British Columbia Hansard — Thursday, May 18, 2006

H0518am-06

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

Second Session, 38th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) Thursday, May 18, 2006 Morning Sitting Volume 12, Number 6 THE HONOURABLE BILL BARISOFF, SPEAKER ISSN 0709-1281

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Her Honour the Honourable Iona V. Campagnolo, CM, OBC SECOND SESSION, 38TH PARLIAMENT SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Bill Barisoff EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council ............................................................................................................Hon. Gordon Campbell Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations .......................................................................................................... Hon.

John van Dongen Deputy Premier and Minister of Education and Minister Responsible for Early Learning and Literacy...................... Hon. Shirley Bond Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation .......................................................................................................Hon. Tom Christensen Minister of Advanced Education and Minister Responsible for Research and Technology ........................................... Hon.

Murray Coell Minister of Agriculture and Lands.......................................................................................................................................................Hon. Pat Bell Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Multiculturalism............................................................................... Hon. Wally Oppal, QC Minister of Children and Family Development ..........................................................................................................................Hon.

Stan Hagen Minister of State for Childcare ........................................................................................................................................................Hon. Linda Reid Minister of Community Services and Minister Responsible for Seniors’ and Women’s Issues........................................... Hon. Ida Chong Minister of Economic Development and Minister Responsible for the Asia-Pacific Initiative and the Olympics.................Hon.

Colin Hansen Minister of Employment and Income Assistance ...........................................................................................................Hon. Claude Richmond Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources .......................................................................................................Hon. Richard Neufeld Minister of State for Mining............................................................................................................................................................Hon.

Bill Bennett Minister of Environment and Minister Responsible for Water Stewardship and Sustainable Communities ...............Hon. Barry Penner Minister of Finance.......................................................................................................................................................................Hon. Carole Taylor Minister of Forests and Range and Minister Responsible for Housing ............................................................................. Hon.

Rich Coleman Minister of Health ......................................................................................................................................................................Hon. George Abbott Minister of Labour and Citizens’ Services .......................................................................................................................... Hon. Michael de Jong Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General................................................................................................................................Hon.

John Les Minister of Small Business and Revenue and Minister Responsible for Regulatory Reform............................................ Hon. Rick Thorpe Minister of Tourism, Sport and the Arts .........................................................................................................................................Hon. Olga Ilich Minister of Transportation...........................................................................................................................................................Hon.

Kevin Falcon LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Leader of the Official Opposition .........................................................................................................................................................Carole James Deputy Speaker ....................................................................................................................................................................................Sindi Hawkins Assistant Deputy Speaker.....................................................................................................................................................................Sue Hammell Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole.................................................................................................................................................

Harry Bloy Clerk of the Legislative Assembly .........................................................................................................................E. George MacMinn, OBC, QC Clerk Assistant.........................................................................................................................................................................................Robert Vaive Clerk Assistant and Law Clerk .......................................................................................................................................................Ian D.

Izard, QC Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees ....................................................................................................................................... Craig H. James Clerk Assistant and Committee Clerk ..........................................................................................................................................Kate Ryan-Lloyd Sergeant-at-Arms............................................................................................................................................................................. A.A.

Humphreys Director, Hansard Services ...................................................................................................................................................................Jo-Anne Kern Legislative Librarian ..................................................................................................................................................................................Jane Taylor Legislative Comptroller...............................................................................................................................................................................Dan Arbic

Party Standings: Liberal 46; New Democratic 33 ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Abbott, Hon. George (L) .................................................................... Shuswap Austin, Robin (NDP)............................................................................. Skeena Bains, Harry (NDP).................................................................. Surrey-Newton Barisoff, Hon. Bill (L)..........................................Penticton–Okanagan Valley Bell, Hon. Pat (L) .............................................................Prince George North Bennett, Hon.

Bill (L) ............................................................... East Kootenay Black, Iain (L) ............................................................ Port Moody–Westwood Bloy, Harry (L)................................................................................Burquitlam Bond, Hon. Shirley (L).....................................Prince George–Mount Robson Brar, Jagrup (NDP).....................................................Surrey–Panorama Ridge Campbell, Hon.

Gordon (L) .........................................Vancouver–Point Grey Cantelon, Ron (L)..............................................................Nanaimo-Parksville Chong, Hon. Ida (L) .................................................... Oak Bay–Gordon Head Chouhan, Raj (NDP) ...........................................................Burnaby-Edmonds Christensen, Hon. Tom (L) ................................................. Okanagan-Vernon Chudnovsky, Dave (NDP)........................................... Vancouver-Kensington Coell, Hon.

Murray (L) .....................................Saanich North and the Islands Coleman, Hon. Rich (L)...........................................Fort Langley–Aldergrove Conroy, Katrine (NDP) .......................................... West Kootenay–Boundary Coons, Gary (NDP) ....................................................................... North Coast Cubberley, David (NDP)............................................................Saanich South de Jong, Hon.

Michael (L) ...................................Abbotsford–Mount Lehman Dix, Adrian (NDP) .........................................................Vancouver-Kingsway Evans, Corky (NDP).................................................................Nelson-Creston Falcon, Hon. Kevin (L) .......................................................

Surrey-Cloverdale Farnworth, Mike (NDP) ...............................Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain Fleming, Rob (NDP) ..............................................................Victoria-Hillside Fraser, Scott (NDP) ..............................................................Alberni-Qualicum Gentner, Guy (NDP).......................................................................Delta North Hagen, Hon. Stan (L) ................................................................ Comox Valley Hammell, Sue (NDP) ................................................... Surrey–Green Timbers Hansen, Hon.

Colin (L) ..................................................Vancouver-Quilchena Hawes, Randy (L).......................................................... Maple Ridge–Mission Hawkins, Sindi (L) ............................................................... Kelowna-Mission Hayer, Dave S. (L) ................................................................

Surrey-Tynehead Hogg, Gordon (L)..............................................................Surrey–White Rock Horgan, John (NDP)......................................................Malahat–Juan de Fuca Horning, Al (L)........................................................... Kelowna–Lake Country Ilich, Hon. Olga (L)...............................................................Richmond Centre James, Carole (NDP).......................................................Victoria–Beacon Hill Jarvis, Daniel (L)..................................................

North Vancouver–Seymour Karagianis, Maurine (NDP) ........................................... Esquimalt-Metchosin Krog, Leonard (NDP)......................................................................... Nanaimo Krueger, Kevin (L)..............................................Kamloops–North Thompson Kwan, Jenny Wai Ching (NDP)........................... Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Lali, Harry (NDP)........................................................................

Yale-Lillooet Lee, Richard T. (L)....................................................................Burnaby North Lekstrom, Blair (L).............................................................. Peace River South Les, Hon. John (L)............................................................... Chilliwack-Sumas Macdonald, Norm (NDP).................................... Columbia River–Revelstoke MacKay, Dennis (L)....................................................

Bulkley Valley–Stikine Mayencourt, Lorne (L).......................................................Vancouver-Burrard McIntyre, Joan (L).................................................West Vancouver–Garibaldi Neufeld, Hon. Richard (L) .................................................. Peace River North Nuraney, John (L).............................................................Burnaby-Willingdon Oppal, Hon. Wally, QC (L).......................................... Vancouver-Fraserview Penner, Hon. Barry (L)...........................................................

Chilliwack-Kent Polak, Mary (L) ....................................................................................Langley Puchmayr, Chuck (NDP)...................................................... New Westminster Ralston, Bruce (NDP) ............................................................. Surrey-Whalley Reid, Hon. Linda (L) ................................................................ Richmond East Richmond, Hon. Claude (L).............................................................

Kamloops Robertson, Gregor (NDP) ................................................Vancouver-Fairview Roddick, Valerie (L).......................................................................Delta South Routley, Doug (NDP)..................................................... Cowichan-Ladysmith Rustad, John (L) ........................................................

Prince George–Omineca Sather, Michael (NDP).........................................Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Simons, Nicholas (NDP) ...................................Powell River–Sunshine Coast Simpson, Bob (NDP)..................................................................Cariboo North Simpson, Shane (NDP) ....................................................Vancouver-Hastings Sultan, Ralph (L) ....................................................West Vancouver–Capilano Taylor, Hon.

Carole (L).....................................................Vancouver-Langara Thorne, Diane (NDP) .................................................Coquitlam-Maillardville Thorpe, Hon. Rick (L).......................................................Okanagan-Westside Trevena, Claire (NDP) ..................................................................North Island van Dongen, Hon. John (L)............................................ Abbotsford-Clayburn Whittred, Katherine (L)........................................

North Vancouver–Lonsdale Wyse, Charlie (NDP) .................................................................Cariboo South Yap, John (L)...................................................................Richmond-Steveston LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING Abbotsford-Clayburn....................................................Hon. John van Dongen Abbotsford–Mount Lehman .......................................... Hon. Michael de Jong Alberni-Qualicum..........................................................................

Scott Fraser Bulkley Valley–Stikine ...........................................................Dennis MacKay Burnaby North ...........................................................................Richard T. Lee Burnaby-Edmonds........................................................................Raj Chouhan Burnaby-Willingdon................................................................... John Nuraney Burquitlam.......................................................................................Harry Bloy Cariboo North..............................................................................

Bob Simpson Cariboo South..............................................................................Charlie Wyse Chilliwack-Kent ..................................................................Hon. Barry Penner Chilliwack-Sumas...................................................................... Hon. John Les Columbia River–Revelstoke................................................. Norm Macdonald Comox Valley........................................................................ Hon.

Stan Hagen Coquitlam-Maillardville..............................................................Diane Thorne Cowichan-Ladysmith ................................................................. Doug Routley Delta North ...................................................................................Guy Gentner Delta South ............................................................................. Valerie Roddick East Kootenay....................................................................... Hon.

Bill Bennett Esquimalt-Metchosin.........................................................Maurine Karagianis Fort Langley–Aldergrove ..................................................Hon. Rich Coleman Kamloops.....................................................................Hon. Claude Richmond Kamloops–North Thompson .....................................................Kevin Krueger Kelowna–Lake Country.................................................................. Al Horning Kelowna-Mission ......................................................................

Sindi Hawkins Langley ...........................................................................................Mary Polak Malahat–Juan de Fuca .................................................................. John Horgan Maple Ridge–Mission ................................................................ Randy Hawes Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows ..................................................... Michael Sather Nanaimo......................................................................................

Leonard Krog Nanaimo-Parksville .....................................................................Ron Cantelon Nelson-Creston .............................................................................Corky Evans New Westminster .................................................................. Chuck Puchmayr North Coast....................................................................................

Gary Coons North Island ...............................................................................Claire Trevena North Vancouver–Lonsdale................................................Katherine Whittred North Vancouver–Seymour..........................................................Daniel Jarvis Oak Bay–Gordon Head ........................................................... Hon. Ida Chong Okanagan-Vernon......................................................... Hon. Tom Christensen Okanagan-Westside..............................................................Hon.

Rick Thorpe Peace River North.......................................................... Hon. Richard Neufeld Peace River South..................................................................... Blair Lekstrom Penticton–Okanagan Valley .................................................Hon. Bill Barisoff Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain ............................................Mike Farnworth Port Moody–Westwood.................................................................... Iain Black Powell River–Sunshine Coast ...............................................

Nicholas Simons Prince George North.................................................................... Hon. Pat Bell Prince George–Mount Robson ............................................Hon. Shirley Bond Prince George–Omineca................................................................ John Rustad Richmond Centre......................................................................Hon. Olga Ilich Richmond East........................................................................Hon.

Linda Reid Richmond-Steveston...........................................................................John Yap Saanich North and the Islands ............................................ Hon. Murray Coell Saanich South ........................................................................ David Cubberley Shuswap............................................................................Hon. George Abbott Skeena.......................................................................................... Robin Austin Surrey-Cloverdale............................................................... Hon.

Kevin Falcon Surrey–Green Timbers ................................................................Sue Hammell Surrey-Newton............................................................................... Harry Bains Surrey–Panorama Ridge.................................................................Jagrup Brar Surrey-Tynehead ....................................................................... Dave S.

Hayer Surrey-Whalley...........................................................................Bruce Ralston Surrey–White Rock .....................................................................Gordon Hogg Vancouver-Burrard..............................................................Lorne Mayencourt Vancouver-Fairview.............................................................Gregor Robertson Vancouver-Fraserview .................................................Hon.

Wally Oppal, QC Vancouver-Hastings .................................................................Shane Simpson Vancouver-Kensington.......................................................David Chudnovsky Vancouver-Kingsway ......................................................................Adrian Dix Vancouver-Langara ........................................................... Hon. Carole Taylor Vancouver–Mount Pleasant........................................ Jenny Wai Ching Kwan Vancouver–Point Grey ................................................Hon.

Gordon Campbell Vancouver-Quilchena.........................................................Hon. Colin Hansen Victoria–Beacon Hill...................................................................

Carole James Victoria-Hillside ...........................................................................Rob Fleming West Kootenay–Boundary........................................................Katrine Conroy West Vancouver–Capilano...........................................................Ralph Sultan West Vancouver–Garibaldi ........................................................Joan McIntyre Yale-Lillooet..................................................................................... Harry Lali

CONTENTS Thursday, May 18, 2006 Morning Sitting Routine Proceedings Page Introductions by Members ....................................................................................................... .............................................. 5021 Committee of the Whole House................................................................................................... .......................................... 5021 Tenancy Statutes Amendment Act, 2006 (Bill 27) (continued) D. Routley Hon. R. Coleman K.

Conroy Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room Committee of Supply............................................................................................................ ................................................... 5034 Estimates: Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General (continued) J. Brar Hon. J. Les C. Wyse M. Farnworth

5021 THURSDAY, MAY 18, 2006 The House met at 10:02 a.m. Prayers. Introductions by Members D. Routley: It gives me the greatest pleasure to give a heartfelt welcome to two of my dearest friends, Ross Davies and Ranjit Manhas. Could the House help me welcome them. Orders of the Day Hon. M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, in this chamber I call continued committee stage debate of Bill 27; and in

Section A, Committee of Supply — for the information of members, on the estimates of the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General. [1005] Committee of the Whole House TENANCY STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2006 (continued) The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 27; H. Bloy in the chair. The committee met at 10:06 a.m. Sections 2 to 6 inclusive approved. On

section 7. D. Routley:

Section 7 dictates that landlords may not restrict access to residential property and that this is governed by the standard of reasonableness. Who is to dictate and determine that standard of reasonable- ness, and couldn't the minister consider a standard of unconscionability? Hon. R. Coleman: This amendment allows landlords to restrict access of a tenant or a guest to residential property under some circumstances.

Some examples of those situations when a landlord could reasonably re- strict access would be: there's a fire in the building, and tenants are not allowed entry into the building until it's determined to be safe; there are structural issues where it would be determined to be a risk to the tenant to go in, because of an earthquake or whatever the case may be; a guest is a known drug dealer and suspected of selling drugs to tenants. That would also be something. This provision, hon. member, was actually inadver- tently omitted in the new act, but it is included in the regulation today.

The amendment is to make the act consistent with the regulation and reflect the common practice that's already in exis tence. Publications will be updated by us to give examples of circumstances where it would be considered reasonable for a landlord to restrict access. Sections 7 to 9 inclusive approved. On

section 10. D. Routley: The second point permits a landlord and tenant to agree in a tenancy agreement that a ten- ancy agreement is assignable. Should not an owner of a manufactured home have the right to assign their ten- ancy without approval? [1010] Hon. R. Coleman: This is also an amendment that makes a housekeeping correction to match up with regulation. It permits a landlord to authorize the as- signment and sublease of a tenancy agreement. The r e a s o n i t n e e d s t o b e t h e r e i s t h a t i n s o m e t e n a n c y agreements that are in plac e today, the agreement says you can't sublet.

It does allow for the…. [Interruption.] Hon. R. Coleman: Thank you, hon. Chair. It does allow that the two of them can agree to do it. So if it's in an agreement, it authorizes them to be able to do it.

Section 10 approved. On

section 11. D. Routley:

Section 11 is particularly concerning in that it allows a landlord to increase rent in an amount that is greater than is authorized by the act, with the tenant's con- sent in writing. Since this act applies to people who are in very vulnerable positions in terms of their B.C. Housing accommodations, in many cases, and since there is great pressure on the owners of manufactured homes and on the o w n e r s o f m a n u f a c t u r e d h o m e p a r k s t o r e d e v e l o p , t h i s measure makes vulnerable those people to coercion.

If someone owning a manufactured home park were to go to their tenants and say: "Look, I'm under a lot of pressure to redevelop this park. It's just not profitable for me. I could stay in this business if you could allow me an increase greater than, say, 30 or 40 or 50 percent…." I think that there are many tenants in manufactured home parks who are extremely worried about the future of their tenancy, extremely worried about their investment.

T h e y h a v e w o r k e d a n d p a i d m o r t g a g e s t o g a i n o w n e r - ship of their homes, and now, with the widespread re- development of parks, they are at risk. I can see that this measure — particularly

section 11, which amends

section 36(1 ) : " (

c) a g r e e d t o b y t h e tenant in writing" — exposes to vulnerability many, many people, and exposes them to coercion of an un- scrupulous landlord. Could the minister describe how those people's interests will be protected? Hon. R. Coleman: Actually, this amendment au- thorizes a landlord to increase rent in an amount

5022 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MAY 18, 2006 greater than is authorized by the act — the act has a calculation by regulation — with the tenant's consent in writing. This provision was inadvertently omitted from the new act but was in cluded in the regulation. It's been there in tenancies for years with regards to this. There are two ways you can look at this, though, hon. member. One of the challenges….

If you sit down with owners of manufactured home parks today, the first thing they'll tell you is that they can't get appro- priate increases like residential tenancy can under apartment buildings to be ab le to just cover off their costs. They will tell you that over the last 15 years or so, they have, inflationarily , been squeezed down in their operation by different laws of government that say you can't increase your rent and can't do certain things. At the same time, the park's municipal property taxes have gone up, for argument's sake, over 20 or 25 percent over a ten-year period.

They may have an older septic system that needs to be replaced. The roads could be in disrepair — whatever. They say that actu- ally sometimes to improve the park, to make it viable in the long term, they need to be able to go to their ten- ants and say: "This is the list." [1015] Now, the regulation is pretty strong, and so is the operational side, that they have to be able to justify this when they're asking for it. It's not unlike, though, what we have as a provision under th e Residential Tenancy Act, which is the same.

One of the concerns that we had when we debated this act back then was that would be the abil- ity. That was represented to us by both landlords organi- zations and tenants. The concern was that if the landlord — whether it be an apartment building; I'll use that as an example — was to have his taxes go up but in addition to that needed to upgrade a sprinkler system or fire system or whatever within the building, there was no ability to recapture that. So what they did instead is allow their buildings to deteriorate, and eventually they would rede- velop them into condos or whatever the case may be.

The provision, because it has to be agreed to in writing, is actually intended to work for both parties. As the member says, there's always this question around unscrupulous landlords, which the member and other people would like to bring up with regards to this. Within the act, further on, we deal with some administrative penalties wi th regards to that which will allow us to actually levy significant fines for bad behaviour, rather than havi ng to go to the court sys- tem, and have a more proactive system with regards to bad behaviour on behalf of the parties under this act.

The challenge here is — like I say, it was admit- ted…. It's already in regulation. It is consequential. The requirement for the rent increase has to be on an ap- proved form, as it duplicates, you know, the other pro- visions of the acts. The important thing to remember as we go through this, manufactured home parks…. I know I mentioned this to the member in question period some time back. We actually hired a consul tant on the manufactured home park file.

My staff are meeting with that individ- u a l n e x t w e e k t o b a s i c a l l y g o o v e r t h e t e r m s o f r e f e r - ence that we're trying to achieve here. We recognize that there's an aging complex of manufactured home parks. There's pressure on devel- opment in various areas. In the valley where I come from, the pressure is becaus e the agricultural land re- serve surrounds so many communities.

Somebody can now look at a park and say: "Actually, if I could get the density on there, I could make it work for another use." The challenge is that we need to decide what we're going to do with municipalities on rezoning. Interest- ingly, this morning I was advised of a letter that came from a local council out my way written to the federal government to do something about manufactured home parks.

That tells me that the educational level at local government really is pretty low, when the letter is, basically, asking them to do something about rezon- ing of manufactured home parks when they have the rezoning power within them. They can make that deci- sion — yes or no. I told the member in question period one day that I've made the commitment to the industry, to both sides — the tenants and the landlords — that we're going to hire the consultant. I think it's important for a number of factors.

One is that because this has been an ongoing problem for probably 15 or 20 years, we need to find the short-term, medium-term and long-term solutions for the existing housing stock. On the other side of it, though, at the same time, I do believe we have to look for some innovation. I actu- ally happen to believe that manufactured home parks, properly done, more with a bare-land strata than a tenant-landlord relationship, can actually be an afford- able form of housing for seniors and other people and can solve some of the housing issues within some of our jurisdictions.

But it will take local government to take the next step — the next step being that they actu- ally recognize that this is a good form of affordable housing, rather than saying it's opposite to that. The reality is…. I know this because I've actually owned three manufactured homes in my life. My first home was a manufactured home. My second and third were also manufactured homes. Two of them I was in a rental relationship; the other one I was into a lease ar- rangement. They are a very good form of housing.

What needs to be recognized is that local govern- ment will first have to realize that if they want afford- able housing, they're going to have to put down some positions for themselves, just like we do with the homeless strategy, to have local government step up and take some leadership. At the same time, our role has to be: what can we do going forward to make it easier for certain things to happen within that market- place? [1020] That doesn't answer the question with regards to this.

But it is a pressure in parks, and what happens is if the deterioration of the park goes such that it gets to the point where nobody wants it there, then we have another problem. We have that other deterioration of

THURSDAY, MAY 18, 2006 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 5023 an attitude by local government towards the parks. They need to be able to at least maintain their struc- ture. That's why, if they really do have a pressure that comes forward and they need to do it, they can, by agreement with their tenants, raise the rent higher for a period of time or for a long period of time, depending how they amortize it.

There are pressures on these operations, because the whole rent control — freezing, whatever you want to call it — over a long period of time has pushed the inflationary point to the pa rk to the point where the park isn't making investment, in some cases, where it should be in the infrastruc ture to make the park sus- tainable. So it goes both ways. I think the fact that it's in writing, that there are some strong rules around it and that it has worked in the past, because we know that….

Those two things do not take away, though — frankly, don't get away — from the fact that some municipal governments appear to be prepared to just rezone them, no matter what the case may be. It's a concern. That's why we've hired the consult- ant. We've undertaken that we're going to go work on manufactured home parks as a particular project within the Housing Ministry to try and find the long- term solutions. D. Routley: I'm pleased to hear the minister recog- nize the value of manufactured home parks and relate his own experience. I appreciate the investment in the consultant looking at the situation.

I could offer a productive suggestion that I'm quite sure the minister has probably considered. That would be that several jurisdictions have initiated bylaws. There seems to be a template moving around the prov- ince that's developing. Other jurisdictions are calling for leadership from the ministry to establish a format and put the pressure on thos e jurisdictions that haven't been as responsive or, as the minister points out, aren't as well acquainted with the issue. It would be good to see some coherence and consis- tency brought to that.

But that doesn't change the fact that adding to this legislation a provision for rent in- creases greater than allowed under the act with the agreement, in writing, of the tenant, still — in my view and the view of many of th e activists in this area — exposes tenants to the risk of coercion. I would offer in a friendly way this amendment to this portion of the act. The amendment is to

section 11, which modifies

section 36 of the Mobile Home Tenancy Act. [by deleting the text shown as struck out: 11

Section 36 is amended (

a) by repealing subsection (1) (

a) and (

b) and substitut- ing the following: (

a) calculated in accordance with the regulations, (

b) ordered by the director on an application under sub- section (3), or (

c) agreed to by the tenant in writing. , (b), in subsection (3) by striking out "a landlord may ap- ply to an arbitrator for approval" and substituting "a landlord may request the director's approval" and by adding "by making an application for dispute resolution" after "subsection (1) (a)", and (

c) by repealing subsection (4).] [1025] On the amendment. Hon. R. Coleman: It defeats the purpose of the sec- tion. The purpose of this

section is to allow — which is already happening in regulation and has actually oper- ated properly within the business cycle for a long period of time — the relationship we've been working to change between landlord and tenants, and the ability to actually have long-term su stainability for the park. Frankly, it's already in practice. It's already in regulation. I mean, the member is wanting to amend something that we're already doing, which is actually working. Having said that, I won't be supporting your amend- ment. I think that when we already have a practice in place and it's working, we should let it work.

Because we've hired a consultant to do the review, we're going to go through and not amend any of this act today. When it comes to manufactured home parks, I've hired somebody to take a look at the whole package. I'm not going to piecemeal this package, because governments succes- sively over the last 20 years have done exactly that. The member mentioned standardized bylaws for manufactured home parks. Those have been available since I was Housing critic in the 1990s. How to even design one has been standardized by manufacturing…. Suggested bylaws for municipalities were in place many years ago.

They've ac tually been run through UBCM. When I was a critic, I found that out. The challenge I find with this is getting people to actually read the material and get educated on the value of manufactured home parks. Let me just give you one example. You say to a municipality: "Don't zone out the manufactured home parks." The owner says: "Look, I can't afford to maintain this place any- more, and I can't get any other use for my land, so my only opportunity is to not fix things." Then the people who are living on the land get a deteriorating asset that they're living on, which is unfair to them.

There has to be an opportunity for the landlord and tenant to sit down and have that discussion. But even if a landlord today in some municipalities said: "All right. I'll tell you what I'll do. I'll do a bare land strata here" — which is basically like a subdivision on a piece of land, bare land, but you're not actually going to where you have to do the size of road for a subdivision — "and I'll actually allow that the lots could be sold to my tenants." Some municipalities, many municipalities, wouldn't allow that.

If they did, they would whack the owner of the property — who's trying to create affordability for their tenants and long-term sustainability — with a great big development cost charge just for the privilege of doing that for their tenants. Those are the type of things that have to be dealt with by the consultant looking for solutions going forward. We have something that is actually working. It does work with that relationship . I know there's always the

5024 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MAY 18, 2006 thought that there is some body out there who is sur- reptitiously going to threaten a bunch of people to sign a document to do something in a park. The reality is that they have to justify no t only the signature but the information and the expenses under the act today and under regulation. This fixes it in the act. It harmonizes it with regula- tion. It is, frankly, a

section that is working. I believe that the most important aspect on the home manufac- tured park side is: can we get a report and a consulta- tive process, a relationship with municipalities…? The member always says they're looking to the provincial government for the solutions. Well, we don't actually rezone the land in municipalities. We could have all the solutions, but we can't stop them from re- zoning the property. They can decide at a public hear- ing and go through three readings that they're going to turn it into a Wal-Mart prop erty, or whatever the case may be.

Then we obviously try to have the protection of the people that move off. There are a number of aspects here. One is: what can we do going forward? That's what we're doing with the consultant. Two: where else can we put parks? Where is an opportunity to look at our land base to see if we can find alternative locations for people that may want to move? [1030] As the member is aware, one of the challenges is that in certain jurisdictions, there's not another park to move to if somebody wants to make a choice.

So be- cause of that no choice, and because of the freezing over here of the rent and the inability to invest capital, we're creating a perfect storm of a deteriorating asset for both parties. That's just not fair to either party. They need to be able to work together to keep their park in a place where, capital-wise, it's functioning properly. In addition to that, you have to find the next level of solutions, and that's not going to be found in these debates today. I obviously have some ideas. The member opposite has some ideas. I'm sure former members that have held this portfolio have ideas.

I want to bring them all together and see if we can find the long-term solutions. Amendment negatived. Sections 11 to 18 inclusive approved. On

section 19. D. Routley: This

section deals with and provides the ability for the director to make a decision without hearing under certain circumstances. It reads: "Despite

section 54 [setting down dispute for hearing] , in the cir- cumstances described in subsection (2) (b), the director may, without holding a hearing, (

a) grant an order of possession to the landlord." We have seen this bill, so far, draw arbitrators into government as employees. I've put on record my feel- ings about what that will do to the independence of that process of adjudication of disputes. Now we have a

section that permits the director, who will now hold all the powers of adjudication, to grant an order of pos- session without hearing. This is a limitation of voice. Could the minister consider removal of the provision "without holding a hearing"? In other areas of the act, interests of landlords — when it comes to administrative penalties — are well protected in that hearings must be held. Third-party interests are provided later in the bill. If there is a third party who's affected by a tenancy dispute, they must be heard. But here we have circumstances where the tenant themselves may not be heard.

Could the minis- ter explain this provision? [1035] Hon. R. Coleman: This amendment allows orders of possession without a hearing in circumstances where a tenant has no right to apply for dispute resolution under the act. So what would those circumstances be? One, the tenant has actually given notice to end the tenancy. They give their notice to end the tenancy and they leave, but they abandon the site. The landlord needs the right to get an order of possession to move the unit off the site, because it's been abandoned or vacated. Two, there's a fixed-term tenancy with an end date.

There's an agreement between two parties that they have a tenancy agreement for 12 months or six months, or whatever the case may be, and that runs out. Unless a new agreement is signed, an order of possession could be given simply because the contract has run out. The landlord and tenant mutually agree to end the tenancy. Where the two parties have agreed to end the tenancy, the two parties say: "Okay, I'm done here." Some- body has an older unit, and they decide they're not going to move.

That leaves the landlord with a unit, even though the tenancy has been agreed to be ended, sitting on the site — and needs an order of possession to vacate it. The last one is that the time period for a tenant to dispute a notice to end the tenancy given by the landlord has passed. If there's a notice to end the tenancy and there's been no dispute by the tenant, there's not much sense in holding a hearing when there's no dispute. Having said all of that, if the notice or order of pos- session is issued, the tenant still has a right to ask for a review of that order of possession.

Even if they haven't met any of their legal responsibilities with regards to the act, they still have the right to ask for a review. I think it's pretty protective. At the same time a lot of time is spent on orders of possessions under the act. Folks just basically don't show up at hearings — have abandoned the site be- cause the tenancy agreement is over. They've agreed to mutually go. Even today, if a tenancy agreement runs out and the tenant leaves, and everybody knows the contract's run out and it's all over, we still have to hold a hearing.

Now what we can do is say we don't have to have a hearing because we actually have the end of the ten- ancy by agreement by the two parties. But one party has now left stuff on the si te, which the landlord needs an order of possession to go in and remove.

THURSDAY, MAY 18, 2006 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 5025 It's actually pretty balanced. It takes care of the con- cerns the member raises with regards to this. Frankly, it basically allows for a number of things to deal with behaviour in a manner that makes a lot of sense when there are already mutually agreed-to situations under contract. D. Routley: The minister has offered reassuring comments on issues and circ umstances where there is no dispute and where a hearing seems redundant.

In order to protect the interests of those who may not, in some circumstances, have been able to respond to a dispute or within the time frame allowed, I would offer another friendly amendment to this bill. That would be an amendment to

section 19 — that

section 19 amends

section 48 of the Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Act. This amendment would strike out under 19(b)(4)(2)(

b) where it says "the director may, without holding a hearing…." T h i s w o u l d s t r i k e o u t "without" and substitute "after" holding a hearing. This would be offered with the hope that the minister would embrace it as a protection of those who may be in cir- cumstances other than he has described. [Section 19, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the text shown as underlined: 19

Section 48 is amended (

a) in subsection (1) by striking out "applies for arbitra- tion" and substituting "makes an application for dispute resolution" and by striking out " order of possession of the manufactured home site if," and substituting "order of possession of the manufactured home site to the land- lord if,", and (

b) by adding the following subsection:

(4) Despite

section 54 [setting down dispute for hearing], in the circumstances described in subsection (2) (b), the di- rector may, without after holding a hearing, (

a) grant an order of possession to the landlord, and (

b) if the application is in relation to the non-payment of rent, grant an order requiring payment of that rent.] On the amendment. Hon. R. Coleman: I already described to the member earlier what the process would be with going forward on manufactured homes. I also told him that we would not be supporting any amendments to this act because the process is actually working in the system today. I will reiterate to the member that the tenant will always have the right to apply for a review of an order of possession under any of the circumstances under these changes to the act. We won't be supporting the amendment. [1040] Amendment negatived. Sections 19 to 21 inclusive approved. On

section 22. D. Routley: In an effort to speed things along, we're going to have to all work together here. There's no doubt about that. Under

section 22 there's a provision for monetary claims under the Small Claims Act if the claim is more than the monetary limit for claims under the Small Claims Act. Elsewhere in the act there's a provision for minors to become landlords. Since minors can't be petitioned through the small claims court, how can the act protect the interests of mobile home park tenants whose land- lord may transfer to a minor ownership of a park and thereby make the minor a landlord? The act would empower a minor to enter into a tenancy agreement as a landlord, but then that minor could not be pursued through the courts.

Will this act not provide an escape valve, so to speak, for those who would employ those measures? Hon. R. Coleman: Could I just clarify what

section we're on, please? The Chair: We're on

section 22. Hon. R. Coleman:

Section 22. This amendment is consequential to replacing applications for arbitration with applications for dispute resolution as the start of the dispute resolution process, and replacing arbitra- tors with the director. The current provisions allow minors to enter into tenancy agreements as tenants. The amendments allow persons under the age of 19 to enter tenancy agree- ments whether they are landlords or tenants. A similar provision was in the previous act. This is consistent with the Infants Act, which states that a contract with a person under 19 is enforceable if specified in an enact- ment.

So the parallel is back to the Infants Act, and that's how we would protect against that. [1045] Sections 22 to 35 inclusive approved. On

section 36. D. Routley: This

section refers to the Administra- tive Tribunals Act and specifies that the Administrative Tribunals Act shall apply to the director as if the direc- tor were a tribunal, when in fact we have diluted the provisions of the act in terms of arbitration by bringing arbitrators from arm's-length independence into being employees of the ministry. So how can the director be determined and described as being a tribunal? Hon. R. Coleman: This amendment is consequen- tial to replacing arbitrators with the director. This amendment also discontinues the application of

section 30 of the Administrative Tribunals Act.

Section 30 states: "Tribunal members must faithfully, honestly and impartially perform their duties and must not, except in the proper performance of those duties, disclose to any person any information obtained as a member." Just so we weren't distracted there for a second,

section 30 states that tribunal members must faithfully, honestly and impartially perform their duties and must

5026 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MAY 18, 2006 not, except in the proper performance of those duties, disclose to any person any information obtained as a member. Basically, it's like a confidentiality clause. The administrative justice office has advised us that it is appropriate to remove this reference in the act as the staff and the director ar e subject to the Public Ser- vice Act and government policies which also bind them to confidentiality. Therefore the remaining sections of the Administrative Tribunal Act will apply, but this

section is no longer required because they will be cov- ered under the Public Service Act. Sections 36 to 54 inclusive approved. On

section 55. K. Conroy: In the

definitions of assisted- or supported- living residences, this is the first time in the Residential Tenancy Act or in the Commu nity Care and Assisted Living Act that the term "supported living" is used. The term more commonly known throughout the sector is "supportive housing." Could the minister please clarify what the definition of supported living is, because there is no definition? [1050] Hon. R. Coleman: I'm going to try this for the member. The Community Care and Assisted Living Act.

There is a definition, but this act deals with some exceptions with regard to the definition that this is only where there are hospitality services or personal care services provided by the landlord. It defines it down to where somebody is in a residential situation where there is personal care and services and hospitality ser- vices provided by the landlord under the Community Care Act. Now, the Community Care Act has a larger definition that includes othe r things that aren't appli- cable in this application.

Section 55 approved. On

section 56. D. Routley:

Section 56 is another provision for a minor as landlord, and I wo uld again express concern over the ability of tenants to pursue a minor to court. Could the minister describe to me again how that in- terest is protected? What would happen if the circum- stances he described earlier were to occur? How is the link made between the tenancy dispute and a minor being pursued to small claims court? Hon. R. Coleman: I would rather not read the same thing again. It's exactly the same as I described earlier. Sections 56 to 58 inclusive approved. On

section 59. D. Routley: It appears to me that

section 59 would set up a circumstance where information officers could be appointed in place of ar bitrators in adjudicating decisions. Is it the case that information officers would be able to render decisions? Information officers have had difficulty communicating a coherent and consis- tent message about the act and the regulations to those who have experienced their services. There is a concern amongst the groups who represent mobile home park tenants that information officers may not be fully and adequately qualified to adjudicate their disputes.

What power will an information officer have under this clause? [1055] Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, just so we're clear, this has nothing to do with manufactured home parks. This is residential tenancy now, so that we don't con- fuse anybody with that part of it. This amendment gives the director additional pow- ers to employ persons under the Public Service Act and retain other persons as nece ssary to carry out the func- tions of the director. That's number one; that's to give him some ability to do the job he needs to do.

Subsec- tion (4) prohibits the direct or from assigning the same person to investigate and make a determination on imposing penalty, in keeping with the principles of administrative fairness. Information officers will not perform any of those function s. It will be arbitrators and investigators. We will hire people to investigate. However, those who do the investigation will not be those that can actually apply the penalty. It would be like saying that the police can go investigate, arrest, convict and give you the penalty — right? So there's a separation there.

The separation is that the person.… Obviously, under this act…. The member should know that this is new ground. This has been asked for, for a long time. This is co mpletely new ground with this form of a relationship between a landlord and ten- ant. Just so we're cautious on this, I believe this will be an evolution of a work in progress as we see how this works in the marketplace over a period of the next number of months. It's something that, as we develop the regs, is going to have to be very important. But really, what this

section is about is that it amends a

section of director's responsibility to give that ability…. So it protects. Basically, what it does is it says to the di- rector: "You're prohibited from assigning a person to investigate a complaint and have that same person also make the determination on the fine." The investigator will complete the investigation and bring it back to the arbitrator, who would make the determination. D. Routley: Further to this

section under the direc- tor's power to delegate to contractors, 9.1:

(2) A delegation under subsection (1) (

a) may be cancelled, (

b) does not prevent the director from carrying out the delegated power, duty or function, and (

c) may be subject to the terms or conditions the director considers appropriate. I have a concern, and concern has been expressed to me by others, that this

section will empower the director to

THURSDAY, MAY 18, 2006 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 5027 remove those appointed to arbitrate or adjudicate dis- putes in midstream; and that this, together with bring- ing appointed arbitrators in as employees of the gov- ernment, will further limit their independence and further empower the director to interfere with the ad- judication of tenancy disputes. [K. Whittred in the chair.] Could the minister explain how there will be a protec- tion from interference in the adjudication of disputes? [1100] Hon. R. Coleman: This

section allows a director to delegate certain powers and duties to contractors and specifies the effect of a delegation. We went through, last night, the whole statutory decision-maker discus- sion. They have to act in accordance with the law re- gardless of whether they're appointed or not. This is built into the law. The same discussion applies here — that all decisions, even including those involving Crown properties, are subject to court review. There's a test of reasonableness at the court review site. We do actually have files today that….

If this provi- sion were in place, we might consider hiring a contrac- tor to do an investigation on a larger and more contro- versial, or whatever, file because they would have spe- cific investigative abilities that we might not have in- house. You might hire a former police officer as a pri- vate investigator to go do an investigation on a land- lord in a tenancy dispute. There are some out there today that we can't do that with, because we don't have this provision in the act.

We would like to have the provision so that we could deal with those and then come back to the admin- istrative penalty side of things so that we can get to where frankly, as bluntly as you could put it, if we have a bad operator that is operating badly, we could do an investigation, come back with the evidence and hand it to our director, who could make a determination on fines because somebody is operating badly. Today, if we have that situation…. I remember we had this discussion when we did residential tenancy a few years back.

The debate in the opposition was, and the question always came up: how many times in history have we ever gone to court and fined somebody for breaking the rules as a landlord, particularly in behaviour with their tenant? This actually allows us to go investigate it. They are bound by the same rules, though. The statutory decision-maker can say…. The contract could be short-term and, therefore, be cancelled. If somebody gets sick, they're not able to perform or they're not per- forming, we have the ability to stop it and to have somebody else go on the file.

It really comes down to: we need the ability to say that we can cancel something if (

a) somebody's not operating within the law, the statutory responsibilities that they have; or (

b) they're sick and can't perform the job. Most particularly, just for the member, it's the discussion back to this that is built into the law, and they have to operate within the law. It really is, frankly, interesting enough that we've stopped at this section. I think this is probably the most important

section for residential tenancy in this act — these sections that deal with our ability now to go in- vestigate, bring back the evidence and take it to an ar- bitrator or the director for a determination on a fine and a penalty. Today we can't do that. Today, if we have somebo dy, for instance, that turns off the heat on their tenants, there's a process that is so lengthy into the courts, we can't…. Today, if we could go investigate that, come back with an investigation and hand it to an arbitrator, we could quickly make a deter- mination and protect the tenant way better. [1105] Sections 59 to 61 inclusive approved. On

section 62. D. Routley:

Section 62 again uses the standard of reasonableness. Would the minister consider a stan- dard of unconscionability rather than a standard of reasonableness? Hon. R. Coleman: This already exists in regula- tions, the same as in our previous discussion. Uncon- scionable is when things are grossly unfair to one party or the other. This is actual ly more of a reasonableness test — the building is unsafe, there's been a fire or somebody is selling drugs out of a unit. There needs to be that. It's the same amen dment as we had earlier and that we debated earlier, and it's the same answer.

If the member wants me to walk through the four para- graphs, I could, but frankly, it's the same answer as we discussed earlier. Sections 62 to 69 inclusive approved. On

section 70. K. Conroy:

Section 70. There are some issues with the act that relate to seniors, and this is the first time it comes up where the act links the service agreements to tenancy. The concern with

section 70(

b) is that it looks like, by this act, if a se nior, for whatever reason — through some financial difficulties for a short period of time — reneges on their service agreement, they could actually lose their housing. I just wanted to clarify if this is, in fact, what this act will do. If someone does not pay for their hospital- ity fees, could they be evicted from their housing? [1110] Hon. R. Coleman: It's not as the member describes it. What this does is that it allows for us to create a dis- pute resolution process. Th ere's nothing out there to- day for this, so the concern is your concern, hon. mem- ber.

By regulation we're going to design a dispute reso- lution process so it can't be just immediately zero to 100. It has to have some measurements in it so it's more comprehensive than what exists today.

5028 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MAY 18, 2006 Today this is no protection for the tenant, the resi- dent. If what happens, as the member describes — if they forget a payment or something happens and moves — the contract could just be cancelled in the present system. There's no pr otection for the tenant at all to have a dispute resolution process there, unless it's contained in a contract between the parties. This allows us to design a comprehensive dispute resolution process to deal with those ve ry issues that the member describes. K.

Conroy: What I'm understanding, then, is that the minister is saying this is going to be dealt with in regulations that are going to be determined after this act is passed, and it's going to be clarified in the regula- tions, which still doesn't give comfort to a lot of the seniors that are affected by this. I know the minister has said that he is unwilling to accept any proposed amendments, but we will still continue to suggest some amendments because we think the seniors would like the protections that some of these amendments requ ire. I'm proposing an amendment to

section 70 to delete the entire

section (

b) out of the act. [Section 70 is amended by deleting the text as struck out: 70

Section 47 (1) is amended (

a) by repealing paragraph (h) (

i) and substituting the following: (

i) has failed to comply with a material term of the ten- ancy agreement or of a service agreement, and , and (

b) by adding the following paragraph: (

m) the tenant of an assisted or supported living unit fails to pay the amount due under the applicable service agreement within 30 days after the date it is required to be paid under the service agreement.] G. Hogg: I seek leave to make an introduction. Leave granted. Introductions by Members G. Hogg: We are joined in the Legislature this d a y b y a g r o u p o f s t u d e n t s f r o m W h i t e R o c k E l e - mentary School, my alma mater and the best school in all of British Columbia. They have guaranteed me that, and I know that from personal experience as well. An Hon. Member: En français. G.

Hogg: En français? En français. Ms. Thorvaldson, the teac her, along with a number of parents and 29 students from grade five, was out on the front steps and greeted by the Centennial Secon- dary band, which, I'm assured, was here. I've assured them they are here for just their purposes. I want you to know that they are experts in Jedi k n i g h t s . T h e y w e r e a b l e t o n a m e f o r m e 1 4 o r 1 5 J e d i knights. They have great experience, and that's just one of the things you learn if you attend White Rock Ele- mentary School. Please make them most welcome. Hon. R. Coleman: Bonjour.

Frankly, I'm not an aficionado of anything to do with Star Wars. I couldn't name one Jedi knight. Interjection. Hon. R. Coleman: I assume it's Star Wars. Is it? Some Hon. Members: Yes. Hon. R. Coleman: That's good. I haven't been to- tally living in some kind of cocoon. Although some people do consider this building to be one of those, hon. members. [1115] Debate Continued On the amendment. Hon. R. Coleman: The challenge is this. I want to be clear so that the member understands why I'm not going to accept….

The House has to decide to accept it, but why I'm not going to support the amendment is because this sets down that if the assisted- or supported-living unit fails to pay the amount due under the applicable service agreement within 30 days after the date it is re- quired to pay under the service contract…. So there are 30 days to start with. Today there's no protection, and if we take this pro- tection out to have some administrative process that deals with the dispute here, what would happen if we don't have this

section is there's nothing to stop a land- lord from just cutting off all services. So you have somebody now living there who doesn't get their meal service or housekeeping services and doesn't get the other services because they haven't paid. If there's a dispute, it's better to be able to have somebody give the notice and then put them into a dispute resolution process to take care of both parties. If we don't do that, then what we have is we're setting up a situation where the opposite would occur, be- cause there's no dispute resolution process.

There's no regulation that takes you from an incremental level to be able to deal with the concern and the relationship between the parties. You end up with all or nothing, and I don't think that's of any value. I think what we're trying to do is build a relation- ship here that says, "If there is a failure to pay, the landlord can give the notice under the contract," but then there's a process that they have to go through be- fore they can discontinue se rvices or anything else. I think it's very important that within the act we have the ability to deal with a dispute resolution process to this type of thing.

We're going to work with people out there in the field with regard to designing that because it's of particular concern that we be able to deal with it so we don't get the zero-to-100 effect. The whole intention of this subsection is that there's a 30-day period for failure to pay, then there's a notice that has to be given, and there's a dispute resolution

THURSDAY, MAY 18, 2006 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 5029 process to go through. It's not like a residential tenancy where if you don't pay there is none. This one allows for that, and that's why we'll design the process. Amendment negatived on division.

Section 70 approved. On

section 71. D. Routley: This

section refers to circumstances where a tenant may cease to qualify for a rental unit by virtue of no longer qualifying for a subsidy. This pre- sents several complications and difficulties. Several questions arise: what abou t short-term changes in a person's circumstances, and who will decide that those circumstances actually challenge their qualification for subsidy? How frequent would those changes need to be for this to be enacted, and who would decide?

Around child custody issues, people may have sev- eral children living with th em in a subsidized unit, but in a dispute over custody, that situation could change and change again. So how long would it take for cir- cumstances to be in place where a person could be deemed to not qualify for subsidized housing? [1120] Hon. R. Coleman: Actually, this is an important section. First of all, the amendment allows public housing bodies to end tenancy if the tenant ceases to meet eligi- bility requirements for a subsidized rental unit.

The eligibility requirement for a subsidized rental unit is usually rent-geared to income. If we have somebody living in a unit whose inco me determines that they should actually be living in the marketplace, so that we could give that unit to somebody who can't afford housing, we should have that ability to deal with that. There are some examples of subsidized rental units that are in housing where the rent is based on income — family housing and housing for persons with health care needs, etc.

Many such landlords have policies which would require tenants to vacate or move to a different rental unit if they cease to qualify. This is due to high demand in housing for persons who do qualify. There's no current provision in the act which allows this to occur. Let's say, for instance, you are a person living…. Let's deal with a real-life case of an individual living in a social housing project with three children who has been there for some time and now the two oldest chil- dren have moved out of home. The person is in a four- bedroom unit. The rules really say they should be in a two-bedroom unit, now.

We don't have the ability to say: "You have to move to a two-bedroom unit and vacate the four-bedroom unit for a family with three children who would need the social housing unit." So this allows for that to occur. Public housing bodies are going to be named in the regulation. I think it's important we understand that, because this isn't going to affect people like non-profits and those. It really deals with Crown-delivered-type operations. It will be B.C.

Housing Management Com- mission, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp., city of Vancouver, City of Vancouver Public Housing Corp., the Greater Vancouver Housing Corp., Capital Region Housing Corp. and health authorities. So there's an ability to be flexible. There must be a provision of a tenancy agreement informing the tenant that they may be given notice to end the tenancy if they cease to qualify for a rental unit. If it's not in the tenancy agreement, you can't do it ei- ther way — right? The landlord must give two months notice or nego- tiate another end date with the tenant, so it's not a quick thing.

Another end date could be when another unit comes up on our list that you could qualify for because of the housing mix, or whatever the case may be. If given two months notice, the tenants may leave on an earlier date with no penalty. So the tenant can find alternative housing and leave on their own if they wish, because in some cases they would find that when you reach a certain level of income in many market- places, it's actually cheaper to go to the marketplace than it is to stay where you are because your rent is geared to income.

Fixed-term tenancies cannot be ended early if the tenant ceases to qualify unle ss the landlord and tenant agree. So now, if we have a fixed-term tenancy in one of these projects where somebody has a two-year agreement or whatever, and you have the housing mix change. They can say, "Well, would you agree to move?" and they do it toge ther, that's okay. But they can't be made to move. Notice must be given in accor- dance with the notice provisio ns of the act, and there's also the dispute resolution process available to the ten- ant under all of these circumstances.

There are different tenancies that exist that we need to be able to help people in some circumstances. As our seniors get older within our seniors housing stock, we need the ability to say to th em: "In this particular unit, which is just a straight housing unit, we can't provide you with the care you need. So we can't give you the home care." I n m a n y c a s e s , w e m a y n o t e v e n h a v e b a r s i n t h e t o i l e t s a n d b a t h r o o m s o t h a t y o u c o u l d e v e n m o v e i n and out of a wheelchair.

In some cases we'll modify the unit, and in other cases, because there are services that they need, medical services, whatever, we will look within the housing stock of Health for a place for them to move to out of the apartment-type situation. [1125] Those are the type of dy namics that exist in a dy- namic housing stock. There are 40,000, 50,000 units of social housing stock in B.C. that is there to benefit the people who need it the most and provide the services for those folks who can live independently, in some cases.

The whole idea here is to have the ability to say to someone that is overhous ed in one place, "We'll put you in housing that works," because you now have a housing mix change. I've seen that happen over the years within the housing stock of projects that I was involved in, where

5030 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MAY 18, 2006 there was a change in the housing mix and people did move into smaller two-bedrooms. But I've also seen the opposite, where somebody says, "I'm not moving," so now you have two people living in a four-bedroom townhouse. Then you're saying to somebody who has three or four children, "We don't have a unit for you because we'd be overhousing you in a two-bedroom," and they'll say: "Well, I've got four children. What am I going to do with a two-bedroom unit?" But you have somebody over there in a four-bedroom with one child.

There has to be that ability within the stock to make these adjustments. D. Routley: In an effort to cooperate and compress this into the time allotted, I've squished two or three questions together, especially in the last exchange. I think it's difficult to petiti on these issues adequately without ample time. In the interests of continued coop- eration, I will continue to compress my questions, but not without noting that it's difficult to give adequate canvass to the issues that people want to hear. In that spirit I will combine the remaining questions on this

section and acknowledge that I support what the minister has just said about the flexibility and being able to have appropriate accommodation for people in social housing. The concern I do have is around those circum- stances that the minister himself described, where a fam- ily's circumstances change, the number of children changes, but then the family still does qualify for some form of assisted or subsidized housing.

In an effort to accommodate the flexibility neces- sary to the housing management staff and in order to also protect the interests of those people who still qualify but find themselves in housing that's inap- propriate, I would offer the following amendment to this section: [71 The following

section is added: Landlord's notice: tenant ceases to qualify for rental unit 49.1

(1) In this section: "public housing body" means a prescribed person or or- ganization; "subsidized rental unit" means a rental unit that is (

a) operated by a public housing body, or on behalf of a public housing body, and (

b) occupied by a tenant who was required to demon- strate that the tenant, or another proposed occupant, met eligibility criteria related to income, number of occu- pants, health or other similar criteria before entering into the tenancy agreement in relation to the rental unit.

(2) Subject to

section 50 [tenant may end tenancy early] and if provided for in the tenancy agreement, a landlord may end the tenancy of a subsidized rental unit by giving no- tice to end the tenancy if the tenant or other occupant, as applicable, ceases to qualify for the rental unit.

(3) If the tenant ceases to qualify for the unit according to its appropriateness but continues to qualify for subsi- dized housing in a different form, the tenancy can be ended only when a suitable replacement unit is pro- vided.

(4) If a tenant's circumstances change only temporarily, only the subsidizing body can, and only after all appeals of that decision are extinguished, direct that the tenant no longer qualifies.

(5) Unless the tenant agrees in writing to an earlier date, a notice under this

section must end the tenancy on a date that is (

a) not earlier than 2 months after the date the notice is received, (

b) the day before the day in the month, or in the other period on which the tenancy is based, that rent is payable under the tenancy agreement, and (

c) if the tenancy agreement is a fixed term tenancy agreement, not earlier than the date specified as the end of the tenancy.

(6) A notice under this

section must comply with

section 52.

(7) A tenant may dispute a notice under this

section by making an application for dispute resolution within 15 days after the date the tenant receives the notice.

(8) If a tenant who has received a notice under this sec- tion does not make an application for dispute resolution in accordance with subsection (5), the tenant (

a) is conclusively presumed to have accepted that the tenancy ends on the effective date of the notice, and (

b) must vacate the rental unit by that date.] On the amendment. Hon. R. Coleman: We won't be supporting the amendment. We believe that we cover that in this and will cover it in regulation ad equately in the description I already gave to the House. Amendment negatived on division. Sections 71 to 76 inclusive approved. On

section 77. [1130] D. Routley: In this

section there's reference to ten- ants who become a risk to themselves and a risk to others. Who would be deciding that risk, both to the tenant and others? What standard would be applied in determining that risk? Interjection. The Chair: I'm sorry. We are on

section

Section 77 approved. On

section 78. D. Routley: In the interest of speeding things up, should I say: "As I said before"? This is indeed the clause that discusses tenants' risk to themselves and others. Again, I would ask: what standard will be applied to determine that risk, and who will determine risk? Hon. R. Coleman: This is actually an important

section for those in assisted living. The director will be the one that will determine by statutory authority, de- termined by regulation. The definition of that will be put into regulation, and he will be bound by that.

THURSDAY, MAY 18, 2006 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 5031 This is an important

section because as members know, there are circumstan ces where someone's own health — be it dementia or schizophrenia — would change their ability to be safely housed in a unit. The director could work with the health authorities to relo- cate someone. It's like a double-edged sword, because none of these are long-term contracts. We want the ability to end the tenancy and not, down the road, have an ongo- ing financial burden to th e person whose tenancy is moved on to a different level of health care because of something they have no control over. There are two aspects here.

One is that we don't want someone forced to stay in a tenancy where they're at risk to their own health or in a tenancy where they are at risk to others. We want the ability to end that tenancy so that parties are protected both financially and personally as a result. K. Conroy: Just two questions in relation to that, and I'll combine them. What kind of qualifications will the director have? Will he or she have the kind of quali- fications that could determin e appropriately the health needs of an individual? Hon. R.

Coleman: The one thing I've learned in legislation is that when a person is given a particular authority of director, the rest of the act flows from there. In this particular case the director has the statu- tory authority, which earlier when we discussed how you could contract for different services, investigative, arbitration — that sort of thing…. We have an agreement with the Ministry of Health to work with us on assessments with regards to these, and they would be making recommendations back to the director.

In addition to that, they are also going to help us with the actual crafting of the regulations and details as to what would determine that. It's a body of work that, once you get the act done — before we actually put the act into place — we'll get done with Health in consultation with them. If it's a complex case, the director could hire a doctor or some- o n e t h a t ' s a n e x p e r t t o g i v e t h e m a n o p i n i o n w i t h r e - gard to a specific case, because they are able to delegate their authority. [1135] K.

Conroy: It doesn't say anywhere in this act any- thing about what the minister has just said, so I'm tak- ing it, then, as his guarantee today that this will be de- fined in the regulations and that it will be done with consultation from the health authorities. I would ask what other groups would be involved in the consultation. It's my understanding from talking to many groups that were involved way back when, in 1999 and 2003, and I have not been involved since and, in fact, didn't get a draft copy of this until last week….

They have some real concerns about a number of the issues in this act as it relates to seniors. I'm asking for a commitment today that the various groups…. I understand that the minister has already received a letter from them, detailing a number of their concerns. Will they, in fact, also be involved in the con- sultations defining the regulations of this act? Hon. R. Coleman: Yes, they will be, and that is a commitment.

I want to put in the record, from the public guard- ian and trustee of British Columbia with regards to this, just so we know that the consultations that did take place some time back have actually been taken into consideration as we've tried to develop this par- ticular piece of legislation: I am writing in support of your ministry's initiative to bring in legislation to apply the Residential Tenancy Act to assisted-living residences. My office raised concerns some years ago about pos- sible abuses of power arising from unconscionable provi- sions in assisted-living residents' contracts.

That's why, when we were talking about contracts ear- lier, I said what can happen within a contract if we don't protect by regulation within our abilities. Even when we were talking about the payment of the rent and having the process, the contracts then take over, and people can get hurt by that. We have worked with staff previously at the Solicitor General and now at Housing to promote the need for additional protection. We have been consulted in the de- velopment of the draft legislation. I am aware that this work is now about to come to fruition.

I also support your minist ry's plan to develop and promote a model tenancy agreement for assisted living, consistent with the act. That's a commitment we've made, and that draft ten- ancy agreement will be done through consultation. This should maximize compliance with the act and minimize the need to rely on the provisions of the act in- validating unconscionable contractual terms. While I appreciate that this may be an issue that has garnered much public attention, it is important for those persons who are residents of assisted-living residences. Thank you for taking these steps to address the problem.

That's the public guardian and trustee signing it. To the member: we will do that process before regulations are put in place. K. Conroy: I just want to clarify, then, that groups that have expressed a concern — like the Alzheimer Society of B.C.; B.C. Coalition to Eliminate Abuse of Seniors; B.C.

Non-Profit Ho using Association; the Cen- tre for Elder Law Studies; the Seniors Services Society; the Tenants Rights Action Coalition; WE*ACT, Women Elders in Action; as well as the assisted-living regis- trar's advisory committee — are all groups that will be included in this consultation process to define the regu- lations of this act. Hon. R. Coleman: That's correct. D. Routley: Another provision of this

section sur- rounds the landlord's inabili ty to meet the tenant's needs as reasons or grounds for ending a tenancy. It has been brought to my attention by others concerned with the issues, some of th em listed in the previous

5032 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MAY 18, 2006 exchange, that this clause co uld act as a disincentive to landlords to improve their se rvices and could act as a disincentive to landlords to maintain facilities. Will there be provisions in the re gulations to protect against this acting as disincentive to landlords? [1140] R. Fleming: I seek leave to make an introduction. Leave granted. Introductions by Members R. Fleming: I want to bring the House's attention to some teachers joined by their students today: Peggy Baudon, Jen Walinga and the grade seven students from St.

Michaels University middle school, which is in my constituency. This is Steve Nash's alumni, and I know, undoubtedly, there are some future athletes in the group that's joining us today, some future scien- tists, writers and — who knows? — maybe even some future politicians. Would the House please make the students feel welcome. Debate Continued Hon. R. Coleman: P o l i t i c i a n w o u l d n ' t b e t h e p a r - ticular career I would advise you to follow. First of all, within this act we have all the investiga- tive things, the administrative penalties we discussed earlier, that protect against this.

I do get concerned when the member keeps brin ging up that there's a whole bunch of evil people out there that are running these places that are going to do things to their tenants and not improve their facilities. That's what's intimated by the comment the member just made. This is really…. Within co ntracting of the services, if they're not provided, there are all kinds of provisions for investigation, arbitration, complaints, all those issues. But if someone is living in assisted living, it's assisted living, so it's got things like….

Care service is limited to a very minimal level because they're not long-term care facilities. They are not hospitals. There's food, and there are those types of services. But what provision is there to protect both parties if somebody's health deteriorates to the level that they can't live there? The services are not able to be provided, whether that's 24-hour nurse care, or whether it's an aspect of doctor's care, or whether they 're really required to be on intravenous for some re ason, or they have devel- oped Alzheimer's and can no longer be in an open fa- cility.

They need to be in a facility so they can't, you know, as Alzheimer's patients have a tendency to do, move off premises and find themselves in some very difficult situations. So that's what this

section is about. For the things the member describes, where there's no incentive for a landlord to provide the services, the services they're providing are food, linen and those sorts of things. Well, those are in the contract, and if he or she is going to do that, as a landlord, then they can expect that there's going to be an investigation, and they can expect they'll be in front of an arbitrator who now has the ability to fine them up to $5,000 a day. So they can expect to know that they'd better be disci- plined in their operation.

The critical part of this body of work on the assisted- living side is that there's nothing out there today to protect those people whatsoever. It's been the complaint and con- cern for years, and nobody seemed to want to grab on to this body of work and see if they could make it work, either within the Residential Tenancy Act or some other act. We decided to grab on to this body of work last fall because there had been that out there when we con- solidated housing, and we said: "Look.

Let's see if we can do this." That's why you're going to have a lot of work in consultation and regulation, a lot of work with health care professionals and a lot of work with the Ministry of Health as we come through this. As we do that, we want to ensure that the services that are there for people are what they've contracted for and that they get them. If they don't, then they have to have the ability to get some immediate results. Under contract stuff, with the way it is today, they could go to the courts, and they could be tied up in a long process.

Who wants to put an elderly person through a long process like that? But this way we can do something about it. It's just like in the rest of it. One of the biggest frustrations I've had as a minister and as a critic was how the act, this act in particular…. It took some work to find out how we could get there — how we could get it so that we could wake these people up out there that they are responsible to the law. The challenge has been th at there's always this court process we could put them into. Well, you know what our courts are like.

Th ey're busy dealing with a whole number of things, so they're always putting the court process…. You never focus their mind because you think they can always just drag it out, avoid it, whatever the case may be. Now it's clear. We investigate you. You're not pro- viding the services. You're going find yourself in front of an arbitrator when we provide a report, and we have the ability to fine you. For the first time, that protection is in residential tenancy at all levels. [1145] I'm very pleased about that, because I can tell you that there are some operator s out there in British Co- lumbia….

There are not a lot. There are a lot of very, very good landlords in B.C. who run very large portfo- lios for their tenants and who you never see come across your desk. They operate thousands of units, and you never see a complaint about the particular com- pany or individual. But th ere are some, a few, that need to wake up to their resp onsibility to their tenants, whether it be in assisted living or in manufactured home parks or in apartments.

They're going to find themselves focusing their minds in a hurry when somebody starts to levy significant fines on them and they start to find out they can no longer operate out- side what we think is the responsible way to have that relationship.

THURSDAY, MAY 18, 2006 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 5033 I think that's very critical in this act. As we go through it in this particular section, this section's geared to those folks. What the member describes as services being withdrawn, those are in a contract. They're in a tenancy agreement, and frankly, we're going to go after them from the other aspect. D. Routley: I'm going to end my comments and questions on this bill. My colleague will continue with the other sections of the bill, but I can't resist responding to the last comments the minister made.

On the one hand, the minister is upset that I would insinuate there are a whole bunch of people out there who are bad land- lords. I don't think I did that. I think what we have done here, and what the minister is attempting to do, is create a legislative framework that addresses those situations where people don't play by the rules and where people don't get along and play nicely with each other — if you'll forgive the impertinence in that phrasing.

Our job, I believe, as critics is not to attack the gov- ernment's motives but to en courage the government to improve its legislation and to offer suggestions wher- ever we think that might be possible. That's what I've attempted to do here, and I'm sure that's what my col- league will continue to do. When I point to possibilities for exploitation, coer- cion or any other concern, it isn't a general characteri- zation of landlords or of tenants.

It's an acknowledge- ment that these measures are created by this Legisla- ture to accommodate those circumstances where peo- ple are not respectful of each other's rights. I'll thank the Chair for her indulgence, and I'll thank the minister for his responses and carry on. Hon. R. Coleman: Fair comment to the member. I guess on my side, sometimes you have to get passionate about what you believe you're really trying to protect. In my case, having been around residential tenancy way too long, in two ministries, there are some changes that I be- lieve are fundamentally important to changing the dy- namic out there.

I believe that these are what they are. Sections 78 and 79 approved. On

section 80. K. Conroy:

Section 80 is quite a big portion. We're going to slog through it, and I'll try to do it as quickly as we can. I don't think anybody in the province disagrees with you on the need for

an act that protects people. I think what's of concern to people in the province, espe- cially the seniors groups and people involved with assisted living, is how this bill is being put through. If it was being worked on since last fall, it would have been great for the different people who have real con- cerns about this to have been consulted a little more in depth so that they could have provided their concerns and issues prior to the bill being put onto paper and legislated in this House. I'm going to go right to

section 57.2 around the service agreements in relation to assisted-living or supported-living units. Will these agreements be a uni- form agreement? Will they be the same agreement used across the province? Will it be something that's legis- lated? Will it be brought forward in the regulations, or will they be different agreements — every landlord will come up with their own agreement? [1150] Hon. R. Coleman: We're going to develop a basic standard-form agreement. From there, though, as they can in residential tenancy, there can be other things added.

For instance, under residential tenancy today there can be an agreement for pets between a landlord and tenant. That can be added to a tenancy agreement, but there has to be an agreement that will have to take the basics of our fun- damental agreement, and then from there will be…. In addition to that tenancy agreement, landlord and tenants must have an additional agreement under this act for hospitality and personal care services. So the tenancy agreement will be there. That governs everything from the basics of what a normal tenancy agreement would.

Then they have to have another agreement, and the service agreement must contain a description of the ser- vices provided to each occupant; the amount payable for each service for each occupant; when the amount payable is due; details of the landlord's entry into the unit to pro- vide the services; whether an occupant is required to pay for the services that they do not use, because in some cases they have situations where it's two meals a day but if you only take one meal a day, you pay less, and so that has to be determined; terms of the use of guest suites, because there are guest suites in some of these facilities, and those terms would be in there; and any additional terms that the landlord and tenant agree to — and that's where it would go outside the basic form agreement.

So we're going to define the basic description of services and how those will have to be dealt with. Then there can be additional terms with regards to addi- tional care, other things that the two parties can agree to in a contract, because it's the same thing with resi- dential tenancies. One size doesn't always fit all, de- pending on building and circumstances. These agreed terms may be amended with the agreement in writing of the landlord and tenant, like they can in a residential tenancy. They can be amended to increase services — whatever the case as the thing evolves.

A landlord must state other uses of the prop- erty and the rental unit with this requirement: tenants will know whether persons other than assisted- or supported-living tenants have access to the property.

That's something that came through some of the g r o u p s t h a t w e r e i n a s s i s t e d l i v i n g , s a y i n g : " I w a n t t o know whether I, or the facility I'm in, have any protec- tion if they're adding other types of care or other types of issues that may threaten my own personal safety." Those provisions will all be developed in regulation under the same consultative process with the Ministry of Health that we talked about earlier. I don't know if I've answered the member's question, but there will be

5034 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MAY 18, 2006 a basic-form tenancy agreem ent, then certain things that have to be included as far as description, and then there can also be addendums added for additional ser- vices. K. Conroy: You answered some of it. Some con- cerns have been expressed ab out the fact that they are two separate agreements. There's the tenancy agree- ment, and then there's the service agreement.

Service plans can be very fluid because health needs change fairly frequently and it ca n be a rather an onerous process for seniors to be signing off on the changes with a great deal of frequency with some of them. Some of the questions were: is there going to be a process in place for that that can streamline it? Many sen- iors are very active and very able in these facilities; some aren't. Some don't have advocates, don't have support, and it could be seen as a difficult process for the seniors. Hon. R. Coleman: Well, I agree with the member to a point.

Some of these changes can be as easy as initial- ling something off. The best we can do is come up with a tenancy agreement that protects the basics of the opera- tion under law. A service agreement that we will con- sider to be part of the tenancy agreement has to have what I described in there, wh ich is a description of the services, the amount payable for them, when it's due and the details of the entry on the unit — all of those things. Both sides of this equation want flexibility — both landlord and tenant, as the member has correctly stated.

In some cases the tenant ma y be represented by family who will want to deal with additional services. In some cases it could be the individual who says: "I'd actually like another meal a day. What's that going to cost me? It's not in my original contract, so can I add it?" [1155] That flexibility needs to be there, but the basic de- scriptions of those things are going to be boilerplate. They're going to have to meet a standard, frankly, so that everybody is starting from a level playing field here.

As they add the options that somebody else may want — because within some of these facilities they have opportunities for all kinds of different options, even so- cial clubs in some cases — those things have to be a separate personal choice, which will be as an addendum. That's where the flexibility comes. We're going to de- scribe, just like we did in residential tenancy: "Here's the basic agreement, and here are the basic things you have to describe, which have to be within the agreement. Then outside the agreement, you can add other things." K. Conroy: A quick one.

Is there going to be any- where in the act where the minister is going to have any kind of determination of how much can be charged in those kinds of fees? In a lot of facilities ther e's a 70-percent charge, and that includes everything — 70 percent of a person's income. Is there going to be anywhere in the act or the regulations where there's going to be a maximum per- centage of a person's income that can be charged for these services, including their tenancy? Hon. R. Coleman: I don't want to blur the lines. Those are the subsidized projects that have 70 percent — the ones that are run by Housing and Health.

The marketplace can set its own rates as far as what it does under contracts. They can set an agreement in a private facility with somebody who comes into an agreement on what they're charging. Bu t we try to have that 70- percent formula that we apply, and we continue to apply it. K. Conroy: On

section 80, there are quite a few more, but I'm just…. Can I keep going? We can come back after. We'll have time. The House Leaders have given us…. There's just a few left on

section 80. Hon. R. Coleman: I would move the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again. Motion approved. The Chair: We are on

section 80 when we return. The committee rose at 11:58 a.m. The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair. Committee of the Whole (Section B), having re- ported progress, was granted leave to sit again. Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again. Hon. C. Richmond moved adjournment of the House. Motion approved. Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until two o'clock this afternoon. The House adjourned at 12 noon.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM Committee of Supply ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND SOLICITOR GENERAL (continued) The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); D. Hayer in the chair. The committee met at 10:08 a.m. On Vote 37: ministry operations, $523,967,000 (con- tinued).

THURSDAY, MAY 18, 2006 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 5035 J. Brar: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you once again to all the staff members who are part of the min- istry. The other day we were talking about the regional Indo-Canadian gang task force, which was disbanded in 2004. Then a new task force came into existence, which is known as the B.C. Integrated Gang Task Force. I would like to ask a few questions about that. My first question will be…. The one task force was disbanded. The other task force came up right away. Can the minister tell us what the reasons were to bring in the new task force? Hon. J.

Les: As I think the member is aware, the original task force was ad hoc in nature, but it was spe- cifically targeted at a certain perceived problem and it's fair to say had some considerable success in terms of attacking that specific problem that had been identi- fied. When those results were achieved, of course that task force was then disbanded, because they had achieved the objectives they set out to accomplish. [1010] However, very quickly it became evident that an ongoing task force would be a good thing to achieve, so the police came to us and said: "Here's the business case.

Here are the results that we think we can achieve i f w e h a v e a d e d i c a t e d g a n g t a s k f o r c e . " W e a g r e e d , and the funding was supplied, and of course, as the member knows, that task force is now in place. J. Brar: I appreciate the response, but at the same time I did hear that last time we were here and today as well — that the previous task force was an ad hoc task force and there were some established targets to achieve. What I don't know is, at this point in time…. Can the minister specifically provide what those tar- gets were and what was achieved. Hon. J.

Les: In terms of the targets, perhaps it's best for me to describe what, in fact, they set out to do in terms of the achievements of the task force. There were a total of 22 charges that were laid as a result of the work of the task force. Four of those resulted in first- degree murder convictions. There are five kidnapping charges, three aggravated a ssault charges, one charge of uttering threats, three charges of possession of fire- arms dangerous to the publ ic, three charges of unlaw- ful confinement and three charges of conspiracy to commit arson. J.

Brar: The other day the number mentioned was seven charges, and today it's 2 3 . I w o u l d l i k e t o s e e k some clarification on that. Also, what was the clearance rate of the 23 charges? Hon. J. Les: I want the member to be clear that what I just illustrated to the member was the various charges that were levied or laid, and how many of each of those. That doesn't ne cessarily correspond to the number of people. I outlined 22 charges. Th at doesn't mean that we had 22 people — 22 different individuals — charged.

A lot of those charges overlapped, and there were other charges that were recommended to Crown that did not meet the charge approval pr ocess and are still actually under active investigation. J. Brar: Part of my question was the clearance rate on those charges — if you can provide it. [1015] Hon. J. Les: Unfortunately, I can't give the member opposite a clearance rate at this point because, as the member is aware, the majority of these charges are still actively being prosecuted through the courts. Until that is complete we will not be able to come up with a clearance rate number for purposes of this discussion.

J. Brar: To the minister: with the new task force, is there any stand-alone office? You don't need to tell me the location. I just want to know if there is any stand- alone office or not. Hon. J. Les: Yes, there is. J. Brar: Once again to the minister: how many files of unsolved homicides linked to the Indo-Canadian gang violence are being maintained by the new task force? Hon. J. Les: I think we need to understand clearly, when we're talking about the gang task force, that their focus is actually gang acti vity. It's not necessarily homicides. It could be kidnapping; it could be money laundering.

There are many activities that gangs en- gage in, and all of those activities would be the focus of the gang task force. When a homicide occurs, it isn't necessarily the case that the file would reside with the gang task force. It may well reside with the Vancouver police department, the Delta police force or the Surrey detachment of the RCMP. The role of the gang task force is general in nature, and its focus is gang activity. J. Brar: I do understand that the task force goes beyond the homicide investigations.

I do understand that it involves kidnapping and all the other kinds of organized crime activities, but my question was simple. Is there any file related to homicide investigations which has been or is being maintained by the new task force or not? Hon. J. Les: First of all, Mr. Chair, let me be clear. The member has asked me two different questions in these last two questions, and I will say this as well: I have no intention of commenting on ongoing investiga- tions and on exactly how po lice are carrying on those investigations. I don't think that's appropriate — cer- tainly not in this forum. J.

Brar: It's just a bit surprising to me that the re- sponse from the minister…. I'm not asking what steps

5036 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MAY 18, 2006 the police are taking for the investigations. I'm asking a very simple question: how ma ny homicide-related files were handed over to the new task force? How many files at this point in time are maintained with that force, if there's any number? If th ere's no number, I can take it that there's no number. I'm just asking the number. It could be ten; it could be five; it could be 15. I'm not asking about the investigation process at all. [1020] Hon. J.

Les: W e d o n o t k n o w p r e c i s e l y h o w m a n y files the gang task force has actively under its purview at any given time. Its mandate, obviously, has to do with assisting all the various constituent police forces across the lower mainland in various investigations — again, as I said, with a specific focus on gang criminal activity. I'm not sure what I can add to that for the member. I think this is a great inno vation in terms of target- ing a specific crime-reduction challenge that we have in the lower mainland in particular.

But as I said earlier, we need to understand that the original police detach- ments and police departments still have responsibilities as well. If there's a gang-related homicide that occurs in Vancouver, for example, th e Vancouver police depart- ment will be fully involved, but so will the gang task force, so that it can learn as much as it can from those kinds of events, because as the member, I'm sure, is aware, municipal boundaries are of no consequence at all to those who wish to carry on criminal activity. J.

Brar: During the last about ten years, and the minister knows about it, over 100 Indo-Canadian young men have been killed through these gang vio- lence activities. I would like to know what percentage of those files are being taken care of — are being inves- tigated, to use a more specific word — at this point in time by the new gang task force. Out of 100, is that 20, ten, 50? Is there any number out of that? Hon. J. Les: Maybe I'll put it this way.

Of those ap- proximately 100 cases that the member has talked about, the member can be sure of this: the gang task force is involved in any of those cases that appear to have any aspect that's associated with them relating to gang activity. Their mandate is exactly that. Any crimi- nal event in the lower mainland that involves or ap- pears to involve gang-related activity will involve the gang task force. Assisting the local departments and detachments — again, this is one of our integration strategies, if you will.

The gang task force is very much another one of those integration initiatives we've undertaken to en- sure that as we cross various jurisdictional boundaries, we have a method to make sure that our policing re- sources are integrated to the greatest degree possible. It's another one of the aspects of the gang task force that I think is very important. J. Brar: So we don't know the numbers. That's the final bottom line of all the questions I've been asking. There's no exact number we can know at this point in time as far as the new B.C. Integrated Gang Task Force is concerned.

We don't know at this point in time — at least, I don't know; I didn't get that information — how many files are being maintained by the B.C. Integrated Gang Task Force, how many files are under active in- vestigation under the B.C. integrated task force. [1025] We don't know what the clearance rate is of those cases being investigated at this point in time. I would like to know from the minister that, if the minister doesn't know all that, how he is going to measure the performance of the task force. Are there any estab- lished measurements? Hon. J.

Les: It would be helpful, I think, if we had a more productive line of questioning. I can, I'm sure, have a count done at the offices of the gang task force and at the various police de tachments, and count with a very high degree of accuracy how many files they happen to have ongoing at any particular point in time. I'm not sure that that would really help us to under- stand the success of the police efforts across the lower mainland in this case. We talked about the clearance rate.

I explained, I thought, fairly clearly for the member that until these cases are disposed of through the courts, it is impossible for us to actually determine what a clearance rate is or what the clearance rate is going to be. I thought that was relatively easy to understand, and I'm surprised, frankly, that the member now takes exception that I was not able to come up with the clearance rate. Well, if he's clairvoy- ant, perhaps he's got an advantage over all of the rest of us in this room. But I am not clairvoyant. I am not able to predict what the clearance rate will be in the future.

Many of th ese cases are still actively making their way through th e courts, and I hope that our clearance rate is eventually 100 percent. That would be, I think, a good thing. So I can get into the nitty-gritty of how many ca rs the task force has and how many files it has and ho w many of this and that and the colours of their desks and all those kinds of things. I'm not sure that that's particularly productive. What I can assure the member of is that we have a highly integrated form of policing here, as represented by the task force.

Every ev ent that involves criminal activity, whether it's orches trated by individuals or whether it's orchestrated by gang activity, is an active file in a police force somewhere — whether it's in the city of Vancouver, the city of Burnaby, Surrey, Delta, Abbotsford. Wherever those events occur, there will be a file on it somewhere. We have given the police, I think, tremendous addi- tional resources, and we have also ensured that we have a far greater integration of those resources than we've ever had in the past.

I feel confident in saying that wherever criminal activity has occurred, the police are on it, and they are on it with greater resources than we've ever been able to deliver in the past. C. Wyse: If my ears were attuned, I believe I heard in the response a question ing of the validity and the

THURSDAY, MAY 18, 2006 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 5037 worthiness of the questions that have been raised by my colleague over here. Chair, I would ask of you for some type of a ruling upon whether that is an appropriate response to ques- tions that are being asked here. The Chair: I will remind all members to temper their comments. J. Brar: The questions are…. I asked in the past. I didn't get a straight answer. Now, I will phrase my question differently. The chief of the task forc e, during the provincial Congress on Public Safety — and the hon. minister was present at that congress — made these comments.

The comments were that the task force at this point in time is investigating a disproportionate number of homicide cases. Now that was one comment. The second com- ment was that the clearance rate is significantly low as compared to other cases, which is close to 29 percent. Does the minister agree with that or not? [1030] Hon. J. Les: We're having difficulty understanding what the question is. J. Brar: My question is…. The chief of the B.C. inte- grated task force made a pres entation at the provincial Congress on Public Safety. The hon. minister was pre- sent at that congress.

The comment was that the B.C. integrated task force is investigating a disproportional number of files, which means they're not looking into investigating all the files, but certain files. That was one, and the second comment was that the clearance rate on the files they have in the task force was significantly lower than the other cases in other jurisdictions, which is 29 percent. I want to ask the minister if he knows about that or not. Hon. J. Les: First of all, I think it would be unfair to whoever was the speaker at the Congress on Public Safety to try to put them into some kind of context here.

None of us have those transcripts or documents. More generally, let's look at this in context, which I think is important as well. At the time of the congress, the gang task force had been in operation for about six months. Clearly, they were still very much in the mode of pulling the operation together. There may well have been a remark by the chief of the task force that clear- ance rates were low, but the member also needs to ac- knowledge that referring to a clearance rate is a pretty subjective thing. There are many ways that a file can be cleared.

It doesn't necessarily mean that there is a con- viction, that a 100-percent clearance rate would mean 100-percent convictions. That's not at all the case. Again, I think it's also important to understand that the task force per se doesn't have those files in any event. Those files reside with the various detachments. The task force's role is to collect and analyze criminal intelligence and thereby pull all of that together and assist other detachments and forces to bring criminals to justice. [1035] J. Brar: How do you measure the performance of the task force? What are the benchmarks? Hon. J.

Les: I think it's quite obvious what we're looking for in terms of results from the gang task force. We clearly have had, I think, an unacceptably high level of gang-related activity in B.C. and in the lower mainland. I think we can all agree with that. Quite simply, what we hope to achieve with the establishment of the gang task force is a significant reduction of gang-related criminal activity in the months and years ahead. I have some optimism that we will accomplish that.

We are going to be reviewing annual reports that will be generated by the task force in terms of the amount of police intelligence they have been able to assemble and how that has related to, hopefully successful, police investigations — charges laid and convictions obtained. Clearly, we are looking for those kinds of indicators: reduction in crime, charges laid, convictions obtained. I think those are pretty straightforward. You know, in terms of crime reduction, the more the merrier. J. Brar: As per the Vancouver Sun

article dated Sep- tember 10, 2004, it was stated that the RCMP had de- veloped a hit list of 20 most dangerous crime bosses. It further points out that perhaps the most interesting thing about the RCMP top-20 list, however, is the group that did not make the cut is Indo-Canadian gangs. My question to the mi nister is: can the minister explain how, on the one hand, we have a stand-alone task force to deal with Indo-Canadian gang violence, and on the other hand, none of the gang leaders were part of the top 20 most dangerous crime bosses? [1040] Hon. J. Les: I believe the member was referring to a newspaper

article of September 2004. That would have been drawn from a national police RCMP report which featured 20, I believe, of the most infamous folks na- tionally, who they described as the most dangerous gang-related criminals. However, that does not neces- sarily have any direct relevance or primary relevance to what our challenges are in British Columbia. Clearly, in British Columbia gang-related violence, especially as it involves the Indo-Canadian community, has been a very prevalent concern, and that is why we in this province have reacted as we've done. J.

Brar: I have heard the mini ster stating time and again, including in question period, about the record of the Liberal government in a dding more police officers, a new helicopter, integration of police services to im- prove efficiencies of police officers. But the minister has failed to provide one specific on the successful outcome of these new initiatives. I don't know whether that is intentional or unintentional, so my question to the min-

5038 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T HURSDAY, MAY 18, 2006 ister will be: will the minister agree that these new ini- tiatives haven't, in fact, at this point in time reduced crime in the province? Hon. J. Les: Frankly, I'm astounded that the mem- ber doesn't recognize that we are seeing some very good results from the appr oach to policing and the resources for policing that we've made available. I'll perhaps quote two recent examples. When Mr.

McMynn was recently kidnapped in the city of Van- couver and recovered, I think, almost a week later, anyone who was at all involved with that investigation readily admitted that the degree of police integration around that case was absolutely vital in terms of solv- ing it. A more recent one, as a matter of fact: very early this morning the little girl up in Armstrong who was very fortunately recovered by the police alive and well — that was the direct result of very highly integrated police work as well.

I don't want to go too much further into the details around that right now, but I can assure the member that it is highly integrated police work that makes those kinds of results possible. I know that until we've got crime licked and we have 100-percent solve rates, there's always more work to do. [1045] Le

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	H0518am-06
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	H0518am 06
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	0665cf747b004f7566faba195babdb8986ab3c6f

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).