[ 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.

The English system of council housing is one of the worst in the world. It has led to despair….

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 of 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 or

[ 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.

Place the apartment owners' investment in jeopardy through vacancies and watch how fast he hustles to paint his apartments, to be gracious and considerate even to tenants like Bruce Yorke, and you've got the tenant back into the position where he personally has some clout. Then you won't need any rentalsman; you won't need any controls. You will have solved the problem in the only way that works — in the classic way — by providing supply.

Never take advice again from Bruce Yorke, Mr. Speaker. Never. He's a very articulate, engaging man. I've known Bruce Yorke for over 30 years; I like him personally. But his judgment has always been atrocious. Ever since he was a young man, everything he advocated was wrong. And here the cabinet has bought Bruce Yorke's policies.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: Yes. He wanted rent controls. He organized the tenants; he made them into militant groups. He discouraged apartment developers and he helped create the shortage. What he can do as an individual is small; but if he can persuade you, as he obviously has done, to take the kind of steps embodied in this bill, he has done enormous damage. And you have been his tools.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: Certainly it was his idea; he sold them on it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I think that it is going rather excessively to call any Member of this House a "tool" of any person outside the House.

[ Page 2395 ]

MR. McGEER: Perhaps that was extreme.

MR. SPEAKER: I think so.

MR. McGEER: Let's say that Bruce Yorke had undue influence.

MR. SPEAKER: That also has a sinister sound to it. Would the Hon. Member withdraw both those remarks?

MR. McGEER: He had a stronger influence, Mr. Speaker, than his past history would lead you to believe he should have. (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: Can we have a pause while I think about that? (Laughter.)

MR. McGEER: I think I'm making my point, Mr. Speaker, to put it bluntly and, in my heart, I believe accurately.

In any event, Mr. Speaker, there is still time for the government to repent; there is still time for the government to withdraw this bill. There is still time for the government to bring in the only thing that will work to give the tenant a break, namely incentives for the developer so that an adequate supply of housing will once more be available in this province.

I oppose the bill.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, there appears to be a strange anxiety on the part of the Attorney-General to close the debate. Well, after the weak performance you displayed on the introduction of the principle of this bill, I'd be anxious to close off the debate too.

The Minister stood in his place and gave his justification for the necessity of the legislation. Lo and behold, what was his justification? A little scrap of paper that he had cut out of The Vancouver Sun.

Pretty weak, Mr. Attorney-General, weak indeed. You did not, at any time, when introducing this bill give any clear evidence to justify its introduction. None whatsoever. Your total approach was that you had happened to read an article in The Vancouver Sun, or that someone had read it for you. You are taking very drastic economic steps in this province. I don't think there is justification to go the route in which you are going based on a small article published in The Vancouver Sun.

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: We all know the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) indicated very clearly the reason this bill is being introduced: it's pressure from Bruce Yorke. It's quite obvious. Bruce Yorke and the militant, radical group you happen to have on the backbench are more interested in cheap politics than helping out the renters of this province. I wonder, really, will this legislation help the investment climate in British Columbia and attract the investment capital that can ease the problem of the shortage of rental units? The Attorney-General knows full well what effect this legislation will have on the attracting of investment capital in this province.

Not only has it been detrimental to people within the province investing in rental accommodation, but this drastic action you have taken has been given far and wide publicity. If we ever thought we were going to attract investment capital from other nations and other parts of this country, they've been dissipated, Mr. Attorney-General. They've disappeared in the fog, all the investment opportunities we might have had that would help ease the burden and the problems faced by the renters of British Columbia.

Regardless of what you might think as far as public housing is concerned, I want to assure you that there is no way that government has the technical skill or knowledge or drive to establish sufficient housing to meet the needs of present British Columbians and other people who want to become British Columbians. Not only do they fail to have that drive, initiative and ability, this province doesn't have the resources either. You must have a mix. Certainly there's a need for public capital, but you must be able to attract private capital as well.

When you take this kind of action, it appears you've virtually dried up the private investment capital you need to help create housing in British Columbia. So where you're going now, of course, is into the public housing sector, to the state homes. You've established not too long ago the state gardens where everybody can have their little plot. They can cultivate their corn and weed their beans. Now we've heard the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) is establishing state farm holidays. It reminds me of certain countries where we see the state gardens, the state farm holidays, now the state home ownership. That's not the way and that's not the direction you should be leading this province.

I listened to some of the Members on the backbench talk about the poor, sympathetic letters they've received. I have one here which talks about people who are willing to help themselves. It's a copy of a letter sent to the Premier and a copy to the Member for Columbia River. It reads as follows:

"My wife and I are old-age pensioners and have put our savings into a small apartment block as our 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' associations. Please, sir, it is important to remember that Mr. Yorke's association

[ Page 2396 ]

represents only about 3,000 out of a total of 200,000 people living in apartments."

"Your proposed rent control is cruel and crushing. It is impossible to maintain a decent standard of maintenance with the curbs proposed by our Attorney-General. Most tenants like a high standard of living accommodation and will resent restrictions which must inevitably lower these standards.

"The rent controls your government are suggesting are offensive to good tenants who wish a nice building in which to live, and the controls are ruinous to apartment owners.

"Ernest McAmmond, 2266 West 1st Avenue, Vancouver."

Here is an old-age pensioner in British Columbia who is not asking for handouts, who is not asking for Mincome, who has made provisions to adapt himself in his later years. Are you against that concept of people looking after themselves? It appears the only people you are concerned about are those people who need handouts from the state. I think these people who want to provide for their later years should have the right to do so without the constant interference from the state.

It appears this government is opposed to private home ownership. Do you want to make everybody a tenant of the state, everyone living in state-owned homes? What you should be doing is creating incentives for individuals, as the former government did, to own their own homes. What's wrong with that? Certainly you must agree there's nothing wrong with it. Yet with this legislation you are introducing, you've gone the opposite direction.

The Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) just a few moments ago talked about the maximum rent, 8 per cent, that did what this legislation will do. It has forced the apartment owners to move into the 8 per cent range; it will create a minimum as to what tenants can expect. I have evidence of that right here: a letter by a tenant to the Premier, again regarding this legislation. He writes as follows:

"I've never resorted to approaching the top, yet I now feel compelled to directly question your wisdom in instituting a freeze on rental property charges.

"The property I now rent is outstanding for the price and I've never queried any increases that were proposed. My last increase some seven months ago amounted to 4.25 per cent. I did not expect another for at least a year. Upon the news of your 8 per cent limit, however, I laid odds that my rent would increase exactly 8 per cent. I received my notice within 10 days of your announcement to the tune of 8 per cent. This is conclusive evidence that you've established a minimum which tenants can expect in British Columbia by your legislation. "I cannot blame the property owners because I would have done the same thing for one reason: to get what I now legally can and, for another reason, to get the secret personal satisfaction that I made you appear foolish.

"May I take the liberty to remind you of the underlying factors of competition. No business knows really what they can charge. No seller, in the case of owner-tenant relations, knows what makes the tenant choose his building. It could be the layout, the colour scheme, a prestige aspect, the neighbourhood, et cetera. Is it not safe to assume that the owners will only charge rentals which give them a reasonable profit? I'll certainly agree there is gouging in any industry or business, but is it not that gouging exists only where there is no competition? Is it not where rental properties are of the most meagre quality, appealing to those who have no choice through either lack of income or other circumstances?

"May I suggest the alternate route of subsidy in those cases where subsidies are frequently offered already. Let us leave competition for what it is and retain or adopt the so basic attitudes that most people still have: an ounce of human decency."

I think that's very well put. It clearly indicated to me that you've established a minimum which people are going to expect in British Columbia of 8 per cent increase in the rents per year.

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: Not in every instance, but in most instances you can expect an 8 per cent increase because of your legislation.

Competition is the answer in controlling what you consider to be gouging, and probably there is gouging in certain instances. But there must be more competition and I assure you that this legislation will not generate competition, because there are clear indications today that you've dried up, completely dried up, all the private dollars in rental housing in British Columbia. What you need is the proper economic climate, which you're not creating by your legislation.

The legislation really amounts to controlled disaster in stages. We're going to get disaster in the housing field. Despite any initiatives you might take in the Department of Housing, you can't even possibly begin to look after the needs of British Columbians. The Minister has indicated that he's going to generate 2,500 housing starts this year. Well, I rather doubt that those will ever get off the ground. Certainly some will.

[ Page 2397 ]

There's a need for between 12,000 and 14,000 in British Columbia today, and in order to get those housing starts underway you need private capital. You need private initiative and you need people who can make a dollar…. logically, or else they're not going to go in the housing field.

I'm not going to lay all the blame at the doorstep of the provincial government because the federal government in its taxation measures have certainly discouraged people in investing in rental housing in British Columbia and in other parts of the country as well. But this legislation — being charitable — is a chaotic, unworkable piece of legislation. It's really, in effect, not worth the paper it's written on. It will not work. It's cheap politics.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I think the Hon. Member perhaps was not in the room when I suggested that it should not really be used in regard to this matter because several Members have taken objection to the words "cheap politics."

MR. CHABOT: Well, Mr. Speaker, I should say that I happened to be in the room when you did bring down your…

MR. SPEAKER: It wasn't a ruling.

MR. CHABOT: ...suggestion, and at that particular time you did object to the words "cheap politics." It wasn't used and directed at any individual. You suggested that it was all right if you talked about cheap politics when it came to the question of legislation which we're debating.

MR. SPEAKER: It's very hard to confine that remark....

MR. CHABOT: I certainly never, never, never would accuse anyone in this assembly of being a cheap politician, but the legislation appears to be a cheap political piece of paper, Mr. Speaker, and it's legislation that won't work. It's legislation that is not worthy of support.

MR. F.X. RICHTER (Boundary-Similkameen): I would be very much remiss if I didn't add my voice in opposition to this bill. I would just like to quote a few chapters from a very well-researched document here, Residential Abandonment of Tenants and Landlords Revisited. I'm being encouraged to read a few dozen chapters; however I'll spare you that endurance.

This Bill 75 as it is set out is really not an answer to the matter of availability of housing. It's not going to create on additional rental unit, but it is going to place the possibility of additional rental units in jeopardy in that people are not going to be encouraged to create more housing in any respect.

If you want to control rents, then it's a matter of supply and demand. I think this is a true factor in any commodity, whether it's rental housing or whether it's the very food we eat. This was well displayed recently in relation to the embargo placed on meat coming in from the United States.

So by the fact that you create a shortage, you're going to create a situation where those available units that are here now are going to have a cost factor which is not going to decrease. Placing a control on the rental is not going to create any more units. But the costs that are involved, whether it be fuel, whether it be services, whether it be labour or whatever it happens to be, will give the landlord no option but to close up his building because he can't meet the expenses.

He has to go into debt if he attempts to meet his expenses with the cost factors that are imposed. He has no alternative but to either pay or turn his building over, whether it be mortgage payments or whether it be taxes; and in the long run you find that you have created a shortage in rental units.

Now if you were going to place controls at all levels, then you'd probably be accomplishing your objective. But placing them at one level will not resolve the problem. It will not do anything to enhance the position of the public to acquiring more rental units — and this is the name of the game. We have more renters than we have units, and unless there are more units established, unless you encourage by some form people who will build, who will risk their capital, build units, we're not going to resolve anything by this bill.

True, it may be a short-lived bill, but even if it's a year, as some Members have mentioned, it is still going to be a factor in our housing requirements. Granted, the government has made certain statements as to what they're going to create, but they're not going to create the additional housing — whether it's public housing or not — in one year. This is going to take a considerable length of time.

Now if the government is prepared to put controls at all levels, taking into consideration the vicious circle we're in now with inflation, the fact that investment capital is becoming scarce, that the interest rates are becoming high, then we are not going to accomplish anything under this legislation.

I can't see how the small apartment owner is going to survive. Many of them who have written to me have said, "This is our retirement fund. This is what we've put our money into. This is how we hope to stay off welfare and through this method now we find that our maintenance, our upkeep of our buildings, is going to be neglected. We can't possibly conform to the requirements of Bill 75 without

[ Page 2398 ]

allowing deterioration of our holdings."

By deterioration, of course, then the rent factor will be an issue in which they will either have to give up their life-savings, their investment that they had hoped to retire on that would provide the income in which they wouldn't become a government charge…. They're going to have to turn in the other direction now and think in terms of disposing of their total holding — do what they can with their investment. They will live it up, because under the income they would receive, the capital return, they wouldn't qualify for government assistance as far as living is concerned, so they've got to live it up. It can't any longer be an earning factor; it is going to be a recovery of capital which they will have to live off for the rest of their lives.

Now I think this is a most retrograde step. I certainly am not in support of this legislation, even though I may consider that some controls have to be put on. I'm not in support of this particular method of accomplishing without having some other factors there that will at least give the landlords an opportunity to meet expenses. Certainly this legislation doesn't do it.

I'm very much concerned about the legislation. Certainly, on the other bill that will be coming on in due course I'll have something to say, but I'm not prepared to support this legislation at this time.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It is my pleasure in winding up this debate to thank the last Member who has just taken his place for a thoughtful presentation. I think it's fair to say that there are severe limitations in the extent to which we in the Legislature can, over this short, difficult period, help people out there.

As the Hon. Member said, and as other Hon. Members have said, and quite rightly, at the most this bill is a palliative; it is not a cure. Nevertheless, we do have in the Province of British Columbia 244,000 tenants, a great many of whom will be helped by this application of restraint upon rent increases in this short period before we can do something more meaningful in terms of both housing and rent increase restraint.

People have mentioned many parts of the world, but none of them mentioned the City of Montreal, and the area around Montreal. I had the pleasure, because it's always fun to visit Montreal, of spending time there in their rental's office. They have a restraint on the control of rent increases, but they also have an economic department whose function is to make sure that the returns to private industry in the construction of new rental units are such as to spark that particular kind of activity. That's something we must do here. We have to do that.

If you look at the housing starts in terms of rental units around the City of Montreal, you'll find a bustling metropolis that is increasing its housing supply segment very substantially every year. It's the result of careful planning and, at the same time, protection of people against gouging.

I say there are 244,000 tenants out there who are looking to this Legislature this afternoon for some help. An awful lot of them will be helped by the limitation of 8 per cent.

Please do not confuse the thing as perhaps the Hon. Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) did by saying somebody's taxes have gone up 20 per cent, and you're only allowing them 8 per cent under this bill. The 8 per cent is generous because that's 8 per cent, of course, on gross rent income. That may be more than adequate to look after a 20 per cent increase in taxes and other costs, and a little bit of a decent wage increase to the caretaker — things of that kind. This is not a low, restrictive ceiling at all, yet it is a ceiling that is going to help a great many tenants throughout the Province of British Columbia.

Take the situation in Century House in Vancouver where the average of the rent increases was from 16 to 33 per cent. That's just one example, Block Bros. housing unit. And Block Bros. has many housing units and apartment units throughout British Columbia. We're asking Block Bros. in this case to roll back that rent increase to 8 per cent over a period of six or eight months or possibly even a year, retroactively. Block Bros. is going to be hurt a little bit financially as a result of that rollback that we ask this Legislature to make, but Block Bros. can afford to roll back those rents because Block Bros. has made fantastic real estate profits out of the Province of British Columbia in the last 10 years. Fantastic appreciations in land values, multiple chain commissions — rents that have been very pleasant to the dividend clippers, but not pleasant so far as the tenants are concerned.

Very frankly, we are asking people such as Block Bros. to accept less and to give the tenants a break during this period. We're asking for that kind of restraint.

We know that people are hurting out there. We know the measure is temporary, only a palliative and not a cure. But we are not doing what they are doing in the Province of Ontario — nothing. In the Province of Ontario, in and around the City of Toronto at the present time — and you can't blame Bill 42 or this government, the NDP or anything else — the figures show that people on low income are paying half of their income on rent. That's a situation that cries out for effective government intervention and protection.

It's all very well for Members to quote learned professors who have never been in that economic plight, who write articles saying that rent control is doubtful on this economic ground and advanceable, perhaps, on that ground. People are being badly hurt not just in terms of rent gouging, but excessive rents owing to the kind of climate we have in this province

[ Page 2399 ]

of British Columbia at the present time. So, the Province of Ontario's done nothing to protect those people, but we in this Province of British Columbia determined that within the limits we have we will protect them.

When the chips are down and people are suffering unnecessary exploitation, and a great many tenants are suffering unnecessary exploitation at the present time, a government isn't worth its salt if it doesn't stand up and protect that class of people.

The fires of inflation are burning brightly, and in this measure, Hon. Members, through Mr. Speaker, we're doing a little bit to curb inflationary increases in a very essential area so far as people's living is concerned. We're asking all of the Members of this Legislature to join the fire brigade and fight the fires of inflation. We're asking all of the Members of this House to be fire fighters, not flame throwers.

I move second reading of this bill.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 32

NAYS — 17

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move the bill be….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Do the Hon. Members want it recorded? So ordered.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave that the bill be referred to the Committee of the Whole House forthwith.

Leave not granted.

Bill 75, Residential Premises Interim Rent Stabilization Act, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

Hon. Mr. Cocke files a report on recommendations on services for the communicatively impaired in British Columbia.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:19 p.m.

NOTE: The House adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, April 23, 1974.