is more than 135 miles north of any civilization, in the middle of nowhere. What am I told when I'm asked how these values are arrived at? Well, Mr. Chairman, I'll just read you what I'm told. I'm told that remote residential sales in the Smithers district were also supplied with the following examples — and this is what they base these $600- to $1,500-an-acre prices on in Germansen Landing: an unsurveyed 7.78 hectare piece of land near Iskut — and I'm sorry that the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell) is not here, because he knows where Iskut is — on Telegraph Creek road is selling for $2,500. I'm told that an unsurveyed 0.7 hectare lot west of Dease Lake — in the constituency of the member for Atlin — was sold for $2,435. This is what the price of land in Germansen Landing is based on Germansen Landing, Dease Lake, Iskut. The people in that ministry don't even know the geography of this province. These two pieces of land are 200 miles, as the crow flies, from Germansen Landing. You really wonder about the price of land in this province.

That's one of the questions I want the minister to answer for me this morning: what is he going to do about the prices being asked for land in Germansen Landing?

I talked earlier....

Interjections.

MR. KEMPF: I wish the members opposite wouldn't interrupt this very valuable debate. They didn't want to talk any more about housing and land. They wanted to pass this minister's estimate early in the second day of debate — shocking opposition. Where are you in voicing your concerns for your constituents?

I talked earlier about the purchase prices being asked for agricultural land. I want to talk for a moment about lease rates on agricultural land. I have dozens of examples, but the one I find most distasteful is the one I have here this morning. It's a prime example of the way the people of this province are treated by the bureaucrats — the very people they are supposed to be serving. This is one of the older leases. I still have many people in my constituency on the old 5-, 10- or 15-year lease system. A lady, who incidentally is an old-age pensioner, is on one of the leases. I want to read from a couple of letters — one from that constituent of mine and the other from a bureaucrat in the Ministry of Lands.

Mr. Chairman, I'll read first from my constituent's letter. It says:

"Thank you for phoning. I was not aware of the clause in the lease that it could be reassessed after ten years. The letter I received on November 18, 1980, gave me to understand that I was allowed to pay $22 for this year, and that starting from June 10 to the following year, the rent would be $580. To be sure of that, I phoned the land inspector, Rick Stuckenberg, at Burns Lake in March of 1981. He told me that that was the meaning of the letter. So how does the government expect that a pensioner can pay an unexpected $580, plus $430 purchase price, plus hire a man to move a Cat on a lowbed for $150 each way, plus root-picking and cultivation for six or more acres to satisfy the land office?

"The threats in this letter make me think I'm dealing with the Gestapo. One month prior to notice, one month date of lease, and one month later I am foreclosed. I worked hard, with all the money I could muster, to clear and seed 16 acres, which they say I have done. I sincerely hope you or someone can help me. I have a few logs left that I can take out, but I'll be lucky if I can realize $500 from them. Thank you once again."

Now I'd like to read the letter she received from the ministry that she spoke of. It reads as follows:

[ Page 6267 ]

"Effective November 1, 1980, interest will be payable on all accounts, including royalties not paid by the anniversary date of the disposition. The interest will be calculated at a current Bank of Canada rate of one-half of 1 percent for the period from the anniversary date to the date the payment is received by the ministry, or any government agency of the province of British Columbia.

"Rental payments for lease, licences and easements are payable in advance, whether demanded or not. Lease-account notices are sent only as a reminder of amounts due. Please be advised of the changes in mailing lease-account reminders: first notice, one month from the anniversary date; second notice, end of the month following the anniversary date; notice of cancellation, end of the following month, if payment is not received."

This next paragraph is the most important one, in my mind:

"If the lease is cancelled, it will not be reinstated until all rental, accumulated interest and reinstatement fees are paid. The ministry reserves the right not to reinstate the lease."

Mr. Chairman, there is no wonder that this constituent of mine is upset. As I said, this is just one; there are many. We have a horrendous land problem in this province. I don't think it just exists in my constituency, as I've heard other of my colleagues speak of this.

I say again that we have created a fictitious shortage of land in this province. And with the advent of including land in the ALR.... I listened to the member for New Westminster, and he didn't even understand what the member for Dewdney was saying. The member for New Westminster said that he's in favour of keeping frozen in the agricultural land reserve land which is not agricultural land. He said this morning that he's in favour of that. That's what I heard him say in response to the member for Dewdney. He's in favour of leaving that which is not farmland locked in the ALR. It's shocking! It's disgraceful when we have a land problem in the province of British Columbia, in a province where there is nothing but land — 365,000 square miles of it. Mr. Chairman, we have a fictitious shortage of land in this province and because of it a fictitiously high value placed on both private and Crown land in this province.

I say again that that coupled with bureaucratic regulation and red tape is the root of the real problem; it's the real problem behind the housing shortage if, in fact, there is such a shortage in the province of British Columbia. We as legislators — all of us on both sides of this floor — had better grab a handful of courage, accept the real problem and get on with the job of doing something about it.

I need not tell the minister — or for that matter any one in government — again about the measures that I feel must be taken. I've done that many times in the last five and a half years. It's not my feeling that we should create more band-aid programs, as the NDP would have us do. In what little debate we've had in this minister's estimates from those on the other side of the floor, we heard them say just that. They said what they would do should, God forbid, they ever be government again. Yesterday we heard what they would do, as philosophied by the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly), who wants to see a return of that boondoggle, the B.C. Housing Corporation. He wants more taxpayers' dollars spent on rundown, derelict housing accommodation. That's what he said, and that's what they want over there. He thinks that the spending of taxpayers' money — as they did when they were government — on those kinds of disasters is quite all right. I don't think they are. As he put it, the money for such things comes from industry anyway, not directly from the workers' pockets. He cited the forest industry. I would ask that member if he has checked lately to see just where most of the tax money comes from in this province. Where do we get it? Has he checked the revenues versus expenditures, particularly in the forest industry, to find out exactly how much actual profit comes directly from that industry into provincial coffers? I would ask that member to do his homework as he knows not what he speaks.

I rest my case on land, and I would hope that other members in this assembly would not allow these estimates to go through at this point in time after only a little more than one day's debate on a very real problem faced by the people of this province — the land problem.

I wish to speak in this minister's estimates about parks, but I'll do that under the appropriate vote.

MR. HANSON: I would certainly defer to the minister. I think the member for Omineca made some excellent points and raised a number of questions that really deserve some response at this time. I would defer to the minister to respond to the member for Omineca.

Well, clearly the member for Omineca has the minister on the ropes at the moment. You know, Mr. Chairman, it's not too often that I can find anything to agree with in the comments from the member for Omineca. But he did say a few things about the rates for Crown land which I think we probably share in acknowledging.

I would like the member for Omineca to listen carefully to a story that I would like to tell the House today. It's about a particular piece of property — Crown land — and I think that the member for Omineca will find the arrangement made for these people particularly interesting. With all due respect, I'd ask him to pay attention to this. I want to turn the House's attention to a piece of land in the minister's own riding. That's always where things are particularly interesting with the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Here it comes.

MR. HANSON: "Here it comes," the Minister of Agriculture said. He knows that we on this side of the House research things very carefully. He knows that we try to pay attention to the subtle nuances of the behaviour of the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing.

The member for Omineca outlined the various high rental increases for Crown land for recreational leases. He pointed out the hardships to retired people and to people who are a long way from any trunk highway, when they have to face annual rental payments of $600 or $700 that have leaped up high over previous annual payments. I share with him that feeling for the hardship experienced by those people, because it's not applied equitably. That is my point. This is what I'd like to enunciate to the member for Omineca; would he please listen to this story I'd like to unfold for the House's attention.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Under the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing, the minister is responsible for the disposal of Crown land for all

[ Page 6268 ]

purposes. It's a very powerful portfolio. The minister, in conjunction with the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland), virtually has responsibility for all the land of British Columbia.

Back to the minister's own riding, Columbia River. In his riding up near Golden, in the reservoir of the Mica Dam — which is called the McNaughton Reservoir — is an interesting and a very beautiful little....

HON. MR. CHABOT: McNaughton's name has been taken off there. It's Kinbasket.

MR. HANSON: Okay, thank you. It's now being called Kinbasket Reservoir. In that reservoir there is a particular bay. It's a very beautiful bay. It's called Esplanade Bay.

The Ministry of Forests had what they call an engineering reserve on a particular piece of beautiful land very close to the Trans-Canada Highway and the town of Golden. The forestry people thought this would be a very beautiful public — underline public — recreational area. The parks branch, the minister's own ministry — Lands, Parks and Housing — hired a consultant to do a recreational assessment of this Kinbasket Reservoir behind the Mica Dam. The consultant identified certain prime recreational areas for "public" purposes. The parks branch made a proposal that that be a park reserve and be out of the provincial forest. The Ministry of Forests said: "Let's make sure it doesn't go in the provincial forest; this is a recreational place for the public." How big? Eighty acres of beautiful bay. That's the general background. In comes an application for a recreational lease of four acres of prime lakefront. Where? In the middle of this proposed park. In other words, the people in the region want it as a park. It is prime recreational area. It is one of the key areas of the entire reservoir.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Ha!

MR. HANSON: You don't even know what the people in your own ministry think.

We have an application. Who is it from? It is from a little group called the Cot and Gen Camp Society: twenty people. Who are they? There are a number of interesting folk there who I gather are quite interested in this particular government — very supportive in fact. Let me just read into the record who we have in this exclusive society: Ron Genier, Ed Cotton, Les Ball, Bill Lancaster, Leo Hancock, Paul Fuez Jr...

HON. MR. CHABOT: Feuz.

MR. HANSON: Oh, do you know Mr. Feuz?

HON. MR. CHABOT: I've known Feuzes for years.

MR. HANSON: Very good.

...Art Widmer, Glen Birnie, Pete Elkington, Cal Desrosiers, Fred Demmon, Bob Barr, Gordon Barr, Lew Bergenharn, Ralph Kostiuk, Leo Weatherall, Julius Klein, Virg Reed, Chas. Collins and Rick England.

Are these folks proposing that there be a public park? No. They are proposing a private, exclusive little recreational place for themselves in the middle of the park. What are they going to have there? It's going to be very nice. They're going to have 20 campsites, a boat trailer park, toilet facilities, a playground, a community kitchen and a community picnic and barbecue area. Very nice, eh? I think most people in B.C. would like that very much.

So there we have the regional forestry people, the regional parks people, the public advisory board, the Big Bend recreational council and everybody else who thinks that there is an ideal, beautiful park for the people of British Columbia and for the people of Columbia River. Guess what happens? The minister's office intervenes and directly allocates the lease. Instructions go through to issue a lease.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Shocking!

MR. HANSON: Shocking, he says. Right in the middle of a public park proposal.

MR. RITCHIE: What's wrong with free enterprise?

MR. HANSON: What's wrong with free enterprise, Ritchie says. Here we have an 80-acre park for public purposes, and in the middle of it a group of friends get four acres of prime lakefront in the middle for their own little spot. The regional parks people and the regional forestry people advised the head office: "We don't mind these people getting a Crown lease, but put it on the outside boundary of the park proposal. Put it on the south end, the north end or somewhere else. We don't mind their getting the land, but why do they have to get it right in the middle?" Why? Because they're friends of the Socreds, that's why. It's a special sweetheart deal.

There's more too it, you know. The member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) was complaining to the minister about the high cost of rental fees for elderly people and people way off the beaten track who want a nice place to live and retire and pay a reasonable Crown rental fee. That's what they want. So what sort of special arrangement do these 20 people get because they're close to the Socreds? How much for ten years for four acres of lakefront? Any ideas? How much would it cost to go out and get four acres of prime lakefront land? It would cost $1,898 for ten years. What do you think of that? How many people in the gallery have that kind of deal from this government? Put up your hands. How many know the minister? How many live in Columbia River and support the minister's policies? It's absolutely incredible. It's a scandal.

There's a small editorial in the Golden paper. Editorials are generally written in a very neutral way, but when you read between the lines you know roughly what they're suggesting. Let me just read it to you. I think the headline is very good: "Exclusive Rights on Public Land." Maybe I failed to point out that no one else can go on this piece of land; it is for the exclusive use of these 20 people — right in the middle of a park. Pretty nice, eh.

AN HON. MEMBER: We give it to individuals, never mind a group of 20.

MR. HANSON: You give it to individuals, do you exclusive rights on public land?

Interjections.

MR. HANSON: You'll have to rein in the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt), Mr. Chairman.

[ Page 6269 ]

"With all due respect to the Cot and Gen Society members" — kind of a cute name isn't it — "the land lease they swung" — pretty interesting language for an editorial — "with the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing seems at the least extraordinary." That's what the local newspaper thinks. "No matter how dedicated their efforts had been" — they did some cleanup work and some work in building their own boat ramp into Kinbasket Lake, but they were not awarded that particular piece of property across the road.

"No matter how dedicated the efforts of the Cot and Gen members in developing the area" — and it should be pointed out they are not even being given the site they originally developed — "nevertheless they are being given public land for their own exclusive use." That is really a new wrinkle in public Crown land disposal. The next line of the editorial is: "How does the government justify its stand?" This is a key newspaper in your own riding — interesting. "It should pay attention to the old saw: it should not only be just but appear to be just."

They have what they call a public advisory committee in the area that looks at the actions of the various ministries to try to advise the public on what's going on in government. I'd just like to read you a couple of lines from the minutes of the Golden Public Advisory Committee meeting of May 20, 1980. "Development at Esplanade Bay. In answer to a question about this private development the local forester explained that the lease application had been received after the April meeting of the public advisory committee." An immediate response was requested, presumably from the minister's own ministry, and the Forest Service registered their strong objection to the granting of a lease as plans were under consideration for an 80-acre public park in this area. However, the lease of the four acres was subsequently granted to the Cot and Gen camp, allowing for 20 private lots within the park. They are within the proposed park boundary. Isn't that dandy.

I know the member for Omineca is not in the House, but I hope he goes through the Blues carefully, and compares a special sweetheart arrangement that was made for a small group of privileged constituents within the minister's own riding with the kind of situation that was outlined by the member for Omineca about people who are being squeezed by the rental fees all over this province, including Shuswap Lake.

We get letters too from people who are complaining about the increases in rentals. When the minister argues that there is a formula of 4 percent of 40 percent of the market value and this kind of good stuff — to make sure it's an equitable, fair lease rental — that ain't so. If you know a Socred minister, you're halfway there.

I just want to read you a letter from some old folks who live in the Shuswap Lake area — Canoe Point Road, Tappin, British Columbia. This letter came through to the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King). It says:

"This letter is in regard to the amount of money we are being assessed on a leased lot we have. It is next to a deeded lot, where our home is. Enclosed are two notices we have received not far apart. Both are for the same time period. Would you be kind enough to look into this for us.

"We are both old-age pensioners, and this hits us pretty hard. When we bought this place in 1970, the annual rate was $170. It went to $300, then to $600 and now there are the last two increases, also on top of the last tax payment to Salmon Arm district of $412.

"We have a cabin on our lease. It's strictly for our own family to come for their holidays in the summer. The cabin is not winterized. There is no water. They have to pack it in. Plus, there is an outside toilet. The access road to the leased lot is partly on the deeded lot.

"Hoping you can find time to look into this problem for us...."

The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke took it up to the minister. I'd just like to read you his response. It's quite interesting. It's a typical kind of bureaucratic response. He says:

"In reference to your letter dated February 4, I would like to offer you the following explanation. Because of a lack of coordinated policy and because of adjoining areas of administrative responsibility" — sounds pretty bureaucratic — "it was not uncommon to find three forms of tenure on one single-acre water body. For instance, there might be a recreational site covered by a park-use permit at an annual rate of $100, another one for $200, another one for $300 on a different land-use permit, etc.

"Such an inequitable situation was completely indefensible and could not be allowed to persist. Recognizing these facts, I instructed the executive of my ministry to develop a new policy designed to eliminate the anomalies. I illustrate the foregoing, etc."

He provides a copy of the computer printout which says that the land is valued at a market value of $35,000; 4 percent of 40 percent of the market value equals an annual rent of X amount of bucks. Sounds great, except for the sweetheart deals. That Cot and Gen camp thing is a sweetheart arrangement that you made for your own friends and supporters in the Golden area.

HON. MR. CHABOT: You're a liar.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. I must ask the minister to withdraw the last remark.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I'll withdraw the comment that he's a liar. I'll have an opportunity to respond a little later.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to read you another one from the member for Mackenzie's (Mr. Lockstead's) area. These are people who are on the computer printout. These are the people who don't get phone calls from ministers offices saying: "Issue the lease." The MLA for Mackenzie writes to these people. These people write to the member for Mackenzie:

"Enclosed is a copy of a letter sent to Mr. Chabot protesting the increase in our lease rental fee. Since 1972 we have been struggling to establish our place as a peaceful refuge and an attractive resort without help from a government which professes to rate the tourist industry as important. Our location cannot be lumped in with Vancouver Island and the Okanagan."

They go on to point out what the increases are.

"We have just received our amendment to the lease rental notice regarding the above lease, stating that the annual rental has been increased from $494 a year to $1,000 a year.

"We wish to protest this increase. In 1976 the rental was doubled, and now doubled again. I feel this

[ Page 6270 ]

increase is most unfair for the following reasons. A great deal of the lot is ravine, swamp or subject to flooding. It comprises part of our resort, which continues to operate at a loss. With the leases and taxes rising as well as other costs, it is a losing battle.

"Neighbouring lots were recently sold by the government" — for how much do you think? — "for $1, and buildings have been erected on these narrow lots, spoiling the seclusion of the resort."

Our point is, Mr. Chairman — in support of the member for Omineca's objections — that there seem to be two sets of rates that are going on here. That's a privileged arrangement for the Cot and Gen Camp Society. It's a privileged arrangement in your own riding. I'd like the minister to tell me what was behind that particular arrangement.

MR. MUSSALLEM: I move that 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.

Hon. Mr. Hewitt moved adjournment of the House,

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:58 a.m.