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)

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 10, 1974

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

2371 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Measures to combat inflation. Mr. Bennett — 2371

Status of opinion survey of ferry passengers. Mr. D.A. Anderson

— 2371

Safety of Rosedale-Agassiz Bridge. Mr. Wallace — 2372

Pearson Hospital staff. Mr. McClelland — 2372

Paper shortage in the packaging industry. Mr. Richter — 2373

Victoria Inner Harbour. Mr. Morrison — 2373

Tabling of the Bremer contract. Mr. Gardom — 2373

Study on cost of living differential in the province. Mr. Curtis — 2374

Residential Premises Interim Rent Stabilization Act (Bill 75).

Second reading.

Mr. Wallace — 2374

Mr. Rolston — 2378

Mrs. Jordan — 2380

Mr. Cummings — 2386

Mr. Fraser — 2387

Mr. Morrison — 2388

Mr. McClelland — 2388

Mr. McGeer — 2392

Mr. Chabot — 2395

Mr. Richter — 2397

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2398

Division on second reading — 2399

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 10, 1974

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Introduction of bills.

Oral questions.

MEASURES TO COMBAT INFLATION

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

the Premier and Minister of Finance: with the new accelerated rate of

inflation as announced from Ottawa yesterday, and the fact that March

was the worst month in our history and inflation will be far worse than

the almost 10 per cent rate of last year, does the Minister of Finance

feel that he can make an announcement to supplement those on fixed

incomes to meet the erosion of purchasing power of this new round of

heavy inflation?

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): We are concerned, Mr. Speaker, and that is why we are pressing on with Bill 75 in the House today.

MR. BENNETT: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Although rent is

one of the costs faced by people in this area, the most notorious rise

was in food products and in clothing. I wonder if the Minister of

Finance can advise whether there will be supplementary payments to

those on fixed incomes to meet the rise in the costs of all products.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the whole House to

support our moves on Bill 75, as evidenced by the concern of the Leader

of the Opposition, and we'll certainly take into consideration other

measures that we may be able to provide to help the people. The test

will be in the House itself, Mr. Speaker.

MR. BENNETT: A further supplementary, Mr. Speaker. While I'm

sure the Premier considers Bill 75, which is before us,

an act in

itself, these are the costs where the province is supplementing direct

payments. My question is: will the Minister of Finance consider making

an announcement to increase the amount of provincial supplement on

direct payments, regardless of Bill 75?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, we ask the House to support

all anti-inflation measures including watching how the House votes on

Bill 75, and we have other matters under very serious consideration.

You can't have it both ways — speaking once in question period one way

and another way on a debate.

STATUS OF OPINION

SURVEY OF FERRY PASSENGERS

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): To the Minister of Transport

and Communications, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday he was good enough to answer

my question on a survey being undertaken, or at least a survey

proposed, by the B.C. Ferry Authority through a questionnaire to the

public on restaurant facilities. He stated that he had not actually

made up his mind whether such a survey would take place. Has the Ferry

Authority without his permission undertaken such a study?

HON. MR. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): To my knowledge, no, the Ferry Authority has not undertaken such a study. What's the supplementary?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, I don't know. I'd like, Mr. Speaker,

to ask the Minister whether he will request Mr. Ramsay of his staff to

give him a copy of the memorandum dated April 3, 1974, which states:

"It has been decided to take a sampling of public opinion on the

question of dining rooms aboard our ferries. A supply of printed cards

are now being prepared." It lists the two persons' duties who have been

hired to carry out the study.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Would you like to table the documents so that I can examine them very closely?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Sure. You can either ask Mr. Ramsay or I'll table it.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Who's Mr. Ramsay?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Ramsay is a member of the

Minister's department and he's a member of the B.C. government Ferry

Authority. I could give the Minister even more information if he would

like it, but I assume that he's the Minister and….

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Let me tell the Member that I had a

meeting this morning with the general manager of the ferries, and we

were still discussing whether or not to have a survey and the content

of the survey.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: That was my question, Mr. Speaker. My

supplementary is this: did he at that time ask the general manager

whether or not a survey had been undertaken by other members of the

Ferry

[ Page 2372 ]

Authority without the authority of the Minister?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I didn't ask him because what you read

out, Mr. Member, was a statement that it was the intention. At no time

have you told me that such a survey is taking place.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: "It has been decided…."

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'm telling you the facts as I know them.

But I discussed it with the manager this morning as to whether or not a

survey should take place. He discussed it with the union yesterday. You

make up your own mind.

SAFETY OF

ROSEDALE-AGASSIZ BRIDGE

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

Minister of Transport and Communications if information has been

presented to the Minister to suggest the serious possibility of metal

fatigue in a pipeline under the Rosedale-Agassiz Bridge whrich

endangers the public safety? Has documentation been presented to

suggest that?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No documentation has been presented to me that would suggest that.

MR. WALLACE: A supplemental, Mr. Speaker. In light of the

rather serious possibility, is he giving consideration to closing the

bridge until the appropriate investigation either confirms the

suggestion or excludes it?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I would point out to the Member that both

the Trans Mountain pipeline and the Westcoast Transmission lines are

under complete federal jurisdiction.

MR. WALLACE: A supplemental to that, Mr. Speaker. If the

bridge blows up I don't think it will matter whether it's federal or

provincial for the people that get killed. I'm just trying to get to

the fact of the matter as to whether some immediate investigation is

being carried out federally, provincially, municipally or any other way

to find out if, in fact, this is a valid fear and a reasonable

suggestion that the danger exists. Is some investigation being

expedited by this Minister through federal authority?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That individual has never come to me, but

someone else who he went to…. I said to that individual: "Produce the

report the man is talking about and then I can do something." But that

individual hasn't come to me with the so-called report that he has.

I've asked the individual who came to me to produce it. In the meantime

we've asked the company itself to check out the matter.

MR. WALLACE: A supplemental, if I may, Mr. Speaker. That

documentation is now available, I'm sure, including X-rays of the

welding in the pipeline. These X-rays show four of the welds, two of

which have been found to be rejected by an independent company of

appraisers. I would suggest that the Minister give a commitment that if

this material is produced immediately an investigation will take place

forthwith.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! This is not a time for urgency matters as such. It's a question period.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, that's the material I asked this

individual who came to me to get for me. It's never been produced to

me. Until I see that material and have it checked out, I don't know

whether it's some nut or what it is. I've got to check it out.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In view of the

fact that Warnock-Hersey International, Professional Services Division,

and Independent Industrial Inspectors Ltd. both examined X-rays of

welds of this pipe and both indicated that two out of four X-rays were

inadequate and unsafe, can I ask the Minister whether he'll consult

with the Minister of Finance and have this matter raised at the next

shareholders meeting of the company concerned, Westcoast Transmission,

so that perhaps we can deal with it by that method rather than by the

method which the Minister has so far rejected?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I haven't rejected anything.

PEARSON HOSPITAL STAFF

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

Health. I've had complaints again of serious problems at Pearson

Hospital — a shortage of staff. I wonder if the Minister could tell the

House if there are ongoing efforts to get staff up-to-date and upgraded

at Pearson Hospital.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): We haven't had very

many complaints about Pearson in the last year or so. We have increased

staff there significantly. I can't tell you right now if there is a

seasonal staff reduction, not due to people being laid off, but people

quitting and not being replaced fast enough. I'll certainly look into

the Pearson situation. There are more people for Pearson in the votes

that

[ Page 2373 ]

we passed some few days ago. Certainly, I'll look into the Pearson situation.

MR. McCLELLAND: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Could I also

ask the Minister if he will look into the question I raised during his

estimates with regard to the comfort allowance, where most disabled

people are getting $25 per month comfort allowance, but at Pearson

they're still only getting $18.50?

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, at that time I indicated that

the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) would be the person

responsible. He's here and I'm sure he's heard the question, and I'm

sure he'll certainly take it under consideration.

PAPER SHORTAGE

IN THE PACKAGING INDUSTRY

MR. F.X. RICHTER (Boundary-Similkameen): Mr. Speaker, I'll

satisfy the Premier with a question. Has the Premier had any

representations made to him regarding the shortage of paper and

cardboard for the packaging industry?

HON. MR. BARRETT: The answer is yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. RICHTER: Supplemental, Mr. Speaker. Is the government

going to make any effort to see that the requirements are made

available? The shortage is causing job lay-offs.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the matter has been brought

directly to my attention. I've been advised that the Minister of Lands,

Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) is awaiting a study on

the matter before we make a decision as to government policy.

VICTORIA INNER HARBOUR

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, my question is

addressed to the Premier and Minister of Finance. Yesterday he took as

notice a question concerning the Inner Harbour. In view of the

announcement of the freeze on the Inner Harbour, I wonder if he could

give us some indication today. Secondly, could he tell us, was the

Environment and Land Use Committee used with prior consultation with

the Victoria city council on the Inner Harbour development?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'm not quite clear on the first part of your question.

MR. SPEAKER: Please separate your questions into units.

MR. MORRISON: They're really one and the same.

MR. SPEAKER: I would like Members to stick to one question at a time. It saves a lot of problems later.

MR. MORRISON: Yesterday I asked the Premier if he could give

us an indication of the development on the Inner Harbour, which he

alluded to, and he took it as notice. But in view of the freeze

announcement last night on the Reid Development, I wonder if he could

give us an indication today of exactly what the proposals are.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Now that I understand your question, I'll take it as notice. (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: Do you have another question on another subject?

MR. MORRISON: It's part of the same question. Was the

Environment and Land Use Committee used with prior consultation with

the Victoria city council on the Inner Harbour development?

MR. SPEAKER: That is not really a question for that administration, surely. It would be for the Minister concerned.

MR. MORRISON: Well, I think it is. I think it is.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I would like to share with the Member a press release and a copy of the order-in-council, if he'd like.

MR. SPEAKER: Those are matters of public record.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I know there's no paper in Victoria, so I'll….

MR. MORRISON: The question was prior, not…. I've read the press release.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, you have. Well, then what did you ask the question for?

MR. MORRISON: I wanted to know the employer. (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: It's a matter of public record.

TABLING OF THE BREMER CONTRACT

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): A question to the Minister of Education, Mr. Speaker. Is the Minister prepared to table the Bremer contract

[ Page 2374 ]

and settlement document?

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Perhaps, in due course.

MR. GARDOM: What does that mean? (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out to the Hon. Member, he has asked several

times and it's becoming repetitive.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, with reference to the fact that the

question has been asked a number of times before, you informed the

House about a week or so ago that you would review this policy of the

government of taking questions as notice and not ever giving an answer.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Under our present rules, I can't force anyone in the House to answer anything, and I'm not going to try.

STUDY ON COST OF LIVING

DIFFERENTIAL IN THE PROVINCE

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, to

the Minister of Consumer Services: the Minister of Highways in his

capacity as MLA for Prince Rupert riding indicated some weeks ago that

the Department of Consumer Services was about to undertake, or about to

launch, a study into a cost-of-living differential between the north

coast and the northern part of the province…?

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Point of order. The information that the Hon. Member has is not correct. I did not say that.

MR. CURTIS: May I conclude the question?

MR. SPEAKER: If you are attributing certain words to the Hon.

Minister, he's entitled, certainly, to correct the Hon. Member for a

mis-statement if it is such.

HON. MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, speaking on the point of order: If

the remainder of his question is going to relate to his original

statement, on a statement that I didn't make, then I don't see how he

could complete the question.

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I have a letter over the signature

of the Minister of Highways, addressed to Prince Rupert city saying

that the Minister of Consumer Services has also agreed to….

HON. MR. LEA: I would ask him to read that letter out.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the matter is one in which the letter

should be tabled or read out if you're going to base a question upon

it, but certainly not a mis-statement or a statement that a Member

disagrees with, unless you present the statement itself. Now, you want

to read the letter out, is that the idea?

MR. CURTIS: I don't wish to take up question period reading

the letter. I'll table the letter happily. But the question to the

Minister of Consumer Services was not yet asked. The Minister of

Highways seems particularly touchy. I was about to ask: is such a study

a cost-of-living differential between the north coast, the northern

part of the province, and the lower mainland area about to get underway

or underway?

HON. MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, a point of order. How can he ask

if that study is going to take place when I say that I did not write

saying that there was going to be an immediate study?

Make him file it; let the House look at it, then he can ask his question on the 23rd.

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I'll repeat the question, which I

feel is very straightforward, to the Minister of Consumer Services. Is

a cost of living differential study between the north coast or the

northern part of the province and the lower mainland about to get

underway or, in fact, underway now through her department?

HON. P.F. YOUNG (Minister of Consumer Services): I'll take that as notice, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member wish to table the letter?

MR. CURTIS: I'll be very glad to do so. Leave granted.

Orders of the day.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Public bills and orders, Mr. Speaker. Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 75.

RESIDENTIAL PREMISES

INTERIM RENT STABILIZATION ACT

(continued)

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I

[ Page 2375 ]

had just made a few comments before we adjourned,

and I'll try to be brief. I think this is an area where two sides of

the House have an obvious difference of opinion. This party will not be

supporting Bill 75, and I'll explain the reasons very briefly.

The primary reason is that the bill solves nothing, even in the

short run. If it does offer any kind of partial assistance it will be

very temporary to the person who rents accommodation. Unfortunately,

this kind of legislation will, in the long run, harm the very person

that this government is trying to help.

The word "freeze" is used and as I mentioned yesterday, freezing, in

my mind, is associated with temporary relief of pain which really

doesn't usually solve the underlying condition which sometimes needs

surgery.

When we're talking about the problems of accommodation, housing, and

especially rental accommodation, I suggest that what we need is a

programme that outlines some radical surgery in the form of a crash

programme, a top-priority crash programme by this government to provide

the funding and the incentives to build, to create the number of units

that is realistically required.

I don't want to recycle my speech on housing, but I and other

Members of the opposition outlined the fact that the number of units

likely to be built in the coming year will not even keep up with the

increasing demand. I said in the debate that, very simply, the housing

problem is a shortage of units and a shortage of money to provide the

necessary programmes to create the units.

I remember someone in the debate stating that it was not $50 million

we should be debating but $500 million. The urgency in the

accommodation problem in the province in both the short run and the

long run is so bad that this government should approach it with a sense

of emergency such as exists in wartime. I can well recall in Britain

during the war when certain emergency and very urgent measures had to

be taken, the government simply gave it that kind of priority. In a

civil situation, where it is either food or shelter we're talking

about, I think we should bring the same dramatic urgency and the same

priority measures to bear upon the housing problem. I feel Bill 75 is

an inadequate gesture towards the problem, even in the short run and

certainly no solution in the long run.

I looked at some of the statistics regarding apartment starts in

greater Vancouver. It's essentially the greater Vancouver area we all

have in mind, although the problem does exist in other cities. The

apartment starts in 1971 were 8,822 and the apartment starts in 1973 in

greater Vancouver were 5,579, a little more than half of what they were

in 1971.

This trend, as many speakers in the debate have pointed out, didn't

begin yesterday. We don't blame the shortage on this government; the

shortage arises because of the removal of federal income tax provisions

which acted as an incentive to the investor to put his money in

apartment buildings. The removal of that tax incentive had already led

to a steady decrease in the number of apartment starts long before this

government took over. I agree with some of the government speakers in

this debate that the government can't be blamed for the decreasing

number of apartments being built. I don't know to what extent this

provincial government has discussed with the federal….

I hope you're having a good caucus down there.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Would the Hon. Members please respect the rules with regard to these side noises.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: I am standing up. Roy is awake again, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, you'll take care of that, I suppose. (Laughter.) I apologize to the Hon. Member.

MR. WALLACE: No, it's all part of the give and take of debate, Mr. Speaker. (Laughter.) You're supposed to be neutral. (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: That's right. I really am.

MR. WALLACE: Oh, we know you're neutral, Mr. Speaker.

Anyway, to get back to the point I was just making: the shortage of units is

here; who created it or why it happened is another issue. The problem this government

is trying to wrestle with is how to solve it. Our opposition to the bill is

that this is, even in the short run, a very inadequate measure and certainly

in the long run, for reasons I'll try and cover very quickly, will actually

make the situation worse and not better.

On this word "temporary," I just discovered the other day that when

income tax was introduced in 1916 it was called a temporary measure to

win World War I. If we can assume that income tax is just a temporary

measure which we've had for almost 60 years, I'm just a little

apprehensive about the temporary nature of this rent freeze. If I can

skate very carefully around another piece of legislation which I won't

mention, we're obviously in the era of rent freeze anyway by whatever

name or whatever tactic we describe it.

Members of the House have made justifiable mention of some of the

gouging that has gone on. I don't think any of us in this House dispute

the evidence that some landlords have certainly made very dramatic

increases in rent. But again, in many

[ Page 2376 ]

ways this was in anticipation of legislation which

was about to impose some kind of rent freeze in greater or lesser

degree, and by the mechanism about which landlords were in the dark.

The government has made statements over the months that there would be

some measure forthcoming. I don't think it's unusual that when human

beings are subjected to a certain amount of uncertainty, whether it's

in the investment world or any other world, they are liable to take

action which they feel they might not be in a position to take in a

little while. The Member for Richmond (Mr. Steves), who made particular

reference to some of the gouging going on, I don't think completely

gave the whole picture and certainly didn't cover the point that many

of these landlords were acting in anticipation.

The other point I think is worth mentioning is that tenants who have

no dispute over the increases which have been applied up until now are

obviously not going to be writing to their MLAs. The general principle

is that the people who write and complain are the ones who have been

subjected to unfair increases. I have had letters where the writer has

said that he or she has had reasonable increases over the last year or

two, but that kind of letter will obviously be greatly outnumbered by

the people who feel they have been unfairly treated.

The other point I think should be mentioned is that not all

landlords take the same posture either. Again, one can go on reading

letters to represent either side of the story. I don't plan to go into

a long recital of letters, but I do have letters. One man here says:

"I might point out that the apartment block I control

showed a net operating loss in 1972 of 5 per cent. I have tried to

maintain minimum rent increases in the past as it is obvious it is

impossible not to raise rents with all the other inflationary factors

contributing to a continuing loss."

That letter was sent to the Hon. Attorney-General on March 15 with a copy to myself.

Quickly, another quotation from this gentleman who says he and his

wife are old-age pensioners who put their life savings into a small

apartment block as a retirement project.

"We have a well-maintained building and a happy

community. None of our clientele have found it desirable to belong to

Mr. Bruce Yorke's tenants' association. Sir, it is important to

remember that Mr. Yorke's association represents only about 3,000 out

of a total of 200,000 people living in apartments."

We all have letters on both sides of the issue; all i'm trying to

say is that there are very definitely two sides to this issue. It is so

easy to simply represent the justification for this bill by the fact

that some landlords — some, it's hard to know just what percentage of

the total — have been guilty of unreasonable rent increases.

The basic problem is a lack of units and a lack of the sufficient

urgency and drive and speed to provide the funding and the incentives

to create new units.

One other reason why I can't support this bill is that it deals with

one very important piece of personal expenditure for renters in

isolation of all other costs. If there is one theme that is repeated

loud and clear whenever federal or provincial governments talks about

any programme of wage-and-price control, the very term itself makes the

point that it has to be wage-and-price control. It's all very well to

control the price of rents or to limit rents to a certain ceiling. If

skilled workmen are obtaining wage increases much in excess of this and

you require servicing of buildings and repairs by carpenter, plumber or

electrician, I think anyone who feels an 8 per cent control or a

ceiling on the rent is in keeping with these other costs really is not

looking honestly at the facts of life these days in terms of prices.

For government to put a ceiling on rent in isolation of all the

other costs which are continuing to escalate — the general figure the

consumer price index shows for a composite figure for all costs is

somewhere in the nature of 12 per cent — really makes no sense to us.

Now what happens? Why are we opposed to this bill in the long run?

Well, I think it's been pointed out very clearly, if you think back to

wartime, that whenever there's a shortage, whether it's a shortage of

food or shelter or cars or any commodity, the people who can afford to

wheel and deal still obtain the commodity they want and the person who

just has no more money to wheel and deal is the one who suffers.

The same inevitably is going to happen with accommodation, rental

accommodation, no matter how much the bill attempts to supervise and

administer the bill correctly without abuse. Already I have a press

release in which an alderman from the City of Burnaby, Alderman Victor

Stusiak — I hope I'm pronouncing the name properly — has stated that

the provincial government's proposed 8 per cent freeze on rent

increases will lead to an increased black market. Stusiak had claimed

that tips of $100 to $500 are being offered by prospective tenants to

obtain scarce accommodation, and that four such cases were reported to

him in the past 10 days.

This is the kind of result we feel will arise from the rent freeze

which is taken in isolation of other factors and does nothing whatever

to solve the real problem.

One of the other Members of the House has talked about key money. I

suppose the kind of figure that Mr. Stusiak quotes is exactly an

example of that already in effect, and we haven't even passed the bill.

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): The apartment owners' association disagrees with that.

[ Page 2377 ]

MR. WALLACE: Well, I don't care whether they agree or

disagree, Mr. Member. The fact is that I presume this man is a

responsible alderman in Burnaby, and he's made this statement. Whether

you agree or I agree, the fact is that a responsible citizen has made a

statement which would tend to suggest that there's a real possibility

that when you make it more and more difficult to control a commodity

that is in short supply, you simply create a black market or you

encourage breaches of the law. Whether it is in the form of key money

or other devices is beside the point. The fact is that it does happen.

The worst feature of this bill, of course, would be that it will

continue to be a disincentive to investors to put their money into

apartment buildings. Not only that, there will be a tendency to spend

less money on the buildings that now exist. Certainly in Britain, where

price controls have been applied, and certainly in the United States,

there have been whole areas where apartment buildings have been allowed

to deteriorate and become dilapidated and finish up, in some cases, by

being torn down. The last thing we need is any force or any legislation

which leads to a further decrease rather than a dramatic, needed

increase.

If we have to freeze, I would also question whether 8 per cent was a

reasonable figure or not. One of the letters I received pointed out

that it's all very well to talk about freezing rents, but the letter

states: "One of the increased costs to an apartment owner was the

announcement by B.C. Hydro on February 27, 1974, of a new rate

structure for natural gas in the lower mainland, with large

interruptible customers facing an increase ranging from 60 to 80 per

cent and businesses on firm general rate paying up to 33 per cent more."

So one has to ask, even if there is to be a freeze, why 8 per cent?

Really, that figure is well below the kind of costs that are applied to

the running of an apartment in terms of heating, caretaker service; the

caretaker will be on the minimum wage of $2.50 an hour on July 1, and

this represents for many apartments a substantial increase in overhead

costs. These are some of the other factors of rising costs that the

apartment owner has to meet, Mr. Speaker.

Perhaps I could just go back a moment to the point I raised about

the Minister letting the whole world know there was going to be some

action. If this is the kind of bill the Minister wants to use to solve

the problem as he sees it, certainly the bill should have been brought

in right at the beginning of this session and debated at the beginning.

I've also had letters from tenants who are being asked to leave their

apartment for no particular reason. It's quite clear that the landlord

hopes to apply a higher rent to the new tenant, although I know, Mr.

Attorney-General, that the legislation applies to the premises and not

to the tenant.

The fact is that the new tenant has no way of knowing what the

former tenant paid. So again I just say it's not the most important

point, but it is a fact that a lot of these actions of landlords in

evicting tenants and in asking for substantial increases is due to the

anticipation of some form of legislation. I think the legislation

should have been brought in much sooner if it's worth bringing in at

all.

The other consequence of this bill will certainly be to further

increase the trend to conversion of apartments to condominiums with the

net result of actually reducing the number of rental units available. I

had one apartment owner suggest to me that with this kind of control it

would certainly be just as easy and simple to put your money in bonds;

at least you wouldn't have people accusing you of gouging and unfair

practices and generally subjecting you to harassment, whether or not

you're indulging in that kind of practice. Just the very fact that they

own an apartment seems to leave them open to this kind of blanket

criticism.

As I say, the matter really could have been solved or could have

been handled much sooner than this. I remember the Minister of Health

(Hon. Mr. Cocke) mentioning that the long-term management couldn't be

carried out because it takes time to set up the machinery. But with

respect, Mr. Speaker, there's some other legislation which this

government has brought in which was pretty complicated, and they set up

the machinery pretty quickly — things such as the petroleum Act, with

some pretty far-reaching ramifications. They didn't take too long to

set up the machinery on that.

I could be wrong, but at the last session we were led to understand

that the Premier walked around with a bill from the Lieutenant-Governor

in his pocket to do with an emergency measures Act, or some bill

similar to the federal measure at the time of the FLQ crisis. I think

if the government can take action in some areas with that kind of

rapidity, then I don't know that it's a fair defence to say that this

long-term solution to the rent business needs more machinery and more

time. Anyway, that's just a point that I thought worth raising.

The other reason we oppose this bill is that there is evidence

elsewhere that rent control, particularly in isolation, has failed.

It's failed in Europe; it's failed in the United States. As I say, one

of the most serious consequences is that there's less care devoted to

the servicing and the preservation of existing apartments, and that in

turn leads to a decrease by their being demolished or deserted.

I wonder also, in terms of the exemptions that are to be allowed,

whether we're not creating some very difficult bureaucratic situations

whereby municipalities and regional districts may be in considerable

conflict with the provisions of the bill. Finally, the Minister has

said that this opposition

[ Page 2378 ]

is only opposed and that it doesn't come up with

any alternatives. I'd just like to suggest one or two alternatives. Of

course, the first goal must be to build more rental units. That very

clearly is the overriding challenge to this government. As I said at

the outset of my remarks, this challenge is not being met either by the

amount of money that is being provided or by the number of units which

the Housing Minister is planning to build.

What is obviously required are incentives to two main groups: to the

investor and to the construction industry. The Premier…. I haven't

heard any follow-up from his dramatic, arm-waving speech the other

night, which to me was vintage W.A.C. Bennett. But he made his very

dramatic, arm-waving speech the other night to say that if the federal

government removed the 11 per cent sales tax on building supplies, this

government would remove the 5 per cent sales tax. And I heard "hear,

hears" from all around the House, government benches and…. No, one

Minister shakes his head.

l wonder if in the course of the debate the Premier has made a

specific formal proposal to the federal government or was this just an

emotional outburst brought on by the fatigue of sitting at 11 o'clock

at night? I don't know which

interpretation to place on it, but this, I

would agree, would be one kind of incentive which would reduce the cost

of construction.

The other kind of proposal I would suggest is whether the government

has given any suggestion to providing a subsidy on labour costs in

construction. I understand that the cost of labour that goes into the

construction of units is very substantial. There again, if there were

to be some subsidy on this…. Has the government given consideration to

that?

Does this government believe that there should be incentives to

investing in residential accommodation? Or ideologically are you

opposed to it? Obviously, if you are opposed to it ideologically, we

needn't discuss this any further. But if you are accepting the general

premise that it is quite correct for investors to put their money into

residential accommodation instead of stocks or bonds, and if you're

accepting the fact that there should be a reasonable return on the

money that the investor puts into the buildings, are you in favour, as

a government, of asking the federal government to reinstitute some kind

of tax relief or depreciation allowances being offset against income

tax? This was the particular provision….

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: We covered all that before you came back in, I think.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Well, I just said five minutes ago that the 11

per cent sales tax should be taken off, and I was asking if the Premier

had followed up his emotional outburst the other night with a direct

approach to the federal government, or whether it was just for popular

consumption.

I'm now saying that I agree that the 11 per cent should come off,

but I'm trying to determine whether this government even accepts the

ideology that individuals should invest their money in apartment

buildings in the hope that they can get a reasonable return on their

money.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Yes, it's written into the new bill —

section 28(1)(d).

MR. WALLACE: Well, thank you very much, Mr. Attorney-General.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Anyway, I'm just about finished. I just want to

know whether this government believes that there should be some tax

incentives to invest in the construction of residential accommodation.

If you believe in that, have you as a government discussed it with the

federal authorities to reconsider the kind of tax benefits which

formerly applied when investors put their money into residential

accommodation?

To what degree, in fact, is this government constantly or regularly

meeting with the federal people to discuss the problem of housing and

the whole concept of providing income tax relief as an incentive to

create more units? As I said right at the outset, that really is the

problem: the need for more units. The Attorney-General nodded in

agreement on that point.

This bill has some very limited temporary value but it will lead

possibly to fewer units rather than more units. It will lead to a black

market. It will not solve anything in terms of the real problem, which

is a population increase of 3 per cent per year and, as I quoted,

simply in the greater Vancouver area a continuing decrease in the

number of new rental unit starts. In two years in Vancouver it has

decreased from 8,000 to 5,500. We in this party just fail to see how

putting on a temporary rent freeze is going to do anything to solve the

very clear, fundamental problem, which is a lack of rental

accommodation.

We must oppose this bill.

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): Well, Mr. Speaker, in supporting

this bill I think this really reflects some of the shock — some people

say even culture shock, future shock, pain if you will — that a lot of

people on both sides, the landlord and the tenant, are experiencing. I

know other legislation will

[ Page 2379 ]

be discussed later and I hope this will minimize the pain in the landlord-tenant relationship.

On this specific case I believe it is very necessary, in a

short-term way, to give short-term relief to people who have been

receiving tremendous increases — not all. One of the tragedies in this

whole discussion … and I quote one chap who I met about a month ago and

with whom I discussed this. In fact we discussed this many times. This

fellow has 10,000 apartments under his direct management. The rents are

all over the place. The rents for the same apartment on the same floor

in the same building are not the same. There doesn't seem to be much

order.

In the case of one of the people in my family, the rent is very

attractive up on the 10th floor in an apartment in Kerrisdale with a

very beautiful view, two bedrooms. But for the same apartment lower

down the rents have gone away up. They've gone up specifically on a

young mother who was deserted and has three little children.

I'm disappointed that in simple management terms the rents seem to

be so chaotic. In some cases they are too reasonable, like 3 or 4 per

cent increases over the last three or four years. Yet in other cases

they are way out of line.

Certainly the legislation which we will be discussing after the

recess will surely, in management terms, bring rents more uniform — rents similar to the same kind of accommodation as they now are rather

than giving a bit of discrepancy between the various types, high-risk

and less-risk tenants.

When I think some of the things the Social Crediters said, I really

don't think you can gaze longingly into the past decades where there

was a 4 per cent vacancy in 1963. That was a much different kind of

situation. There was less expensive construction at that time. We're

now told that construction of a highrise in the West End can be as high

as $28 a foot, and the property can cost as much as $18 a foot. Of

course, if that's on an 18-storey building, that's only $1 per foot per

floor, but it's still a great deal of money. We are concerned about

that and we look at that.

A lot of things have happened. The tax laws have been changed. I've

discussed this with the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A.

Williams) and I really appreciate what he said. Personally I find it a

destructive thing that the federal government possibly made things too

attractive up until 1971. Some of the more affluent people literally

grabbed rental accommodation often…. I'm thinking of doctors, lawyers,

people who maybe aren't daily in touch with real estate and are not

always the best managers.

They grabbed these things; they went for one, two and three

mortgages. Of course, with many mortgages this meant rents were very,

very high; but they didn't mind that because with the inflation of the

building they even could stand a loss, and the loss, of course, could

be charged against their income.

But the point was that when this was taken off in 1971 there was

disruption. There was a gap that had to be closed with these higher

rents; and so we have had this disruption. We've had also the other

disruption of the fact that I understand 15,000 condominiums are

getting built per year in metro-Vancouver.

The fast turnaround of money, Mr. Speaker, in quick sale and easier

financing of condominiums certainly hasn't helped in the encouragement

of rental accommodation.

Another thing I can't understand in this whole discussion — I'm sure

this will come up many times — is that there seem to be contradictions

in what the Liberals and the Social Crediters say. They seem to

contradict themselves when they say that we are not doing enough in

housing. We need bold, positive programmes in housing, they say. I

can't understand. I don't think you can have both. Inflation is with

us. I gather it is the worst in Ontario and in British Columbia — somewhere between 9 and 10 per cent — and all of us are very concerned

about that.

[Mr. G.H. Anderson in the chair.]

If you want a bold programme, if you want with very careful

management to assemble land, to encourage people…. I think it was the

Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) who brought up the OMI lands,

where Dunhill were simply appealing to the council at Mission. You

know, here's an indication of a group of people who, in negotiating

closely with the mayor and council in Mission, are at least willing to

have a programme for housing. Mission and the towns up the Fraser

Valley are bedroom communities for the workers in metro Vancouver, and

we would like to see more single and detached rental accommodation

available.

So I really feel that there aren't many alternatives. I haven't

heard from the opposition any simple alternatives to this particular

proposal — certainly not in the terms of housing construction

programmes or alternative styles of housing.

I do hope the federal government will drop the 11 per cent — I've

said this many times — and I hope we will drop the 5 per cent

simultaneously on the building materials. Now, this is a big item; this

would certainly save a lot of money and duplication.

I also feel that as we approach some very major negotiations and as

the Labour Relations Board gears up with management and organized

labour, it is very important that we try to have a restraining period

until the end of the summer. Hopefully, this will slow down the

sometimes excessive demands by both management and labour and by

landlords and tenants.

I support this bill. I want you to know that this

[ Page 2380 ]

bill is the result of many, many meetings with

landlords and tenants; it is not something just out of the air. I have

been on a committee of backbenchers working with the Attorney-General

and we've spent a lot of time looking at this. As this time I want to

support it and I especially look forward to the discussion after this

adjournment on the landlord-tenant Act.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): I'll try not to go into a

lot of details that have already been discussed in this bill in terms

of facts and figures because, quite obviously, the government is not

listening when these points are brought up. They don't seem to

understand the proof that had been brought to them, the proof that is

evident in many parts of the country and in many parts of the world.

As I sat and listened to this debate, and as we have just heard from

the Hon. Member for Dewdney (Mr. Rolston), I must draw to your

attention that one of the most serious problems confronting the people

in this province in housing and, in turn, this government, is what has

been repeated over and over and over again by the Members of the

government as they spoke in this debate. The Hon. Member for Richmond

(Mr. Steves), the Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr.

Gabelmann) and the Hon. Member for Dewdney (Mr. Rolston) keep saying,

"I just don't understand." And that, Mr. Chairman, is the problem: they

do not understand. None of them have ever been in the position where

they have assumed financial responsibility and risk for promoting or

developing or buying homes or assuming responsibility in a business

sense.

They are like Bruce Yorke, their special adviser. Bruce Yorke in

Vancouver was on the radio this morning talking away about what his

ultimate is going to be for British Columbia, which is complete state

control. Someone phoned in and asked him if he had ever been a

landlord. He said, "Oh, yes, for a couple of months — but never again."

And that is part of the problem; people are advising this government,

and this government and this Attorney-General are foolishly listening

to this advice. These people know nothing about how you solve not

simple problems, Mr. Member for Dewdney (Mr. Rolston), but very complex

problems.

The Member for Dewdney just said he had listened to the opposition

and hadn't heard one simple solution from them. And he is right; there

aren't simple solutions. These are highly complex problems. Your

Attorney-General on behalf of you is bringing in a bill which he is

suggesting is a simple solution, and which is going to be a very

destructive solution in the long term to a very complex and a very

needy area in this province.

The short term, Mr. Member, is typical of the keyhole vision, the

keyhole policies we are getting from this government. The incredible

situation is that they just will not listen.

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: The Member for Dewdney just now said, "What are

the bold programmes?" Go through the record, Mr. Member. The Social

Credit administration brought in revolutionary programmes to encourage

people to own their land and to own their own homes: the homeowner

grant, the home acquisition grant. You, Mr. Member, are not prepared to

stop those programmes. You are just moving one around so you can add

one more little notch to your belt. But the notches you are putting in

your belt…

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Could we have some order, please?

MRS. JORDAN: ...are the notches of the lives of the people in

this province who are suffering a tremendous housing shortage and a

tremendous increase in prices because of some of the actions of this

government. I don't discount the change that was made in the federal

income tax but I don't intend to dwell on it because this government is

government.

You, Mr. Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) have the authority to

use reason and common sense. It is common knowledge that this

Attorney-General knows about the housing industry; he knows about

mortgages and he knows about the problems and confusions in

landlord-and-tenant relationships. I am sure he won't deny it.

The tragedy in this is that the Attorney-General himself does not

believe in this legislation. When I walked into this House the other

evening after he had started introducing this bill, I couldn't believe

that this is the bill he was talking about. In his facetious manner, he

was making light, in a shocking manner, that he was trying to deal with

a bill that was supposed to lead to solving the problems of high rents

in British Columbia. That can only lead me to think that either he is

highly irresponsible, incompetent and should not be the

Attorney-General in this province, or he doesn't believe in the bill. I

would ask him to answer that question when he gets up to close the

debate.

Mr. Attorney-General, we heard from the Premier of this province the

other night in a display that was reminiscent of Shakespeare's worst

plays and worst writings — Falstaff at his worst. When he got up and

spoke on this serious subject, it would have been an embarrassment to

Falstaff. Jesting, jesting about the plight of the people in this

province who can't find suitable accommodation. He did not offer one

positive solution. It was a jellyfish approach, and we heard it again

this afternoon.

Why doesn't the Premier and Minister of Finance

[ Page 2381 ]

of this province have the confidence and the

courage of his own convictions to do one simple thing and remove the 5

per cent tax on building supplies? Why does he have to wrap it around

the Liberals and the federal government? Doesn't he have any gumption?

He stands up here this afternoon and says he will wait to see what he

is going to do for the people of British Columbia who are facing the

highest inflationary rate in Canada. He will wait to see how the

opposition votes on this tacky-tacky bill that is going to lead to

tacky-tacky housing for people in the Province of British Columbia.

Where is his gumption? Why does he have to sit and wait until the

opposition votes on what can be described as almost a stupid bill and

one the Attorney-General doesn't believe in?

The Premier of this province and the Minister of Finance, Mr.

Speaker, have toyed with the inflation to the detriment of the people

to whom they are responsible more than any other politician ever has or

would dare do in Canada. This government by means that have been

repeated over and over, not only in this debate but in this House, have

contributed more to the housing crisis and inflation in British

Columbia than any administration has in Canada.

You talk about the high cost of housing, Mr. Member. Land is one of

the major forces in the high cost of housing. I couldn't help but

nearly recoil in horror when the Member for Richmond (Mr. Steves) got

up and said that he would like to be in this House a year from now when

the result of this Act is evident, as he is here a year from now when

the result of Bill 42 is evident. One of the major evidences of Bill

42, which may have meant well but was so indicative of this

government's ineptness and inability to draft reasonable and logical

and competent legislation, is that land prices in British Columbia have

soared at a greater rate than anywhere else in the world. That is so,

Mr. Member.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Nonsense.

MRS. JORDAN: You prove me wrong, Mr. Attorney-General. You

like to play around in games and technical legalities. I am interested

in the practical facts affecting the people of this province. That's

what you should be doing in terms of trying to create a situation where

people in British Columbia have options, the right of choice and their

democratic rights, and reasonably priced housing.

In the constituency I represent, the effect of Bill 42 was to

increase the price of private lots three times. Lots that were going at

$3,000 are now going at $8,000 and $10,000. Some that were going at

$4,000 and $5,000 are now going at $14,000 and $15,000.

What this government did, and the result that the Member for Richmond (Mr.

Steves) can look at today, was to make the acquisition of land in British Columbia

— pieces of land to build a home on — the prerogative of the big corporations

and the prerogative of big government at the expense of the taxpayer.

I dare the Attorney-General to get up and deny that fact. If he

does, Mr. Speaker, I'll put in his office, a hundred, if he wants, a

thousand sheets of paper that will prove this has happened in nearly

every sector of this province as a result of that inadequate,

poorly-drafted and ill-thought-out Bill 42. That, Mr. Speaker, is very

much part of the problem of housing in British Columbia today.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That's not so...compared with Ontario….

MRS. JORDAN: Not at the rate it has gone up in British

Columbia, Mr. Attorney-General. Our agricultural land has decreased in

value, as you have locked the farmers in, and our residential land has

increased beyond anywhere else.

The Attorney-General got up and talked about the rapacious landlord.

Everybody knows there are dishonest people in all walks of life. If

there are dishonest landlords, then they should be brought to task.

I think the worst problem in British Columbia is not the rapacious

landlord, but some of the rapacious Members of this government who

hunger and quest for power. The subtle meaning of this bill, Mr.

Speaker, is that development of private home ownership, the development

of individual apartment buildings of multiple size and multiple facets

and multiple benefits in terms of what it contains — recreational

facilities or views or different areas of living — will dwindle to the

point that the people in British Columbia will have the alternative of

being tenants of big business or tenants of big government. This fits

in very well with the Waffle Manifesto that the Attorney-General

signed, as well as many other Ministers.

There's a subtle greed in this bill, Mr. Speaker, greed for power,

greed for government control in all walks of the lives of people of

British Columbia. If it was not so, then the government would have

taken other more logical action.

The Minister of Finance and Premier got up in this House and said

that they had called in landlords, and that they had asked for reports

on gouging. I ask the Attorney-General, through you, Mr. Speaker — seeing the Minister of Finance isn't here — did you meet with the

Apartment Owners' Association? Did you meet with other people in the

business? Did you meet with tenants, and how many tenants groups? Did

you talk to tenant groups in the Okanagan, in Fort St. John, in

Kimberley? Did you talk to landlords in these areas?

Why, Mr. Attorney-General, through you, Mr. Speaker, when evidence of gouging was brought to

[ Page 2382 ]

you, did you not use your proper authority and call

these people to your office, or you go to their offices, and examine

the situation?

Why not, Mr. Attorney-General, instead of penalizing the many and

instead of destroying further than ever the incentive for development

and private development in this province, did you not amend the Landlord and Tenant Act

in such a manner that it could have been handled the first few days of

this session? We could even not have had our recess and dealt with the

problem — set up a special board, appointed a judge to deal with any

landlords who were, in fact, gouging. You didn't have to go to this

type of legislation which is going to have a long-lasting and very

detrimental effect in British Columbia.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: You support some kind of freeze then, do you?

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Attorney-General, I'm asking you to defend

your position which has not been done to date and which is inexcusable

when one thinks of the problems and complexities in housing in British

Columbia.

I'm asking you why, instead of this bill, did you not amend the Landlord and Tenant Act ?

Why did you not set up a body, which could have been done in a matter

of weeks, using a proper judicial authority and having representation

from landlords and tenants, if you wish, to investigate the specific

accusations of gouging that you're supposed to have received, and then

taken proper legal action? I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that this

would have had a far more beneficial effect of keeping rents within

reason without penalizing the many that you are penalizing through this

bill by trying to grasp at a few.

That's why again I say when the Attorney-General didn't do what I've

been advised by very competent lawyers was quite possible…and many

economists and many people at the university feel that this bill is in

fact an archaic step, that this could have been done…. I want to know

from the Attorney-General why he didn't. Every Member of this House,

I'm sure, would have been prepared to give the name of any landlord

whom they were aware was gouging. This type of example would have

proved the credibility of the Attorney-General and the government, and

would have had a far less detrimental effect on the housing situation

in British Columbia.

Perhaps it's again this rapacious quest for power on the part of not

the landlords but the government that is the problem with that

suggestion.

Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Finance and Premier got up and

proved what strange bedfellows politics make when he used the Member

for Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) as his authority for

bringing in this Act, I would ask the Attorney-General if he agrees

with the former statements by the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound

that he believed there should be a great deal of money put into private

industry to develop housing. Is that the policy of the government? The

problem with this government and strange bedfellows is that the Premier

is never quite sure which bed he's in.

Does the Attorney-General, in recognizing what the government is

doing in terms of creating tacky-tacky housing in British Columbia,

which is going to be the result of this type of iniquitous situation,

recognize that he also is part of a government that's creating a type

of council housing as in England, that drastic social and economic

failure in England? — the very system that some of the colleagues of

the Attorney-General have fled in despair, and that, in fact, is going

to be the result in part of this bill and other programmes that this

government is introducing.

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, it's nice to see you awake, Mr. Member.

Look at the facts. People in England are leading a life of despair. There's no way they can get out of the system.

The Premier of this province stood up last night and said: "It's not

the people that count, it's the system that counts." We say it is not

the system that counts, it the people who count. The fundamental

difference between the official opposition and this government is that

we believe in people before state. And this government, as evidenced in

this bill, believes in state and state control before people.

Mr. Speaker, there's an

article which I won't go into in great

depth, but it points out the situation in New York as one example. It's

by a man who lives in Toronto, and Toronto is facing many similar

problems. He points out how the system of rent control was such a

disaster in New York, and is now in the crisis state, but that the

government dares not remove them. He points out why it would be a

fallacy for the Ontario government to institute rent controls, how it

leads to a running down of responsible and respectable housing that

exists, how it leads to a lack of initiative for new housing starts,

both for the individual and in terms of apartment development. I would

ask the Attorney-General why he doesn't listen to some of these words

of advice.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

The Member for Dewdney (Mr. Rolston) said that the official

opposition were gazing in the past. Yet, nowhere could he point out in

the present where rent control and this type of government housing

programme, which denies the right of individual

[ Page 2383 ]

ownership, has been successful in the world. East

Germany — we all know the story of East Germany. Holland — we all know

the stories….

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: The government of West Germany is not in the

enterprise area other than in Crown corporations in transit and

utilities and some modest housing, Mr. Member. The Member for Dewdney….

How about defending Holland where there's been government controls and

you now wait for seven years...?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Would the Hon. Member address the Chair?

MRS. JORDAN: Seven years, Mr. Speaker, young couples wait for housing in Holland. Denmark, Sweden, the stories….

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, Mr. Member, why don't you talk to some of

the people who live in Holland, who've waited seven years — couples who

have waited years to get married because they can't be assured of

anywhere to live on their own. And if that's what that Member is

advocating for British Columbia, then I suggest it is he who is star

gazing.

We've made practical suggestions about what should be done, and we

know it's a complex problem. But, Mr. Attorney-General, this bill is

not the answer, and you know it. It's like most of the government's

efforts, another classic attempt to solve a problem which, as I

mentioned before, the government has largely created itself. In

previous debate we have warned this government that its hangup attitude

on the private ownership of land and the private ownership of homes is

creating a much worse situation than we need ever have in British

Columbia. You're denying people their democratic right. All these great

housing programmes which are supposed to be developing, and are talked

about — we haven't seen one single start. We haven't seen one single

housing unit.

This government has stated emphatically, if it ever does get off the

pot and get some of these housing units started, that they won't be for

the people, they'll be for the state, and the people will be forever

tenants of the state. There will be forever tenants of the state. There

will be no provision for people to eventually own their own land and

their own homes. This is a fundamental difference between our parties.

The Member laughs. We talked to him, we warned of the results of

Bill 42 which, as I mentioned, is part of this. But, no, the government

panicked. The backbenchers are getting control.

The Attorney-General is afraid to stand up to his own backbenchers.

He presses the panic button and brings in this type of poorly drafted

and ill-thought-out legislation.

The assessment Act, when the government created for itself its own chaos, in spite of repeated warnings….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Would you try to stay within the confines of the principles of the bill?

MRS. JORDAN: Certainly, Mr. Speaker, and the assessment Act

is very much within the confines of this bill because apartment owners,

homeowners….

MR. SPEAKER: This is to do with freezing rents.

MRS. JORDAN: It's the policy of this government. It was a

chaotic policy and it is one of the problems of why people are having

problems in finding accommodation. Assessments have gone up beyond all

realms of reality, and it's this government that's responsible, Mr.

Speaker. This is why people who have duplexes, or who have been renting

out little homes, are so disturbed. They're not rip-off landlords. I've

got dozens of letters and I'm sure every Member has. I won't read them

now.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! May I interrupt just to say that

you cannot extend the bounds of the principles of a bill so far as, for

example, to talk about birth control as a means of easing the rental

situation. What you're doing is talking about the assessment Act in

these terms. I think you have to deal with the principles of the bill

itself and not the things that you think should be in it, or other

measures that might be advocated.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I hope to keep my mind above my navel and stick to the relevant matters in this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I'm sure you will.

MRS. JORDAN: The increase in assessment and the chaotic mess

of the assessment Act in British Columbia is part of the problem

confronting these small landowners, these small apartment owners, these

small duplex owners who have been, in fact, creating a very fine form

of housing for people who chose to rent. They are the people, Mr.

Speaker, who are going to suffer under this bill. To try and deny that

it's part of the picture, I think, is completely unrealistic.

Mr. Speaker, I'm sure you're aware, and the Members of this House

are aware, that the Law Reform Commission, authorities on housing at

the university, and governments in other countries have

[ Page 2384 ]

all recommended against rent control — this type of

keyhole vision. They've told them that it's unworkable in no uncertain

terms and they've told them why, and I won't go into all the reasons.

Yet still this government persists in reaching for the panic button and

pressing it.

You have pressed the button, Mr. Attorney-General, of the one tool

that is going to add to an already chaotic situation. It's going to

totally destroy, on top of the other actions of this government, the

individual initiative in British Columbia to help solve this housing

problem. One can't help but ask why, why, why? Mr. Speaker, why doesn't

the Attorney-General stop this legislation when he knows he doesn't

believe in it, when his actions to this House indicate he doesn't

believe in it, and that he knows the results of it?

One of the reasons I say this — and I wasn't going to bring this up

— is that the Member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) said in a public place,

when the subject of the actions of the Members for Vancouver Centre and

Vancouver-Burrard were in the paper on the fact that they were going to

have an emergency debate on rental gouging in this province: "Yes,

they're going to milk the situation to its fullest." That, Mr. Speaker,

is another reason why the Attorney-General has lost his credibility in

putting forth this bill. That is a terrible thing to have said by a

Member of a government that is bringing in such a short-sighted and

disastrous bill.

I'd ask you, Mr. Speaker, in agreeing that there have been some

landlords who have gouged their tenants, and in suggesting to the

Attorney-General, as I did, that there was another avenue of action for

him which would have had equally as strong an effect on any gouging

landlord, but not the long-range bad effect that this bill is going to

have, and not the involvement of so many innocent people who are going

to be themselves subsidizing tenants, and tenants who themselves will

be out on the street because there just isn't going to be enough

initiative to complement the government programme, why the ordinary

person should take this type of abuse that's been piled on top of them

by the Members of this government and this bill. Why should they, Mr.

Speaker?

In British Columbia we had one of the most viable housing industries

in Canada. At the end of the former administration we were leading

Canada in public housing development and in the variety that was

offered; but this momentum has slowed down since this government took

over. We say to you, Mr. Attorney-General: if there are gougers, get

them. But don't ask the innocent people, the average person, to bear

the brunt of your mistakes and your social responsibilities. Utilize

some of the suggestions as put forth by the Members of the opposition

as to how you really can go about solving this problem.

You know, Mr. Speaker, it's almost like little children playing. You

see them in the play yard, and there's a big bully that comes along and

he can't be accepted, so he decides that the best way is to rock the

boat and beat up on the other people and then come along and play the

big hero and rescue them. This is exactly what this bill is doing, Mr.

Speaker. This government has rocked the boat. To a very large degree

this government is responsible for the housing crisis in British

Columbia; and now it wants to rush in like a torpedo in shining armour

and save the people. But you can't save them with words, Mr.

Attorney-General; you have to save them with action.

I also would draw to the Attorney-General's attention a particular

crisis that we had in the area that I represent, and I went to him for

advice. We have a 50-unit mobile-home park — and we are very short of

mobile home accommodation in our area because of the land freeze. The

man who owns this mobile home park has been ill for a year. He's had a

coronary; in fact, he's had three coronaries. He has diabetes, he has

hypertension and he's just had his gall bladder out. He owns this park,

and his health is relevant in terms of the crisis that has been created.

Fortunately it's in a natural setting. It's not an elaborate park.

There aren't cement paths but it has excellent plumbing facilities. It

has good lighting and it has a lot of natural trees around.

This man cannot possibly run this mobile-home park himself any more

because of his health. Over the year that he's been sick he has been

running in a deficit position because of his illness and inability to

attend to his business. He spoke to his clients and told them that he

would have to raise their rent $10 a month from $35 a month to $45 a

month; and all the tenants in that mobile-home park were agreeable.

They wanted to stay there. Most of them are pensioners and older

people. They don't want a lot of fancy facilities and playgrounds that

are going to cost them a lot of money for just a few children. They

like the natural setting. They like the low rent and it's very

accessible to the lakes and the beaches as well as the commercial

centre of the town.

But because of this bill the man was forced to take the position

that either he be allowed, in concert with his tenants, to raise their

rents or he would have to close down the mobile-home park because he

couldn't keep it up. I went to the Attorney-General and told him of

this plight, expecting a reasonable and responsible answer. The first

thing that shocked me and put me off was that he said: "Oh well, you

hurt some people, don't you?"

I feel that that was a very irresponsible attitude and to me a very

disappointing attitude, because I have had in many instances a great

deal of respect for this Attorney-General. We had words in the hall — none profane — and I said: "Mr. Attorney-General, you have created this

problem; now you give me a solution or 50 people are going to be out on

the

[ Page 2385 ]

street in their mobile homes. And there is absolutely nowhere to go."

So he gave me direction, Mr. Speaker. He referred to a

section of

this Act, which I won't mention other than to say it was subsection 2

section 3.

In essence, the overall principle of the advice was that I speak to

the landlord; that I speak to the tenants; that I speak to the council;

that there be a public hearing in terms of the position of each, and

that the council make a decision and this be referred to the

Attorney-General's department so that if it was thought in the best

interests of the public and in reasonable cost, this mobile home park

would be exempt from this

section of the Act.

I did exactly that. I talked to the mobile-home park owner. He felt

that if he could get his extra $10 a month he could hire someone to

care for the park and would be glad to keep it open. I spoke to his

tenants and they agreed that they were quite willing to pay the

$10-a-month increase. I phoned the municipal council and told them what

was happening. They had their hearing at which the landowner appeared

and the tenants appeared. A resolution was drawn up and sent to the

Attorney-General's department.

Had the advice worked, I would have appreciated it when I finally

got it from the Attorney-General. What is the situation today? The

answer going back to this council is: "If and when this bill passes,

this matter may well be looked into and taken before the cabinet."

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That's right.

MRS. JORDAN: That's right. Well, Mr. Attorney-General, I

can't trust you any more and I hate to say it. You gave me bad advice.

You're leaving that council exposed to any kind of erratic decision the

cabinet may make. You know this bill is going to pass. You could write

a letter and say: "If the bill passes, we have accepted your reasons

and the matter will then be granted." Don't leave the council to be

caught in the noose to the whims of your government.

Furthermore, Mr. Attorney-General, when I seek legal advice I find

that this

section is only for class exemption. In other words, we're

going to have to go back in this area and have a whole series of public

hearings to find out if we have enough mobile-home parks in the same

situation so that they will all be exempt. What a completely ridiculous

and untenable situation! In the meantime the landlord is giving his

tenants their notice because of this indecision of this government.

Mr. Speaker, how can an MLA function with this type of advice from

the responsible Minister? How can any Member of this government, this

House or this opposition stand up and vote for this type of legislation

when this is the sort of responsible answer we're getting? How can the

people of British Columbia possibly know what their rights are or have

any security in their position at this time?

This Minister is not only on the Waffle Manifesto, Mr. Speaker, but he's a classic waffler when it comes to his legislation.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Why don't you discuss the principle of the bill instead of making personal attacks all the time?

MRS. JORDAN: Because, Mr. Attorney-General, you are the

architect of this bill as far as this House is concerned, and you are

not being responsible in terms of yourself, your position or the people

of British Columbia.

This House has laid before you evidence after evidence after

evidence of the folly of this Act. They have laid positive programmes

before you. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) in the throne

speech debate or the budget debate laid before you positive programmes

that this government should be undertaking to help relieve the housing

shortage. We have asked you to take the 5 per cent off the building

tax; we've suggested any number of reasonable solutions. The government

has a deaf and blind ear.

Mr. Attorney-General, I have a responsibility to stand up for the

people in British Columbia who are concerned about this. They are the

majority; they are the ones who are footing the bill. I don't mean the

big apartment owners — I mean the people.

As an MLA, I had a specific problem in which your personal attitude

was a great shock to the Member for North Okanagan. The advice was

ineffectual and it was wrong. That's why, Mr. Speaker, this

Attorney-General must speak for himself as well as the position in this

legislation.

We believe in options for people in terms of whether they want to

rent or whether they want to own. We believe the government should be

taking many of the positive steps that have been put forth by other

Members of this party. We believe the long-term effect of this bill

will be to further decrease the confidence of the economy of this

province, decrease individual initiative, decrease the credibility of

this government. I personally believe that the Attorney-General does

not believe in this bill himself and that he is succumbing to the….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Most of your speech is devoted to

remarks concerning the Attorney-General rather than to the principle of

the bill, which has to do with rental control at an 8 per cent level.

It seems to me that it would be quite improper to continue with this

line of debate.

MRS. JORDAN: I'm nearly finished, Mr. Speaker,

[ Page 2386 ]

but I don't regret any word I've said if I can stir the Attorney-General.

AN HON. MEMBER: You stirred your leader right out of the House.

MRS. JORDAN: If I can stir the Attorney-General to a

semblance of responsibility in his position and as an individual to the

people of this province, if I can stir the Minister of Finance (Hon.

Mr. Barrett)….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I've just finished drawing to your attention the fact that you should discontinue that line of debate.

MRS. JORDAN: You don't want me to stir the Attorney-General? I won't stir him, Mr. Speaker.

The principle we want is the principle of individual rights. We want

the return of democratic rights to people in British Columbia. We want

the government to stimulate positive action so that people will have

options in rental or in home ownership. We do not believe in the

principle of tenancy to the state or tenancy to big business that this

government is creating in this province. We want legislation that in

principle and detail, Mr. Speaker, is well thought out, well designed,

practical and capable of meeting the needs of the people and capable

of committing itself to do what it is charged to do.

It's at that point, Mr. Speaker, that on behalf of many, many people

in this province who are innocently bearing the burden of the

inequities or the inadequacies of this government that I make it very

clear that I will not support this bill.

MR. R.T. CUMMINGS (Vancouver–Little Mountain): Mr. Speaker, first I would like a little help. Are we discussing Bill 75, Residential Premises Interim Rent Stabilization Act ?

MR. SPEAKER: That is correct. I hope the Hon. Member will discuss the principle of the bill.

MR. CUMMINGS: What does it all mean? Does that mean temporary? Is it temporary?

Interjections.

MR. CUMMINGS: I wanted to discuss the Social Credit Party,

but after the Hon. Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan), I'm not

going to discuss the Social Credit Party's position on this bill.

The Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) made a statement. He

said: "The landlord is not covered under this legislation." A bad

person is not covered by any legislation. A person who breaks the law

breaks the law. I'm very, very surprised. I don't know where he's been

for the last 42 years, but laws are for good people, good citizens,

good landlords. Bad landlords will find that they are going to have to

pay a penalty. Basically I didn't enjoy his speech at all and the Hon.

Member for North Okanagan even made me more ill.

The Liberal position was a very interesting position. I admired the

way the Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams)

managed to take both sides of a position. It proves that he should be a

Member of the waffle party — a Liberal waffle.

HON. MR. BARRETT: He's not a waffle; he's a pancake.

MR. CUMMINGS: Oh, pancake.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Would the Hon. Member proceed on the principle of the bill?

MR. CUMMINGS: I should be allowed the same laxity that you allowed the previous speaker. Ex-laxity.

The reason for this temporary bill is that private capital has failed. The federal government has failed.

Interjections.

MR. CUMMINGS: Can I join in the conversation?

MR. SPEAKER: I would just roll right over top of it and keep going.

MR. CUMMINGS: The reason we need time is for responsible cities and responsible governments to respond to this problem of housing.

For example, I received this telegram from Michael Harcourt,

chairman of the housing committee. He was saying that there are over

400 acres of land in the southeast corner of Champlain Heights. Other

possible areas for housing will be Charles Adanac land to the northeast

end of the 401 freeway. Twenty-nine smaller and scattered potential

city-owned housing sites have been investigated. This is the way a

responsible civic government is answering these problems.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

The opposition doesn't seem to realize that there are people out

there. There are about half-a-million tenants and their dependents who

need protection. And they need housing.

But the private enterprise system has failed in housing. The reason

it has failed is because they can't maximize their profits. For

example, because of the inflation people are seeking shelter. They want

real goods. For example, they are investing in gold which

[ Page 2387 ]

pays no dividend. They are buying land. They bid up the price of gold; they are bidding up the price of land.

Rent control hasn't failed in Europe. In fact, there is a waiting list to get

into the controlled developments in England and Sweden, because they are the

best homes, the best…. Actually I was looking for my note for the Oak

Bay Member (Mr. Wallace), but he didn't say anything either. He just says there

are no tenants in Oak Bay.

I went for a ride in Oak Bay and I saw row after row of apartment houses — no vacancies. I wonder how many votes he's going to get. Thank you.

MR. AN. FRASER (Cariboo): I would just like to add a few

remarks on Bill 75, Residential Premises Interim Rent Stabilization

Act , and say that I'm surprised that the Attorney-General, with the

competence he has, would bring in

an Act like this. We thought a lot

more of him that he would put his name to legislation like this.

However, here it is.

Really, Mr. Speaker, what it is going to do is bring a halt to the

rental housing in this province. It certainly has shown signs of

slowing up. I think it is because of the investment climate that is in

this province in so many fields that it is affecting investments in

rental housing. The last Member who spoke said that private enterprise

had failed. Well, I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that they haven't

failed; they've been frightened away by socialist legislation. You

can't blame them for not entering a field such as rental housing with

the atmosphere of government in this province today.

Another thing that surprised me, Mr. Speaker, was that when the

Attorney-General introduced this bill, if I understand him correctly,

he said that taxes weren't going up. I'm talking about property taxes.

He specifically said they weren't going up in the City of Vancouver. I

would just like to inform this House that they certainly are going up

in the City of Vancouver. The last I saw the finance committee were

hopeful that they could keep the increase to 10 per cent — which they

probably won't be able to.

I don't think the Attorney-General should be misinforming the House

on property taxes and saying that they aren't going up. They certainly

are, and I know points in this province that are going up a lot more

than 10 per cent. The average will probably work out to a 20 per cent

increase in taxation.

I only mention this because these are increased costs to the

landlords. Under the proposed bill here there's an 8 per cent maximum

increase in rents, even if it is temporary but they are faced with this

one item alone of an increase in property taxes of 15 to 20 per cent.

And we are going to know that within 30 days because everybody will

have their tax notice.

There are a lot of other things I am going to mention that are going

up imminently, Mr. Speaker. I would suggest the NDP as the government

here have been preoccupied with the public ownership of land and they

have forgotten about building on any of this land. They are getting it

assembled so it can be built on. There is no shortage of land in the

Greater Vancouver Regional District. My information is that there is

9,400 acres available right now that can be developed for different

avenues of housing, rental housing included.

It would appear that the real problem is the shortage of serviced

land, and this government isn't doing anything about it. We've heard

that they have voted a lot under Housing, $100 million this year, but I

suggest that that isn't going to create one new home in 1974. The

situation is acute, and it is acute right now.

What we really need are incentives to get the private field going — those who have always built all the housing in this province and done a

good job at it. I think the Member for Dewdney (Mr. Rolston) went back

to 1963 and tried to muddy up the waters talking about it. I'd like to

say to you, Mr. Speaker, that there's a good record in this province of

all types of housing from the years 1965 to 1972, when some 12,000

rental units were constructed each year. So I don't think that we

should say, trying to take it back, that things were different in 1963.

There's a very clear record there of the years 1972 back to 1965, which

I think are far more pertinent than just using the year 1963.

As for the 8 per cent that is allowed for in here, just recent

information from Ottawa indicates the cost of living increasing at 12

per cent — not even 10 per cent. So I don't see how you can accommodate

the 8 per cent figure, or how it was ever arrived at. I think it was ad

hoc as usual, Mr. Speaker, from the Attorney-General. He flipped the

dice and came up with 8 per cent. I would like to know what factual

back-up he had in arriving at the figure because certainly it isn't in

relation to the situation that confronts everybody today as far as

that's concerned with reference to inflation; and rental housing is

only one part of that.

There's another point I'd like to bring out, Mr. Speaker, that

hasn't been mentioned here. I'd like to ask the question of the

Attorney-General, as sponsor of this bill, whether this legislation

applies to the provincial government; because they're landlords

themselves. I have information in front of me where they have increased

the land rentals 150 per cent in the year 1974 on leases from the Crown

to people with residential lots. I'm referring now to the Interior.

I appealed these 150 per cent increases in the month of March, 1974,

on behalf of the citizens that asked me to, and I have a letter here

from the Minister of Lands and Forests saying they were lucky it was

only a 150 per cent increase.

[ Page 2388 ]

Now this legislation in front of us is retroactive, and I would like

to hear from the Attorney-General whether he is going to communicate

with his colleague, the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources

(Hon. R.A. Williams) and tell him to roll back his 150 per cent

increase in lease rentals to the people he has already instituted it on

— back to 8 per cent as this bill allows.

You talk about gouging; well, here it is going on right here in this

very government in a different department from the Attorney-General. I

want to know from the Attorney-General whether he is going to make this

law apply to the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources who is

in charge of ground rentals. Really, the answer given by the Minister

of Lands, Forests and Water Resources on this situation — and there is

a lot of this property around the province — was the fact that they

reviewed the values of the lease rentals every five years and this was

a five-year review and these people were fortunate it only went up 150

per cent because they really had had four years of cheap rental.

Now I really would like to know, Mr. Speaker, from the

Attorney-General — and no doubt he will wind up this debate in due

course — whether he is going to roll back this huge increase. I might

say in regard to the lease rentals of the provincial government acting

as landlords that these people not only pay lease rentals but they also

pay taxes, so I think it certainly does apply.

I just want to say in closing, Mr. Speaker, that I would certainly

like to hear the Attorney-General's attitude on this, and to tell us

that Bill 75 if and when it passes, is going to apply to the Department

of Lands, Forests and Water Resources, who are going along at the rate

of 150 per cent in 1974.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): I didn't think we were winding it up just at this moment. I would like to have a word, if I may.

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that almost everything this government

has done since it came to power has been to make it more difficult for

individuals to not only own their own homes, but to find rental

accommodation. They've done it particularly in the areas of rental

accommodation.

The major builders are still doing buildings, but it appears that

the building they are doing is strictly for sale: condominiums and that

type of development. They are selling them, getting out of them as

quickly as they can. But individuals are not building apartments or for

that matter renting their own homes.

Rent controls lead to the creation of shortages. I think this is an

extremely poor method of trying to achieve the government's goal. It

leads to long waiting lists for housing. It leads ultimately to black

markets. It leads to disincentives for builders, and it makes things

acutely difficult.

I think this is a very poor solution to the problem which we all

agree is to try and create a climate for people to build rental

accommodation — to create more housing — rather than have a zero

availability.

Apparently other provinces are not having this same problem.

Continually we hear from the government that this problem was created

by the federal government change in taxation. But that's not apparent

in Alberta and Ontario. They still have the same federal laws as we do.

This province, with all the things that they have done, are making

investors doubly wary. I can certainly see why no one today would be

interested in building a large apartment block for rentals in the

future. This is a typical response of a government like this to place a

ceiling on one item only.

I notice that they solved their own problem — that is, their problem

as cabinet Ministers and MLAs — by creating larger incomes for

themselves and for the people who work for them, but they put a limit

on the earnings of entrepreneurs. This is their goal, obviously; this

is the way in which they seem to continually solve their problems.

They're not the slightest bit interested in getting at one of the major

root causes of this problem, which is inflation. They've admitted in

this House that they have no intention to get involved in that area,

but they solve the problem for themselves by larger salaries.

Frankly, I'm disappointed. I thought this government could have come with a much better and more workable solution.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Would the Premier of this province be making as

much as a Ford dealer?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please! Would the Hon. Member confine his remarks

to the principle of the bill?

MR. MORRISON: Frankly, when I listen to the replies of the

backbench of the government and I listen to the economic solutions that

I've heard from them, it's no wonder this government is in trouble, if

they listen to that type of economic solution.

I'm disappointed and I must say that I'm not in favour of this bill and I'm not in favour of this kind of legislation.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): I wanted to say a few words

about this bill as well and also to support my colleagues in their

opposition to this bill. I couldn't help feeling a little grateful, Mr.

Speaker, when I listened to the people on the other side of the House

giving us lessons in economics — the well-known businessman from

Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mr. Cummings) for instance. And there was

the fantastic economic lesson that we got

[ Page 2389 ]

from the Member for Richmond (Mr. Steves), who must have got all the

figures that he used during a particularly bad nightmare one evening. I

find that Member's thinking nightmarish at the best of times, but when

he gets involved in economics, it's woolly-headedness at its very best.

He must have got his economic education when he was selling the family

farm out in Richmond for residential lots.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): He did pretty well there.

MR. McCLELLAND: Right on! And the First Member for Vancouver

Centre (Mr. Barnes) is busy fighting for the poor renters of British

Columbia while he's sitting in the shelter of his 100-acre farm in

Metchosin, secure in the knowledge that he has a nice little nest egg

in his Port Moody house which he has up for sale right now for $74,000.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please! Would the Hon. Member confine his remarks to the principle of the bill?

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, they really speak for the little people.

As I consider this bill and the effects it's going to have on the

shelter industry in British Columbia, I recall a television programme

that I saw not too long ago which was extremely frightening. It was a

documentary programme done by one of the major United States networks

about the shelter industry and particularly the rental industry in many

of the big cities of the United States. It was frightening in that it

portrayed slums in cities like New York, Washington, Chicago, St.

Louis, Baltimore — some of those other major cities — which were

created almost instantly because of the kind of regulations that the

government decided to put in in the form of rent controls.

It showed dilapidated and run-down buildings and the total decay of

entire neighbourhoods, and largely because of the kind of rental

controls that the governments had imposed — buildings which weren't

hundreds of years old, but many of which were quite new, in quite sound

condition, when they were abandoned completely by the owners of those

buildings, who found that it became more economic to let the building

go than to meet the restrictions of the government.

It was frightening to watch the cameras roll over those large tracts

of buildings, totally empty, completely stripped, neighbourhoods

destroyed, simply because of the kinds of controls that the governments

had imposed. Criminals and vandals had taken over entire areas, looting

the buildings and everything that moved, simply because of the kinds of

controls that we're talking about here today — in major cities in the

United States.

The City of New York, for instance, has had rental controls for more

than 30 years, and most of New York City is a slum because of those

rental controls. There are 10,000 apartments every year in New York

City which are abandoned and are being turned over to the looters, the

vandals, the criminals and the drug addicts to do with them as they

wish.

There are thousands of abandoned apartments in England, abandoned

because the owners can no longer afford to keep up the maintenance of

the buildings, faced with the kind of restrictive controls with which

they are faced. So they abandon them and they become slums. That's why

much of London is a slum and much of New York City is a slum. I don't

think that's what we want for the City of Vancouver — certainly not we

on this side of the House, at any rate.

The Attorney-General, in opening debate on this bill, said something

about throwing the tenants a lifebelt. Well, what he's really doing is

not throwing the tenants a lifebelt, but he's tying an anchor around

the necks of the landlords, and he's going to pull the tenants down

with them at the same time.

This government has been on a treadmill since it took office, and

it's a treadmill to oblivion as far as the shelter industry in British

Columbia is concerned. They must realize on the other side of the

House, Mr. Speaker, that the only answer to the problems of British

Columbia today is contained in inventory. Inventory is the answer;

controls will lead to chaos. Rent control only hides the symptoms of

inventory shortage, and it will do nothing to solve the problems that

created those symptoms. This government is so hung up on ideology that

they allow it to blind them to every simple economic fact of life, and

until they pull away that ideology that hangs over their eyesight, we

never will get on with the job of providing inventory in the shelter

industry in British Columbia.

The 8 per cent limit disregards the simple inflation factor in

British Columbia and the 15 per cent average residential tax increase

throughout the Greater Vancouver Regional District. The

Attorney-General said, I believe, in the opening remarks that there

wouldn't be any tax increase in Vancouver this year. I don't know where

he gets his information, but all of the people on Vancouver city

council are pretty convinced that there's going to be at least a 9 per

cent tax increase and maybe more. Certainly the people who are owners

of apartment buildings, houses, vacant lots and commercial

establishments may find themselves, Mr. Speaker, with a heck of a lot

more increase than 9 or 10 per cent, simply because of the stupid

actions of this government with relation to assessments. Those people

are going to be hit and hit hard. What kind of help does an 8 per cent

increase do for them?

[ Page 2390 ]

There's a wage increase factor that this government isn't even

taking into account. This government certainly doesn't take into

account its own policy announcements with regard to increased costs of

heating for commercial establishments. It doesn't take into account any

factors except perhaps the static that it's been getting from those

Members from Vancouver who seek to protect their political base at all

cost, regardless of the chaos that is going to bring upon the housing

industry in B.C. I don't think there are a lot of gougers in the

industry, so I don't think that this kind of drastic action was

necessary.

This government wants to move into the private sector. It brings in

these kind of bills in order to ease the government's way in. Get the

finger in and then, once the door is wedged open a little way, you can

sneak in all the way and it's game over for the private sector. But if

that's the truth, and if this government really wants to get itself

involved in housing — and it's going to have to if it forces the

private sector out — I say this province is in for many, many years of

dismal, total failure in relation to providing the number of housing

units, both rental and private, which are needed to satisfy the demand

for people here in this province today and those who are going to come

to this province in the future. A total and dismal failure in the next

few years. We're going to be in a mess which will be very difficult to

clean up.

This government, with its obsession to get itself involved in areas

where the private sector has traditionally been involved, leaves me

with some degree of despondency. I don't want the people of British

Columbia to become tenants of the state under any man and I certainly

don't want to see the people of British Columbia become slaves and

tenants of the large corporations either, as the Member for West

Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) suggested in the House the

other day. No, no, Mr. Speaker, we don't want either to be tenants of

the state or tenants of the large corporations. We want to be in

control of our own destiny at all times.

I suggest to this government that it had better sit back and take a

new look at what it's doing in the shelter industry in B.C. It can't do

the job itself; it never will. We won't be able to get the private

sector to do it either. The situation is going to deteriorate further

because the private sector certainly isn't going to involve itself in

this kind of needed housing, given these kind of restrictive

regulations from this government.

Its attitude, Mr. Speaker, is totally unrealistic. There's no way

that a responsible and honest landlord can exist under the terms of

this bill. The Attorney-General says, "This is temporary legislation."

Well, it may be temporary, but eight months to me is a long time. Once

we've had this kind of legislation in effect for eight months, it does

tend to become permanent, as we see, and it's retroactive. That means

it's permanent for a full year anyway. The Attorney-General himself

said it's eight months before he can get rid of it and it'll be

retroactive for four months or so. That gives us a full year of this

temporary measure, a full year of uncertainty in the shelter industry.

Eight months with this legislation will destroy the rental

accommodation industry in British Columbia. Unless you replace it with

something else, there aren't going to be units to house people in need.

The retroactive aspects of this legislation are a nightmare to behold.

I suggest this government will never be able to police the retroactive

aspects of this bill and there will be total chaos and uncertainty

within the industry for at least a year.

By the end of that year he'll never have caught up to all of the

complaints. He'll have to have a policeman sitting on the doorstep of

every apartment building in British Columbia. Not only that, but it's

going to cost a small fortune to administer.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, maybe the Attorney-General should read the bill.

Probably one of the best briefs on the prospect of rent control that

we've seen was prepared by Dean Philip White of the University of

British Columbia. I don't intend to read this brief; many people have

read some parts of it into the record. There are about three parts of

it, very brief passages, which I think this House should take notice

of. The brief is from Dean Philip White of UBC who, incidentally, makes

a very strong case that rent controls will not and do not work. Dean

White says,

"First of all, the quality of the total housing stock

is reduced by inefficiencies in its use and it is reduced again by the

lower standards of repairs and maintenance in the controlled sector of

the market."

Once again controls lead to slums. Dean White goes on to say,

"Although rent control is intended to alleviate the

housing problem, in the long run it makes it more acute by increasing

the housing shortage and distorting the supply of new houses. Rent

control seriously damages confidence in housing as a private investment

and, if it continues for long enough, it may destroy it entirely."

So rent controls lead to the destruction of the housing industry.

And finally, Dean White concludes,

"As a method of granting relief to

low-income families, rent control must be regarded as decidedly

ineffective, irrespective of whether housing is regarded as an economic

[ Page

2391 ]

as a social service. The fact that it fails from either of these quite different

points of view ought to be sufficient to dismiss it from serious discussion

of housing problems."

"The fact that it fails…ought to be sufficient to

dismiss it from serious discussion of housing problems." Rent controls

as a measure of relief for low-income families are a total, dismal

failure. They will not work because they cannot work.

What did the government's own Law Reform Commission say about rent

controls? The quote in the writing of Professor Donison, excerpted from

the report on landlord-tenant relationships, says,

"Since the supply of housing in the inner city is

inelastic in the short run, i.e. unresponsive for a while to changes in

price, and since tenants have more votes than landlords, it is always

tempting to impose rent controls as a temporary solution to an urgent

problem."

I suggest that's the reason this bill is introduced in the first place: simply because tenants have more votes than landlords.

MR. CHABOT: Cheap politics.

MR. McCLELLAND: Cheap politics, that's about the size of it,

Mr. Speaker. This continues, "Their most destructive effects appear

much later; and the longer controls continue...."

MR. SPEAKER: …cheap politics is a bit insulting.

Interjections.

MR. McCLELLAND: I'm talking about the legislation.

MR. SPEAKER: Not against any Member.

MR. McCLELLAND: No, I never mentioned any Member, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

MR. McCLELLAND: "Their most destructive effects appear much

later; and the longer controls continue, the harder it becomes to

eliminate them...." That hearkens back again to the

Attorney-General's comments about this being "a temporary measure." I

dislike and distrust "temporary measures" because, as the Member for

Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) pointed out, they too often tend to become

permanent. This quote is obviously in concurrence with that.

"Their most destructive effects appear much later; and

the longer controls continue, the harder it becomes to eliminate them

for the good reason that the immediate effect of freezing rents will

generally be even worse. An industry which has grown unprofitable,

whether through price controls or other reasons, does not shed its

least efficient producers."

It is the most effective who go. It's the people who know what

they're doing who go. In other words, the inefficient are left behind

to scrabble up the situation even more. "In their place," as this quote

says, "are left the ineffective and the unscrupulous."

That's what you'll find at the end of this temporary measure. You'll

find that none of those people who have been looking after the problem

so well in the past and so efficiently in the past will be left in

British Columbia, at least in that business, and they'll all be gone

for brighter climes or some other industry. We'll be left only with the

inefficiency of government's entry into the field and the inefficient

and unscrupulous operators in the private sector.

No, this bill won't do anything to solve either the housing shortage

or to solve the problem that renters face in British Columbia. This

government has been blackmailed and blackjacked into this bill by a

vocal group of backbenchers who wouldn't know an investment if one hit

them on their heads.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I don't think it is proper to

attribute to any Member of the House what you called "blackmail." I

think every Member has a right and the opportunity to put their views

to the government, but to describe any such effort by yourself or

anyone else as "blackmail" would be inappropriate.

Would the Hon. Member please withdraw this?

MR. McCLELLAND: I'll withdraw the term of blackmail.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you very much.

MR. McCLELLAND: The government has certainly been blackjacked…

AN HON. MEMBER: Order!

MR. McCLELLAND: …and coerced into accepting a bad bill by a

group of backbenchers who don't know what the investment community is

all about, who probably have never taken a chance of any kind, have

never taken any risk to benefit their community of any kind in their

whole lives, who are pressuring the government for political purposes,

who are playing on the emotions of thousands of renters in British

Columbia, and particularly in Vancouver, to further their own

parochial, political ambitions. It's as simple as that.

[ Page

2392 ]

Interjection.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): I don't know whether

I agree with that or not, but I think it's unseemly of the

Attorney-General to wish to rush this bill through before Members have

had an opportunity to put on the public record their attitudes toward a

bill like this and their feelings about what needs to be done to

protect the consumer on behalf of the Minister of Consumer Services

before they impose legislation that is backing into the future.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: I hadn't realized that he was here to do it, but

if the Attorney-General would like me to give him my schedule, I'd be

very pleased to place my itinerary in front of the Attorney-General,

very pleased to.

The Premier has returned again. I see his headache's no better today

than it was yesterday. But I hope that when he has that nice rugby trip

to Japan, why, he'll come back to the House very refreshed.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sure you're going to get to the principle of the bill, are you not?

MR. McGEER: Yes, I was just diverted there by the groans, Mr.

Speaker. You know how my attention is distracted by the Premier and the

Attorney-General.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. McGEER: No, no, we'll be here. When does your plane leave, Mr. Premier? Leave on Saturday?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MR. McGEER: I'm trying my hardest, Mr. Speaker.

I want to concentrate on Bill 75 because, in my opinion, the bill

takes us in precisely the wrong direction. You know, the classic

problem of socialist governments around the world is a shortage of

housing. In British Columbia, we've got 36,000 square miles….

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): We had all the housing we need; now suddenly we're short. Is that the idea?

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, precisely. The Minister of Health understands

the problem perfectly: there's lots of space in British Columbia; there's lots

of timber; there are lots of tradesmen. If any place in the world had the means

to put up sufficient housing, we have those means here in British Columbia.

What a strange thing, with people wanting accommodation, with all of the necessary

materials and supplies here in the province, with a willing and able work force

we are unable to supply the needed accommodation. How is that possible in British

Columbia in 1974?

I could understand it, Mr. Speaker, if we were at war. There was a

housing shortage during World War II because our able young men were

off in Europe fighting and the materials needed for housing were

required for other purposes. But there's nothing to distract our work

force today. There's no shortage of materials in British Columbia.

There isn't anything competing for those materials which deserves

higher priority.

Yet, we have fewer apartment buildings available for our population

today than we have ever had. The occupancy rates are at record highs;

the vacancy rates are at record lows. Surely this should make everyone,

including the government, ask why?

The next question that everyone should ask, including the

Attorney-General, his cabinet colleagues, and the First Member for

Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) who was so anxious to see this bill

introduced; how will this particular piece of legislation act to cure

that shortage?

I have called many of the developers in British Columbia who

traditionally have looked after our supply of rental accommodations.

Every single one I have contacted has said they're going to put up no

rental accommodation — not just decrease it, they're dropping it to

zero. CMHC will give any Member who wishes to call figures showing that

apart building in British Columbia was dropping drastically even before

this legislation was introduced.

Let me quote some people, because these have been publicly released.

Here's George Mulek, a director of the Greater Vancouver Apartment

Owners' Association:

"In the present legal and political climate, I have absolutely

no plans for any further construction of rental apartment buildings in B.C."

I've talked to other builders and they feel the same way. Here's another representative, a builder:

"No investor is going to build rental housing in B.C. when his success or failure can be decided by the whims of the cabinet."

Here's Jim Clark:

"If the Attorney-General thinks this Act is going to

stimulate the supply of rental housing, he's dead wrong. It, will

further discourage those few who are left in rental construction."

[ Page 2393 ]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the Premier's great friend, Jack Webster,

this morning and he had the government's great friend, Bruce Yorke, on

with him — their housing consultant. One after another, developers were

calling in saying, "I will not build rental accommodations in British

Columbia." The people who those renters are depending on to ease this

shortage are saying, "We will not build rental accommodation in British

Columbia."

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: "They weren't building anyway," says the Member,

"what's the difference?" The reason we're in this situation today is

because they aren't building and haven't been building. So, what should

you be doing? And this is why this bill is absolutely wrong in

principle. What you should be doing is bringing in legislation that

will make these people say, "I'm going to build; I want to start

tomorrow."

You don't give them the right to gouge. You give them the right to

make a buck if they work for it. The reason why every socialist country

in the world is in trouble with housing is because they would rather,

in those countries, do without housing than allow someone to make a

buck.

HON. MR. COCKE: Tell that to Sweden. What a ridiculous statement!

MR. McGEER: I've been to Russia; I've been to eastern

European countries. I've been to Britain, and yes, I've been to New

York, a free enterprise place that had the stupidity to follow a

socialist dogma. And the same result descended on that poor pathetic

city as descended on the socialist countries.

Okay, if you accept the fact that these regulations and the laws

will discourage apartment building — and I defy any Member of the

cabinet benchers to tell me that it doesn't…. One of you stand up and

say this bill here will be an incentive to apartment building.

HON. MR. COCKE: It's not meant to be.

MR. McGEER: It's not meant to be. There's not one of them who believes it will help apartment building. They just sit there.

HON. MR. COCKE: Your Liberal government took that incentive away from the doctors, the lawyers, everyone.

MR. McGEER: Right. They took that incentive away. I agree with him, and what he should be doing...

MR. SPEAKER: You should be addressing the Chair.

MR. McGEER: …is restoring that incentive. He should be

restoring that incentive because incentives are the only thing that

will relieve this problem. The only thing.

A socialist Member down there thinks it's a giveaway. But

governments like to make a buck too. Given the chance, they'd go for

big profits the same way as the people whom the socialists attack. And

don't think, Mr. Speaker, that the socialists, once given a chance,

don't do the same thing if they're put in that position. Who is the

highest paid politician in Canada? The Premier. Who walked in and the

first thing they did was to double and triple salaries? The cabinet.

There's one difference, though, between what governments do….

HON. MR. MACDONALD: …he knows we're supposed to be debating

the principle of Bill 75. He's all over the lot; he doesn't know the

rules of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. McGEER: I know the Attorney-General doesn't want to hear

these things because they're true. He doesn't want them said publicly

because they're true. He wants to pull the wool over the public's eyes

in British Columbia and avert the fact that he is creating a housing

crisis in this province with this bill that he's introduced.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. McGEER: I'm just telling the Attorney-General why it's wrong.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I don't mind hearing him, but I heard

them while the Hon. Member was in Vancouver today. The same speech was

made before he got here.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Whether a speech was made in

Vancouver or not is not the question. The question is to stick to the

principle of the bill which has to do with rents and a rent freeze.

Would the Hon. Member please confine himself to that subject?

MR. McGEER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am talking about what

will happen to people who rent if this bill goes through. Let me start

right here with an accusation already made by an Alderman in Burnaby.

[ Page 2394 ]

He claimed that tips of $100 to $500 were being given.

MR. SPEAKER: This matter was fully canvassed this afternoon.

MR. McGEER: Certainly. But, Mr. Speaker, the problem with the

government is that they don't learn from a single description by the

Members of the opposition. It's the drip, drip, drip of water on the

hard, hard stone.

MR. SPEAKER: What the Hon. Member is saying is that repetition is necessary in debate when the rules say it is not permitted.

MR. McGEER: No, I think that it is necessary sometimes to

illustrate these basic points in different ways because I don't know of

any other system of getting through to the government. That is why, Mr.

Speaker, I'm dwelling on what I consider to be a fundamental

consequence of this legislation.

Put yourself in the position of a renter. If there are vacancies in

the apartment building and you say, "Well, I'd really like the place

painted." The landlord doesn't want an extra vacancy and he says, "What

colour would you like?"

Whereas if there's rent controls and the stove

stops working, the refrigerator is gone and the plaster falls out of

the ceiling, then what the apartment owner says is, "Shall I get

another tenant?" That's the difference.

The only discipline at all in this business is supply. Naturally,

every apartment owner is going to push the rent up 8 per cent. Whatever

the maximum is the government sets, that will be the minimum every

single apartment owner in British Columbia will apply to his rent every

year. You are guaranteeing by this that there will be an 8 per cent

increase in every single apartment building in British Columbia. Mr.

and Mrs. British Columbian, be warned that this bill guarantees your

rent will go up each year by the maximum allowed under the legislation.

The reason is that if anything goes wrong, why the apartment owner

will merely say: "Go find another place, if you can." There won't be

any other places to find. Why not? Because nobody is building apartment

buildings.

You see how it works?

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: Well, I'm describing every landlord in British

Columbia who is moving to defend his investment. And if it were that

good, if it were so easy to gouge, if that had been going on, you would

think there had been a fantastic supply of housing. But that hasn't

taken place.

Socialist governments around the world have applied these ceilings.

They have discouraged, because they are socialists, people operating in

the private sphere in the area of housing. They resent the idea that

somebody could make money by working hard and being productive in the

housing sphere. And the consequence, universally, has been a shortage;

no accommodation at all.

We have that situation in British Columbia. The fact that there is

now a blackmarket in apartment rentals in this province is the first

positive indication that British Columbians have of the long-range

consequences of this socialist approach to government. This is the end

result of your philosophy and your approach: at a time of record

availability of materials and men, you have managed to create a

shortage.

Mr. Speaker, I appeal to the government: withdraw this bill. Replace

it by one that offers incentives to the developer. Restore the

incentives that were here when there was enough housing in British

Columbia. Take us back to our former circumstances and the renter will

once more be king.