1975 Legislative Session: 5th 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)

TUESDAY, JUNE 24, 1975

Night Sitting

[ Page

3925 ]

CONTENTS

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 142). Committee stage.

section 4. Mr. Chabot — 3925

Amendment to

section 4. Mr. Wallace — 3929

Division on amendment to

section 4 — 3933

section 4. Mr. Bennett — 3934

Amendment to

section 4. Mr. Bennett — 3934

Mr. Chairman rules out of order — 3934

section 4. Mr. Smith — 3934

Division on

section 4 — 3935

section 5. Mr. Chabot — 3935

section 6. Mr. Curtis — 3936

Amendments to

section 7. Hon. Mr. Hall — 3936

section 7 as amended. Mr. McClelland — 3937

Amendment to

section 7 as amended. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3945

Mr. Chairman rules out of order — 3945

On a point of order. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3945

section 7 as amended. Mr. L.A. Williams — 3946

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

Orders of the day.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, I ask

leave to proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Committee on Bill 142, Mr. Speaker.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 142; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

section 4 — continued.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr. Chairman, just a few

comments and a few questions to the Minister of Public Works.

It deals with a question that had been put to him prior to the

dinner hour regarding subsection (

b) in which the Minister

finds himself in an embarrassing position tonight. He found

himself in an obviously embarrassing position due to the fact

that he's leased surplus offices throughout the province at the

expense to the taxpayers of something in the neighborhood —

that we're aware of, at least — of $350,000. It's an absolute

disgrace.

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: There are Ministers of the Crown that have

resigned for less wasteful measures than we've experienced

under the Minister which we've been able to expose. And how

many are there that we don't know about?

AN HON. MEMBER: The taxpayers' money.

MR. CHABOT: So we find ourselves with the Minister having rented a surplus

of office space throughout the Province of British Columbia. It might even be

$1 million worth. We've been able to locate $350,000 in wasted money. I'm wondering

whether the reason for this amendment is an attempt to retreat from that embarrassing

position in which he finds himself. Is there any intention on the part of the

Minister of subleasing this space which he's presently tied into — in some instances

for five years? I wonder if that is the reason. I wonder if the Minister will

inform us whether the reason for this amendment is to remove him from his embarrassing

position, having leased office space surplus to the requirements of the government.

Also, you know, I'm alarmed by certain subsections of this

section, because it makes it possible for the Minister to now

lease or sublease that hotel that the government bought here in

Victoria some time ago at an extravagant price.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: What hotel? What hotel?

MR. CHABOT: Well, everybody knows the Glenshiel and the kind

of political scandal surrounding the Glenshiel Hotel. Half a

million dollars for an old, dilapidated, broken-down hotel.

Half a million dollars! Does the government intend to remove

itself from this embarrassing position having paid half a

million dollars for an old, broken-down hotel in the City of

Victoria?

Interjection.

AN HON. MEMBER: Rusty water taps.

MR. CHABOT: Do they intend to lease this hotel to some

operator? It could be almost anyone. It could be a friend of

the government. It could be a friend of the Minister, a niece,

a nephew — you name it. It could be an uncle. Is there any

intention on the part of the government to lease the hotel, to

get out from this financial boondoggle they find themselves in

in that respect?

Two simple questions, Mr. Chairman, that I put to the

Minister and they're simple questions, and I'm sure that the

Minister can answer them in his usual simple way.

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): I have the

answer for my friend from Columbia River. Do we intend to lease

space in the Glenshiel Hotel? The answer is yes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Ohhh!

HON. MR. HARTLEY: When we purchased the building, the suites

and the rooms therein were leased to senior citizens and

persons wishing to live in the City of Victoria, and the Hon.

Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) and myself met with

them. They were afraid that when we purchased the building

they'd be turned out in the street. We said no; that would have

happened had a private developer taken over. But one of the

reasons that we purchased was to protect those senior citizens.

So we have continued the leases to those senior citizens, the

long-time residents. The new residents come in on a 30-day

notice. But the answer is yes. We are leasing

[ Page 3926 ]

space in the Glenshiel Hotel to senior citizens.

MR. CHABOT: A short supplementary, Mr. Chairman. There was

one other question. I said I put two simple questions to the

Minister. The other question which the Minister is unwilling... or maybe he has forgotten the other question. Maybe I'd

better put it to him again. Does the Minister intend to remove

himself from the embarrassing position of having surplus

offices throughout the province? Does he intend subleasing

these offices he has leased over all the province at tremendous

expense to the taxpayers of the province and, if so, will they

be leased at current market rates?

AN HON. MEMBER: A dollar a year.

MR. CHABOT: Will they be leased at a lease structure less

than what the government finds itself committed to? Will the....

He talks about leasing space in the Glenshiel Hotel, that

political boondoggle. Now, will they lease space there in that

hotel? That scandalous purchase by the government, will it be

subject to the Landlord and Tenant Act? Will there be a ceiling

on the rental rates, because there's a ceiling almost

everywhere else? Certainly there is no government.... I'm sure

the Minister doesn't believe in double standards, that if

they're going to tie lease rates in other hotels in the City of

Vancouver, certainly the Glenshiel should be tied to the same

kind of provisions that they're trying to impose on other

hotels in the City of Vancouver.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Yes, as far as the Glenshiel Hotel, I'm

surprised that my friend from Columbia River wasn't listening

this afternoon when I went through the whole lease bit when it

was raised by the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr.

L.A. Williams), that this is merely trying to put the entire

lease business from all departments to the Department of Public

Works on a sounder business basis so that when any one

department said that they had X number of additional personnel,

then we would ask them: "Okay, have you in your budget

sufficient dollars to cover the necessary lease space to

provide the necessary office space for those increased persons

in your department?" On that basis we lease from the Department

of Public Works to any other department, or if necessary, to a

society or to a Crown corporation. I went through that this

afternoon.

As far as the Glenshiel Hotel — as property values go up in

Victoria, we have got the Glenshiel Hotel, and with that, all

the parking area and the right to close that lane where you see

the beautiful Heritage Court built today.

The Department of Public Works had been after the previous administration for

years and years and years to buy the Glenshiel Hotel, but the former administration

failed to see the good business and value in doing that. Sure we had to pay

more for it than they could have done 10 years previously, or two years previously,

but we could certainly sell that building and that property at a fantastic capital

gain. We paid very little more for that hotel and over an acre of land than

what we did a few months ago, for the Esso service station that is needed for

CRDC development on the waterfront. So the Glenshiel Hotel was good business;

no one has been turned out — senior citizens or anyone are allowed to rent a

suite there. The Glenshiel Hotel is making money on the investment, in addition

to the fact that we have been able to set aside land to protect this precinct

area. And this is something that the previous administration did nothing about.

Interjections.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: The previous administration was selling

Hydro property, was selling Crown property; they were selling

the people of this province down the river. Instead of

acquiring land, they were giving it away and selling it to

their friends. That, Mr. Chairman, is a shocking disgrace!

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, just a short question. The

Minister foams at the mouth from time to time. He's foaming at

the mouth now when he talks about the former government selling

land to friends, et cetera. It's most disgraceful that a

Minister of the Crown would make irresponsible and unfounded

accusations such as this Minister of Public Works.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Who did they sell the Hydro property on

Bay Street to?

MR. CHABOT: Just one moment — I have the floor. I have the

floor.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Columbia

River has the floor.

MR. CHABOT: He foams at the mouth. I asked him two simple

questions, Mr. Chairman, and he's unwilling to answer. All he

wants to do is get into a harangue — cheap politics, unfounded

accusations. Mr. Chairman, there's no need for that. We're

asking a few simple questions in relationship to this

section

and the omnibus bill we are debating. I asked the Minister very

clearly: will the Glenshiel Hotel.... He indicated there was

going to be leased space there, and I've asked him very simply:

is the Glenshiel Hotel going to be subject to the Landlord and

Tenant Act?

[ Page 3927 ]

There is one other question which I haven't put to him at

any time. It's my understanding, and maybe I'm wrong, that

there was intention at one time of the government making it a

private club for NDP members. Is there any truth to that, that

the Glenshiel Hotel was intended to be a private club for the

NDP? You know, another kind of Union Club for the NDP. The

Minister might be able to answer that.

Could the Minister also tell me whether...? I don't know

how many times I have to put the question to him.

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: Someone says that the blueprints are all ready

for a private club for the NDP. Well, I don't know. The

Minister may be able to tell us whether he's thrown in the

trash can any plans he might have had for a private club for

the NDP in the Glenshiel Hotel.

Nevertheless, I want to know: what are you going to do with

the surplus office space you have scattered all over this

province for which the taxpayers are paying at least a minimum

of $350,000 a year, of which we're aware?

You intend subleasing that space which is surplus to

government requirements. It is that simple. If you are going to

sublease it, are you going to sublease it at current rates, at

comparable rates, or at higher rates than what you are

committed to?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Mr. Chairman, as far as the Glenshiel

Hotel is concerned, they will comply with all rules and

regulations, including landlord and tenant. In the past 12

months, we haven't had increased rents there. The Glenshiel is

making money for you as Members of the Legislature and

taxpayers of this province.

MR. CHABOT: Are you going to file an annual report on it?

What depreciation?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: If the Member for Columbia River would

just close his mouth and open his ears, he might not be

repeating questions that were asked this afternoon.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Don't get personal.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Mr. Chairman, just because he goes out and

dines well and comes back with a red nose, he has a difficult

time controlling himself.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I wish you would have that

irresponsible Minister withdraw that irresponsible statement,

please.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I don't know what.... The

Chair is not aware of any statement. Would the Hon. Member

state the remark that he would like withdrawn?

MR. CHABOT: You know what he said. You heard him, Mr.

Chairman.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I really can't think of the remark that could

be taken offensively. However, if the Hon. Member was offended

by a remark, I would ask the Hon. Minister of Public Works to

simply get up and say that he is sorry.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Mr. Chairman, I hope he dined well. Didn't

he? He looks as though he dined well, doesn't he?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Carry on with your questions, and I'll

answer them. But make them questions, not great political

diatribes.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I have asked a very simple

question, and the Minister is unwilling to answer it. What do

you propose to do with the surplus space that you have rented

throughout the province? It is a very simple question.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: This was explained during my estimates. At

any time when you go through a period of expansion, and this

new government has gone through a period of expansion —

extending services....

Interjections.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: That's right. The people of this province

were starved for many services. When we sat over there in the

opposition, we got up and advocated ambulance services for the

people of this province. When we moved over to this side of the

House, we acted in that avenue and we provided ambulance

services for the people of this province. That needed extra

space to store those ambulances and to administer those

services.

Mr. Chairman, when we sat on that side of the House, we

stood up and advocated drug services, Pharmacare, for the

people of this province. I can remember getting up and pleading

and saying....

Interjections.

[ Page 3928 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Is there an Hon. Member wishing

to make a point of order? If there is, I would ask him to stand

in his place.

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Chairman, I

would like you to show your usual fairness in calling Members

to order when they don't speak to the bill, because it would be

shame if you ruined your record this late in the session.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point is well taken in this respect, that

I would ask the Hon. Minister to speak to

section 4.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am merely

responding to the question they asked about vacant space. I

told them why we had to hire more space, why we had to rent

more space, and why we needed more space.

MR. CHABOT: What are you going to do with it?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: We needed more space because we had to

house the ambulances, the personnel, the administration

people.

MR. CHABOT: On the 13th floor? (Laughter.)

Interjection.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: If you have questions, I will answer

them.

Under Pharmacare, we used to stand up across the way and ask

what point was there in the people of this province having

Medicare then they go into the doctor's office, he takes his

little card and he scribbles something that very few can read.

That patient would go across the street to the drugstore and

say: "Look, Mr. Pharmacist, what is it going to cost?" Then

when the pharmacist says what it is going to cost, they have to

look in their purse: "We will have to come back another day."

What good is there in going to a doctor if you haven't the

means to carry out the prescriptions that he has just

prescribed? That is why we brought in Pharmacare. That is why

we had to lease extra space.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): The Minister of

Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) is laughing at you.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: He is laughing at you.

So you can take it right on down the line. So, Mr. Chairman, the

people of this province had great need for people services. We have

provided them. We had to rent a great deal of extra space. When you

rent space, there is a time-lag between the time you rent that space,

design it and renovate it to your exact needs. But there is no waste

space as far as I am

concerned.

Now if these people would close their mouths and open their

ears, and if they have questions to ask, let's have them. I am

happy to answer them.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Now we'll get some sensible questions.

MR. FRASER: They say that doctors can't write.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): He can't read his own notes.

(Laughter.)

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Chairman, I'm glad we have

clarified one point — that we're storing ambulances in the

Glenshiel Hotel. (Laughter.)

MR. PHILLIPS: How much a night?

AN HON. MEMBER: What floor?

MR. WALLACE: I am not sure what connection Pharmacare has

with one million square feet of space either. It's a hard act

to follow, Mr. Chairman.

Before we had the supper break... (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: What break was that?

MR. WALLACE: ...which certainly wreaks havoc with the

evening sitting and can well be defined as the happy hour, I'm

sure, we were discussing, as I recall, the whole question of

section 4 of this bill. One of the Members pointed out the very

different wording which applies to the proposal to lease space

to boards, authorities, commissions, Crown corporations or

public services compared to the wording which applies to

subsection (

b) where the Minister leases it to any person. I

hope we've restored a measure of order in this debate, because

this is a very valid point that was raised.

There is discrimination in

section 4 between the leasing of

space "to any person" as compared to the leasing of space under

subsections (1), (2), (3) and (4), which define "Crown

corporations and other boards or authorities."

The wording is very significant because when you're leasing it to a Crown corporation

the wording, Mr. Chairman reads, "for such consideration as the Minister considers

appropriate." That's a little bit like the bill we had this afternoon from the

Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) about "purposes

for the optimum benefit of the province" — flowing, vague, ill-defined statements

which leave discretion in the hands of the

[ Page

3929 ]

Minister.

The Minister obviously misunderstood an interjection of mine

this afternoon about subsidy. If you rent some space in an

office at half the going price, it doesn't matter who's renting

that space. That person or party or organization or Crown

corporation is being subsidized. If I happen to be "any person"

and I want to rent that space, if I pay twice what Hydro pays,

then, Mr. Minister, you are subsidizing that particular

authority. That is the point that's painfully plain to us on

this side of the House: there's a double standard in

section

4(

b) where we're referring to the leasing of the property to

"any person." There is this very significant phrase right

after: "at current market rates." But the conditions that apply

to the other kind of people, parties and associations that

might rent space — the qualification in their particular

instance reads, "for such consideration as the Minister

considers appropriate."

I think, Mr. Chairman, that it should be only right,

reasonable and consistent that if the government and this

Minister have got themselves into a real box by leasing space

for which, as yet, the government has no clear intention, it

makes sense that that space should be put to some purpose and

should bring in revenue for the government. I couldn't agree

more on that. But it's got to be the same for everybody,

whether it's John Q. Public or B.C. Hydro or B.C. Railway or

ICBC or the Rent Review Commission or any other agency of

government. The way this is written in subsections (1), (2),

(3) and (4) of subsection (a), it's quite clear that there are

two different standards being set. I think, having explained

that very clearly to the Minister, I'm sure the Minister agrees

that there should not be any kind of hidden subsidy or indirect

benefit to agencies of government compared to any individual

citizen who wants to lease this space.

Because of the obvious logic of that argument and the

unmistakable sense that it bears in relation to government

revenue being at market rates, I would like to move an

amendment, Mr. Chairman, to

section 4: that in line 5 we delete

the words "for such consideration as he considers appropriate"

and in line 7, after the word "Minister," insert "at

current market rates." Then the meaning of the

section is

abundantly clear that no matter who leases this space, whether

it be an individual or a corporation or a Crown corporation or

an arm of government, the revenue accruing to the Crown in that

way will, indeed, be at current market rates.

Then the government will no longer be in the unenviable

position of appearing to subsidize one of its own agencies at

rents or leases less than market value. It will also perhaps

instil a measure of responsibility in some of these agencies

that they can't go around getting cheap office space just

because the Department of Public Works happens to have acquired

more space than it needs.

So I think two very worthy goals would be satisfied: that

space would not sit vacant, that it would bring in revenue to

the government; and at the same time it would be quite clear

that there could be no discrimination at the discretion of the

Minister that perhaps the individual might pay the current

market rate, but ICBC might get it at half price. I think

that's an eminently reasonable argument, and I think that this

kind of amendment would make the...

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: I beg your pardon, Mr. Minister?

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: The Minister of Transport and Communications

(Hon. Mr. Strachan) says there's no intention of treating

anybody differently. I remember you, Mr. Minister, standing in

this House and saying there was no intention to subsidize ICBC.

And within 12 months you did the very opposite. You broke your

word to this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. WALLACE: So you're the last one who should be

interjecting. Don't you give me that stuff!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. WALLACE: You're the last person who should make that

kind of interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. PHILLIPS: Not one penny!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. WALLACE: Well, where's the $34 million coming from?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask the Hon. Member to speak to the

section, please.

MR. WALLACE: I've asked for the answer...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. WALLACE: ...many times in this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

Interjections.

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

[ Page 3930 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will the Hon. Member be seated for a moment?

Order, please! Order, please! Now, I would ask the Hon. Member

for Oak Bay to speak to the section, please. Order! I would ask

the Hon. Member for Oak Bay to speak to

section 4, please.

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

MR. WALLACE: That's what I was trying to do when he

interrupted me.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I think the Hon. Member has to

learn how to ignore the interruptions and speak to the section.

I would ask the Hon. Minister of Transport and Communications

and other Members not to interrupt a Member when he's

speaking.

MR. WALLACE: Speaking to

section 4 and speaking to the

amendment, I would only say that in trying to correct what

appears to be a different attitude in

section 4 in leasing this

property held by the Department of Public Works, the differing

attitudes to the individual leasing the property as compared to

the kind of organizations and arms of government listed under

subsections 1, 2, 3 and 4; I'm suggesting that the amendment

will provide a uniform and consistent attitude to no matter who

or what particular body would rent the space.

It would seem to me that the way in which it is written

clearly offers the opportunity for the government to play

favourites in leasing the space, particularly to Crown

corporations and other arms of government. I suggest that the

amendment would very clearly establish that the same treatment

would be afforded to any lessee under this section.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Could we have the amendment brought forward,

please? Order, please! We'll just examine the amendment.

On the amendment.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Mr. Chairman, as far as the amendment is

concerned, there's no need for it. The legislation is quite in

order and quite consistent as I see it. As I mentioned this

afternoon, the reason that we have these amendments to our

legislation is simply so that each department, in their

business relationships with the Department of Public Works in

leasing space, can operate on a more sound and more

businesslike basis than has been the case in the past.

We'll be able to charge back the cost of that leased space to each and every

department. As for Crown corporations, up until this point of time during this

administration's term of office we have leased no space to

Crown corporations — certainly not to ICBC.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not yet.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: I see no need for this amendment, Mr.

Chairman. I think this is straightforward. Each

section relates

with each of the amendments, and I see no need for this

proposed amendment.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, the Minister hasn't offered much

of a defence. This point was brought up this afternoon when it

was pointed out clearly that the government could deal much

more favourably with Crown corporations than they did in the

leasing of their excess space which they have contracted for,

and that they could favour them and in favouring them they

would give them a subsidy.

It was also pointed out that this amendment completely

changed the method of disposal of surplus government property

from that contained within the Act as now stated. The Act now

stated says: "any real property, when no longer required for

the use of any public work, may be sold, leased or disposed of

by tender or public auction."

The Minister was asked repeatedly if he was against tender

and public auction as a means of fairly disposing of surplus

leased property. Now it has been well recorded and well

documented over the length of this Legislature, Mr. Chairman,

that this Minister and his department have no administrative

control over the excess space they have leased far in advance

of expected use. There are hundreds of thousands of public

dollars which have been wasted by this Minister, wasted already

this year and last year.

Now this bill does not provide for the orderly disposal or

release of this property. We have the mechanism now. Yet they

bring in a bill which suggests, as was discussed this afternoon

and as is pointed out in this amendment tonight, two standards

for the disposal of the property. One is that if it is to a

private individual, a private corporation or anyone in the

private sector, it will be at market value. But if it is a

Crown corporation they want to subsidize and make look good —

and there are many of those that have lost millions of dollars,

as the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr.

Strachan) knows because he specializes in them — they could

subsidize it by leasing them all of their real property and all

of their space. Certainly it would be less noticeable than a

subsidy from the gasoline tax that he keeps denying exists.

But we in British Columbia, I don't think, want special

deals for Crown corporations. We want them to be above

reproach. We don't want them to be suspect, as they are, that

they get special deals. I think it is an amendment that should

be supported.

[ Page 3931 ]

This afternoon I asked the Minister if he would initiate the

amendment himself as a means of guaranteeing to the people of

British Columbia that there was no double standard. Apparently,

over the supper hour he wasn't able to come to a

conclusion.

It must mean that he supports the principle with which he

has brought in this amendment, that they are going to use the

Department of Public Works, they are going to use the fact that

they have already wasted millions of dollars on excess space,

they are going to use it to subsidize associated companies and

Crown corporations.

I believe this Legislature should support this amendment to

indicate clearly that they are not going to allow this Minister

to continue to make mistakes, and to compound the mistakes and

waste that he has had in the past. Probably the most

inefficient department of government, the most wasteful in the

government that is known for waste.

Documented evidence has been presented at this session of

space after space that still is not filled, much of it today,

even after being made known to this Minister. No answers.

This afternoon the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr.

L.A. Williams) said that this Minister provided answers. I've

gone carefully through Hansard , and he's provided very little

in the way of answers to the very serious questions that were

posed to him. Yet tonight he stands up and ineptly tries to

defend a double-standard amendment that would go against the

regular traditional rights we have to public tender or public

auction for getting rid of surplus space. He refuses to

consider an amendment that was suggested this afternoon and

that has been initiated tonight, that the double standard not

exist in his amendment and that full value, full current market

value be obtained for any surplus space.

Now we in the opposition realize that we are caught; the

government is caught. We have this surplus space; we must get

rid of it. Certainly if they are not prepared to move by public

tender, which would be preferable, certainly in this

section

they would at least condescend to deal equitably, fairly and

above-board with all of the public, and that all property be

leased at fair market value.

The Minister refused to acknowledge it this afternoon. He

does himself no credit when he rejects it out of hand tonight.

He does himself no credit when he refused to comment on whether

he supported the traditional method of public auction or public

tender. I would think that the Minister should get up again

during this amendment and make clear to this Legislature where

he stands on public tender, public auction, fair play, fair

prices and equality.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The reason for the distinction the Minister has made

simply doesn't hold up. If there is any reason that the government would like

to have either a Crown corporation, a cooperative, or any other group or individual

or society or corporation given a special break, then surely it should be done

by the government giving a direct subsidy to make up the difference so that

when the public accounts book comes out, when the estimates are considered,

we in the opposition can see the actual subsidy paid, so that the true financial

picture of the government, and of course of the society or corporation, would

be obvious to all.

The difficulty you face here is that if you make sweetheart

deals here on rent, B.C. Hydro then might make a special

sweetheart deal to cut it down because it's a worthwhile

institution, or they think it's worthwhile, and when all these

things are added up, you could have a very, very substantial

bill which far outweighs the advantages of that particular

organization or corporation. Surely if you charge full market

rates and then clearly make a subsidy available so that the

rent can be subsidized by that method, you will be far better

off in terms of proper accounting and in terms of the

government being fair to all.

I think the Minister could easily accept this amendment

without doing anything at all except enhancing his own

reputation for open-mindedness and fairness towards opposition

amendments. After all, it's not his department that's going to

benefit from this; it's all those other ones that are ripping

him off. So I think that he could clearly accept this amendment

as a good indication of good business practice on his part.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the amendment pass?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think the noes have it.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Chairman, I think it

becomes you to look around to see who's on their feet before

you put the question on the amendment. It so happens that the

Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) was on his feet. It so

happens he's still on his feet. He's not been recognized.

Interjections.

MR. SMITH: Oh, he sat down, but he....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The point is well taken. I

think we should go on with the debate, I agree with the Hon.

Member for North Peace River. I'm sorry I failed to notice the

Member for Langley.

[ Page 3932 ]

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Chairman, I don't want to

be very long. Yes, on the amendment, Mr. Chairman. I speak in

support of the amendment.

I think it's quite clear that this

section offers the

possibility of a direct subsidy for government corporations

that can't be tolerated in this province. I wish the Minister

were still in the House. While the Member for Oak Bay (Mr.

Wallace) was proposing his amendment, the Minister — he's back — the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr.

Strachan) got almost hysterical in his opposition to the

comments of the Member for Oak Bay that there would be any

possibility of subsidization of the Insurance Corp. of British

Columbia.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I've tried to be fair and I

think that the Hon. Member should observe the rules and speak

to this section.

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I'm dealing with this

section which, as I said, has the opportunity for some

incredible hidden subsidies for Crown corporations. There are

parallels, and the Minister of Transport and Communications —

and I hesitate to say went off his... no, I won't say that, no — was very hysterical in his opposition to the Member for Oak

Bay, pointing and screaming: "There will never be one penny

subsidy."

Yet, Mr. Chairman, I look at a speech that was made in

Madison, Wisconsin, June 15, 1975. The Minister of Lands,

Forests and Water Resources for British Columbia, Canada, the

Hon. Robert Williams....

AN HON. MEMBER: Ferryboats, townsites.

MR. McCLELLAND: Ferryboats, townsites. Mr. Chairman, it's

the first time that anyone's been honest about subsidies for

ICBC. The Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources said

in that speech.... Listen to what he said in that speech.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We are considering

section 4 of

this bill and I would ask the Hon. Member to speak directly to

the section.

MR. McCLELLAND: No, I'm speaking to the amendment, Mr.

Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You've slipped off into a discussion of ICBC.

Would the Hon. Member proceed, please?

MR. McCLELLAND: No, no, I'm speaking to the amendment, Mr. Chairman,

not

section 4. I'm speaking to the amendment on

section 4, and I'm drawing a

parallel to what could happen, because we've seen it happen in this province

already. I just want to tell you what the Minister said.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Chairman wants to hear what the Minister

said.

MR. McCLELLAND: Everybody wants to hear what the Minister

said. The Minister said in Madison, Wisconsin, about ICBC: "We

have...."

AN HON. MEMBER: Not in British Columbia!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would point out to the Hon.

Member that there is nothing in the

section here indicating in

any way a subsidy to any Crown corporation. Therefore....

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, there is, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I think the Hon. Members are

reading something into the

section that is not here. I would

ask the Hon. Member....

MR. McCLELLAND: Oh, is that for you to say, Mr.

Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. McCLELLAND: No, no, Mr. Chairman. No, no. We are

speaking to the amendment, Mr. Chairman, and the reason for the

amendment is because the opposition is most concerned about the

opportunity of subsidies to Crown corporations with regard to

the rental of Crown land. Now it is as simple as that, Mr.

Chairman. I would like to draw this parallel and the people of

this House want to hear what the red-faced Minister said.

MR. BENNETT: What did the Minister say?

MR. McCLELLAND: "While we have subsidized the system..."

SOME HON. MEMBER: Ohhhhhhhh!

MR. McCLELLAND: "...partly out of an increase in the

gasoline tax...."

Interjections.

MR. McCLELLAND: He's the first Minister in this House to

admit there has been a direct subsidy for ICBC. When I

mentioned it earlier, Mr. Chairman, he said it was a

typographical error. I didn't realize he had a portable

typewriter which he took down with him, the same typewriter he

used for his famous B.C. Hydro scandal.

[ Page 3933 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I think the Hon. Member for

Langley....

MR. McCLELLAND: Briefly to conclude, Mr. Chairman, I speak

in favour of this amendment, because there is a terrible

opportunity for subsidy here, further subsidy for Crown lands

and for a special opportunity for Crown corporations. I don't

think that the people of British Columbia can stand any more of

that on their tax bills. We must stop it now and that is why I

say: let's vote in favour of this amendment.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say a few

words on subsidies.

MR. McCLELLAND: Good.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: These people speak on subsidies. I would

like to tell you how in the first 12 months of operation

Can-Cel subsidized this little province with some $62 million

of cold cash.

So when we are talking about subsidies, true proper Crown

corporations that are set up by democratic socialists are there

to support the entire economy. It is just those old, tired

Social Credit Crown corporations that they milked into the

ground to try to disgrace the good name of public

administration; those have had to be subsidized — like the B.C.

Rail. The Leader of the Opposition's daddy — no, he didn't

subsidize, no. He said: "We own 100 per cent of the shares of

B.C. Rail, so this year we will give them another $25 million;

next year, another $25 million; the year after that, another

$25 million; the year after that another $25 million; the year

after that, $20 million."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Order!

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Total: $120 million subsidy to B.C.

Rail.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Order!

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Shocking condemnation of that leader.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

The Hon. Leader of the Opposition. Before the Hon. Member

proceeds, I would point out that both the Member for Langley

and the Minister of Public Works were clearly out of order.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's too late. You didn't stop him. You let

him go.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, Before the Hon. Leader of the

Opposition proceeds....

MR. CHABOT: You have no control, Mr. Chairman. You've lost

your control.

MR. PHILLIPS: You let him go.

AN HON. MEMBER: How about a vote of confidence?

MR. PHILLIPS: You were unfair to the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: Next!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Now before the Hon. Leader of the Opposition

proceeds, I would like to ask him to speak on the

amendment.

MR. PHILLIPS: You let that Minister go.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Both sides were clearly out of

order. Both sides were called to order. From this point forward

I am cautioning Hon. Members to speak to the amendment.

MR. CHABOT: You shouldn't be lecturing him before he has

spoken.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will the Hon. Leader of the Opposition proceed

with his speech, if he so wishes?

MR. BENNETT: Call the vote.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 13

Jordan

Smith

Bennett

Phillips

Chabot

Fraser

Richter

McClelland

Curtis

Schroeder

Gibson

Anderson, D.A.

Wallace

NAYS — 26

Hall

Dailly

Strachan

Nimsick

Stupich

Hartley

Calder

Brown

D'Arcy

Levi

Lorimer

Williams, R.A.

King

Lea

Young

Nicolson

Nunweiler

Lockstead

Gorst

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Barnes

Steves

Kelly

Webster

Lewis

[ Page 3934 ]

Mr. Wallace requests that leave be asked to record the

division in the Journals of the House.

MR. BENNETT: Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm disappointed that the

House didn't pass that amendment. Very disappointed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would point out to the Hon.

Leader of the Opposition....

MR. BENNETT: Very disappointed. But in speaking ...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. Order, please!

MR. BENNETT: ...to

section 4, Mr....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Before the Hon. Member

proceeds, I would point out that it is improper to reflect on a

vote...

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: ...and I would ask the Hon. Leader of the

Opposition to continue.

MR. PHILLIPS: You're not supposed to lecture the House.

MR. BENNETT: In speaking to

section 4, Mr. Chairman, we are

still faced with an amendment here that deals with a double

standard, and it also gives this Minister, who every day

reveals his lack of competence more and more — and even more so

when he stands in this House and says that Can-Cel has

subsidized the province by $86 million.... Nowhere in

consolidated revenue did I see $86 million for services to

people from Can-Cel.

I didn't see any subsidy coming into consolidated revenue,

and I don't think anyone else did. It's the usual drivel from

that Minister of empty office space who wishes to have this

double standard in this section.

Within the framework of the Act itself there is provision

for public tender and for option. Yet in this amendment the

Minister wants to give preference and give himself the ability

to give preference to the Crown corporations to bail out some

of the weak Ministers who have recorded excessive losses. To

prevent this happening and to stay with the standards of

dealing fairly with the public, Mr. Chairman, I propose an

amendment to add after subsection (3) as subsection (4), the

following: (4) no real property shall be leased pursuant to

subsection 3(

a) or 3(

b) other than by tender or public

auction.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's out of order.

MR. BENNETT: No it's not. You're out of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I must regretfully rule the

amendment out of order on the grounds that it is contrary to

the intent of the proposed amendment in section (4).

MR. BENNETT: Anything that's fair would be contrary to the

intent of that bill.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, could you just

repeat why you ruled that amendment out or order?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The ruling of the Chair is that

the amendment contravenes the intent of the

section as

proposed. The proper method of dealing with it would be to vote

against the

section as proposed.

MR. PHILLIPS: Is not your crushing majority going to ramrod

it through the same as they do everything else?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Does the Hon. Member for North Peace River

wish to proceed?

MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I'm not going to ask for a ruling

on your decision, although I'm very tempted to do so. I'll

speak on

section 4 without the amendment.

It does seem to me that what we have tried to bring to the

attention of the government this afternoon and this evening is

an inequity that must have intentionally been included in this

particular amendment. I don't think there's any question that

section 4 is here before us this evening as part of this

omnibus bill because of ...

AN HON. MEMBER: Would you repeat that?

MR. SMITH: Omnibus bill.... a situation which has been

brought to the attention of the Minister not once but many

times in the last few weeks of this session. It deals with the

problem of the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley)

exceeding the due care and attention that he should pay to the

acquisition of space in relation to the space which is required

at this particular time. Because of that, we have before us

section 4 in this bill this evening.

It is a means of the government trying to retrieve, by

whatever means available to them, some revenue and sublet

leased space which the taxpayers of the Province of British

Columbia are presently paying for. That in itself would be

commendable. But the thing that is not commendable, Mr.

Chairman, is the

[ Page 3935 ]

method and the treatment outlined in this bill when you

compare subsection (

a) with subsection (b) — that,

intentionally, the government has set up a preferential

treatment for selected Crown corporations or societies or

associations with respect to the rent they will be charged,

completely different from the treatment that they suggest they

will use in subsection (b).

While the intent is commendable in that the taxpayers of the

province are presently subsidizing, to a great degree, vacant

office space in the province to the tune of hundreds of

thousands of dollars, the

section really confers a preferred

benefit to Crown corporations which can then use this as a

means and a device of hiding their actual expenses at

taxpayers' expense. No one will know the difference because it

is quite possible that space that the Department of Public

Works has leased, at whatever rate they agreed to and for

whatever time they have agreed to in their lease agreement,

will be sublet back to agencies of the Crown at a substantial

discount.

We can only speculate what that discount will be, but it

will be and it could be substantial. It will be more

substantial for any Crown agency which finds itself in trouble,

any Crown agency who might experience a loss if they were not

otherwise subsidized. That's unfair to the taxpayers of the

Province of British Columbia.

There can be no reason for the split in this

section into

two subsections, other than a deliberate intent by the

department to subsidize Crown corporations.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I think the Hon. Member should

make a distinction between what is possible by a

section and

what he is imputing will be done.

MR. SMITH: In my opinion, Mr. Chairman, that is the intent

of the two subsections, when you compare subsection (

a) with

subsection (b). It is unfortunate, because what it really does

is set up a preferred treatment for Crown agencies or

corporations or organizations that the Crown decides to give

preferred treatment to at the expense of the taxpayers. Because

of that, we have no other alternative than to vote against

section 4 — regrettably, but there is no other alternative, Mr.

Chairman.

Interjection.

MR. SMITH: Well, listen. There's the Minister of

condominiums and islands for sale and ferries, and whatever

else you have in the Province of British Columbia — "I've got

it for sale if the price is right."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member keep his

remarks relevant to the section, please?

MR. SMITH: If the government of today wishes to let in a

little sunshine, as they have often talked about, and have

everything above-board, then there is no reason for splitting

the means and the method of handling subletting of

accommodation or premises into two subsections in this bill.

For that reason, because the public will never know the subsidy

that will be involved, we'll vote against it.

Section 4 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 25

Hall

Dailly

Strachan

Nimsick

Stupich

Hartley

Calder

Brown

D'Arcy

Levi

Williams ' R.A.

King

Lea

Young

Nicolson

Nunweiler

Lockstead

Gorst

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Barnes

Steves

Kelly

Webster

Lewis

NAYS — 13

Jordan

Smith

Bennett

Phillips

Chabot

Fraser

Richter

McClelland

Curtis

Schroeder

Gibson

Anderson, D.A.

Wallace

Mr. Bennett requests that leave be asked to record the

division in the Journals of the House.

section 5.

MR. CHABOT:

section 5, Mr. Chairman, deals with the

Department of Recreation and Conservation filing an annual

report, which is commendable. But in the language used — that

there "shall be laid before the Legislative Assembly during the

first session in the year following the end of the fiscal year

for which the report is made" — I was wondering if I could get

some information as to what the end of the fiscal year is for

the Department of Recreation and Conservation. If it's March

31, then the annual report will be one year late, because at

December 31st it will follow into the spring session.

HON. MR. HALL: The fiscal year for the department is the

same as the fiscal year for the government. The Department of

Recreation and Conservation has for many years made reports to

the House. But there hasn't been within the statute the

requirement to do so.

[ Page 3936 ]

Section 5 approved.

section 6.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): I would just like

to speak on

section 6, Mr. Chairman, which adds a few lines to

section 6 of the Department of Transport and Communications

Act. It's an interesting clause here: "grant franchises and

licences and enter into charter agreements to operate any ferry

service and prescribe all rights and conditions relating to the

granting of the franchises and licences and the terms and

conditions of the charter agreements..." And then it would

follow on with the balance of the statute as now drawn.

To the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall), Mr. Chairman,

if that is his wish or to the Minister: what precisely is

intended here? Are these charters out or charters in — if the

Minister follows me?

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and

Communications): Mr. Chairman, I listened with interest this

afternoon earlier when the Leader of the Opposition (Mr.

Bennett) was talking about the awesome powers of B.C. Ferries

and the far-reaching powers and the ability of the B.C. Ferries

to do anything they wanted. As a matter of fact, there's a

small water taxi that runs between Langdale, Keats and Gambier

Island and we wanted to lease this to a private operator and we

discovered we didn't have the legal right to do so. This

amendment is precisely to allow us to lease that water taxi to

a private operator to run between Langdale, Keats and Gambier

Island.

MR. CURTIS: That's a very commendable reason for this

clause. Would the Minister foresee any occasion when a larger

vessel in the British Columbia ferry fleet could be chartered?

We know that every ship that is in good condition and can carry

passengers is pressed into service in the period May to

September or October, but a number of them are not as hard

pressed in the course of the fall and winter. Has he discussed

with the ferry management the possibility of chartering out the

Queen of Surrey or some other larger vessel? Don't restrict the

answer just to the Queen of Surrey , but you know what I

mean.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No such discussions have taken place with

me at all. This is primarily and only there because of the

legal situation....

AN HON. MEMBER: Primarily or only?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Only. I was quite surprised to find we

didn't have the authority to....

MR. FRASER: Will this get the ferries running on time?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, that depends on the weather.

Section 6 approved.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): By leave, and I've

circulated the proposals to the Members of the opposition, I

would like to move amendments numbered 6(

a) and 6(

b) to this

bill. (See appendix.) I've circulated this afternoon to the

Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett), the leader of the

Liberal Party (Mr. D.A. Anderson), the leader of the

Conservative Party (Mr. Wallace) and the independent Members

with sufficient copies for everybody else the following

amendments.

Am I required to read them out, or has everybody got copies

of them?

MR. CHAIRMAN: They're on the order paper.

HON. MR. HALL: Are they on the order paper now? That's

rather good work by the Queen's Printer, isn't it? Let's hear

it for the Queen's Printer.

The Income Tax Act amendment and the amendment in 6(

b) to

the Pacific Great Eastern Incorporation Act: I so move those

amendments.

On the amendments.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): The amendments in question

deal with retroactivity back to May 6, 1974, and the second

amendment 6(

b) deals with retroactivity back to November 1,

1973. I question retroactivity on any occasion, but certainly

where you have such a substantial amount of retroactivity. I

think there should be some explanation from the acting

Attorney-General-cum-acting Minister of Finance-cum-acting

Minister of Agriculture.

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Chairman,

the retroactivity to May 6, 1974, was the date of the federal

income tax legislation that disallowed the royalties as a

deduction against income. So this particular 6(a)(2) has to be

retroactive, as was the legislation previously dealt with in

bill....

AN HON. MEMBER: Bill 101.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Bill 101 was the one where we had that

same date. This is a change in that and it's retroactive to the

same date.

As for subsection (2) of 6(b), retroactive to November 1,

1973, this has to do with the leverage leasing system that the

BCR has for rail equipment.

[ Page 3937 ]

The date at which some of these leases were negotiated and

the need to include this amendment wasn't apparent at this

time. But to correct that situation, it's necessary that this

be retroactive to that date.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Can I just ask who will be paying

retroactively?

HON. MR. STUPICH: As far as 6(b)(2) is concerned, it's a BCR

responsibility.

Amendment approved.

section 7 as amended.

MR. McCLELLAND: This

section is a total cop-out, in my

opinion, to a group of people who need protection in areas in

which they are not getting protection at this time. What it's

going to do, of course, is dry up another source of housing for

a group of people who can least afford to have that kind of

housing dried up for them. It's commendable that the Minister,

or whoever is responsible for this, has decided that people who

are covered under social assistance or Mincome, or the

Handicapped Persons' Income Assistance Act, or Workers'

Compensation, or War Veterans' Allowance are going to be

covered under some kind of controls in these.... I assume that

this is basically for the Skid Road hotels that we're talking

about, but it'll affect a lot more than just Skid Road hotels

as well.

Here we have the opportunity again for landlords to say:

"Okay, we just won't rent to those people any more." So you've

dried up another source of housing — you've dried it up the

same as this government did with the rent controls in the first

place. You've dried it up. There are no rental accommodations

being built in British Columbia today, especially in the lower

mainland centres and Vancouver Island.

AN HON. MEMBER: And the rest of Canada.

MR. McCLELLAND: Oh, come on! The rest of Canada — that's

nonsense. You can point to areas in other parts of North

America where the rental vacancy is 12 per cent. People are

flocking down there to build — flocking to build. But here

we've dried up another source of housing for people who really

are up against it.

I don't have anything against bringing these Skid Road hotels under some kind

of control — that's fine. But damn it, what you've done is you've said to these

people: "We won't give welfare recipients rooms anymore." So you're going to

kick them out on the street and there's no place for them to go any longer.

That's what is wrong with this kind of.... Why did you cop out? Why didn't

you just make the whole thing subject to the rent review commission? Why didn't

you make the whole thing subject to it instead of just this one group of people?

If something is occupied for residential purposes, it's occupied for residential

purposes. It doesn't matter whether the person who lives in it is being subsidized

by the government or not.

Mr. Chairman, it would be difficult to vote against this

section; in fact, I'm sure we couldn't vote against it. But

it's a cop-out because what you've done and what you will do,

if this lasts very long, is that you'll force....

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, you've got to vote for it; you can't do

anything else. But what you've done is forced these people out

of housing. You'll force them onto the street and they won't be

able to find any more housing. That's going to be the result of

this bill.

Mr. Chairman, reluctantly we will support this bill. But,

Mr. Chairman, I hope that you would allow me to ask the

Minister responsible to bring everyone who lives in these kinds

of premises under the control of this bill, not just....

HON. MR. HALL: They are.

MR. McCLELLAND: They are not. Why don't you read the bill,

Mr. Provincial Secretary? They are not. Bring everyone under

the control of this bill — they you won't have landlords forcing

Mincome recipients out on the street.

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver-Centre): Mr. Chairman....

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: It's time to go home, but I thought I'd get a

little bit in before we left, and I hope that will be on

time.

I'm quite pleased to see that we're taking some steps in the

direction of bringing the hotels and motels under controls. I

reluctantly must, at least in part, agree with the Hon. Member

for Langley (Mr. McClelland) because he is touching on

something.... I think he's playing games though. He's involved

in politics and naturally he's going to try and embarrass the

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald). But he is touching on a

point that only in

part is correct. I don't think that housing

for this particular category will be dried up, although there

is every reason that it would be normally.

It just happens that those hotels and motels, which

incidentally are not listed as being covered under this

particular amendment, have in fact been exploiting a

[ Page 3938 ]

special category of people. This is perhaps why the Minister

responsible has designated these people categorically for

protection, and that is too bad. But I think the first thing

was to protect those people who were suffering specifically due

to the fact that they weren't covered. For that I think we

should give credit where credit is due.

But this amendment only begins to touch the problem and I

believe that the Minister will have to review this thing very

carefully, because we've indicated, in principle at least, that

the Landlord and Tenant Act does not do a comprehensive job of

protecting all persons who are living in a rented accommodation

on a regular long-term basis where that is their principal,

primary place of residence.

We've excluded, of course, rooming houses and lodging

houses. Also, boarding houses have been another problem because

there's a factor involved around something other than the

actual room. That, too, is an area at which we're going to have

to take a look, because those same people categorically — those

persons on social assistance, Mincome and various public

assistance programmes — are affected as well — in fact even more

so, because they require nursing care perhaps in some instances

along with the rooming care and other special care. They are on

fixed incomes and they're subject to the same kinds of

arbitrary rent increases.

So the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) would be correct

if there wasn't a good market for exploiting these people

categorically. It just happens, for instance, that in some of

those places, particularly in the downtown east side and in

most areas in the metropolitan areas of any city of any size,

you have hotels, motels, rooming houses, flophouses and

what-not, that thrive on a particular category of clientele.

Not all of these people are on social assistance or various

welfare programmes. Some of them are transient workers, people

who are on fixed incomes of one sort or the other who are

really working for themselves; they're just low earners. They

just don't make that much money, but they are really essential

to the survival of these so-called "hotels."

They have very shrewdly achieved their status as hotels or

motels through manipulation, perhaps, or manoeuvering, at the

municipal level and they are not bona fide motels or hotels.

They never have been and perhaps they were never intended to

be, and that's why the contention made by the Hon. Member for

Langley (Mr. McClelland) is incorrect. These places would, in

fact, go out of business if they didn't have these people.

Most of them have up to 90 per cent occupancy by the persons that are named

in this amendment. Most of them have relied heavily on these categories. In

fact, I'm sure the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) can point to

certain hotels where they in fact encourage these people to utilize their accommodation

to keep these people in a place to stay. If they didn't have it that way, they

couldn't survive on a straight transience basis on a day-to-day basis. There

just isn't the income.

They have a good thing going. They're not going to dry up

because of what we're doing, although I think we're taking a

backward step when, in our attempt to do justice to those

people categorically that we've named, we have in fact left out

a whole lot of other people. And inadvertently we have

pinpointed a group of people who probably don't deserve that

kind of distinction because they have to now be identified, and

I don't like that. I think it's a form of discrimination, and

I'm sure no one intended that, but that's what it amounts to.

So for that reason I think that we have to be very careful

about allowing that to last very long.

I think it's an interim measure and it should be no more

than that, in that in the fall when we bring in our reports to

the Law Reform Commission and so forth, we take a look at that,

change it, bring these hotels, motels, boarding houses and so

forth under the bill completely, put the onus on the operators,

on those licensees or the managers holding the licences to

demonstrate themselves what accommodation is for rental

purposes on a long-term basis and which ones are not.

The onus should be on them, because what is happening now is

that we are protecting them. This is the straight protection

for them. We're saying that the Department of Human Resources

will go in, on the recommendation of whoever in the community,

to identify a room — not a building, a room. The Department of

Human Resources will do this and report to the rentalsman, and

the rentalsman will investigate.

Now the rentalsman will investigate only on the

recommendation of the Ministry. Now that means that he will go

in and investigate one room where there may be 90 per cent

occupancy in a 150- or 200-room complex one by one. This isn't

good enough.

We know for a fact that people have been living in these

areas for not just six months or a year or two; some of them

have been living there all their lives. I am thinking of the

area in Vancouver Centre specifically, the downtown east side

where most of my constituents are who are affected by this

particular bill. There are some 6,000 people in the community.

That may come as a surprise to you, Mr. Chairman, but they have

been living not only in that

section that was left after the

Gastown development and other areas have been refurbished and

reclaimed for commercial purposes, but many of these people

have been displaced already and have been neglected. There is a

community down there. They have been living there for a long

time. They have not been

[ Page 3939 ]

paying any five per cent on their rent as far as the hotel

tax and so forth are concerned. They haven't been doing

that.

They have been paying, year after year, in the same place

that is their residence and always has been. We know it; so

does the management. They have a good thing going — they have

got a locked up haven down there. I think it is about time we

were honest and said: look, we don't care what category it is.

If a person is living in a place that is his main place of

residence, that is where he has been living — we don't care

where it is. Whether it is in the Hotel Vancouver; the Harbour

Towers down the street; the Glenshiel, one of our own places;

or down at the Cobalt Hotel, it doesn't matter. If they are

living there, then that place is operating outside its

authority under the Innkeepers Act. It is operating in such a

manner that it should be covered under the Landlord and Tenant

Act.

I think that should be something there should be no question

about. People should realize that. Let's clean the game up,

because the people who are being hurt are not just the ones who

are on social assistance. I feel that all of the citizens have

a right to be protected. If we are going to be concerned about

protection for tenants, then let us not allow any exceptions,

period.

So this is a fine step. I am pleased. I certainly don't have

any intention of voting against the bill, I think it is a good

step forward, but I do not believe it in any way satisfies the

serious problem that we have in most areas, particularly in the

downtown east side of Vancouver Centre, the riding which I and

the Hon. Second Member, Gary Lauk, represent.

MR. FRASER: The Hon. Minister.

MR. BARNES: Okay, the Hon. Minister of Economic

Development.

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: There is one other point too. That is the

question of the rentalsman. Once he has been summoned to

investigate a room, he has the authority to subsequently fix a

rate for that room. That again is a good feature in that it

suggests a more equitable approach to resolving the problem of

what the rate should be.

While we appreciate the need for an interim measure that we took steps to implement

in bringing in the 8 per cent and then subsequently the 10.6 per cent rent freezes,

it is obvious that many people are using this as an automatic rise. It isn't

really the absolute answer. What we need is something similar to this where

the rentalsman has the authority to adjudicate in the situation and make a determination

based on the circumstances of that particular accommodation.

The question I want to ask is: what will be the process by

which this will be arrived at? What will be the method by which

the rentalsman will achieve this? Will it be representation on

behalf of management? Will it be with the consultation of a

professional economist — someone outside, neutral — along with

representation by tenant groups? What kind of a body will make

the decisions? I hope that it won't be an arbitrary decision by

the rentalsman. This would be a bad precedent. I don't think

that he should have that authority. I think it should be with

the participation of representative persons in this

process.

I wanted to elucidate a little bit further on

section 2(b),

which states that where a premise "is not intended to be

occupied, or has not in the preceding six months been occupied,

as residential accommodation for transients or travelers...." I think the

purpose of that

section is to suggest that there will be exceptions.

If it can be proved that there was no intention on the part

of the management to use that specific room or accommodation

for the purposes of transience or day-to-day accommodations,

and that room would come under the rentalsman's authority and

could be designated and therefore a rate could be set.

But the working in that, to me, is really meaningless and

perhaps unenforceable because it just doesn't seem to me

possible to go back six months and determine what their

intentions were. I think the thing for this government to do.... Let's face it, we have a commitment to the people who have

been victimized in the past by legislation that has been

pro-exploitation, pro-ownership, pro-management, pro-landlord,

pro-master versus those poor people who had to rely on them for

their survival, and we gave them a licence to do this.

I think we have to require under that licence that they have

a conscience and a responsibility to those people whom we have

permitted them to serve and to extract certain benefits,

certain excess revenues and gains. So the onus should not be on

the rentalsman to provide anything; he's representing both

sides.

But the thing is, they have a licence to do one or the

other; they do not have a licence to do both. They do not have

a licence to be a hotel and, at the same time, to be an

apartment block. If they do, then I think we have to take a

look at the loophole possibilities and say that under the

licence.... And this isn't all the provincial government; this

also can be handled at the municipal level. There is no reason

why the City of Vancouver, for instance, couldn't impose upon

those persons with licences to operate a clause or a

section

that requires them to operate specifically as a hotel or a

lodging house or a motel, and let these things be defined, and

that where there are to be exceptions, let them apply for

the

[ Page 3940 ]

exception. If you are going to have 100 rooms in a motel,

and you think that you can rent 10 of them as an apartment

block, then you should request a 10 per cent exception, and

these be specifically registered so that we know where we

stand.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: Okay, so we've got a real problem because there

are exceptions to everything; there is no hard and fast

position. I'm talking about justice. If we have honesty on

behalf of those people who operate them, then we have no

problem.

But what we have are people who realize what a good deal

they have by saying it's a hotel when it's not even operated as

a hotel. I don't want to get diverted, but we know the game

that is being played. It's the same thing as they may have a

beer parlour downstairs, and it's not even a hotel in the first

place, but they have a licence, so we get that whole bag. But

they are not hotels; they don't intend to be hotels. They

couldn't survive as hotels. They would go broke. And the

conditions under which those people live, are deplorable. But

that's another subject.

So I think that we have to face the fact that not everybody

is going to be living in an apartment or a rented home or some

other multiple-type dwelling. They are going to be living in

these places that are set up, and people are going to play

games with them. Many of these people don't know their rights.

They don't understand the double-talk, and they need the

protection. We have the responsibility to provide that

protection. I think we have to provide the leadership in doing

it, and I believe that this government has taken the first

step.

Although I am mentioning some of the problems of the

legislation, I don't think I am being negative; I think I am

being constructive. I believe that the Minister responsible

will appreciate the problem, because I have discussed this

matter with him before and I know he is concerned. I also know

that he is faced with the reality of limits on staff, limits on

facilities and capacities to deal with the problems. Certainly

if we bring the thing right down umbrella, as is suggested by a

certain representative group, we'll be in a situation where it

will be an untenable problem for the government, and we

certainly wouldn't be able to deal with it.

I think we have to progressively, deliberately and

intelligently work out ways and means of bringing all

residential accommodation under the Landlord and Tenant Act

where it belongs, and in doing so we'll get the co-operation of

the management as well.

I don't think they can be blamed for taking advantage of what is weak legislation

that allows them to operate. In a competitive society such as we have, we all

know how to play the game. This is why we can respect, with some difference,

the opposition who hasn't always been complimentary to this government, and

certainly not even to themselves from time to time — as can be attested by our

dear friends the Liberals who have their fun from time to time. But it is all

love and fair play and war, and we all understand that that's the way it is.

So I don't blame the government.

But I do think that we have a responsibility to give them

some direction, and I think we have to give them that direction

firmly and fairly and be determined that justice has to be

done. I don't think it is being done in this case because I

believe what is going to happen is that we aren't going to be

able to get that rentalsman in enough of those

one-room-at-a-time situations in time to provide the kind of

protection that these people need. I think we are going to end

up in court. I think we are going to have a lot of

manoeuvering.

I am afraid that we've opened the door on a very large area.

Now that the door is open, we'd better understand that the

principle of the whole thing is that where people live on a

long-term basis, which is their principal place of residence,

they must be protected. That's a fundamental principle, and we

don't care under what conditions.

Anyone who was operating in that capacity, was providing

that kind of facility, is responsible to the Landlord and

Tenant Act, and has to clear themselves. Furthermore, I believe

that where there are contraventions to this principle, there

should be a fine, because in my view, they are licensed to

operate one way, and if they do anything else, they are in

violation of their responsibilities as should be set out,

although it isn't specifically, to those people, the people we

are representing.

MR. WALLACE: While this well-intended piece of legislation

is to protect certain people in so-called hotels, which, as the

Member who has just spoken has pointed out, are not hotels at

all, I'm just amazed that the legislation doesn't apply to the

accommodation regardless of who's living in the accommodation.

Why should it just be people on social assistance? The Member

for Vancouver-Centre (Mr. Barnes) has pointed out that while 90

per cent of these people may be on social assistance, it brings

us back once again to the point I raised during the estimates

of the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) — it's

discrimination against the working poor. The person who earns

just a little bit of money, enough to stay off welfare, the 10

per cent living in these accommodation, is actually very

seriously being penalized. The president of the Downtown East

Side Association, I think, put it well. He said: "It's okay to

sock it to the people who work, but not to people on social

assistance." I just can't imagine why the legislation we are

debating in this

section of this bill should not apply to the

actual property.

[ Page 3941 ]

After all is said and done, Mr. Chairman, the basic

principle of the Landlord and Tenant Act is that the rent

increase within a 12-month period applies to the property. If

the tenant changes three times in a year because of other

circumstances, the landlord can't put up the rent regardless of

who the tenant is. So this

section should not apply to the

financial status of the person using the accommodation. Surely,

it should apply to the accommodation, and that should not be

difficult at all.

Coming from this government that always screams and dances

when the opposition or anybody else mentions means test, this

is essentially what this bill does. It creates a very blatant

form of means test. It gives benefits and protection, which is

needed, to the citizen on welfare living in one of these

establishments. To the other 10 per cent who may, as I say, be

working mothers or single mothers, or what-have-you — people

who are in real difficulty but are earning a little bit of

money, who have costs involved in going to and from work,

providing uniforms, laundry and a lot of overhead costs — that

person just gets no help at all in this bill.

I think this exemplifies another aspect of the whole

principle of rent control, that once you get into a field

that's so wide and so full of loopholes that are difficult to

close, you build up this tremendous bureaucracy which I think

many Members of the opposition feared and talked about when the

Landlord and Tenant Act was amended. Again, of those very

people who are most interested in getting this kind of

protection, one of them stated that it would need an army of

rentalsman to enforce this amendment.

First of all, the Department of Human Resources has to come

to the conclusion that.... It says: "Where the Minister of

Human Resources is of the opinion..." First of all, he has

to be informed by someone in the system that such and such a

building is not really being used as a hotel. Then, presumably,

he has to follow that up through one of his staff to find out

if the assertion is correct. Then having gone through that bit

of bureaucratic red tape, he then informs the rentalsman, and

the rentalsman in turn carries out an investigation, and his

staff report back to him. I think, Mr. Chairman, when you

realize that this just won't happen once or twice but many

times, the observation that we're going to need an army of

bureaucrats to investigate and enforce this particular

amendment is really not an exaggeration.

So I believe that we'll certainly support the bill. It's a

well-intended effort to protect certain people, but it has

still not closed by any means the loophole which I'm sure the

Minister was trying to close when he considered the wording in

the amendment.

In closing, I should just say that the Member for

Vancouver-Burrard seemed to be not clear about....

Vancouver-Centre, I'm sorry.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: How could I make such a.... That's pushing

equality beyond the outer limits, to confuse the Centre Member

with the Burrard Member.

I think that one point is quite clear, Mr. Chairman, that

when such accommodation is designated to be residential, after

an investigation, it's quite clear that the Rent Review

Commission decides what the rent shall be. I don't think that

there need by any unreasonable concern on anybody's part,

provided that the Rent Review Commission functions well,

promptly and in a fair manner, which surely the word "review"

suggests.

Surely the word "review" suggests that all points of view

will be considered and that both the tenant and the landlord

will have equal opportunities to present their case to the Rent

Review Commission.

I do feel that a further amendment would really be fully

justified if it would relate the authority of the rentalsman to

the specific accommodation and not to the particular tenant in

that accommodation.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, this is really motherhood

legislation. I have to agree in part with the words of the

Member for Vancouver Centre, because I think he is trying

honestly and sincerely to help those people in his riding who

need help. Unfortunately, the reason for this amendment to the

Landlord and Tenant Act is predicated by rent controls which

that Member is very much in favour of. What has happened, Mr.

Chairman, of course is exactly what we said in this Legislature

would happen: that the amount of rental accommodation in the

Vancouver area, and indeed all over the province, has dried up.

What you have now is people competing for the better-class

accommodation. It is not available, so you are forcing these

tenants into this low-cost, deplorable accommodation.

The way to solve the problem of course is to provide or help

provide the incentive to provide more accommodation.

Unfortunately, through this amendment, the Member for

Vancouver-Centre, who was really trying to help his

constituents, is really condemning these people to a fiery

death. What will happen — and it has happened in the

higher-class accommodation and the medium-class accommodation —

is that as soon as the rent controls go on, the type of

accommodation deteriorates. Although some of the accommodation

we are talking about tonight might be in deplorable condition,

it might end up being in worse condition because the

regulations will try to be bypassed by those so that they will

still make the same amount of profit. If there is a ceiling on

what they can charge, then indeed the accommodation will

deteriorate. We will not only be looking at firetraps; we will

be looking at

[ Page 3942 ]

unrepaired stairs, we will be looking at broken flushes, we

will be looking at cracks in the ceiling, leaking roofs. Even

though the accommodation is poor now, it will deteriorate to a

worse condition.

So we are not really going to help these people. I hate to

see this type of short-sighted legislation pass through this

House. We have a situation and we are not going to solve it in

the method that we are using to try to solve the situation we

have now, really. We didn't do it with rent controls. In the

short time rent controls have been in in the Province of

British Columbia, there has been a greater shortage than

before.

I brought in to the Legislature just recently a report from

Canberra, Australia, that was just recently prepared. After a

year in that city, they have recognized that rent controls are

not working. There is no accommodation. So we are really not

doing these people a favour. What we have to have if we are

going to solve the situation is more availability.

What we are doing here is not helping the availability. We

are going to make the present accommodation less livable and

there is going to be less of it. As the Member for Langley (Mr.

McClelland) said, these people will be sleeping on the streets

because there will be nothing available.

It is time we in British Columbia accepted the fact that the

lower mainland, as I have said in this Legislature before, is

going to grow because people are attracted there because of the

climate. A lot of these derelicts — pardon the expression — as

it were, will move from the colder climates of Edmonton,

Calgary, Toronto and Montreal to Vancouver where it is not so

cold. The population is going to grow. What we are going to see

is, as I say, that this Legislature and this Member are really

condemning these people to a fiery death. It is sad to say

that. But I think it is time that the government started really

grasping the situation and started trying to wrestle with

it.

You know, Mr. Chairman, we waste enough money in this

province. This government has wasted enough money in the last

two and a half years that they could have subsidized the rent,

given incentives to these people to improve their

accommodation, to build new accommodation, maybe not

first-class, maybe smaller, but to do something about the

situation. But instead of that we continue to waste money.

Well, just this evening we discussed the Minister of Public

Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley) where he wasted $350,000 — nearly

$400,000 — on empty office space.

Mr. Chairman, the government seems to have millions and millions of dollars

to go out and buy back that other 5 per cent of the land they don't own in British

Columbia. We have increased our civil service by 15,000 people. In this budget

that we are still discussing there are hundreds and hundreds of thousands of

dollars for books and publications and for advertising. This money could be

employed constructively to help these people. But the government continues on

in their wasteful, spendthrift ways.... .

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I think the Hon. Member is

drifting from this section.

MR. PHILLIPS: ...bringing in short-sighted accommodation to

try and relieve a situation which really they have created, Mr.

Chairman. This is the sad part of all this. This is the sad

part.

It is not the people who can afford accommodation in British

Columbia who are being hurt. It's the very people you are

trying to help that you are hurting by this short-sighted

legislation — blinker legislation.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: It's not a laughing matter, Mr. Chairman.

Within a year after this amendment is passed, the accommodation

will be worse than it is today. There will be less of it and

those people now who are at the bottom of the pile — who live

in the worst accommodation — will at that time be sleeping on

the street. They will be sleeping on the street.

Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr.

Levi) well knows this. He is intelligent enough to understand

what has happened with rent control legislation. He knows what

is happening. That is the sad and sorry part. It's stopgap. You

can't really be against it because you don't want to see these

people gouged and put out in the streets, but in the long run

we are really doing them a disservice. In the immediate, yes —

we may think we are saving them a few bucks, but in the long

run we are doing them a disservice because the deterioration of

the accommodation they have to live in is going to get worse.

Safety standards will be bypassed, there will be dirt, there

will be filth, there will be no night watchmen, there will be

no night hotel clerks, there will be nobody supervising these

people. The deaths that we've had in this type of accommodation

will multiply again and again and again in the coming year just

because of the short-sighted legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I think that it's time we took the situation

we have, tried in a constructive manner to solve it and quit

bringing in this short-sighted, short-term legislation to try

to solve the problems that you have created. Take the broader

view; realize that to upgrade accommodation and to get rid of

these situations there must be a greater availability of it.

It's the old case of the law of supply and demand.

I urge the Minister: if you have to bring this in now, don't be satisfied with

it but go out and do something. Do something constructively to help these people,

because you're certainly really not helping them in the long run by this type

of legislation.

[ Page

3943 ]

MR. H. STEVES (Richmond): Mr. Chairman, I rise to support

this amendment. I'm very pleased that the Minister of Human

Resources is the Minister that is going to be responsible for

carrying it out. This Minister has my complete confidence. In

fact, I have a tremendous amount of confidence in this

Minister. He has been well known over the years for support of

the handicapped persons, the downtrodden minority groups, the

poor, and so on. While on that topic, I'd like to comment on

this afternoon and congratulate that Minister for forging that

first with the Indian people of the province. I think this is

the first time that I know of — the first time in 200 years —

that the Indians have been able to sit down with the white

people and carry on some negotiations in this province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member to

speak to the section.

MR. STEVES: Anyway, speaking on minority groups, the people

in these hotels that are really apartments are a minority in

our society that do need protection. I'm pleased that this

Minister is the one who will be responsible for it. The reason

for the bill, of course, is that the rents to these people were

increasing from 100 to 180 per cent over the last couple of

months. The rents they had been paying were in the

neighbourhood of $60 or $70 a month and were increased in one

jump to $120, $150 and $180 a month — incredible rent

increases.

MR. FRASER: Your government raised their taxes.

MR. STEVES: The Act states that the Minister, where he is of

the opinion that a hotel or motel is occupied by persons on

social assistance and so on may refer it to the rentalsman. The

rentalsman would then look to see if that hotel is occupied for

residential purposes by the same person on a continuous basis.

I've discussed this particular clause — the way it's worded —

with legal counsel. My

interpretation of this and the lawyer

that I have discussed it with is that once the hotel is

investigated, it would apply to everyone in that hotel and not

just the people on social assistance that meet the clause up

above.

I'm hoping that the Minister in his

interpretation and in

his actions will take that

interpretation of the bill and

ensure that all persons in such hotels that he investigates are

protected. I would hope that he investigates as many of these

hotels as he can possibly carry out the investigations in. I

think in that way he would probably cover most of the hotels

that people here are objecting to.

I agree with the Member for Vancouver Centre in what he says when he suggested

that all people at these hotels should be covered. I hope that Minister involved

would be able to put that

interpretation on the legislation.

I also would hope, where in clause 3(

b) it mentions the date

of effect as June 20 — the date that this legislation was

tabled — that this would cover hotels where the rent increase

notices were given prior to the bill coming in but have not yet

received a rent increase. This isn't spelled out in the Act but

the Act does say that these hotels come under the auspices of

the Landlord and Tenant Act.

Under the Landlord and Tenant Act, three-month notice is

required to be given for a rent increase, so it would seem to

me that any rents that have not been effectively increased ...

people who have not been paying more rent prior to June 20

should not receive an increase, even though they may have

received notice of such an increase.

So I would hope that the Minister would consider the

effective date of implementation covering rent increases that

have not, in effect, occurred, but where notices may have been

given, because there were one or two hotels where notices have

been given and the rents are increased by 100 to 150 or 180 per

cent.

I think that pretty well covers the comments I have to make

on the bill. My hope is that, while there may be some question

as to whether everyone is covered, in the actual implementation

of the bill, indeed, everyone would be covered.

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Human Resources): Mr. Chairman, I

rise to support my colleagues for Richmond (Mr. Steves) and

Vancouver-Centre (Mr. Barnes), and also my colleagues across

the way, the Members for Langley (Mr. McClelland) and South

Peace River (Mr. Phillips) who are in support of this bill. The

latter two don't offer any suggestions other than that perhaps

they may think we are doing something that we shouldn't do.

From time to time a government has to move in order to

protect a particular segment of the public where they are being

put upon by another segment of the public. In this case it

relates to people who live particularly in the downtown area of

Vancouver, and there are other areas of the province, where

rents have gone out of sight. They were not included under the

Landlord and Tenant Act, and for quite some time the rents were

reasonable and there was no need for this. But in the last two

months, as the Member for Richmond has said, we have witnessed

some really outrageous increases. We have witnessed incidents

where people who have been renting on the basis of a week, two

weeks, or a month, at $30 a week and $120 a month, have now

been told that they were now going to $7 a day.

Now there were some very firm and good representations about

this problem made by the Downtown and Eastside Residents

Association. We

[ Page 3944 ]

did not meet all of the requirements that they wanted in

terms of the legislation. But we have moved to protect people

on fixed incomes.

In those hotels — and they are hotels — the majority of the

people who live there are on fixed incomes, and they're the

bread and butter of the people who run those hotels. If they

weren't, if there were other clientele, then those people would

not be there. But the reality is that more than 90 per cent of

the people who live down there are their bread and butter. It

is important that we move to be able to protect them. We are

not looking to set up a large bureaucracy. We've already made

arrangements in terms of how we might develop this, through the

field staff, and through designating people in various areas,

and it's not going to be a cumbersome thing.

But the other thing that I would like to point out is that

there are no restrictions on the development of rental

accommodation in this province. If somebody wants to build it,

they can get an exemption from rent controls for five years,

but nobody appears to want to build it. So, don't tell me it's

going to dry up. If people are interested in that kind of

rental accommodation, they would do so. They're not doing it

here in British Columbia and they're not doing it in any of the

provinces. That may relate to whether the fact that the profit

margin is not good enough, or whether there's mortgage money

available. But it simply isn't the case that we're going to

somehow discourage people by this people of legislation.

The other thing is that in terms of the kinds of safety

measures, if you look at the City of Vancouver, they perhaps

have the most stringent regulations. We had two rather tragic

incidents in Victoria recently. Had the authorities in this

area followed the recommendations of the fire marshal or the

fire chief some two years ago, it could be that the things

might not have happened. So we cannot look, we cannot say that

somehow we're going to develop more fire traps. That's just not

the case; we are looking primarily at the areas. These people

are not derelict. I think that's quite wrong on the part of the

Members who have suggested that. These are people, many of whom

are retired, who are living on old age pension or guaranteed

income supplement or Mincome or veterans' pensions or worker's

compensation awards, and in no way are they derelict.

The other thing that we have put in is the retroactivity, in

terms of last Friday when we introduced the bill, in order to

warn landlords who have been putting up rents in an

unconscionable way. You may recall the incident about 10 days

ago where one landlord put it up by 160 per cent, and then

withdrew it.

But the important thing to remember about the intent of this bill is that it

was not necessary until recently. But now that it's happened, from time to time

governments have to move in to protect a particular group in the population.

This is exactly what the intent of this Act is — to protect that group of people

on fixed incomes.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I listened to the Minister

with considerable interest and I really fail to understand how

he could be applauded after totally omitting to consider the

legitimate problems raised in the discussion of this

legislation by the Member for Vancouver-Centre (Mr. Barnes) and

the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace). The fact is that there is

discrimination here, depending upon the source of income of the

individual concerned. And not one word was said by the Minister

about that. As far as recognizing the problem went — well, we

had the Attorney-General, about three weeks ago when I first

questioned him in the House on this, rolling his eyes and

expressing a concern which, apparently, he didn't follow up

with action, and this Minister had to.

We now have a Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson)

responsible, allegedly, for housing. We have the

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) responsible for landlords

and tenants. Now to further confuse and muddy the waters in the

whole housing area, we have a third Minister involved who is

going to tip off the rentalsman who, in turn, will do an

investigation. We are just creating a Heath-Robinson system in

an area where a little bit of clarity and precision would be

most helpful to all concerned. We are getting a third Minister

involved unnecessarily. We all realize that there are problems

with the Landlord and Tenant Act, which perhaps for personal

reasons the Minister of Housing can't handle. But to have a

third Minister involved is simply making a bad situation

worse.

The Minister talked about the fire problem in Victoria, and

there is no question that the hotel, which was visited by a

number of aldermen after the accident, was one where there were

certain things which were quite inadequate. But the Minister

also knows that the bulk of fires of that nature take place in

perfectly good accommodation where the standards are met and

where somebody simply falls asleep with a cigarette. The

accident occurs not just because of faulty accommodation, but

occurs because this happens to be a problem in a city, in

particular one such as Victoria with very many elderly

people.

I don't think that had the recommendations been followed,

the basics that he talked about, the recommendations of two

years ago, the basic problem would in any way have been solved.

Perhaps in the instance of this particular hotel, yes — perhaps

- but the basic problem would still be there, and to suggest

otherwise really was not completely responsible.

The Minister's quote is: "Nobody appears to want to build

rental accommodation." Well, as I mentioned to the Minister of

Housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson) about

[ Page 3945 ]

a week ago, the latest figures to come out show that there

is about a 12 per cent decline in building across Canada in the

other nine provinces, and a 50 per cent one in this

province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Why? Have you listened to any comments

from this side of the House ever since you started cutting into

rental accommodation, making it unattractive? Have you listened

to any of the comments? You say "why." Well, my goodness, we

try and talk to the Minister of Housing. He doesn't listen.

Then the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) gets involved

and he doesn't listen. Now we have a third Minister who comes

up to bat on housing, and he says "why," as though we

are all to go back to square one.

We, time after time after time, have described the problem

facing the private investor in the housing area, with

government restrictions, with uncertainty as to government

attitude, and the Minister simply comes up and says "why." He

doesn't know why nobody appears to want to build.

Well, that really is inadequate at this stage.

Interjections.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: There are all sorts of opportunities if

the people had some indication of government intentions, but

they don't. They simply don't.

Mr. Chairman, the Minister mentioned also the rents going

from $30 a week up to $49 a week which, if that has happened

already, would not be covered by the $160 provision here. Then

it would be out of sight of the problem you are trying to

rectify. Once again it is closing the door after many of the

horses have left, and the Minister nods in agreement with me.

It just seems wrong that once again you will penalize the more

responsible landlord who has tried to keep things down, and the

guy who went for the fast buck first gets off scot-free. That's

essentially what you have done.

I couldn't continue, Mr. Chairman, without commenting upon the Member for Richmond's

(Mr. Steve'

s) suggestion that even though it doesn't appear that this bill will

cover those who are not on Mincome or those who are not on fixed incomes listed,

he hopes the Minister somehow will bend the law to accommodate everybody. Look,

if we can't write the law so people are included, we shouldn't bend it to include

people. Surely the law should be clear. Surely the law should cover the maximum

number of people who have this problem or are affected by this problem, and

we shouldn't ask the Minister to try and cut the law or interpret it in a way

in which it was not designed to be interpreted simply to deal with the NDP hang-up

about having written bad legislation in the first instance.

Mr. Chairman, I'm going to move an amendment to this. I'm

going to suggest we strike out the entire first section, 3A(l), and wipe out all reference to the Minister of Human

Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi). He's got enough problems on his

plate and he shouldn't get involved in this area. Delete again

the first three words of 3A(2) — the words: "Upon receiving a

report under subsection. (1), the rentalsman shall investigate

the hotel or motel, and, if he is of the opinion that any room

in the hotel or motel" — delete that and substitute instead:

"Where the rentalsman, after an investigation, is satisfied

that any room in a hotel or motel...." Then (

a) and (

b) are

as listed there. Wipe out all reference to the Minister of

Human Resources, who should not be involved in this area. Put

the thing directly in the hands of the rentalsman. Scrub the

distinction between those on Mincome, those on war veterans'

allowances, and those who were described by the Member for Oak

Bay (Mr. Wallace) as the working poor.

Let's get this legislation in its widest sense so that we

are not simply discriminating against the people who try and

earn a little more than they would be allowed on Mincome or on

allowances otherwise, and try and extend it to all those people

in the category of people affected by the very thing the

Minister described, and not simply have legislation dealing

with maybe 50 per cent of the people affected.

Get it out of the hands of a third Minister; put it in the

hands of the rentalsman and straighten and tidy up the whole

piece of legislation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. On the amendment, the Chair

regretfully rules it out of order on the grounds that it

destroys the intent of the amendment as contained in

section

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: No, no. Surely the intent and principle

of the amendment.... Mr. Chairman, you are going to have to be

a little tolerant in this area, because when this bill first

came up we talked about the need to deal with the principle in

these things individually. It's an unprincipled bill because it

deals with so many principles.

Now in this particular

section 7, the principle is clear,

Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Is the Hon. Member speaking on

a point of order?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes, as you wish. The principle is clear.

The principle is to extend protection to people resident in

residential hotels. The principle is not just to restrict it to

certain people in certain income areas. We're going to have to

accept the broad principle, in which case my amendment is

[ Page 3946 ]

certainly in order. It meets the intentions which the

Minister talked about. It meets the intentions and principles

the other Members on the government side talked about, and is

certainly within the four corners of the principle of

section 7

of this particular Act.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair is considering the matter.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): A point of

order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member is speaking to a point of

order.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I would like to rise to

speak to this point of order and respectfully submit that you

consider the explanatory notes which appear on the left-hand

page. You will note that it says with regard to

section 7 that:

"This amendment will enable the Landlord and Tenant Act to be

applied to those rooms in hotels and motels being used for

residential purposes and not as transient accommodation."

What the amendment offered by the Second Member from

Victoria does is to make it clear that it applies to rooms

rather than to the individuals who might occupy those rooms.

Therefore the amendment is strictly in order and makes the

section 7 coincide directly with the notes supplied by the

legislative counsel.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The explanatory note, first of all, is not

part of the legislation or the proposed legislation. The Chair

would repeat its ruling that the amendment effectively prevents

the main intent of the section, which is to provide.... The

main thrust of the section... it is contrary to the main

thrust of the section.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I can't understand the main thrust if

it's not to protect people living in rooming houses and

residential hotels. If it is that, surely we should extend it

to the broadest possible category and not the people who happen

to be under the Social Assistance Act, under the Guaranteed

Minimum Income Assistance Act, the Handicapped Persons Act, the

Workers' Compensation Act or the War Veterans Allowance Act of

Canada. We are extending it to the rooms and all those who live

in those rooms, rather than certain categories of people.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair would further clarify its ruling in

the respect that the intent of this

section clearly is that

this should be operated through the Minister of Human Resources

and apply to certain classes of people. Therefore the Chair

rules that it's out of order.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, surely the Minister of

Human Resources may initiate action under this

section but the

operative paragraphs are: "upon receiving a report" — just a

report — "under subsection (1), the rentalsman shall

investigate the hotel or motel" and then as a result of the

investigation, if he is of the opinion that any hotel or motel,

et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. It's the rentalsman who does

the work. I am wiping out one redundant step. To say that the

principle is embodied in a redundant step, namely the

initiation by the Minister of Human Resources, would violate

the principle of the section, surely....

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair would repeat again, in the judgment

of the Chair, that the amendment would impair the intent of

this particular

section that's being proposed, and therefore

regretfully rules it out of order.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I find it regretful that

you have not accepted this amendment, because I think it would

have clarified the situation for many of the Members on this

side of the House, including the Members who spoke on behalf of

the government party — the Member for Vancouver Centre (Mr.

Barnes) and the Member for Richmond (Mr. Steves). Therefore I

must address myself with reference to this particular

problem.

The problem arises, Mr. Chairman — I'm sorry you didn't

consider this — from

section 3(2) of the Landlord and Tenant

Act, which exempts the application of that statute from the

occupation of residential premises that in common law would be

considered a licence to occupy land. It's because of the effect

of the common law and the relationship between a licensor and a

licensee that this problem has arisen in the first instance. I

find it very unfortunate that the government, in attempting to

overcome some of the difficulties that have arisen from the

relationship between licensor and licensee...to bring in this

amendment where typically this government has seen fit to

divide and subdivide and re-subdivide the population of this

province and to classify it in such a way that only certain

individuals are to have the benefit of the law of the land.

It is typical of the NDP that they want to break down our

community into class structures, and to single them out for

benefits and for penalties as it may suit their political

purpose. Here we have the Minister — I don't know which

Minister; it is either the Minister of Human Resources (Hon.

Mr. Levi) or the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) or the

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) or somebody — attempting

to make some political capital out of those people who are on

social assistance, the guaranteed Minimum Assistance Act,

[ Page 3947 ]

handicapped persons' pension, Workers' Compensation

recipients, or war veterans' allowances. They are the ones who

are singled out for some benefits under this particular

legislation, when really there is a much broader category that

needs assistance. People who by choice or because there is no

other accommodation available must seek accommodation in rooms

which, by reason of their location, create a situation where a

licence or a licensee relationship arises. It can be very

simply solved if the Landlord and Tenant Act instead of outside

of it. But no, this government, in its usual tunnel-vision way,

sees fit to exclude people who should be included in the

benefits of the legislation.

The government does something else in this particular

amendment. They choose to make this new

section 3(

A) applicable

only to accommodation which falls in the classification of

hotel or motel. What about the other kinds of accommodation

which result in having a licenced or a licensee category, and

which does not fully qualify as a hotel or motel — that

accommodation where people habitually reside on a continuous

basis, a kind such as a rooming-house situation, where this

kind of protection is required? But you exclude those people —

just hotels and motels.

I thought it was quite significant, following the

introduction of this legislation by the Hon. Provincial

Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall), that when he went into the corridor

to discuss with the press, the first thing he was asked was: is

this a Gastown hotel amendment? Obviously, it had been quite

clearly signalled by the government that they were going to

bring in some specific legislation which was going to deal with

a specific problem which was identified as the Gastown hotel

problem. The problem is much greater than that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who said that?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: The press, in their statements to you.

And you agreed with them, Mr. Hon. Provincial Secretary. The

Gastown hotel situation — it has been blown up far out of all

proportion, and your legislation makes it clear that you limit

it only to people who happen to be residing in hotels and

motels on a continuous basis.

AN HON. MEMBER: Well, move an amendment and we'll include

the Empress.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: The Hon. Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson)

has already moved such an amendment, the Chairman ruled it out of order, and

you sat silent in your seat when it would have improved your legislation. It

would have included all of the hotels in British Columbia from the Empress,

the Bayshore, Hyatt, all the way down — all those places where you stay when

you go to the City of Vancouver. All of those places would have been included

so long as they had been a person's place of permanent residence. That is the

choice. No matter what you pay, no matter what kind of accommodation it is,

if it is your principle residence, the place where you continuously reside,

then under this legislation it should be included within the terms of the Landlord

and Tenant Act.

But you, Mr. Minister of Human Resources, wouldn't stand up

and accept that amendment which would have clarified this for

all the people in the province. You saw fit to leave this

legislation to be applicable only to a particular class of

people in our community. You should be ashamed that you would

take this position. The Hon. First Member for Vancouver-Centre

(Mr. Barnes) pointed this out to you in the clearest possible

terms, and yet you sat by and did nothing.

During the course of the remarks of the Hon. First Member

for Vancouver-Centre he pointed out something else, and I am

glad the Deputy Attorney-General happens to be in the chamber

at the moment. He pointed out that there are hotels which have

licences to run beer parlors, and which are not hotels at all.

I challenge the government to take away those licences from

those institutions which do not qualify because of the kind of

accommodation that they offer to the public. If they are

full-time residencies, then what business have they got having

a beer parlour licence?

But the government is prepared to make this distinction as

well because with the beer parlour licence, they are able to

support themselves and to offer the kind of accommodation which

has been so aptly described here this evening.

This legislation, Mr. Chairman, does not do the job. The

government, the Minister of Human Resources in particular,

should hang their heads in shame to allow this legislation to

come forward at this time in this particular way.

Section 7 as amended approved.

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: Mr. Speaker, the order of business tomorrow for the

House is to continue with the Provincial Secretary's estimates and then the

Minister of Public Works. We'll see how far that takes us, and then the Minister

of Transport and Communications followed by the Minister of Recreation and Conservation,

and then on to bills in

[ Page

3948 ]

the afternoon.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:07 p.m.

APPENDIX

142 The Hon. Ernest Hall to move, in Committee of the Whole on

Bill (No. 142) intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1975,

to amend as follows:

Section 6 A : Amend the Bill by adding the following sections after

section 6:

"S.B.C. 1962, c. 27, s. 5c.

"6A. (1)

section 5c of the Income Tax Act is amended.

"(

a) in subsection (1) (b) (

i) by inserting 'other

than as that paragraph applies to an amount paid or payable under the Mining

Tax Act or any other prescribed Act,' after 'paragraph 18 (1) (m),', and

"(

b) in subsection (3) by inserting 'produced

in British Columbia and' before 'not sold'."

(2) Subsection (1) shall be deemed to have come into force on May 6, 1974 and

is retroactive to the extent necessary to give it full force and effect on and

after that date.

"S.B.C. 1912, c. 36, s. 15.

"6 B . (1)

section 15 of the Pacific Great Eastern Incorporation Act is amended

by striking out all the words following 'in whole or in part,' and substituting

'the payment of the principal, interest, or performance of the obligations of

bonds, debentures, or other securities, debts, or obligations of any person.'"

(2) Subsection (1) shall be deemed to have come into force on November 1, 1973

and is retroactive to the extent necessary to give it full force and effect

on and after that date.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1975, 2001, 2013: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada