[ Page 5453 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

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

Hyndman)

On vote 48: rentalsman –– 5453

Mr. Leggatt

Hon. Mr. Hewitt

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. Nicolson

Mr. Barnes

Mr. Levi

Mr. Lauk

Mr. Ritchie

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

Mr. Levi

Mr. Kempf

Mr. Macdonald

The House met at 10 a.m.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS
(continued)

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

MR. LEGGATT: At the conclusion of debate yesterday afternoon, I made a brief proposal to the minister concerning the emergency situation that exists in the lower mainland with regard to mobile-home parks and manufactured-home parks. I want to flesh that proposal out a little bit for the minister, and I hope I'll have his attention shortly.

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

HON. MR. FRASER: You said that yesterday.

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

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

MR. LEGGATT: Not at all.

Interjection.

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

My proposal is that the minister now announce that within — I would suggest — a six-month period.... He will have no alternative but to announce a moratorium on the sale of manufactured mobile homes in the province of British Columbia, particularly in the lower mainland, where I see that the crisis exists largely because of the lack of mobilehome pads. If in that interim period industry, municipal government, the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) and the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) can get together and see a solution in terms of the construction of adequate numbers of mobilehome pads in the lower mainland, that moratorium will not be necessary. The reason I suggest to the minister that a preliminary announcement now be made is that it has to be a cooperative effort to get the construction of the parks for the mobile homes underway.

On the construction, first of all the industry must be involved. Secondly, the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing must be involved, because there is a good deal of Crown land that could be made available for that purpose. Certainly the Minister of Municipal Affairs must be involved, because in the past municipal governments have tended to discourage mobile-home parks. They're only responding to the wishes of people who have homes in those constituencies, and they've perhaps reflected that view. But the total situation has been avoided because everyone has looked at it only on a municipal basis.

If you look at it as an emergency in the total lower mainland, there is simply nowhere for people who have their life's savings in mobile homes to go at the present time. So I say, Mr. Minister, it's an emergency that cannot be solved except with the cooperation of both levels of government and the industry. If the minister sees that emergency and seizes the opportunity, I think the little honeymoon he's having with the media, being a new minister, could very well continue. It seems to me that the minister has expressed concern about this problem, and I know the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing is going to be meeting with us next week on the emergency in my own constituency. I hope that the minister seriously looks at this proposal, which identifies the problem, gives warning to the industry and gives us enough lead time to solve this emergency.

The second part of the matter the minister must direct his attention to is that the present law provides only three months' notice for people who have their life's savings invested in a mobile home. Quite often the investment around the home in the porch, the garden and so on can be $15,000 and $20,000 above the actual purchase price. Their only security on that mobile-home pad is three months. They can get a notice and be asked to move in three months with no place to go, and with all of the tremendous improvements they've made they are suffering a financial disaster in all the mobile-home parks which are now facing increased value as a result of the housing market and land values in the lower mainland. The answer is that next there has to be a moratorium on notice; there has to be a change in the law with regard to notice. Florida saw this problem some time ago, and they do provide tenure to mobile-home owners so that they have some assurance when they buy a mobile home that they're going to have some security of tenure on that particular pad.

I think these proposals could result in higher costs for tenancies on mobile-home pads. It could result in higher taxes on mobile homes to encourage the municipalities to look more favourably on the mobile-home development. But quite frankly this is the only low-cost housing presently available in this market, and we've got to at least shore up that, since nothing more is available to a young couple starting out. We owe something to the young generation. Most of the people in this House were fortunate when we came along, and had a chance as young families to buy a lot and build a house. We have not given that opportunity to the younger generation, and we owe the younger generation more than we're giving them now.

The reason we're not giving them that opportunity is this government's fanatical reliance on the free market to solve the housing problem. It never really has been a free market. When many people in this place first found a home they had a VLA arrangement, which was a very satisfying way to allow people who had made their contribution in the Second World War to acquire a site, get a home and get underway. Did it bankrupt the country? Did the VLA proposal throw the free market out of kilter? Were the Fraser Institute and Michael Walker running around in those days saying: "You can't have the VLA; the VLA is socialized housing?" The reality is that the government interfered in the free market in an emergency and provided a very reasonable solution. What we're asking s that the government simply do the same thing now: interfere in the free market, examine where the free market has fallen down, and pick up that slack, It's not going to distort

[ Page 5454 ]

the free market. The free market isn't interested in satisfying the demands of the people who need housing now. They're not interested, because the profits aren't high enough. Those kinds of developments are simply not attractive, and they're not going to be attractive.

So it's time the government had a pragmatic look at the housing situation. Have the courage to say you made a mistake. Reinstitute the Housing Corporation. Have a second look. This government is supposed to be famous for having second looks. Admit that the bunkum you peddled when this government was in power is just that — bunkum.

I invite you all to have a look at the NDP developments in my constituency. They're doing very nicely, thank you. The only chance all those people ever had to get into the housing market was with the New Democratic Party of British Columbia. They're there now. Many of them have sold their original units, which they got into for $1, and they now have a chance to own a house. The same can't be said of their younger peers right now. They don't have that opportunity. It's this government's fanatic view of the free market in housing that is denying average- and low-income people of the opportunity of gaining housing.

I wanted to close with another point. I think the minister has a responsibility to consumers. The first and most important crisis we're facing is the housing crisis. The second most important crisis is the fantastic interest rates that presently prevail. Any day now it is expected that the major banks in the United States are going to announce a prime rate in the vicinity of 20 percent. What we are doing is rewarding capital to a tremendous degree. At 20 percent the reward going to people's capital is so much higher than what is going to people's labour that we have artificially distorted the market in a way because of the monetarists. The monetarists say that by manipulating the money supply, reducing the money supply and imposing the highest interest rates in history we can get a handle on inflation. You'd almost think there wasn't a debate anymore, because it seems to be conventional wisdom — Mr. Walker and the Fraser Institute and the Milton Friedmans of this world. But there are still people out there like Galbraith. There are still people who are not supply-side economists who are saying that this policy is leading us to disaster. We've surely had the policy long enough now to re-examine it. I know the ministry doesn't have control over national fiscal policy, but he does....

AN HON. MEMBER: Why not?

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

In terms of his own responsibility in that portfolio, he can look at the impact of interest rates on the consumers of various products in our society. Certainly the present impact of interest rates on consumer goods and in the housing field is disastrous. Here the government can make a positive contribution by interfering in the free market with the mortgage program — which they did and to their credit. They provided $200 million in mortgage funds. Unfortunately, that's a drop in the bucket. In terms of interest subsidy that only costs $8 million. Let's go for a billion. That only costs $40 million. That's just a little over half of what you're subsidizing northeast coal in terms of the present budget — not a bad deal at all for the homeowners of the province of British Columbia.

I don't want to be highly critical of the minister, because he just began his portfolio. We wish him a good deal of success. We sit in trepidation and fear that the monetarists have him by the short and curlies, but we don't know. We're waiting and hoping that there may be a progressive side to this minister and that a pragmatic look at the problem may lead him to a pragmatic conclusion.

What this problem needs is a pragmatic solution — not a free market solution, not a socialist solution. It needs a pragmatic solution, as we had with the VLA and as we had when we guaranteed an interest rate with Central Mortgage and Housing. In terms of the emergency situation that now prevails in housing and particularly with manufactured and mobile homes, it takes the minister and perhaps his colleague, the Minister of Lands (Hon. Mr. Chabot), to intervene now and to interfere in the free market — yes, interfere — and provide that kind of solution. In the long run you'll be protecting the jobs of people who manufacture mobile homes and the businesses of people who run mobile-home parks. At the present time the free market is going to drive both of them right out of business and, in the process, deprive low-income people of any chance whatsoever of housing. I'll conclude on that point.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I've never seen a member of this House or a lawyer backtrack so fast. I want to quote the last point made last night: "....a moratorium on mobile-home sales in British Columbia until you get your act together and provide pads for those people who can't find a place to put their houses." Then he goes on to say: "What I ask the minister to do now is to seriously consider telling this industry" — that's the mobile-home industry — "that at some specific future date — give them a little lead time — we're going to put a moratorium on the sale of all manufactured homes in British Columbia." It's really something to see the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) come in here this morning and backpedal. It's really amazing. I'm sure that at caucus last night he got his ears burned.

As a mobile-home owner myself, there is some concern out there in regard to mobile-home parks and the lot on which that mobile home sits, and I'd like to address that in a few minutes. Before I do, I'd just like to respond to the member for Coquitlam-Moody, who attacks the free enterprise system and says to this government: "Interfere in the free market system." Well, Mr. Member, we don't interfere in the free market system. We may support and encourage it, but we don't get into state-owned housing as that party has done in the past and would do in the future. You would find that every mobile-home owner would be parked on state-owned land, and they would never know from day to day what that party would do in controlling their lifestyle if it was government. That is what he is advocating; state-owned mobile-home parks. Then he has the audacity to compare the VLA land sales to state-owned housing. I've got to tell you that there are many veterans in this province who must shake their heads when they hear that sort of thing. He knows full well that VLA provided the vehicle for the private ownership of land, not state-ownership as your party advocated when they were in power. The state will own the land, and they will lease it; you could build your house on it or park your mobile home on it, but never would you get to own that land. We can quote line and verse of the statements made by the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) and the former Minister of Lands, who said that the state will own the land, and that

[ Page 5455 ]

people shouldn't own land in this province. Mr. Member, your statements this morning must send shudders through the people of this province who are looking for the acquisition of their own property.

There are many people in this province that rely on the mobile-home industry. I asked my staff to get me some figures in regard to what is happening in this province. From April 1, 1980, to March 31, 1981, the shipment of new units has totalled 3,337 units, dealers' sales to mobile-home parks have totalled 1,859 units, and dealers' sales to private lot owners have totalled approximately 1,000 units. The point I want to make is that mobile-home living is acceptable, it is good-quality living and it's affordable housing. I think that we have to recognize that there are many people in this province and this country who can't afford the 1,200-foot accommodation on the 70-foot front lot any more, but who can afford excellent housing — low cost, as far as maintenance goes — in the mobile-home sector.

We should encourage and support the private sector in making land available for mobile-home parks. I'll go so far as to propose what, in my opinion, might be the solution. It's not state-owned housing, but I can see the opportunity for the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing — I recognize we may be straying a bit from the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.... The point is that this is affordable, acceptable and good-quality housing. The mobile-home industry has come of age; in my city alone there are three mobile-home plants that are going full out to provide this good accommodation for people who like that type of accommodation and those people who look to affordable housing in a time when the cost of housing is increasing substantially.

With 95 percent of the land owned by the Crown in this province, if the government could see its way clear, and if the ministry responsible could provide that type of lots for mobile-home accommodation — a system would have to be put in place to make that available — and put it out as strata title, so that the man or the family who own the mobile home would have that security of tenure, because he would own a part of that mobile-home park.... I think we, as a government, have a tremendous opportunity to make that available — not state-owned housing, as the member for Coquitlam-Moody would indicate; that's what they would like.

I say let's take some of that land and, in cooperation with the municipality or regional districts, develop that land for 100 mobile-home lots and make it available at a price, over a period of time, so it is affordable housing — so that an individual or family could put a mobile home on that property and be secure in the fact that they have tenure on that lot in that mobile-home park. That is a little different from what would be advocated by the member for North Island, who is going to get up and say that he didn't say people shouldn't own their own land, I'm sure, but that's the policy of that party — the socialist concept that the state will own the property. Then you will be able to influence people more than you ever have before.

In closing I would just like to say that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has a major problem confronting him with regard to rent controls and affordable accommodation. I'm sure that he will work with other members of this government to resolve that problem. When I hear attacks by the member for Coquitlam-Moody saying, "Put a moratorium on mobile-home sales," he's basically saying put a moratorium on people who work for mobile-home manufacturing companies in my town, put them out of a job and interfere in the private marketplace. I'm just saying that there is a better way to do things than having the state do it all, because in the end the state will do it to you, not for you.

I think there is a great opportunity for us to meet this demand that is so severe at the present time. Just to point out what this government has done for the mobile-home industry, which the member for Coquitlam-Moody wouldn't even think of, we responded to the mobile-home industry and allowed the 14-foot-wide trailer to move down our highways in order to give better-quality accommodation to the person who wants to live in a mobile home. We have done a number of things for that industry in regard to mobile-home living. We have a mobile-home registry, set up to ensure proper recording of mobile homes, instead of having them as they were under the NDP, in many instances accommodated through used car sales lots.

Mobile-home accommodation has come of age, and to a great extent it has come of age under this government's regulations. I would hate to see that party, if it was in power, move back towards state ownership of land in this province and controlling peoples lives, as they would like to.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, it's tempting to reply in kind to the very political speech made by the Minister of Agriculture and Food, almost entirely saying things about us that have no basis whatsoever in fact. I want not to make that kind of political speech but rather to make some comments to the minister about some of the serious problems that arise in respect of mobile homes. For many people — and that number is increasing — mobile-home living is not only a choice because of economic necessity, but increasingly a free choice, a choice that people very much want to take. Mobile-home living, for many people, is very attractive. I think governments of whatever political stripe will have to recognize that much more is going to have to be done to create the possibility for people who choose that lifestyle — either by free choice or by economic necessity — to be able to live that lifestyle.

Let me cite the most recent example in Campbell River regarding problems with trailer or mobile-home living, We have a trailer court called Lost Erra in Campbell River. There are 107 pads on the site. About three months ago the owner gave all 107 tenants an eviction notice because she was going to get out of the trailer-court business. That particular problem has been resolved. The woman has been persuaded to sell the place and somebody has been found to buy it, so it will continue as a trailer court. But while the crisis existed, while the eviction notice was standing, the owners of the mobile homes in the trailer court began to look for places to move to in the Campbell River-Courtenay area. There wasn't, and there isn't, a single pad space available in that area — not one.

I think perhaps the member for Coquitlam-Moody was attempting to focus on that problem: there are no pad spaces available. The mobile-home owners in that particular case elected a group to represent them; this representative group met with the council in Campbell River and with the regional district. The problem was that no land was available. There is a tendency on the part of some municipalities, unfortunately, to try to avoid having trailer pads in their municipalities. It's a hangover from the old days, I think, when trailer courts were perceived to be an eyesore or a undesirable feature in the municipality. Those days are gone, and there are some beautiful mobile-home courts in various communities. There is no

[ Page 5456 ]

reason why they can't, properly maintained and properly landscaped and under proper regulations, be an attractive and positive feature in a municipality. That's an attitude which needs to be overcome, and I don't see any attempt made at any level of government to do that at the present time.

I briefly want to make the point that there wasn't a single pad available. There needs to be some attention, and I appreciate that it's not entirely the responsibility of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, although he has several responsibilities when it comes to trailer pads. It's a question of Crown land being made available to municipalities or to private groups. Let's end this nonsense if we can. When we talk about the government getting involved in attempting to assist people's housing needs, we get statements like those just made by the Minister of Agriculture. He said we want state ownership. It's just such nonsense, and it demeans this Legislature for us to carry on that kind of irrelevant debate.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about Casa Loma?

MR. GABELMANN: The Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) is such a wonderful man and such an easy man to deal with in his office, but sometimes when he comes into this chamber it changes his personality.

Let's all of us in this Legislature, when talking about the housing crisis, recognize that there are a variety of solutions. They include government participation in developing a variety of programs, which include attempting to make land available one way or another for people who have mobile homes. That doesn't necessarily mean that the state is going to own the land. But I can tell you there are a lot of mobile-home owners out there, and I include all the people who live in Lost Erra in Campbell River, who could care less who owns the land as long as they have a pad.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: I don't know how many times we have to stand up in this Legislature attempting to have a rational debate about issues like housing, and we get the kind of nonsense that the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) just put forth. "The foot in the door" — as if we are trying to create a society he intimates we are trying to create. It's absolute nonsense!

The best solution in this particular case I refer to with these tenants in Campbell River might well have been for them to develop a co-op so that they collectively own all the land, or perhaps a form of strata title even though it's level and not in the air. Maybe that's another solution — either one of those options so that they would own the land, either cooperatively or through a condominium strata title type of arrangement. I don't want the government to own the land. The people who live on it and have some responsibility for it should own it.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The hon. member for North Island has the floor on vote 48 and will remain speaking while he's standing. He will be allowed to speak uninterrupted.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, I have the impression sometimes that the Social Credit Party feels that the only way they can win the election is to try to paint us as something we're not. If the election were fought honestly on the two clearly spelled-out philosophies that we each represent, they wouldn't have a chance. So they have to smear and paint those kinds of politically dishonest untruths. We are talking about trying to solve one of the greatest social crises this province has ever faced, and what do we get from that side? We don't get positive contributions or thoughtful response, but we get that kind of political nonsense which has no place in an intelligent debate about a serious problem.

There are a variety of solutions. They include cooperatives, strata title and private ownership, and in some cases they're going to have to include some kind of social public housing. I don't want that and neither do a lot of people, but if you don't have any place to live, you're going to take that option and that opportunity. Yesterday a social worker in Campbell River said to me that the only social public housing available in Campbell River — and there are two facilities — is available for people on welfare who have two or more children. But there is no housing whatsoever for a single mother with one child. I refer now to an incident I raised yesterday in the Legislature.

So there are a variety of requirements and a variety of solutions. If this Legislature is to mean anything, we should have an intelligent debate about what are clearly some different approaches. But let's not smear each other by charging that one is going to do something or take a policy or an action that they're not going to do. Let's have the debate based on what we are going to do. We're talking about a mix. You're talking about a free market solution which hasn't worked. Let's have the debate on some honest grounds.

Mr. Chairman, to go back to the mobile-home issue, let's make it clear what this side believes in. We believe that a lot of people want to live in mobile homes and that that's a good option for a great many people in our society. We want to encourage that kind of living.

MR. NICOLSON: I see that the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) is a bit of a hit-and-run artist. He comes in here, spreads a whole bunch of folderol and then takes off. In his own riding, what was the NDP record? I invite him to go and take a visit to Nicholson Street in Penticton — which, without any urging from myself, was named by the past mayor of Penticton, Frank Laird — and look at the privately owned dwellings, probably the. most reasonable recently created housing in British Columbia — units that all sold for under $30,000 and are all privately owned in his own riding.

I'd like to take my colleague, the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt), to task in terms of his remarks. I'm speaking as an up-country member. Too often people in the city look at the very real problems that they have — and there are some horrendous problems in that Coquitlam–Pitt Meadows area where there are mobile homes.... I noticed that one of these problems is of the government's own making. They've taken a mobile-home cooperative in Pitt Meadows, and now they're going to change the tenancy. They've offered, made the choice and pitted one member against the other by saying: "We would like you to buy the whole thing outright at the current market of 1980. If you don't agree to this, then our next offer is going to be at the most current price, which would be a 1981 figure." This has put senior citizens who have lived in that unit since it was first opened in about 1975 — I was at the opening and talked recently with the past mayor of Pitt Meadows, who was at that opening — in a very difficult position.

[ Page 5457 ]

I'm not unmindful of the problems that exist in places like Coquitlam and Pitt Meadows. But certainly to take a measure and apply it holus-bolus to the province, where in my area there are vacant mobile-home pads.... There is a fairly good supply-demand situation. I would hope that things are always done with a view to treating the areas where the problems are. I suppose that a moratorium on selling mobile homes to the West End of Vancouver will do no harm. But, of course, any sort of a moratorium, if not applied very judiciously, could have very harmful effects in areas that need not be affected.

The House is not served by comments that are sort of attempts at goading people on. I don't want to get into another area, but when I was Minister of Housing, for instance, I don't know of one piece of W.A.C. Bennett's Social Credit legislation that I repealed. I did expand the terms of certain bits of legislation. To think that things have to be discarded because they were done by a previous government is very negative. The member from the South Okanagan, the Minister of Agriculture and Food, got up and talked about strata-title as a solution, as did my colleague for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann). Who brought in the instrument whereby strata-title could be applied toward mobile-home pads? The first strata-title instrument brought into this province was brought in, I think, in 1968 by the previous Social Credit government. It was limited to the Australian model from which it's taken. It was limited to multiple dwellings and even duplexes, but it certainly didn't have the concept of a land strata title. That was brought in when we revised the Strata Titles Act in 1974-75.

He talked about the mobile-home registry. The mobile-home registry was one of the assignments to the Audain commission on mobile-homes. Of course, it was enacted and brought in by the subsequent government. The way, I think, in which we can serve the housing needs of this province is to not disregard the Audain commission because it was commissioned by a previous government but to act, which the present Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) did when it was his responsibility.

There are some real problems in tenure. Some of the problems, as I said, are the making of your government, when people are offered this choice which changes the status quo. They are presently on Crown land with a lease — I think the lease is renegotiable every five years, based on current market appraisal. If they don't agree with the market appraisal, there is an arbitration procedure in those contracts. Then the government says: "Well, we want to sell." Right away you've got a group of people who say, "Okay, we want to buy, " and you've got another group who say, "No, we can't afford to buy; we can't afford to put that money up front," and you create a division in a co-op. Moves like that are absolutely unnecessary. They are predicated on this kind of mindless fish-and-foul thing about who owns the land or "you don't want to be tenants of the state, " and that sort of thing. The only time that is going to be a threat is when you change the ground rules. People entered under those ground rules; people were happy under those ground rules. The people in the Pitt Meadows co-op have a heated indoor swimming pool, an integrated laundry facility, a little post office and a large meeting area. These were the cooperative principles under which they entered their tenancy. When government changes that, they are being victimized by the state. The state they are being victimized by right now happens to be under the control of the Social Credit government.

I think we should facilitate the instrument of cooperatives. I think we should facilitate the instrument of setting up strata-title mobile-home tenancies. If it requires government action, then government could do this.

I suppose one could respond to the various types of bait thrown out, but I think the minister.... I might just ask the minister to confess an ignorance here. You know, we all posture that we're always on top of everything. Is the mobile-home registry under your ministry? It is? Okay. That's the logical place for it, the way you've arranged everything else. That was not meant to be humorous.

I might say that one little problem arose when the mobile-home registry supplied some information to the Ministry of Finance, but it was quickly rectified. A person who had owned a mobile home in Alberta for about four years brought it into British Columbia, registered it with the mobile-home registry and then received a bill for sales tax of umpteen hundreds of dollars. But as I said, it was very quickly rectified. It doesn't seem to be a recurring problem, and I hope it won't be.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, with respect to this vote, great latitude has been allowed yesterday afternoon and again this morning. The Chair recognizes the concern of members with respect to issues that aren't really in this vote. I guess we'll have to allow a bit more latitude with respect to the vote, but we really are discussing vote 48, the office of the rentalsman.

MR. BARNES: I have just a few brief comments in review. Most of my remarks were made yesterday. I wanted to remind the minister, when he responds, not to forget that I did raise a question yesterday with respect to proclaiming section 44 (b), which was an amendment to the Residential Tenancy Act passed nearly a year ago. As the minister realizes, that particular section would bring long-overdue relief for tenants living on a permanent basis in hotels that are mainly licensed for transient occupants and not for persons who would be living there the 10 and 20 years that I explained was the case. Yesterday I used the example of the Hotel Stratford. There are many facilities such as the Hotel Stratford that house many of the old-timers who have been in the east side and the lower downtown part of Vancouver for many years, and who have no protection as tenants because they happen to reside in hotels that are licensed — quite erroneously, I might add — for transient occupants. Most of these hotels rarely rent to transients. In fact, I doubt if many of them even have any available hotel space, because they rely quite heavily on these permanent residents. Their main source of revenue really comes from their licence to sell beer in the parlours below which I believe we'll be getting to under the next vote.

I also mentioned to the minister the problem with respect to the eviction of those same people who were given 30-day notices — gratuitously, I might add, because they did not have the right to any notice whatsoever. But they were tragically displaced as the result of an application to renovate that particular facility. I presume it will become a luxury facility with the speculation that after construction of the new sports stadium new opportunities for much higher revenue will be created — probably between medium and luxury accommodation.

[ Page 5458 ]

The other point I wanted to make was that in the residential portion of downtown Vancouver it is expected that this year alone some 45 residential units will be demolished. I have no idea of the number of residents this will involve, but these are structures that have received or will be receiving demolition permits. This means that these buildings will be replaced by new facilities in a luxury category. Therefore we will probably have thousands of tenants who will be displaced and will have to find other accommodation.

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

MR. BARNES: That's a very valid observation on behalf of the minister of highways and communications. I appreciate your interjection. This is one of the rare times that you have made some sense by interjecting from your seat.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's very insulting.

MR. BARNES: That's not an insult; that's a fact. I haven't heard you stand up and speak in this debate yet, and I'm hoping that you will, notwithstanding your interest in cycling. This is what happens when that side of the House becomes frivolous and tries to make fun in a serious debate.

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

MR. BARNES: Oh, yes, you were. You know full well that the mayor of the city of Vancouver is independent and relies on the TEAM members, of which there are two, and three NPA members, and therefore he is in no position.... Furthermore, in defence of the mayor of the city of Vancouver, I would point out to him that the mayor attempted to pass a moratorium on the demolition of affordable rental housing in the city of Vancouver and was turned down by his friends the Non-Partisan Association and two TEAM members. The only ones that supported the mayor were the COPE members, and they lost that vote. But the mayor has attempted to protect the tenants in the city of Vancouver, and I'm suggesting that if the government really cared it would make an appeal to its friends on city council in Vancouver and ask them to reconsider their insensitive attitude to those tenants who are being turfed out by the thousands in the city of Vancouver. That's why I appreciate the comments of the minister of housing.

As I was saying before being interrupted by that minister, we all know the Erkindale Apartments were once owned by a mayor of a city within a city, Mr. Alex DiCimbriani. However, he has sold his properties to Qualico Developments Ltd., and Qualico has proceeded to redevelop those holdings and issued notices to 110 tenants, mostly senior citizens who will be suffering the same fate as those at the Hotel Stratford. That is the true side of what is happening with respect to tenants throughout this province. They're being displaced, brutally and with indifference. The government seems to be incapable of responding to this urgent, emergency situation. I want to remind this minister, when he takes his place, that we're talking about a situation that has to be responded to immediately.

I don't wish to belabour the points I made yesterday, but I would like as well to indicate to the House, although I don't have a count of all the instances, that I do know of one case where a landlord is allowing rental units to remain vacant in anticipation of having a demolition application approved by the city. I suggest that this is the way things are in the city of Vancouver and throughout the province at the present time. Everyone who owns properties is attempting to capitalize on the housing crunch and on the pressures that tenants are facing. It's an indecent situation, when we know that there are apartments available for rent sitting vacant and deliberately being left vacant. Caretakers and managers of these apartments are being advised by owners to leave these spaces vacant rather than permit tenants to live in them, which might possibly create a problem when they have to kick them out on short notice. They're leaving them vacant in the middle of a housing crunch in anticipation of a time when they will be able to tear the building down completely and create a new luxury facility which will displace the whole works.

We've talked so much about the principles of the free marketplace and the rights of property-owners. This morning we've had some comments from the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) and others with respect to who should have the right to own land and who shouldn't have the right, accusing the opposition of saying that the state should own all the land and that the people don't have a right to it. I suggest that if you did a tally of the people who own land in this province, it would be a very small portion of the population. Most people are paying mortgages on homes they think they own, but most of them will probably die before they pay them off, if they're lucky enough to even get a down payment to buy them in the first place. It's a bit of an incomplete explanation of what the reality is about ownership. That is an absolute myth. I certainly doubt that any of my children who don't own homes at the present time are likely to own their own home in their lifetimes, unless I'm lucky enough to give them $100,000 towards a down payment. I doubt if I can do that. I doubt if very many people will be able to do it. So let's just be realistic about ownership.

Let's talk about people having an opportunity to live with some respect, comfort and have productive lives while they're still in a position to be able to enjoy it. Let's not put the old carrot out in front and play the game about one day you're going to be able to win the lottery and get a million dollars or something like that. Most people don't. That doesn't happen. The hard factors are a lot different.

I just wanted to cap off my comments from yesterday. I know that the minister's going to be getting up in just a second. I did not want him to forget that the problem is an emergency. Let's try to give some indication that we can do something and have some relief today — immediately. Let's have something that will help the people who are out on the streets right now. I know that long-range plans are always the easiest to talk about because that permits us to buy time, to avoid having to take any action immediately and, therefore, to basically do nothing. The people who are suffering need help today.

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

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: There's been a lengthy debate on vote 48. For my part, I want members, particularly those opposite, to know that I have listened with very sincere care to what they've had to say. I think probably the most sincere thing I can say to reflect my interest in what members opposite have said is that the record will show that in my remarks I have not referred, nor do I propose to refer, to the materials of the Fraser Institute or Dr. Block, nor have I

[ Page 5459 ]

gotten into that kind of debate. Mr. Chairman, I also want to acknowledge sincerely that members opposite have been extremely fair in acknowledging my relative early tenure in this portfolio. I certainly want to say to the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) in particular that I do not propose to be a minister with these responsibilities of whom it will be said he has done nothing.

The member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) and I share some very deep philosophical differences, but, in my view, he gave a very thoughtful and rational speech on two occasions in these estimates. I thank him for those remarks — parts of them we disagree on, but I recognize the fact that in other respects, I think, there are some very worthwhile concepts in what he's had to say, as there are in the remarks of a number of the other members opposite. Like all of you I am very concerned about the housing situation in this province and the very tight vacancy rate. The second member for Vancouver Centre and I again will disagree on many things, but I want him to know publicly that I think his remarks yesterday, in the best traditions of this place, reflected a very profound concern for the very serious social problems he's facing in Vancouver Centre.

The debate on vote 48, Mr. Chairman, in part related to housing, as it must. I sit with my colleague the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) on the housing committee of cabinet, and most definitely I am hopeful that between now and the next time I face members opposite there will be things happening that will address the common concerns we share — and, I think, the difference in debate as to how we get there.

Let me stress that in terms of the examples we've had of conduct by landlords that are exorbitant and unconscionable, I wouldn't tolerate those for a moment longer than members opposite. For example, in cases of 78 percent rent increases I would reject those, as you would, as being exorbitant and unconscionable and the kind of increase about which something should be done. We're looking immediately into the one that you've brought to our attention, and I would have no hesitation in saying to landlords out there who want to be the bad-guy kind of landlord that we will use the full resources of the legislation to deal with them, including investigation and prosecution if we have to.

The very difficult policy problem, as we see it, in addressing the question of affordable housing and affordable rents is to balance the necessary protection for tenants with the necessary incentives for supply. I think that difficult choice is the root question we're really talking about, and, broadly speaking, we do have some differences. But I want to assure members that I don't want to be a minister, in respect of the matters involved in vote 48, about whom it will be said that nothing has been done. Mr. Chairman, it is my hope when I stand before you a year hence that I'll be able to point to some very tangible changes and improvements which recognize some of the points of view that members opposite have raised; and, more importantly — regardless of whose idea it was and who won or who lost in this chamber — that the fact will be that housing will be in greater supply and more affordable, and vacancies will be at a higher rate. But, I think, most important of all for this present time and place is that we can all do something to alleviate that very serious worry, despair and apprehension in the minds of tenants — not just seniors and low-income tenants, but really today all tenants. I thank members, Mr. Chairman, for their contributions.

MR. LEVI: I have just a brief comment, Mr. Chairman. It's been a long debate on a very important issue. The record will show that the members on this side, as they always are, were practical in the suggestions that they offered — they were broad-ranging and they were not negative. The extent to which the backbenchers of the government feel that this is the problem can be seen by the empty seats which we've had during all of this debate. It's a shocking state of affairs. That's the group that has exhibited an incredible amount of negativism. We've had the most asinine statements coming across the floor, particularly from the Cariboo chipmunk there.

HON. MR. FRASER: Order!

MR. LEVI: I wasn't talking about you. [Laughter.] That's what it's been like in the issue that grasps probably every family in this province — empty seats on that side and no statements, except from the minister. And we can't really go after the minister because he's only been there about four months.

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

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

The important thing that I want to point out to the minister is that, as he has agreed, some suggestions have come from this side, and nothing has come from the other side, except for him.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman. the minister has used every conceivable theatrical and dramatic device to pull himself out of his responsibilities. As honourable members of this House, we're pleased to receive whatever bouquets the minister wishes to throw in our direction. However, we're not here in a gentlemen's debating club to be polite to one another. We're here representing the very sincere interests of ordinary people who are receiving horrendous rent increases and are being thrown out into the street because of indiscriminate demolitions, profiteering and greed. We're not here to pat each other on the head, because if it were just personalities, I regard both the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs as friends of mine. So what? They don't represent that friendship in this House; nor do I represent that relationship in this House. We represent other people in our constituencies.

It should be clearly understood that we're not here to throw bouquets at one another. We're here, from the opposition point of view, to demand action on a crisis, particularly in Vancouver Centre and in other jurisdictions, and we demand it now. We don't want glib statements, vague promises or the soft-sell approach. We won't put up with one more deception, one more delay or one more stall. We demand action now. I want the minister clearly to understand that we're not here patting each other on the back at an old boys' club. We've got work to do. The minister has had enough time in office, having consideration for his education, intelligence and background, to get on with the job and on with it now.

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

[ Page 5460 ]

exposed or talked about. It is because of the comments of the previous speaker that I was prompted to get to my feet and say a few words. Before I do that I have to take the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) to task for his comments yesterday, which, in my opinion, could be very costly to people throughout this province who depend on that mobile-home industry for their livelihood. When I think in terms of the number of locks that went to mobile homes, the number of windows, the number of wheels, all the equipment that goes in there and the number of people who are employed, to think that a member of this Legislature would stand up with a kneejerk reaction to a situation that has been caused by a great economy and say we should have a moratorium and stop the construction of those and haul all those people out of business.... That is the irresponsible talk and action that this province has suffered from in the past. I don't ever want to see it again.

Right at this moment I am having one of my people contact some of these manufacturers to find out what the effects of this would be on their businesses. What is the effect going to be in Kamloops, in Kelowna and throughout this province if we would listen to that sort of advice? I would think that member has blown his opportunity to be the leader of that party. I hope that when he was roasted last night, they did it real well.

I'd also like to comment on the remarks of the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann), who said that he would favour cooperative housing and strata-title housing. In fact, he may go along with government-owned housing — not that he really likes it, but he would go along with it. This is so confusing that it just causes one to wonder what on earth they are all about and what depth they will reach in order to try to get those people out there to give them the support that they need.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, we see this going on all the time. They're prepared to take whatever it is and twist it around if there are going to be some political gains to be made by it. But people out there understand, and don't you ever think they don't. They understand. But why is it that we have such a difficult problem about housing in this province? Why didn't we have this problem in 1972, 1973, 1974 and up to 1975? I'll tell you: the reason they didn't have the problem is that they chased business out of the province, chased jobs, frightened companies out of the province, and therefore the people had to go where the jobs were, and that wasn't in British Columbia. Since we're onto housing, mobile homes and trailers, I can think of one, Kustom-Koach in Aldergrove — a very successful firm, and one which I personally had a hand in helping get started, with goodwill and good advice.

Interjections.

MR. RITCHIE: Not midnight meetings or anything else but I did exert myself, and I did all I could for this family firm who were in the business of building trailers, and so forth. They went to Alberta because they were scared. When the socialist government took over in British Columbia they said they weren't going to stay around at all; they went to Alberta as did many others. As a result we had many vacant homes and apartments, and no housing problem, because the people were leaving. Don't you understand that? They were leaving!

Now we have a situation where we have about a thousand people entering our province every week. That's the real, major cause of this problem. People are coming in because of the policies of this government making the province attractive; the jobs are here and people are coming. Our construction industry is having difficulty keeping up with the demand. In my own constituency alone, I can tell you, if you want a tradesman to do anything around your home you may find it impossible, because they're all so busy building new apartments and homes. The reason for that is because of the policies of this government. The economy here is booming and people are coming, not going. We'll have this problem, but our government is working on it. We'll have the answers. There's no question about it. I don't like the fear tactics that are being used. I had a call from a lady yesterday who is in a very difficult, uncertain position, which has been triggered off by the fear tactics of the opposition in this House.

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

MR. RITCHIE: They're fear tactics. We know the problems here. We're doing something about it. The problem is greatly aggravated by the fact that the economy in British Columbia is so good that people are coming here. Therefore there is that pressure on housing.

MR. BARNES: I would like to specifically refer the minister to a letter that he wrote to me recently. It's to do with the proclamation of section 44(b) of the Residential Tenancy Act. He says:

"Dear Emery:

"Thank you for your interest and concern in writing me on April 29, concerning rent controls and senior citizens living in hotels.

"As you are likely aware, there are three separate financial assistance programs of the provincial government which may help seniors in such cases. One is SAFER, one is GAIN for seniors and one is Rentaid. On the matter of the jurisdiction of the rentalsman's office over hotel premises, as you know, legislation directed towards this type of situation was passed last session. Its proclamation has been deferred until staff at the office of the rentalsman can provide effective monitoring of the provisions."

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

What I'm asking the minister to do — he neglected to do this when he stood up the last time — is to make any reference whatsoever as to when the rentalsman's office would have in place the necessary monitoring system, or whatever is required after nearly a year, to deal with this emergent problem. It is not something that can go on indefinitely. How much time does the rentalsman's office need? Why can't he at least ensure that they get what they need to do the job? Certainly, that's one thing that's within the minister's power. Why couldn't he respond to that directly?

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: That section, as the member knows, was proclaimed in mid-January. At the time we outlined that with all the sections that were then coming in, there was obviously, in the result, a very much increased workload for staff. It became necessary to prioritize which of

[ Page 5461 ]

the sections would get the first attention in terms of staff service and work. We pointed out when we announced the proclamations that the reason the particular section the member refers to was not then included was in an effort to get the increased volume from the other proclaimed sections in hand and in manageable state. That's now proceeding. We are monitoring the situation in terms of incoming phone calls and mail requests. Although the situations, when they arise, are very difficult human situations, they are not arising nearly as frequently as other types to which staff are devoting their attention. We hope we will be able to proclaim that section in the reasonably near future, but we certainly don't want to do it at a time when, having proclaimed it, we then say that we're too busy to help and to act on it. I can only go so far as to say that we hope it will be in the reasonably near future, but I can't target a precise date for you.

MR. BARNES: On the same point, in the meantime what alternatives do those residents in hotels have, for instance, if a hotel applies for a demolition permit? What's going to happen to those people? They're waiting.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: There are several answers to that. First of all, with respect to the letter the member sent to me, if I recall it correctly his constituent specifically said, by virtue of — in that case — the rent increase, what could they do? There are the automatic financial provisions of SAFER, GAIN and Rentaid. If, for example, as the letter indicated, it's a question of a senior citizen writing and the consequence of a rental increase is that on an annual basis the portion of income going to rent is about 30 percent, those provisions automatically click into place.

In terms of the demolition issue, that responsibility, as the member knows, is primarily Vancouver city council's. I gather last week they passed a motion requesting us to review the legislation. I've not received notice of that, but I gather that from the media. We'll certainly look at it when it comes in.

Apart from that, if landlords generally are conducting themselves in a hugely exorbitant or unconscionable way, we'd like particulars of that and we'll get the investigatory powers of the office to work as well.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Chairman, I'll be very brief. Both the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) and the member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie) elected to misrepresent the remarks that were made at the conclusion of yesterday's debate around the proposal for a moratorium on mobile-home parks. I just want to read from the record so that maybe we could lower the level of rhetoric in the debate. I'm quoting word for word from Hansard:

I think it was a wise and courageous move. What I ask the minister to do now is to seriously consider telling the industry that at some specific future date — give them a little bit of lead time — we are going to put a moratorium on the sale of all manufactured homes in British Columbia until the consumer stops being ripped off and we've got enough mobile-home sites for those places to be located....

The proposal that I make today is exactly the same as the one I made yesterday evening. So there was a good deal of the debate which dealt with a complete misrepresentation of the remarks. I urge those members to listen a little more carefully to the debate before they respond in such an excited fashion.

Vote 48 approved.

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

MR. LEVI: I have a couple of questions for the minister. Could he just nod if there's anybody here from the liquor control board who can help him?

AN HON. MEMBER: Chabot.

MR. LEVI: No.

Interjection.

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

I've got a couple of questions I want to ask the minister, and among the three of them they may be able to answer. There's a bit of an improvement in the annual report this year. On page 15 of the annual report they've broken down the actual cost of a bottle of rye. The total cost to the consumer is $9.10; the cost from the supplier is $1.73; freight is 10 cents; federal excise tax is $1.87; federal sales tax is 43 cents; provincial sales tax is 60 cents. The LDB markup is $4.60 on a bottle of rye whisky which was purchased for $1.73.

As a result of some tax changes, there was an increase this year... The tax changes in relation to liquor are something like $28 million this year as a result of past statements by the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis).

Perhaps the minister can tell us how the policy is worked out at the liquor control board — or even within the government — as to what is acceptable as a fair price to charge consumers. What kind of hidden agenda have you got in this inflated price? Actually, 50 percent of the price of that bottle of rye is profit. Are they trying to dissuade people from drinking by overcharging them, or what? The government is really in the liquor business in a very big way. Your profits this year exceeded over $220 million. I appreciate that there are a lot of jobs generated, but what possible rationale can there be for this huge markup in terms of this bottle of rye?

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: First, I would question that the figures the member has quoted constitute pure profit to government as such. I think that on a balanced view the government is a net loser in the alcohol business, if you build in the dollar cost to government of the social costs of alcohol abuse. In other words, to suggest that the government is looking at liquor policy purely and simply as a fiscal vehicle and is netting, shall we say, $250 million a year, is not a complete view. One of the consequences of the abuse of alcohol by those who would abuse it is a tremendous social cost to government in terms of Human Resources and hospital programs and so forth. So I think that one of the reasons why, in jurisdictions across this country, the so-called government markup on liquor is so substantial is a prevailing view by governments that some very substantial social costs are generated for government as a result of alcohol abuse, and that in part, therefore, those who choose voluntarily — they're not forced to — to buy liquor products are going to, through that markup, be making some contribution to those costs, as opposed to citizens who choose not'to buy liquor products.

But I have some figures that might assist the member on a comparative basis, roughly speaking, as to the impact on consumers of inflation in liquor-pricing policies. These figures are as of January 1981. Therefore they would not include

[ Page 5462 ]

the further markups announced in March. But if the member would care to make notes, looking at 1971 as a consumer price index base of 100, using the Statistics Canada figures and then comparing January 1981, ten years later in this province, the price of alcoholic beverages compared to alcoholic beverages in other provinces, and compared to other types of consumer items in this province, makes an interesting contrast.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

For example, again using 1971 as the base of 100, as of January 1981 — ten years later — in Vancouver the average price of alcoholic beverages would be 169.4. That would compare on a Canada average basis with 191.3. I think the record is that however high liquor prices are in this province, they are not, in fact, the highest in Canada. It's also interesting within this jurisdiction to compare other types of consumer products. Again using 1971 as the base of 100, ten years later in British Columbia Statistics Canada calculations show alcoholic beverages have risen to 169.4. By contrast, tobacco is 181.8, food is 272.8, clothing is 188.7, transportation is 230.7, and health and personal care is 207.2. The average of all those items is 224.3.

Therefore I think that the argument could reasonably be made that while prices have been rising for alcoholic beverages and while there is a significant markup, comparatively speaking the relative increase over time is not greater. Indeed, it is less than the relative increase in a number of other consumer items. Perhaps those pieces of information are of some help.

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

You made $220 million profit. You spend less than $9 million a year on any kind of alcohol prevention program in the whole government — all your services. Read the last report of the late Dr. Bonham. He itemizes how much money you spend on alcoholism treatment and prevention programs. You're still taking 10 cents off every bottle of liquor you sell for a preventive program which the previous minister cancelled. You're not spending any money on prevention. You haven't been able to calculate the costs in terms of human resources. Very few people have.

In terms of trying to reduce what you feel are the serious effects of alcohol, you spend less than 5 percent of your profit in trying to do anything about it at all. I completely reject the minister's argument. If you're going to use the federal average of the increase in liquor, you better exclude from that — it will drop dramatically — the Northwest Territories cost of liquor. They are so sky-high and are a major concern. Don't do it on that average basis. The reason I ask you is that in this province 50 percent of the price of a bottle of rye is going straight into the profit side of the government's operation. In no way has the minister been able to justify that there's a preventive program or even a treatment program related to the problems that flow from the sale of liquor. I do not accept your answer at all. Those figures have nothing to do with the reality of the situation.

MR. KEMPF: Just very briefly on this vote, firstly I'd like to agree with the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi). I think rye should be cheaper as well.

But what I'd like to talk about this morning are the guidelines which govern the acceptance of an application for a neighbourhood pub. I think there's a particular part of those guidelines that must be changed, and that is constantly a problem to individuals in my area applying for such a licence. Again, I think that this guideline is prejudicial to the small communities in the interior of this province. That guideline is that anyone wishing to obtain a licence for a neighbourhood pub must, in order to obtain that licence, have a site on which to build that particular pub which is a mile from an arterial highway. A mile from any arterial highway in any of the communities I serve would be three-quarters of a mile out of town. I don't think it makes any sense to have that kind of a guideline that people must meet in order to obtain a licence for a neighbourhood pub. It's an aggravation and prejudicial to the small communities of the interior of the province. I would suggest that possibly the minister would give serious consideration to amending that particular guideline.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: I just want to assure the member that I'm wanting to do a review on all of neighbourhood pub policy. I appreciate your suggestion, and I think there's some considerable merit to it. I think, increasingly, especially with the neighbourhood pubs, we have to try to regionalize the policy and take account of the character of your area versus down here.

MR. MACDONALD: I wanted to ask a few questions on the minister's policy on neighbourhood pubs too.

The minister has been in office long enough to know that he is very much in the centre — as his two predecessors have been — of the granting of pub licences. So is your deputy, under the section of the act, because the political intrusion has been made by amendments which the minister is perfectly well aware of, and which I have said have been a most unfortunate development in the province of British Columbia — and the confidential part of it too, that nobody in the liquor branch can say anything. There's a special section on that.

I want to ask the minister: what are the guidelines? You're the judge. You've taken it out of the hands of the corporate and financial services appeal procedure. It goes to the minister or his deputy when somebody is denied a pub licence. As I understand it, the criteria, some of which are set out in the regulations, are, for example, that no licensed neighbourhood pub shall be within one mile of a licensed pub or hotel, except as approved by the general manager. I'd like to know under what conditions you think that should be waived. It's obviously the policy. It's actually laid down in the regulations. Here's another one: no licensed neighbourhood pub shall be located within one-half mile of a main or secondary highway, except as approved by the general manager. Under what conditions do you ignore that?

In October 1980 the branch put out a summary of liquor licensing in British Columbia. They quote the two matters that I have referred to in regard to neighbourhood pubs, and then they go on and say: "In reviewing the site the branch is concerned with the following factors: (a) proximity to highways, schools, churches, playgrounds, hospitals and such other social facilities of this nature." What's your policy on that? "(b) Proximity to licensed hotels and neighbourhood public houses and marine pubs. (c) Shopping centres are not considered favourable sites for neighbourhood public licences."

[ Page 5463 ]

I'd like to ask the minister, what are the criteria? What about parking too? Should there be parking? Is that one of the criteria? Perhaps the minister can tell us what the standards are.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: Let me begin by dealing generally with the topic raised by the member, which is the extent to which particulars may be obtained of what does and doesn't constitute a successful pub application. First of all, may I say that the policy I've adopted with respect to appeals — I think the member mentioned appeals — is to ask my deputy or acting deputy to be the person who hears and adjudicates those appeals.

MR. MACDONALD: That's not what the law says.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: I believe that the law says that the minister or his deputy, with respect to appeals, may so do. I therefore have not been involved personally in the hearing or adjudication of appeals in my time in the ministry. Therefore my policy with respect to those appeals is going to be that they be heard by the deputy or the acting deputy, not by me. Because of the concern the member infers about possibly getting the politicians involved in this kind of hearing, I think the safer, wiser course is to leave the hearing of those appeals in the hands of the deputy minister. I have not heard any of those appeals.

With respect generally to the guidelines applying to neighbourhood pubs, obviously the broad challenge to the policy-makers is, first of all, to set forth a series of requirements or guidelines sufficient that people have some reasonable indication as to whether or not their particular plan for a pub will qualify. Having said that, sitting in Victoria you can't write a compendium suitable for every particular region, area, or circumstance of the province. The difficulty is to try to encompass the rules in those guidelines with sufficient clarity, and yet not overrule a perfectly legitimate or normal concept for an unserved community which might not quite fall within a guideline, but have a lot of merit and common sense in the application.

So what do we do? We publish the kind of guideline you've referred to. The thing that I gather not very many people do, but I think they're perfectly at liberty to do and perhaps would be advised to do if they were considering a potential pub, is to make contact with the liquor control and licensing branch, come over and talk to the officials about the plan they have in mind and discuss how, given their particular region or area, these guidelines are interpreted and applied. With respect to parking, I think they'll find that there is a concern for reasonable parking for a neighbourhood pub, even though the underlying basic concept is that it should be a walkable area.

With respect to schools and hospitals, obviously the concern is going to be that you don't want a neighbourhood pub immediately beside one of them unless there is some very unusual local circumstance which says it's a good idea, and everybody happens to agree. Similarly, in the case of proximity to other licensees, I think the branch — which does all kinds of licensing in terms of different varieties of licences — has to have some regard to other types of licences they've allowed in the area. My view is that that's the challenge to staff: to set forth sufficient broad guidelines that people can have some reasonable idea of whether they're in the ball park if they want to proceed, and yet not to rule out in a particular area or location the possibility of a neighbourhood pub being established if it makes good sense to the community, if there's virtually unanimous support in the community and if generally it falls within the guidelines.

Perhaps those comments are of some help.

MR. MACDONALD: The minister didn't mention shopping centres, which are specifically repeated in the instructions of the branch dated October 1980.

I want to say something about the appeal procedure that the minister referred to. The act, which was passed by this government, says that the minister or his deputy may overrule the rejection of a pub licence by the branch, and that has been done on 30 or 40 occasions since that section came into force. The minister very grandly says: "I'm a politician. I won't hear the appeals: my deputy will do that for me." But that's not the legislation your government brought in. Maybe you don't like it, Mr. Minister. I don't like it. I think politics mixing with liquor has led to abuses that are not of the alcoholic kind. You say: "I'll be above the battle; I won't observe the act, which says I'm also to hear appeals; I'm too good for that." You're too good for your government; I would hope so. I'm suggesting — and we can't talk about legislation — that you've got a procedure where there is ample opportunity for abuse.

The minister was very general in terms of what the guidelines were, and he says: "Oh, you come to Victoria." I remember very well the case of Mike Pridie, who applied for a neighbourhood pub licence in Kennedy Heights shopping centre. He did come to Victoria, and he saw the branches, the inspector and everybody else. He did everything required of him, only to have that application snatched out of his hands by the Olma brothers, Gerry and Ray, in the very same location right smack in the middle of a shopping centre, after the previous minister had rejected Pridie, saying: "You can't have a pub in a shopping centre; that's the firm policy of the branch." You know the letter I'm talking about. You know about Grammas Marine Inn too. I'm suggesting that your guidelines don't mean a thing, and I don't think you've said anything to this committee that indicates you have any guidelines whatsoever.

Let me give you some examples. You've got a Sawbuck's Neighbourhood Pub, which is in White Rock. The proprietor of that is somebody called Karl Frangi. Frangi is one of those who — like Ray Olma and Gerry Olma, on December 4, 1975, in The White Rock and Surrey Sun — put in a full-page ad decrying the evils not only of socialism but of Mincome, which I thought was going a little far. We find — how many years later'? That's 1975 — that of those three names that are all bracketed together alongside others in the ad, they've all got neighbourhood pubs; the Olmas got theirs and Carl Frangi got his. It was in an area in that shopping centre which had been rejected by the branch and turned down by the NDP. It's right in a shopping mall, contrary to what you say in the publications of the board that have come out as late as October 1980. There's no parking around there.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Bob Williams.

MR. MACDONALD: No, he hasn't got a licence.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you saying the Socreds paid them off?

[ Page 5464 ]

MR. MACDONALD: Maybe the minister will speak on this. If these licences are being granted politically, which is his suggestion, this chamber wants to know about it. I think the one you're talking about was granted in 1976, incidentally. We're dealing with licences as they are granted by the branch.

I'll answer that minister over there. I think that one of the job descriptions to get a neighbourhood pub licence is to be very rich — like Karl Frangi, a strong Socred supporter — and in many occasions to have the member for Delta (Mr. Davidson) help you with the application. Yes, the member for Delta. All he did in the Pridie case.... Pridie was sidetracked and his application disposed of on appeal because it was in a shopping centre, then they turned around and gave it to the Olma brothers in exactly the same location. The member for Delta sat at the back of the room in the hearing, which nobody knew about. There was no publication of the time or place of the hearing, or that this was coming up.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sure the hon. member appreciates the difficulty, in this particular case, that the Chair has. I must point out to the member that one of the rules which guide us in Committee of Supply is that we cannot discuss actions for which a minister is not responsible. I'm sure the member will bear that in mind when he continues his debate.

MR. MACDONALD: I can give examples of what has happened in the province of British Columbia. For the purpose of trying to determine what the minister will do in the future with his portfolio, I can give him some very important examples.

I mentioned the Sawbuck's Neighbourhood Pub. We're not talking about small chains here, Mr. Minister. As you know perfectly well, your predecessor, Mr. Nielsen, went on television. I don't know how well prepared he was, because we didn't have any Hollywood people to help him at that time. Perhaps they thought it was Gunsmoke speaking. He said that the piece of paper that you grant for a neighbourhood pub licence is worth half a million bucks. Maybe it's more today, because we're in a period of inflation.

I want you to tell me whether we're going to have repeats of what I said about the Sawbuck's Neighbourhood Pub. Bear in mind what I said. It had been turned down during the NDP administration, it's right in the shopping mall and there's no parking. I've read what the regulations are. If there are any criteria, you'd never guess what they were from that case.

What's another one here? What about the Sundowner? Two gentlemen are the proprietors and the happy beneficiaries of that licence. One is Ed Podavin and the other is Bill Sullivan. One of the criteria for granting pub licences is proximity to other licensed premises — and that's right in the regulations; it's one mile. In this particular case we have those factors involved. It's Scott Road — is that a highway?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. MACDONALD: Or as the regulations say: is it a main or a secondary road? I would think it is. It's certainly within half a mile of that. It is 3,000 feet from the Scottsdale Inn, and the regulations say one mile — I take that to be 5,285 feet. I haven't gone metric and I never will. So it doesn't qualify under that criterion. It has previously been turned down. It was another case where I'm informed, Mr. Chairman — I wasn't there — the member for Delta helped with the application and came with Mr. Podavin. You can say if you didn't. But he came with Mr. Podabin to Victoria.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, I'll relieve you in the Chair. And this was one of those where the branch had turned it down, and it was reversed on appeal to the deputy. Mr. Chairman, I take seriously the proposition that the deputy and the minister are one — just like a man and a wife are one. I take it that the other criteria were amply fulfilled in this case. I'm doing it lightly, but I'm concerned about this kind of a problem and I want to know what the minister's response is.

Mr. Podavin and Mr. Bill Sullivan qualified because they're both very rich and they're both Socreds. Is it just a coincidence that if you're rich and a Socred and you live in Delta or Langley — I'll get to the minister who's sitting over there, and give you an example out there — you get your pub licence, but if you're somebody else you don't? That's what I'm talking about.

I base it on two cases where there was obvious favouritism — I'm talking about Grammas pub and the North Kennedy pub to the Olma brothers — so I'm not just making this up as I go along. I am concerned about it. In Langley you have the Duke of Wellington pub, which is slightly out of a shopping centre. I'll say the name to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland) and see if it rings a bell — Herb Feichel. Does he qualify as being rich? Does he qualify as being a Socred? Yes. He meets the first two criteria. Does he have the Bedford House, the restaurant where the Socreds hold their dos and have their luncheon meetings? The answer is yes. I don't think the Duke of Wellington pub has been fully licensed yet, but they have a permit to operate. It's right on the border of Delta and Langley.

I would like the minister to tell me about his criteria. They petitioned only 39 people, a number of whom objected; I think a majority approved. But they didn't petition the Surrey side at all. If you say the people in the vicinity of that pub should be consulted, you should have had a proper poll of the people near that pub. It seems to me that it's also too close to a highway. I would like the minister to tell me just what the criteria are for getting neighbourhood pub licences in the province of British Columbia. If we're rising at 12 o'clock, would you like to answer now?

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: After lunch.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported a resolution, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. Mr. McClelland moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:01 p.m.