1974 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, APRIL 9, 1974

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

2349 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Sewerage Facilities Assistance Act (Bill 88). Hon. Mr. Lorimer. Introduction and first reading — 2349

Oral questions

Complexity of ICBC rebate forms. Mr. Bennett — 2349

Opinion survey of ferry passengers. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2350

Request by northern B.C. egg producers. Mr. Wallace — 2350

Additional funds for UBC Faculty of Forestry. Mr. Smith — 2350

Investigation into occurrence at Crease Clinic. Mr. Gardom — 2350

Further projects in Victoria's Inner Harbour.

Mr. Morrison — 2351

Repayment of $25 by Fruit Growers Mutual Insurance.

Mrs. Jordan — 2351

New ferry routes and Horseshoe Bay. Mr. L.A. Williams — 2351

Discussions with Federation of Peace Officers. Mr. Curtis — 2352

Secrecy in deliberations of Labour Relations Board.

Mr. McClelland — 2352

Relief of Bralorne from Mineral Royalties Act.

Mr. Gibson — 2352

Priority for allotment of garden plots. Mr. Phillips — 2352

Committee of Supply: Supply Act, No. 1, 1974

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2352

Committee of Ways and Means

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2353

Supply Act, No. l, 1974 (Bill 108). Second reading.

Mr. Bennett — 2353

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2356

Mr. Wallace — 2358

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2359

Committee, report and third reading — 2359

Residential Premises Interim Rent Stabilization Act (Bill 75).

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2360

Mr. Phillips — 2361

Mr. Gabelmann — 2366

Mr. Gardom — 2367

Mr. Wallace — 2368

Royal assent to Supply Act, No. l, 1974 — 2369

Reports

Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills. 2nd and 3rd reports — 2369

TUESDAY, APRIL 9, 1974

The House met at 3:20 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. P.F. YOUNG (Minister of Consumer Services): Mr. Speaker,

I have just finished being interviewed for television by a very dynamic

group of students who represent a class that is here today. I'd like

the assembly to welcome the general business class of Sir Charles

Tupper School and Ms. Hiebey, their teacher.

MR. R. T. CUMMINGS (Vancouver–Little Mountain): Mr. Speaker,

I hope you have good control of this House today, because we have more

students from the constituency of Vancouver–Little Mountain. They're

from Eric Hamber Secondary School and are under the guidance of their

teacher, Mr. Klassen. It's very important that they get a good opinion

of this House.

MS. K. SANFORD (Comox): I would like to introduce a group of

students who are here today from Port Hardy. These are junior secondary

students who are here to participate in the music festival in Victoria.

I wish the House would join me in welcoming them.

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources):

I would like to introduce to the House today a group of people from

that great City of Kimberley in the east Kootenays, that area close to

Alberta. They are Mayor Ogilvie, Alderman Deagle, Alderman Banks and

Alderman Reid.

In addition I would like you to welcome a very good friend of mine

from Vancouver, Mrs. Nina Freeman, who assisted me in organizing the

first CCF club in Canada in the City of Rossland.

Introduction of bills.

SEWERAGE FACILITIES ASSISTANCE ACT

Hon. Mr. Lorimer presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Sewerage Facilities Assistance Act .

Bill 88 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House

after today.

Oral questions.

COMPLEXITY OF ICBC REBATE FORMS

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I have a question

to the Minister of Transport and Communications. Last February 10 the Minister,

as recorded in Hansard , spoke in detail against bureaucracy and red tape in

dealing with Human Resources and Mincome. I wonder if he personally endorsed

the ICBC rebate forms that I have here in my hand.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): Yes, I did.

MR. BENNETT: Supplemental: will the Minister tell me whether

ICBC will refund any surcharge paid by a motorist to an agent if he

seeks help in filling out these forms, and whether the agent charges

for his services?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: There's no need to go to an agent to have the form made out. It's a fairly simple form.

MR. BENNETT: Further supplemental. It may be simple to the

Minister, but we're receiving all sorts of complaints from people

having difficulty in filling out these forms. If they're not going to

pay the agents for their time in helping them, has the Minister any

contingency plans to help motorists fill out these forms? There seems

to be a lot of difficulty with them.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I have a copy of the form here, my friend…

MR. BENNETT: "My friend"? (Laughter.)

HON. MR. STRACHAN: …with an explanation and directions. It's all explained in there and I'm quite sure you can understand it.

MR. BENNETT: Supplemental, Mr. Speaker. I'm not saying what I

understand; I'm saying we're getting a lot of complaints from the

citizens of the province, and I'm only asking to help them. They are

writing in and also phoning in to a lot of radio shows with their

complaints. I'm not asking for myself; I'm asking if the government is

going to respond to a large group of citizens in this province who say

they're having difficulty with the form.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: In the past, as an MLA, I have helped my

constituents fill out hundreds and hundreds of forms where help was

required. As I say, this is a fairly simple form. If there are some

people in your constituency who have problems with it, I suggest that

you, as the MLA, help them fill out their forms. Be a good, friendly

MLA.

MR. BENNETT: We don't live that near….

[ Page 2350 ]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Your question was: are we going to pay the

agents if they help? I think that any good insurance agent would be

quite willing to help the customers who provided him with a substantial

commission for the work done in filling out the very simple insurance

application form. Insurance agents do that all the time.

MR. BENNETT: Supplemental. I only say it because the

predication for the original fee for agents was that it was directly

related to the service they did there. Now that fee was related to that

service; this is an additional service on which that fee wasn't

predicated. That's why I asked.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! It's becoming argumentative rather than

being a question.

OPINION SURVEY OF FERRY PASSENGERS

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): May I ask the same Minister if the ferry

authority planned a public opinion survey of B.C. Ferries passengers in April

or May? I'm not sure of the date.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I don't know how you get that information.

I haven't actually made up my mind yet as to exactly when it's going to

take place. There is going to be a public opinion survey, yes.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Have any people been hired by the ferry authority to carry out such a survey?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Not to my knowledge, no.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: May I ask the Minister whether an

investigation is underway at the present time to determine how

information regarding this survey was leaked to radio station CHUB in

Nanaimo?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, I'm not particularly interested in

finding out where a leak came from. There are a thousand rumours spread

all the time. If you check every rumour, you'd do nothing else.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not unless there's a leak in the ferry.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: As your friend says, as long as there are no leaks in the ferry.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I thank the Minister for his reply that

there is no investigation underway. May I ask whether instructions were

issued by the B.C. Ferries' management or the Minister through the B.C.

Ferries' captains forbidding the distribution of questionnaires

about the future of dining room facilities on board B.C. ferries by

B.C. Ferries' employees themselves?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes.

REQUEST BY NORTHERN B.C. EGG PRODUCERS

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, could I ask the Minister of

Agriculture if in the last 24 hours he has received a written request from the

Northern B.C. Egg Producers Association asking him to prohibit the marketing

board from taking action against producers who are faced with back levies or

court action?

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, I

have received a letter from someone who purports to be the solicitor

for egg producers who have received such a demand from the board.

MR. WALLACE: In view of the continuing dispute and the long

debates we've had in the House, have any decisions been made to have a

test case in court on this whole issue as to whether or not the

marketing board can legally take producers to court?

HON. MR. STUPICH: If any such decision has been made, it has not been made by me or in consultation with me.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Is the Minister of Agriculture going to seek assistance from the Minister of Finance in settling this matter?

HON. MR. STUPICH: There are no plans for seeking such assistance at this point.

ADDITIONAL FUNDS

FOR UBC FACULTY OF FORESTRY

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): My question is to the

Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. In recent weeks

there have been a number of disturbing reports from the Faculty of

Forestry at UBC concerning the inadequacy of funds to provide the

programmes they must render today, particularly since they have

expanded their teaching into such courses as watershed management,

recreation management, wildlife management, forest ecology, computer

sciences and so on.

Is there any plan by the Minister to provide some sort of financial

relief for the Faculty of Forestry so they may continue to provide

these courses for an enrolment which I understand is double today what

it was a year ago?

[ Page 2351 ]

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources):

Mr. Speaker, I would point out that there was an additional grant of

$4.8 million which was noted in the newspapers. There will be

applications for supplementary grants.

I would say that in addition I've recommended to the Minister of

Finance that the taxes the former administration required the forestry

faculty to pay on their research forest in the Alouette area should be

ended so they would have those funds available for special research

projects. I'm pleased to say the Minister of Finance agreed and ended a

policy that lasted for 20 years.

MR. SMITH: A supplemental question. I think the Minister will

agree that the amount of taxes forgiven are insignificant in relation

to the problems that exist today. We're all concerned about the ecology

of the province….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would you state your supplemental?

MR. SMITH: Will the Minister provide specific funds from the

vote of Lands, Forests and Water Resources to help offset the deficit

that this faculty is incurring today?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I think the question was answered, Mr.

Speaker. What is normally collected in the form of royalties on

stumpage will in fact be used for educational and research purposes.

INVESTIGATION INTO

OCCURRENCE AT CREASE CLINIC

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): My question is to the

Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) on which I've given him notice, Mr.

Speaker. On February 25 of this year, a young patient in Crease Clinic

plunged through a window four floors to the ground and suffered very

seriously. Unfortunately, he perhaps has permanent disability. I'd ask

the Minister of Health if any investigation has been made into this

tragic occurrence and if he would furnish particulars if the

investigation has taken place.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Yes, I was informed of

the tragic occurrence a short while ago and we have asked for all of

the information that can be made available. It has not been made

available to this point. I presume the investigation is still going on.

When I have full information, I will be in touch with that Member, Mr.

Speaker.

FURTHER PROJECTS

IN VICTORIA'S INNER HARBOUR

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, today at the

opening of the lower promenade of the causeway, the Premier made

reference to additional projects forthcoming in the Inner Harbour.

Could he tell the House now what those projects are?

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Take it as notice, Mr. Speaker. (Laughter.)

REPAYMENT OF $25

BY FRUIT GROWERS MUTUAL INSURANCE

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): My question is to the Minister of

Transport and Communications and goes back to the takeover of Fruit Growers

Mutual Insurance Company by ICBC. At that time, anyone wishing to take out auto

insurance with Fruit Growers Mutual had to pay a $25 membership. Since its takeover

by ICBC, the people were advised that that $25 would be refunded. Today they

received a letter from ICBC stating that ICBC would not pay that $25 refund.

Is the Minister going to refund this money to those members?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: As I recollect my statement, I indicated that the

Fruit Growers were going to make a repayment to their shareholders; it's not

up to ICBC. But I'll take the question as notice.

NEW FERRY ROUTES

AND HORSESHOE BAY

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Speaker,

to the Minister of Transport and Communications: could he indicate

whether or not it is proposed that the new ferry vessels which will be

constructed over the next several months will be used on the Horseshoe

Bay–Departure Bay route?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The intention is to use them in the

northern route. I won't specifically say it would be Horseshoe

Bay–Departure Bay at this time.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Could the Minister indicate whether or not

plans are underway for the enlargement of the ferry slips at Horseshoe

Bay in order to accommodate these two ferries?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, the work being done at Horseshoe Bay

right now has nothing whatever to do with the new ferries. It is

related to the present requirements to meet the present ferries.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: If the new ferries are to use the

Horseshoe Bay route and Horseshoe Bay service terminals, will those

facilities have to be further altered?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: If it becomes necessary

[ Page 2352 ]

to use the Horseshoe Bay base, I would expect they would require some further

alterations.

DISCUSSIONS WITH

FEDERATION OF PEACE OFFICERS

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): To the

Attorney-General. I believe members of the British Columbia Federation

of Peace Officer's executive met with the Attorney-General last Friday

to discuss matters which are currently before the House. I wonder if

the Minister could indicate the degree to which the many questions

posed by the executive at that time were answered or clarified.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): To go into all of the

particulars would be difficult, but a number of points were made about

various sections of the proposed legislation. On about half of them we

came to an agreement there and then, and the other half we agreed to

consider further. I expect I'll probably have a chance to meet with

them again before the bill reaches second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. May I point out to the Hon.

Member a bill on the order paper is not really a subject of inquiry in

oral questions.

SECRECY IN DELIBERATIONS

OF LABOUR RELATIONS BOARD

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): A question to the Minister of

Labour (Hon. Mr. King). Could he tell us to what extent his department

goes to make sure deliberations and correspondence from the Labour

Relations Board are kept secret at all times?

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, the Labour

Relations Board is an independent, quasi judicial agency, and I have

legislative jurisdiction over that board. I would strongly suggest that

if any Member has any evidence of wrongdoing or questionable practices

by the Labour Relations Board, they should certainly bring it to my

attention.

RELIEF OF BRALORNE

FROM MINERAL ROYALTIES ACT

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Speaker, I

have a question for the Minister of Mines. Has the Minister received a

request from the principals of the Bralorne gold mine, asking for

relief from the provisions of the proposed Mineral Royalties Act in order that that mine might reopen and again provide employment in British Columbia?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: No, at the present time, but my mail is stacked up

pretty high. (Laughter.)

PRIORITY FOR ALLOTMENT OF GARDEN PLOTS

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the

Minister of Agriculture. Will families receiving welfare assistance be

given priority when it comes to renting garden plots in the

government's new rent-a-farm policy?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Applications for these plots were taken as

they were received and plots were allotted in the order the

applications were received.

MR. SPEAKER: We'll go deeper into the plot tomorrow.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Boo!

Orders of the day.

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

SUPPLY ACT, NO. 1, 1974

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Chairman, I move that from out

of the Consolidated Revenue Fund there be paid and applied a sum not

exceeding in the whole $1,875 million towards defraying the several

charges and expenses of the public service of the province, not

otherwise provided for, and being estimates for the fiscal year ending

March l, 1975, as laid before the Legislative Assembly of the Province

of British Columbia at the present session.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Leave granted.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the resolution as reported be considered?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Now, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves that the report of the resolution from the

Committee of Supply on April 9, 1974, be now taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves the resolution be now read

[ Page 2353 ]

a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: The resolution is that from and out of the

Consolidated Revenue Fund there may be paid and applied a sum not

exceeding in the whole $1,875 million towards defraying the several

charges and expenses of the public service of the province, not

otherwise provided for, and being estimates for the fiscal year ending

March 31, 1975, passed by the Legislative Assembly at this session up

to and including the Department of Human Resources and one-quarter of

the estimates for the balance of the departments for the fiscal year

ending March 31, 1975, as laid before the Legislative Assembly of the

Province of British Columbia at the present session.

Motion approved.

House in Committee of Ways and Means; Mr. Dent in the chair.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I move that from and out of

the Consolidated Revenue Fund there be paid and applied a sum not

exceeding in the whole $1,875 million towards defraying the several

charges and expenses of the public service of the province, not

otherwise provided for, and being estimates for the fiscal year ending

March 31, 1975, passed by the Legislative Assembly at this session up

to and including the Department of Human Resources and one-quarter of

the estimates for the balance of the departments for the fiscal year

ending March 31, 1975, as laid before the Legislative Assembly of the

Province of British Columbia at the present session.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Leave granted.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the resolution as reported be considered?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Now, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the report of the resolution from the

Committee of Ways and Means on April 9, 1974 be now taken as read and

received.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I move the resolution be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: The resolution is that from and out of the

Consolidated Revenue Fund there may be paid and applied a sum not

exceeding in the whole $1,875 million towards defraying the several

charges and expenses of the public service of the province, not

otherwise provided for, and being estimates for the fiscal year ending

March 31, 1975, as laid before the Legislative Assembly of the Province

of British Columbia at the present session.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker I present Bill 108 intituled Supply Act, No. 1, 1974 and move the said bill be referred to the Committee of the Whole House forthwith.

Motion approved.

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

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman I move the committee rise and report recommending the introduction of the bill.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports recommending the introduction of the bill.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I move that the report be adopted.

Motion approved.

SUPPLY ACT, NO. 1, 1974

On a motion by Hon. Mr. Barrett, Bill 108, Supply Act, No. l, 1974 read a second time and considered forthwith.

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, we

must clearly draw the distinction between the budget estimates and the

interim supply bill that we are faced with today….

MR. SPEAKER: Excuse me, you are rising on what point?

MR. BENNETT: I just wish to speak on second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: I see, thank you. I started to put the vote without realizing….

[ Page 2354 ]

MR. BENNETT: Right, I'm awfully slow today.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member on a point of order.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Do we go through a bill in two stages in one day?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, under standing order 81.

AN HON. MEMBER: We don't have copies.

MR. SPEAKER: They are being distributed…. Well, I will recess

the House for a minute if you want. We have a Member addressing the

House at the present time. I point out that they cannot be distributed

until the motion is put. I should have actually waited, and I apologize

to the House for not waiting, until they were all distributed.

MR. BENNETT: As I said, we've got to draw this distinction

between budget and estimates and the interim supply bill that has been

introduced to us today.

The budget as presented to this Legislature should always be an

accurate document both in the government's income plans and in its

spending plans. Now, the budget that was presented in this Legislature

last February 11 was clearly not accurate in either the collection or

the spending estimates that were put before this House.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): On a point of order. Has consent been given for second reading, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Could I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to rule 81 which reads:

"Every bill should receive their several readings on

different days, previous to being passed. After the second reading it

shall be ordered for committal on a subsequent day. On urgent or

extraordinary occasion, a bill may be read twice or thrice or advanced

two or more stages in one day."

No explanation has been given for this being an urgent or

extraordinary occasion, Mr. Speaker. No argument has been given to you

by the leader of the government, the House Leader. Without it, I fail

to see how you in your position as Speaker can call more readings than

are permitted under rule 81 unless we do, indeed, have some explanation

of the extraordinary or urgent circumstances surrounding this

particular bill.

MR. SPEAKER: I think it is self-evident that the matter of

interim supply after April 1 should be, without argument, accepted by

everyone. Certainly it is the duty of the Speaker to consider the

urgency of any matter of supply in itself, but primarily in interim

supply after April l. The question is certainly clear to anyone who

examines it: there must be supply for the public service of British

Columbia, whether you're talking about the employees of the government

or whether you are talking about those who are in receipt of fixed

pensions and other amounts after April 1.

Consequently, there is the discretion in the Chair under standing

order 81 to determine whether a matter requires such urgency as it must

be advanced more than once on the same day. There are occasions when

the Chair has ruled it out. I have citations here I could draw to your

attention.

HON. MR. BARRETT: On a point of order.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Maybe the Hon. Minister of Finance could answer your point.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, there is no point of order

since we have already passed that point of the business and the Hon.

Leader of the Opposition has the floor on second reading. We're past

the motion the Member is questioning.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, to distinguish the remarks of

the leader of the government, the fact is the point was raised prior to

this vote and we're in the situation now where you have stated, Mr.

Speaker, there is a need for interim supply. But you've given us no

indication as to when the government revenues run out, when interim

supply would be necessary, whether it be today, tomorrow, a subsequent

day or any other time.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Order!

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: You've given no indication to the House

why it was necessary to bring in such a bill at this stage as opposed

to yesterday, last Friday, last Thursday. We simply have not had the

explanation of urgent or extraordinary occasion….

MR. SPEAKER: I heard your point of order, Hon. Member. I

point out to you that we have had a budget speech presented and we have

had estimates presented, all of which told you and told me when the

fiscal year ran out and when money would be needed for the public

service. In addition, the matter

[ Page 2355 ]

was not raised at the proper time on a point of

order. The Hon. Leader of the Opposition has been recognized to debate

second reading in which we are now engaged.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, there has been no explanation

of the urgent or extraordinary occasion. There has been no explanation

for this most irregular procedure we are adopting today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order. The

Hon. Leader of the Opposition rose to inquire as to when he could speak

on second reading. The motion to go to second reading passed

unanimously.

AN HON. MEMBER: No!

HON. MR. BARRETT: I think there was a mild voice vote against

it. We are already past that point of proceeding. If the Hon. Member

can't follow the proceedings, the House cannot be delayed because of

his inadequacies.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, the point the Hon. Premier

raises is a very good one. The fact of the matter was there was no

unanimous consent given for this procedure.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Except for some verbal noises.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Oh, verbal noises….

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out to the Hon. Member it does not

require unanimous consent by this method under standing order 81. It

has been used on many occasions in this House. I know of several myself

and I cite for example March 26, 1953, when the same procedure was

followed. You'll see in our Journals

of the House that it was done in precisely the same fashion. It's very

unusual, I might say, for there to be any debate on an interim supply

bill at any time, as you will see in consulting Bourinot . Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out to the Hon. Member that we in

this House follow a slightly different procedure than they do under the

British standing orders. We have our standing order 81 which is quite

different from the British standing orders. In that particular we

depart from May , unless you want to go back to the 10th edition of May where our practices were similar. I can quote you from those pages of May if you want.

The Hon. Leader of the Opposition has the floor.

MR. BENNETT: You won't clap when I finish.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! Order! You can hardly call it closure when the Hon. Member is trying to make his speech despite your interruptions.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: We've had no unanimous consent to this procedure.

MR. SPEAKER: You don't need it in this House.

Interjections.

MR. BENNETT: I would say just before my remarks that we

recognize the urgency of the supply bill. We recognize that the

commitment isn't debatable as is the budget and the estimates which are

controversial and which I will cover in my remarks. We have no

intention of holding up the day-to-day business of this province, the

payment of the civil servants or the payment of essential programmes.

Mr. Speaker, I want to preface a short statement here with some

remarks to do with the budget and why we are supporting this interim

supply bill. I also want to voice again our objection to parts of the

budget. We feel the budget as it was presented was not an accurate

budget either in the money collected or the money spent.

We refer again to the Education estimates as just an example, where

the Minister, after the estimates were passed, announced a grant of an

additional $4.8 million for the universities. We further point out that

the questions we had as to the accuracy of this budget and the fact

that it wasn't a true picture of B.C.'s finances in either collection

or spending of moneys is proven by the way this department

characterizes this total budget. The school districts were invited to

come back to the Department of Education because they admit the moneys

allotted to them in this budget were inaccurate, were not enough and

were inadequate to meet their needs.

We opposed this budget. As the official opposition we played our

historical role in the discussion of the budget by questioning the

government's competency in finance. We have raised specific questions.

We have said there should have been specific initiatives for housing

and we asked for immediate tax reductions by removing the 5 per cent

tax from energy fuels, hydro, natural gas bills and oil bills. We

called for the 5 per cent tax removal from building supplies also, Mr.

Speaker. We proposed a new form of revenue sharing for our

municipalities.

We voted against the budget and the total mismanagement and inaccuracies we felt required

[ Page 2356 ]

very specific discussion and debate during

estimates. We will be debating the larger amounts of money and the

inaccuracies and inadequacy of the budget in estimates when the

Minister of Finance returns from his trip to Japan. We feel it is

because of the failure of the Premier as Minister of Finance and as

House Leader to present an accurate document and to direct it through

this House that we are now in the position of passing this interim

supply bill.

However, it is not the intention of the official opposition to play

political games with the question of interim supply. While we recognize

that this situation is brought up by the government's management both

of the budget and of this House and has made it necessary that this

bill be brought in, we recognize that it is our responsibility to see

that the normal, everyday operations of government be allowed to

continue and that the salaries and vital programmes are continued in an

orderly manner in this province. We have no desire to be political

obstructionists, Mr. Speaker.

We've already told the people of British Columbia where we think

this budget is a failure and we've already told the people of British

Columbia how we think it should have been designed. We've backed up our

position with a standing vote. We know the basic and essential services

of government must be permitted to continue while the Premier takes his

trip to Japan. But we would not be meeting our obligation to the people

of British Columbia if we did not support this bill for interim supply

and continuity of services within this province. We will support speedy

passage of this bill.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, this bill comes to us, having

been presented to us in our seats some 5 to 10 minutes ago by the

government. It comes to us as a document which reveals pretty clearly

the incompetence of the present government and, in particular, the

present House Leader in running the affairs of this Legislature.

We have had a budget debate. We have had an adjourned throne debate.

Day after day we've had time for discussion of estimates in the regular

way. We've had days when this bill could have been presented in the

regular and normal manner to the Legislature: put forward one day, then

the next day for second reading, third day for committee stage. The

bill and the method in which it has been brought in is a clear

indication of the incompetence and inability to handle the Legislature

of the present House Leader and Premier.

Why do we have delay in estimates? Why do we have the situation which has led us at this stage to consider Supply Act No. 1, 1974 ?

It's pretty clear why we've had that. We've had that because long days

were taken while the opposition requested in a very reasoned way the

establishment of some sort of public inquiry to look into allegations

of improper behaviour by Ministers of the Crown. Day after day these

requests were put forward. Day after day they were rejected. Day after

day the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) and the Minister of….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! May I point out to the Hon.

Member that debate is severely restricted in this stage of a supply

bill. In fact, may I point out to the Hon. Member that it is now,

according to Bourinot , page

442, unusual in the Commons to raise a debate at different stages of a

supply bill, although it is perfectly regular to take that course. The

debate is restricted to really the question of the advisability of

proceeding on the bill at this time, because if you look at the subject

matter you are really debating what you've been debating in committee

for many days in this House.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, you know nothing of what is

debated in committee, if I may remind you respectfully of a point which

you should bear in mind.

The fact is, Mr. Speaker, I am in no way, I think, transgressing on

the rules of this House to discuss things which may well have been

debated in committee. I think I am in no way transgressing on the rules

of this House when I point out that the reason for such a bill being

presented to us is, indeed, what took place in committee of which you

know nothing, and therefore of which I must remind you at this time.

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out to the Hon. Member that I am not

totally unaware of the fact that the estimates go to committee and what

are in the estimates, and therefore the resolution is that this bill

deal with all the matters that have come down to the Department of

Human Resources. I am quite well aware that all these matters can be

thoroughly canvassed in committee and obviously have been canvassed in

committee, or should have been canvassed in committee, because we are

now at the stage of resolution.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, precisely. I'm amazed

that you would rule me out of order on discussing one set of estimates

when the previous speaker discussed Housing and discussed Education.

What is the distinction between that and two other estimates put

forward, namely Agriculture and Finance? I find your distinctions

difficult to follow.

Mr. Speaker, the bill is here because of a genuine breakdown in the

ability of the government to respond to a request, a legitimate request

from the opposition for a proper inquiry into improper actions

[ Page 2357 ]

by cabinet Ministers and requests made to the

Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich), the Minister of Finance,

the Premier, and to the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: Order!

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: In addition, it is the result of the

inability of the government, with respect to the Minister of

Education's (Hon. Mrs. Dailly'

s) estimates, to put in a document or

estimates which in any way reflect meaningfully the expenses of that

department.

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out again to the Hon. Member, on a

point of order, that the actions of a Minister, whether you may wish to

debate it or not, are not properly in the subject matter of debate in

second reading of a bill? They would be the matter of the Minister's

salary vote in estimates, and therefore to canvass them now would be

quite improper in view of the authorities.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, in addition we have

$1,875 million in this bill. I find it curious that such a sum of money

should come before the House — and before the House for the first time,

not before a committee of the House — and that you should adopt such a

restrictive

interpretation.

I find that this bill…. I have no wish to debate it at great length

— probably no more longer, had you not interrupted me, than the Member

who preceded me. But I find in this bill the obvious inability of the

government to handle the affairs of this House; thus, the bill itself,

I think, is a recognition of that fact.

We have had the statement made, Mr. Speaker, that this bill is

essential because unless it comes in immediately there will be no pay

for civil servants or pensions. Yet we checked the record and we find

it is not the case. This bill need not pass today, or even tomorrow,

and yet the cheques will be out. Indeed it could pass even later than

that and the cheques would be out at exactly the same time as they are

always out for the month, the cheques for both Mincome and the civil

service.

The Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) shakes his head, but I

suggest to him that he consult and check and find out whether it would

not be true, as I am sure it will be, that indeed this bill could pass

on Thursday. It could have been introduced in the regular fashion. We

could have had a normal examination of this piece of legislation in the

traditional and normal fashion in accordance with the usage of this

House, and at the same time all these cheques could have gone out

exactly on time.

The argument put forward is obviously wrong. The fact is that the

introduction of the bill and the most curious way the bill came before

us, despite lack of unanimous consent at every stage, is a clear

indication that the government itself wants no part of any discussion

on estimates and indeed the sum of $1,875 million. million.

[Hon. Mr. Lorimer in the chair.]

If indeed we had had accurate estimates put forward by the Minister

of Finance, and accurate estimates, in particular for the Minister of

Education's (Hon. Mrs. Dailly'

s) department, and accurate estimates

elsewhere where we queried and found it necessary to discuss why it was

taking so long — at great length — it would have been a great deal

easier to handle the estimates, the estimates undoubtedly would be

through at the present time and there would be no need for the House to

take its time on such a bill as Bill 108, the Supply Act No. 1, 1974 .

We're in the position, as indicated by the Leader of the Opposition

(Mr. Bennett), where obviously the funds must be made available for the

government despite its mismanagement so that the civil service can

continue, government departments can continue and programmes such as

the pension programmes can continue. It is obvious that moneys must be

granted for those purposes. But for us in the opposition to be willing

to discuss with the government introduction of a bill such as this in a

reasonable and intelligent way and find instead that we have bills such

as this forced upon us all in one sitting so that we have to discuss

them only 10 minutes or less after reading them for the first time is

even a further admission of the government that they cannot handle the

House in a regular manner.

We have had good reason for delay in estimates, reasons such as I

have indicated: inability to properly handle the problems of the

province in the areas of housing, education and other fields. In

addition we've had estimates which have been totally wrong in their

figures. Indeed, the government itself has admitted this by its request

that people stop criticizing and simply hold back and trust them

because at some future time changes will be made.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

The third reason for major delay is very simple. The third reason is

government refusal to look into improper conduct by Ministers and

charges of that improper conduct.

I think that this is the reason that there has been this most

regrettable delay in granting the estimates. We in the opposition

cannot sit back when Ministers carry out their duties improperly, use

undue influence and do nothing to have this matter properly cleared up.

The bill we have before us is one for interim

[ Page 2358 ]

supply. As I said, we will be quite willing to have

money granted to the government to continue programmes, cheques for

civil servants and other things, but we cannot accept a procedure

whereby the proper examination of estimates is not done by the

government, when the estimates are not brought on in adequate time and

where the government itself knocks off early, as it did all last week,

in terms of having these estimates considered, and then comes in with

an omnibus bill of this nature designed to get some very large sums of

money without the debate that we have been giving the estimates in

Committee of Supply.

This bill is a clear admission of failure of a government and

Minister of Finance, and Premier and House Leader in particular, in all

those particular jobs. We accept it as that and we vote on it for that

reason.

HON. MR. BARRETT: What an arrogant hypocrite!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Would the Hon. Premier withdraw that? Thank you.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I ask the Hon. Member to withdraw that as well.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you very much.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, in our little party

we have always thought that our function is to be constructive critics

in this House. I would like to echo the words of the official Leader of

the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) that our job here is to scrutinize content

and criticize mistakes, inadequacies and shortcomings. As I understand

it — and I'm no expert on procedure — we really are debating procedure

rather than content today.

I would also say that although we hope to be constructive critics,

there is perhaps no more important function for an opposition Member or

party than the function of scrutinizing the spending and the raising of

public moneys.

In supporting this bill on behalf of the Conservative Party, I would

say that in no way would this suggest or imply any diminution in the

amount of time or intensity of scrutiny which we should be permitted to

present on estimates.

It is my clear assumption — and I hope that the Minister of Finance

(Hon. Mr. Barrett) will just reassure the House that this is a matter

of procedure, for whatever reasons we are faced with it; I'd just like

to touch on these in a minute — we will certainly be returning to this

House at a later date and have the fullest opportunity to scrutinize

further expenditures which have not to date been brought before the

House.

At the same time I would have to agree with the leader of the

Liberal Party that the affairs of the House have not been well-managed.

I would have to agree with both speakers that it has been a very

frustrating experience to participate in debate in good faith based on

information brought by this government to this House when we have to

conclude one of two things: either the government is so incompetent

that it doesn't know what the accurate figures are itself; or it knows

very well that some of the figures were ill-prepared and inaccurate,

but they were prepared to bring them into the House, hoped they would

pass muster and the opposition would not realize what was being done. I

particularly refer to the Department of Education.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Well, that's unusual for me, but I take the compliment.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: I accept your ruling, Mr. Speaker, that we don't rehash the budget debate. I mean to be as brief as possible in my comments.

I think it would be only fair to mention that while we support this

bill, I do think all sides of the House collectively should take note

of the fact that we are living in a different era in the political

history of British Columbia. The amount and the intensity of business

with which this House has to deal continues to increase. It is the

stated policy of this government to have full-time MLAs. This being the

case, I would think all of us as MLAs must face the fact that more and

more time will be spent in this House.

There is not only the fact that more legislation generally is being

passed but there is the fact that already we have two new departments

of government — very important departments — of Consumer Services and

Housing which involve substantial sums of money and which will

increase, I expect, from year to year.

The individual citizen of society is very deeply influenced by the

actions of these Ministers of these departments. It is an inevitable

fact that we have to expect not only to spend more time as MLAs on our

business in our riding but more time scrutinizing the business of this

House with particular reference to financial expenditures.

With respect, we submit that the Premier made the mistake of

abolishing the all-night sitting without finding some alternative to

dealing with the problem of not having enough time for debate. I am

sure he

[ Page 2359 ]

made that mistake in good faith. If I could tread

warily, being out of order, I would suggest there is time for the House

fairly soon to take a whole new look at its functioning: its rules, the

hours it sits, the whole attitude to committee functions and to the

basic way in which this House can function most effectively and most

efficiently. This cannot be done overnight. I am not suggesting the

answers will be simple or rapid in production.

This session has had many frustrations, I'm sure, to both sides of

the House. But our first responsibility is to avoid being

obstructionist, particularly when the people who would suffer would be

the citizens of the province and not necessarily us as MLAs. On that

basis, I support the bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Premier closes the debate.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I intend to be brief and respond to the

three leaders and their comments in this debate.

First of all, the atmosphere in which this bill has been brought I

think has been aptly described by the leader of the Conservative Party

(Mr. Wallace). It is absolutely true that I did make a conscious

decision while I was in opposition that if we became government I would

never sit through an all-night sitting again. I don't intend to back

down from that particular commitment.

Had we adopted the all-night sitting programme, Mr. Member, you

know, of course, that this day would not have arrived in the House. We

would have had the situation where the Members would have been

exhausted. Those of us who sat through until or 8 o'clock in the

morning two or three times during a session knew very well that we were

beaten into exhaustive submission by a system that had not been updated

at all. I welcome the Member's remarks in terms of updating the system.

I had presumed, somewhat naively, that a gentleman's agreement could

still function in what I thought to be a gentleman's House. But I found

to my sorrow that there was very little left of gentleman's agreement

in terms of the political atmosphere that exists in this very chamber

at this time. I welcome that Member's call for a committee to meet and

review the rules. I think it is long overdue. The last one, I think was

some 35 or 40 years ago.

There has to be a distinction, as the Leader of the Opposition has

attempted to make in this House, that this in effect is essentially a

technical bill, approving the funds for the estimates that we have

already thoroughly debated and giving a 90-day supply of estimates that

are yet to be debated.

There also has to be some understanding at some time, at some level

of debate in this House, where public business begins and politics

ends. I find it is very, very difficult for the Liberal Party to make

that distinction even today when thousands of people are depending on

the passage of this bill and who have no interest in partisan politics

whatsoever but a desire to do a job on behalf of the people of British

Columbia.

The official Leader of the Opposition has made it clear that the

business of government must go on regardless of the tempest or the

pacification of politicians as this House represents. I find it

somewhat reprehensible that that Member, (Mr. D.A. Anderson) the leader

of a group which has just passed a supply bill in Ottawa and has done

it on many occasions under the federal Liberal Party, comes in and

presumes there is something different here in this House in this

province. The noise, the argument and the interruptions of the leader

of the Liberal Party are only an attempt to cover up his guilt for

making a foolish mistake in his speech today, attacking what really

should be a non-partisan bill to be discussed at a far more sane level.

There has been no absence of politics from day one by that small

group. I'm glad the official opposition and the Conservatives have

separated themselves on what is essentially a non-political, ongoing

government bill that insures the system survives even if the

politicians fall by the wayside.

That is the time-honoured tradition of the British parliamentary

system. This place was not built for politicians but was built as a

House to represent the people and to allow the people's business to

flow. As long as I am alive and in politics, the people's interest

comes first, not cheap party politics. I welcome the statement of the

Leader of the Opposition and the Conservative leader in that particular

regard.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

Bill 108, Supply Act, No. 1, 1974 read a second time.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to refer Bill 108 to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Leave granted.

The House in committee; Mr. Dent in the chair.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report recommending the introduction of the bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: Wrong line.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Order, please!

[ Page 2360 ]

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I thought everybody was in a hurry.

Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 108, Supply Act, No. 1, 1974 reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

RESIDENTIAL PREMISES

INTERIM RENT STABILIZATION ACT

(continued)

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying last night before I was so rudely interrupted by the clock, I was supporting the remarks….

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, that's the way it goes. I was

supporting the remarks made by the Hon. Member for Vancouver Centre

(Mr. Barnes) and the Member for Richmond (Mr. Steves), both of whom

have fought very hard for this type of legislation because of the

interest they have in their own constituents.

I did quote, too, from the statements of the Member for West

Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) of one year ago when he said

that 6 per cent increase in rents was too much and demanded government

action. I quoted also his statements of March 11. Last night I asked

what happened to the Member's opinions over that short period of time — between now and March 11 — and his statements of a year ago.

But what is really involved in this particular bill is an attempt to

give some interim stabilization to the terrible situation we inherited

over the lack of rental accommodation in this province.

One of the points made by the Member for Richmond (Mr. Steves) that

I think is most appropriate for this bill is the fact that rental

accommodation is at its highest occupancy rate ever in the history of

this province. Because there is a high occupancy rate, the Member

correctly pointed out that there is no risk by the landlord that any

one of his particular apartments would go unrented. The old argument

that the rent had to be a little bit higher to cover the suites that

weren't occupied is no longer valid.

The Member has made that quite clear and also pointed out that, in

spite of the problems faced with today's financing, most of the

financing of the current housing was done some years ago and the

servicing of that financing has not altered under the original mortgage

agreement. We had asked for a year; we had asked landlords, through the

Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi), to demonstrate to us their

individual responsibilities. We had been patient. We asked the House to

bring to the Minister's attention any specific examples where rents had

been exorbitantly raised, especially for the elderly. The Minister had

made public appeals to apartment-block owners not to raise the rents,

not to take advantage of the Mincome programme or any other benefit

that we were able to share with these elderly.

But we found a growing trend, especially in the last few months of

1973 and the first few months of 1974, of rapidly escalating rents with

really no valid reason in terms of the original financing of the rental

accommodation. No government could ignore the situation that we were

faced with, and the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) has brought

in a reasonable interim bill to allow us to stabilize within the

present market the rental situation.

That is in fact exactly what the Member for West Vancouver–Howe

Sound called for on March 11. His only criticism, in my opinion, now is

that, "For goodness sake. You've gone and done it." Well, Mr. Member, I

don't know for what other reason you have changed your mind because

here are your words as I quote from Hansard :

We need to have some positive programmes. It may be, Mr. Chairman,

that we'll need to have the Minister of Finance stand in his place and say that

his government is prepared to freeze rents in the Province of British Columbia…

and that is exactly what I am doing at this particular moment.

…until he can rationalize this difficulty between rising

costs on the part of the landlord and the inability of the tenant to pay.

That is exactly what this is: an interim freeze. It's exactly what

that Member asked for. Then within a matter of days he stands up and

says he is going to vote against it.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: You didn't listen last time.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No. No, it's a reflection of the Liberal attempt not to even support their own ideas, let alone this government.

Now, Mr. Member, you've been hoisted on your own petard if you refer to your own statements of one year ago. We will read Hansard again and again throughout the province. Last night when you were

[ Page 2361 ]

not here and I read it out, your leader said, "Read

on." I read on until I got to the period. There is no other

interpretation of your remarks other than exactly as you meant them.

The government is taking exactly that move and now you want to vote

against it.

Be that on your conscience; the words are there. The moving hand,

having writ, moves on. That's it. And it's there. I know it won't hurt

too much in West Vancouver, but it should be good reading in downtown

Vancouver and other areas.

So, Mr. Speaker, I say to you that I am pleased with the conscious,

determined, planned and thoughtful efforts of the Attorney-General

(Hon. Mr. Macdonald) who has wrestled with this problem all this time,

who has been patient, who has been understanding and who finally

recommended to the cabinet that this course of action had to be taken

as an interim step until we could rationalize the other problems. I

fully support the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) in this regard.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): I must say that I am

very, very disappointed in the short-sightedness of this bill. It is

short-sighted and, unfortunately, when the effects of this bill really

hurt those who it intends to help, which are the tenants themselves,

the government opposite will not be the government.

Bringing in this bill at this time is, I'll have to say, Mr. Speaker

— and I don't like to use the term — a stupid move. It's a very stupid

move on the part of the government; it's a foolish move bringing it in

in haste. They are trying to solve a problem on behalf of some few

tenants who are being gouged at this time. But in the long run you are

going to hurt all of the tenants. It's a temporary measure that will

probably not be felt for 20 years.

Once you start the flow of investment capital out of the province,

you just don't snap your fingers and get the flow reversed. As a matter

of fact, in that same regard, there are businesses and people today who

went through the Depression and whose investments are still based on

that particular era of our economy. This will have the same effect on

the construction of new apartment dwellings in the Province of British

Columbia.

The Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald), in introducing the bill,

says that any government with a heart would step in and protect within

its power tenants who are suffering intolerable pressures. I would

suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that there are other ways of stopping the

gougers.

You may win this little battle of stopping a few gougers and

protecting some few tenants who are being gouged but you will lose the

overall war where you need to create more accommodation. The only way

to solve this problem is to have sufficient supply where the landlords

themselves are fighting to bring in tenants.

Surely to goodness, Mr. Speaker, I don't know why this government

cannot look at other jurisdictions and see the error of their ways. In

any jurisdiction where there have been rent controls, within 10 to 15

years there are slums. The rental accommodation is not kept up, and who

suffers in the long run? Maybe not the few tenants of today who you

think you may be protecting, but in the long run all tenants will

suffer.

You will create in the downtown core of Vancouver a situation which

I doubt we will ever recover from. I doubt if we will ever recover from

it. And I predict, Mr. Speaker, that there will be not one new major

apartment building started and brought under construction after this

bill is passed.

The reasons for bringing in this bill, I feel, are overreaction on

the part of the two Members for Vancouver-Centre (Mr. Barnes and Hon.

Mr. Lauk), who must have had a tremendous amount of influence in their

caucus meetings. I don't know what the threats were, but this bill is

certainly an overreaction.

Some landlords were adjusting rents. Many of them hadn't adjusted

rents for quite some time. During the latter part of 1972 and 1973 many

things happened. The cost of labour went up, the cost of materials went

up, and then, as a speaker said, early in 1974 rentals increased more

so than ever before — faced with what, Mr. Speaker?

Looking at their 1973 financial statements, taking a reading on the

excessive costs of maintaining their apartment blocks in 1973, looking

at increases in fuel and energy and supplies and another increase in

the basic labour rate, these apartment owners had to take a second look.

Maybe there were some gougers. But I also feel that there was a

great deal of political pressure to bring this bill in from a man who

claims to represent the tenants of British Columbia. He claims to

represent some 3,000 tenants in British Columbia. But when you get

right down to the nitty-gritty and ask him how many paid up tenants

there are in his association, you get far closer, Mr. Speaker, to

approximately 1,500.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Is that Bruce Yorke?

MR. PHILLIPS: No, I'm talking about McEwart. Mr. Speaker,

there are in British Columbia some 200,000 tenants — some 200,000

suites that are rented in this province. Here is a man who claims to

represent all of these tenants, when in reality he represents less than

1 per cent. I would say that he no more represents the tenant

association for the tenants of British Columbia than Wall & Redekop

represents

[ Page 2362 ]

the apartment owners, or Block Bros. represents the apartment owners.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: You are the one that's overreacting, Mr. Attorney-General.

You are overreacting because of less than 1 per cent…. And of those 1,500

members in that association, how many of them have actually been gouged — all 1,500? You have, Mr. Attorney-General, the right to deal with the gougers

in this province; you have a department of consumer affairs. But here again,

Mr. Speaker, the Attorney-General has overreacted.

There are approximately 1,500 tenement buildings in the lower mainland and 1,100 members of the Tenement Owners Association.

Control on rental accommodation will in no way increase the number

or the quality of apartments available for rent. On the contrary, in

the long run it will aggravate the situation and make it become

intolerable. And when there is no accommodation available and when the

accommodation that is used up deteriorates, I want the Attorney-General

to realize that it has been this Bill 75 that has caused the situation.

Today, Mr. Speaker, the bulk of the apartment buildings built in

British Columbia are not built by the Wall & Redekops or the large

developers. They're built by individuals who have to go out on the

market to seek investment capital. These people have been under

pressure for quite some time due to restrictions in the Landlord and Tenant Act

— in the present Act I might say, Mr. Speaker. They're sick and tired

of being harassed, and they're going to get out of the business.

They will take their money and their talents and their efforts to a

more favourable climate. What is the Attorney-General going to do then?

Is he going to bring in a bill to force that money to stay in British

Columbia? Are you going to bring in another bill to force those tenant

owners to build more apartment buildings? If you're going to drive them

out with one bill you require more legislation to keep them in the

business.

Interjections.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: You're a prophet of doom and gloom.

MR. PHILLIPS: I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the

Attorney-General can talk about doom and gloom, but many of the

predictions I have made in this Legislature have come true.

However, there again are the short-sighted policies and the

narrow-minded thinking of the Attorney-General. And even when it comes

to being,

I doubt if he will be able to grasp the reality of what has

happened. He will probably want to blame it on some other world

economic situation or something.

What has caused this shortage of accommodation to develop? What has

caused it? I've discussed the favourable climate, and I don't refer to

the favourable political climate. But what really — and let's be

reasonable — what has caused this problem?

I want to tell you that it certainly hasn't been a shortage of

mortgage money. It hasn't been a shortage of land. It hasn't been the

shortage of contractors to build the buildings. Because British

Columbia in the last four years has experienced an overall building

boom.

There has been lots of mortgage money and lots of land available to

build new retail and wholesale outlets. There has been lots of land and

money and contractors available to build warehouse space. There has

been lots of land and money available to build condominiums. But why

has there not been money put into rental accommodation?

In no way, Mr. Chairman, can you threaten an industry with controls

or by sticking your nose into their business and running it for them,

and expect them to enlarge on that business. It's just human nature.

Canada was probably one of the best housed nations in the world.

Apartment builders provided more services to their tenants than

apartment builders anywhere else in the world. Not only did they

provide accommodation with heat and electricity, but in many instances

this accommodation was furnished, and furnished well — complete with

television, radio, stove and refrigerator. Nowhere else in the world

did this happen.

Why? Because of the existing legislation. There was no interference.

It was a case of supply and demand. There was no restrictive

legislation and that is why Canada was the best housed nation in the

world.

This situation will cease, and the results of lack of construction

this year will be felt in this province for years to come. What good is

a five-year deal on no rental increase, a five-year deal with no

restrictions? Mortgage money is signed for a period of 20 to 25 years.

If you were building an apartment and had to put your name on the line

for $300,000, $400,000 or $1 million for over a period of 20 to 25

years — in some cases 30 to 40 years — would you be happy with being

guaranteed that someone was going to keep their nose out of your

business for only five years? You're putting your signature on the line

for four and five times that amount of time.

It's a shame that policies like this have to be brought in as a

stopgap measure to try and alleviate a situation that exists. We see

that when the government goes out and starts to build a small unit,

whether it be an old folks' home or a co-op, and

[ Page 2363 ]

maybe there are 300 or 400 units in this particular

deal or sometimes only 75, it's flashed over the papers and there's big

publicity given to them. But if only 50 of the apartment owners in the

Province of British Columbia each started to build a 50-unit suite,

which is a very small percentage of the owners starting to build

reasonably small suites, that would provide 2,500 units of

accommodation. This was going on year after year after year with no

fanfare. Rental accommodation was being supplied.

Today, Mr. Speaker, with this restrictive legislation, it would be

far better for these people to put their money in the bank and draw

bank interest. Small apartment owners usually have other interests and

are not wanting to be troubled with their tenants. This is why there is

a better relationship in 90 per cent of the accommodations in British

Columbia.

By this legislation, you automatically set up a restrictive measure

between the tenant and the landlord and the battle is on. Where peace

existed before, this legislation creates a situation which

automatically puts these two normal people apart. These small apartment

owners will take their money elsewhere.

The average tenant stays in an apartment approximately 14 months.

That is the average. Some stay four months, some stay four years, but

the average, worked out statistically, is 14 months. Apartment dwellers

are basically mobile and this is partly due to the mobile society that

we live in. Young married couples rent apartment suites because of job

mobility. In many cases, two young single girls will get together and

they have to move as soon as one of them gets married because it

changes the accommodation. Senior citizens lose one of the partners and

then the other goes to live with the family. But the average is 14

months.

What is going to happen in three or four years when the situation

goes from zero to less than zero? Where is this mobile population going

to find accommodations? What will be the situation then — all created

by this bill, Mr. Speaker? There will be a black market developed in

rental accommodation. The heart of that black market I predict will be

right in the heart of downtown Vancouver. This has happened in other

jurisdictions. If a young couple or an older couple want to get an

apartment, it will be a $200 bill under the table.

That will be the result of this restrictive legislation. Inequities

will take place. The people who truly need to get into an apartment,

and who haven't got that $200 bill to slip under the table, will be the

ones who will suffer. They will be the ones who will suffer — the ones

who can least afford it, the ones that don't know how to deal, the ones

that don't have any friends in the owners.

What you are doing by this legislation in the long run is hurting

the very people that you're trying to save. You're hurting the very

people that you want to save by a short-sighted policy on the part of

this government — overreaction. What we should have had are policies to

encourage people back into the apartment field. Incentives should have

been brought in to encourage risk money into the apartment field.

If you want to help the apartment owner, go to direct rental

subsidization to the individual. Let him choose where he shall stay.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Subsidize the gouger. Well, there you go. There

goes the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) putting all of the

apartment owners in one basket. But this is typical of this government

because they like to take one big business and then group all of the

majority of the good independent businessmen in with that one gouger.

You like to put everybody in the same basket.

Unfortunately, if the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) had but

looked at the Province of Alberta where today there is a vacancy rate

of approximately 8 per cent…. He should have taken the time to go to

Alberta and to meet with the apartment owners and the apartment

builders in that province, and say, "How come you're building

apartments here when you're not building them in downtown Vancouver

with a much better climate, with less upkeep, with less cost of

maintaining, with much better weather conditions, no frost heaves?" No,

he's pressured by the Member for Vancouver Centre to bring in this

short-sighted legislation, and he'll regret it until the day he dies.

In the Province of Alberta, with an occupancy rate of 8 per cent, 8

times what it is in British Columbia, apartment buildings are being

started again and again. Money is being put into the Province of

Alberta to provide rental accommodation and tenement buildings. Why?

Because the builders in Alberta realize that you have to build at

today's costs and you have to subsidize these buildings from three to

five years before the cash flow starts levelling out so that they don't

have a deficit cash flow.

This is more so in a situation where the vacancy rate is 8 per cent.

Why didn't the Attorney-General go and find out why? Did the

Attorney-General meet with the tenement owners and the landlords in

British Columbia?

Oh, just a minute, Mr. Speaker. I realize that they put in

recommendations to the Law Reform Commission, but did you find out the

real reasons the rents are going up? Did you find out? Did you meet

with the association? Or did you just listen to the tenants'

association?

Maybe the Attorney-General doesn't really want to know the truth?

Maybe he doesn't want to hear the truth. Because here we have the

Province of

[ Page 2364 ]

British Columbia with practically a zero vacancy

rate and no apartment starts — and the Province of Alberta with an 8

per cent vacancy rate and lots of apartment starts. What is the

difference?

You can talk maybe about a little higher costs in the lower

mainland, but I point out to you that the higher costs in building in

Alberta with the climatic conditions and the extra insulations they

have to put in…. They're much higher in the Province of Alberta. So

that isn't the answer.

No, the answer is that there is a more favourable political climate in the Province of Alberta.

In a high vacancy rate, Mr. Speaker, who wins? Naturally it's the

tenant who wins, because the landlords are fighting among themselves to

get tenants to come in. What do they do? They build better

accommodation; they put in better furniture; they entice them in with

swimming pools, with sauna baths, with game rooms. Sure, they're after

the business; they've got a vacancy rate.

But what happens when the vacancy rate drops to zero? It's the

tenant who suffers. So if you really wanted to help the tenant, you

would have brought in more rent subsidization to make the climate in

British Columbia reasonable so that more apartment buildings would have

been built.

There are three types….

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: I don't need any smart remarks from you, Mr.

Member for Kamloops (Mr. G.H. Anderson), who isn't even in his own

seat. And it's you who will suffer too. Unfortunately, as I said, they

won't be government when the true effects of this legislation fall upon

the tenants of this province. They won't be in government. I'll have to

straighten out the mess they leave behind.

There are three types of persons who build rental accommodation. No.

1 is the contractor who builds it and sells. Under today's legislation,

the contractor can still build, but who's going to buy it? No. 2, there

is the builder-developer who builds; sometimes he sells and sometimes

he keeps. But he still has to have investment capital. He's having

trouble getting it today.

Then there is the true landlord, Mr. Speaker, who buys and wants to

own and wants to provide a service for a fee to those who want to rent

his accommodation. The bulk of those are the very persons that this

legislation is going to drive out of the business. The true landlord

who buys an apartment building and who enjoys providing that service — and it is 90 per cent of the accommodation that is supplied in British

Columbia…. I'll bet the relationship between the renter and the

landlord is 100 per cent.

These are the type of people who are trying to build up an equity

for themselves in real estate, who are not that interested in making a

rush profit, but want to provide something that they can sell for their

retirement years and receive a benefit from it. That is the type of

person that is providing approximately 90 per cent of the rental

accommodation in British Columbia.

Unfortunately, this legislation discourages all three types of

persons who build apartment buildings. But I would suggest that the

Attorney-General would have been far better off to go after the

gougers. Go after the gouger. You have a Department of Consumer

Services. Just because there are gougers in the roofing industry, does

that mean that the whole roofing industry is rotten? No, absolutely

not. You've got gougers and gyppo artists among door-to-door salesmen.

But does that mean that all door-to-door salesmen are gyppo artists?

No. You don't ruin the entire industry. .

You've had gougers and rip-off artists in the used automobile

business. But that doesn't mean that all dealers are crooked. You've

had them in the automatic transmission repair business when it first

came in. There were gougers and rip-off artists in that. But did you

slam and bring in legislation to curtail the whole industry? Absolutely

not.

We just recently had a gouger in the meat supply business. But there

are many, many meat suppliers who are supplying meat for home freezers

who are perfectly legitimate businessmen.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: We've got a gouger in this debate.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, we certainly need a gouger in this debate. We need to point out to the Attorney-General the error of his ways.

Last year it was the government who set a lot of the new standards.

It was the government who brought in new labour rates. It was the

government who brought in a 15 per cent pay raise for ferry workers. It

was the government who brought in a lot of the inflation that happened

in the year 1973.

Now because this inflation is hitting at the landlords and they've

had to raise their rents in many instances, then this restrictive

legislation is brought in on them. They're facing fuel increases this

year. They're facing the costs of material increases. Yet they're only

allowed an 8 per cent raise in their rental accommodation fee.

Inflation alone will be more than 8 per cent.

I don't understand how the 8 per cent can be justified in the first

place. And that 8 per cent will be on for one year, because it is

retroactive until January 1 and it will be approximately six months

before the new Landlord and Tenant Act is brought into force.

So we have in the year 1974 the 8 per cent freeze on the price of rental accommodation, when fuel

[ Page 2365 ]

itself is predicted to go up 30 per cent, labour

will go more than 8 per cent, the cost of materials and lumber and

paint and the price of plumbers and electricians and TV repairmen and

small appliance repairmen will go more than 8 per cent. So how can this

be justified?

It is the small independent landlord that is being caught. New

construction will be free of controls under this legislation, Bill 75,

for one year. Well, you mark my word that any rental accommodation made

available in that year will be sufficiently high that they won't have

to worry about any 8 per cent freeze. If you were opening up an

apartment building today and knew that you had only one year, and after

that there were going to be regulations on the amount of money you

could charge for that rental accommodation, you would be doubly sure

that you charged ample.

Who's going to be hurt again? Who's going to be hurt? It's going to

be the people in this province who are seeking rental accommodation.

The people who haven't presently got it, the people who are looking for

it, be they young married couples or elderly people: they are going to

be paying through the nose for new rental accommodation that comes on

stream in 1974. You mark my words.

Is that going to help the tenant? Supposing that there are some

apartment buildings started next year, which I predict there won't be,

but suppose there were. What's going to happen? What's the price of

that rental accommodation going to be when it comes on stream? You can

mark my words that it's going to be 30 or 40 per cent higher than it

would have been had this legislation not been brought into this House.

You cannot legislate compatibility, Mr. Speaker, between people. You

cannot legislate compatibility between a tenant and a landlord. You

can't even legislate compatibility in marriage, and yet this government

by Bill 75 is trying to legislate compatibility between the landlord

and the tenant. And it can't be done. You know it and I know it.

This law, this bill, will do absolutely nothing to cure the shortage of rental

accommodation, Mr. Speaker, but it will make sure there is a shortage of rental

accommodation in British Columbia for years to come. In 10 or 20 years from

now we will be digging ourselves out from the chaos in rental accommodation

in British Columbia that will be caused by this very Act.

In many areas where people have had accommodation for a period of

years, the rate hasn't been adjusted because they've been a long-time

renter. In a building where they might be renting a suite for $350 the

price of that suite is only going to go up 8 per cent. In that same

building — and this is actual Mr. Speaker — where the occupancy of a

similar suite has changed in the previous year, the rent has been

adjusted and new people have moved in. Who is going to suffer the

majority of the increase? It is going to be 8 per cent of $450, and

that is more than 8 per cent of $350. That's why this legislation won't

work.

Had you even had an overall percentage increase within the

building…. Because disparities within the building do develop, and they

develop because when a new building goes on stream tenants are vying

for positions within that building. Some people want to be on the third

floor and some on the tenth, and finally you get a person who wants to

be on the twelfth and there's only one on the seventh so you reduce the

rent to get occupancy and to get your apartment building into

operation. Some of these are adjusted when they become vacant, and all

this week's in a column with the same view are rented for the same

amount.

But today in British Columbia, in new apartments that have come on

stream in the last three or four years, there are disparities within a

particular block. This 8 per cent is going to make it so that the owner

of that apartment building will never be able to do away with the

disparities that exist.

That, Mr. Speaker, is just one more reason why this is poor

legislation. My heart is sad, really, when I see this type of

legislation forced upon this great province of ours. It is a

short-sighted method of solving a problem that has developed just in

the past two years. I say that if you were to look at other

jurisdictions today where there is a higher vacancy rate, there is no

restrictive legislation, because the renter is in a buyer's position.

He had freedom of choice and it is the landlords who are fighting among

themselves to sell their product.

In the situation that exists in British Columbia today it is the

tenants who are fighting among themselves to buy accommodation, and

this bill will only aggravate the situation. As I said before, Mr.

Speaker, I predict that one of the greatest black market situations in

apartment buildings in any city in Canada will develop in the City of

Vancouver in the very near future.

And Mr. Speaker, I'm doing some research on it — I haven't the figures

available today — but cities throughout the world that have the highest

suicide rate also have the poorest accommodation. They don't have the amenities

of life. And one of the first amenities of life for any person is decent accommodation,

food for his stomach and clothes for his back. When decent accommodation is

not available, people lose heart and they become despondent. Is this what is

going to happen in downtown Vancouver?

I regret that this piece of legislation was tabled in this House.

I'm sorry that constructive legislation could not have been brought in

that would really have improved the situation, Mr. Speaker. It is just

more short-term, incompetent legislation brought in

[ Page 2366 ]

by the government, and I regret that this group who today are in opposition will have to clean up the mess someday.

MR. C.S. GABELMANN (North Vancouver–Seymour): The former

speaker in this debate must have been absent from this Legislature for

some time because he suggested that the government wasn't taking any

other action to clean up the mess that we inherited from the previous

government. He must have missed the fact that for the first time we're

putting millions of dollars into housing to try to begin to turn this

problem around.

He must have missed the fact that the Attorney-General the other

day, very recently in fact, introduced new legislation for

landlord-tenant relations. I'm sorry that Member hasn't been paying

very much attention this session because if he were he would have known

that we are beginning to try to turn around the housing crisis in this

province.

MR. PHILLIPS: If you took the whole budget you couldn't supply 10 per cent of the homes.

MR. GABELMANN: That Member, Mr. Speaker, spent much of his

time during the 20 or 30 minutes or longer that he spoke repeating a

comment that it was the Member or Members for Vancouver-Centre (Hon.

Mr. Lauk and Mr. Barnes) who had been putting pressure on the

Attorney-General and putting pressure on the government to bring in a

rent freeze or legislation to limit the kind of exorbitant rentals that

were being charged in Vancouver.

I would like to point out to that Member and to the House that it is

not just in Vancouver Centre, not just in the City of Vancouver, but it

is everywhere in this province where there are large groups of renters.

I admit that there aren't very many renters in all the Social Credit

ridings. They don't have very many renters. They all come from

non-urban areas by and large and they don't understand the problem.

I have sat through this debate since its beginning yesterday and

I've listened to the Social Credit contributions to the debate, and it

has become abundantly clear to me that they don't have a clue as to

what kind of problems tenants face.

You know, then they talk about them being the businessmen. Now I

know why so many of the business projects of the Social Credit

government failed, why Wenner Gren was around, why the Columbia River

failed. They don't understand simple business practices. I was one of

those people in the public out there who had been conned a little bit

by the former Premier (Hon. Mr. Bennett) when he boasted about being

the only one who understood business — and I thought he did. But it is

pretty clear to me that that group doesn't understand it.

They talk about inflation being more than 8 per cent, that the cost

of fuel is going up by more than 8 per cent, the cost of maintenance,

the cost of repairs — all the things that presumably, in their minds,

go into the cost of a suite. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the main cost that

goes into a suite is the mortgage cost, and there hasn't been any

inflation on their mortgage because mortgage rates have been fixed.

That's the main cost and there is no inflation on those charges.

I thought the Member for Richmond (Mr. Steves) yesterday made that

point clear, but obviously it takes a lot of teaching for some of those

so-called business people. They just don't understand simple arithmetic.

One of the problems we have in my riding, and one of the problems we

have throughout the lower mainland, is that apartment buildings are

being purchased and repurchased, sold and sold again, because of the

increasing value of property on the lower mainland. What happens is

that new mortgages are taken out on those new purchases and the tenant

is expected to pay for those new mortgages. That practice has, in large

measure, been responsible for the increases that have been occurring

since approximately last September and October, particularly in my

riding.

It is interesting to me that the debate on this legislation has

really divided basically between the three parties on that side and

ourselves on the question of free enterprise; and that's as it should

be. The three opposition parties seem to believe that a free market

system — with some subsidies for some people — will solve the housing

crisis. That's been proven in other jurisdictions throughout Europe and

other jurisdictions in North America not to be the case.

In the late 1960s that same trend began to become evident here in

British Columbia. It just is not profitable for private capital to

invest in housing for middle- and low-income people. It just is not

possible. That's something we as a government have begun to understand

that the other parties have not begun to understand. That is the

problem we have to deal with.

The Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) talked about

gouging. Auto dealers may gouge and other groups in society may gouge

but the government doesn't bring in limitations to them. Well, it's not

the same relationship if he's being gouged by an auto dealer as

compared to his landlord, or if being gouged by a magazine seller on

his doorstep as compared to his landlord. He doesn't have to buy that

magazine; he doesn't have to drive that automobile. But he does have to

live somewhere. One of the things we have recognized as a government is

that there are a few essentials in society, and housing is one of those

essentials. We're going to do something about it too.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): When?

[ Page 2367 ]

MR. GABELMANN: We have begun that process. I don't know what

you think that $100 million is for in the housing budget; I don't know

what you think the new landlord-tenant legislation is all about. But if

you don't think those are beginnings, then you don't know what's

happening on this side of the House.

Interjections.

MR. GABELMANN: It's $100 million more than you ever put in or even thought about putting in.

I could go on reading letters like the Member for Richmond (Mr.

Steves) did because I have a desk full of them as well. During this

session, I spent most of my time going back to my constituency on

weekends and meeting with tenants because that has been the major issue

in my riding. I have met with literally dozens and dozens of tenants,

representing hundreds of others, who see as their major problem in

society today the fact that their rents are increasing by 20 per cent,

25 per cent and 30 per cent. We can't allow that to go on. This

legislation is essential to control that problem.

I was glad to know a few weeks ago that a colleague of mine on the

North Shore, the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A.

Williams), was calling for a rent freeze of sorts. He understood the

problem; he had been to some of those meetings in West Vancouver.

Three or four weeks ago he talked about supporting a freeze.

Yesterday afternoon he said: "I certainly will not support the 8 per

cent freeze because, Mr. Attorney-General, it's an incompetent piece of

legislation."

If he is going to let the problem of the tenants continue because he

feels it's an incompetent piece of legislation, I say that's a

dereliction of his duty to the tenants in his riding who are demanding

of all of us that we act to provide some kind of protection for them.

Whether the 8 per cent figure is the correct one or not, I don't

know. It's my view that it's far too high, if anything at all, and that

a 4 or 5 per cent limit would probably be sufficient. But in case it

isn't sufficient, Mr. Speaker, we've made it at 8 per cent, and I think

that that's a good decision in the interim measure. I'm absolutely

confident that, come the full working of the new landlord-tenant

legislation, we won't ever again have to bring in this kind of

legislation. That will please me very much. In the meantime, I'm very

happy to support the legislation. I'm sure the vast majority of the

people out there agree with that. Thank you.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): There's no question of a doubt

that there is a crisis. I understand the Premier is all rushed and he's looking

at his clock. He's thinking of his trip to dear old Sayonara land and all of

those pleasant things. Just bear with me for a bit.

There is a crisis in rental accommodation, Mr. Speaker, and there

are some very startling figures from Central Mortgage and Housing

dealing with multiple-family starts in urban centres. The figures for

January and February of last year showed 942 starts. The figures for

January and February of this year, 1974, show 779 starts — a decrease

of 163 that represents a 17 per cent drop. The figure I'm referring to

also includes condominiums and strata titles. So for all practical

purposes, apartment building in the Province of British Columbia has

come to a full stop. It's come to a full stop as a result of the

policies that have been enunciated by this government.

I feel the government's principal job is to provide incentives for

housing and to encourage housing. This bill is quite contrary to that.

Instead of providing low-interest funds for the private sector to

become involved in housing projects or reasonable provincial

depreciation allowances, you've come in with something that just boils

down to economic meddling. In effect this bill is a complete redundancy

in view of the one that was introduced a few days ago by the

Attorney-General, Bill 105.

I think there should be an encouragement for landlords to keep their

rented premises reasonably safe and in comparably good order. I rather

like the good neighbour law. I think there should be tax allowances for

beautification and improvements and safety features over bare

maintenance, and those tax allowances could be to a defined or to an

agreed amount. But this bill is a very, very poor substitute for

financial planning. As I've just said, it's fuzzy economics and

certainly meddling with the law of supply and demand.

When the bill came in on its first day, I asked the Hon.

Attorney-General: "Are you going to restrict tax increases in the

Province of B.C. to the level of this bill?" He came up with a rather

profound absurdity: "Refer that to the Premier," or someone else than

himself in the cabinet branch for answers.

All of the costs that are being experienced today are being

experienced by landlords, and they're all in the upward spiral. Taxes

are going up; insurance is going up; insurance premiums through the

Insurance Corporation of B.C. are increasing. The Premier has seen fit

to increase the price of natural gas 17 per cent at the consumer level.

Electricity is going up; supplies are going up; labour costs more;

maintenance costs more.

If there's an intention to freeze, why not a freeze upon all of

society as opposed to just the landlords? Why simplistically yank them

out of the hat and say they shall have to bear the total penalty?

They're facing all of these increased costs this government is imposing

in taxes throughout the Province of B.C.

To me, this bill is just a salve to the Members of

[ Page 2368 ]

COPE and many of their ilk who hope to use this as

a springboard into municipal and city councils in this province in the

next municipal and city election. It's a very clear indication of one

fact: the muscle of the radicals in the NDP caucus are being felt. When

the Attorney-General was on the golden haggis programme about four

weeks ago, he made statements to the effect that there wouldn't be rent

controls in the Province of British Columbia. Now we find this very,

very hard turn to the left. It's certainly obvious who's wagging the

dog insofar as this government is concerned.

Here's a letter that just came in a day or two ago to me from a

landlord. I'm going to read excerpts of it. They say on the first of

June that they bought an eight-suite converted apartment block

containing four one-bedroom suites, three bachelor suites and one

studio.

"It's a small block located near the Vancouver General

Hospital. The fully self-contained suites are on the whole nicely

appointed with coloured appliances and plumbing, hardwood floors,

wall-to-wall carpets in halls and staircase, hot water heating,

efficient hot water supply, automatic washer and dryer service and so

forth. The rents are very reasonable, if not outright low.

"Trying to patch up the usual wear and tear of the

building, my husband and myself put in about 200 hours in two months of

hard work without pay. We know that if things are going in the way they

go now, namely 'play up to tenants for politically-motivated reasons

and harass the landlord,' we will have to abandon our small block

because there is no way to keep up our payments.

"My husband and myself worked throughout our adult

life hard on full-time jobs for an average pay of $1 an hour without

the benefit of Canada Pension Plan or the protection of a union. By

living at a very modest level, until two years ago we never had a car.

Yet we raised our children to be decent, responsible members of today's

society.

"We managed to put aside some money for old age. That

money is now invested in this block and has a large mortgage upon it,

of course. If our life savings are going to be destroyed by harsh

legislation, then there is nothing to lose any more for us."

Finally, let me say that the situation as outlined above is a sample

situation of many landlords who now, as we fully agree, are carrying a

burden that properly belongs to society.

That's the point I made earlier on. Surely to goodness, if this

measure is as needful as the government claims it is, it should not be

saddled only on to the landlord. It's onto all landlords, the little

and the small. Here's a classic example of people who are little people

in every sense of the word, who have literally worked their guts out in

the Province of British Columbia in an attempt to take care of

themselves and not fall upon the so-called generosity of the welfare

state. These people are being penalized, and I don't think that is

correct at all.

MR. WALLACE: I finally made it. The Attorney-General talked

about freezing last night and it seemed to me that that's the problem

with the bill. Freezing only dulls the pain; it doesn't cure the

disease. It's a little bit like — if I can draw a medical comparison — where you diagnose appendicitis but instead of operating on the problem

you just give the patient something for the pain. This particular

measure, we believe, is not dealing with the problem. I'll try to avoid

repetition of all the other speakers, but the problem is clearly one of

supply.

There's been repeated repetition of the almost zero vacancy rate in

apartments, and the real answer is to provide more units. I would

suggest that what we need is a crash programme in the province, and in

the Housing debate $50 million was the figure we discussed. Numerous

Members of the opposition made it very plain that what we really needed

was $500 million to keep up with the rate of increase of rental units

that was really required to keep up with the rate of increase of

population.

There's a 3 per cent increase generally in the province. I have

clippings somewhere that make it very plain that in some parts of the

province it is a great deal greater than that. Prince George, for

example, is around 8 per cent, and Prince Rupert is climbing at the

rate of 5 per cent. That's the Province on February 2 this year.

So to attempt to use this kind of very partial, inadequate solution

to the problem When the problem is very clearly one of supply…. There's

an inadequate number of new rental units, and without rehashing old

ground, the facts were brought out in the debate on the Minister's

estimates on Housing that the plans are not keeping up; the plans for

new units are not keeping up with the demand.

I would just like to respond to one of the comments of the Member

for Richmond (Mr. Steves) last night about some of the large increases

in rent which have been imposed. I would suggest one point, Mr.

Speaker, that hasn't been touched upon. One of the reasons that so many

landlords have abused their right to raise rent was in anticipation of

restrictive legislation. I would suggest, with respect, that the

government should have been saying less in public and doing more behind

the cabinet doors to draw up the legislation and bring it in quickly.

One of the reasons that so many landlords seem to have taken these

actions is simply in anticipation of knowing that there would be some

form of rent restriction,

[ Page 2369 ]

and the degree of that restriction was

unpredictable. Therefore it is not much help for the Member for

Richmond to scream about some of these unjustly high increases — which

I agree are unjust — when in point of fact they have been precipitated

in some measure by the government's statements in public that there

would be restrictive legislation forthcoming. But the property owners

did not know when it would be forthcoming or to what degree it would

restrict their income-earning capacity.

I think that the government should have acted either more quickly

with a specific Landlord and Tenant Act such as was brought in

yesterday, or they should have kept quiet at least until they were able

to bring it in and thwart anticipated large increases in rent.

The other point that has been raised is…. Are we running out of time, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: There is about a minute left, I think.

MR. WALLACE: Well, I doubt if I can say what I have to say in

one minute, Mr. Speaker. Would it be acceptable to the House if I

adjourn the debate until the next sitting of the House?

Motion approved.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, there will be a short recess in

expectation of His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entering the chamber

shortly. Please do not leave the chamber.

The House took recess at 5:39 p.m.

The House resumed at 5:41 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor is about to enter the chamber. Will you all please stand?

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.

MR. SPEAKER: May it please Your Honour:

We, Her Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Legislative

Assembly of the Province of British Columbia in session assembled,

approach Your Honour with sentiments of unfeigned devotion and loyalty

to Her Majesty's person and government and humbly beg to present for

Your Honour's acceptance Bill 108, intituled Supply Act No. 1, 1974 .

CLERK OF THE HOUSE: In Her Majesty's name His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor

doth thank Her Majesty's loyal subjects, accept their benevolence, and assent

to this bill.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor was pleased to retire from the chamber.

MR. R.T. CUMMINGS (Vancouver–Little Mountain): Mr. Speaker, I

have the honour to present the second and third reports of the Select

Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills, and I move

that the reports be read and received.

Motion approved.

CLERK OF THE HOUSE: Report 2, Legislative Committee Room,

April 9, 1974. Mr. Speaker: The Select Standing Committee on Standing

Orders and Private Bills begs leave to report as follows: That the

preamble to Bill 51, intituled An

Act to Amend the British Columbia School Trustees Association Incorporation

Act has been proved and the bill ordered to be reported without amendment. All

of which is respectfully submitted, Roy Cummings, Chairman.

Report 3, Legislative Committee Room, April 9, 1974, Mr. Speaker:

The Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills begs

leave to report as follows: That the

preamble to Bill 50, intituled An

Act to Amend the Vancouver Charter has been proved and the bill ordered

to be reported with amendments. Pursuant to standing order 113, your

committee directs attention to the fact that the proposed sections 48

and 49 were not advertised by the petitioners.

The committee requests that the said sections be advertised prior to

their consideration in committee. Such advertising was duly completed

and an appropriate affidavit relating thereto filed with the Clerk of

the House.

All of which is respectfully submitted, Roy Cummings, Chairman.

MR. CUMMINGS: I move that the rules be suspended and the report adopted.

Motion approved.

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver-Centre): I beg leave to have resolution 18 standing in my name on the order paper removed.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:46 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1974, 2001, 2013: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada