[ Page 4555 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Public Schools Amendment Act, 1974 (No. 2) (Bill 175). Hon. Mrs.

Dailly.

Introduction and first reading — 4555

Municipal Amendment Act, 1974 (No. 2) (Bill 174). Hon. Mr. Lorimer.

Introduction and first reading — 4555

Landlord and Tenant Amendment Act, 1974 (No. 2). (Bill 169).

Second reading.

Mr. Bennett — 45S5

Mr. Phillips — 4565

Mr. McClelland — 4569

Mr. Gibson — 4573

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 1974

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

Introduction of bills.

PUBLIC SCHOOLS
AMENDMENT ACT, 1974 (No. 2)

Hon. Mrs. Dailly presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Public Schools Amendment Act, 1974 (No. 2).

Bill 175 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1974 (No. 2)

Hon. Mr. Lorimer presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Municipal Amendment Act, 1974 (No. 2).

Bill 174 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Orders of the day.

Hon. E.E. Dailly (Minister Of Education): Public bills and orders, Mr. Speaker. Adjourned debate on Bill 169.

LANDLORD AND TENANT
AMENDMENT ACT, 1974 (No. 2)

(continued)

Mr. W.R. Bennett (Leader Of The Opposition): When we adjourned for the dinner hour I was making the point that the rent controls that were introduced were discriminatory in nature against a certain segment of society. Perhaps I should just refresh the memory of the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald), Mr. Speaker, who may not have got the message or may have forgotten it over the dinner hour.

I was saying, Mr. Speaker, when we adjourned the debate that when you expect one segment of society to accept the responsibility for society as a whole and subsidize one particular problem, no matter how acute it may be, justice is not being met, nor is justice being served. In this bill, we are asking those landlords, those people who may have invested in the past in rental accommodation, people who because of the timing just happened to have that as an investment when the Attorney-General finally became aware, two years and some odd months after assuming office, that we had a crisis in this province and that perhaps people were being hurt….

Instead of making up for the action that hadn't been taken, the action of constructing new accommodation, they've passed this bill and asked these people to accept a penalty to subsidize on behalf of all of us, to make up for the failure of his government to act earlier. He's asking them to aid those who are having difficulty paying for their rental accommodation in this time of under-supply in our market.

The point I was making earlier was that rent control, control such as is advocated in this bill, while it may meet and may give some temporary relief, has become part of the problem and historically is part of the problem in every jurisdiction where rent control has been offered as a cure-all or a cure for rental difficulties of people with modest incomes, and even all of us, in obtaining rent at a reasonable rate.

Now I was quoting from a report that mentioned the discriminatory aspect, and I'd like to go on. The point I was making is that in discriminating we've asked these people, in this one section, on behalf of society to accept the responsibility of all of us. Just through happening to have an investment at that particular time, they are carrying the load, or attempting to carry the load, for the failure of this government to act.

Now, we've talked about rent control as being a problem in New York. We've talked about rent control that has created problems in Newark, New Jersey. Extensive studies have been made on this problem and the other problem over and above that of not creating a new supply. Over and above penalizing a certain segment of society, rent control has created other sociological problems relating to the abandonment of tenants' supply of rental accommodation in the downtown cores.

Studies have been done, such as the study that was done by Rutgers University — in the centre for urban policy research, Rutgers University, the University of New Jersey, in 1973. That's ample time to have made this part of any research of this government and this Attorney-General and the Housing Minister, in fact all of the Members of the government responsible for meeting the needs of the problem. Yet we realize that the amendment that we have before us is merely another bit of legislation brought in to deal with the inadequacies of legislation that was introduced earlier this year, legislation that was presented to this Legislature with no accompanying report, no research, no thought, hastily brought in because they finally woke up to the reaction of the public to the non-activity of this government in providing accommodation. The government is not a government of initiative; it's a government of reaction. This government reacts to events in which you've helped author part of the problem. Your inactivity in not providing accommodation has made you part of the

[ Page 4556 ]

problem.

Interjections.

Mr. D.M. Phillips (South Peace River): You are the problem. You are the problem; you're the whole problem. You created the problem.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please! The Hon. Member is speaking; he doesn't need any help. Do you?

Mr. Bennett: From either side.

Mr. Speaker: Quite right.

Mr. Bennett: The point I was making, Mr. Speaker, in discussing this subsidy is the failure of the government. It was a cover-up bill. The first bill was an initiative taken in reaction to the lack of their own initiative in creating housing and rental accommodation in this province. Rather than assessing those areas that have had difficulty with rent controls and the problems they've created, this government is stumbling from one piece of legislation to another, neither of which will solve the long-term problems or meet the needs of the tenants.

The Attorney-General, in presenting this bill, gave a very shallow speech, an emotional speech — something about some of the letters that he received. Well, we've been receiving letters from tenants and I've talked to the tenants in my constituency. Those people are fully aware of where the responsibility lies, where the blame lies. They know that they are going to be tenants not just this year but other years, and if B.C. has the continuing growth rate that we've had in recent years and have now, this problem will become more acute, because this bill, coupled with other national and international problems, has made this problem more acute than is necessary.

Now I talked earlier about rent control and some of the failures of rent control in other jurisdictions, how more than just not meeting the long-term needs, they create other problems for society. In quoting from the research that was done at Rutgers, where they talk about residential abandonment and where they've done research into the results of rent control, they've come up with some very shocking results.

The Minister responsible for the redecoration of the building gave us some very interesting photographs and slides, for the reason that he had to spend money in renovating the buildings. We had pictures of rotting rafters. We had pictures of buckets and we had pictures of plastic. I thought that when he showed the decay in this building it was a very graphic illustration of how he wanted to present a problem.

Well, when we consider the decay of a building, we've got to consider the decay in cities and the decay that may be created because of rent controls creating residential and downtown core abandonment.

I have some interesting pictures to pass around that show the results of the decay in some of the areas of the City of Newark, a city that has had rent controls for 10 years. The results of the study….

An Hon. Member: How about Montreal?

Mr. Bennett: Montreal hasn't had rent controls for any length of time. Three years is not an adequate time to measure the results that are presented from this study.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order!

Mr. Bennett: These pictures indicate the decay and the abandonment of buildings that create other social problems, that create problems of crime, that create problems of fire hazard where they've had whole neighbourhoods abandoned. I would like to quote the results as I pass around these very interesting photographs.

Hon. A.B. MacDonald (Attorney General): Quote Canadian, eh.

Mr. Bennett: The problem of people isn't just a Canadian problem and it isn't just related to British Columbia.

Interjections.

Mr. Bennett: You haven't done better; you've done worse.

Interjections.

Mr. Bennett: I never cease to be amazed by this government who, to rationalize bringing some of the experts that they have hired from outside this country, always say they are willing to bring research and experts from anywhere. But if you quote any sort of study that doesn't happen to agree with the conclusion they already developed…. It's very interesting how this Attorney-General arrives at a conclusion and then goes out and looks for supporting data to prove himself right — just exactly the wrong approach to solving this problem.

If I might proceed, studies everywhere have clearly shown rent control to be not only a failure but extremely dangerous. In more practical terms, specific studies of two major cities bring into focus a

[ Page 4557 ]

horrifying picture resulting from rent control. The fact is that rent control inevitably leads to residential abandonment and all the serious consequences of such abandonment.

The process comes in stages: declining average income in affected areas of the city; security for low-income families declines; tenant rent payments decline, followed by less maintenance on the housing parcel or the accommodation parcel; normal mortgages become unavailable; physical deterioration develops, and we get what is commonly called inner-city blight.

Then we get a declining tenancy. Then we get what is called psychological abandonment by the landlords. And we get final tenancy decline and departure and complete physical abandonment of the structure.

In the City of New York, the inevitable process of decay has had the following results, and this isn't just on a three-year measurement of a new programme. In just 10 years of rent control, 400,000 units have been abandoned. Eighty per cent of the house-building industry has left New York City and, in 1973, only 3,300 housing units were built for a city that serves 10 million people. Entire neighbourhoods have been abandoned; crime has soared. The New York experience is one we would not want to encourage here.

The experience in Newark, New Jersey, a city with an equally lengthy time of experiencing rent control, is as equally illuminating. I have at hand the pictures which I have passed around. But there are some tables I have taken from the study that deal with the results of residential abandonment and neighbourhood abandonment, a problem that is directly related to rent control under these studies. We have crime soaring in these particular neighbourhoods and incidences of fire in abandoned buildings and fire as a resultant danger to the city breaking out and wiping out whole blocks all because of the residential abandonment and neighbourhood abandonment that comes about through rent control.

These units in these areas are lost for any sort of accommodation to people; they're lost as a tax base for the city. They create many additional problems, all directly related to the type of controls that are being introduced as a long-term step in this House, Let's take a look at fires in vacant buildings by type in Newark, New Jersey in 1971. From the table, 49 per cent of these areas of vacant buildings have some incidence of fire. They become a danger. In many cases. we have whole blocks wiped out. Those people who move into those neighbourhoods of abandonment or that are covered under tax liens create a tremendous problem in the city. Fire incidence is directly related to the rise of crime in the areas and crimes in the core of the city. The crime problem is related to these cities that have chosen rent control as the answer. It has destroyed their cities.

Canadian cities that haven't been subject to rent control — let's take Toronto — have done a tremendous job at redeveloping their downtown core. You haven't seen this type of abandonment, This can only be a long-term prediction if this is maintained as the ultimate solution.

Is it not true to argue that abandonment is a result of so-called rich landlords leaving the city. A myth has been created that much housing stock is held by ripoff landlords who are seeking a ripoff of the tenant group. The facts are otherwise.

In a sample area of Newark involving 562 residential buildings, it was found that the facts work out to be thus: 47.9 per cent of the residential buildings were owned by simple husband-and-wife joint ownership arrangements — almost half were owned by just couples who had these limited rental buildings as their only investment. In fact, only 4.6 per cent of the units sampled were owned by real estate corporations. This isn't guesswork; this is a study related to the results of this programme. Financial institutions owned only 1.2 per cent. It is clear, then that it is the small holder who contributes a major part of the rental housing stock.

If we put it another way, it was discovered, out of a total sample in the City of Newark, that 55.2 per cent was being abandoned by owners having incomes of less that $20,000 a year as their total investment in relation to an investment package in an economy that is wealthier than ours. Over 55 per cent, and almost half the housing stock, was owned by just couples -not corporations, not banks, not mysterious landlords, but just people, people who had it as their only investment. It's hardly the picture of the rich greedy slum landlord that many people wish to present as the owner of all rental housing and that has been presented in this Legislature.

In putting it another way, it was found that 78 per cent of the residences abandoned contained between three to six units — not gigantic buildings but rental accommodation that was probably meant to serve the people on modest incomes but had been abandoned because they couldn't get a return to maintain it. The people who needed accommodation most were being denied the most affordable type of accommodation because they'd taken away the ability of these people to even continue ownership. Not sell it but abandon it.

We must conclude that abandonment in the face of rent control is a decision which is being made by relatively moderate — income, landlords Yet the myth that I've heard presented here tonight by the Attorney-General, that landlords are rich and greedy and grasping and ripoff and gouging, is always presented when we're presenting these facts.

It's hard to have a debate in which we're looking for a new solution. The Attorney-General at one

[ Page 4558 ]

point said he was prepared to look for new ideas. Then let's be prepared to discuss them here in the House tonight. And let's get rid of the old myth because all of us here are trying to find out a way to solve the accommodation shortage in British Columbia and find the supply that should be available to the people of this province and of all Canada.

Other figures are even more startling. It was found in the Newark case study that, of the structures abandoned, 54.2 per cent of the structures were abandoned by landlords who owned no other buildings or no other real estate. The study has found that 50 per cent of the owners were just husband-and-wife owners, that they were three, five to six units, and that they owned no other real estate. Yet they were forced by rent controls to abandon the one asset they had, the one asset that could be maintained under reasonable conditions to provide low-cost rental units, and that would have allowed them to maintain those units, a system that should have allowed them to keep them in repair. Yet they were forced by unrealistic economic controls to abandon the very accommodation that could serve the city. It's sitting there and it's been lost from the tax base.

Interjections.

Mr. Bennett: Not the way you're going at it.

Interjections.

Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, the Attorney-General keeps forgetting that we no confidence in you to solve the problem.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please!

Mr. Bennett: No confidence in you.

This is the very same programme that created these situations that you have advocated in this Legislature in desperation, because you haven't been able to come to grips with the problem of undersupply.

The price paid for introducing then continuing rent control has been tragic. The figures that I presented on both fire and crime would indicate the extra problems that are created because of this initial approach that rent control can solve the problems of our people, and solve the problem of rental accommodation.

An even more devastating situation faces the community in terms of the total destruction of the community's ability to finance and maintain public services in the face of rent control. In the case of Newark the tax base has literally melted away. Their public buildings have become dirty and unkempt.

Their schools have become dirty; their parks have become ill kempt; streets have become cluttered, and fire and police protection has disappeared. Why?

Interjections.

Mr. Bennett: Because, Mr. Speaker, the abandonment of the downtown core has created the fact that of the tax base, the city collects less than 86¢ on every dollar of property tax that is assessed. The city is caught with a 14 per cent uncollectable tax base.

If the Members who were yelling about mob control would realize that the very conditions of downtown abandonment have led to the conditions of lawlessness, and the conditions that cause this condition. We're saying that you're talking about a future of not just lack of housing accommodation, you're discussing the eventual social problems that are created because of the downtown abandonment that allows and creates the atmosphere and the climate for this type of attitude and this type of difficulty to come and take over a city.

As I say, in Newark now the tax base has shrunk. Only 86 per cent of the assessed tax is collected every year; 14 per cent is uncollectable. That is adding a further price in the city; they are not able to maintain standards, and the city is on a downhill run. Yet this is a city that has had a history of rent control. These aren't my findings, these are the findings of an independent. study.

An Hon. Member: It's had a history of mob control.

Mr. Bennett: I'm trying to say that the attitude of crime….

Hon. L. Nicolson (Minister of Housing): Crime didn't start here two years ago.

Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, when the Attorney-General and the Housing Minister, particularly, are looking for new solutions, I don't know why they would argue with the study just off the top of their head when they're not prepared to look for solutions and not prepared to discuss the difficulties that we may come into from the problems that have resulted in other cities. We haven't got any city in Canada that has a long history of rent control.

The Attorney-General has mentioned Montreal, but he's talking about less than three years. Those cities in North America and those cities in Europe that have a history of rent control all have these very same serious problems that I brought up tonight. The very same problems. New York, Newark, in fact their example has been a very strong argument why other cities haven't gone for this quick and easy solution —

[ Page 4559 ]

a quick and easy solution as a cover-up for inaction in solving the rental accommodation picture for our people.

These cities are paying a devastating price for having chosen and opted for rent control as a way out — a way out of the housing crisis, a way out of the shelter crisis, Mr. Speaker. This is the problem we face in British Columbia. It could be the future of some of our urban centres if we don't attack the problem of undersupply.

I want to get back, because my basic point tonight is: let's not look on rent control as a panacea or a complete answer to the housing crisis; let's look at the basic root of the problem  — undersupply of accommodation.

The Attorney-General would admit that.

Interjections.

Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, rather than get into the sloganeering that the Attorney-General wishes to, I'd like to continue further in attempting to arrive at a solution for the problem in British Columbia.

None of us want to see hardship continue on our people, particularly those people in limited circumstances. We have in this province many people who must have aid in housing.

Now, rather than ask the landlords to subsidize them, perhaps the government, rather than distributing a rental grant indiscriminately, one that hasn't even been picked up by the people — $30 whether you're a struggling pensioner, or whether you have a penthouse in the West End of Vancouver — perhaps that money could be allocated to those people in genuine need. Rather than an indiscriminate distribution, why not allocate it along with those programmes of subsidization where we have federal/provincial programmes — federal/provincial programmes that have already been working to meet the needs in some sort of subsidized housing? Use those standards as a criteria for making the allocation of that money.

Why give it to the people in the $600 or $1,000 a month penthouses? Does $2.50 a month mean so much to them? Yet that money, added to the rest of the money on meeting the needs of the people in genuine need, would go a long way, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. MacDonald: It would; it would go right in the pockets of the landlord.

Some Hon. Members: No!

Mr. Phillips: They would respend it to build more accommodations.

Hon. W.L. Hartley (Minister of Public Works): Bring back, the Social Credit means test.

An Hon. Member: Well, where did he come from?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, the rent control bill the Attorney-General has placed before this province really is just what he says; this is still just an interim solution. It is a solution that has become part of the problem. His approach is not realistic. The history of this approach since it was first passed in the spring would bear out the problems we're having in British Columbia. In Esquimalt there has not been one new rental unit constructed since this bill was introduced in this House, since people lost confidence in creating rental accommodation in this province.

They have created the initial bill in haste and confusion; they created the department of rentalsman which was going to solve all the problems, and now they've had to back off it Mr. Speaker — had to back off this department, spread it out, adjust it, change the initial rental rate, change almost everything from the first premise, because they were wrong then and they are just as wrong now. Here we have even the rentalsman admitting that he cannot do the basic job the Attorney-General asked him to do. He can't administer rent control. He almost admits it's unworkable.

Hon. Mr. MacDonald: So we're loose.

Mrs. P.J. Jordan (North Okanagan): Yes, from the neck up.

Mr. Bennett: He says in news reports and in the rentalsman's own report: "Rent Raise Up To Government." He says: "I can't do the job as the government set it out; I can't meet the conditions. I can't serve the people of British Columbia because the first premise in creating the office of rentalsman as a means to control rents in this province just won't work.

At his news conference the rentalsman was asked to comment on suggestions that government critics will condemn his proposal for a rent-review commission as merely another idea for enlarging the government bureaucracy. He says: "Fortunately, that isn't my decision to make." He said: "I have said the implications of rent review or full scale rent control are one of the key issues that will face this government. In my view, it's a very significant matter." But he can't deal with it. He can't administer it.

His office as it was created and dreamed up on the spur of the moment by the Attorney-General can't do the original suggestion of rent control in this province because the rentalsman knows it can't be done. He knows it's inapplicable.

[ Page 4560 ]

He commissioned a study by Professor Cragg. And Professor Cragg after much deliberation and hiring Clarkson Gordon…. We have two reports full of statistics, full of data — the type of research, British Columbia research, which says that the rent controls will not work; they will penalize a segment of society. They will become part of the problem; they will cause new construction not to be developed, new suites not to come on the market. We will be facing a long-term problem in this one. That's exactly what they said.

Interjection.

Mr. Phillips: Don't you believe black and white facts'! You can't even read your own report.

Mr. Bennett: He says that solutions to the hardships being caused by inflation — right from Professor Cragg — lies completely outside the bounds of this report.

Using rent controls for this purpose on a more stringent basis than recommended runs the danger of encountering all the problems that have arisen from rent control elsewhere.

We're not just advocating our position in isolation; this is the position that Professor Cragg says will happen. He has been commissioned to study the problem.

Hon. Mr. MacDonald: Do you want to apply that report'? Do you want to apply that 30 per cent? Just say yes; just nod your head.

Mr. Bennett: I'm saying that he says that rent control won't work. You're trying to fuzzy your way out of a situation that you've authored yourself.

An Hon. Member: Oh, there's the man that's going to ….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please!

Interjections.

Mr. Bennett: They said that the Housing Minister ….

Mr. Phillips: There's $6.8 million for Dunhill which has done nothing since.

Mr. Bennett: There's the Housing Minister. He's the man who has the responsibility for creating the very units that would have solved this problem; the man who has done nothing.

You've heard about Nero who fiddles while Rome burns. Well, he's Mr. Zero that fiddles while the tenants burn in British Columbia. No rental accommodation has been created while he's had the responsibility to create new accommodation in this province.

Interjections.

Mr. Bennett: It must be difficult for the Attorney General to pull that Minister's chestnuts out of the fire. That Minister had the responsibility to initiate accommodation. If it had been done, it would not have created the necessity for this type of debate in this House.

Our tenants would be happy; they would be housed. Our people would be able to afford houses. There would be accommodation in this province rather than the acute problem of no accommodation, no availability, and, because of under-supply, high prices depending on the market. Zero vacancy rate in British Columbia.

I quote the Attorney-General where it says: "Rent Jump Fixed at 10.6." He said:

"He disagrees with Professor Cragg on part of his report.

"He said Cragg had taken current inflationary values of land, interest rates and construction costs and applied them to the old stock of residential premises.

"'He has come up with the result that the landlord should receive more than they're asking,' Macdonald said.

"He said he believed Cragg had made a fundamental error. 'These people, because they happen to invest and build and construct this type of accommodation when we were in a different economy, should relate their investment value to the price they built it at then, not in relation to escalating costs for taxes."'

Hon. Mr. MacDonald: That's right.

Mr. Bennett: Not in relation to escalating costs when most were on renegotiable mortgages on five-year terms where they may go from 9 per cent to 12 per cent.

Not where they're faced with the rise in heating, where their interruptible supply of gas has gone up to 50 per cent.

Not where they're faced with more costs for just even maintaining the standards of the apartment in normal repairs — not major renovations but normal repairs.

And here are these people, under this premise who have at value…. Say it was created in 1964, 10 years ago; say two people, a husband and wife, sold their farm and came to B.C. and bought a small

[ Page 4561 ]

apartment for $40,000. That $40,000 in 1964 dollars shouldn't be frozen at that value because the Attorney-General decides that he wants them to subsidize the tenants.

In 1974, with inflation, with that value being frozen, those people have had their savings overnight, at the stroke of a pen, at the whim of the Attorney-General, reduced to 1964 values and have had their guarantee against keeping up with inflation removed by the Attorney-General of this province.

Mr. Phillips: How come it's your legislation anyway? Your Minister of Housing he couldn't handle it.

Mr. Bennett: With that sort of argument, I suppose that a lawyer — and you perhaps would be familiar with this — who got his law degree 20 years ago when it was less expensive would be worth less than the lawyer who got his law degree just recently. Do you agree with that, Mr. Speaker? I don't.

Interjections.

Mr. Bennett: I don't, Mr. Speaker. I don't.

Mrs. Jordan: Why don't you listen'!

Mr. A.V. Fraser (Cariboo): You're backing out.

Mr. Phillips: There's the pious piper.

Mr. Bennett: That type of reasoning has no basis in fact. You're still asking one segment of society to subsidize another when it's an obligation of all of us and an obligation of government.

And yet they've chosen these particular landlords to subsidize those tenants because that happened to be their investment at that time. Not major landlords, not big real estate companies, not major financial houses, but people with small investments. In the case of Newark, we found out that most of the rental accommodation isn't in the large highrises but is owned by just ordinary people who've invested maybe, from those statistics, their only investment in providing them an income in their own retirement years. Yet you would penalize those people. That's not fair.

Hon. Mr. MacDonald: Fair return but no ripoff profits.

Interjections.

Mr. Bennett: This is the very thing we're saying. The Attorney-General wants us to believe that he knows what's fair, that he has some superpower to say what's fair, that he's sole dispenser of economic justice in this province. You want that type of authority? No way.

An Hon. Member: What's a fair return in your profession?

Mr. Bennett: It must be difficult for that Attorney-General to rise and try to advocate these controls when every authority, every jurisdiction and even every responsible article in newspapers has come out with the dangers of rent control and the problems with them. Editorial after editorial; article after article; people with no particular axe to grind; people who are just presenting a case for public responsibility of government. They're not concerned with the government looking for an excuse because of its own failure to solve this problem. They're not interested in helping you to sweep it under the rug. They are interested in presenting the facts to help you develop a proper and just solution for this problem, a solution that should be more accommodation and more supply for our people. No quick, easy, unworkable solutions. That won't solve the problem and will become a major part of it in the future.

Hon. Mr. MacDonald: What about Robert Stanfield? You supported him in the federal election.

Mr. Bennett: I beg your pardon? Mr. Speaker, would you ask the Attorney-General to withdraw that remark?

Interjections.

Mr. J.R. Chabot (Columbia River): What happened to your party in the federal election?

Mr. Bennett: In the federal election. I understood it was still a secret ballot.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: I would advise the Hon. Member that it's not a question of withdrawal. You have the floor and you can correct any of his statements….

Mr. Bennett: Certainly my personal preference in the other political arena is not the question here tonight. The question is that economic control can't be taken in isolation.

Many people have pointed out the problems. Many authorities and many studies have indicated that this type of action won't work.

(1) What we need are initiatives to create more rental accommodation, initiatives to create the

[ Page 4562 ]

serviced lots that will allow for the development of this accommodation. We need provincial funding along with the municipalities to encourage and initiate the full provisions to immediately provide those serviced lots available for construction. We need to do this in concert with the federal government serving its traditional role of providing financing. Mr. Speaker, this can be done, and it must be done.

(2) We must make the office of rentalsman work. Instead of a separate review board, I would say that I agree with those members of the Vancouver city council like Alderman Rankin who suggest that rental review should be done on a municipal and city basis, not a regional basis.

I say that there is a place for a rental review handled either by the regional districts or, where you have a major urban population like the City of Vancouver, by the rentalsman.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald: That's worth looking at, eh?

Mr. Bennett: Yes, and I'm advocating it.

I would say that these municipal and regional offices, utilizing the expertise and the experience of local officials dealing with the immediate problem, a problem that can't be met by a provincial office….

The office of rentalsman now has been unable to cope with those complaints that I've had from my own constituency. We've had phone call after phone call to that office and they don't have the local knowledge or the ability or the staff to be able to do anything about the immediate problem. And no provincial authority, without utilizing the present local and regional governments, can do the job effectively.

Hon. Mr. MacDonald: Like Peter Vander Zalm, eh?

Some Hon. Members: Who? Who?

Mr. Bennett: The Attorney-General is always wrong. He's always wrong.

I just quote what the City of Vancouver says, because it says in the newspaper: "City Wants Own Rent Bureau." It says:

"City council wants power to establish its own rental accommodation bureau with the same powers as the B.C. rentalsman. Council voted Tuesday to ask the provincial government for a change in the Landlord and Tenant Act that would allow the city to establish such a bureau to deal with landlord and tenant disputes.

"At the same time, council took no action on a request from the city's existing rental accommodation grievance board that it be disbanded because of the rentalsman's office.

"Alderman Harry Rankin said: 'A city rental authority with the same powers as the rentalsman could do a better job than the provincial office.' He described the rentalsman's office as being in 'chaotic condition' and said: 'You can get as many interpretations of the Act down there as you want because nobody knows….'"

[Mr. Liden in the Chair.]

Interjection.

Mr. Bennett: Alderman Rankin. He goes on further. Rankin said: "The city should take the lead in decentralizing authority, because no other municipality faces the same crisis."

I agree that Vancouver faces a major crisis and their government should be able to deal with it. In those areas of a smaller population it could become part of the regional structure. The province could pay for those regional offices and the city offices on, say, a 90-10 formula of cost-sharing.

Hon. Mr. MacDonald: Are you favouring rent controls?

Mr. Bennett: I'm talking about a rental review office.

Mr. D.M. Phillips (South Peace River): He's talking about the solution to the problem which you aren't interested in. Neither is your Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson) interested in it. All you want to do is back further into the gluepot.

Deputy Speaker: Don't interrupt the speaker.

Mr. Bennett: I'm saying that….

Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh!

Mrs. Jordan: The dictator's back.

Mr. Bennett: I'm saying, Mr. Speaker….

Interjections.

Mr. Bennett: No, I'm advocating our proposal. If you'll continue to listen, we're saying that these offices under regional and municipal control could make the office of rentalsman useful instead of being the waste it is, and the waste it has been. We have this rentalsman that has been so inefficient and who has spent thousands of dollars and wasted thousands….

Interjections.

[ Page 4563 ]

Mr. Bennett: Well, Mr. Attorney-General, I wondered how you would mention it, because here we have the rentalsman, and you talk about taking out the appeal procedure, and what do we have? We have thousands of forms printed for the refund of rent….

An Hon. Member: How many thousands?

Mr. Bennett: Thousands — 500,000 forms…

Some Hon. Members: No, no!

Mr. Bennett: …stored in a warehouse in Burnaby.

Mrs. Jordan: Shame!

Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, 500,000 forms. There are 2,000 boxes of these forms alone in a warehouse in Burnaby. Other forms, Mr. Speaker…. How many other forms and brochures and literature and material are made obsolete by this sudden change in the rentalsman Act? How much other waste? Have we spent $100,000? Have we spent $150,000 on materials and forms that have been made obsolete overnight?

Yet these forms were just mailed out recently all over the province…mailing them out while the ink is still wet.

Mr. Phillips: You need a Philadelphia lawyer to fill them out.

Interjections.

Mr. Bennett: 500,000! How many other pamphlets and posters and material and propaganda, created perhaps by the Dunsky advertising agency, are in this warehouse in Burnaby, Mr. Speaker? Yet the ink isn't even dry on the new proposals.

Here's more evidence of the government reeling from crisis to crisis, passing up its own inadequate legislation, looking for supporting data — not because they want the answers, but to support a conclusion that they developed in haste and in a hurry in the spring because they hadn't handled the problem of the lack of accommodation and rental accommodation in this province since they came to office.

It's more proof positive of this Attorney-General, Mr. Speaker, being….

Interjections.

Mr. Bennett: Here's what they say. It says: "rentalsman's office use only." He's abandoned the responsibility of taking the….

Interjections.

Mr. Bennett: These were mailed out, as I said, and they're still being mailed out. And there are 2,000 more cases still in a warehouse in Burnaby.

Mr. Phillips: He wants to save them so he can make carbon copies of his failures.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order!

Interjections.

Mr. Bennett: Here's the postage and here's the mailing address….

Mr. Phillips: How much for postage?

Interjections.

An Hon. Member: It's 60 cents for postage.

Mr. Bennett: It's 60 cents for postage to mail it to Victoria, to mail obsolete material to Victoria — 60 cents postage.

Mr. Phillips: You're making the federal government fat.

Interjections.

Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, in looking for the solution we talked about making the rentalsman's office more efficient. We've created the rentalsman; we've given him a contract. Let's make his work meaningful. Let's allow him to do something. Let's have him work in conjunction with the municipalities instead of creating a whole now set of authorities that we may be amending in the spring when they find out that they can't do the work and when they come in with another authority and another authority and another commission and some more people to try to bail out this government on a non-acceptable solution to a problem — a non-acceptable solution to the problem dealing with the people of this province who suffer from lack of rental accommodation, and whose problem is increasing daily.

Mr. Speaker, in Victoria we have a zero vacancy rate now in rental accommodation. We have a zero vacancy rate in the Province of British Columbia. The people of the province know full well that the problem can't be solved by more commissions and more boards and more authorities. The people of this province know full well that it can only be met by the construction of more accommodation. They know that they can't live under the piles of paper and

[ Page 4564 ]

directives that are put out by this government. That won't provide one bit of accommodation for anyone, no matter what control or what authority.

The answer is supply. The answer is subsidization to those in genuine need — and take away the subsidy for the people who don't need it, that $2.50 a month rental grant that isn't needed — $9 million and, if need be, more money available for the people in genuine need.

This grant isn't working as it is now, because just under 100,000 have applied for it. The grant isn't working. It was a political gimmick that failed, a gimmick that's helping no one. Why not make this money meaningful? For the people in genuine need we could establish a set of conditions and have it locally administered, and the grant eligibility could be the same rules as apply to the residents of sponsored projects, Mr. Attorney-General.

Hon. Mr. MacDonald: And it goes right to the landlord, eh? Right to the landlord.

Mr. Bennett: The same rules as apply to residents of sponsored projects. The same rules as apply to residents of provincial-federal partnership projects for limited-income tenants.

We already have a set of conditions to help those people in need. We have their qualifications spelled out. Why not use that information? Use the municipal offices. Make the office of rentalsman workable and provide the money to the people in genuine need. Provide accommodation. Work with the municipalities in creating serviced lots. Work with them in creating more units but, for goodness' sakes, Mr. Attorney-General, don't come into this House with all the phony arguments that you're going to do it with rent control, because we just won't buy it. It just won't work. It hasn't worked anywhere else and it won't work here.

Here were some surveys that were sent out to canvass the opinion of those very tenants, surveys in which they had the opportunity to respond. I've only brought a few of them into the House.

On them, after giving all the information, they've also, many of them, chosen to write comments. Some of those comments are very illuminating. They tell us, Mr. Speaker, that the Attorney-General is not correct when they say that the tenants of this province don't understand, and can't identify the problem, and will be caught up in his sloganeering and slick tricks, because they won't.

A tenant in Fulton Street in South Burnaby says: "We do not want Bill 169 to come in. We are satisfied with the way this building is being run." A tenant in Langley states: "These controls and giveaway programmes reduce production."

In fact, I won't go through these comments myself because other Members speaking in this debate will wish to present these opinions — opinions of the tenants, the tenants whose opinions you so flippantly present to this House, which are inaccurate.

We get mail; we get letters. In fact, most of us actually live in our constituencies which we represent and are in contact daily with those people and were able to identify and deal with their needs.

Mr. Speaker, this bill will not meet the needs of the tenants in this province. This bill will become and has become a major part of the problem of rental accommodation in this province. The only answer is new and more construction. The only answer is a climate that will allow the confidence and the programmes that will create the incentives, both for the municipalities and the builders, using provincial and federal help to create accommodation in the province. The only answer in the way of rent subsidy is to the people in genuine need, people who can be identified by other qualifications spelled out in other programmes.

Mr. Speaker, this is the alternative to this rent control bill, a bill that isn't going to meet the needs of tenants in this province, a bill that isn't acceptable to us in the opposition.

Deputy Speaker: The Minister closes the debate.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, in closing this debate on second reading of Bill 169, I would like to reply to the arguments of the opposition leader (Mr. Bennett).

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: I looked around the room and there was no one on his feet.

Hon. Mr. MacDonald: Nobody else was up. He wasn't on his feet. Nobody else was up.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order!

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, order!

Hon. Mr. MacDonald: We looked through the whole assembly and no Mr. Thirty-percenter rose to his feet. I want to reply to the debate.

Interjections.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Hon. Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I defer,

[ Page 4565 ]

because I think there are useful comments that could be made in the course of this debate by some of our own backbenchers.

Mr. Speaker: May I ask who would like to speak? Is anybody next'?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Is nobody going to speak on this bill?

Interjections.

Mr. D.M. Phillips (South Peace River): It is certainly a pleasure for me to stand up and be counted in this debate.

Hon. Mr. MacDonald: You were awfully slow about it.

Mr. Bennett: Not as slow as you are in getting rental accommodation.

Mr. Phillips: I want to tell the Attorney-General that I certainly am used to the courtesy extended in this House in allowing the minority parties to have their say.

Interjection.

Mr. Phillips: But since they don't wish to be counted and don't wish to put anything on record in this debate, I certainly will stand up and be counted and so will the rest of the Members in this party.

The legislation that we have seen introduced here this afternoon, in my words I will have to say, is election catch-up legislation. This government, by bringing in this legislation, has proven once again that it really doesn't know where it is going, that it really doesn't know where or how to find the answers.

This legislation reminds me of a companion piece of legislation that has been recently introduced with regard to taxation and assessment — on the same theme. Election year catch-up legislation!

Ms. R. Brown (Vancouver-Burrard): Order!

[Mr. Liden in the chair.]

Mr. Phillips: Do you have something to say, Ms. Member?

You know, Mr. Speaker, this government reminds me of a scene I had once when I was a kid. I was responsible for letting a pig out of a cage, and I tried to catch that pig. Mr. Speaker, I had a great deal of difficulty in catching that pig because it kept darting in different directions. I never knew from one moment to the next what direction that pig was going to head in.

An Hon. Member: That's no way to refer to the Attorney-General.

Mr. Phillips: Well, the Attorney-General certainly wants to wear the shoe, and I know that it fits.

But that's exactly the way this government operates. They dodge in this direction, and then they turn around and they dodge in that direction. We in opposition cannot really tell in what direction they are going. But the problem is, Mr. Speaker, that the people of this province can't really tell in what direction they're going. That's the reason that the much-needed dollars for investment in this province have taken wing.

An Hon. Member: Flying to Alberta.

Mr. Phillips: They are flying away. Those dollars that are needed to provide the much-needed rental accommodation in this province are fleeing on wings from this province. They are going to a safer, harbour, a safer harbour where the rental needs of the people will be met. And the responsibility rests firmly on the shoulders of this government.

You know, Mr. Speaker, when I was talking about that pig, I said that I couldn't trust the direction in which it was going. Trust is the key word.

Interjection.

Mr. Phillips: Do you have a point of order, Mr. Attorney-General?

Trust is the key word with this whole government. Trust is the key word. What it says today it reverses tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, and this legislation is another prime example.

I would like to refer for just a moment to some Hansard transcripts from when the Attorney-General introduced this legislation — and this is the reason I say that this government can't be trusted. I would just like to read to you Hansard, page 2316, dated April 8, 1974, introducing Bill 75, Residential Premises Rent Stabilization Act, where most of the debate took place in this Legislature over that particular Act. Mr. Speaker, I want to draw to the attention of the assembly here this evening the words of the Attorney-General when he introduced what he called an interim Act.

Interjections.

Mr. Phillips: The Attorney-General is anxious to hear his own words. The Attorney-General said:

… because in a short-term rent stabilization such

[ Page 4566 ]

as the present, you may do more to injure the economic position of somebody who has been good to his tenants over a period of time than the gouger himself….

Mr. Speaker, the Attorney-General admitted when lie brought in what he called that interim piece of legislation, that interim legislative measure of rent control that it would do more to injure the tenant over a period of time than the gougers, who are few and far between.

Mr. Speaker, these are the words of the Attorney-General — that it would do more to injure the renter than the actions of the gougers.

Now the Attorney-General seems jumpy. If I were in his shoes I would be jumpy also tonight, because the very measure that he brought in, that he himself condemned, a measure which we were told in this Legislature would be short-lived, when he brought in the Landlord and Tenant Act rent stabilization and rent control were to go out the window.

When he brought in rent controls, he himself said that it would do more damage to the tenants of this province than what he termed "the gougers."

Mr. Speaker, this is the whole point that we are questioning, because rent stabilization, rent control, in the long run, in the Attorney-General's words, "will do more to injure the economic position of the renters than the gougers." He goes on to say that it's true, this period should be an interim one, and we should move as quickly as we can toward a kind of general review that heralded the new Landlord and Tenant Act that has been filed here today.

What did he do? He takes a complete about-flop and brings in the same kind of measure that he, in this Legislature, condemned. He brings it back again after the Landlord and Tenant Act, and the rentalsman that he created, failed. You wonder, Mr. Speaker, why we can't trust this government.

The Hon. Attorney-General said that we have to throw out a lifebelt, so that's what Bill 75 is, a lifeboat.

I'm quoting from Hansard again:

It was our duty and remains our duty in an interim way, and within the powers that are granted to us to answer these requests for help….

But it will do more damage to the renters of this province than the gougers themselves.

The ironic part of this legislation is that it will do more to hurt the very people whom the Attorney-General…. And I believe in all sincerity that the Attorney-General is working in all sincerity, misguided but sincere. He's stuck in his own glue pot and he doesn't know which way to move. I feel sorry for the Attorney-General, because it shouldn't be his legislation at all. Mr. Speaker, this legislation should be the responsibility of the man who was given such a fantastic budget not over six months ago, the Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson). It should be his responsibility, and not the responsibility of the Attorney-General. But the leader of the government, the lion. Premier, who, in his wisdom knew that the Minister of Housing could not carry the responsibility placed on his shoulders, foisted that responsibility onto the Attorney-General because the Hon. Premier knows that the Attorney-General can sit there, and with that winning smile of his, try and smile away all the problems. Unfortunately the Attorney-General is in deeper than he knows.

The results of the mismanagement of rental accommodation and housing in this province is working hardship on thousands and thousands of young students in Victoria and Vancouver who cannot find proper accommodation while trying to receive their education in those two cities.

I hope, Mr. Speaker, that those very students, who were sometimes having to take illegal accommodations in those cities — I won't say it's substandard because many people have given up their basements and their extra bedroom, but it's illegal accommodation in those cities — in order to receive their education. I certainly hope that those young students, who in some instances are being ripped off by this illegal accommodation…. Students from the northern part of this province, students from the northern part of Vancouver Island, students from the Kootenays, who have to come to these cities to receive some of their post-secondary education are paying exorbitant rentals for accommodation because there are no suites available, no housing available.

These students are being ripped off. Not only do they have to come and pay their own accommodation, but in many instances they are being ripped off by the people who supply this illegal accommodation.

The result of the policies of this government is driving mortgage money to the neighbouring Province of Alberta where there already exists a renter's market. In the Province of Alberta, in the City of Calgary, there is a 7.9 per cent vacancy rate. In the City of Edmonton, there is a 5.2 per cent vacancy rate, but still they are continuing to build. Why'? I'll tell you why, Mr. Speaker, because the government of the Province of Alberta is not taking over the business that people are investing in.

Hon. W.L. Hartley (Minister of Public Works): How about Pacific Western Airlines?

Mr. Phillips: Well, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Works talks about Pacific Western Airlines. I'll tell you something about Pacific Western Airlines: your Minister of Finance would have purchased Pacific Western Airlines had he had the surpluses that were left to him when he became Minister of Finance, had he not squandered them. Had you, Mr. Minister of Public Works, not wasted them on going out and buying new buildings, buying land.

[ Page 4567 ]

Interjections.

MR, PHILLIPS: We used to have at one time in this province a buyer's market, a renter's market in rental accommodations, and it was a happy situation. Now the times have changed and the responsibility for those changes must rest directly on the shoulders of the Attorney-General.

I want to tell you that if I know anything about business at all, I would suggest that where we have a shortage of accommodation like we have in the Province of British Columbia, that people should be tripping over themselves to supply that vacancy and to fill that need. But we have the entire opposite. Nobody in the Province of British Columbia is tripping over themselves or rushing in to fill this vacuum, to fill this need, to supply the demand. Why? Because of the negative policies of this socialist government, that's why. What has happened in the last year?

It seems to me that in the province where there is unemployment — and the unemployment is growing faster than it is in any other province in Canada — where construction is needed, that you would think that the much needed construction to provide rental accommodation in this province would take place immediately. But no, this isn't happening. Our unemployment is climbing and still that construction isn't taking place.

Mr. Speaker, the ironic part of it is that while people are out of work, while there is a lack of rental accommodation, cabinet Ministers sit on the opposite side and smirk and laugh while we have an overrun in the Department of Human Resources of $103 million.

I think that the situation in British Columbia has reached an all-time low. The situation is not going to be corrected immediately because we need at least 18 to 36 months lead time for construction of new rental accommodation.

Every day that we wait to start construction of the rental accommodation needed, the situation will grow worse and more intolerable. The entire question is the responsibility of this government. They are responsible for the intolerable situation that we are facing in this province this evening.

The Attorney-General said that people are flocking into the province. They have been flocking in for years because of our climate. The Attorney-General stands and takes credit for us having the lowest percentage of housing starts of any province in Canada this year.

Hon. Mr. MacDonald: You've got it mixed up.

Mr. Phillips: No, I haven't got it mixed up, Mr. Speaker. He forgets about the tremendous increase in population. People aren't coming here to work; people are coming here to retire. The certainly aren't coming here to work in the last two years.

Because of the fact that the price of rental accommodation has not increased as fast in the last 10 years as housing, the situation will again grow more intolerable. In the last 15 years the price of rental accommodation, a two-bedroom apartment, has increased 100 per cent. In the last 5 years it has only increased 28 per cent. In the years 1959-69 it only increased 56 per cent.

Housing in that same period increased in price 482 per cent and the price of a lot increased 641 per cent. What I am pointing out is this: individual housing is becoming so expensive that it is going to be available only to the very rich. This is going to place more pressure on rental accommodation.

What is going to happen? Those who could maybe afford to build are not going to build because of inflation; they are going to put more pressure on rental accommodation. They are going to take up that much needed rental accommodation that should become available to those in the lower-income bracket. This is going to make the situation in Vancouver Centre and in Vancouver East and in Vancouver-Burrard graver. It's the very situation that the Members, in all sincerity, are concerned about in their own ridings. The responsibility is going to be on the government of which they are a part.

These people will not be able to afford rental accommodation because it will be taken up by those who should be building homes.

What is going to happen? A black market in rental accommodation will develop. No offence. It is a terminology which has been used for quite some time.

Those who can afford it will be paying under the table; these rent controls will be out the window. With the situation we have today, this is exactly what will happen and it has happened elsewhere. Your low-rental accommodation will deteriorate; the half-decent rental accommodation and the better class rental accommodation will not be subject to rental controls because those who want that better accommodation will be paying for it under the table. I don't care how large a police force you have, how many regulations you have, there is no way you will ever control it.

Who will suffer? It will be the elderly people and the young people with families who can't afford to build their own homes. The situation will grow worse daily. The situation must rest squarely on the shoulders of this government. Construction has dipped to an all-time low and it is declining.

We pointed out these very facts in the spring session of this Legislature not over six months ago. The things which we forecast during the debate on Bill 75 have come to be a reality. Yet this Minister in

[ Page 4568 ]

charge of rent control wants to perpetuate that situation and keep it going, while our unemployment grows.

Where are those jobs which this government was going to create in the Province of British Columbia?

The policies that this government has brought in have caused a housing shortage. The policies that this government has brought in have caused uncontrolled rent, condominiums and housing to skyrocket.

The Premier seems to be a little concerned when I say uncontrolled rents. He evidently doesn't know the legislation. There are certain houses with fewer than three suites that are not controlled. This is the type of rental accommodation which will skyrocket and which students attending the university have to have.

The policies of this government will build slums in the lower mainland and will result in no choices of accommodation. They will freeze people to low-rent accommodation. When their jobs move, they will not be able to move with them because they will not be able to get new accommodation.

The policies of this government will freeze people to the accommodation they have even though they can afford better. They won't move into better because it won't be available. It will take off with the bottom market — the rental accommodation where it is most needed by the people of this province. Young families will be the people who will suffer most, along with elderly couples.

The policies of this government in the field of housing are slowly but surely pushing us into a quagmire of problems from which there is no escape and no return. The Attorney-General practically admitted that when he introduced this legislation tonight.

While this is happening in this province, our Premier is asking for leadership from Ottawa. Well, maybe he is asking for quite a bit. But how much longer can the Premier of this province, who was elected to lead this province, continue to abdicate his responsibilities and try and foist the blame on somebody else'?

It is time that the leader of this province, the Premier, the Minister of Finance, stood up to the problems that are facing the people of British Columbia tonight. It is time he brought in some concrete solutions instead of patchwork legislation. He was elected to lead this province.

Suggestions have already been laid out here in this chamber this evening by our leader (Mr. Bennett).

Interjection.

Mr. Phillips: They are concrete. suggestions, but you have your ears and mind closed. You always have had and you always will have.

Nobody ever taught a socialist anything in their life because they have all the answers. They run on a theory. It doesn't work but looks good on paper. It doesn't work, but they continue blindly and madly on their way.

Interjection.

Mr. Phillips: Yes, I was just going to mention the Petroleum Corporation.

While we face an intolerable situation, the Premier addresses the B.C. Federation of Labour. What does he have to say about the problems that face British Columbia? What does he offer in the way of solutions? What does he ask organized labour to do?

Did he ask them to cooperate? Not on your life, Mr. Speaker. What did he do? He goes on a tirade of blaming the oil companies, blaming the mining companies and blaming MacMillan Bloedel for the problems that exist in British Columbia tonight.

I would have suggested that the Premier, had he been constructive, would have gone to that B.C. Federation of Labour convention and asked for their cooperation and the cooperation of the labour unions involved in the construction industry and asked them to cooperate with management to solve the problem. There was a perfect opportunity for our Premier to have been constructive.

Hon. Mr. MacDonald: You're supposed to be attacking my bill.

Mr. Phillips: I'm talking about your bill and what should have been done by your government, Mr. Attorney-General. There was a perfect opportunity for the Premier to go before that convention in a constructive way to ask for cooperation, to ask the B.C. Federation of Labour to cooperate in building the much-needed accommodation for this province. But what did he do? Up to his old political gimmickry, up to his old buffoonery. Blaming Ottawa, asking them for leadership, blaming the ills of this province on the oil companies and Bloedel.

I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the people of Canada and the people of British Columbia have had enough of this politicking on behalf of our leaders. It was tried in an instance by David Lewis, the last leader of the federal NDP, and what did the people of Canada say to him? They said, "Out!"

You can't blame the ills of this province, you can't overshadow the problems that this government has created by going around and attacking big corporations.

I'm not in love with big corporations, Mr. Speaker, nor was the government that I represent. Absolutely not.

An Hon. Member: Oh, oh.

[ Page 4569 ]

Mr. Phillips: We're not in love with big corporations; we feel they should pay their way. And the Premier knows that. But he abdicated his responsibility when he stood before that convention of labour leaders in this province and went on with his old political gimmickry. I'm sure that if that convention along with this government had really wanted to solve the problems that face the Province of British Columbia tonight and today, they could have sat down to a workshop and worked out some way with the construction union to get together to solve these problems.

But no, not the Premier. He won't be constructive. Absolutely not. He's too interested in going on a joy junket to China. I notice that he wants to get all of these joy junkets to China and all around and everywhere in while he's Premier, because it will be short-lived.

Our leader offered alternatives in a construction manner. While people in this province tonight are unemployed, while people in this province tonight have no accommodation, our Premier sits over there and smiles and smiles and smiles and says that I don't like him. It isn't that I don't like him; it's that I fear for the people of this province who have placed the responsibility for their future and well-being in his hands. Unfortunately, that Premier is not living up to his responsibility.

An Hon. Member: What's the matter, do you feel deserted?

Interjections.

Mr. Phillips: It's a sorry situation when the Attorney-General of this province, who initiated this legislation, who brought it in, who said it was going to be the end-all, stands in this Legislature and makes light of the very, very grave and serious situation which I have brought before this House tonight. He knows full well that I am discussing his legislation. He knows full well that it is really the Minister of Finance who must help to solve the problem.

I don't know how the people of this province can really have any faith in an Attorney-General who would make light of such a grave situation.

When the Attorney-General brought in his legislation, the new Landlord and Tenant Act, he said it was going to be the end-all. But what do we have?

He created in that bill the office of a rentalsman. It was going to be the responsibility of that rentalsman in the Landlord and Tenant Act to solve the problem. He was going to have an escape clause where landlords who wanted more that the agreed-to rate increase could have the opportunity of appearing before this rentalsman to state their case.

What has happened less than four months later? The rentalsman in the Province of British Columbia is running like a scared rabbit. Why? Because this government didn't have the foresight to see the end result of the legislation that they were bringing in.

Deputy Speaker: I would like to draw to the speaker's attention that he is drawing near the end of his 40 minutes.

Mr. Phillips: I regret, Mr. Speaker, that the time allotted to me is drawing to a close because there are several other points that I would like to make. But I want to finish on this point: I hope the people of British Columbia realize the way that this government is mismanaging their affairs. Legislation after legislation has been introduced into this chamber, and sometimes before it's even passed its third reading it is amended.

The Landlord and Tenant Act was to be the cure-all. Less than four months later the rentalsman created in that Act is running scared. Portions of that Act have been completely deleted and the situation grows daily worse. Is this the type of government, the type of legislation that the people of this province voted for in 1972?

I think, Mr. Speaker, that those very same people tonight in British Columbia are somewhat dismayed and disenchanted.

Deputy Speaker: Your time is up, Mr. Phillips: My time is up and democracy has died in British Columbia.

Mr. R.H. McClelland: (Langley): I wanted to defer to any of the other Members of this House who wished to speak on this bill which is a very important bill before this House.

Mr. Speaker, I know that some of the Members, like the Member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) and those grand and glorious Liberals, one of whom still happens to have missed the float plane, find it too hot to handle and are not prepared to stand up and speak for the people who see the shelter industry in the province going down the drain. They sit there and say nothing. They haven't got the backbone to stand up and speak in this debate. No backbone.

Interjection.

Mr. McClelland: I'd just like to warn some of those Members that that section of the anatomy that gets affected by sitting on the fence is very tender and they had better be careful.

Deputy Speaker: Order! Please deal with the bill.

Mr. McClelland: Mr. Speaker, I only want to

[ Page 4570 ]

make a plea to the Attorney-General and to the other people who are responsible for this bill to bring some sense back into the shelter situation in British Columbia.

This government should act now to listen to all of the available evidence which has been presented to them, and not ignore it, as they have obviously done — as the Attorney-General has obviously done — ignored all the evidence from all of the people who have told you over and over again that rental controls lead to chaos. Yet you continue to persist in that folly and in that course of action.

I'd like to ask the Attorney-General if he really wants to turn Vancouver and Victoria into a Hong Kong. Do you really want to turn Vancouver and Victoria into a Moscow? Do you really want to turn Vancouver and Victoria into a Sweden? I'll tell you that that is what you're doing, Mr. Speaker, through you to the Attorney-General. You're creating a chaotic situation in rental housing in this province and it's going to get worse because of your rental controls. People are going to be jammed family upon family in inadequate shelter facilities.

All you have to do is take for an example a recent incident of a fire — a disastrous fire — in the municipality of Surrey in a housing development there. When the investigation was underway, Mr. Speaker, it became apparent that much of the accommodation was being used by multiple families — not only two families in each unit, but sometimes three in each unit. Do you know why? It was because they couldn't find anyplace else to live, because of the kind of situation that's been created in this province by your government. That's why.

People jammed family upon family in inadequate shelter accommodation: that's what rent controls do.

Is the Attorney-General really prepared, Mr. Speaker, to have Vancouver and Victoria, particularly, go through the kind of experience that we've seen in New York, Baltimore, St. Louis, Washington?

Hon. Mr. MacDonald: How about Stockholm?

Mr. McClelland: How about Stockholm, where there's a terrible black market situation, a terrible black market situation? People are lined up, key money…. Is that what you want — people passing money under the table so they can get a suite, people signing up when they're born, Mr. Speaker, so they can get a place to live, and then selling that right to somebody else because they need the money to eat? Is that what you want? Well, I say shame on you. Shame on you, Mr. Attorney-General, if that's what you want.

The kind of rent controls that you're talking about have given birth in those cities that I mentioned — cities like Washington, D.C.; New York City; Newark, New Jersey; Baltimore, Maryland — to instant slums, Mr. Speaker. That's what they've given birth to. Rent controls have turned over hundreds of thousands of apartment units to the rats — to the rats, and to the vandals, and to the drug addicts and to the slum gangs. That's the kind of thing that rent controls generate, Mr. Speaker. Is that what you want for British Columbia? Well, it sure isn't what I want for British Columbia. I wouldn't accept that for British Columbia.

In New York, where rent controls have been in effect now for 30 years, 10,000 apartments a year are abandoned — 10,000 a year to the looters.

The same is true in England. In other parts of the world where government has attempted to impose control the shelter supply is a total disaster, the black market is rampant — and that includes the places the Attorney-General holds up for our edification — and families are herded together like cattle in these apartment units. Is that what you want for British Columbia, Mr. Attorney-General? If you do, I think you should be ashamed of yourself.

I must repeat, as I've said on earlier occasions in this House, that rent controls only hide the symptoms of a rental accommodation shortage. They do nothing to alleviate that shortage. They just put it under the rug while the shortage gets worse day by day. Controls mean chaos. Supply, inventory, is the only answer, Mr. Speaker; and nobody — I mean nobody — is building anything in this province today.

In the City of Victoria right now there is one apartment unit under construction, and that's only because it's been under construction for about two years. The people who are building it are locked into that construction project.

One apartment unit in the whole city of Vancouver is being built today, and do you think anybody's going to go in and start building any more? Not on your life they're not.

In the lower mainland of British Columbia I doubt that you'll find more than 10 apartment units under construction.

The Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) pointed out that because we sit here today with a zero vacancy rate — a zero vacancy rate — people should be flocking into this province to build apartments. They should be falling over themselves attempting to put up apartment units.

Yet what do we see? We see in the City of Edmonton, which not too many months ago had a 20 per cent vacancy rate, and as late as this past summer had a 10 per cent vacancy rate, that developers are moving from British Columbia to Alberta to put up apartment units. Here we have a zero vacancy rate in this province and 10 per cent in Edmonton. Yet they're going from here to there to invest their money.

[ Page 4571 ]

In Los Angeles the vacancy rate today is something like 12 to 15 per cent. The apartment builders are leaving here to go there to build apartments, and yet we have a zero vacancy rate in this province. Doesn't that tell you something'?

Hon. Mr. MacDonald: To rip off tenants.

Mr. McClelland: To rip off tenants! How long is your memory Mr. Attorney-General? Don't you even remember that when we had a 1 or 2 or 3 per cent vacancy rate in Vancouver a tenant could get his moving job done free, the first month's rent free, and the landlords were begging in the streets to get them to come in and rent their apartments? Begging in the streets. You say that's being ripped off? My God, they never had it better.

Now they're being ripped off. I can show you examples in Vancouver of new apartments that are going up that are paying $300 a month; yet there are other apartments sitting there exactly which have come on stream in the last year. They've come on stream in the last year. They've stopped now.

Hon. Mr. MacDonald: You said there were none.

Mr. McClelland: You stand up and tell me how many apartments are being built today. You can't name me any. But I'll tell you, there is a difference of hundreds of dollars a month between those units that came on a year ago and other ones which have been locked in for a while. It's your kind of rent control legislation that's ripping off tenants, Mr. Attorney-General, through you, Mr. Speaker, and nothing else. Just hark back to those days when we had some vacancy rate in this province. You have to admit that.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

There's a serious shelter shortage in this province and we're doing nothing to alleviate it — not a thing. The Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson) over there has been a total disaster in attempting to provide new shelter accommodation.

We've bought a defunct company for $6 million. We made rich men out of the principals of that company. We gave them fat management contracts as well, and didn't build a single house, didn't build a single apartment, didn't build a single condominium. Instead of that, what are we doing in this province? We're running around and buying up housing developments which have already been put on stream by private developers. What kind of sense does that make?

I don't know whether, Mr. Speaker, I had hoped for….

Hon. Mr. MacDonald: Are you making this speech up'?

Mr. McClelland: Mr. Speaker, it was $6 million and we haven't got one new house; we haven't got one new apartment building; we haven't got one new unit for senior citizens…

Some Hon. Members: Oh, come on!

MR. McCLELLAND: … for $6 million that we would have had by private industry anyway. I had hoped that when we got ripped off for $6 million, Mr. Speaker, that we would have done something different, that we would have filled some kind of vacuum that the private industry wasn't filling. Instead of that we got nothing. We're just running around and breaking over the same trail that private industry has already broken. What kind of nonsense is that?

Then, of course, the Attorney-General stands up and says…. You know, it's funny…we've had, I don't know, five or six pieces of business put before this House since we first met last Friday.

Interjection.

Mr. McClelland: Yes, supposedly to deal with assessments only. Five or six pieces of business put before this House, and of those five or six pieces of business we've already seen three of them which call for some kind of a new commission or board or secretariat, or whatever you want to call it — three of those five or six pieces of business. And this piece of business is no different because now we're going to have a Rent Review Commission, which the Attorney-General said tonight will be just a little commission. It won't be very big — maybe a part-time chairman, and maybe sit once in a while. Baloney! That will be, well….

Interjection.

Mr. McClelland: They're on your list, Mr. Speaker?

When that Rent Review Commission was announced, we were told that it was going to be patterned along the same lines as the one in Quebec. We even brought one of the people from Quebec, whom the Minister described as the foremost economist in housing today in the whole world, or someplace.

Mr. Speaker, the Rent Review Board in Quebec has how many offices — 30? How many staff, Mr. Speaker — 300? That's 300 staff in 30 offices for that little commission we're going to have to review rents — on top of the fantastic bureaucracy that we already have in the rentalsman's office that was supposed to

[ Page 4572 ]

solve all of the rental accommodation problems in this province. That's 30 offices,300 staff — and it doesn't work. It doesn't work. It's a total mess. It's a mess, and we're going to pattern ourselves on that kind of a mess that's already proved to be a failure in Quebec. Well, it doesn't surprise me, because this government has taken failures from all over the world and attempted to transplant them into British Columbia.

The shelter shortage has got to be solved, and the kind of action that this government has taken won't do anything to solve it. If you frighten the private sector out of this vital area of shelter — and that's what you're doing, right now — you're going to strike a blow to the tenants, the renters of this province, that will take years and years to heal.

I still don't understand why this government initiated rent controls when they had so much evidence against rent control.

I'd like to quote again from Dean Philip White of UBC, who had a very good case against rent controls. He said, in a major report to this government:

"First of all, the quality of the total housing stock is reduced by inefficiencies in its use, and is reduced again by the lower standards of repairs and maintenance in the controlled sector of the market. In other words, rent controls lead to slums."

That's as inevitable as night and day, and you have the example of places all over the world to choose from. Yet you chose close your eyes. 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."

Mr. Speaker, that's exactly what we're seeing in British Columbia today. We have destroyed the confidence of the private investors. They are not building any new rental developments. They are moving out of this province into Alberta, into the United States, and they won't come back.

Hon. L.T. Nimsick (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): They're not building in the United States either. They won't buy any more lumber.

Mr. McClelland: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to continue and just point out that rent controls do lead to the destruction of the housing industry. Dean White also says:

"As a method of granting relief to low-income families rent control must be regarded as an economic or 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."

It ought to be sufficient to dismiss it from serious discussion of housing problems. It fails in every way to meet the needs of a modern solution to the shelter crisis which we feel in his province today. Dean White adds that the fact that it fails ought to be sufficient to dismiss it from serious discussion of housing problems.

We've made a number of suggestions to this government. I wish that some of the Members of this government would open their ears and listen to the kinds of suggestions we've made. And as for those suggestions that we've made, and which the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) made to you tonight, if you'd only had your ears open, if those suggestions would be followed by this government, you would find that the supply of housing would begin to flow again, the inventory would build up and the renter would be better off. You can take your rental controls and do with them what you want, because they certainly aren't doing any good for the kinds of people that you say you're trying to help. and that person, while you think you're helping him, you're driving into the ground, and you're going to force higher and higher rents on him.

You know, this government says: "Okay, we're going to allow these apartments to have a 10.6 per cent rent increase every year." You're going to get a 10.6 per cent rent increase every year; there isn't any doubt. Yet we've seen years go by where landlords increase their rent 4 per cent or 5 per cent or 6 per cent — and some years not at all. You think that'll ever happen again? Not as long as you have these stupid rent controls on it won't, because every year you're going to see the increases, and the renter is going to pay for it.

What's the matter with the heads on the other side? Mr. Speaker, it's only common sense that we're asking the government to adopt so that we can get on with the job of providing inventory. Inventory in housing stock is the only answer to the question. Inventory, Mr. Speaker.

What did this government's own Law Reform Commission recommend? Perhaps before I ask that question I could just point again to the ineptitude of this government. Probably one of the reasons we're stuck in the muddle that we're stuck in, Mr. Speaker, is that the government has had a knee-jerk reaction to almost every crisis that it's faced. It has reacted with sloppy legislation, badly drafted legislation, and the kind of legislation that, rather than alleviating the problem, inevitably compounded the problem. Then, of course, we've had to step in and have some more sloppy, badly drafted legislation. So we've piled

[ Page 4573 ]

mistake upon mistake.

It was incredible when someone brought these boxes in here this evening with these rental forms in them. I couldn't believe it. Did they really say a half-a-million of these forms? Half a million forms are totally useless, and we're told now that there are 2,000 boxes of forms of one kind or another, sitting in a warehouse in Burnaby, which are totally useless.

You know, maybe it doesn't seem like much of a deal…. And they're paying storage on them, storage on those 2,000 boxes.

Hon. Mr. MacDonald: Who told you that'?

Mr. McClelland: Oh, are you saying they're not there?

Hon. Mr. MacDonald: Fairy tales!

Mr. McClelland: Are you saying they're not there, Mr. Attorney-General? Are you saying they're not there?

Half-a-million forms, and six pages of paper, Mr. Speaker, in these half-a-million forms. That's three million pieces of paper. How much does that cost — $100,000? That's $100,000 wasted. Is that funny, Madam Member, when you throw away $100,000, when people don't have rental accommodation in this province? When people are burned out in Surrey and we find that they are living two and three families to a suite — is that funny, Madam Member? Is that funny? You can't even use the backs of these papers for scratch pads because they're written all over.

An Hon. Member: Full of instructions.

Mr. McClelland: Yes, full of instructions — about what not to do.

Mr. Speaker, I just pointed that incredible fiasco out to point out: again the incredible ineptitude of this government, which stumbles along from disaster to disaster in attempting to solve the serious problems of this province.

What did this province's own Law Reform Commission say about rent controls?

To quote in the writing of Professor Donnison, excerpted from the report on landlord/tenant relationship, it 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" — and since tenants have more votes than landlords — "it is always tempting to impose rent controls as a temporary solution to an urgent problem." What would you call that, Mr. Speaker? Cheap politics? Expediency?

In the name of attracting votes rather than attempting to solve problems, short-term alternatives for political purposes, Mr. Speaker…. That's what this bill is all about. It's a political bill, designed to capture some votes, while you take the tenants of this province and force them into impossible situations and out of any shelter. That's the important thing, Mr. Speaker.

I must repeat that those aren't my words that I've quoted there, but the words of the Law Reform Commission of British Columbia, which describes this kind of action as cheap politics.

Interjection.

Mr. McClelland: Mr. Speaker, I don't know. Are you saying that that's an incorrect quote'?

Hon. Mr. MacDonald: Right.

Mr. McClelland: You are disputing the actual report from your own law commission. It's a quote directly from Professor Donnason, Mr. Speaker, and if the Attorney-General will sit down, I'll continue my talk.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I think we all understand, I hope, that the last of the quotation was not from the law reform report; it was your summary of what your opinion is.

Mr. McClelland: Oh, the cheap politics part. Yes, of course.

Mr. Speaker, I've suggested that this whole bill is cheap politics, and I don't have to hide behind anything because I'm saying it. I mean it and that's what it is. I'll stand on that quote, okay'?

I don't know how much landlords should raise their rents. I don't know, but neither does the Attorney-General know. He doesn't have any idea. He picks some magic figure, 10.6 per cent, out of some magic bag that he had somewhere. I don't know where he got it; he picked it out of the air. He doesn't know how much landlords should be allowed to increase their rents — the economic indexes will dictate to that. But if you don't remove the shackles, if you don't stop interfering with the orderly supply of housing in this province, there will be needless and heartless suffering by the people in our province who are looking for a decent place to live at a decent price. That's the shame of this bill; that's the shame that the Attorney-General should feel as well.

Mr. G.F. Gibson (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Speaker it's a pleasure to take my place in this debate after the Hon. Attorney-General, the Hon. Members for South Okanagan (Mr. Bennett), South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) and Langley (Mr. McClelland).

I have been listening carefully to the Social Credit spokesmen. I have listened carefully to three of the

[ Page 4574 ]

Social Credit spokesmen in the hope of hearing some thought or idea which might have a useful bearing on the problem we are discussing tonight. Not having heard any, I thought that it was about time for a Liberal to speak.

The Social Credit Party has been notably silent on the questions of what they believe to be an appropriate percentage of rental increase, if any, and what they would do about the vexatious problem of rent control.

Would they remove the rent controls over night? The Social Credit Party has not dealt with that problem. It's a very serious problem, and I think we in this House should recognize that the government is on the horns of a dilemma which, in all fairness, they did a considerable amount to create, but which nevertheless exists here and now.

There being not enough in the Social Credit statement to comment on, Mr. Speaker, I want to say a little bit about what the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) said in his opening remarks, He made an impassioned plea that this legislation is protecting the little people of British Columbia. I think he believes that. But I ask him why he doesn't proceed to protect the little people of British Columbia by humane and reasonable distribution of the moneys available for the resource renters grants — instead of the insulting and useless quantity of $2.50 a month which is currently paid out to all those persons whether they are in need of it or not.

I congratulate his government in the point he made, that they have at least recognized tenants.

Mr. Speaker: Excuse me. The Hon. Member for North Okanagan has a point of order.

Mrs. Jordan: I believe it's against the rules of the House to be tedious and repetitious in one's debate. And what the Member for North Vancouver–Capilano says has already been repeated twice by the Social Credit Members before him. Perhaps he would decease and desist and come up with some new debate.

Mr. Gibson: Mr. Speaker, we've just heard from one of the experts in this House on tedium and repetition.

The Attorney-General did not in his remarks comment on the ordinary people of this province who can't get a place to live, because a controlled-rent premise does you no good if you can't get in the door. The critical issue, therefore, in addition to cost, is that of new construction.

In the question of capital gains, the Attorney-General made reference to Dr. Cragg — at page 85 — where he mentioned that increased costs of providing accommodation imply that large windfall capital gains can be expected to accrue to the present owners of rental accommodation.

Professor Cragg goes on to say — and I think the Attorney-General read this statement as well: "Whether the present taxation of such gains is adequate goes far beyond any questions of dealing with rental accommodation." But I do think it is one to which this government and the federal government ought to be addressing themselves.

Capital gains are, of course, currently taxed, so to some extent apartment owners who make capital gains do pay tax on them. I would just point that out to the Attorney-General.

I would suggest to him as well that he has to be cautious in taking that theory too far, because it would presumably then apply to all homeowners, not just the single-family detached dwelling but the condominium homeowners who have made capital gains in our society. Many of whom have made capital gains, being the only savings they have — the only kind of savings the ordinary person is able to accumulate in a home. So it's important that he consider in the application in this principle where it might take him.

The Attorney-General mentions that owner-occupied is exempt, as, of course, it is under the federal capital gains taxation laws. Many economic studies, unfortunately, have recently shown this is one of the reasons for the high price in that field. I point this out just to indicate that all of these things are an interwoven web of complications that we have to face.

The Attorney-General stated that 10.6 per cent is made up of an allowance of two things: one of them being current costs, the other being capital payment, and cited it. as a fair return. I would ask him at this time if he would agree to table the studies by the two expert consultants from eastern Canada which he cited in reaching the figure of 10.6 per cent. The Attorney-General indicates that he might elaborate on that at the time of his….

Interjection.

Mr. Gibson: The Attorney-General indicates that it was the result of a conference. I hope then that he might elaborate on that conference when he closes debate on second reading — exactly what quantity of the 10.6 per cent is current cost, exactly what is capital return, and on what capital base it is predicated.

The Attorney-General agrees to table the conference, Mr. Speaker. I think you will have to consider the precedents in that regard.

Finally, on the Attorney-General's remarks — in spite of promptings from the Hon. Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) he said nothing about the five years rental holiday; that this legislation proposes, which certainly is among its important

[ Page 4575 ]

features, and will bring about one of its most important consequences, namely the creation of a two-price system in the rental field, to the extent it is successful. The extent that it is successful is in itself questionable, and I will get on to that subject later.

In debating this bill we are continuing the pattern of a session of crisis legislation, because there can be no doubt that we are debating a crisis in the B.C. housing field, and particularly in the B.C. rental-housing field. We have here the sad situation of a government responding to two kinds of pressures. It's responding to the pressures of its own Members and backbenchers who don't represent British Columbians at all adequately any more.

Interjection.

Mr. Gibson: The Hon. Minister asks why they don't represent British Columbians anymore. Because of what you've done since you were elected, Mr. Minister. You came in on a wave of good feeling, and you haven't got it anymore.

Hon. Mr. Nimsick: That's just one man's opinion.

Mr. Gibson: Mr. Minister, we'll see how many persons' opinions it is at the time of the next election.

The government is responding to the pressures of a so-called tenants council that doesn't do much to represent tenants. It hasn't well represented the interests of tenants in this rental crisis.

Let's look at the existing situation. The vacancy rates are virtually zero — there's no point in saying point-what per cent. They are booked up for weeks ahead. People are going around to apartment managers, saying: "Would you consider me when the time comes when it looks like somebody might drop dead, or there's a vacancy for some reason in this building? Would you look after me?"

It's a crisis because with that kind of vacancy rate, we are having, as the Attorney-General cited, a growth of 3.5 to 4 per cent per year in British Columbia. We're getting just about to that point where that growth is going to be regulated because people won't be able to live anywhere in British Columbia when they come here. Maybe that's the policy of the government ….

Interjection.

Mr. Gibson: Wait for the budget, Mr. Member. Maybe that's the policy of the government to keep people away. Somehow I can't really believe that's the policy of the government because that ends up in chaos for the whole society. There have to be more orderly ways of planning growth than just saying that you can't live here.

It's a crisis because there is nothing being built in terms of rental accommodation. Virtually nothing. An Hon. Member earlier on cited statistics which were accumulated by the Victoria Real Estate Board.

First of all, vacancies in the greater Victoria apartment area, 0.2 per cent, but suites now under construction — and this is as of October 1, 1974, going through the entire greater Victoria area — 198 suites under construction, which I am informed relates to one apartment building, which was commissioned a year ago, before these forms of government regulation began. That's in an area which currently has 13,658 rental suites. Only 198 are under construction now and that's because they are holdovers from a previous era.

Look at the CMHC statistics for the whole of the province. The Attorney-General is on record as of a couple of days ago as saying that we in British Columbia have something to be pleased with because our housing starts are down less than the rest of the country. I don't know what figures he was referring to, but I do have here some figures for August and September. Of course, because of our growth we should be starting a great many more houses than the rest of the country. But I'll ignore that for the moment.

These are figures up to August, 1974, from CMHC in 19 urban centres about British Columbia. This is an important point: completions continue well ahead of last year, up 11 per cent. But the total number of units under construction at the end of August was lower than 12 months earlier, down 9 per cent.

Mr. Speaker, the fact that completions were up is important. This again is a holdover from previous days. If anything has made the situation relatively less intolerable, it's been the fact that these previously started units are now being completed. But the starts are down.

Listen to this: the overall decline in the number of starts this year is largely caused by a sharp fall in multiple starts. Single starts in metro Vancouver and in the other urban centres are down about 5 per cent, as you'd expect with the mortgage money problem. But multiple starts are down 17 per cent in the Vancouver area.

In Victoria total starts are down 28 per cent, the result of a small drop in single starts, and there is a 40 per cent decline in multiple starts. Now, Mr. Speaker, multiple starts can't entirely be used as a proxy for rental accommodation, but they are one way of measuring the situation.

The Hon. Member for South Okanagan (Mr. Bennett) asks about the crisis in North Vancouver. The problem is very difficult there: there is almost no rental accommodation being built in North Vancouver. Almost all of the things being built in North Vancouver now are condominiums. Many of

[ Page 4576 ]

them started out as rental accommodation, and are now converted to strata title.

Let's look at buildings under construction. Housing units under construction as of the end of September in Greater Vancouver: a 13,000 total. Of these, 9,100 were multiple-family accommodations — these are CMHC figures — of those 2,600 are what is called social housing; 4,500 were definitely identified as condominiums. And in the estimate of knowledgeable statisticians, much fewer than 2,000 were unsubsidized rental accommodation.

We have the word of Al Koelhi, president of the B.C. branch of the Housing and Urban Development Association of Canada — and he's not talking, apparently, about the figures the Attorney-General was talking about, because he has this to say:

"Housing starts have been down 50 per cent in B.C. these past two months. Last year we built 37,000 units in the province. This year the total will be around 28,000. The province needs at least 11,000 more units immediately to stay even with current needs, and they're nowhere in sight."

Mr. Speaker, that's a rough evidence of the dimensions of this problem: 11,000 units down over what we had last year, and that wasn't enough because last year the vacancy rates were creeping up.

I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that most of that 11,000 shortfall over last year relates to the rental side of the market. In other words, the owner-occupied accommodation is not down nearly as seriously as the accommodation being built for the renters.

Why should this be? The Attorney-General suggested that's true all over Canada. It is now here so disastrously true as it is in British Columbia.

I'll suggest to the Attorney-General, through you, Mr. Speaker, that the vacancy rates in Alberta, particularly in the two large urban centres of Alberta, are now in excess of 3 per cent. I don't believe they are as high as the previous speaker said, but they are in excess of 3 per cent right now. There is a lot of money that should be building apartments in British Columbia which is now going to Alberta to build apartments there. This is a unique situation in British Columbia which is caused by the actions of this government.

Let's listen to what a columnist for the Vancouver Sun has to say about the situation in an article dated August 22 of this year:

"Rent control in British Columbia has done what its critics said it would — it has killed off construction of new apartments to rent by private developers. The provincial government has yet to make up the shortfall. No one in his right mind would build a rental apartment under today's conditions because of rent control." So says this columnist, quoting the Chairman of the B.C. Rental Housing Council.

He quotes Mr. Robin Burns, regional economist of the federal agency, CMHC: "There is virtually no new rental accommodation being started by private developers." That is from a government statistician to support this argument that the policies of this government have killed rental housing construction.

If I may just finish to quote from this article. In a survey done July 1, the city planners found 3,400 apartment-type units being built or just completed during a survey as of July 1, but 1,400 were condominiums; 1,300 were for senior citizens; 270 luxury units; another 270 for hotels and motels, with only 142 normal rental units left for the thousands of single people, young couples and young families that need them.

Mr. Speaker, on that sad note I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10:58 p.m.