1984 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 33rd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, MARCH 22, 1984

Morning Sitting

[ Page

3987 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Hewitt)

On vote 13: minister's office –– 3987

Mr. D'Arcy

Mr. Reynolds

Mr. Blencoe

Mr. Michael

Mr. Cocke

Mrs. Wallace

Mr. Rose

Mrs. Dailly

THURSDAY, MARCH 22, 1984

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. MOWAT: Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure to introduce to the

House today two persons in the gallery: Mr. Don Shivery, from West

Vancouver, and Mr. Ron Crimeni from Langley. Mr. Shivery is a former

major league baseball scout. He is flying the Canadian flag in Liberia

by taking a number of medical supplies, wheelchairs and other related

equipment to that country at no charge. I would ask the House to make

them welcome.

MR. R. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to introduce Mr. Ron

Watkins, who is the vice-president of the Home Oil Co. of Calgary.

Would the House please make him welcome.

MR. PELTON: Mr. Speaker, in the members' gallery today is a

beautiful young lady who, although she has been in this House before

and has been introduced, I would like to introduce again. She's Pam

Clarke-Saari, and I would like to ask the House to make her welcome.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS

(continued)

On vote 13: minister's office, $200,449.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Chairman, rather than take a great deal of

the committee's time simply recycling material which happened last

October 19, and which not only by and large but virtually in total has

not been dealt with by the minister, even though in numerous cases he

indicated he was going to deal with a number of things in the near

future, to use his own words.... I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman — "the not too

distant future," he said. Obviously the not too distant future is a

greater amount of time than the five months between October 19 and

March 22. I'm simply going to go over a few items.

We talked about the need for some small margin of control and regulation in

trading in the commodities market in British Columbia. The regular investment

community have, by their own policing, applied rules to themselves. International

rules — I think they're usually referred to as the Chicago rules — which

they have applied to themselves are nonetheless not applied by what are usually

called, in British Columbia, boiler-room operations, sharks and quickie operators.

If we look at the King Lung situation, that's exactly what we were concerned

about on this side of the House back in October. It is precisely what the minister

replied to. I quote from Hansard , where he said: "The commodity

act is under study, Mr. Member, and I appreciate your comments. It's one

of the areas I hope to address in the not too distant future." What happened

in the not too distant future was that some fast operators seemed legitimate,

serious investors of their investment money in this province and took the first

plane to Hong Kong when they got caught. That's what happened because the

minister did not put a modicum of regulatory control on in this area. We on

this side of the House are not asking for the kind of control and regulation,

which we have seen too much of in this country, that in effect acts to prevent

small legitimate businesses from entering a security or financial market — for

instance, the kind of protection which has protected those regulated monopolies

known in this country as chartered banks. We're not asking for that sort

of thing, to prevent people from getting into the business. We are simply asking

for regulation, in a limited way, to protect people's savings, investments

and — most importantly — the reputation of British Columbia, which all of us

in this House hope to see built: that B.C. is a good place to invest; B.C. is

a safe place to invest. The kind of thing that happened with the commodity scandal

in King Lung is not the sort of thing that any of us in this House want to see

B.C. have a reputation for.

I want to emphasize, Mr. Chairman, that the legitimate investment

houses in British Columbia, even though they're not required to meet

any standards, still meet international standards, because they know

darn well where their bread is buttered in their honest operations.

They want to protect their investment reputation. I hope the not too

distant future is perhaps tomorrow, the next day or the next week,

because we badly need this in British Columbia. We cannot afford to

have British Columbian investment dollars ripped off and taken out of

the country.

Last fall we dealt briefly with the problem of personal and

corporate bankruptcies in British Columbia during this time of a Social

Credit-led recession. I don't expect that minister alone to be able to

reverse that trend. But one of the things which has concerned me — and

I'm going to repeat this, Mr. Chairman — is that when we have a large

number of personal bankruptcies in this province, it's really the small

businessman and the consumer that carry the can. The major retailers

are largely protected from personal bankruptcy problems as a percentage

of their total volume, although that does happen to them, by the fact

that they can afford to do strong credit checks. They can afford to

deal in either their own credit cards or major credit cards. It's the

small businessman who is likely to give the credit on a risky basis,

because he does not have the resources to do major credit checks. As a

percentage of their total volume, small businessmen in this province,

or anywhere else, carry more of the burden of losses due to personal

bankruptcy or people simply skipping town and not paying their bills.

That's why we on this side of the House felt that debt counsellors were

very important, and not just to the consumer who, whether through his

own fault or not, couldn't meet his obligations. They were very

important to the small business community, in the sense that if they

can help people reorganize their finances, the small businessman is

more likely to get his money. Indeed, that was what was found in this

province and in other jurisdictions. If the small businessman, and even

the large retailer, is more likely to get his money, that means fewer

costs which have to be passed on in the form of higher prices to other

consumers.

After, I believe, something like 17 months we still haven't seen the

Goldberg report on beer pricing. I haven't seen the Goldberg report on

beer pricing. I don't know what the minister's afraid of. The industry

hasn't said that they're afraid of anything. The beer prices were

deregulated months and months ago. Predictably the industry has

suffered a loss of its market share, due to the fact that they raised

their prices too much, and thank goodness there's a free market. The

[ Page 3988 ]

public has resisted; people are drinking more wine, and maybe that's good. They are certainly not drinking more spirits.

Why can't the minister release the Goldberg report? There were some

items made public from it which did not appear to be embarrassing to

anybody. My goodness, Mr. Chairman, it was last March when we asked the

minister's office when he was going to release the report, and his aide

said: "When he has finished reading it." So perhaps we could ask the

minister to tell the committee if 12 months is sufficient for him to

read the Goldberg report.

[10:15]

Again, it is old ground, but there is no doubt that we do need a new

securities act in this province. It needs to be updated. Our Securities

Act was adequate when it was brought in, but times do change, needs do

arise and recommendations are made by the brokerage community that we

agree with on this side of the House; I think the members opposite

agree with them. I see no reason for further delay. During Mr.

Hyndman's tenure as Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs a

proposed bill — a White Paper — was passed on in this House, and we

quite frankly had no objection to material in there. We had some

questions we wanted to ask, but it was really an updating — a

modernization — which everyone agreed was seriously needed in this

province. The investment community agreed, and nothing has happened

since that time. I believe it was 1982. Even if some things have

changed since then, we do need a new securities act in this province,

and I don't believe it would have a problem with passage through this

chamber as far as the things that have been requested to be in the act

by the brokerage community.

We have some questions regarding the proposed privatization of the

superintendent of brokers' office. First of all, it's out of step with

practice in North America and Europe. There have been some questions

raised by the private sector as to how the superintendent's office is

presumed to handle the question of volume and the need to have an

adequate look at prospectuses; after all, volume would result in the

only revenue that the private operation of the brokers' office would

have. It would seem to me — and many brokers have agreed — that there

could possibly be a conflict of interest there, and whoever runs the

brokers' office are required by the act and by the public interest to

have a good look at all applications for a listing on the Vancouver

exchange. At the same time, there is a desire to get those applications

approved and on the board before the company says, "To heck with you,

I'm going to Toronto because they deal with these things faster," and

to make sure they get the benefit of the effort they're putting into

analyzing and reviewing these prospectuses.

There has been no action by the ministry to go after the high-tech

option as far as expertise in the superintendent of brokers' office is

concerned. Here we are in this House all hoping that we in this

province will attract those kinds of companies to be listed on our own

exchange in Vancouver, and yet there is not a single person on the

staff of the exchange with that kind of background and expertise. They

have a lot of other kinds of backgrounds and expertise in examining

other types of companies, but not the high-tech area, in spite of the

sanctimonious and pious speeches given in this House by members on the

government side about the need for that kind of industry in this

province.

Mr. Chairman, I hope you don't declare me out of order; I'm not going to go too far on this, but it is a consumer item.

There has been some discussion regarding federal funding for.... I

raise this because I had a problem getting to the chamber yesterday.

I'm not asking for any sympathy on that point, but....

AN HON. MEMBER: You got a parking ticket.

MR. D'ARCY: That's right. Calgary was wonderful.

There has been some discussion of the federal government installing

Canadian-developed technology, a microwave landing system, at Whistler

— in Pemberton. I would agree with that, but if that had been in place

in the Castlegar airport, there would have been no problem yesterday.

You know, sir — I speak to the minister through you, Mr. Chairman —

that occasionally you have problems getting in and out of Penticton

airport. Kamloops is another problem area, and Terrace, and

occasionally even Kelowna. If there is taxpayers' money — it's not

through your ministry, but I hope the government is lobbying in this

way — for this sort of thing, I hope that those airports which have

residents who need to get in and out of them get priority in lobbying

the federal government for this kind of money before tourist-oriented

airports.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There is a....

MR. D'ARCY: Thank you. You've been very indulgent.

MR. CHAIRMAN: ...Minister of Transportation in our chamber, but unfortunately these aren't his estimates.

MR. D'ARCY: That's right. But air travel is a consumer item, Mr. Chairman.

I want to give the minister a chance to address some of these points. Perhaps he can tell us what he's doing, especially....

I think the most urgent thing to address is the need for a

commodities act. Not because the regular investment community need one;

they don't need one. They police themselves well, and have done so for

years in this regard. It is because of the fly-by-night operators, the

boiler-room operations; that's where the regulation is needed. The

courts and the police need to be empowered to act in these regards. The

investment public both within and outside of the province needs to be

protected, as does the reputation of this province as a safe place to

invest. I would hope the minister has not just some vague promise about

doing something in the near future, such as he gave us last fall,

because in some regard the horse has already left and we need to deal

with that.

That's all for now, Mr. Chairman. I will perhaps have some more to say later.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, I won't take much time, but I

wanted to commend the minister for allowing the operators in Whistler

to open their facilities on Sunday during the World Cup. I know the

people of Whistler wouldn't forgive me if I didn't get up in this

chamber during the minister's estimates and thank him for that

privilege. I also wouldn't be doing my job as an MLA if I didn't get up

and say that it was no different than any other day in Whistler when

those bars were allowed to stay open an extra few hours to serve the

people who were here from all over the world for that great World Cup

event, which was seen by literally tens of millions of people around

the world. After that very

[ Page

3989 ]

successful situation, I would hope the minister would consider allowing those

people in Whistler, which we call a world-class resort, to have their facilities

stay open on Sundays in the future. It is very frustrating if you are there

as a tourist over a long weekend, and Sunday night is the only night, if you're

there for a two-week vacation, that you can't go out and enjoy yourself

in the village.

I would also like to ask the minister to consider doing something

with the government liquor store in the village of Whistler. I think it

is one of the greatest examples of how socialism doesn't work. You've

got one of the greatest ski resorts in the world, and this great

village with all these expensive condominiums to serve people from

around the world who want to come to ski at Whistler and Blackcomb. You

arrive on a Saturday at five to six and check into your hotel room; you

go down to the grocery stores, which are still open. All the stores are

open, but the liquor store closes at 6 o'clock on Saturday night — and

Monday's a holiday. If it's a case of a tourist coming in from Aspen,

Colorado, or Los Angeles or somewhere in Europe who wants to ski in our

great resort.... They might even be visiting from Surrey. They arrive

on Saturday at five to six, and if they haven't stopped off to buy

themselves a bottle of wine or something else they may like to enjoy in

their condominium over the weekend, they're in deep trouble; they just

can't get a bottle of the fine spirits that they might like to take to

their room.

Of course the whole idea of the Whistler Village.... I know there

are people who aren't in favour of drinking. The Mothers Against Drunk

Drivers, whom I support 100 percent, would say that you're encouraging

drinking. The whole idea of Whistler is that it's a village: you park

your car underground when you get there on your vacation, and it's

looked after without your ever getting back in your car. When I was

there for the World Cup I arrived there on Thursday morning and never

saw my car again until Sunday night when I left to go home. That's the

advantage of it.

I would hope the minister would look at the situation there in two

ways: either the liquor store starts staying open for extended hours on

weekends, even for a short period on Sundays — it is a village; it is a

ski resort — or privatize the liquor store. Close down the government

liquor store. I even see somebody in the gallery applauding. I think

it's a popular idea right around the province. I would think there's no

better area, Mr. Minister, in which to start privatization than in a

resort area. It's just a shame to me that we have to have the

government liquor store in Whistler. I think it should be privatized.

Give it to the guys in the grocery store and let them handle it. You

can be assured that they'll stay open as long as there are people in

the village to buy the product.

Those are the main areas of my concern with the ministry. Again, I

thank him for that Sunday opening. The Whistler World Cup was a

fantastic event. I would hope he would consider allowing the merchants

there — who have a hard enough time; it's a new and growing area, and

they have a great investment in their businesses — to stay open on

Sundays year-round.

MR. BLENCOE: I just have a few questions and comments about the office

of the rentalsman, which comes under my purview as critic for that particular

aspect of the minister's portfolio. I know the office of the rentalsman

is somewhat in limbo. We are fully expecting some kind of legislation in this

session. I know it's very difficult to get into some of those areas because

of pending legislation. However, it is still on the books and is included in

the estimates for this year, so I think we can investigate a few little things

that perhaps the minister will share with this House and with the people of

British Columbia.

I have some general questions to the minister. One of the concerns I

have, which I think a number of people have — we certainly do on this

side of the House — is the potential cost that may arise through the

possible elimination of the office of the rentalsman. I don't think

there's any question that we have heard that that seems to be the

direction of the government. I'm not going to go into the pros and cons.

AN HON. MEMBER: Guesswork.

MR. BLENCOE: I don't think it's guesswork. We saw Bill 5 last

session, but it never saw the light of day on this floor. Now there is

a bit of hypothesis in terms of what's going to happen, but the

minister has made some statements about what may happen with that

office.

I would like to do a little investigation. Suffice it to say that we

obviously have some concerns about tinkering with the office of the

rentalsman in terms of the rights and privileges of tenants in this

province. But we'll get into those particular aspects, Mr. Chairman,

when we do indeed see a new bill before this House.

However, there are some pertinent questions I would like to ask the

minister in terms of the office of the rentalsman. I'm wondering,

through you, Mr. Chairman, in light of the fact that the office of the

rentalsman may be eliminated or have its role curtailed dramatically,

has the minister made any study of the costs of resolving

landlord-tenant disputes through the courts as opposed to the

rentalsman's office? It is clear from information we have and

information the minister has shared with this House or with the people

of British Columbia that there is definitely going to be some

resolution going into the court system. Has the minister taken a look

at the costs of such disputes going to the courts?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, maybe I could just quickly

address some of the questions the member for Rossland-Trail (Mr.

D'Arcy) asked about the commodities market and the need for

legislation. That matter is still under review. Discussion and

negotiation with people in the investment community and in the legal

and accounting community is ongoing. I am looking forward to dealing

with that at some point in the not too distant future.

You can acquire a copy of the Goldberg report through the university

library. It hasn't been released. It's somewhat dated now, as you can

appreciate, but it is available to you. Dr. Goldberg has placed it in

the library of the university. We're not privatizing the office of the

superintendent of brokers. We're only looking at putting the licensing

in the hands of those associations and councils that would deal with

their members, and would be able to evaluate their expertise and

provide them with licensing. I want to assure you that the

superintendent's office doesn't lose any of its power of regulation or

enforcement, and that's of course what you're concerned about.

To the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Reynolds), I am

pleased that the ability to stay open to serve the people visiting the

World Cup at Whistler worked well. I had no complaints. I think it was

well received. I'm interested in your comments about other things we

could do with regard to providing service to those people who visit

Whistler. I

[ Page 3990 ]

assure you, Mr. Member, that I'll be looking at those areas as well.

In regard to the rentalsman's office, should that office close....

It's still operational, as you know. You talk about the cost of sending

disputes through the courts. I can't give you dollar figures, but yes,

we have taken into consideration the possible cost of either going via

an office, a system other than the courts, or going via the courts to

settle disputes.

[10:30]

MR. BLENCOE: I'm glad to hear that. Perhaps we can explore

some of the details. I wonder if the minister would share with this

House who was responsible for conducting the studies and what the

results were. Does he have any information on those particular items?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I don't want to encroach on

legislation — you'll have to give me some guidance — but to respond in

general terms, in our review of the office of the rentalsman and what

alternatives are available to us, we evaluated the cost of those

alternatives. You ask who; it was my ministry staff, in dealing with

the preparation of discussion papers which could at some point lead to

legislation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Guidance has been asked for, so I will offer

guidance. Clearly, in Committee of Supply and on this particular item

we can discuss the administration of the Residential Tenancy Act as it

now exists, and the relationship between landlords and tenants as it is

administered by the minister's office, but we cannot discuss the

necessity for legislation or amendments to legislation.

MR. BLENCOE: I would like to share with you some studies that

I and staff have done here and have been working on in terms of the

potential cost of eliminating the rentalsman's office, or of curtailing

it dramatically and seeing a number of things go to the court system.

Perhaps the minister could indicate whether they're right or wrong;

maybe the minister can prove me wrong. I think it's a useful

discussion, because we're talking about dollars and cents, and that

supposedly is a lot of the basis of the rationale for eliminating this

office. When the bill comes forward, I'll get into some of the other

things that I think are poor rationale.

We tried to get information from the Attorney-General's office about

court costs, and of course they were somewhat reluctant to provide me

with specific...to reveal figures, but they have advised that one hour

of small claims court in Victoria would cost the taxpayers a minimum of

$150. An hour of county court or B.C. court of appeal would be even

more costly. In 1982 the office of the rentalsman dealt with 50,347

cases, of which approximately 43,741 could have sought solutions to

disputes in the courts had there been no rentalsman service. At a cost

of $150 per hour, the bill to the taxpayers would have been $6,501,662.

That's twice as much as the 1983-84 budget for the office of the

rentalsman, which was around $3.5 million. These figures are based on

1982 figures of, as I said, 50,347 cases. If I exclude 4,401 client

inquiries, 188 abandonments, 1,977 miscellaneous and information — a

total of 6,000 cases — it leaves 43,000 disputes, all of which, if we

see a partial or total elimination of the rentalsman, could end up in

the court system.

I put those figures forward because I would like the minister to

refute or disagree with them. If he can't disagree with them, what I'm

saying to this House and to the people of the province is that

eliminating the office of the rentalsman will double the costs of this

particular function to the taxpayer. I'm trying to appeal to this

government on what is supposedly.... I don't agree in terms of what's

under the guise of restraint, but let's tackle this thing in a

dollar-for-dollar situation. My figures, Mr. Minister, indicate that if

you do indeed put many of the current disputes into the court system

you will double the costs for the taxpayer — $3.5 million as opposed to

$6.5 million. Are you in any way capable of refuting my figures?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I'll deal with the

administration of the present legislation. As the member knows, last

July we eliminated rent control by order-in-council and set up an

interim procedure of rent review. Other than that, all the disputes are

handled by the rentalsman's office, which still continues to operate.

Anything that may happen in the future should be dealt with at that

time.

MR. BLENCOE: I recognize it is difficult for the minister,

and perhaps he is slightly hiding behind the fact that we have pending

legislation — just an inkling of hiding behind possible legislation. I

recognize that the minister, as a good politician, is bound to do that,

but it is too bad that he can't talk about it, because I think there

are some incredible financial implications of eliminating the office of

the rentalsman. Before we get the legislation in front of us, and

before we get into the heat of debate....

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: It's a very good one because we're talking about dollars and cents here. It's a very important issue.

Before we get into the heat of debate about whether we should have

an office, I think it is useful for the minister to at least let the

House know that there is indeed a potential increase in cost to the

taxpayers of British Columbia through eliminating or dramatically

reducing the office of the rentalsman. I have put forward some figures

which, if I may add, Mr. Chairman, I think are quite conservative.

There are a number of other kinds of situations if the rentalsman is

eliminated or if we have a mock rentalsman — or whatever you want to

call it — with minimal staff and minimal power. We're going to end up

with a lot more cases in the courts at a greater cost to the taxpayers.

The minister should be prepared to talk about that before the

legislation comes forward, because we get the legislation in the House

and we get.... I know, Mr. Chairman, but it's a matter of dollars, and

if we can have a discussion around the issue of dollars and cents

before we get into the heat of the bill, we might be able to say on

both sides of the House that perhaps the office of the rentalsman is

good value for money.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we have to have an issue before we can discuss it. We currently don't have an issue; we have the estimates.

MR. BLENCOE: With respect, and begging your indulgence, Mr.

Chairman, I think we do have an issue. It is quite clear that in the

province of British Columbia the government

[ Page 3991 ]

has indicated its attitude toward the office of the

rentalsman, and that is the issue. The point I am making, and which I

am asking the minister to refute, is that we're going to double the

cost to the taxpayer if we eliminate or dramatically curtail the office

of the rentalsman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, one more time, I have explained to

the committee that we can discuss the current administration of the

Residential Tenancy Act, and that's what the minister is responsible

for in terms of this committee. We cannot anticipate or discuss the

necessity for legislation or amendments. Please, to the administration

of the current act and the minister.

MR. BLENCOE: Well, Mr. Chairman, you can see the problem I

obviously have as the critic in this particular area. As I've said

before, any kind of issue can be subject to pending legislation. I am

just trying to do a little exploration before we get into

legislation....

AN HON. MEMBER: On the estimates.

MR. BLENCOE: Yes, this is on the estimates. We're talking

about the office of the rentalsman. We're talking about the fact that

the government indicated that it wishes to curtail or close down the

rentalsman's office. We have a minor amount of money given to the

office of the rentalsman in the estimates this year. All I'm trying to

do is to get the minister to discuss the fact that curtailing or

eliminating the office of the rentalsman is going to cost the taxpayers

a lot of money. That is the issue, and it is quite clear that the

minister is not going to respond to that.

The second question, dealing with the estimates, is that the salary

allocation in the estimates has been cut by 77 percent. Has the

minister decided to maintain the existing rentalsman's office as a

shadow of its former self, or has he decided to wipe it out by July or

August of this year?

MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to rise to

support some of the other comments in this Legislature during this

debate regarding neighbourhood pubs. I think that the half-mile rule

regarding the establishment of pubs in neighbourhoods and in hamlets in

the interior of British Columbia is somewhat of an unfair guideline, in

view of the fact that most hamlets that are ideally suited for the

establishment of neighbourhood pubs are all within a few hundred yards

of the main arterial highways. As an example, in my home area within my

constituency, there are two applications currently, one is Ranchero and

the other in Grindrod, which, I understand, are under appeal, having

both been turned down because of their location on the main highway —

Highway 97. I think that anyone viewing those two areas would see that

to qualify for the half-mile rule, the neighbourhood pub would have to

be located outside of the residential area and outside of the walking

distance that are the logical criteria for the neighbourhood pubs. In

looking at these two in particular, I see a couple of private

entrepreneurs wanting to set up an establishment and perhaps spend in

excess of $200,000 and create employment for two or three people. I

would ask the minister, Mr. Chairman, to have a very serious look at

the application and enforcement of this half-mile rule. I really feel

that it is a deterrent to the establishment of these types of

facilities in many smaller areas in the interior of British Columbia.

1 might also say that these two applications are not in competition

with any current establishments, as they are both located several

miles.... I believe the Grindrod one is somewhere in the neighbourhood

of 10 to 12 miles from any other hotel or establishment; the one in

Ranchero is probably in the neighbourhood of seven or eight miles from

any establishment. I would describe them as hamlets. Ranchero is a

growing community in an area that is becoming a hamlet in itself. It's

a very small area with a population in the neighbourhood of 600 or 700

people. Grindrod is a very longstanding community with a few commercial

outlets at the present time. I think that a neighbourhood pub for these

two small communities would be beneficial to the community and perhaps

a gathering place for the local residents to have a tot of beer in the

evening.

I would ask the minister to have a very serious look at this

half-mile rule and perhaps ease up on the enforcement in these outlying

areas somewhat.

[10:45]

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Chairman, before we get back to some of the

things we were talking about before, I just want to comment on what the

member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. Michael) was saying. As a member

from the interior, I agree with the philosophy of what he is saying,

but not his terminology. The member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), who is not

in the chamber this morning, raised the same question in estimates last

fall. I made the point that what the member is asking for is not a

neighbourhood pub. A neighbourhood pub is something in a neighbourhood.

What he is really asking for is a roadhouse licence on a highway, or a

tavern licence if it's in a community. I personally have no problem

with that. I think the government should look at that. But let's not

call them "neighbourhood pubs"; they're not neighbourhood pubs. He

wants roadhouses and taverns, so let's call a spade a spade. Quite

frankly, I think the philosophy of them is no different than the

philosophy of retailing alcohol in small communities which.... I don't

know whether it was started by my friend from Vancouver East or when

Rafe Mair was in charge of liquor, but, as the minister knows, we have

literally dozens of private general stores and small businesses in

various communities throughout the interior and on the remoter areas of

coastal B.C. that retail booze. There's nothing wrong with that. It's a

good policy, and I commend whoever started it, whether it was somebody

on my side or somebody on the Social Credit side. What the member for

Shuswap is asking is that the same philosophy be applied to the

licensing sector. I agree. Of course it has to be managed well, and

rules have to be laid down, but let's not call them neighbourhood pubs

— that's an urban phenomenon. The member is talking about something

entirely different.

I want to go back to the superintendent of brokers' office. I want

to assure the minister that in no way are we concerned with putting

bureaucratic hindrances on anybody applying for the approval of a

prospectus through the superintendent of brokers' office, because that

is what the minister implied. What we're simply asking the minister to

do is to give the superintendent the tools to do the job. We want to

speed up the approval process, and at the same time protect the public

interest, investment interests and the reputation of British Columbia.

That is particularly valid when it comes to areas of listings that all

of us in this House, the business community in B.C. and all citizens of

B.C. wish — I use the high-tech area as an example where there has not

been the kind of expertise

[ Page 3992 ]

provided by the minister to the superintendent of

brokers to quickly approve these kinds of applications before the

company that looks for the listing tears its hair out and goes to

Toronto or some other area — not necessarily to invest but simply for

the listing. What we need is the brokerage business in the province of

B.C. That's what we're talking about here.

The second area that I want to raise with the minister again is

this. There is absolutely no reason why the minister and his treasury

bench colleagues and the various trusteed funds in this province,

whether they be pension funds or the ICBC investment portfolio or the

Compensation Board or any other trusteed funds, cannot channel the

investment of their funds through B.C. brokerage houses and B.C.

exchanges. I'm not suggesting that the minister go out and buy

Consolidated Moose Pasture. I'm suggesting that the minister, in

whatever investment decisions are made, rather than buy those

securities and stocks through out-of-province agencies — and, in many

cases, out-of-country agencies — get business people in B.C. to handle

the business for him. At the very least, the brokerage community in the

province would get the commissions, instead of the commissions going

somewhere else.

The long-term advantage — in fact, the long term in this case

wouldn't be very long — is that where there are large amounts of public

sector money being channelled, the private sector is soon to follow.

That's what we really want in this province. We want to see larger

investments of private sector money using B.C. brokerage agencies. I

think that's something that the minister and his colleagues should look

at and should take advantage of.

At one time I thought we couldn't do this. I really thought we

couldn't do this in the province. I examined other jurisdictions to the

south of us, such as Washington state — also Alberta and Ontario — and

I found that the governments in those jurisdictions did do just that.

They began channelling their own investment portfolios through

businesses in their own provinces a few years ago. They didn't change

their investment decisions; they simply began using the agencies within

their own jurisdictions.

Once again we ask of the minister and his colleagues, and all of the

agencies and Crown corporations that have trusteed funds, that they use

B.C. businesses to channel those funds. As I say, I'm not asking that

they buy penny stocks. Make the same investment decisions you otherwise

would make, but demand and get those services from the B.C. brokerage

community. As I say, the experience elsewhere has been that where large

amounts of public money are channelled, private money is soon to

follow. That's what we all hope and desire for the province of B.C. as

far as activity on our various commodity exchanges in British Columbia

is concerned.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, to briefly respond to the

member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. Michael) and his concern about

specific applications, I've talked to my deputy and have asked that we

review those applications. In regard to the general policy, as members

know, we're carrying out a survey and a study, looking at our current

regulations to see whether or not we can improve them. Some of your

comments are well made, Mr. Member, regarding the difference between a

quarter- or a half-mile limit in an urban area and a half-mile limit in

a small community. I appreciate your comments, and they'll certainly be

taken into consideration in our review.

To the member for Rossland-Trail, we are increasing our staff on the

corporate side in the superintendent of brokers' office. Because of the

activity in the investment community, we've had a number of complaints

of delay in processing prospectuses, and we're working to correct that.

As you may or may not know, statements of material fact are now being

vetted through the stock exchange. That has speeded up the process. We

have maintained an auditing function as a check or a balance to that

system, but we recognize the need for speedy response to the investment

community when they provide their prospectuses and/or their statements

of material facts. We're gearing up on our corporate side to

accommodate them as best we can. We're prepared to increase staff. As a

matter of fact, we're in the process of increasing staff at the present

time.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I just have a few more words to say

about ICBC. But before that, it strikes me that the regulations

governing the neighbourhood pub situation have a tendency to be very

difficult to manage. I listened very carefully to the member for

Omineca (Mr. Kempf) yesterday talking about the Burns Lake problem and

I thought, as I was listening to him, about a situation in New

Westminster. We have a number of churches and we also have a number of

beer parlours. Why I use that analogy mystifies even me. But in any

event it has a number of institutions.

AN HON. MEMBER: Take your hands out of your pockets.

MR. COCKE: I like my hands in my pockets. It keeps them comfortable and warm, and then I don't point at you.

In any event, Mr. Chairman, I was quite surprised. Over the years

I've noticed a number of applications for pubs. For instance, I noticed

one out in Sapperton; there's not a beer parlour or liquor outlet of

that nature in the whole area, but each application has been turned

down. Yet there was one right in the centre of town called the

Moonrakers. It's about four blocks from the Royal Towers and about four

and a half blocks from the Sportsman, etc. Within a mile of that

particular pub there must be at least five or six beer parlours. It

always has mystified me that sometimes it works, but other times it

doesn't. The case that the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) made for

Burns Lake is certainly one that I would suggest should be reviewed.

I think there should be some loosening up, because a lot of people

would prefer the conviviality, the atmosphere and the environment of a

pub vis-à-vis those warehouses that merchandise booze as fast as they

possibly can. Maybe it's my age, but I just don't go into beer parlours

any longer. Even though I enjoy a glass of draft from time to time,

it's an atmosphere that I don't like. It's noisy, and it seems to me

they're are pushing beer as fast as they can and ignoring the

socialization side of things — in other words, where you go to have a

friendly chat with a neighbour. I think the whole question should be

looked at.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Can I get back to a Goldfarb public opinion survey that occurred in

January? I have gone over this a little bit with the minister, but

there are two questions on that survey to deal with ICBC. I will quote

the questions precisely; I gather these are done either by phone or in

person. The first one:

[ Page 3993 ]

"Think for a moment about ICBC. Overall, how satisfied

are you with the way ICBC is being run? Would you say you are (

a) very

satisfied, (

b) somewhat satisfied, (

c) a little satisfied, or (

d) not

satisfied at all?" That's a fair enough question. From time to time we

need to take a look at ourselves to see how we are running things and

see how the people see us in those terms. The second one does worry me,

however. "As you know, currently ICBC is government owned and operated.

Would you be in favour of or opposed to the government selling ICBC?

That is, turning over all" — not some, as the member for Skeena (Mr.

Howard) was talking about yesterday, but all — "operations to private

insurance companies as before: (

a) in favour, (

b) opposed." Black and

white.

I asked the minister some time ago if he would give us the results

of both of these questions. We haven't heard the result, and I gather

that the public who paid for the Goldfarb survey haven't the right to

find out what the public are saying. But knowing the minister's

propensity to privatize — that's his direction; he told us that very

coherently yesterday — it worries me.

I want to bring to the attention of the minister one or two

particular areas of great concern. Yesterday when he was dealing with

general insurance — I'll deal with car insurance in a moment — he

indicated that ICBC have "only" 7 percent of the market. Only, he said.

There are a lot of casualty companies that would be only too delighted

to have that "only" 7 percent of the market. There are a lot of general

insurance companies on this continent, and quite a few overseas. I

can't imagine any privately held general insurance company that could

be assured of 7 percent of the market in British Columbia not moving in

here like lightning. They would come in in a flash. I just want to

review this very quickly. As far as general insurance is concerned,

when we said okay, we'll just compete in the marketplace, we ensured

that the general companies then have to compete with ICBC not just in

the nice urban areas — fire-controlled areas — but across the province.

There was a time in this province when you could not buy fire insurance

outside of a fire-controlled area. That all changed with ICBC. The

minister says: "We will ensure that that does not occur again, if in

fact we go out of the business." I don't know how you could regulate

that. I don't know how a government could sit and say that you must go

against your underwriting policies and write business elsewhere. I just

don't see how government regulations could do it. The reason it's

happening now is that we have this modicum of the business, this 7

percent. ICBC have been an absolute tribute to the whole insurance

industry in British Columbia, having been the vanguard of providing

coverage for those people who couldn't otherwise get it.

[11:00]

I ask the minister to review and review and review and review before

taking what could be a calamitous step. It is important that we do have

this window on the industry. We don't have to wonder; we know what the

actuarial tables are in all these areas of the province. We've built a

tremendous amount of data that has afforded us the opportunity to

provide that insurance that would otherwise not be provided. So the 7

percent of the market is nonsense. I think the 7 percent of the market

is a tribute to ICBC, particularly because they've been able to

maintain that and do it, as the minister pointed out yesterday, in a

relatively profitable way. It's not a loser. It's good for the

province. Don't forget: going beyond that, those dollars paid in

premiums are invested here, not at the whim of somebody in Hartford,

Connecticut or somebody in London, England. One of the things I have

noted, having had some experience in this area, is that the life

insurance companies have been good corporate citizens. In each of their

jurisdictions where they write insurance they have invested a

proportionate amount of those premiums in those areas. British Columbia

hasn't got a beef as far as the life companies are concerned. They say:

"Look, here we go; 10 percent of our premiums come from B.C., therefore

10 percent of our investment will go into your province." That's fair

game. But that has never occurred — and I doubt if it ever will — in

the casualty or in the general business. It just doesn't happen. As for

the coverage, it's giving broader and better coverage. It's assuring

that B.C. has a window on the industry.

However, this questionnaire asks whether or not you want us to dump

the whole thing. In the first place, there are jobs in this province as

a result of our having ICBC. Do we want to send all those jobs back to

Hartford? I'm talking now about the automobile insurance and the whole

works. Do we want them to send those jobs back to Hartford, the head

office of a number of casualty companies and life insurance companies?

Do we want them to send those jobs to New York, Toronto or London,

England? You're talking here about at least 1,800 jobs. When you talk

about claim centres and the head office, I imagine it's around 1,800. I

haven't checked the numbers lately, but let's call it a round figure of

1,800 jobs. They're very important jobs, good jobs — non-polluting,

commercial enterprise that's good for British Columbia. That's the jobs.

Secondly, the fact is that there are over $600 million of premiums

paid to ICBC, and those dollars are invested under the — I was going to

say "control" — influence of the minister and a group of British

Columbians who serve on that board. It makes our economic future richer

by virtue of the fact that we're seeing to it that our own citizens are

assured their premiums are invested here. There are multimillions of

dollars sitting waiting to be paid out in future in claims that are to

be settled, or have been settled but the amounts are paid out over a

long period of time. Those moneys also are very important to our

economy and should be under our control.

To just divest ourselves of ICBC says that we're going to go back

the way we were. I suggest that the casualty companies and the general

companies were totally irresponsible in their treatment of our

province. Some time ago we did an estimate of the money the B.C. people

paid in premiums and its proportion invested here, and there was a

higher proportion of the B.C. premiums invested in Ontario than there

was in our own province. Do we want to go back to those dark days? It

would be ridiculous.

So I say that what we should do with ICBC is accept wherever the

criticism might be — and any large institution like that is naturally

vulnerable to criticism — try our best to improve it as much as we can,

but keep it viable, because it does a first-class job for the citizens

of this province. And it does do a job in terms of keeping some of our

own investment money in this province. That's important.

So, Mr. Chairman, I do hope that the minister will at least be

influenced by others over there who I'm sure share my opinion. I'm not

sure they all do, but I'm sure there are some over there who share my

opinion, and I do hope they prevail with respect to ICBC. I think it's

making an important contribution to our province, and I think it'll go

on making an important contribution. Let's not be fooled by the past.

One of the problems we have is that any insurance company becomes unpopular — general insurance companies

[ Page 3994 ]

too. Everybody — or most people — feels they're not

being handled as equitably as they would like. But I'll tell you that

with this corporation we don't have that stupid old system from the old

days where we had assigned risk. The younger generation now don't even

remember what it was like prior to 1974, when kids — that is, anybody

from 16 to 25 — had a terrible time getting insurance, and when they

finally did, it was at an outlandish, outrageous price. The insurance

companies of the day used to cream the market. Safeco, Allstate and

some of those bigger outfits used to accept just the cream of the crop,

and not accept anything they saw as a potential bad risk. It was a

dog's breakfast. So finally the government had to move in and suggest

they go into this assigned-risk basis. They did, and then they had to

take their share of the "bad risks," but the price was utterly

exorbitant. I think that ICBC has done a first-class job of bringing

equity to that particular marketplace.

There is one other thing I'd like to say with respect to this whole

question of privatization. Don't forget that in this province there is

a law — not a suggestion, but an absolute, ironclad law — that says

that you, Mr. Chairman, the House Leader or anybody else may not drive

their car unless it's insured. Once we make it mandatory for people to

buy insurance, I would suggest that we also give them the opportunity

of getting it at the best quality and the best price, and take public

responsibility for the whole thing.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Chairman, very quickly on the question of

liquor store hours, because I see the member for West Vancouver–Howe

Sound (Mr. Reynolds) is back.

We on this side of the House, and certainly myself, do believe that

liquor store hours in any community or in any given liquor store

should, as much as possible, conform to the general standard of retail

business hours within that community. If the community of Whistler

would like to have liquor stores open at 11 o'clock at night, or if

they'd like to have them open on Sunday, I certainly think the minister

should be flexible enough, in consultation with his liquor

administration branch, to allow that. I think that same standard of

assessment that we're talking about applying in the community of

Whistler should apply in every other community of the province. For

example, in my own riding, if in Rossland the retail sector

predominantly stays open until 9 o'clock on a Thursday or Friday night,

then I think the liquor stores should be open until 9 o'clock. If they

close down at six, then fine, close down the liquor store at six. Let's

remember that liquor stores in any given community have a monopoly, so

they should conform to what the private sector is doing and what the

community standard is. I hope the minister would apply that to Whistler

and to every other community. Whether there are communities other than

Whistler that would find it appropriate to have liquor outlets open on

Sunday is again something that the minister would have to decide in

consultation with those communities and with his licensing people. We

would hope that the minister and his people would be flexible enough to

recognize the differing needs in the diverse communities that make up

British Columbia.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, in most cases liquor store

opening hours relate to the municipal bylaw for retail stores. We have

to consider the cost of staffing for late hours, but in some

communities where there is more than one store there is usually one

that is identified as staying open later to relate to the regular

business hours of the retail community. We have taken some steps

regarding Sundays in conjunction with the tourist industry, to a great

extent, and our domestic wineries. The wine-shops in our estate and

commercial wineries are open on Sundays for tasting and purchase of

wine. That was put into place about six or seven months ago on a trial

basis and has worked very well with a very good response, and there are

no complaints that I'm aware of.

We are modernizing, albeit slowly and carefully, because there is

the possibility of backlash, if you will, from people who feel that we

shouldn't be doing that, whether it be the churches or Mothers Against

Drunk Drivers. By showing through experience that it doesn't cause a

major social problem, I think we'll receive acceptability and will be

able to move to more modern regulation. I'm repeating myself, but we

are now conducting a survey and study to get a feeling for other

changes we think we could make to modernize our liquor laws in this

province.

[11:15]

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of questions for

the minister relative to distribution of liquor. We have discussed

previously the Mill Bay outlet, which has been requested for some time.

I am raising it again because in his remarks yesterday afternoon the

minister indicated that he was looking at some different guidelines or

criteria for deciding. When we were discussing his estimates a few

months ago, the minister told me that the first applicant was not

necessarily the one considered, and that they looked at other things as

well. I am wondering whether or not he has decided if that is a high

priority on the list and if he will allow some form of outlet in the

Mill Bay area; also whether it will be an agency or an actual liquor

distribution branch operated by the government. I would like to know

what his thoughts are for that particular area. I understand there have

been several applications from that area.

The other question I have relates to pricing. Can the minister

assure us that the price of the purchased material will be the same if

it is an agency as opposed to a liquor distribution branch? Or is there

an opportunity for markup or markdown, according to the whims of the

operator of the agency?

I am sorry I wasn't able to follow all of the debate this morning,

so this may have been covered, but I'm wondering about the specialty

wine-shops that were talked about earlier. I know we have them in

conjunction with the wineries, but there was some talk of allowing

specialty wine-shops where an operator would be able to sell wines

only. There were actually some applications taken for that at one time

— probably under the auspices of a previous minister. Then it all

seemed to disappear, and I'm wondering whether that is still being

considered. If so, what stage is it at?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, those things are being

considered. I must advise that I want to get some input from the survey

before making any major changes.

MRS. WALLACE: By "those things," do you mean the wine-shops?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Yes.

With regard to pricing, you have two alternatives. Under our present

agency system, in which we have agency stores in remote areas of the

province, their product sells for the same

[ Page 3995 ]

price as you would buy it for in the government

liquor store. Looking to the future, whether or not you would look to

an open pricing system in which the private store or the agency

store.... We may give the flexibility-of-pricing advantage to the

consumer in some cases, if they specified certain products, or an

increase.... It has not been determined. The present policy is the same

price. Those are all the types of things that have been raised here

this morning. The amount of difference of opinion — as to whether you

should or you shouldn't, whether it should be regulated or wide open,

whether you should have Sunday openings, unlimited hours, etc. — gives

you an indication of how involved the matter of liquor regulation is in

this province. Again, that shows the need for doing reviews from time

to time. The last one was done, I believe, in 1980 by the previous

minister. Some changes were made, and I would hope that we'll go back

again, get input and be able to look at changes where we feel changes

are needed and are indicated.

No decision has been made as to whether it will be an agency store

or a government store at Mill Bay. But it is one active application,

and we've had a number of queries on it. Our concern, of course, is

whether it would be a viable government liquor store. I leave that

decision up to the manager of the liquor distribution branch — to

determine the marketability, the size of his market and the cost of

operating a store in that area.

MRS. WALLACE: I thank the minister for his reply.

One other thing. Perhaps he could elaborate on what the criteria

are. What is the size of the market? What's the breaking point for

agency versus distribution branch? What are the criteria for issuing

this? The reason I'm concerned is that we were talking about this in

his last estimates, and he did indicate to me at that time that the

fact that the person had applied for some time, or even that he had a

facility, might not be the thing that would weigh it. They would look

at other things. I'm wondering what those other things are that they

look at, and where the line is at which they change from agency to

government-operated outlet.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, some of the criteria for a

government agency store are, of course, the size of the market, the

cost of operation of that liquor store, the volume it would put through

and whether it would be a viable operation under the liquor

distribution branch. It's no different than Safeway, Eaton's or anybody

else determining whether they put a store.... That arm of my ministry,

the liquor distribution branch, is a retailing operation. They have to

make those determinations based on what they feel is required. The

consumer may feel that going 14 miles down the road is too far, but

that doesn't mean that we should be putting a liquor store on every

corner just because of that concern.

MRS. WALLACE: What are the criteria for an agency?

HON. MR. HEWITT: The criteria for an agency store is a

request from the area, the distance they would have to travel to

another store, the impact of that agency store on the volumes in the

store that we already operate — and others, I'm sure. But those are

some of them. Basically we look at whether it would provide service to

the community, and wouldn't be, you might say, a loss centre as opposed

to a profit centre.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, I have a few more comments vis-à-vis the rentalsman situation.

Before I do that, I notice that the whole question of neighbourhood

pubs has been on the floor this morning. I have a suggestion for the

minister vis-à-vis the urban kind of neighbourhood pubs. I would like

to share with you some of the problems that have come up. Basically

this comes from my years at the local level and experiencing the

problems sometimes of getting those kinds of establishments accepted.

One of the problems I detected was the fact that a single

application came before council and created a bit of an uproar in a

particular neighbourhood. They felt there would be a mass move to that

neighbourhood — I'm talking about urban areas — and that would create

all sorts of traffic problems and social problems, etc. That was when

you dealt with one licence at a time, every year or so. It seems to me

that what you might wish to consider is that if we do support the

concept of neighbourhood pubs in urban areas, rather than deal with

these applications singly and going to a municipality individually, say

in the city of Victoria, you would collect maybe five or six

applications located in various parts of the city and put them forward

as a group and have the council take a look at them. If you opened five

or six at once, you would avoid that kind of inundation that one local

pub might have. I think it would alleviate the concern where a

particular neighbourhood feels half the population of Victoria, for

example, would travel to one pub opening. I think it's something you

may wish to consider. There's no question that the neighbourhood pub is

a good idea in terms of some of the antiquated or traditional ways of

socializing and having a drink in this province, particularly in urban

areas.

Perhaps the minister would like to comment upon that concept:

collect applications, open five or six at once and eliminate the

uniqueness or the attention paid to one particular pub opening.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Very briefly, Mr. Chairman, the applications

for neighbourhood pubs, of course, are driven by those people who wish

to open one or to operate one. You may wait one, two or five years for

four or five applications to come in to locate in the city of Victoria

or any other city. I think we have to expeditiously deal with an

application that comes before us. To gather them may mean a

considerable length of time. Interestingly enough — I'm not sure if the

member knows — I don't think there's a neighbourhood pub located within

the boundaries of the city of Victoria. If there is, there's only one —

I'm not sure.

MR. BLENCOE: There's one to open up in Vic West.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I'm not sure if it was a policy when you were on council that you....

MR. BLENCOE: Yes, we allowed it.

HON. MR. HEWITT: We didn't identify with that.

The other thing, Mr. Chairman, very briefly, is that interestingly

enough we talk about the old-style beer parlour, and I recognize there

are a lot of hotels that still have that, but many of the hotels now

have moved to what they call the hotel pub and have reduced the numbers

in the pub to 125 from a 250- or 300-seat pub, improved the decor and

have made it a very enjoyable place to go and to socialize. They've

done that in

[ Page 3996 ]

response to the attractiveness of the neighbourhood

pub concept. So in the years since neighbourhood pubs started, the

hotels have identified that they have to have more attractive

facilities, and many of them, to their credit, have done just that and

have really excellent facilities to compete with the neighbourhood pubs.

MR. BLENCOE: Your point is well taken, Mr. Minister, about

having to try to expedite applications, but I know in my time on city

council we dealt with maybe four or five applications over a period of

two or three years, and unfortunately only one has ever gone through.

Basically the problem was that the neighbourhood came out and said:

"Look, you're opening up and everyone is going to come here." It may be

a way around this problem. It's a good point you make, that you don't

want to hold back people who make an application for two or three years

till there may be others making application, but maybe you could let it

be known that you're going to consider a policy, in the city of

Victoria or anywhere, that if there are people interested in opening a

neighbourhood pub they should make application because the idea is that

you are going to consider half a dozen opening at once in certain areas

of the city to avoid that kind of syndrome of one opening and everyone

travelling to it. I think that would avoid the problem that I'm talking

about and also allow for the concern you have about expediting these

applications. You could let it be known that it's a written or an

unwritten policy that you are going to consider half a dozen

applications in the city of Victoria at once.

For instance, in my neighbourhood, Fernwood, there is what's called

the Fernwood Inn, and it's about to make application for a

neighbourhood pub. I know that people living around there are going to

be concerned about it. It's going to be the only one opening up, and

the neighbours are going to be concerned that half the town is going to

travel to that neighbourhood pub. Maybe you should be saying that

you're considering Fernwood.... We have one in Victoria West, but in

Victoria there are four or five other natural geographic areas. Let is

be know that if there is anybody interested in a neighbourhood pub in

north Victoria, James Bay, Fairfield, the Jubilee area.... I think

there'll be a number of applications. You were saying: "We want a

policy of doing four or five at once to avoid that influx into one

particular pub." I think that would work in Victoria, anyway. I think

Victorians are basically in agreement with the local neighbourhood pub.

But people are a little leery of having the only one in town and

everyone driving there, etc. I hope you could consider that. I think it

may be a way of bringing about this unique concept and a way of

improving some of our antiquated ways of consuming alcohol. I'll leave

that.

[11:30]

There's just one other issue that I wish to touch on vis-à-vis the

minister. The Ministry of Human Resources has introduced what they call

hardship assistance guidelines, which have as their objective providing

an income assistance benefit in circumstances which, if unresolved,

will affect dramatically the health, life or safety of the applicant or

dependent. In other words, it's to do with people renting, if they have

a hardship case. It is my understanding that these new guidelines will

come into effect April 1. I'm wondering if the Ministry of Consumer and

Corporate Affairs had any input into the development of these hardship

assistance guidelines vis-a-vis tenants. Are you aware of these

guidelines, Mr. Minister? Did you have any input into these guidelines?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I'm not aware of the specific

guidelines that the member talks about. I can't say whether or not the

Ministry of Human Resources has been in touch with my staff to deal

with the matter of hardship cases. I think that question should really

be addressed to the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy).

MR. BLENCOE: It does revolve around tenant issues and

shelter. If I may, I'll just go into some of my concerns, and you may

wish to discuss it with your colleague. The Ministry of Human Resources

guidelines say that shelter assistance may only be paid when an

applicant has no place to live or when the landlord has made

application to a court registry for a writ of possession as outlined in

the Residential Tenancy Act. My question to the minister is: can the

Consumer and Corporate Affairs minister, who is responsible for

administering the Residential Tenancy Act, advise — or perhaps advise

in the future — this House how tenants will find out that the landlord

has applied to a court registry for a writ of possession? I think

that's an important issue. You may not be able to answer today, but it

might be something you'd wish to look at and perhaps bring back some

kind of response about.

We're advised that the procedure will be that the rentalsman makes

an order, the tenant — if he fails to dispute the order and there's no

judicial review — fails to obey the order, the landlord takes the order

to the court and obtains a writ of possession. The writ is taken to a

sheriff, and the sheriff executes the order. My concern is that under

the policy proposed by the Ministry of Human Resources, if they grant

assistance to the applicant for the rent, the court would already have

made an order which will still be enforceable. Certain landlords —

maybe one or two unscrupulous landlords — could just pocket the

emergency aid from Human Resources and still evict the tenant. There is

a strong financial incentive for the landlord to do that. It will have

cost the landlord court costs and $500 for a bond to serve the writ. I

think it does involve your ministry in some way because the Residential

Tenancy Act is involved, and I share that concern with you. You may not

be able to answer it today, but it's something you may wish to discuss

with the Minister of Human Resources. It's something that I discovered

and certainly have some concern about. You may wish to comment in

general about the problem, but I recognize that you may not know the

details.

HON. MR. HEWITT: My deputy advises that representatives of my

ministry sit on a committee with the representatives of the Human

Resources ministry to deal with such matters as shelter assistance, and

I think the liaison is good between the two ministries. I'm sure the

Ministry of Human Resources will look at some of the comments the

member has made.

MR. BLENCOE: That's good.

To conclude my portion of this part of the estimates, about an hour

ago I gave the minister some facts and figures about court costs if the

rentalsman were eliminated or dramatically curtailed. I gave some

figures that I think are fairly accurate, but I asked the minister to

indicate whether he thinks they're incorrect. They were based on the

number of

[ Page 3997 ]

cases the rentalsman handled in 1982, and I

indicated that if the rentalsman were eliminated or dramatically

curtailed, the cost to the taxpayer of going to the court system would

virtually double. The minister didn't refute my figures and didn't

really answer the question. Since that was about an hour ago, I'm just

wondering if his deputy has had the opportunity to consider. Does he

have a response to those figures I gave? I would be interested to know

whether he is in a position to refute the doubling of costs to the

taxpayer if the rentalsman is eliminated or curtailed.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I haven't got the figures to enable me to

comment on the accuracy of the member's figures or dispute them. I

think the member also realizes that the decontrol of rents and the rent

review system has resulted in a reduction in activity and in the costs

of the rentalsman's office. We are administering the present

legislation, Mr. Chairman, and not what future costs might be should

other legislation be considered.

MR. D'ARCY: Just a couple of additional notes on liquor

licensing. Certainly I don't wish to suggest standards for Victoria, as

I don't represent the area. But if the member for Victoria was

suggesting that there be a proposal call for neighbourhood pub

licences, like they used to have for housing, I'm not sure that's where

we want to go. The private sector.... In any event, that's something

for the minister to decide in consultation with elected representatives

from Victoria — or any other community and its business leaders.

The minister mentioned, in terms of the neighbourhood pub licences,

that it is his opinion that the establishment of neighbourhood pubs has

improved the decorum of the hotel beer parlours. I suspect that

improvement would have happened anyway in a free market system. I do

agree with him, though, that the neighbourhood pub, and the standards

which the entrepreneurs who have neighbourhood pubs set up, did

accelerate the trend. Many of us who have lived in B.C. and in other

parts of Canada have been jealous of the fact that across the line in

the States the average bar is a lot classier than the average bar in

British Columbia. They have some taverns that are pretty low dives, but

they also have some outstanding liquor outlets that are run with

pizzazz, and a lot of imagination and jazz went into the decoration of

those bars.

I am sure the minister has observed in Victoria, and in many other

communities in the province of B.C., that the most pleasant cocktail

lounges you can go into aren't licensed as cocktail lounges. They are

holding lounges for restaurants. I would like the minister to consider

a change in the regulations. As far as I'm concerned, if those holding

lounges were legally operated as cocktail lounges — and I think they

should be — we would find that the cocktail lounge in the hotel would

smarten up and improve itself in a major way. Around Victoria and even

in my own riding there are some delightful holding lounges; you can't

go and order a drink unless you have a bowl of soup on the side. I

think the minister should recognize what the community and the public

is saying. They're saying: "When we go out for a drink we like to go to

a nice place. We like to have nice furniture, nice decor and maybe even

some live music." I don't think the fact that it's a holding lounge for

a restaurant should be allowed to discourage that trend, even in

Invermere.

MR. COCKE: By happy circumstance I just got some evidence to

absolutely, conclusively make the argument that I made before. It just

came to me today. Fireman's Fund Insurance Co. of Canada.

HON. MR. HEWITT: In a brown envelope?

MR. COCKE: Not in a brown envelope; this is to the agent. Listen to this, Mr. Minister, and compare it to ICBC.

"Automobile Program — 1984. In 1984 we plan to

increase our automobile volume moderately and retain the excellent

underwriting results received in 1983. Our program for 1984 remains

much the same as last year, with some modifications to simplify the

rating procedure and avoid some duplication of effort in our processing.

"The 1984 program features.... Our rates in 1984 correspond

to the rates in the ICBC manual in each class, territory, driving record and

claims-rating scale. The only exceptions are for drivers with less than ten

years' driving experience but more than five years — our class 09 — and

less than five years' driving experience — our class 08. These drivers are

surcharged 50 percent and 100 percent respectively over the ICBC rate."

That's exactly what they did before and worse. That is absolutely

conclusive of what they'll do in the future, if they're given their

tether in this province.

This is another rule: "Our new business will not insure cars built

prior to 1975 — 1970 in Victoria — we will honour renewals of existing

vehicles exceeding those dates, providing the vehicle is in good

condition. We have identified the older vehicles on the February and

March renewal list and ask your discretion in renewing them."

AN HON. MEMBER: Well!

MR. COCKE: Yes, well! They're creaming right now, before

they're even back. Give them the scope that they want and they'll cream

it to death.

So there you are. That's their new handbook for this year.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Yes, you'll have a copy immediately, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Chairman, having said that I will go rushing off, make a copy for the minister and bring it back.

MR. ROSE: I suggest that he should also do a press release on that as well.

It is an old rule in politics that you never ask a question unless

you know the answer, but I'm about to depart from that; I don't know

the answer to this question. I want to know whether or not the minister

has received any recent representations from the Neighbourhood Pub

Association about the limit on seats in certain establishments and

under certain licensing conditions, and if he has, what his reaction

was.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

HON. MR. HEWITT: Yes, I have received representations — as a matter of fact, on a fairly regular basis.

[ Page 3998 ]

MR. ROSE: I wonder if the minister would be kind enough to

amplify and elucidate on the nature of the representations in terms of

capacity or number of seats, and what his attitude is at this point

toward those representations.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, the present size of a

neighbourhood pub is 65 seats. That was determined from the social

aspect of it and the fact that it is a "neighbourhood" pub. Looking

back, maybe it was at the time the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr.

Nielsen) was minister. It was a brilliant decision on his part, and has

been in existence for some time. The concern expressed by

representatives of the Neighbourhood Pub Association is that in some

cases — not all, but some — they would like to see the size increased.

I have made no decision on increasing the number of seats in

neighbourhood pubs. The present policy is 65.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Chairman, I have no particular views on the

subject one way or the other. However, representations have been made

to me to the effect that the difficulty with the 65 limit is that you

can't look after peak periods. People are turned away from a particular

watering hole at peak periods, and because they can't expand to the

100.... There may be social implications, traffic implications and all

kinds of things to consider, and I recognize that, but I know of one

business that has reported to me that while it's doing pretty good

business, it's losing about $1,500 a month. That can't last very long

or that business will be going under. It's not that it's not popular or

that it's doing well. It's just that when times are busy, like Friday

and Saturday night, it can't hold enough people to make up for the

slack times at other times. So I think the association is concerned

about that.

[11:45]

There may be a lot of people who feel exactly the opposite way

because they live near one, or something of that nature. As I say,

there are other implications. But the information I get is that unless

you can expand during your peak periods, you can't cover your slack

periods, so some of them may go out of business.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Briefly, the member is quite correct about

the economic concern that some of them have. However, he's also aware,

I'm sure, that the people who made that decision to go into a 65-seat

pub, knew the hours of operation, the size of the pub and the financing

that may have had to be done and make that business decision. Do we

change what is a reasonably working system to allow them to double or

triple their size because they may not be good operators? There are

many at 65 who are doing a good job.

The major concern, of course — to give you some history — is that we

did have 125 when the neighbourhood pubs first came into being. I think

at that time the ministers responsible for liquor licensing recognized

that in some cases you were looking at a miniature beer parlour with

the 125 seats as opposed to a small community neighbourhood social

facility.

MR. ROSE: I think the request to the minister is for 100. It was not 125.

HON. MR. HEWITT: It was originally.

MR. ROSE: It might have been. Certainly you ruin the

intimacy, and you might change the neighbourhood and that sort of

thing, but conditions change as well. So what might have been a sound

business decision in one instance at one time because of spiralling

costs or transportation problems could change. Conditions do change.

It's something that perhaps needs to be looked at from an economic

point of view. It's hardly reasonable to me, if most of them were doing

well at 65, that there would be requests to increase to 100.

MR. D'ARCY: Whether or not I'm disagreeing with my friend

from Coquitlam-Moody, I do think the upper limit on licensing for

neighbourhood pubs should be increased from 65. I would personally

recommend that it go to nearer 100, and I'll tell you why. One of the

things unfortunately — or perhaps fortunately — tied together in

British Columbia and elsewhere is live music, giving an opportunity to

some of the excellent musicians, as well as providing good live

entertainment to the general public. The fact is that a pub operation

with 65 people simply doesn't have the volume to warrant other than a

volunteer operation to hire live people. I think a good example of how

successful this sort of thing can be is The Trollers in Horseshoe Bay,

where they make their own beer. They advertise very high quality live

entertainment that's an honour to British Columbia. It would be

successful anywhere in the world.

I think that margin needs to be increased. I realize there may be

some other problems around it, but I would sincerely hope the minister

would have a good look at that. As I said, I agree with the downsizing

from 125. I think that was a bit large; that was the original size. In

making the correction, the government went a bit too far. I think the

upper limit should be somewhere in the neighbourhood of 100, to provide

the profit margin and the volume to allow the operators of localized

operations to provide good quality entertainment to the general public

and at the same time provide opportunity for the excellent musicians

and performing artists that we have in British Columbia, as well as

providing an added attraction to the tourist industry.

MRS. DAILLY: I have a couple of brief questions for the

minister. It's to do with the advertising and sale of liquor. In the

minister's opening remarks yesterday he said he was very pleased that

the advertisers were doing their best to put on educational programs.

If I recall, when it was agreed to allow the extension of advertising

for liquor and tobacco, a certain percentage was stated that must be

used by the companies to educate on the opposite effects of drinking —

the evils of drinking. If they are truly meaning that percentage....

You spoke very generally that you were happy, but I'd like to know

what kind of watchdog you keep on whether they are meeting their

obligations. I think we are all aware that there is more and more

drinking taking place. Drinking in moderation, I suppose, is all right,

but we find so many other problems resulting from alcoholism today, and

the government has a great responsibility to the people of B.C. to

ensure that proper education and assistance is given to people who are

problem drinkers. You do take in a tremendous amount of profit from it,

and I am concerned that you are meeting the other end of your

responsibility. I would like an answer to that question.

Is there a suggestion now that outlets be open on Sundays, etc? I am

to have everyone drinking, but I do think that if the government is

going to increase the outlets for drinking and perhaps have it on

Sunday too, you will also

[ Page 3999 ]

have to tell us how you are going to counter what might be increased drinking in our province.

HON. MR. HEWITT: The current policy prevails; in other words,

store hours and drinking establishment regulations will be the same

until such time as a policy decision is made to make any amendments to

the liquor regulations in this province. There are many points of view

as to whether or not you should expand the number of hours, open seven

days a week, etc. You can have ten people in a room and almost split it

down the middle, five expressing concern one way and five expressing a

desire. The public can make their own choice whether or not they use a

facility on a Sunday or after 11 o'clock at night or whatever.

Dealing with the advertising, they committed themselves that 15

percent of their time and budget would be related to education

information and advertisements with regard to problems with alcohol

abuse. We approve all their ads as to content, and they file a report

with our liquor licensing branch on an annual basis, I believe,

possibly a semi-annual basis, giving us the statistics, the dollar

figures, as to how much time has been related to education information.

I can advise the member that they have lived up to their commitment.

That's what I mentioned yesterday in general terms. I'm very pleased

with their effort to inform the public about the downside of alcohol. I

think it has worked well, and I've had very few complaints about it.

MRS. DAILLY: A final question on this matter of drinking. I

wonder if the minister could tell us if his officials have at any time

taken up the matter — this won't make me at all popular with young

people, because again there is a split opinion on this — of raising the

drinking age. At the moment it is 19. In many other jurisdictions it is

still 21 years. I am not sure in my own mind, frankly, what difference

it would make, but many people in this province believe that the lower

it is, the more access, and the more problems with teenage drinking. I

would hope that the government would at least be doing a reasoned study

on this, and perhaps would look at other jurisdictions and compare the

effects of teenage drinking to see if there is more or less, depending

on the age at which they have access.

As I say, I'm a lay person on this, and I don't know; but I do know

that teenage drinking is on the increase. There are far more problems

today than we've ever had with teenagers drinking. I'm concerned about

that as a member of the Legislature, and I know that you must be also,

Mr. Minister. I intend to bring this up again with the Minister of

Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen). I'm sure the two of you are concerned with

this matter. Have you done a study on that?

HON. MR. HEWITT: There is only one year at which teenage

drinking is legal — 19. Teenage drinking is done illegally between the

ages of — I'm not sure how young you want to go — 13, 14 and all the

way up to 18. Raising the age to 21 will not solve that problem,

because they're doing it illegally right now. So if you solve that

problem by moving it up by one or two years.... It's hard to say

whether they will do it illegally or legally.

We've done a number of things: education is one; stiffer laws with

regard to drinking drivers is another. It's a question that is

addressed from time to time. I know that other jurisdictions and some

states in the United States have raised their age to 21 again. We range

anywhere from 18 to 21 years of age to be eligible to purchase alcohol.

I can tell you that that's one of the questions I'm going to be asking

in the survey we're doing, to see just what the public feels as to

whether government should be looking at the age.

Vote 13 approved.

Vote 14: ministry operations, $18,833,909 — approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:57 a.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1985,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada