1974 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 1974

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

4913 ]

CONTENTS

Statement

Tentative settlement of B.C. Ferries dispute. Hon.

Mr. Hall — 4913

Routine proceedings

Oral Questions

Tenders on MVB comic book. Hon. Mr. Strachan

replies — 4913

Bad Grammar in comic book. Mr. Wallace — 4913

Fraud alleged in BCR project. Mr. Gardom — 4914

Environment damage due to BCR construction. Mr. D.A.

Anderson — 4914

Government plans and taxes for Reid site. Mr. Morrison — 4914

Increase in ICBC claim costs. Mr. Curtis — 4915

Lighter moments at community resources boards meetings. Mr. McClelland —

Priorities for establishing community resource boards. Mr. McClelland —

Tabling of Kelly report. Mr. Gibson — 4916

Abuse of land-use contracts by municipalities. Mr. Wallace — 4916

Statute Law Amendment Act, 1974 (No. 2) (Bill 178).

Committee stage.

section 1.

Mr. Gardom — 4916

Mr. Smith — 4918

Amendment to

section 1.

Mr. Smith — 4919

Mr. Chairman rules out of order — 4920

Mr. Smith — 4920

Mr. Chairman — 4920

Division on Mr. Chairman's ruling — 4921

section 1.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4921

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 4922

Mr. Gardom — 4923

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 4924

Mr. Gardom — 4924

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 4924

Mr. Gardom — 4925

Mr. Wallace — 4926

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 4927

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

169).

Committee stage.

section 1.

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 4927

section 4.

Mr. Gibson — 4928

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 4928

section 10.

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 4928

Mr. Gibson — 4928

Division on amendment to

section 10 — 4929

Mr. Gibson — 4929

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 4929

Mr. Gibson — 4929

Mr. Wallace — 4930

Division on Mr. Chairman's ruling — 4930

Mr. Gibson — 4931

Mr. Wallace — 4931

Division on Mr. Chairman's ruling — 4932

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4933

Division on amendment to

section 10 — 4932

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4933

Mr. Wallace — 4933

Division on amendment to

section 10 — 4934

Mr. Gibson — 4934

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 4934

Mr. Wallace — 4934

Mr. Gibson — 4935

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 4936

Mr. Gibson — 4936

Mr. L.A. Williams — 4937

Mr. Gibson — 4938

Mr. L.A. Williams — 4938

Division on amendment to

section 10 — 4938

Division on

section 10 — 4939

Division on third reading — 4939

Timber Products Stabilization Act (Bill 171). Hon. R.A.

Williams.

Introduction of amendments — 4940

Appendix — 4941

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 1974

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Mr. D.A. Anderson (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, as you

know, there is a model parliament at the University of Victoria

every year. It gives me great pleasure to introduce to the

House today three members of the cabinet of the government of

that model parliament who are in the gallery: David McPhee,

Susan Hutchison and Pamela McDonald, all of the University of

Victoria.

I'd add, Mr. Speaker, for your edification that they won 46

per cent of the vote at the University of Victoria, for better

than the Liberals are capable of doing elsewhere in the

province. (Laughter.) It's tremendously encouraging to

introduce a Liberal premier to the Legislature.

Mr. H.D. Dent (Skeena): I would ask the House to join

with me in welcoming a very good friend of mine, Professor

Peter Andrews, from Trinity Western College, and a group of his

students from his political science class.

Hon. R.A. Williams (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources):

Mr. Speaker, I'd ask the House to welcome a group of students from an institution

in which I got much of my basic education, Templeton High School in Vancouver

East.

Mr. R.H. McClelland (Langley): Mr. Speaker, I would

also like to pass along a welcome to the students of Trinity

Western College, which is in Fort Langley, which on Tuesday, of

course, celebrated the 116th anniversary as the first capital

of the first Crown colony of British Columbia. They also have a

teacher with them, Mr. Andreas. We welcome them to

Victoria.

Mr. E. Hall (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, I

don't want to take up any time of question period about

negotiations on the ferries, perhaps I might be permitted to

make a short news item today. (Laughter.)

Mr. Speaker: The Hon. Minister wants to make a short

news item. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

Hon. Mr. Hall: I'd like to announce for everybody to

know — and I think it's pretty newsy — that a tentative

settlement has been arrived at in negotiations between the

government and the ferry officers.

I'm assured by the bargaining people that all the strike

issues are now dealt with. There are some issues still in

dispute, but they are not sufficiently important to keep the

strike notice going. So I think that our hopes we expressed on

Monday were rewarded, and I'm very happy to be able to make

that announcement.

Oral questions.

TENDERS ON MVB COMIC BOOK

Hon. R.M. Strachan (Minister of Transport and

Communications): Yesterday the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace)

asked me a question and a supplementary regarding the Motor

Vehicle Branch comic book for children regarding bicycle

safety.

He asked me: "Was the publication of that comic book put out

to tender or competitive bid?" Then he said: "It carries no

notification that it was done by a union shop." He also asked

me: "What was the usual practice in relation to the

government's policy to employ union labour, and in this case

was it a contravention of the usual policy?"

First of all, I want to say that there were 25,000 of them

printed. They were printed by the Columbia Craftsmen, the same

firm which prints the New Westminster newspaper The

Columbian . It is a totally union shop. The union states

that it does not place the bug on everything, and usually just

on those publications which also carry the shop name.

The job went to Columbia Craftsmen because it is the only

shop in the lower mainland which has the equipment for this

type of printing. This was determined after discussion with

other firms, including Evergreen Press. But as a general rule

Foster, Young, Ross, Anthony & Associates, who have charge

of the safety campaign, call for three bids on everything. In

this case it was not possible to do so.

BAD GRAMMAR IN COMIC BOOK

Mr. G.S. Wallace (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, the fact is

that in this publication the grammar and the spelling are just

shocking. I wonder if the Minister in future will give a

guarantee that at least perhaps some consultation with the

Minister of Education (Hon. E.E. Dailly) might precede this

kind of sleazy advertising.

Hon. Mr. Strachan: I assure you that I will check

with the Minister of Education, but I would also ask you to

listen to the pronunciation used by children.

Mr. Wallace: Well, you should try to make it

better.

[ Page 4914 ]

Mr. H.W. Schroeder (Chilliwack): On the same subject,

a question to the Minister of Education. Did this publication

pass the textbook review committee before it was distributed in

the schools? It definitely has not only spelling errors and

grammatical errors; it has sexist overtones and it has the

promotion of alcoholic consumption by using the terminology on

the last page. I'm wondering whether or not it passed the

review committee.

An. Hon. Member: Obviously not, I would think.

Hon. E.E. Dailly (Minister of Education): No, we

don't go out and seek it. We have to be requested on a matter

like that. We were not requested so, no, it did not go

through.

Mrs. P.J. Jordan (North Okanagan): Could the Minister

clarify whether interior printing companies were given an

opportunity to bid on this particular job?

Hon. Mr. Strachan: Not that I know of.

Mrs. Jordan: Why not? A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Could the Minister explain why not — why just his select few

were given the opportunity?

Hon. Mr. Strachan: If you know of companies that can

handle this kind of work, would you please submit the names of

the companies?

Mrs. Jordan: Yes, there's one in Vernon. They do all

the fliers for Super-Valu and Safeway. They are the most

advanced printers in the province.

Hon. Mr. Strachan: I'm not talking about fliers for

Super-Valu; I'm talking about this particular job.

FRAUD ALLEGED IN BCR PROJECT

Mr. G.B. Gardom (Vancouver–Point Grey): A question,

Mr. Speaker, to the Minister Without Portfolio in his capacity

as a director of B.C. Rail. Mr. Minister, in view of the fact

that one contractor has left the Dease Lake extension job,

alleging fraud and conspiracy on the part of the railroad, and

in view of the fact, Mr. Minister, that the estimated contract

was $5.2 million and that it's now reached $11.3 million, with

another estimated $8.5 million to finish — in other words, an

increase from $5 million to $20 million — is the Minister

prepared to inform the House that any other contractors are

leaving the job or requesting revision of their contract, or

bringing similar actions against the railway?

Hon. A.A. Nunweiler (Minister Without Portfolio): Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to point out that management is very

carefully reviewing the situation. There is a litigation going

on, and I am not in a position to make any further comment in

that regard at this time.

Mr. Speaker: May I point out to the Hon. Member, who

is a lawyer, that it is one of the requirements in question

period that you must not ask questions which might prejudice a

pending trial in a court of law?

Mr. Gardom: I wasn't doing that in the slightest, Mr.

Speaker, and you are well aware of that.

Mr. Speaker: Well, I am sure that the Hon. Member

will observe that rule.

Mr. Gardom: Yes, I always will, Mr. Speaker.

A supplemental, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact, Mr.

Minister, that the Minty report was scathing of the accounting

procedures and audit procedures of the railway, and in view of

the fact that the auditors and the comptroller have pulled out,

and in view of the fact of these lawsuits, is the Hon. Minister

prepared to order a judicial inquiry into the accounting,

estimating and bidding procedures of B.C. Railway?

Hon. Mr. Nunweiler: The matter is being considered, Mr.

Speaker. We are all concerned about some of the comments made

in the Minty report, which was published some time ago, on the

practices of the British Columbia Railway. Certainly the matter

is being reviewed.

ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE

DUE TO BCR CONSTRUCTION

Mr. D.A. Anderson: A supplementary to the Minister of

Recreation and Conservation. In view of the fact that this same

extension has been claimed by the B.C. Wildlife Federation to

be proceeding in total disregard for environment concerns, may

I ask him whether his department is studying this matter or

sending officers to the north so that more concern can be shown

in the future for environmental damage taking place as a result

of this construction?

Hon. J. Radford (Minister of Recreation and

Conservation): Mr. Speaker, we are taking a close look at the

situation. (Laughter.)

GOVERNMENT PLANS

AND TAXES FOR REID SITE

Mr. N.R. Morrison (Victoria): My question is

[ Page 4915 ]

to the Minister of Public Works. Does the government have

plans under development of immediate utilization of the

property in Victoria inner harbour, formerly known as the Reid

property?

Hon. W.L. Hartley (Minister of Public Works): The

Department of Public Works has many undeveloped and incomplete

plans for this city.

Mr. Morrison: Does the government pay full city taxes

on that property or do they only pay 15 mills?

Hon. Mr. Hartley: To date no taxes have been

paid.

INCREASE IN

ICBC CLAIM COSTS

Mr. H.A. Curtis (Saanich and the Islands): To the

Minister of Transport and Communications. Figures released

earlier this week by ICBC stated that Autoplan claims for the

month of October were 46,000. That's a significant increase

over the average monthly claim rate stated by the Minister last

month. I understand that the Minister has also said that the

average claim settlement is about $400.

So in view of the statement by Mr. Bortnik and the

Minister's own statements on claim figures, ICBC increase in

claim costs over the monthly average in October could very well

exceed $4 million.

I wonder if the Minister would therefore indicate if he

wishes to revise his refutation earlier that ICBC will lose in

excess of $30 million for this operating year.

Hon. Mr. Strachan: We'll wait until the end of

the year.

Mr. Curtis: Well, surely with a very dramatic

increase in claim costs in one month, Mr. Speaker, the Minister

could give this House and the people of B.C. a better answer than that.

Mr. Speaker: I remind Members that it must be a question, not merely speeches or statements.

LIGHTER MOMENTS AT

COMMUNITY RESOURCES BOARDS MEETINGS

Mr. McClelland: I'd like to address my question to

the Minister of Human Resources, and welcome him back to the

House after his absence.

I refer to the latest issue of Sources, the community

resources board newsletter for October of 1974, in which they

talk about a workshop in Ladysmith at which "…there were

plenty of light moments. Mrs. Gloria Levi used up her entire

repertoire of labour songs around the campfire Saturday night, with Joe Denofreo on the guitar."

(Laughter.) I would just like to ask the Minister, Mr. Speaker, whether

Mrs. Levi was charged for accommodation or whether all of this

was offset under the entertainment account of the community

resources boards.

Hon. N. Levi (Minister of Human Resources): Yes, I was in

Ottawa. I'm glad that you missed me.

My wife came with me. Her expenses were covered by myself;

we paid for her expenses. Her contribution was appreciated. We

had a couple of very pleasant evenings.

Mr. McClelland: The paper goes on to say that the

Department of Human Resources tried to save money by having

three men and four women from the Kitsilano board share the

same quarters. Such a "sexposé," if it were to hit the

papers, would provide tantalizing reading. Maybe that's just

the touch the community resources boards need for more public

involvement.

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Minister would answer the

question of whether his department is carrying out any other

such money-saving programmes for such conferences and campfire

gatherings.

Mr. Speaker: Remember, there are children in the

gallery.

Hon. Mr. Levi: I am happy to see, after being away a

week, that we have come to the more pressing matters that

concern the community. We were not successful in getting them

to share accommodation. (Laughter.) But we will keep trying at

such gatherings. (Laughter.)

PRIORITIES FOR ESTABLISHING

COMMUNITY RESOURCES BOARDS

Mr. McClelland: This newsletter is paid for, I would

assume, by taxpayers' money. This is the reason I brought up

some of the questions. But it also says that….

Mr. Speaker: Are you making a speech or asking a

question?

Mr. McClelland: I'm asking a question, Mr. Speaker —

a supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: I see.

Mr. McClelland: But it also says that it will take at

least a year of getting staff and establishing funding in order

for these community resources

[ Page 4916 ]

boards to get established and to get off the ground.

Mr. Speaker: I take it you are making a speech.

Mr. McClelland: I'm reading from the report.

Mr. Speaker: Well, that doesn't constitute….

Mr. McClelland: Would the Minister agree with this

set of priorities, Mr. Speaker: that it will take at least a

year of spending money in order to get these community resource

boards off the ground? Because if it is, Mr. Speaker, I would

suggest that that is a waste of time….

Mr. Speaker: You are still making a speech. I wish

the Hon. Member would observe the rules.

Mr. McClelland: I am asking about that set of

priorities, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Levi: I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the

Member read it closely and carefully, because that's not what

it says there, We make reference to the four resources boards

which are in Vancouver and which are off the ground and

operating. The reference…deals with the difficulties of

developing other boards and how long it takes. That particular

conference dealt only with the operations in the Vancouver

area, and they are partly in operation.

Mr. McClelland: Early 1975.

Hon. Mr. Levi: Yes, that's in about three or four

months.

TABLING OF KELLY REPORT

Mr. G.F. Gibson (North Vancouver–Capilano): Also to

the Minister of Human Resources. In debate back in April, the

Minister undertook his willingness to consider the tabling of

the so-called Kelly report. Now that an unofficial version has

been circulated to Members, would the Minister be willing to do

so now?

Hon. Mr. Levi: I'll table the report.

ABUSE OF LAND-USE CONTRACTS

BY MUNICIPALITIES

Mr. Wallace: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the Minister of

Housing, in light of his comments to a press conference

yesterday, when the amendments that he mentions will be

introduced to prevent the abuse by municipalities of land-use

contract provisions?

Hon. L. Nicolson (Minister of Housing): If the Member

would send over the article, I could perhaps comment on it.

Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Wallace: Could I ask the Minister if he has

consulted with the Union of B.C. Municipalities on the subject

of possible obstruction and delays in building of residences in

municipalities due to the municipalities abusing the provisions

of the land-use contract

section of the Municipal Act?

Hon. Mr. Nicolson: Mr. Speaker, it would be more

appropriate just to talk with, perhaps, the Greater Vancouver

Regional District. These abuses haven't reared their ugly head

outside of the greater Vancouver area to any great extent. I'm

not by any means casting aspersions on any of the outlying

municipalities.

Interjections.

Mr. Wallace: Well, Mr. Speaker, has the Minister

talked, then, with the representatives of the Greater Vancouver

Regional District on this subject? Could he tell us what

progress is being made? According to this press report in which

he is quoted, he has stated that amendments will be required to

correct the situation.

Mr. Speaker: You are not really supposed to be asking

about newspaper items in question period.

Orders of the day.

Hon. E.E. Dailly (Minister of Education): Public

bills and orders, Mr. Speaker. Committee on Bill 178.

STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT

ACT, 1974 (No. 2)

The House in committee on Bill 178; Mr. Liden in the

chair.

section 1.

Mr. G.B. Gardom (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Chairman,

first of all, in speaking to this bill, I understand we are

going to be referring to it

section by

section as has been the

custom in this Legislature. Once again I would like to voice my

personal complaint — and I think that of half of all the

Members of the House — of the method of presentation of

amendments that are still being carried on in this

Legislature.

[ Page 4917 ]

I am, of course, referring particularly to this bill which

in every case proves to be the most offensive of all.

Mr. Chairman: I want to remind the Member that you

are supposed to be discussing

section 1, not a procedural

matter at this time.

Mr. G.F. Gibson (North Vancouver–Capilano): On second

reading it was specifically said that could be done.

Mr. Gardom: Mr. Chairman, this has always been the

custom here, even before you arrived, that we would be allowed

some liberty in discussing this bill, because we don't get into

it fully in second reading. I was denied that privilege in

second reading and I intend to exercise it now.

Hon. Mr. Hall: No you weren't. You weren't here.

Mr. Gardom: Everybody is denied it in second reading;

they have been ever since you've been in the House, Mr.

Provincial Secretary, and you know it. Don't give me that sort

of stuff.

Mr. Chairman: Order!

Hon. Mr. Hall: Mr. Chairman, point of order. I don't

mind him being so critical about the way we handle business,

but when the Member isn't in his seat when second reading is

called…I don't think that's a fair comment.

Mr. Gardom: I'll tell you exactly why it's a fair

comment, Mr. Minister: we received assurances from the

government last year that this method of presentation of

amendment would not continue. And I think it should not

continue — it's in the interest of all Members in the House,

government Members and opposition Members alike.

If the Hon. Provincial Secretary would harken back to the

days when he was on the private bills…

Mr. Chairman: Order! I'd like to remind the Member

that's the kind of discussion that is out of order.

Mr. Gardom: …committee, and he saw the method in

which the City of Vancouver presented their amendments, there

was some sense to it.

Mr. Chairman: Order!

Mr. Gardom: Very well, Mr. Chairman.

This is the point I wish to make: in a bill particularly

such as this, when we're dealing with a multitude of amendments, it would be in the interest of all

of the Members of the House if the existing

section was printed

on the other side of the page for comparison purposes, because

half the books where we've got to find these things aren't even

in the House, And you're going to tell me that's an efficient

way to run a Legislature — it's a bunch of bananas, and you

know it.

Hon. Mr. Hall: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the Member,

in his wisdom and experience, could now tell me which

section

he'd like printed on the left-hand side of the page of

section

Mr. Gardom:

section 1 is the one exception. All

right, that's the one exception. I say this: you have printed

one of the sections here. But the Provincial Secretary

remembers this discussion; we had last year, we had it the year

before.

Mr. Chairman: Order! Will you please deal with

section 1?

Mr. Gardom: Now, dealing with

section 1 — I'm glad you

brought me back to it, Mr. Chairman — there continue to be a

number of people who have been seriously injured in this

province, who have been without remedy, are still without

remedy, and have not been able to collect their just claims or

judgments for personal injuries arising out of hit-and-run

motorist situations and non-insured situations. These

individuals have literally been jockeyed back and forth,

pingponged back and forth, between the Traffic Victims

Indemnity Fund and the Insurance Corporation of British

Columbia.

But, Mr. Chairman, I wish to make it abundantly clear that

the amendment does not prove out to be an absolute remedy for

these people at all, because once again we are in a permissive

situation.

The position that was taken by the insurance corporation, up

until the time this amendment comes into being, was that they

didn't have any authority whatsoever to deal with these claims.

That's point (1).

Point (2): The position taken by the Traffic Victims

Indemnity Fund was that since the insurance companies were

forced out of business by virtue of the legislation of this

government, their final date was March 1, 1974, and they were

not permitted to carry on business after that. So they have

taken the position that they are not responsible for any claims

that came to their attention after March 1 of this year.

I said it before in this House, the Members have read about

it and I've discussed it with government Members — three

cabinet Ministers, as a matter of fact. We find today a minimum

of 125 people, and I suppose that figure has increased, who are

exactly in

[ Page 4918 ]

this position. I would say there could be at least double or

treble that by the time this thing eventually finds its own

balance over a couple of years' period, because it's completely

impossible to determine the final liability in these kinds of

cases overnight.

You can have the situation of an individual, say a

pedestrian, being run down by a motor vehicle, and that motor

vehicle has a policy on it. Then it is alleged that the motor

vehicle was stolen. So the pedestrian, who is seriously injured

- broken a couple of legs, and is off work for a better part of

a year — finds himself in a position of having to sue the

person who is allegedly the driver, if they can find him. If

they can't, they sue the owner, and as well go ahead and

proceed against the Attorney-General because it's a hit-and-run

situation.

That action may well have to go to trial, Mr. Chairman, to

determine as to whether or not it was a stolen vehicle or

whether it happened to be an insured vehicle. And that trial

might not come into being for the better part of 18 months from

today, so there is not going to be any prompt or immediate

solution here.

I am glad the government has responded and has recognized

the need to do something, but they have not done what these

people wish, and which is the fair thing to do. This is

supposed to be social legislation, and they've certainly not

done that which I've requested.

The request is just this simple: let these people make their

claims against the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia.

Any claims that have arisen after March 1, 1974, let them go

directly to ICBC. Any claims that have arisen prior to then, go

to the Traffic Victims Indemnity Fund. It's just that

simple.

But that's not what the bill says, because the bill says

that the corporation is authorized to do this, but it is not

compelled to do it.

So once again you could find the situation of this poor

motorist who suffered the two broken legs, going through a

trial, getting his judgment and then coming cap in hand to the

TVIF, and cap in hand to the ICBC requesting payment of his

judgment. And they could both say no. Then he's in the position

of getting into another law suit.

The NDP have always claimed, Mr. Chairman, that this is

social legislation. Well, if it's social legislation, let's

make it social legislation.

I am not suggesting — and I wish to make this abundantly

clear — that if the Department of the Attorney-General, which

has the carriage of this matter under the hit-and-run

situation, feels that it has a just claim against the Traffic

Victims Indemnity Fund, then it can receive a subrogated right

from the individual.

In other words, in the illustration I gave you, this man would be able to collect

from ICBC. In the example I gave this House a few days ago, the paraplegic can

collect from ICBC. Why should he have to wait around for two or three years

to see that happen? It's wrong!

Very well, if the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia,

with its enormous resources, feels that it has a just claim

against the Traffic Victims Indemnity Fund, it can step into

the shoes of the paraplegic and seek indemnity over. That is

the fair thing to do.

I'm only asking…. I think the Provincial Secretary, who,

I gather, has the carriage of this bill…I would like to

move an amendment, but I would assume that he would take

exception to it and say it's an impost against the Crown. But

if he just takes out those words — and it starts at the

beginning — "The corporation is authorized to discharge…."

Just take out the words "is authorized to" and put in the words

"shall discharge." This in no way could constitute an estoppel

vis-à-vis the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia

going against the Traffic Victims Indemnity Fund for any amount

that it could pay.

We've got to remember that we're only talking about a series

of isolated cases, of claims that could approach, I suppose, $5

million or $6 million — and those that came to the notice of

TVIF after March 1 of this year.

In fact, I feel most strongly that it's exceptionally unfair

that you're going to have insured people having to come hat in

hand to either ICBC or TVIF under these situations.

Again, I don't wish to be misunderstood: they have got to

prove their claim; they have got to prove liability, and

they've got to either have a settlement on the amount of the

damages, or have the damages set by a judge and jury. But once

one of those three alternatives has occasioned, at that point

for God's sake see that these people are properly paid.

I think it would be on the conscience of every person in

this House, in the two situations I've given you of the

individual who is a paraplegic and a quadriplegic. Surely to

goodness those poor people should have their money now. They

have received the dodge from TVIF and ICBC since March 1 — from

both sectors.

I can already see that the Minister of Transport and

Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan- is starting to get a little

heat around his ears. I know the position that's been taken

between ICBC and TVIF, and it may be a just one, and that's one

that should be determined by the courts of the land. But please

don't put the poor injured citizen in the position of having to

take that kind of a case.

An. Hon. Member: Hear, hear.

Mr. D.E. Smith (North Peace River): Mr. Chairman, I

spoke briefly on this particular

section last evening before

adjournment, and I'd like to

[ Page 4919 ]

continue with some of the remarks I wish to make on this

particular

section of this bill.

It would seem to me, in analyzing what has happened in the

Province of British Columbia, both prior to the advent of the

Insurance Corporation of British Columbia and ICBC…. Since

that time we have two distinct and separate situations.

The general insurance industry many years ago — as a matter

of fact, back in 1948 — recognized the fact that regardless of

what the law might say, or what might be required of people in

the way of insurance, there was always the possibility of

people suffering injury as a result of an accident involving an

uninsured vehicle.

We have the same situation today as we did then, Mr.

Chairman, in that while we have a compulsory insurance

programme in effect in the Province of British Columbia, not

everyone takes their insurance out, and not everyone pays their

driver's licence insurance. We have cases of something in the

neighbourhood of 25,000 people estimated now to be without

driver's licence insurance in the Province of British Columbia.

That is why the general industry in 1948 recognized the problem

and set up at that time an unsatisfied judgment fund. That fund

was changed to some extent and amended in 1961, when it became

the Traffic Victims' Indemnity Fund.

It's interesting to note that the charges for the operation

of that fund were recovered — or were recovered up until the

time it was terminated — by assessing the general insurance

industry a proportionate assessment according to the amount of

premium income they wrote on automobile insurance.

It was also a fact that since 1961 the agreement in effect

between the Attorney-General, as the representative Minister of

the Crown in the Province of British Columbia, and the Traffic

Victims Indemnity Fund could be terminated with one year's

notice on the part of either, party. That has happened.

The industry, which was legislated out of existence in the

Province of British Columbia by a decision of this government,

notified the Attorney-General that as of November 10, 1973,

they would no longer accept claims on the Traffic Victims

Indemnity Fund that occurred on or after that date. They

indicated that they would allow until March 1 of this year,

1974, for any claims to at least by filed.

Now, as suggested by the previous speaker, that does not

mean that those claims will in any way be satisfied, because

the case has to be proven. This could take anything from a few

months to, I suppose, two years to finally go through all the

litigation and the court process that's involved. It might take

longer than that, but why, as was asked by the previous

speaker, should the innocent victim be required to suffer what

is really a result of a legal argument the Insurance

Corporation of British Columbia and the Traffic Victims Indemnity Fund?

Certainly if there is a dispute, then that dispute, then

that dispute should be solved between those two bodies, who are

in a far better position financially to accept the

responsibility or the decisions of a court case, if that's what

it comes to, than the poor innocent victim who has suffered

irreparable damage as a result of an accident with an uninsured

vehicle, or as a result of a hit-and-run case where the driver

was uninsured.

It would seem to me that the Insurance Corporation of

British Columbia realized that they were in a vulnerable

position at the time they introduced the legislation into the

House. That is why, I suppose, the Minister in charge has

conducted a vendetta against the Traffic Victims Indemnity Fund

since that time, knowing that the corporation which the

government set up would be vulnerable for claims that had not

yet come before the court and been proven to the satisfaction

of either the fund or the claimant. As a result, the Minister

tried to shuffle all the responsibility of the then existing

insurance companies in the Province of British Columbia into

the court.

But they now no longer exist in the auto insurance field,

not as a result of their own choice. They were legislated out

of existence without any compensation, as a matter of fact.

There are an undetermined number of claims yet to come in.

There may not be a large number, but let's say there are

something over 100 anyway that are known right at the moment,

and there may be more. These people should not be kept in

suspense. They should not have to suffer the anxiety that's

involved in not only trying to get a case properly to the

court, but then wondering when a judgment was finally attained,

who would pay their claim, if anyone. It's a pretty sorry

situation for any individual to be involved in.

Certainly the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia had

to know that they would be involved in this sort of a

situation, the same as the private insurers were involved in

problems of unsatisfied claims up until the time they

terminated their service in the Province of British

Columbia.

Therefore I feel that the

section we're dealing with must be

explicit. It should not be optional. It should be obligatory on

the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia to take

responsibility for any claims that are satisfactorily proved in

court.

Therefore I would move, Mr. Chairman, that

section 1 of the

bill be amended in the following manner: In the first line

thereof to add after the word "to" the words "and shall,

" and to remove one word in the second line which would

now not be required; that is, to remove the word "to" between

the words "and" and "exercise". I move this amendment to

section 1 of this particular Act.

[ Page 4920 ]

Mr. Chairman: I declare the amendment to be out of

order in that it imposes a cost on a Crown agency, which is the

same as imposing it on the Crown.

Mr. Smith: A point of order, Mr. Chairman. I contend,

after having carefully looked at the particular section, that

this does not impose an impost on the Crown. We have heard time

and again on the floor of this House, in the presentation of

the bill to set up an insurance corporation in British

Columbia, that no taxpayers' funds, not one cent, would be

involved in any time in the operation of that corporation. Not

one cent of taxpayer's money would be involved in the operation

of that corporation.

An. Hon. Member: Who said that?

Mr. Smith: The Minister who introduced the bill.

That corporation was to be an autonomous body, separate and

complete, and not one cent of taxpayers' money could be

committed to that. So how could there be an impost on the

Crown, Mr. Chairman, when there can be no money from the Crown

go to the operation of that corporation, by the very word of

the Minister who introduced the bill? It's separate and

complete and autonomous and, if that is so, then the amendment

must be in order, I contend.

Mr. Chairman: We've listened to your comment, but

it's an obligation and a cost on the Crown agency and therefore

out of order.

Mr. Smith: I challenge the Chairman's ruling.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, we have had an amendment

presented that creates both an obligation and a cost to the

Crown, and I've ruled it out of order. My ruling has been

appealed.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Shall the

ruling of the Chair be sustained?

Interjections.

Mr. Smith: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

I've challenged the ruling of the Chairman. Am I not

permitted to give you any indication as to why I challenged the

ruling before you put the question?

Mr. Speaker: Have you found anything in the standing

orders that helps you?

Mr. Smith: Have you found anything in standing orders

that says I'm not allowed to make a comment? (Laughter.)

Mr. Speaker: I understand that it's been the practice

for many years, but I always like to ask in case I may have

missed some rule. If you can find anything that is contrary to

the practice of the House and to the practice of standing

orders and to the practice of other jurisdictions, please let

me know.

Mr. Smith: Well, as a learned Member of the House,

Mr. Speaker, and the one who has control of the assembly, I

would think that it's your position to tell me why I cannot

speak to this particular subject before taking a vote.

Mr. Speaker: Has the Hon. Member read standing order

I think I should read it very quickly: "Mr. Speaker shall

preserve order and decorum, and shall decide questions of

order, subject to an appeal to the House without debate." It's

as simple as that.

I'm bound by the rules just as you are, although I always

like a little debate; it keeps me alive. But I don't see how,

in the face of standing order 9, I could invite debate on this

question of an appeal to the House under this rule. Would you

not agree with me on that?

Mr. Smith: Pardon me?

Mr. Speaker: Would you not agree with that?

Mr. Smith: I agree that it's your position to put the

question to the House, but I do not agree that no debate or

discussion can take place prior to the time that you put the

question to the House?

Mr. Speaker: No, but it says that….

Mr. Smith: I think it's the position of the Speaker

to invite, occasionally, the debate that took place, since he

was not here when the House was in committee and has no

knowledge of what took place in committee.

Mr. Speaker: I would assume that the practice might

follow in committee that I always try to adopt: that there is a

little invitation to debate, as a courtesy to the House, any

point of order before a ruling is made. Now that may or may not

happen in committee. But I do suggest that this is a proper

time to discuss the matter — when the ruling is about to be

made and before it's made, so everyone has the opportunity to

put the citations that may apply to the situation. The House

then understands what they are then voting on when they appeal

the ruling to the

[ Page 4921 ]

House.

Mr. Smith: Well, could I suggest, Mr. Speaker, in

order to conduct the affairs of the House in a proper manner,

that perhaps discussion should take place with the Chairman of

the House, because of this particular instance the amendment

was ruled out of order without any discussion taking place

prior to that ruling.

Mr. Speaker: Well, I think the proper….

Mr. Smith: Even if I were allowed to speak after….

Mr. Speaker: The proper case, then, would not be to

discuss it with the House, which is merely required by the rule

to sustain or reject, without debate, the Chairman's

ruling.

Now I, of course, have not been informed of what has

happened, and I can't really at. this stage under the rule,

standing order 9, do so. All I can say is that which I have

done: shall the ruling of the Chair be sustained? Now I will

certainly discuss, out of here, with the Chairman of committee

this whole question of the rulings, that occur, because I'm

sure that that would help.

Mr. Smith: I think that we can certainly recall

occasions in the past when the Chairman or the Speaker has

invited people to express their opinion before he ruled either

for or against an amendment.

Mr. Speaker: We're not here discussing that. But I

agree with the Hon. Member that it's a good practice, even

though it hasn't been observed in this House for the last 70

years that I know of. I do think that it's good practice; I

will certainly discuss it with the Chairman.

In the meantime we have that ruling, and the House has

sustained it.

Interjections.

Mr. Smith: Mr. Speaker, could you remain in the chair

long enough to call a vote?

Mr. Speaker: I thought I did. I asked the question:

shall the Chair be sustained?

Mr. Chairman's ruling sustained on the following

division:

YEAS — 27

Hall

Dailly

Strachan

Nimsick

Stupich

Hartley

Brown

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

Dent

Levi

Lorimer

Williams, R.A.

King

Lea

Radford

Nicolson

Nunweiler

Skelly

Gabelmann

Lockstead

Rolston

Steves

Kelly

Webster

Lewis

NAYS — 16

Jordan

Smith

Bennett

Phillips

Chabot

Fraser

Richter

McClelland

Curtis

Morrison

Schroeder

Anderson, D.A.

Williams, L.A.

Gardom

Gibson

Wallace

The House in committee on Bill 178; Mr. Liden in the

chair.

section 1.

Mr. D.A. Anderson (Victoria): Mr. Chairman, a moment

ago we voted on a procedural matter, namely the right of an

opposition Member to suggest an amendment which might lay a

charge upon the Crown.

There is no restriction whatsoever on a Minister of the

Crown — the Minister, in particular, responsible for this bill

- from putting in a similar amendment. As we have only voted on

the procedural aspects of this we are, of course, entitled to

plead with the Minister to recognize his responsibilities to

the 125 or 130 people who have been injured — some of whom are

paraplegics, others quadriplegic — who are unable, except

through the process of law, to gain any redress.

They may receive some assistance under this legislation;

they may not. That is not required. Some assistance is not

required because, of course, the amendment simply makes it

possible — it does not make it a requirement — of the ICBC

authorities to pay assistance. It has been argued, quite

correctly, that these people are themselves in no position

really to fight the lawsuits which, in the case of at least the

wife of one backbencher of the government, I believe, it took

four years to get a cheque in respect to an injury which I

believe dealt with a broken back. They are not in — the position

to fight, as ICBC would be, with respect to the Traffic Victims

Indemnity Fund members of previous years.

So therefore, I would plead at this time for the Minister or

the Minister of Transport and Communications who has

responsibility for ICBC to put in a type of amendment that the

opposition was unable to do a few months ago.

I plead with them because, as has been mentioned before,

these people have been injured through no fault of their own,

through hit-and-run accidents and

[ Page 4922 ]

things of that nature. They find themselves in this curious

position essentially because of a technicality. It is a

technicality created either by the insurance companies

concerned or by the new ICBC. That's a legal matter which the

Minister has admitted to be a legal matter which is not yet

settled. They have, however, been put in this position of being

without claim because of actions of this Legislature in setting

up ICBC and changing the law.

Whoever is legally responsible, whether the participating

companies of the Traffic Victims Indemnity Fund or whether the

authorities of ICBC, is something which could only be decided

by the courts; it is something upon which we may have opinions

but it is for the courts to decide. But in terms of the

individuals concerned, the 125- to 130-odd people who are

injured, who have suffered grievous injury, they themselves

should be, we feel, protected in exactly the same way as they

would have been protected by the Traffic Victims Indemnity Fund

had we not brought in ICBC legislation in this Legislature.

It's quite clear that they are suffering in this way because

of the workings of the law and the takeover of the automobile

insurance industry. It may be that the fault lies with the

private companies; it may be that it lies with ICBC. That point

is irrelevant to the discussion we are putting forward today.

The point we are putting forward is that there are 125 to 130

injured individuals who would not be in the position they are

now without redress or without a right had it not been for the

operations of this Legislature in introducing legislation.

Therefore, we plead with the government to put in the

amendment which we ourselves are unable to do in accordance

with the vote of the House.

We plead with the government to put in legislation which

grants these people a right. If it so happens, Mr. Chairman,

that ICBC indeed is not responsible, ICBC in turn can then, by

the operation of this section, sue the private companies and

regain the money. But at least let's put ICBC in the position

of undertaking the responsibility for this group of 125 or 130

people.

This type of thing has been argued often before in this

House. There was a celebrated occasion when a Member of this

Legislature managed to ask the same question 67 times, and

essentially the same point was being made. Show a little heart

and get away from the legalisms. Allow the operation of the

legislation in this situation, as in that, with a little

compassion and a little understanding. Give these people the

right to get satisfaction of their claims as a result of

hit-and-run injuries so that they are not haunted by the

possibility of lengthy lawsuits and perhaps ultimate losses

years after the event.

It is not a major thing. If, indeed, the Traffic Victims Indemnity Fund is

not liable, then I think it's pretty clear that ICBC should be. If, however,

ICBC isn't liable and it is the Traffic Victims Indemnity Fund, well, let ICBC

take up the lawsuit on behalf of this 125 to 130 people. They have legal counsel

galore; they have millions of dollars behind them; they have the muscle in other

areas of insurance operations to get after the private insurance companies.

But to suggest that 125 or 130 individuals, some in wheelchairs, some still

bedridden, are able to compete on the same basis as ICBC is ludicrous. We're

back to the example of the elephant among the chickens.

So I would urge the government simply to look at this thing

with a less legalistic, dogmatic, belligerent attitude, and

recognize that we have a group of individuals who have no cause

through no fault of their own, only through the operations of

this Legislature in introducing ICBC legislation. Had we not

had that legislation, the TVIF would still continue. We changed

the rules.

Maybe it's the fault of the Traffic Victims Indemnity Fund;

maybe it's ICBC. That is irrelevant. We changed the rules, thus

wiping out their opportunity to collect. To put in legislation

which simply says that the corporation is authorized to

discharge and perform any duty or obligation is simply not good

enough.

The government can put in the amendment. I urge them to do

so. Put in an amendment that they shall have the obligation to

discharge and perform any duty of the Traffic Victims Indemnity

Fund.

Hon. R.M. Strachan (Minister of Transport and

Communications): I've been listening to this discussion,

naturally, with a great deal of interest. I listened to the

Member say that some particular individual had to wait four

years to get a cheque from a private insurance industry. We

know that was the procedure in the past and it's our hope that

we can improve considerably on that procedure. Certainly it is

the intention to service the public much more rapidly than was

the case in the past. Certainly ICBC accepts responsibility for

all of the accidents that have occurred since they were brought

into operation. We're not faced with that, and the claims are

accepted and settled speedily.

Now, Mr. Chairman, the statement has been repeated…. I

certainly want to help those people. Right now, ICBC hasn't got

the authority to do it.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Give it to them.

Hon. Mr. Strachan: Just a minute, listen to what I have to say. This

gives ICBC the authority to do it which we didn't have until now. It's not a

matter of getting a legal dodge from ICBC, as the Member for Vancouver–Point

Grey (Mr. Gardom) said. ICBC didn't have the authority.

[ Page

4923 ]

I want to point out too, Mr. Chairman, that the statement

has been repeated by a number of speakers from the opposition

that because ICBC was set up, the Traffic Victims Indemnity

Fund was cancelled. I want to draw the attention of the House

to what actually happened.

On November 10, 1972, within weeks of this government taking

office, before I had formulated even in any loose way what ICBC

was or was not going to do, within weeks of us taking office,

the private insurance industry served notice on the

Attorney-General that one year from that date they would

discontinue the operation of the Traffic Victims Indemnity

Fund.

They were entitled to do that, but that was long before ICBC

was thought up. Long before the legislation was introduced they

gave that notice. So I want ;that to be clearly understood. It

was not subsequent to this House taking legislative action that

they gave notice. They gave notice before we even knew what

action we were going to take. I want it clear that I had made

no statement.

As a matter of fact, they sat in my office discussing the

potential or what the future was and what they thought should

be done, and didn't tell me they were going to do this. I think

they did it the day they were talking to me or the day before

they were talking to me — I can't remember. However, I want to

make that point very clear. They did that right at the very

beginning.

I want to draw attention to this other factor. These people

of whom you're speaking — and I say this gives us the authority

to do something for them — were not injured after March 1 of

this year. They weren't injured after November 10 of last year.

They were injured prior to November 10 of last year.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Strachan: They were injured prior to

November 10, 1973.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Strachan: Just a minute now. What the

Attorney-General did was to proclaim that

section of the

Motor-vehicle Act which then empowered and made it the

responsibility of the government to take from motor-vehicle

licence fees all of the claims that were made in these cases

for accidents that happened after November 10. So we've already

covered that field after they vacated the Traffic Victims

Indemnity Fund November 10, 1973.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Strachan: I think that's the number o f the section, that's

right. We took that responsibility.

These cases happened prior to November 10, 1973, when the

Traffic Victims Indemnity Fund was still in operation. It just

so happened that for one reason or another, the insurance

companies arbitrarily decided that they would abrogate their

responsibility unless they were notified prior to, I think, March 1 of this year.

The Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) correctly

stated that under the private-industry premium system, every

premium holder in the province contributed toward the Traffic

Victims Indemnity Fund, and roughly about 3 per cent of the

premium that every policy holder paid went to the Traffic

Victims Indemnity Fund. The private insurance industry

collected the premiums right up to February 28 of this year.

Yet they walked away from responsibilities that happened even

before the expiry of the November 10th date.

I want the position in which we found ourselves to be very

clearly understood. Despite the fact that they accumulated

large reserves over the years out of the policy payments made

by the people of the province, they walked away from this

responsibility which was theirs.

There was another point I wanted to raise also with regard

to that. The Traffic Victims Indemnity Fund, although they tell

us that it no longer exists….

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

Mr. Gardom: Are you going to accept these claims?

Hon. Mr. Strachan: It's not only still paying claims

that happened but it's also still sending out claims against

people and threatening them with cancellation of their driver's

licence unless they made payments they were supposed to make.

These are individuals who had been involved in an uninsured

accident and the Traffic Victims Indemnity Fund had met, They are still sending out those threatening letters to

collect money. Yet they are refusing to accept their

responsibilities for moneys they actually collected and that

happened while the Traffic Victims Indemnity Fund was still in

operation.

I think the legislation before us authorizes…. The Member

said it would probably put an additional $6 million load on

ICBC this year. I think he used that figure of approximately $6

million. It certainly authorizes this and I have every

intention of fulfilling the responsibilities of seeing to it

that nobody in this province goes short because of the

shortcomings of the private insurance industry.

Mr. Gardom: On that point, Mr. Minister,

[ Page 4924 ]

you've indicated to the House — if I'm reading you clearly,

this is my

interpretation of your remarks — that these people

who are caught in this web of falling between the stool of ICBC

and TVIF will receive payment of their claims by ICBC. Is that

your position?

Hon. Mr. Strachan: I'm not accepting your position

that they are caught in a web between the two. I'm saying that

the private insurance industry has rejected its responsibility.

I don't want the impression to go out among the public that

these people are caught in some web between ICBC. The private

insurance industry is repudiating its responsibility and this

allows ICBC to accept that responsibility which has been

repudiated in a most unfair way by the private insurance

industry.

Mr. Gardom: With respect, he still didn't answer the

question: is ICBC undertaking to pay these claims, yes or

no?

Hon. Mr. Strachan: Every claim will be seriously

looked at. No, I'm not going to give a carte blanche. That's

why I don't want to accept that. I want to examine every case….

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Strachan: This gives us the authority. I'm

guaranteeing to you that we'll look at every single case and

we'll fulfill our obligations.

Mr. Gardom : The point that the Hon. Minister is not

facing up to is that there is not an obligation here. You're

really taking the authority. This is what we're saying to you.

Do the moral thing and accept if as an obligation. It doesn't

in one whit hinder your opportunities or rights, if they do

exist, to make a claim against the Traffic Victims Indemnity

Fund for any amount of money that you pay an injured

person.

But, Mr. Minister, you are aware of the correspondence that

has been flowing back and forth between the Traffic Victims

Indemnity Fund and the Insurance Corporation. I've received in

the mail here a photocopy of a letter dated June 13, 1974,

which appears to be from Mr. K.F.V. Malthouse, the manager of

TVIF, to Mr. Bortnick. It essentially states what the Minister

has informed the House, which I stated to the House earlier

today. It says this:

"As you know, November 9, 1972, the Traffic Victims

Indemnity Fund gave notice in accordance with

section 106(

l) of

the Motor Vehicle Act of its intention to cease making payments

pursuant to

section 105 of that Act."

I'm going to paraphrase

it; it's rather long.

"The fund remains liable under the legislation that existed

at that time for all claims arising out of accidents occurring within the period

of one year after the delivery of that notice. In the circumstances, that period

expired at midnight on November 10, 1973, the cutoff date. The fund has continued

to entertain claims arising out of accidents occurring before November 11, 1973,

although not notified of such claims until varying dates thereafter."

So they are honouring their obligation up to that point. In

your estimation, do you agree with that?

Continuing on with the letter:

"However, as of March 1, 1974, the insurance companies

formally transacting the business of automobile insurance in

British Columbia, which together constituted the group of

members of the Traffic Victims Indemnity Fund, were no longer

licensed to carry on that business."

Which is a true statement; they were not.

"As a consequence, the fund is unable to raise the funds

necessary to meet any liabilities flowing from claims of which

it had no notice prior to March 1, 1974."

Now, I understand that the government differs with that

position, and that could well be a position that should be

adjudicated. I'm not denying that right; you have that right

under the amendment that you are proposing.

Carrying on with the letter:

"In these circumstances, the insurance companies formally

licensed to transact the business of automobile insurance in

B.C. are prepared to be responsible for the amount of money

required to satisfy all those claims arising out of accidents

which occurred prior to the cutoff date of which the fund had

notice."

In other words, prior to March 1, 1974. And then he

says this:

"I am instructed by the directors of the fund to inform you

that with respect to all claims arising out of accidents which

occurred prior to the cutoff date but of which the fund did not

receive notice" — it's just a question of notice — "until

February 28, 1974, the claimants or their representatives will

be advised forthwith that their claims should be submitted to

the Insurance Corporation of B.C. In accordance with the

applicable provisions of the Automobile Insurance Act."

And this is what has happened with these people. They made

their claim against the fund. The fund stated in letters to all

of these claimants what I've mentioned here, and the people

then presented their claims to the Insurance Corporation. The

Insurance Corporation has taken the attitude throughout that

there is no way it can acquire legal status, they

[ Page 4925 ]

cannot give any undertakings with respect to the claim, and

the matter is under consideration. This sort of correspondence

has been passing back and forth across the Province of B.C.

since June of 1974.

Now, I cannot understand, for example, a letter like this.

Again I received a photocopy in. the mail, and it appears to be

from Brian Weatherhead, claims centre manager, Insurance

Corporation of B.C., dated November 26, 1973.

"The purpose of this letter is to advise you that, effective

November 10, 1973, we officially assume control of the Traffic

Victims Indemnity Fund and are now proceeding to investigate the above claim."

Well, that adjuster seemed to be of the opinion that it was

the responsibility of the Insurance Corporation. But the whole

point is this, Mr. Minister: the only thing that we're asking

you to do on this side of the House — which would be the very

thing that you'd be asking to do if you were on this side of

the House too. And I can't understand it. The Hon. Second

Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) talked about the

incident of the Member for Coquitlam before he was Premier

(Hon. Mr. Barrett). He asked 67 questions and was eventually

dismissed from the House for being tedious and repetitious. He

asked 67 questions of the former Attorney-General as to whether

he would write a letter to an insurance company.

What I'm asking you to do is to pay these poor people.

That's all I'm asking you to do. Take your rights against the

TVIF if you feel they're there. Do the fair thing. Do the moral

thing. Do the fair thing and do the moral thing. Do the ethical

thing.

You say: "We're now giving ourselves the authority to do

it."

I say: "Thank God for that." But make it more than the

authority. Make it your responsibility. Every dime that you

happen to pay any person after this March 1 cutoff date, they

would subrogate to you. If you feel there's a valid claim

against TVIF, you take it. You've taken over insurance in the

Province of B.C.

What I'm talking about is something just like workers'

compensation. Are you really and truly going to insist that the

workmen under workers' compensation laws have now got to sue

the employer and the Workers' Compensation Board for a just

claim? Now come off it, Mr. Minister.

We have injured people. We have people who have not received

payment of their claims since March, April, May, June, July,

August, September, October, November. It's quite a few months

and they're still waiting. They're saying: "What can we

do?"

Since this matter has been raised by myself, I've received a

number of letters. There are many pathetic cases. Do the job

and pay these people. If you feel that you have rights against

TVIF, you take them, but don't compel these poor people to go to court and get

into a constitutional argument. It's just not fair to them. If

you're accepting responsibility, say so. Give your undertaking

to this House and put it in the bill. Make it clear. All you

have to do is put the word "shall" in there.

Hon. Mr. Strachan: First of all, I think the Member

is really being a little unfair when he tries to compare this

situation with the one relating to the former Leader of the

Opposition, now the Premier of the province. At that time the

Leader of the Opposition was asking the Attorney-General to

look into something, and he just refused to look into it or to

write a letter, or to make any move of any kind on that

particular sad case.

Here we are introducing legislation which allows the ICBC

legally to accept that responsibility. At no time have I

indicated even remotely that we would force people to go to

court, or anything else. At no time have I given that

indication.

I have said very clearly that I'm not here to accept without

adjudication every claim placed before ICBC. That's what your

amendment would do, It would force us to accept every claim

without adjudication, and I'm not prepared to accept that

responsibility. I think this is fair legislation. It gives us

the opportunity to move…and, as you say, it gives us the

right to recover through subrogation. You say they've been

waiting quite a few months, I appreciate that, but ICBC had no

authority to do it. This gives us the authority.

Mr. Gardom: Mr. Chairman, it's unfortunate that it

has taken this long for the opposition to find out what the

government's point of view. But with every respect, Mr.

Minister, your reasoning is absolutely fallacious.

I am not suggesting for one minute that you would, as of

right, have to immediately pay a claim. Say if the insurance

corporation felt the claim was worth $10,000 — the claimant is

seeking $35,000; this Act, or the suggested amendment, does not

mean that you'd have to pay $35,000, because, if you just read

the first two lines, it's pretty clear that the corporation is

authorized to discharge and perform any duty or obligation —

any duty or obligation. You don't have a duty or obligation to

pay a spurious claim.

I'm saying that the corporation "shall" discharge and

perform any duty or obligation — shall perform any duty or

obligation, and you still have the right to defend a spurious

claim. It means a proven claim.

If there's a dispute, and there are always disputes, as to

liability and as to quantum, as to amount of damages, then it

goes before a court. But, Mr. Minister, to suggest to this

House this afternoon the reason that you're not permitting this

amendment, on

[ Page 4926 ]

the basis of fallacious thinking and fallacious reasoning,

is just, with every respect, preposterous.

Maybe as a way to solve this in the best interests of these

people, because I can see that the government is starting to

get a bit heated about the thing, what we suggest is that we

carry on, perhaps, with the rest of this bill and let this

section remain so you can have a second look at the thing and

do the proper job for these people.

Would you be prepared to pull this one

section and take a

second look? Mr. Minister, you are not aware of what the

section…and I do know that you now are because you've read

it, you've taken a look at it. And the reasoning you advanced

to the House this afternoon is fallacious and spurious.

Mr. G.S. Wallace (Oak Bay): Mr. Chairman, I do think

it's just a great pity that the Premier of this province is not

here this afternoon, because mention has already been made of

the event when the Premier was evicted from the House for

pressing a point in a tedious and repetitious way.

The Minister is quite correct when he states that the then

Attorney-General of the day refused to write a letter. That is

correct. What the Minister didn't go on to say and tell the

House, recall for the House, was that he essence of the point

which the then Leader of the Opposition was making was that a

widow was being deprived of any help under an insurance policy

in which the coverage had technically expired a few days before

her husband died as a result of the injury sustained in an

accident. The then Leader of the Opposition, as a humanist, and

as a man who, I believe, has the greatest respect for the

individual and human need, was pleading with the government of

that day: "Would you please get off your legal high horse and

do something for this unfortunate widow?"

I even recall that the then Leader of the Opposition

admitted that technically the clause of the insurance had

expired — I can't remember by the exact number of days. But the

essence of the argument that the then Leader of the Opposition

was presenting was that he was asking the government of that

day to see if they could do anything through the insurance

company to consider this as an extremely sad example of human

suffering as a result of an accident which, on a technicality,

was resulting in no help being available to the widow.

Mr. Chairman, I have to say that if there is one theme that

this socialist party has put forward consistently, and

continues to put forward consistently, is its belief in helping

the downtrodden, the disadvantaged — the people in this society

who can't fight for themselves.

What are we talking about? We are talking about some paralyzed people who

can't fight for themselves. That's the very kind of person that we're trying

to get some help for today, and the absolute reversal of positions in this House

really distresses me. I feel sure…. The Minister of Labour is shaking his

head. I feel sure….

Hon. W.S. King (Minister of Labour): You're

misrepresenting the facts.

Mr. Wallace: We're getting down to the facts. We're

saying that there appears to be…. The Minister of Labour is

getting a bit uptight. That's usually a sign that we're getting

a little close to the bone.

Hon. Mr. King: When a Conservative gets passionate

about the people, I begin to wonder.

Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member

for Oak Bay address the Chair, and would the other Hon. Members

please not interrupt his speech?

Mr. Wallace: Mr. Chairman, it's my understanding from

listening to this debate that the reason the Minister will not

accept the amendment — the corporation "shall" discharge or

perform any duty — is that the Minister has some concern about

the degree to which he would be committing the payment of funds

without possibly being able to recover those funds from the

Traffic Indemnity Fund which was responsible in the first

place.

I can sense that this is something which would give a

Minister in any responsible position a degree of concern. But

the fact of the matter is that the essential purpose of the

opposition in debating this

section in such detail is that we

feel that there are certain injured and sick people in our

communities who are not receiving what is their due. We're not

trying to argue for or against who eventually should pay those

expenses. We are only saying this: some 100-plus people in our

society are being penalized through no fault of their own as a

result of a car accident, and the costs of the consequences

should be paid by one of two methods. The exact method will

have to be determined in the course of time.

What we are not satisfied with is the fact that this bill,

the language of this bill does not make it mandatory to ensure

that, by one means or another, the injured party will receive

the expenses which they are due.

At least I'm not…nor would I suggest that I understand

the legalities involved, or the way in which the courts might

interpret the validity of the one year's notice that was given,

and the accidents between November 11 and March 1, 1974, and so

on. I think this is all technicality which we are not trying to

debate. What we are saying, and what I in

[ Page 4927 ]

particular was trying to say a moment ago, was that we're

really dealing with an issue of human need of the very kind

which the Premier of this province raised in this House some

two years or more ago.

I have every confidence that if he were here today, he would

recognize this very basic point we're trying to make — that

surely these injured people must be given a total assurance

that the money will be paid, and that the scrapping and the

fighting, and any legal action which will decide who pays, is

yet to be decided somewhere down the road.

All I would like to make very clear is that surely in this

House this piece of legislation could be amended by the simple

change of one or two words so that no matter who in the long

run does pay the bills, the victimized citizens — and they are

people who have neither resources nor the physical capacity to

fight their own battles….

Interjection.

Mr. Wallace: As the Member says, some actually have

obtained judgments and payments has not been made on the

judgment. I feel it is rather sad, really. I can recall

episodes in this House at other times also when the Premier of

this province stood up and made very eloquent pleas for the

government to help people in need. I can remember his eloquent

plea for the workers at Sandringham Hospital.

I seconded a motion of the Premier's. As a Member of the

government, a backbencher, I seconded a motion by the then

Leader of the Opposition.

If the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) is wondering about

my intentions or the actions of Conservatives, maybe he should

look back in the records and find that I once seconded his

leader's motion when I was a backbencher. So today's effort on

behalf of this other group of people in need is not any first

venture into this field, Mr. Minister.

I feel, and in fact I have every conviction, because I know

the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr.

Strachan) fairly well as a result of several years in this

House…. He's rocking back and forth in his chair and just

wishing, really, that he could acceded to what we are asking,

because in his heart — if I can use a hackneyed quotation — he

knows we are right.

The world of politics being what it is, each of us on both

sides of this House, sometimes lets our political fibre make

the decision. But I know that that Minister is very human,

well-meaning and in many ways a real humanitarian. I just say

to you, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman: let your heart

rule your action today.

Hon. Mr. Strachan: This Member indicated that it was a reversal of attitude.

If it was a reversal of attitude, this

section wouldn't be before this House.

This

section would not be before this House unless I intended to act on it.

I gave you the assurance that I would not push people through the courts. I'm

giving you this assurance.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Strachan: Well, it isn't our responsibility.

But this bill hadn't been introduced two weeks ago. It isn't

our responsibility. It's the private insurance companies'

responsibility.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Strachan: Just let me speak, please.

In this bill, both legally and personally, I'm telling you

that we are accepting the responsibility for every just claim,

and I will move immediately to have every claim adjudicated.

Now what more can you want than that?

Without putting him through the courts, without anything

else, it will be taken as an ordinary claim. I suppose we will

have to decide where the money is going to come from. You said

that it's $6 million which the private insurance companies are

walking away from, but if it is $6 million, no matter what it

is, I am accepting the responsibility without putting him

through the courts. The bill is not, as I say, a reversal of

attitude. It's here. We are accepting that responsibility. They

will not be pushed through the courts. I will move immediately,

as soon as this bill becomes law, this bill which gives ICBC

the authority, to see that they accept that responsibility and

take up these cases and adjudicate them.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports

progress and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly: Committee on Bill 169, Mr.

Speaker.

LANDLORD AND TENANT

AMENDMENT ACT, 1974 (No. 2)

The House in committee on Bill 169; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

section 1.

Hon. L. Nicolson (Minister of Housing): Mr. Chairman,

I move the amendment standing in the name of the Hon.

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) on the order paper. (See

appendix.)

[ Page 4928 ]

Amendment approved.

Section 1 as amended approved.

Sections 2 and 3 approved.

section 4.

Mr. Gibson: Mr. Chairman, I'd like the Minister to

explain why the change is being made in this section. The law

currently reads — the law we passed back in the spring: "Where

a landlord or a tenant breaches a condition or material

covenant in a tenancy agreement and so on. The new

section only

refers to the case of when a landlord reaches a material

covenant or condition of the tenancy agreement. I wonder if the

Minister would explain why that

section has been changed in

that way.

Hon. Mr. Nicolson: There is a reference here to

section 9(

p) and we are clarifying this

section with this

wording.

Mr. Gibson: Well, Mr. Chairman, with respect, this

isn't a clarification; it's a change. It's a change from an

obligation on both the landlord and the tenant to being a

single obligation on the landlord only. That is what I would

like to have explained, Mr. Chairman.

Hon. Mr. Nicolson: The amendment adds, under

section

9(

p) that it also puts the onus on the tenant. It says: "the

tenant has breached a reasonable condition or a reasonable

material covenant of the tenancy agreement." So the onus is

split, but it is still there.

Sections 4 and 5 approved.

section 6.

Hon. Mr. Nicolson: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment

standing on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 6 as amended approved.

section 7.

Hon. Mr. Nicolson: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment

standing on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 7 as amended approved.

section 8.

Hon. Mr. Nicolson: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment

standing on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 8 as amended approved.

section 9.

Hon. Mr. Nicolson: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment

standing on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Section 9 as amended approved.

section 10.

Hon. L. Nicolson (Minister of Housing): Mr. Chairman,

I ask leave to withdraw the amendments to

section 10 standing

in the name of the Attorney-General on the order paper. In

their place, I move the amendments to

section 10, in the hands

of the Clerk — a copy of which has been distributed to the

Members.

Amendments approved.

section 10 as amended.

Mr. Gibson: Mr. Chairman, this is a very large

section and, I think, worthy of some discussion.

It's, among other sections, the

section that establishes

something called a rent review commission, and at the same

time, removes rental review provisions from this Act.

Now, there are a number of items worthy of debate, but I

think we might start right at the beginning with

section 24 of

this new

part 4, which notes that:

"This hereby establishes, as an agent of the Crown, a legal

person known as the Rent Review Commission, consisting of such

number o f members as the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may

appoint."

Such number of members as he may appoint, Mr. Chairman; no

let or hindrance on the number of persons he may appoint.

This is another jobs-for-the boys section. Would the Hon.

Minister be prepared to stand up and say that such number as

the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may appoint would be less than 1,000?

Would it be less than 100? Would it be less than 10? Will he

give us a certificate of some kind as

[ Page 4929 ]

to the number?

Hon. Mr. Nicolson: It might be.

Mr. Gibson: Pardon?

Hon. Mr. Nicolson: Without limiting, I'm quite sure I

could give assurances that it would be kept down to a very

reasonable number. We're certainly not looking at hundreds or

even tens of members, but something.

Mr. Gibson: Mr. Chairman, that's not good enough for

me; therefore I move an amendment: that there be added at the

end of what is now

part 4,

section 24(1) the words "not to

exceed five", just to put some kind of limit on it.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 16

Jordan

Smith

Bennett

Phillips

Chabot

Fraser

Richter

McClelland

Curtis

Morrison

Schroeder

Anderson, D.A.

Williams, L.A.

Gardom

Gibson

Wallace

NAYS — 29

Hall

Dailly

Strachan

Nimsick

Stupich

Hartley

Brown

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

Levi

Lorimer

Williams, R.A,

King

Lea

Young

Radford

Nicolson

Nunweiler

Skelly

Gabelmann

Lockstead

Gorst

Rolston

Steves

Kelly

Webster

Lewis

Liden

Mr. Gibson: Mr. Chairman, when you report to the Speaker, will you advise him

that there was a vote taken in committee, and ask leave to have it recorded

in the Journals of the House?

Mr. Chairman: Agreed.

Mr. Gibson: On

section 10, being the new

part 4, and

under

section 26 of the Landlord and Tenant Act: the commission

"may appoint an inquiry officer and authorize him to

investigate any matter or dispute within the jurisdiction of

the commission…."

Mr. Chairman, I'm very confused as to what the jurisdiction of the Rental Review

Commission is. It seems to have some minor advisory powers and perhaps some

specific powers in terms of renovations in mobile homes. I wonder if the Minister

could spell out to us just what this phrase "the jurisdiction of the commission"

is intended to mean.

Hon. Mr. Nicolson:

section 25 spells out the

commission function:

"… to conduct research or inquiries into any aspect of

the rental of residential premises and to examine any factor

affecting the determination or payment of rent; to report to

the minister the results of any research or inquiry…; to

perform other functions respecting rental of residential

premises in the Province as the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council

may order."

So it could come by regulations as circumstances might

arise. Additional responsibilities could be given to the

commission.

Mr. Gibson: Well, this subsection (c), of course, is

one of the things that puzzles me a little bit, Mr. Chairman.

Might this subsection, for example, allow the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, without further reference to

this Legislature, to give the so-called Rental Review

Commission actual powers to undertake rental reviews?

Hon. Mr. Nicolson: Yes, actually that could be the

case. I would also say that another function would be, of

course, to do research into renovations, as they are covered in

other sections.

Mr. Gibson: Mr. Chairman, if I may continue then,

given the case that it might actually give the Rental Review

Commission power to undertake rental review, does that mean

that they would not be bound by the figure of 10.6 per cent, or

does it mean that their review could only take place within the

context of the 10.6 per cent provided for in

section 27?

Hon. Mr. Nicolson: No, the 10.6 per cent figure

cannot be changed except by another Act of the Legislature,

except for the exemptions to exceed that amount which can be

given in special cases.

Mr. Gibson : So, to summarize then: even if the Rental Review

Commission were given rental review powers, it could not in any

way rental review an amount higher than 10.6 per cent.

Hon. Mr. Nicolson: Lower than the 10.6.

Mr. Gibson: It could not lower the 10.6 per cent

either, so it couldn't really have power to act as a Rental

Review Commission under that amorphous

[ Page 4930 ]

subsection (c); that's what I'm trying to get at.

Mr. Wallace: I want to talk on somewhat the same

terms on sections 25, or subsection 25 of

part 4. Of course the

reason, we feel, for this replacement for the interim

legislation which we dealt with earlier on this year is that

the essential purpose of rent review, in our opinion, has been

totally removed from this bill.

In other words, 10.6 is not only maximum, it will likely

become minimum — and no other figure is permissible. Worse than

that, the meaning of the word review is completely stultified,

because there is no review. You can put the rent up by 10.6

under the commission's functions of subsection 25, but if

there's all the financial data in the world to prove that 10.6

won't cover the increased costs, there's no way in which the

landlord can have that kind of situation reviewed.

So really, I don't feel that that was the purpose of this

bill, Mr. Chairman. The terminology suggests, and we have had

statements from the government, that the whole purpose of the

bill was to provide justice to the tenant and a fair return to

the landlord. We would submit that if you include in the bill a

Rent Review Commission, surely the essential purpose of that

section should be to provide access by landlords to rent

review.

With that in mind, Mr. Chairman, I wish to move an amendment

section 25, by adding after subsection (c), the following

subsection:

"Notwithstanding

section 27, to determine whether cost

increases associated with the maintenance and operation of any

residential premises justify a rent increase in excess of 10.6

per cent and, where such justification exists, to authorize, a

rent increase which will yield that fair amount which the

commission determines to be necessary for the continued proper

maintenance and operation of the residential premises." I so

move.

Mr. Chairman: I regretfully rule the amendment out of

order on the grounds that it's contrary to the principle of the

bill, as contained in

section 27, limiting any

increase to 10.6 per cent.

Mr. Wallace: Mr. Chairman, there is the provision which the Minister

of Housing mentioned a minute ago regarding renovations, which is one way in

which the increase can exceed the 10.6. It would seem to me that all this amendment

is trying to do is to in a similar way enlarge the scope of the commission's

function under subsection 25. If there's some

section — as we've quoted already

— regarding the 12 per cent per year increase for renovations, surely that in

itself contravenes the principle included in

section 27.

All my amendment is doing is to try to justify or interpret

in a more valid way, I believe, the meaning of the words "rent

review." If someone as a landlord can clearly demonstrate that

their costs have increased….

Mr. Chairman: Order, please! The Hon. Member did use

the words "enlarge the scope of the bill," and this is

precisely the point of why it's out of order. If any amendment

actually enlarges the scope of the bill, then it alters the

principle of the bill.

Mr. Wallace: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, I didn't mean

it that way. I said that the

section on the 12 per cent

increase enlarges the principle included in

section 27. All I'm

doing is trying to enlarge the principle in subsection 25.

Mr. Chairman: I appreciate the arguments of the

Member. However, I have made a ruling. If he wishes to pursue

the matter, he may do so by challenging the ruling.

Mr. Wallace: Yes, I challenge the ruling, Mr.

Chairman.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, while in committee on Bill

169,

section 10, an amendment was moved by the Hon. Member for

Oak Bay. I ruled that the amendment was out of order because it

enlarged the scope of the bill and, therefore, affected the

principle of the bill. My ruling was challenged.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The question is whether the ruling of the Chair shall be

sustained?

Mr. Chairman's ruling sustained on the following

division:

YEAS — 27

Hall

Dailly

Strachan

Nimsick

Stupich

Hartley

Brown

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

Levi

Lorimer

Williams, R.A.

King

Lea

Young

Radford

Nicolson

Nunweiler

Skelly

Gabelmann

Lockstead

Gorst

Steves

Kelly

Webster

Lewis

NAYS — 16

Jordan

Smith

Bennett

[ Page

4931 ]

Phillips

Chabot

Fraser

Richter

McClelland

Curtis

Morrison

Schroeder

Anderson, D.A.

Williams, L.A.

Gardom

Gibson

Wallace

The House in committee on Bill 178; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

Mr. Gibson: I'd appreciate your advice on a point of

order in this section.

First of all, could I clarify if the amendment set out at

the top of page 9 has been moved? I take it that it has since

we're in

section 10.

I would suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that on the same

grounds that the amendment just moved by the Hon. Member for

Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) was out of order, so too is this

amendment. If the one offends against the principle of the bill

or extends its scope, so equally does the other. This amendment

purports to allow the commission on a class of dwelling to

increase rent….

Mr. Chairman: Order, please! I would point out to the

Hon. Member that this amendment has in fact been passed by the

committee. But state your point of order.

Mr. Gibson: Mr. Chairman, the fact that it has been

passed doesn't allow the passage of an amendment that's out of

order according to the rules of this House.

Mr. Chairman: No objection was raised at the time. As

far as the committee is concerned, it's out of our hands. We

can only discuss the

section as amended.

Mr. Gibson: Then I have to ask you to declare the

section out of order. If the

section contains something which

itself is out of order, then the whole

section must be out of

order. So I would still bring the matter to the attention of

the Chair on that same regard.

The proposal by the Hon. Member for Oak Bay was to make an

exception to the provisions of 10.6 per cent in effect of 27.2

Mr. Chairman: Order, please! I draw to the attention

of the Hon. Member that if an objection is to be raised on a

point of order, it has to be raised at the time. Now that the

committee has passed judgment on it, we are now considering the

section as amended….

Mr. Gibson: But, Mr. Chairman, the

section is before us. I'm suggesting

that if the

section contains an item which is out of order, then clearly the

section itself is out of order. And that

section is before us and that's what

we're considering.

Mr. Chairman: On the point of order raised by the

Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Capilano, I would rule that the

section is in order and does violate the principles of the

bill.

Order, please! The Chair is expressing its opinion. If an

Hon. Member wishes to challenge the Chair, then he may do

so.

Mr. Gibson: Mr. Chairman, might I be permitted to

speak briefly to that point of order?

Mr. Chairman: Yes, I would allow the Hon. Member to

continue on his point of order.

Mr. Gibson: The House, of course, is master of its

own business. It does strike me that it would be curious for

the House within five minutes to express directly different

opinions as to the orderliness of the same proposition. I think

that would be some kind of a new low in our parliamentary

procedure.

I might also suggest that standing order 9 applying to Mr.

Speaker suggests that, "In explaining a point of order or

practice, he shall state the standing order or authority

applicable to the case." And naturally, standing order 71(l):

"The standing orders of the House shall be observed in the

select standing and special committee…." and the

Committee of the Whole House.

Mr. Chairman, I would ask, therefore, that, following rule

applicable to Mr. Speaker, you should state the standing order

or authority applicable to this particular case, paying

particular attention to the precedent established in this House

five minutes ago, Mr. Chairman: On the point of order, I ruled and

continued to rule that the

section as amended is in order. I

would state that, in my opinion, the amendment that was made to

this

section or the

section as it is amended — the scope of the

amendment was not as great and does not violate the principle

in the same way that the amendment in the name of the Hon.

Member for Oak Bay.

This is the opinion of the Chair. The Hon. Member may appeal

the decision.

Mr. Wallace: Could I speak to the point of order as

you've just responded, Mr. Chairman?

You said, if I heard you correctly, that this paragraph at

the top of page 9 does not extend the scope as greatly as did

my amendment. It seems to me that either you extend the scope

or you don't extend the scope or the degree of extending the

principle of this bill. You either extend the principle or you

don't.

And if that was the grounds on which my

[ Page 4932 ]

amendment was ruled out of order, I would submit, from your

own words, Mr. Chairman, that you just admitted this paragraph

on the top of

section 9 does extend the scope of the bill by

the amendment but not as greatly as my amendment did. It's like

having gradations of wrong, Mr. Chairman. Some things are more

wrong than others. Or everybody is equal, but some more equal

than others.

With respect, Mr. Chairman, I have to say that your most

recent comments of a moment ago admitted that this amendment on

page 9 also enlarges the scope of the principle of the bill but

not as greatly as my amendment. And if my amendment was out of

order by a big bit, yours is out of order by a little bit.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please! I would make this final

comment in regard to the Hon. Member for Oak Bay. The amendment

proposed by the Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) affects

one of the main principles of the bill,

whereas the amendment

as it was moved by the Hon. Attorney-General, brought in by the

Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson), does not affect the

main principle of the bill. It merely deals with this specific

situation.

I have ruled. If any Member wishes to challenge the ruling,

he may do so now.

Mr. Gibson: …may then move an amendment dealing

with this specific situation, I'd like to have the law of this

House clarified. Therefore, I appeal that decision.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Mr. Chairman's ruling sustained on the following

division:

YEAS — 25

Levi

Skelly

Brown

Williams, R.A.

Gabelmann

Sanford

King

Lockstead

D'Arcy

Lea

Gorst

Cummings

Young

Hall

Steves

Radford

Dailly

Kelly

Nicolson

Strachan

Webster

Nunweiler

Stupich

Lewis

Hartley

NAYS — 16

Jordan

Fraser

Anderson, D.A.

Smith

Richter

Williams, L.A.

Phillips

McClelland

Gibson

Bennett

Curtis

Gardom

Chabot

Morrison

Wallace

Schroeder

The House in Committee; Mr. Dent in the chair.

section 10.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Mr. Chairman, I'm delighted we've

had a clarification on the rule here. Apparently, for a while,

we in the opposition thought that it was just a matter of

degree in that the Member for Oak Bay's (Mr. Wallace) amendment

was out of order because it went a little further than the

Attorney-General's (Hon. Mr. Macdonald). But as you have made

it perfectly clear, Mr. Chairman, perfectly clear that if you

don't go as far as asking for everything, you can do what the

Attorney-General did and take a. little, I would like to add an

amendment so that after the words, "mobile home park" in line

1, page 9, we add in the words, "or apartment building."

Because clearly — it rests on your ruling — since the

Attorney-General's amendment is in order, it's perfectly clear

that my modest little amendment will also be in order, as will

all the other modest little amendments about to descend upon

your unsuspecting head.

We feel this is particularly important if we can do exactly

what the Attorney-General has done. If we can use the reasoning

which you yourself put forward, Mr. Chairman, to defend the

Attorney-General's desire to tamper with the principles of the

bill, then surely we can in the same way, and as the Hon.

Member for Oak Bay suggested, just a little, do exactly the

same "just a little" that he did and add a word or two here and

there. I'm sure now that you're consulting with the Clerks, who

no doubt gave you excellent advice about the Attorney-General's

amendment, you will realize that this amendment, and subsequent

amendments about to come, are entirely in order.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 16

Jordan

Smith

Bennett

Phillips

Chabot

Fraser

Richter

McClelland

Curtis

Morrison

Schroeder

Anderson, D.A.

Williams, L.A.

Gardom

Gibson

Wallace

NAYS — 26

Hall

Dailly

Strachan

Nimsick

Stupich

Hartley

Brown

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

Levi

Williams, R.A.

King

Lea

Young

Radford

Nicolson

Nunweiler

Skelly

Gabelmann

Lockstead

[ Page 4933 ]

Gorst

Steves

Kelly

Webster

Lewis

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Mr. Chairman, when you report to

the Speaker, I would request that you report that a division

took place, and ask to have it recorded in the Journals of the

House.

section 10 as amended.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: On

section 10, Mr. Chairman, we

have now taken away the possibility of rent review, except in

the most extraordinarily limited case of the mobile home park.

Therefore it is clear, Mr. Chairman, that

section 10, which is

entitled "Rental Rates and Increases" — this is part (4) — where

this is said: "There is hereby established as an agent of the

Crown, a legal person known as the 'Rent Review Commission'

consisting of such number of members as the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may appoint," is now

redundant and misleading, and it would be wrong for us in this

Legislature to label a commission of the government in a

misleading way.

The Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Ms. Young) would be

hot after us, Mr. Chairman, giving us a hard time if we put in

something which simply wasn't an accurate description of the

product we are attempting to foist off on the public.

Therefore, aware of the criticism to which we will all be

subjected by that Minister, and aware of the trouble that

people get into if you call a commission a Rent Review

Commission when it cannot review rent, I would suggest that an

amendment would be appropriate, and it should be to delete the

word "review," because we cannot review rent with this

commission. This was pointed out by your decision on the

question of the principle of the bill when you rejected the

amendment of the Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace).

To be consistent, Mr. Chairman, you will be delighted to see

this amendment, because it obviously will make your historical

position a little more tenable when you, after all, ruled out

an amendment which would have made rent review possible on the

grounds that the bill, which has the words "rent review" in it,

did no really have as its principle the question of rent

review.

So I move that we delete the word "review" from that

commission's name.

Mr. Wallace: I feel that a tremendous change of

direction has occurred in this bill compared to the one we

debated earlier. I don't want to repeat that debate, but we did

quote from the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald), who at

that time stated that in fact people who could establish by

their records and financial records that their costs were a

certain amount would always have this access.

Of course, this

section of the bill is rather contradictory,

because it implies by the title that a commitment made in the

earlier bill would be continued by the mechanism of the "Rent

Review Commission." Yet when we get into the bill and debate

this section, as we have been doing this afternoon, it becomes

quite clear that, in fact, there is no such thing as rent

review, that it is really rent control that is inherent in this

section of the bill. A control to the extent of a 10.6 maximum

is all that is permissible. Anyone who might have absolutely

valid data to show that their expenses and costs exceed 10.6

have no way whatever, under this section, of having their valid

position, their valid financial position, reviewed.

We have had numerous statements from that side of the House

that the government is very keen in this legislation to ensure

a fair return for the owner of the property. Now it defeats me,

Mr. Chairman, that the owner can have any hope of having a fair

return even looked at if, in fact, he doesn't have any access

to what is termed a Rent Review Commission.

I don't know how often, Mr. Chairman, we. hear Ministers in

question period saying, when they are asked a question, that

they will review the subject. That usually means that they'll

look at the merits of the question and the data and material

and the facts available, and then they will give a decision. I

think that that is what the word "review" means, that you will

take a second look, in depth, with all the information

available to reach a certain conclusion. Now there is no way

under this

section that landlords, with possibly thoroughly

legitimate facts and figures to back up their argument, can

have these facts and figures reviewed.

While I certainly support the amendment to delete the word

"review," I think it would be even better if we

substituted — and I would suggest an amendment to the amendment — for the word "review" the word "control," the Rent

Control Commission, because that is what, in effect, the 10.6

is doing; it is controlling rents. It is not reviewing

rents.

If such an amendment to the amendment is in order, I would

so move.

Mr. Chairman: Would the Hon. Member hand in his

amendment which adds the words "and substitute the word

'control'?"

In regard to the proposed subamendment, the procedure will

be that we will consider the amendment in the name of the Hon.

Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) first, and then,

should the amendment pass, we would entertain the amendment in

the name of the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace).

Shall the amendment in the name of the Hon. Second Member

for Victoria pass?

[ Page 4934 ]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 16

Jordan

Smith

Bennett

Phillips

Chabot

Fraser

Richter

McClelland

Curtis

Morrison

Schroeder

Anderson, D.A.

Williams, L.A.

Gardom

Gibson

Wallace

NAYS — 24

Hall

Dailly

Strachan

Nimsick

Stupich

Hartley

Brown

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

Levi

Williams, R.A.

King

Lea

Young

Radford

Nicolson

Nunweiler

Gabelmann

Lockstead

Gorst

Kelly

Webster

Lewis

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Mr. Chairman, when you report to

the Speaker, I would ask you to inform him that a vote took

place and ask that it be recorded in the Journals of the

House.

Mr. Chairman: Agreed.

section 10 as amended.

Mr. Gibson: A question to the Minister, Mr. Chairman;

at the top of page 6 there is a provision with respect to

renovations: "A landlord may increase the annual rent on the

residential premises by an amount not exceeding 12 per cent, or

such other amount as may be prescribed by the regulations."

I'd like to ask the Minister why this flexibility is put in

here.

Hon. Mr. Nicolson: Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure I

understand the question.

Mr. Gibson: Mr. Chairman, the question was: at the

top of page 6 there's a provision for flexibility, "The

landlord may increase the annual rent by an amount not

exceeding 12 per cent of the cost of the renovation, "

but then it carries on to say, "or such other amount as may be

prescribed by the regulations." I'm wondering about the reason

for that flexibility.

Hon. Mr. Nicolson: Mr. Chairman, one of the reasons

for requiring flexibility would be in the event of the cost of

borrowing money. Should that change, it might require some

change in discretion.

Mr. Wallace: Mr. Chairman, that kind of response from

the Minister just again confirms the kind of point I was trying

to make. It appears the more and more we debate different

sections of this bill, there's little bits of expansion of

exceptions to the 10.6 here, there and everywhere in this bill.

Yet when I tried to introduce an amendment, apparently that was

out of order.

I just suggest that the Minister's answer points out the

very fact that certain costs are not foreseeable. You can

accurately estimate what certain costs will be, and he has

answered the Member for Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) by

saying that this flexibility in this phrase which says,

"increase the annual rent…by an amount not exceeding 12

per cent, or such other amount as may be prescribed by the

regulations." The reason given for this flexibility is the fact

that costs may rise by a degree which nobody can foresee at the

present time, and that's exactly what my amendment was all

about — to try and give the same flexibility to landlords in

other situations.

This is, I think, the second or third expansion of the basic

principle of the bill. I just say again that with the greatest

respect, Mr. Chairman, it seems to be there's one rule in this

House for the government amendments and a different rule for

the opposition.

Hon. Mr. Nicolson: Mr. Chairman, I think it's been

said by the Attorney-General before, and I would repeat it

now, that the 10.6 is not engraved in stone. This is an interim

measure. This has been stressed. Now there are many pieces of

legislation,. for instance, which have to be renewed each year,

yet they are institutions. This was the case with the homeowner

grant, the elderly citizens renters' grant and such. In this

case, while this is in legislation, as I said earlier, it would

take

an Act of the Legislature to change it. It is the

intention of the Attorney-General to look at this and make a

review.

The commission does have to have powers to make reviews

because they will be part of the information process, part of

the input, in determining how things should be changed when we

try to work toward a more flexible, responsive situation. We

haven't said that all situations are average, and it will be

with the intention of getting toward a more satisfactory, more

responsive situation as quickly as possible. But we feel that

the commission should be part of that process, that they will

be able to gather the information, and they should have powers

to request very pertinent information, not just to accept

information that's placed in front of them to try and make some

point, or lobby some point.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. In regard to the remarks

by the Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) in regard to the

rulings from the Chair, I

[ Page 4935 ]

would point out that the Chair makes the rulings on the

basis of the principle of the bill, not anticipating any

remarks that might be made by the Minister. These rulings are

based on the judgment of the Chair in regard to the principle

of the bill.

Mr. Wallace: In response to these remarks of yours,

Mr. Chairman, do you think that in the light of the Minister's

remarks you might reconsider your earlier decision?

Mr. Chairman: The Chair has made a ruling which has

been sustained by the House and it is not in any way affected

by the remarks of the Minister.

Mr. Wallace: Well, you just said a minute ago that

your decision obviously couldn't anticipate remarks which the

Minister has made, but the Minister, in making remarks on

debate on this section, has really given contradictory evidence

to the evidence you used when you were making your decision. I

guess we don't want to waste any more time on that as the

point's been made, but I do notice that the Minister said that

we have to have review.

I'd like to ask the Minister a question. He said the 10.6

isn't engraved in stone as though it were something for the

next hundred years and I'm delighted to hear that, but on the

other hand, he did say that we need reviews. Am I to understand

that in this

section — and I would like to phrase this most

carefully — in this

section is it then a fact that within the

narrow restrictions of a building containing not more than one

residential premise, that in fact the rent review commission

can listen to the kind of pertinent facts and figures which the

Minister referred to and recommend a rent increase in excess of

12 per cent?

Hon. Mr. Nicolson: No. There is a limitation on the

12 per cent.

Mr. Wallace: Well, what's the point of the review,

then, or the provision to exceed 12 per cent? Are we to

conclude that a review could be quite meaningless? If somebody

comes up with the pertinent facts and figures, which you say

would be reasonable, and his costs have gone up by 15 per cent,

the review mechanism is no good, because if it's more than 12

per cent you needn't go before anybody — you're not going to get

anything approved more than 12 per cent, no matter how valid

your facts and figures. Which again points out the absolute

futility of this rent review procedure.

I really feel that the Minister left the impression that there will be occasions

when a review could result in validating the need for an increase in excess

of 12 per cent. But the Minister says that the review commission cannot in fact

do that, even though the figures indicate that it would be justified. Is that

so?

Hon. Mr. Nicolson: It seems to me that the commission

can also review the nature of the renovations — are these

allowable; are these in fact renovations? Of course, this is a

percentage of the total amount of the renovations that have

taken place.

Mr. Gibson: I'm still puzzled. Under this

section can

the Rental Review Commission allow an increase in excess of 12

per cent of the cost of the renovations?

Hon. Mr. Nicolson: No, not unless the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council were to make such a

regulation.

Mr. Gibson: I see. So the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council could make a regulation which

would allow the commission to increase it by more than 12 per

cent, but the commission can't do it itself.

Passing on to another section, Mr. Chairman, I would direct

the Minister's attention to clause 29(a)(1) at the top of page

7, in anticipation of the possibility that he may here be doing

something that he would rather not do.

This

section provides for the giving of simultaneous notice

with respect to rent increases under

section 27 — that is the

10.6 — and

section 28, which is the renovation, which is fine.

But it also provides that having given notice under one of

those sections only, he shall not thereafter give notice under

the other section.

First of all, I would raise the question as to whether it's

simply sloppy drafting that he shall not thereafter…does

that mean forever or just for that year? That's the first

question I raise.

The second and more fundamental question is the question of

whether the Minister is not, by doing this, restricting

renovations to a single period of the year. In other words,

having given notice of, let's say, a 10.6 per cent rent

increase, let's say, in November, then obviously, that landlord

is not, by the provisions of this clause, able to give notice

of renovation increases, under

section 28, for a full year.

That means that he is discouraged from making renovations for

that full year, Indeed, it may be that he can never give such

notice under what seems to me the sloppy drafting of this

section. Would the Minister please comment on that?

Hon. Mr. Nicolson: The intention of this is that

there not be two rent increases within a year, that the notice

is given for the regular rent increase and if there's intention

to apply under

section 28, that it be done at the same time.

This avoids having

[ Page 4936 ]

unanticipated rent increases coming along at a later date.

It is true that if he passes up the opportunity at that time,

he would have to wait a year.

Mr. Gibson: Would the Minister not agree, then, that

this will tend to very much bunch renovations in apartments in

British Columbia?

Let me put this situation to him: let me suggest that

there's an apartment that a tenant has been living in for some

time and that the tenant doesn't leave voluntarily, because,

Lord knows, he knows he can't find another apartment in British

Columbia — but suppose he's transferred back east or something

like that, and vacates the apartment in the middle of the year.

Now under ordinary circumstances, the landlord would quite

possibly wish to renovate this apartment before renting it to

another tenant. This would not be unusual in the passage of

tenancy from one person to another. The reasonable time to

renovate is during that time of vacancy. Would this clause not

give that landlord a strong incentive to simply re-rent the

premises in exactly the same condition and thereafter probably

not renovate them at all?

Hon. Mr. Nicolson: I think the Hon. Member makes a

good point, but the thing I would stress is that this is

interim legislation, that with a Rent Review Commission to

receive the input — landlords' and tenants' — knowing the

direction in which we are going, these things will be better

served.

But at this point in time, this is, I think, the best course

of action to take. We realize that there is an intent to make

improvements. I think the Member has made a good point, but we

can get ourselves into tremendous complications by trying to

attempt these things without full input which we'll get from a

full-time commission.

Mr. Gibson: Mr. Chairman, I'm glad that the Minister

recognizes this as a defect in the bill. I suggest it's a

serious defect and that he is condemning tenants who move into

premises after the passage of this bill, before the passage of

any new Act which might be any time — next year, next spring,

next fall, who knows? — condemning those tenants to move into

apartments that will not be renovated because of the provisions

of this clause.

I would suggest to the Minister that the House might be very

willing to suspend consideration of this bill for a while,

while the Minister gives consideration to bringing in an

amendment which could be quite a simple amendment to correct

the defects in this particular clause. I think it's one which

will work a good deal of injury on tenants.

Hon. Mr. Nicolson: Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that the types of

improvements we have in mind would be things that would probably affect most

of the building — things like bringing in a sprinkler system, improved fire

escapes and amenities that would probably affect the entire building. I think

the best time at which that could be tackled could be…. Simple painting or

something like that, we consider to be regular maintenance of the building.

I doubt if the commission would consider that as the type of renovation requiring

such notice. That should be done as part of proper enjoyment of the residence.

Mr. Gibson: The renovations would still be bunched in

a particular part of the year, if done at all. I just ask the

Minister not to suggest that the opposition didn't warn them

about this defect, because it's a bad one.

I will move on to another one: at the top of page 8,

section

29(e)(b). I would ask the Minister if he would explain this

provision.

Mr. Chairman: Is the Hon. Member referring to

section

29(h)?

Mr. Gibson: The

section at the top of page 8. My

goodness, which copy of the bill am I on? Yes. This is the

revised version of the bill, at the top of page 8: 29(e)(b),

subsection (1)(b). What puzzles me about it, Mr. Chairman….

Hon. Mr. Nicolson: This provision was already passed

in the old Act, and it's just an incorporation of the very same

principle.

Mr. Gibson: I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman, but

we're being asked to pass it again, and I'm asking what it

means. You're suggesting here, I take it, that if there are to

be extra people in a rental premises, the landlord may make

extra charges, subject to the agreement of the tenant. Are you

suggesting that the tenant is going to agree with it? It seems

to me a little bit of a redundant proposition.

Hon. Mr. Nicolson: The onus is on the landlord, I

believe, to get that condition at the time that he lets this to

the tenant — that in the event of an additional person moving

in, he can make a charge.

Mr. Gibson: This doesn't say only at the time of new

rental; it says "whenever rental increase is made." In other

words, if you were living in particular premises and the

landlord decided to raise your rent, are you suggesting that as

a condition of allowing you to continue to stay there, he could

put in a clause saying you have to pay extra if you moved

another person into that apartment?

Hon. Mr. Nicolson: We see this operating mostly in

the case of a first tenancy and not at the

[ Page 4937 ]

time of review. I think you've made a good point. Do you

have an amendment there?

Mr. Gibson: I'm sorry, I don't, Mr. Minister. It's

such a complicated provision that I wanted to ascertain the

meaning of it before suggesting anything of that kind. But I'd

be willing to talk about a few other things if you wanted to

draft one out.

Hon. Mr. Nicolson: I think we might.

Mr. Gibson: A couple of other things I was going to

worry about, Mr. Chairman. One of them is later on in the Act,

but in this particular

section 1 would appreciate the guidance

of the Chair here. What was

section 29(

g) with the provision

for uncontrolled rents in the first five-year period? That is

now, I take it, provided for on this mimeographed amendment

that we have on our desk. The amendment

section as rewritten

seems to in effect exclude mobile home parks, but now reads as

follows:

"Where residential premises that are not in a mobile home

park are first occupied under a tenancy agreement on or after

January 1, 1974, the residential premises are not subject

section 27(2) for a period of five years following the date

of the first tenancy agreement pertaining to the residential

premises."

I have a point which I wanted to make to the Minister under

this

section — and I was really going to make in the form of a

question but he'll understand what the point is. What kind of

rent increase notice does he think is going to be given during

the fourth year?

If things are going to be subject to control after that,

obviously, landlords, when they arrive at the fourth year and

have the chance to give their last unlimited notice, are going

to boost the price of that apartment up an extraordinary

amount, even paying the penalty of a few months of vacancy if

they have to, in order that they can start their rent-control

period from a high base.

I'm just asking the Minister if he foresees any difficulty

in that regard under this section.

Hon. Mr. Nicolson: Well, I would think that landlords

would probably try to get things up to a good market return

within the five-year period. I would think they would programme

it so there would not be a large dislocation.

I think there are problems even for landlords in a free market in unconscionable

rent increases. I would hope that by that time we will have had time to improve

the rental market somewhat. The question is somewhat hypothetical, although

I can see the Member's concern. But people will be going into and occupying

these new residences. I should think that by that time the supply should be

sufficient in the market to stabilize. They would be asking a fair market value.

Mr. Gibson: Could I also ask the Minister to clarify,

since this

section reaches back to premises first occupied

after January I of this year, whether that then removes the

rental freeze on those premises which has been on since the

second day of May this year? I assume it removes, in other

words, the provisions of Bill 75 on those premises first

occupied after January 1, 1974.

Hon. Mr. Nicolson: That will no longer be operative

at the end of the year.

Mr. Gibson: Is it no longer operative as of right now

once this bill is passed? Is it no longer operative once this

bill is proclaimed?

Hon. Mr. Nicolson: Yes.

Mr. Chairman, with leave of the House, I would like to move

an amendment to

section 10.

Mr. Chairman: The amendment is in the name of the

Hon. Minister to Bill 169,

section 10: a proposed

section

29E.

"…by striking out paragraph (

a) and (

b) and adding

after the words, 'where a landlord and tenant agree, at the

time', the words, 'a tenancy agreement is entered into.'"

Does the committee understand the amendment? I'll repeat it

again and I'll just read it verbatim:

"In the proposed

section 29E(l): by striking out paragraph

(

a) and (

b) and adding after the words, 'where a landlord and

tenant agree, at the time,' the words, 'a tenancy agreement is

entered into.'"

Mr. Gibson: So the entire clause then reads, Mr.

Chairman:

"Notwithstanding anything in this part, where a landlord and

tenant agree, at the time a tenancy agreement is entered into…"

Then what happens? Then we drop down to the words: "…that the landlord…."

Mr. Chairman: We move on to

section 2.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): No, no. If

The Minister would just look at his copy, you're only

deleting those two lines (

a) and (b), not the whole balance of

subsection (1). Just those two lines.

Mr. Chairman: Does the Hon. Member for North

Vancouver–Capilano understand the

[ Page 4938 ]

amendment?

Mr. Gibson: I think I do, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Just strike out the two lines:

"(

a) a tenancy agreement is entered into; or (

b) a rental

increase is made in accordance with

section 27 or 28."

Hon. Mr. Nicolson: But the words of (

a) are

added.

Mr. Gibson: I think I understand it, Mr. Chairman.

The question I would have is: would this make any provision,

not for times in the future, but, since we are starting from

day 1 now on this thing, would it make any provision for this

possibility to be discussed at the time of the next increase?

I'll have to be guided by the Minister on this because I don't

recall exactly from the last Act. Alternatively, what are the

provisions within the Act controlling total numbers of persons

within a given premise? In other words, "unreasonable

numbers."

Hon. Mr. Nicolson: I believe that there are none.

This would make it possible at the time that tenancy is entered

into. There would be no retroactive action taken in this.

Mr. R.H. McClelland (Langley): I'd just like to speak

against that amendment. That really doesn't do anything. If I

understand the essence, it's much worse than it was before. If

I understood the con