1981 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 32nd 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)

THURSDAY, MAY 7, 1981

Morning Sitting

[ Page

5453 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs estimates. (Hon. Mr.

Hyndman)

On vote 48: rentalsman –– 5453

Mr. Leggatt

Hon. Mr. Hewitt

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. Nicolson

Mr. Barnes

Mr. Levi

Mr. Lauk

Mr. Ritchie

On vote 49: liquor control and licensing branch –– 5461

Mr. Levi

Mr. Kempf

Mr. Macdonald

The House met at 10 a.m.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS

(continued)

On vote 48: rentalsman, $3,685,441.

MR. LEGGATT:

At the conclusion of debate yesterday afternoon, I made a brief

proposal to the minister concerning the emergency situation that exists

in the lower mainland with regard to mobile-home parks and

manufactured-home parks. I want to flesh that proposal out a little bit

for the minister, and I hope I'll have his attention shortly.

The proposal, in essence, is that a moratorium be declared — not now, but at a specific future date....

HON. MR. FRASER: You said that yesterday.

MR. LEGGATT: Yes, I did, Mr. Minister. I hope you do read the Blues.

HON. MR. FRASER: You're backtracking now, are you?

MR. LEGGATT: Not at all.

Interjection.

MR. LEGGATT: Well, I'll lay off the people of your constituency if you'll quit hosing the people in my constituency.

proposal is that the minister now announce that within — I would

suggest — a six-month period.... He will have no alternative but to

announce a moratorium on the sale of manufactured mobile homes in the

province of British Columbia, particularly in the lower mainland, where

I see that the crisis exists largely because of the lack of mobilehome

pads. If in that interim period industry, municipal government, the

Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) and the Minister

of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) can get together and see

a solution in terms of the construction of adequate numbers of

mobilehome pads in the lower mainland, that moratorium will not be

necessary. The reason I suggest to the minister that a preliminary

announcement now be made is that it has to be a cooperative effort to

get the construction of the parks for the mobile homes underway.

On the construction, first of all the industry must be involved. Secondly,

the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing must be involved, because there is

a good deal of Crown land that could be made available for that purpose. Certainly

the Minister of Municipal Affairs must be involved, because in the past municipal

governments have tended to discourage mobile-home parks. They're only responding

to the wishes of people who have homes in those constituencies, and they've

perhaps reflected that view. But the total situation has been avoided because

everyone has looked at it only on a municipal basis.

you look at it as an emergency in the total lower mainland, there is

simply nowhere for people who have their life's savings in mobile homes

to go at the present time. So I say, Mr. Minister, it's an emergency

that cannot be solved except with the cooperation of both levels of

government and the industry. If the minister sees that emergency and

seizes the opportunity, I think the little honeymoon he's having with

the media, being a new minister, could very well continue. It seems to

me that the minister has expressed concern about this problem, and I

know the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing is going to be meeting

with us next week on the emergency in my own constituency. I hope that

the minister seriously looks at this proposal, which identifies the

problem, gives warning to the industry and gives us enough lead time to

solve this emergency.

The second part of the matter the

minister must direct his attention to is that the present law provides

only three months' notice for people who have their life's savings

invested in a mobile home. Quite often the investment around the home

in the porch, the garden and so on can be $15,000 and $20,000 above the

actual purchase price. Their only security on that mobile-home pad is

three months. They can get a notice and be asked to move in three

months with no place to go, and with all of the tremendous improvements

they've made they are suffering a financial disaster in all the

mobile-home parks which are now facing increased value as a result of

the housing market and land values in the lower mainland. The answer is

that next there has to be a moratorium on notice; there has to be a

change in the law with regard to notice. Florida saw this problem some

time ago, and they do provide tenure to mobile-home owners so that they

have some assurance when they buy a mobile home that they're going to

have some security of tenure on that particular pad.

I think

these proposals could result in higher costs for tenancies on

mobile-home pads. It could result in higher taxes on mobile homes to

encourage the municipalities to look more favourably on the mobile-home

development. But quite frankly this is the only low-cost housing

presently available in this market, and we've got to at least shore up

that, since nothing more is available to a young couple starting out.

We owe something to the young generation. Most of the people in this

House were fortunate when we came along, and had a chance as young

families to buy a lot and build a house. We have not given that

opportunity to the younger generation, and we owe the younger

generation more than we're giving them now.

The reason we're

not giving them that opportunity is this government's fanatical

reliance on the free market to solve the housing problem. It never

really has been a free market. When many people in this place first

found a home they had a VLA arrangement, which was a very satisfying

way to allow people who had made their contribution in the Second World

War to acquire a site, get a home and get underway. Did it bankrupt the

country? Did the VLA proposal throw the free market out of kilter? Were

the Fraser Institute and Michael Walker running around in those days

saying: "You can't have the VLA; the VLA is socialized housing?" The

reality is that the government interfered in the free market in an

emergency and provided a very reasonable solution. What we're asking s

that the government simply do the same thing now: interfere in the free

market, examine where the free market has fallen down, and pick up that

slack, It's not going to distort

[ Page 5454 ]

the

free market. The free market isn't interested in satisfying the demands

of the people who need housing now. They're not interested, because the

profits aren't high enough. Those kinds of developments are simply not

attractive, and they're not going to be attractive.

So it's

time the government had a pragmatic look at the housing situation. Have

the courage to say you made a mistake. Reinstitute the Housing

Corporation. Have a second look. This government is supposed to be

famous for having second looks. Admit that the bunkum you peddled when

this government was in power is just that — bunkum.

I invite

you all to have a look at the NDP developments in my constituency.

They're doing very nicely, thank you. The only chance all those people

ever had to get into the housing market was with the New Democratic

Party of British Columbia. They're there now. Many of them have sold

their original units, which they got into for $1, and they now have a

chance to own a house. The same can't be said of their younger peers

right now. They don't have that opportunity. It's this government's

fanatic view of the free market in housing that is denying average- and

low-income people of the opportunity of gaining housing.

wanted to close with another point. I think the minister has a

responsibility to consumers. The first and most important crisis we're

facing is the housing crisis. The second most important crisis is the

fantastic interest rates that presently prevail. Any day now it is

expected that the major banks in the United States are going to

announce a prime rate in the vicinity of 20 percent. What we are doing

is rewarding capital to a tremendous degree. At 20 percent the reward

going to people's capital is so much higher than what is going to

people's labour that we have artificially distorted the market in a way

because of the monetarists. The monetarists say that by manipulating

the money supply, reducing the money supply and imposing the highest

interest rates in history we can get a handle on inflation. You'd

almost think there wasn't a debate anymore, because it seems to be

conventional wisdom — Mr. Walker and the Fraser Institute and the

Milton Friedmans of this world. But there are still people out there

like Galbraith. There are still people who are not supply-side

economists who are saying that this policy is leading us to disaster.

We've surely had the policy long enough now to re-examine it. I know

the ministry doesn't have control over national fiscal policy, but he

does....

AN HON. MEMBER: Why not?

MR. LEGGATT: He'd love to, I'm sure. He and Major Douglas would have loved to have control over monetary policy.

terms of his own responsibility in that portfolio, he can look at the

impact of interest rates on the consumers of various products in our

society. Certainly the present impact of interest rates on consumer

goods and in the housing field is disastrous. Here the government can

make a positive contribution by interfering in the free market with the

mortgage program — which they did and to their credit. They provided

$200 million in mortgage funds. Unfortunately, that's a drop in the

bucket. In terms of interest subsidy that only costs $8 million. Let's

go for a billion. That only costs $40 million. That's just a little

over half of what you're subsidizing northeast coal in terms of the

present budget — not a bad deal at all for the homeowners of the

province of British Columbia.

I don't want to be highly

critical of the minister, because he just began his portfolio. We wish

him a good deal of success. We sit in trepidation and fear that the

monetarists have him by the short and curlies, but we don't know. We're

waiting and hoping that there may be a progressive side to this

minister and that a pragmatic look at the problem may lead him to a

pragmatic conclusion.

What this problem needs is a pragmatic

solution — not a free market solution, not a socialist solution. It

needs a pragmatic solution, as we had with the VLA and as we had when

we guaranteed an interest rate with Central Mortgage and Housing. In

terms of the emergency situation that now prevails in housing and

particularly with manufactured and mobile homes, it takes the minister

and perhaps his colleague, the Minister of Lands (Hon. Mr. Chabot), to

intervene now and to interfere in the free market — yes, interfere —

and provide that kind of solution. In the long run you'll be protecting

the jobs of people who manufacture mobile homes and the businesses of

people who run mobile-home parks. At the present time the free market

is going to drive both of them right out of business and, in the

process, deprive low-income people of any chance whatsoever of housing.

I'll conclude on that point.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I've

never seen a member of this House or a lawyer backtrack so fast. I want

to quote the last point made last night: "....a moratorium on

mobile-home sales in British Columbia until you get your act together

and provide pads for those people who can't find a place to put their

houses." Then he goes on to say: "What I ask the minister to do now is

to seriously consider telling this industry" — that's the mobile-home

industry — "that at some specific future date — give them a little lead

time — we're going to put a moratorium on the sale of all manufactured

homes in British Columbia." It's really something to see the member for

Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) come in here this morning and backpedal.

It's really amazing. I'm sure that at caucus last night he got his ears

burned.

As a mobile-home owner myself, there is some concern

out there in regard to mobile-home parks and the lot on which that

mobile home sits, and I'd like to address that in a few minutes. Before

I do, I'd just like to respond to the member for Coquitlam-Moody, who

attacks the free enterprise system and says to this government:

"Interfere in the free market system." Well, Mr. Member, we don't

interfere in the free market system. We may support and encourage it,

but we don't get into state-owned housing as that party has done in the

past and would do in the future. You would find that every mobile-home

owner would be parked on state-owned land, and they would never know

from day to day what that party would do in controlling their lifestyle

if it was government. That is what he is advocating; state-owned

mobile-home parks. Then he has the audacity to compare the VLA land

sales to state-owned housing. I've got to tell you that there are many

veterans in this province who must shake their heads when they hear

that sort of thing. He knows full well that VLA provided the vehicle

for the private ownership of land, not state-ownership as your party

advocated when they were in power. The state will own the land, and

they will lease it; you could build your house on it or park your

mobile home on it, but never would you get to own that land. We can

quote line and verse of the statements made by the member for North

Island (Mr. Gabelmann) and the former Minister of Lands, who said that

the state will own the land, and that

[ Page

5455 ]

people shouldn't own land in this province. Mr.

Member, your statements this morning must send shudders through the

people of this province who are looking for the acquisition of their

own property.

There are many people in this province that

rely on the mobile-home industry. I asked my staff to get me some

figures in regard to what is happening in this province. From April 1,

1980, to March 31, 1981, the shipment of new units has totalled 3,337

units, dealers' sales to mobile-home parks have totalled 1,859 units,

and dealers' sales to private lot owners have totalled approximately

1,000 units. The point I want to make is that mobile-home living is

acceptable, it is good-quality living and it's affordable housing. I

think that we have to recognize that there are many people in this

province and this country who can't afford the 1,200-foot accommodation

on the 70-foot front lot any more, but who can afford excellent housing

— low cost, as far as maintenance goes — in the mobile-home sector.

should encourage and support the private sector in making land

available for mobile-home parks. I'll go so far as to propose what, in

my opinion, might be the solution. It's not state-owned housing, but I

can see the opportunity for the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing —

I recognize we may be straying a bit from the Minister of Consumer and

Corporate Affairs.... The point is that this is affordable, acceptable

and good-quality housing. The mobile-home industry has come of age; in

my city alone there are three mobile-home plants that are going full

out to provide this good accommodation for people who like that type of

accommodation and those people who look to affordable housing in a time

when the cost of housing is increasing substantially.

With

95 percent of the land owned by the Crown in this province, if the

government could see its way clear, and if the ministry responsible

could provide that type of lots for mobile-home accommodation — a

system would have to be put in place to make that available — and put

it out as strata title, so that the man or the family who own the

mobile home would have that security of tenure, because he would own a

part of that mobile-home park.... I think we, as a government, have a

tremendous opportunity to make that available — not state-owned

housing, as the member for Coquitlam-Moody would indicate; that's what

they would like.

I say let's take some of that land and, in

cooperation with the municipality or regional districts, develop that

land for 100 mobile-home lots and make it available at a price, over a

period of time, so it is affordable housing — so that an individual or

family could put a mobile home on that property and be secure in the

fact that they have tenure on that lot in that mobile-home park. That

is a little different from what would be advocated by the member for

North Island, who is going to get up and say that he didn't say people

shouldn't own their own land, I'm sure, but that's the policy of that

party — the socialist concept that the state will own the property.

Then you will be able to influence people more than you ever have

before.

In closing I would just like to say that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate

Affairs has a major problem confronting him with regard to rent controls and

affordable accommodation. I'm sure that he will work with other members

of this government to resolve that problem. When I hear attacks by the member

for Coquitlam-Moody saying, "Put a moratorium on mobile-home sales,"

he's basically saying put a moratorium on people who work for mobile-home

manufacturing companies in my town, put them out of a job and interfere in the

private marketplace. I'm just saying that there is a better way to do things

than having the state do it all, because in the end the state will do it to

you, not for you.

think there is a great opportunity for us to meet this demand that is

so severe at the present time. Just to point out what this government

has done for the mobile-home industry, which the member for

Coquitlam-Moody wouldn't even think of, we responded to the mobile-home

industry and allowed the 14-foot-wide trailer to move down our highways

in order to give better-quality accommodation to the person who wants

to live in a mobile home. We have done a number of things for that

industry in regard to mobile-home living. We have a mobile-home

registry, set up to ensure proper recording of mobile homes, instead of

having them as they were under the NDP, in many instances accommodated

through used car sales lots.

Mobile-home accommodation has

come of age, and to a great extent it has come of age under this

government's regulations. I would hate to see that party, if it was in

power, move back towards state ownership of land in this province and

controlling peoples lives, as they would like to.

MR. GABELMANN:

Mr. Chairman, it's tempting to reply in kind to the very political

speech made by the Minister of Agriculture and Food, almost entirely

saying things about us that have no basis whatsoever in fact. I want

not to make that kind of political speech but rather to make some

comments to the minister about some of the serious problems that arise

in respect of mobile homes. For many people — and that number is

increasing — mobile-home living is not only a choice because of

economic necessity, but increasingly a free choice, a choice that

people very much want to take. Mobile-home living, for many people, is

very attractive. I think governments of whatever political stripe will

have to recognize that much more is going to have to be done to create

the possibility for people who choose that lifestyle — either by free

choice or by economic necessity — to be able to live that lifestyle.

Let

me cite the most recent example in Campbell River regarding problems

with trailer or mobile-home living, We have a trailer court called Lost

Erra in Campbell River. There are 107 pads on the site. About three

months ago the owner gave all 107 tenants an eviction notice because

she was going to get out of the trailer-court business. That particular

problem has been resolved. The woman has been persuaded to sell the

place and somebody has been found to buy it, so it will continue as a

trailer court. But while the crisis existed, while the eviction notice

was standing, the owners of the mobile homes in the trailer court began

to look for places to move to in the Campbell River-Courtenay area.

There wasn't, and there isn't, a single pad space available in that

area — not one.

I think perhaps the member for

Coquitlam-Moody was attempting to focus on that problem: there are no

pad spaces available. The mobile-home owners in that particular case

elected a group to represent them; this representative group met with

the council in Campbell River and with the regional district. The

problem was that no land was available. There is a tendency on the part

of some municipalities, unfortunately, to try to avoid having trailer

pads in their municipalities. It's a hangover from the old days, I

think, when trailer courts were perceived to be an eyesore or a

undesirable feature in the municipality. Those days are gone, and there

are some beautiful mobile-home courts in various communities. There is

[ Page 5456 ]

reason

why they can't, properly maintained and properly landscaped and under

proper regulations, be an attractive and positive feature in a

municipality. That's an attitude which needs to be overcome, and I

don't see any attempt made at any level of government to do that at the

present time.

I briefly want to make the point that there

wasn't a single pad available. There needs to be some attention, and I

appreciate that it's not entirely the responsibility of the Minister of

Consumer and Corporate Affairs, although he has several

responsibilities when it comes to trailer pads. It's a question of

Crown land being made available to municipalities or to private groups.

Let's end this nonsense if we can. When we talk about the government

getting involved in attempting to assist people's housing needs, we get

statements like those just made by the Minister of Agriculture. He said

we want state ownership. It's just such nonsense, and it demeans this

Legislature for us to carry on that kind of irrelevant debate.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about Casa Loma?

MR. GABELMANN:

The Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) is such a wonderful man and

such an easy man to deal with in his office, but sometimes when he

comes into this chamber it changes his personality.

Let's

all of us in this Legislature, when talking about the housing crisis,

recognize that there are a variety of solutions. They include

government participation in developing a variety of programs, which

include attempting to make land available one way or another for people

who have mobile homes. That doesn't necessarily mean that the state is

going to own the land. But I can tell you there are a lot of

mobile-home owners out there, and I include all the people who live in

Lost Erra in Campbell River, who could care less who owns the land as

long as they have a pad.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN:

I don't know how many times we have to stand up in this Legislature

attempting to have a rational debate about issues like housing, and we

get the kind of nonsense that the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) just

put forth. "The foot in the door" — as if we are trying to create a

society he intimates we are trying to create. It's absolute nonsense!

The

best solution in this particular case I refer to with these tenants in

Campbell River might well have been for them to develop a co-op so that

they collectively own all the land, or perhaps a form of strata title

even though it's level and not in the air. Maybe that's another

solution — either one of those options so that they would own the land,

either cooperatively or through a condominium strata title type of

arrangement. I don't want the government to own the land. The people

who live on it and have some responsibility for it should own it.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. The hon. member for North Island has the floor on vote

48 and will remain speaking while he's standing. He will be allowed to

speak uninterrupted.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, I have the impression sometimes that the

Social Credit Party feels that the only way they can win the election is to

try to paint us as something we're not. If the election were fought honestly

on the two clearly spelled-out philosophies that we each represent, they wouldn't

have a chance. So they have to smear and paint those kinds of politically dishonest

untruths. We are talking about trying to solve one of the greatest social crises

this province has ever faced, and what do we get from that side? We don't

get positive contributions or thoughtful response, but we get that kind of political

nonsense which has no place in an intelligent debate about a serious problem.

There

are a variety of solutions. They include cooperatives, strata title and

private ownership, and in some cases they're going to have to include

some kind of social public housing. I don't want that and neither do a

lot of people, but if you don't have any place to live, you're going to

take that option and that opportunity. Yesterday a social worker in

Campbell River said to me that the only social public housing available

in Campbell River — and there are two facilities — is available for

people on welfare who have two or more children. But there is no

housing whatsoever for a single mother with one child. I refer now to

an incident I raised yesterday in the Legislature.

So there

are a variety of requirements and a variety of solutions. If this

Legislature is to mean anything, we should have an intelligent debate

about what are clearly some different approaches. But let's not smear

each other by charging that one is going to do something or take a

policy or an action that they're not going to do. Let's have the debate

based on what we are going to do. We're talking about a mix. You're

talking about a free market solution which hasn't worked. Let's have

the debate on some honest grounds.

Mr. Chairman, to go back

to the mobile-home issue, let's make it clear what this side believes

in. We believe that a lot of people want to live in mobile homes and

that that's a good option for a great many people in our society. We

want to encourage that kind of living.

MR. NICOLSON:

I see that the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) is a bit of a

hit-and-run artist. He comes in here, spreads a whole bunch of folderol

and then takes off. In his own riding, what was the NDP record? I

invite him to go and take a visit to Nicholson Street in Penticton —

which, without any urging from myself, was named by the past mayor of

Penticton, Frank Laird — and look at the privately owned dwellings,

probably the. most reasonable recently created housing in British

Columbia — units that all sold for under $30,000 and are all privately

owned in his own riding.

I'd like to take my colleague, the

member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt), to task in terms of his

remarks. I'm speaking as an up-country member. Too often people in the

city look at the very real problems that they have — and there are some

horrendous problems in that Coquitlam–Pitt Meadows area where there are

mobile homes.... I noticed that one of these problems is of the

government's own making. They've taken a mobile-home cooperative in

Pitt Meadows, and now they're going to change the tenancy. They've

offered, made the choice and pitted one member against the other by

saying: "We would like you to buy the whole thing outright at the

current market of 1980. If you don't agree to this, then our next offer

is going to be at the most current price, which would be a 1981

figure." This has put senior citizens who have lived in that unit since

it was first opened in about 1975 — I was at the opening and talked

recently with the past mayor of Pitt Meadows, who was at that opening —

in a very difficult position.

[ Page 5457 ]

I'm

not unmindful of the problems that exist in places like Coquitlam and

Pitt Meadows. But certainly to take a measure and apply it holus-bolus

to the province, where in my area there are vacant mobile-home pads....

There is a fairly good supply-demand situation. I would hope that

things are always done with a view to treating the areas where the

problems are. I suppose that a moratorium on selling mobile homes to

the West End of Vancouver will do no harm. But, of course, any sort of

a moratorium, if not applied very judiciously, could have very harmful

effects in areas that need not be affected.

The House is not

served by comments that are sort of attempts at goading people on. I

don't want to get into another area, but when I was Minister of

Housing, for instance, I don't know of one piece of W.A.C. Bennett's

Social Credit legislation that I repealed. I did expand the terms of

certain bits of legislation. To think that things have to be discarded

because they were done by a previous government is very negative. The

member from the South Okanagan, the Minister of Agriculture and Food,

got up and talked about strata-title as a solution, as did my colleague

for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann). Who brought in the instrument whereby

strata-title could be applied toward mobile-home pads? The first

strata-title instrument brought into this province was brought in, I

think, in 1968 by the previous Social Credit government. It was limited

to the Australian model from which it's taken. It was limited to

multiple dwellings and even duplexes, but it certainly didn't have the

concept of a land strata title. That was brought in when we revised the

Strata Titles Act in 1974-75.

He talked about the

mobile-home registry. The mobile-home registry was one of the

assignments to the Audain commission on mobile-homes. Of course, it was

enacted and brought in by the subsequent government. The way, I think,

in which we can serve the housing needs of this province is to not

disregard the Audain commission because it was commissioned by a

previous government but to act, which the present Minister of Finance

(Hon. Mr. Curtis) did when it was his responsibility.

There

are some real problems in tenure. Some of the problems, as I said, are

the making of your government, when people are offered this choice

which changes the status quo. They are presently on Crown land with a

lease — I think the lease is renegotiable every five years, based on

current market appraisal. If they don't agree with the market

appraisal, there is an arbitration procedure in those contracts. Then

the government says: "Well, we want to sell." Right away you've got a

group of people who say, "Okay, we want to buy, " and you've got

another group who say, "No, we can't afford to buy; we can't afford to

put that money up front," and you create a division in a co-op. Moves

like that are absolutely unnecessary. They are predicated on this kind

of mindless fish-and-foul thing about who owns the land or "you don't

want to be tenants of the state, " and that sort of thing. The only

time that is going to be a threat is when you change the ground rules.

People entered under those ground rules; people were happy under those

ground rules. The people in the Pitt Meadows co-op have a heated indoor

swimming pool, an integrated laundry facility, a little post office and

a large meeting area. These were the cooperative principles under which

they entered their tenancy. When government changes that, they are

being victimized by the state. The state they are being victimized by

right now happens to be under the control of the Social Credit

government.

I think we should facilitate the instrument of

cooperatives. I think we should facilitate the instrument of setting up

strata-title mobile-home tenancies. If it requires government action,

then government could do this.

I suppose one could respond

to the various types of bait thrown out, but I think the minister.... I

might just ask the minister to confess an ignorance here. You know, we

all posture that we're always on top of everything. Is the mobile-home

registry under your ministry? It is? Okay. That's the logical place for

it, the way you've arranged everything else. That was not meant to be

humorous.

I might say that one little problem arose when the

mobile-home registry supplied some information to the Ministry of

Finance, but it was quickly rectified. A person who had owned a mobile

home in Alberta for about four years brought it into British Columbia,

registered it with the mobile-home registry and then received a bill

for sales tax of umpteen hundreds of dollars. But as I said, it was

very quickly rectified. It doesn't seem to be a recurring problem, and

I hope it won't be.

The minister was willing to get up and comment on earlier remarks, so I would give the floor to the minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. members, with respect to this vote, great latitude has been

allowed yesterday afternoon and again this morning. The Chair

recognizes the concern of members with respect to issues that aren't

really in this vote. I guess we'll have to allow a bit more latitude

with respect to the vote, but we really are discussing vote 48, the

office of the rentalsman.

MR. BARNES: I have just a

few brief comments in review. Most of my remarks were made yesterday. I

wanted to remind the minister, when he responds, not to forget that I

did raise a question yesterday with respect to proclaiming

section 44

(b), which was an amendment to the Residential Tenancy Act passed

nearly a year ago. As the minister realizes, that particular

section

would bring long-overdue relief for tenants living on a permanent basis

in hotels that are mainly licensed for transient occupants and not for

persons who would be living there the 10 and 20 years that I explained

was the case. Yesterday I used the example of the Hotel Stratford.

There are many facilities such as the Hotel Stratford that house many

of the old-timers who have been in the east side and the lower downtown

part of Vancouver for many years, and who have no protection as tenants

because they happen to reside in hotels that are licensed — quite

erroneously, I might add — for transient occupants. Most of these

hotels rarely rent to transients. In fact, I doubt if many of them even

have any available hotel space, because they rely quite heavily on

these permanent residents. Their main source of revenue really comes

from their licence to sell beer in the parlours below which I believe

we'll be getting to under the next vote.

I also mentioned to

the minister the problem with respect to the eviction of those same

people who were given 30-day notices — gratuitously, I might add,

because they did not have the right to any notice whatsoever. But they

were tragically displaced as the result of an application to renovate

that particular facility. I presume it will become a luxury facility

with the speculation that after construction of the new sports stadium

new opportunities for much higher revenue will be created — probably

between medium and luxury accommodation.

[ Page 5458 ]

The

other point I wanted to make was that in the residential portion of

downtown Vancouver it is expected that this year alone some 45

residential units will be demolished. I have no idea of the number of

residents this will involve, but these are structures that have

received or will be receiving demolition permits. This means that these

buildings will be replaced by new facilities in a luxury category.

Therefore we will probably have thousands of tenants who will be

displaced and will have to find other accommodation.

AN HON. MEMBER: Talk to Mike Harcourt. He issues the demolition permits.

MR. BARNES:

That's a very valid observation on behalf of the minister of highways

and communications. I appreciate your interjection. This is one of the

rare times that you have made some sense by interjecting from your seat.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's very insulting.

MR. BARNES:

That's not an insult; that's a fact. I haven't heard you stand up and

speak in this debate yet, and I'm hoping that you will, notwithstanding

your interest in cycling. This is what happens when that side of the

House becomes frivolous and tries to make fun in a serious debate.

AN HON. MEMBER: I wasn't trying to making fun.

MR. BARNES:

Oh, yes, you were. You know full well that the mayor of the city of

Vancouver is independent and relies on the TEAM members, of which there

are two, and three NPA members, and therefore he is in no position....

Furthermore, in defence of the mayor of the city of Vancouver, I would

point out to him that the mayor attempted to pass a moratorium on the

demolition of affordable rental housing in the city of Vancouver and

was turned down by his friends the Non-Partisan Association and two

TEAM members. The only ones that supported the mayor were the COPE

members, and they lost that vote. But the mayor has attempted to

protect the tenants in the city of Vancouver, and I'm suggesting that

if the government really cared it would make an appeal to its friends

on city council in Vancouver and ask them to reconsider their

insensitive attitude to those tenants who are being turfed out by the

thousands in the city of Vancouver. That's why I appreciate the

comments of the minister of housing.

As I was saying before

being interrupted by that minister, we all know the Erkindale

Apartments were once owned by a mayor of a city within a city, Mr. Alex

DiCimbriani. However, he has sold his properties to Qualico

Developments Ltd., and Qualico has proceeded to redevelop those

holdings and issued notices to 110 tenants, mostly senior citizens who

will be suffering the same fate as those at the Hotel Stratford. That

is the true side of what is happening with respect to tenants

throughout this province. They're being displaced, brutally and with

indifference. The government seems to be incapable of responding to

this urgent, emergency situation. I want to remind this minister, when

he takes his place, that we're talking about a situation that has to be

responded to immediately.

I don't wish to belabour the points I made yesterday, but I would like

as well to indicate to the House, although I don't have a count of all the

instances, that I do know of one case where a landlord is allowing rental units

to remain vacant in anticipation of having a demolition application approved

by the city. I suggest that this is the way things are in the city of Vancouver

and throughout the province at the present time. Everyone who owns properties

is attempting to capitalize on the housing crunch and on the pressures that

tenants are facing. It's an indecent situation, when we know that there

are apartments available for rent sitting vacant and deliberately being left

vacant. Caretakers and managers of these apartments are being advised by owners

to leave these spaces vacant rather than permit tenants to live in them, which

might possibly create a problem when they have to kick them out on short notice.

They're leaving them vacant in the middle of a housing crunch in anticipation

of a time when they will be able to tear the building down completely and create

a new luxury facility which will displace the whole works.

We've

talked so much about the principles of the free marketplace and the

rights of property-owners. This morning we've had some comments from

the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) and others with respect

to who should have the right to own land and who shouldn't have the

right, accusing the opposition of saying that the state should own all

the land and that the people don't have a right to it. I suggest that

if you did a tally of the people who own land in this province, it

would be a very small portion of the population. Most people are paying

mortgages on homes they think they own, but most of them will probably

die before they pay them off, if they're lucky enough to even get a

down payment to buy them in the first place. It's a bit of an

incomplete explanation of what the reality is about ownership. That is

an absolute myth. I certainly doubt that any of my children who don't

own homes at the present time are likely to own their own home in their

lifetimes, unless I'm lucky enough to give them $100,000 towards a down

payment. I doubt if I can do that. I doubt if very many people will be

able to do it. So let's just be realistic about ownership.

Let's

talk about people having an opportunity to live with some respect,

comfort and have productive lives while they're still in a position to

be able to enjoy it. Let's not put the old carrot out in front and play

the game about one day you're going to be able to win the lottery and

get a million dollars or something like that. Most people don't. That

doesn't happen. The hard factors are a lot different.

I just

wanted to cap off my comments from yesterday. I know that the

minister's going to be getting up in just a second. I did not want him

to forget that the problem is an emergency. Let's try to give some

indication that we can do something and have some relief today —

immediately. Let's have something that will help the people who are out

on the streets right now. I know that long-range plans are always the

easiest to talk about because that permits us to buy time, to avoid

having to take any action immediately and, therefore, to basically do

nothing. The people who are suffering need help today.

Mr. Minister, I can see that you're anxious to get up. I'm going to anxiously and carefully listen to your remarks.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN:

There's been a lengthy debate on vote 48. For my part, I want members,

particularly those opposite, to know that I have listened with very

sincere care to what they've had to say. I think probably the most

sincere thing I can say to reflect my interest in what members opposite

have said is that the record will show that in my remarks I have not

referred, nor do I propose to refer, to the materials of the Fraser

Institute or Dr. Block, nor have I

[ Page 5459 ]

gotten

into that kind of debate. Mr. Chairman, I also want to acknowledge

sincerely that members opposite have been extremely fair in

acknowledging my relative early tenure in this portfolio. I certainly

want to say to the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) in

particular that I do not propose to be a minister with these

responsibilities of whom it will be said he has done nothing.

The

member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) and I share some very deep

philosophical differences, but, in my view, he gave a very thoughtful

and rational speech on two occasions in these estimates. I thank him

for those remarks — parts of them we disagree on, but I recognize the

fact that in other respects, I think, there are some very worthwhile

concepts in what he's had to say, as there are in the remarks of a

number of the other members opposite. Like all of you I am very

concerned about the housing situation in this province and the very

tight vacancy rate. The second member for Vancouver Centre and I again

will disagree on many things, but I want him to know publicly that I

think his remarks yesterday, in the best traditions of this place,

reflected a very profound concern for the very serious social problems

he's facing in Vancouver Centre.

The debate on vote 48, Mr.

Chairman, in part related to housing, as it must. I sit with my

colleague the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) on

the housing committee of cabinet, and most definitely I am hopeful that

between now and the next time I face members opposite there will be

things happening that will address the common concerns we share — and,

I think, the difference in debate as to how we get there.

Let

me stress that in terms of the examples we've had of conduct by

landlords that are exorbitant and unconscionable, I wouldn't tolerate

those for a moment longer than members opposite. For example, in cases

of 78 percent rent increases I would reject those, as you would, as

being exorbitant and unconscionable and the kind of increase about

which something should be done. We're looking immediately into the one

that you've brought to our attention, and I would have no hesitation in

saying to landlords out there who want to be the bad-guy kind of

landlord that we will use the full resources of the legislation to deal

with them, including investigation and prosecution if we have to.

The

very difficult policy problem, as we see it, in addressing the question

of affordable housing and affordable rents is to balance the necessary

protection for tenants with the necessary incentives for supply. I

think that difficult choice is the root question we're really talking

about, and, broadly speaking, we do have some differences. But I want

to assure members that I don't want to be a minister, in respect of the

matters involved in vote 48, about whom it will be said that nothing

has been done. Mr. Chairman, it is my hope when I stand before you a

year hence that I'll be able to point to some very tangible changes and

improvements which recognize some of the points of view that members

opposite have raised; and, more importantly — regardless of whose idea

it was and who won or who lost in this chamber — that the fact will be

that housing will be in greater supply and more affordable, and

vacancies will be at a higher rate. But, I think, most important of all

for this present time and place is that we can all do something to

alleviate that very serious worry, despair and apprehension in the

minds of tenants — not just seniors and low-income tenants, but really

today all tenants. I thank members, Mr. Chairman, for their

contributions.

MR. LEVI: I have just a brief comment,

Mr. Chairman. It's been a long debate on a very important issue. The

record will show that the members on this side, as they always are,

were practical in the suggestions that they offered — they were

broad-ranging and they were not negative. The extent to which the

backbenchers of the government feel that this is the problem can be

seen by the empty seats which we've had during all of this debate. It's

a shocking state of affairs. That's the group that has exhibited an

incredible amount of negativism. We've had the most asinine statements

coming across the floor, particularly from the Cariboo chipmunk there.

HON. MR. FRASER: Order!

MR. LEVI:

I wasn't talking about you. [Laughter.] That's what it's been like in

the issue that grasps probably every family in this province — empty

seats on that side and no statements, except from the minister. And we

can't really go after the minister because he's only been there about

four months.

HON. MR. FRASER: Well, give me credit for being here.

MR. LEVI: You don't get credit for anything. If I was a judge, I'd sentence you to walk around the Marguerite 5,000 times.

The

important thing that I want to point out to the minister is that, as he

has agreed, some suggestions have come from this side, and nothing has

come from the other side, except for him.

MR. LAUK:

Mr. Chairman. the minister has used every conceivable theatrical and

dramatic device to pull himself out of his responsibilities. As

honourable members of this House, we're pleased to receive whatever

bouquets the minister wishes to throw in our direction. However, we're

not here in a gentlemen's debating club to be polite to one another.

We're here representing the very sincere interests of ordinary people

who are receiving horrendous rent increases and are being thrown out

into the street because of indiscriminate demolitions, profiteering and

greed. We're not here to pat each other on the head, because if it were

just personalities, I regard both the Minister of Lands, Parks and

Housing and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs as friends

of mine. So what? They don't represent that friendship in this House;

nor do I represent that relationship in this House. We represent other

people in our constituencies.

It should be clearly

understood that we're not here to throw bouquets at one another. We're

here, from the opposition point of view, to demand action on a crisis,

particularly in Vancouver Centre and in other jurisdictions, and we

demand it now. We don't want glib statements, vague promises or the

soft-sell approach. We won't put up with one more deception, one more

delay or one more stall. We demand action now. I want the minister

clearly to understand that we're not here patting each other on the

back at an old boys' club. We've got work to do. The minister has had

enough time in office, having consideration for his education,

intelligence and background, to get on with the job and on with it now.

MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, there has been lots of latitude, but I think that the main issue here has not been

[ Page 5460 ]

exposed or talked about. It is

because of the comments of the previous speaker that I was prompted to

get to my feet and say a few words. Before I do that I have to take the

member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) to task for his comments

yesterday, which, in my opinion, could be very costly to people

throughout this province who depend on that mobile-home industry for

their livelihood. When I think in terms of the number of locks that

went to mobile homes, the number of windows, the number of wheels, all

the equipment that goes in there and the number of people who are

employed, to think that a member of this Legislature would stand up

with a kneejerk reaction to a situation that has been caused by a great

economy and say we should have a moratorium and stop the construction

of those and haul all those people out of business.... That is the

irresponsible talk and action that this province has suffered from in

the past. I don't ever want to see it again.

Right at this

moment I am having one of my people contact some of these manufacturers

to find out what the effects of this would be on their businesses. What

is the effect going to be in Kamloops, in Kelowna and throughout this

province if we would listen to that sort of advice? I would think that

member has blown his opportunity to be the leader of that party. I hope

that when he was roasted last night, they did it real well.

I'd

also like to comment on the remarks of the member for North Island (Mr.

Gabelmann), who said that he would favour cooperative housing and

strata-title housing. In fact, he may go along with government-owned

housing — not that he really likes it, but he would go along with it.

This is so confusing that it just causes one to wonder what on earth

they are all about and what depth they will reach in order to try to

get those people out there to give them the support that they need.

MR. KING: Ah-ah! Nice, nice!

MR. RITCHIE: You'll get your turn, and I'll welcome it. I can't understand this at all.

Mr.

Chairman, we see this going on all the time. They're prepared to take

whatever it is and twist it around if there are going to be some

political gains to be made by it. But people out there understand, and

don't you ever think they don't. They understand. But why is it that we

have such a difficult problem about housing in this province? Why

didn't we have this problem in 1972, 1973, 1974 and up to 1975? I'll

tell you: the reason they didn't have the problem is that they chased

business out of the province, chased jobs, frightened companies out of

the province, and therefore the people had to go where the jobs were,

and that wasn't in British Columbia. Since we're onto housing, mobile

homes and trailers, I can think of one, Kustom-Koach in Aldergrove — a

very successful firm, and one which I personally had a hand in helping

get started, with goodwill and good advice.

Interjections.

MR. RITCHIE:

Not midnight meetings or anything else but I did exert myself, and I

did all I could for this family firm who were in the business of

building trailers, and so forth. They went to Alberta because they were

scared. When the socialist government took over in British Columbia

they said they weren't going to stay around at all; they went to

Alberta as did many others. As a result we had many vacant homes and

apartments, and no housing problem, because the people were leaving.

Don't you understand that? They were leaving!

Now we have a

situation where we have about a thousand people entering our province

every week. That's the real, major cause of this problem. People are

coming in because of the policies of this government making the

province attractive; the jobs are here and people are coming. Our

construction industry is having difficulty keeping up with the demand.

In my own constituency alone, I can tell you, if you want a tradesman

to do anything around your home you may find it impossible, because

they're all so busy building new apartments and homes. The reason for

that is because of the policies of this government. The economy here is

booming and people are coming, not going. We'll have this problem, but

our government is working on it. We'll have the answers. There's no

question about it. I don't like the fear tactics that are being used. I

had a call from a lady yesterday who is in a very difficult, uncertain

position, which has been triggered off by the fear tactics of the

opposition in this House.

MR. BARNES: Yes, the housing crunch is a joke.

MR. RITCHIE:

They're fear tactics. We know the problems here. We're doing something

about it. The problem is greatly aggravated by the fact that the

economy in British Columbia is so good that people are coming here.

Therefore there is that pressure on housing.

MR. BARNES:

I would like to specifically refer the minister to a letter that he

wrote to me recently. It's to do with the proclamation of

section 44(

b) of the Residential Tenancy Act. He says:

"Dear Emery:

"Thank you for your interest and concern in writing me on

April 29, concerning rent controls and senior citizens living in hotels.

"As you are likely aware, there are three separate financial

assistance programs of the provincial government which may help seniors in such

cases. One is SAFER, one is GAIN for seniors and one is Rentaid. On the matter

of the jurisdiction of the rentalsman's office over hotel premises, as you

know, legislation directed towards this type of situation was passed last session.

Its proclamation has been deferred until staff at the office of the rentalsman

can provide effective monitoring of the provisions."

He then thanked me for drawing his attention to this matter.

What

I'm asking the minister to do — he neglected to do this when he stood

up the last time — is to make any reference whatsoever as to when the

rentalsman's office would have in place the necessary monitoring

system, or whatever is required after nearly a year, to deal with this

emergent problem. It is not something that can go on indefinitely. How

much time does the rentalsman's office need? Why can't he at least

ensure that they get what they need to do the job? Certainly, that's

one thing that's within the minister's power. Why couldn't he respond

to that directly?

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: That section, as

the member knows, was proclaimed in mid-January. At the time we

outlined that with all the sections that were then coming in, there was

obviously, in the result, a very much increased workload for staff. It

became necessary to prioritize which of

[ Page

5461 ]

the

sections would get the first attention in terms of staff service and

work. We pointed out when we announced the proclamations that the

reason the particular

section the member refers to was not then

included was in an effort to get the increased volume from the other

proclaimed sections in hand and in manageable state. That's now

proceeding. We are monitoring the situation in terms of incoming phone

calls and mail requests. Although the situations, when they arise, are

very difficult human situations, they are not arising nearly as

frequently as other types to which staff are devoting their attention.

We hope we will be able to proclaim that

section in the reasonably near

future, but we certainly don't want to do it at a time when, having

proclaimed it, we then say that we're too busy to help and to act on

it. I can only go so far as to say that we hope it will be in the

reasonably near future, but I can't target a precise date for you.

MR. BARNES: On the same point, in the meantime what alternatives do

those residents in hotels have, for instance, if a hotel applies for a demolition

permit? What's going to happen to those people? They're waiting.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN:

There are several answers to that. First of all, with respect to the

letter the member sent to me, if I recall it correctly his constituent

specifically said, by virtue of — in that case — the rent increase,

what could they do? There are the automatic financial provisions of

SAFER, GAIN and Rentaid. If, for example, as the letter indicated, it's

a question of a senior citizen writing and the consequence of a rental

increase is that on an annual basis the portion of income going to rent

is about 30 percent, those provisions automatically click into place.

terms of the demolition issue, that responsibility, as the member

knows, is primarily Vancouver city council's. I gather last week they

passed a motion requesting us to review the legislation. I've not

received notice of that, but I gather that from the media. We'll

certainly look at it when it comes in.

Apart from that, if

landlords generally are conducting themselves in a hugely exorbitant or

unconscionable way, we'd like particulars of that and we'll get the

investigatory powers of the office to work as well.

MR. LEGGATT:

Mr. Chairman, I'll be very brief. Both the Minister of Agriculture and

Food (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) and the member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr.

Ritchie) elected to misrepresent the remarks that were made at the

conclusion of yesterday's debate around the proposal for a moratorium

on mobile-home parks. I just want to read from the record so that maybe

we could lower the level of rhetoric in the debate. I'm quoting word

for word from Hansard :

I think it was a wise and courageous

move. What I ask the minister to do now is to seriously consider

telling the industry that at some specific future date — give them a

little bit of lead time — we are going to put a moratorium on the sale

of all manufactured homes in British Columbia until the consumer stops

being ripped off and we've got enough mobile-home sites for those

places to be located....

The proposal that I make today is

exactly the same as the one I made yesterday evening. So there was a

good deal of the debate which dealt with a complete misrepresentation

of the remarks. I urge those members to listen a little more carefully

to the debate before they respond in such an excited fashion.

Vote 48 approved.

On vote 49: liquor control and licensing branch, $1,438,605.

MR. LEVI:

I have a couple of questions for the minister. Could he just nod if

there's anybody here from the liquor control board who can help him?

AN HON. MEMBER: Chabot.

MR. LEVI: No.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Well, we're not going to have a wine-tasting contest, so you're quite useless in this, Mr. Minister.

I've

got a couple of questions I want to ask the minister, and among the

three of them they may be able to answer. There's a bit of an

improvement in the annual report this year. On page 15 of the annual

report they've broken down the actual cost of a bottle of rye. The

total cost to the consumer is $9.10; the cost from the supplier is

$1.73; freight is 10 cents; federal excise tax is $1.87; federal sales

tax is 43 cents; provincial sales tax is 60 cents. The LDB markup is

$4.60 on a bottle of rye whisky which was purchased for $1.73.

a result of some tax changes, there was an increase this year...

The tax changes in relation to liquor are something like $28 million

this year as a result of past statements by the Minister of Finance

(Hon. Mr. Curtis).

Perhaps the minister can tell us how the

policy is worked out at the liquor control board — or even within the

government — as to what is acceptable as a fair price to charge

consumers. What kind of hidden agenda have you got in this inflated

price? Actually, 50 percent of the price of that bottle of rye is

profit. Are they trying to dissuade people from drinking by

overcharging them, or what? The government is really in the liquor

business in a very big way. Your profits this year exceeded over $220

million. I appreciate that there are a lot of jobs generated, but what

possible rationale can there be for this huge markup in terms of this

bottle of rye?

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: First, I would

question that the figures the member has quoted constitute pure profit

to government as such. I think that on a balanced view the government

is a net loser in the alcohol business, if you build in the dollar cost

to government of the social costs of alcohol abuse. In other words, to

suggest that the government is looking at liquor policy purely and

simply as a fiscal vehicle and is netting, shall we say, $250 million a

year, is not a complete view. One of the consequences of the abuse of

alcohol by those who would abuse it is a tremendous social cost to

government in terms of Human Resources and hospital programs and so

forth. So I think that one of the reasons why, in jurisdictions across

this country, the so-called government markup on liquor is so

substantial is a prevailing view by governments that some very

substantial social costs are generated for government as a result of

alcohol abuse, and that in part, therefore, those who choose

voluntarily — they're not forced to — to buy liquor products are going

to, through that markup, be making some contribution to those costs, as

opposed to citizens who choose not'to buy liquor products.

But

I have some figures that might assist the member on a comparative

basis, roughly speaking, as to the impact on consumers of inflation in

liquor-pricing policies. These figures are as of January 1981.

Therefore they would not include

[ Page 5462 ]

the

further markups announced in March. But if the member would care to

make notes, looking at 1971 as a consumer price index base of 100,

using the Statistics Canada figures and then comparing January 1981,

ten years later in this province, the price of alcoholic beverages

compared to alcoholic beverages in other provinces, and compared to

other types of consumer items in this province, makes an interesting

contrast.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

For

example, again using 1971 as the base of 100, as of January 1981 — ten

years later — in Vancouver the average price of alcoholic beverages

would be 169.4. That would compare on a Canada average basis with

191.3. I think the record is that however high liquor prices are in

this province, they are not, in fact, the highest in Canada. It's also

interesting within this jurisdiction to compare other types of consumer

products. Again using 1971 as the base of 100, ten years later in

British Columbia Statistics Canada calculations show alcoholic

beverages have risen to 169.4. By contrast, tobacco is 181.8, food is

272.8, clothing is 188.7, transportation is 230.7, and health and

personal care is 207.2. The average of all those items is 224.3.

Therefore

I think that the argument could reasonably be made that while prices

have been rising for alcoholic beverages and while there is a

significant markup, comparatively speaking the relative increase over

time is not greater. Indeed, it is less than the relative increase in a

number of other consumer items. Perhaps those pieces of information are

of some help.

MR. LEVI: That's very nice. It was a very interesting lesson in something which I didn't quite grasp.

You

made $220 million profit. You spend less than $9 million a year on any

kind of alcohol prevention program in the whole government — all your

services. Read the last report of the late Dr. Bonham. He itemizes how

much money you spend on alcoholism treatment and prevention programs.

You're still taking 10 cents off every bottle of liquor you sell for a

preventive program which the previous minister cancelled. You're not

spending any money on prevention. You haven't been able to calculate

the costs in terms of human resources. Very few people have.

terms of trying to reduce what you feel are the serious effects of

alcohol, you spend less than 5 percent of your profit in trying to do

anything about it at all. I completely reject the minister's argument.

If you're going to use the federal average of the increase in liquor,

you better exclude from that — it will drop dramatically — the

Northwest Territories cost of liquor. They are so sky-high and are a

major concern. Don't do it on that average basis. The reason I ask you

is that in this province 50 percent of the price of a bottle of rye is

going straight into the profit side of the government's operation. In

no way has the minister been able to justify that there's a preventive

program or even a treatment program related to the problems that flow

from the sale of liquor. I do not accept your answer at all. Those

figures have nothing to do with the reality of the situation.

MR. KEMPF:

Just very briefly on this vote, firstly I'd like to agree with the

member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi). I think rye should be

cheaper as well.

But what I'd like to talk about this

morning are the guidelines which govern the acceptance of an

application for a neighbourhood pub. I think there's a particular part

of those guidelines that must be changed, and that is constantly a

problem to individuals in my area applying for such a licence. Again, I

think that this guideline is prejudicial to the small communities in

the interior of this province. That guideline is that anyone wishing to

obtain a licence for a neighbourhood pub must, in order to obtain that

licence, have a site on which to build that particular pub which is a

mile from an arterial highway. A mile from any arterial highway in any

of the communities I serve would be three-quarters of a mile out of

town. I don't think it makes any sense to have that kind of a guideline

that people must meet in order to obtain a licence for a neighbourhood

pub. It's an aggravation and prejudicial to the small communities of

the interior of the province. I would suggest that possibly the

minister would give serious consideration to amending that particular

guideline.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: I just want to assure

the member that I'm wanting to do a review on all of neighbourhood pub

policy. I appreciate your suggestion, and I think there's some

considerable merit to it. I think, increasingly, especially with the

neighbourhood pubs, we have to try to regionalize the policy and take

account of the character of your area versus down here.

MR. MACDONALD: I wanted to ask a few questions on the minister's policy on neighbourhood pubs too.

The

minister has been in office long enough to know that he is very much in

the centre — as his two predecessors have been — of the granting of pub

licences. So is your deputy, under the

section of the act, because the

political intrusion has been made by amendments which the minister is

perfectly well aware of, and which I have said have been a most

unfortunate development in the province of British Columbia — and the

confidential part of it too, that nobody in the liquor branch can say

anything. There's a special

section on that.

I want to ask

the minister: what are the guidelines? You're the judge. You've taken

it out of the hands of the corporate and financial services appeal

procedure. It goes to the minister or his deputy when somebody is

denied a pub licence. As I understand it, the criteria, some of which

are set out in the regulations, are, for example, that no licensed

neighbourhood pub shall be within one mile of a licensed pub or hotel,

except as approved by the general manager. I'd like to know under what

conditions you think that should be waived. It's obviously the policy.

It's actually laid down in the regulations. Here's another one: no

licensed neighbourhood pub shall be located within one-half mile of a

main or secondary highway, except as approved by the general manager.

Under what conditions do you ignore that?

In October 1980

the branch put out a

summary of liquor licensing in British Columbia.

They quote the two matters that I have referred to in regard to

neighbourhood pubs, and then they go on and say: "In reviewing the site

the branch is concerned with the following factors: (

a) proximity to

highways, schools, churches, playgrounds, hospitals and such other

social facilities of this nature." What's your policy on that? "(

b) Proximity to licensed hotels and neighbourhood public houses and marine

pubs. (

c) Shopping centres are not considered favourable sites for

neighbourhood public licences."

[ Page

5463 ]

I'd like to ask the minister, what are the criteria? What about

parking too? Should there be parking? Is that one of the criteria?

Perhaps the minister can tell us what the standards are.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN:

Let me begin by dealing generally with the topic raised by the member,

which is the extent to which particulars may be obtained of what does

and doesn't constitute a successful pub application. First of all, may

I say that the policy I've adopted with respect to appeals — I think

the member mentioned appeals — is to ask my deputy or acting deputy to

be the person who hears and adjudicates those appeals.

MR. MACDONALD: That's not what the law says.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN:

I believe that the law says that the minister or his deputy, with

respect to appeals, may so do. I therefore have not been involved

personally in the hearing or adjudication of appeals in my time in the

ministry. Therefore my policy with respect to those appeals is going to

be that they be heard by the deputy or the acting deputy, not by me.

Because of the concern the member infers about possibly getting the

politicians involved in this kind of hearing, I think the safer, wiser

course is to leave the hearing of those appeals in the hands of the

deputy minister. I have not heard any of those appeals.

With

respect generally to the guidelines applying to neighbourhood pubs,

obviously the broad challenge to the policy-makers is, first of all, to

set forth a series of requirements or guidelines sufficient that people

have some reasonable indication as to whether or not their particular

plan for a pub will qualify. Having said that, sitting in Victoria you

can't write a compendium suitable for every particular region, area, or

circumstance of the province. The difficulty is to try to encompass the

rules in those guidelines with sufficient clarity, and yet not overrule

a perfectly legitimate or normal concept for an unserved community

which might not quite fall within a guideline, but have a lot of merit

and common sense in the application.

So what do we do? We

publish the kind of guideline you've referred to. The thing that I

gather not very many people do, but I think they're perfectly at

liberty to do and perhaps would be advised to do if they were

considering a potential pub, is to make contact with the liquor control

and licensing branch, come over and talk to the officials about the

plan they have in mind and discuss how, given their particular region

or area, these guidelines are interpreted and applied. With respect to

parking, I think they'll find that there is a concern for reasonable

parking for a neighbourhood pub, even though the underlying basic

concept is that it should be a walkable area.

With respect

to schools and hospitals, obviously the concern is going to be that you

don't want a neighbourhood pub immediately beside one of them unless

there is some very unusual local circumstance which says it's a good

idea, and everybody happens to agree. Similarly, in the case of

proximity to other licensees, I think the branch — which does all kinds

of licensing in terms of different varieties of licences — has to have

some regard to other types of licences they've allowed in the area. My

view is that that's the challenge to staff: to set forth sufficient

broad guidelines that people can have some reasonable idea of whether

they're in the ball park if they want to proceed, and yet not to rule

out in a particular area or location the possibility of a neighbourhood

pub being established if it makes good sense to the community, if

there's virtually unanimous support in the community and if generally

it falls within the guidelines.

Perhaps those comments are of some help.

MR. MACDONALD:

The minister didn't mention shopping centres, which are specifically

repeated in the instructions of the branch dated October 1980.

want to say something about the appeal procedure that the minister

referred to. The act, which was passed by this government, says that

the minister or his deputy may overrule the rejection of a pub licence

by the branch, and that has been done on 30 or 40 occasions since that

section came into force. The minister very grandly says: "I'm a

politician. I won't hear the appeals: my deputy will do that for me."

But that's not the legislation your government brought in. Maybe you

don't like it, Mr. Minister. I don't like it. I think politics mixing

with liquor has led to abuses that are not of the alcoholic kind. You

say: "I'll be above the battle; I won't observe the act, which says I'm

also to hear appeals; I'm too good for that." You're too good for your

government; I would hope so. I'm suggesting — and we can't talk about

legislation — that you've got a procedure where there is ample

opportunity for abuse.

The minister was very general in

terms of what the guidelines were, and he says: "Oh, you come to

Victoria." I remember very well the case of Mike Pridie, who applied

for a neighbourhood pub licence in Kennedy Heights shopping centre. He

did come to Victoria, and he saw the branches, the inspector and

everybody else. He did everything required of him, only to have that

application snatched out of his hands by the Olma brothers, Gerry and

Ray, in the very same location right smack in the middle of a shopping

centre, after the previous minister had rejected Pridie, saying: "You

can't have a pub in a shopping centre; that's the firm policy of the

branch." You know the letter I'm talking about. You know about Grammas

Marine Inn too. I'm suggesting that your guidelines don't mean a thing,

and I don't think you've said anything to this committee that indicates

you have any guidelines whatsoever.

Let me give you some

examples. You've got a Sawbuck's Neighbourhood Pub, which is in White

Rock. The proprietor of that is somebody called Karl Frangi. Frangi is

one of those who — like Ray Olma and Gerry Olma, on December 4, 1975,

in The White Rock and Surrey Sun — put in a full-page ad decrying the

evils not only of socialism but of Mincome, which I thought was going a

little far. We find — how many years later'? That's 1975 — that of

those three names that are all bracketed together alongside others in

the ad, they've all got neighbourhood pubs; the Olmas got theirs and

Carl Frangi got his. It was in an area in that shopping centre which

had been rejected by the branch and turned down by the NDP. It's right

in a shopping mall, contrary to what you say in the publications of the

board that have come out as late as October 1980. There's no parking

around there.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Bob Williams.

MR. MACDONALD: No, he hasn't got a licence.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you saying the Socreds paid them off?

[ Page 5464 ]

MR. MACDONALD:

Maybe the minister will speak on this. If these licences are being

granted politically, which is his suggestion, this chamber wants to

know about it. I think the one you're talking about was granted in

1976, incidentally. We're dealing with licences as they are granted by

the branch.

I'll answer that minister over there. I think

that one of the job descriptions to get a neighbourhood pub licence is

to be very rich — like Karl Frangi, a strong Socred supporter — and in

many occasions to have the member for Delta (Mr. Davidson) help you

with the application. Yes, the member for Delta. All he did in the

Pridie case.... Pridie was sidetracked and his application disposed

of on appeal because it was in a shopping centre, then they turned

around and gave it to the Olma brothers in exactly the same location.

The member for Delta sat at the back of the room in the hearing, which

nobody knew about. There was no publication of the time or place of the

hearing, or that this was coming up.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

I'm sure the hon. member appreciates the difficulty, in this particular

case, that the Chair has. I must point out to the member that one of

the rules which guide us in Committee of Supply is that we cannot

discuss actions for which a minister is not responsible. I'm sure the

member will bear that in mind when he continues his debate.

MR. MACDONALD:

I can give examples of what has happened in the province of British

Columbia. For the purpose of trying to determine what the minister will

do in the future with his portfolio, I can give him some very important

examples.

I mentioned the Sawbuck's Neighbourhood Pub. We're

not talking about small chains here, Mr. Minister. As you know

perfectly well, your predecessor, Mr. Nielsen, went on television. I

don't know how well prepared he was, because we didn't have any

Hollywood people to help him at that time. Perhaps they thought it was

Gunsmoke speaking. He said that the piece of paper that you grant for a

neighbourhood pub licence is worth half a million bucks. Maybe it's

more today, because we're in a period of inflation.

I want

you to tell me whether we're going to have repeats of what I said about

the Sawbuck's Neighbourhood Pub. Bear in mind what I said. It had been

turned down during the NDP administration, it's right in the shopping

mall and there's no parking. I've read what the regulations are. If

there are any criteria, you'd never guess what they were from that case.

What's another one here? What about the Sundowner?

Two gentlemen are the proprietors and the happy beneficiaries of that

licence. One is Ed Podavin and the other is Bill Sullivan. One of the

criteria for granting pub licences is proximity to other licensed

premises — and that's right in the regulations; it's one mile. In this

particular case we have those factors involved. It's Scott Road — is

that a highway?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. MACDONALD: Or as the regulations say: is it a main or a secondary

road? I would think it is. It's certainly within half a mile of that. It

is 3,000 feet from the Scottsdale Inn, and the regulations say one mile — I

take that to be 5,285 feet. I haven't gone metric and I never will. So

it doesn't qualify under that criterion. It has previously been turned down.

It was another case where I'm informed, Mr. Chairman — I wasn't there

— the member for Delta helped with the application and came with Mr. Podavin.

You can say if you didn't. But he came with Mr. Podabin to Victoria.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD:

Well, I'll relieve you in the Chair. And this was one of those where

the branch had turned it down, and it was reversed on appeal to the

deputy. Mr. Chairman, I take seriously the proposition that the deputy

and the minister are one — just like a man and a wife are one. I take

it that the other criteria were amply fulfilled in this case. I'm doing

it lightly, but I'm concerned about this kind of a problem and I want

to know what the minister's response is.

Mr. Podavin and Mr.

Bill Sullivan qualified because they're both very rich and they're both

Socreds. Is it just a coincidence that if you're rich and a Socred and

you live in Delta or Langley — I'll get to the minister who's sitting

over there, and give you an example out there — you get your pub

licence, but if you're somebody else you don't? That's what I'm talking

about.

I base it on two cases where there was obvious

favouritism — I'm talking about Grammas pub and the North Kennedy pub

to the Olma brothers — so I'm not just making this up as I go along. I

am concerned about it. In Langley you have the Duke of Wellington pub,

which is slightly out of a shopping centre. I'll say the name to the

Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland)

and see if it rings a bell — Herb Feichel. Does he qualify as being

rich? Does he qualify as being a Socred? Yes. He meets the first two

criteria. Does he have the Bedford House, the restaurant where the

Socreds hold their dos and have their luncheon meetings? The answer is

yes. I don't think the Duke of Wellington pub has been fully licensed

yet, but they have a permit to operate. It's right on the border of

Delta and Langley.

I would like the minister to tell me

about his criteria. They petitioned only 39 people, a number of whom

objected; I think a majority approved. But they didn't petition the

Surrey side at all. If you say the people in the vicinity of that pub

should be consulted, you should have had a proper poll of the people

near that pub. It seems to me that it's also too close to a highway. I

would like the minister to tell me just what the criteria are for

getting neighbourhood pub licences in the province of British Columbia.

If we're rising at 12 o'clock, would you like to answer now?

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: After lunch.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. McClelland moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:01 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1981,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada