1974 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, JUNE 17, 1974

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

4103 ]

CONTENTS

Point of privilege

Mr. Phil lips — 4103

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Staff shortages at Pearson Hospital Mr.

McClelland — 4106

Financial responsibility of government for ambulance

service. Hon. Mr. Cocke replies — 4107

Farm labour procurement practices. Mr. L.A. Williams — 4107

Government purchase of Jiminy Crickets Kindergarten. Mr. Wallace — 4107

Member's trip to Venezuela for Law of the Sea Conference. Mr. Chabot — 4108

Effect of old age pension increase on Mincome supplements. Mrs. Webster — 4109

Interest rate on tax deferrals. Mr. Gardom — 4109

Motions Instruction to Select Standing Committee on Labour and

Justice. Hon. Mr. King — 4110

Routine proceedings Recreational Land Green Belt Encouragement Act (Bill 15).

Committee stage.

section 4.

Mr. Wallace — 4110

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 4110

Mr. Morrison — 4111

Mr. L.A. Williams — 4111

Landlord and Tenant Act (Bill 105). Committee stage.

section 6.

Mr. L.A. Williams — 4111

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 4111

Amendment to

section 7.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 4112

Amendment to

section 8.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 4112

Amendment to

section 9.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 4112

section 10.

Mr. Wallace — 4112

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 4112

section 11.

Mr. L.A. Williams — 4112

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 4112

Mr. Morrison — 4112

section 13.

Mr. Wallace — 4112

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 4113

section 16.

Mr. L.A. Williams — 4113

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 4113

section 17.

Mr. L.A. Williams — 4113

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 4113

Amendment to

section 18.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 4114

Amendment to

section 20.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 4114

Amendment to

section 23.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 4114

section 23 as amended.

Mr. Phillips — 4114

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 4114

Mr. Wallace — 4114

Mr. Gardom — 4115

Mr. Phillips — 4116

Mr. Wallace — 4116

Mr. Gardom — 4117

Mr. Phillips — 4118

Mr. Gardom — 4118

Mr. L.A. Williams — 4119

Amendments to

section 25.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 4120

section 26.

Mr. Wallace — 4120

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 4120

Amendments to

section 28.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 4120

section 28 as amended.

Mr. Wallace — 4120

Mr. Phillips — 4121

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 4121

Mr. McGeer — 4124

Mr. Phillips — 4124

Division on

section 28 as amended — 4125

Amendment to

section 29.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 4125

section 33.

Mr. L.A. Williams — 4125

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 4125

section 34.

Mr. Wallace — 4125

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 4125

section 35.

Mr. L.A. Williams — 4126

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 4126

Mr. Phillips — 4126

section 37.

Mr. Phillips — 4126

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 4126

Mr. McGeer — 4127

section 39.

Mr. L.A. Williams — 4127

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 4127

section 41.

Mr. Phillips — 4127

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 4128

Amendment to

section 43.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 4128

Amendment to

section 45.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 4128

Amendment to

section 51.

Mr. Gardom — 4128

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 4129

section 51 as amended.

Mr. L.A. Williams — 4129

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 4129

Mr. McGeer — 4130

Mr. Wallace — 4130

Mr. McGeer — 4131

Mr. Phillips — 4132

Amendment to

section 54.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 4133

section 54 as amended.

Mr. Gardom — 4133

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 4133

section 57.

Mr. L.A. Williams — 4134

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 4134

section 58.

Mr. Gardom — 4134

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 4135

section 63.

Mr. McGeer — 4135

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 4135

Report stage — 4135

Workmen's Compensation Amendment Act (Bill 119).

Committee stage.

section 1.

Mr. Fraser — 4135

Hon. Mr. King — 4136

Mr. Chabot — 4136

section 2.

Mr. Wallace — 4136

Hon. Mr. King — 4136

section 9.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4137

Hon. Mr. King — 4137

Mr. Chabot — 4137

Amendment to

section 10.

Hon. Mr. King — 4138

Amendment to

section 11.

Hon. Mr. King — 4138

section 12.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4138

Hon. Mr. King — 4138

Mr. Wallace — 4139

section 13.

Mr. Wallace — 4140

Hon. Mr. King — 4140

Amendment to

section 14.

Hon. Mr. King — 4140

Amendment to

section 15.

Hon. Mr. King — 4140

Amendment to

section 18.

Hon. Mr. King — 4140

Amendment to

section 20.

Hon. Mr. King — 4140

Amendment to

section 22.

Hon. Mr. King — 4140

Amendment to

section 23.

Hon. Mr. King — 4140

Amendment to

section 24.

Hon. Mr. King — 4140

Amendment to

section 27.

Hon. Mr. King — 4140

section 27 as amended.

Mr. Wallace — 4140

Hon. Mr. King — 4141

Amendment to

section 28.

Hon. Mr. King — 4141

Amendment to

section 33.

Hon. Mr. King — 4141

section 37.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4141

Hon. Mr. King — 4141

Amendment to

section 39.

Hon. Mr. King — 4141

section 39 as amended.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4141

Hon. Mr. King — 4141

Amendment to

section 41.

Hon. Mr. King — 4142

Amendment to

section 45.

Hon. Mr. King — 4142

Amendment to

section 49.

Hon. Mr. King — 4142

section 49 as amended.

Mr. Chabot — 4142

Hon. Mr. King — 4142

Amendment to

schedule C.

Hon. Mr. King — 4142

Report stage — 4142

Statute Law Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 162). Second

reading.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 4143

MONDAY, JUNE 17, 1974

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I'd like the House

to welcome some very special guests today from the City of Port

Coquitlam. We have the mayor, Jack Campbell, Aldermen Ranger,

Laking, Treadaway, Kereluk, and Pollock, and Mrs. Macdonald.

I'd like the House to welcome them.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Speaker, I just want to

bring to the attention of the House that today marks the 60th

anniversary of an epic event in the history of British

Columbia, when Vilhjalmur Stefansson began his journey on the

Canadian Arctic expedition on June 17, 1913. I know that Mr.

Stefansson has relatives in this area; he left from Esquimalt

on that epic journey. I'd like the House to at least recognize

that marvellous scientific achievement.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I'd like

to rise on a point of privilege.

MR. SPEAKER: Would you state your point of privilege?

MR. PHILLIPS: I'd like to inform the House, Mr. Speaker,

that on May 30, 1974, the Minister of Transport and

Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) in charge of the Insurance

Corporation of British Columbia did deliberately mislead this

Legislature.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I don't think that is a point of

privilege you stated.

MR. PHILLIPS: I think it is a point of privilege because the

Minister was speaking in reply to a letter from a constituent

of mine which I read into the record. If you would give me the

opportunity, Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote from

Hansard , page 3569, dated May 30, 1974, in which

statements are duly recorded where that Minister did

deliberately mislead this Legislature. Page 3569.

HON. MR. BARRETT: On a point of order. It appears that the

Member wishes to make charges against a Member, and the method

of dealing with that is not a matter of personal privilege; it

is a matter of substantive motion, and I suggest you so

move.

MR. SPEAKER: I gather it's stated to be a matter of privilege and a

privilege that affects all the Members of the House. First, one has to discuss

the question of whether what he's raising is a point of privilege. It appears

that it is not, in the form he's couching it. There is no way in this House,

as I understand May — that is, Erskine May on parliamentary procedures — there's

no way that you can stand up in this House and use that type of insult on another

Member. If you feel seriously about a matter that may have happened, the proper

way to do, as we all know, if you consult the authorities, is to put a substantive

motion on the matter. But at this stage it certainly is not what one could term

a question that could be raised in this fashion. I would therefore urge the

Hon. Member to do what is a normal course and put a motion on the order paper

if he wishes to debate the substantive matter that he raises and complains about.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I'm raising this point at this

time because it has taken me until today to do my research to

find out if the Minister was deliberately misleading the House,

which I have proven that he has, have found out that he

has.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. It is not, sir, for you to say.

If anybody would say it, it would be for a committee of this

House under proper circumstances and not in the manner you

propose to proceed. I suggest to the Hon. Member the proper

course would be to put a motion on the order paper and the

House and consider it in its own way.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, a motion on the order paper would

never come to the floor of this Legislature, as you well know.

It will never be properly debated.

MR. SPEAKER: That's not for me to say.

MR. PHILLIPS: It's clearly in the record that the Minister

did deliberately mislead this House…in two places in

Hansard .

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: If you wish to move it under the table, to

sweep it under the rug….

MR. SPEAKER: I have no choice in the matter. I have to

follow the rules, just as the Hon. Member does. And the proper

course to follow is if you want to correct the record you can

do it; but you must not impute motives to another Hon.

Member.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr. Speaker, on a point of

order.

MR. SPEAKER: Before we go on to any other

[ Page 4104 ]

point of order, I point out that it is my duty, under the

rules, to ask the Hon. Member to withdraw the imputation he has

made. No one can say that in this House and be left alone

undisturbed to say it. You must withdraw that statement, and if

you want another course of action, then you must take it by

substantive motion.

MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, to the point

you're raising. Mr. Speaker, it's not the intention of the

Member for South Peace River to penalize or punish the Minister

for his misleading statements in the House. He just wants a

clarification. He wants a withdrawal from the Minister.

Mr. Speaker, in all fairness, I don't think you should jump

to the conclusion that it's out of order. I think you should

listen to the point he's trying to raise. You're not giving him

the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to make the point which he is

attempting to make. I think you have the responsibility to be

fair to all Members of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: I am and I point out….

HON. MR. BARRETT: On a point of order. The Member rose on a

point of personal privilege — on a privilege — then immediately

sought to attack the Minister directly. Now, the point of order

raised by that Member for Columbia River is not a point of

order but a point of argument. And if the point of argument is

that the Member only wants to clarify misleading statements,

there's a question period. But an accusation was made against a

Minister, using privilege, and that's out of order.

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out to all Hon. Members that where

a question of the reliability of a statement is under attack,

on any side of the House, the proper course is if you feel that

you can't agree with it, you can draw the point to the

attention of the Minister in question period as to how he

reconciles the two answers he may have given. But you do not

have the right to insult another Member without this House

taking action against you for insulting another Member by a

statement that he deliberately misled the House.

Having done that, I have no course open but to ask the Hon.

Member to withdraw the statement that the Minister deliberately

misled the House, because you are not addressing yourself to

the rules of the House properly if you stand up and make that

statement. The proper course is to put a motion on the order

paper, as you know.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of

withdrawing the statement, but if you would allow me to

continue I would like to have the Minister….

MR. SPEAKER: You must unconditionally, without argument,

withdraw a statement that is not permitted in this House by

anyone — that is that another Hon. Member deliberately misled

the House. It's the same as calling another man a liar, and

that is not permitted here or in any parliament. Would the Hon.

Member please withdraw that statement now? There are other ways

of handling the parliamentary procedure besides that.

MR. PHILLIPS: How you handle it sort of depends on who's

making the accusation and what side of the House it's on.

MR. SPEAKER: I've asked the Hon. Members on any side who

have said those words "deliberately mislead." I've asked the

Hon. Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) and I've asked

Members from this side to do so. They have quite voluntarily

and quite properly withdrawn those remarks, and I ask this

Member to do it now.

MR. PHILLIPS: Usually, Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege

you allow a Member to state his point of privilege and go on to

read in Hansard what was said, and then you make a

ruling on it. But it seems that the rules have changed here

today, Mr., Speaker. All I want to do is ask the Minister to

withdraw his statement and set the House record straight.

MR. SPEAKER: If the Hon. Minister made some statement about

you that accused you of deliberately misleading the House, I

would make him immediately, unconditionally withdraw. I would

do the same for you, sir, and I am asking you now to obey the

rules.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Speaker, he did make a statement

against me. He made a statement clearly in the record, in

Hansard , that I was misleading the House. He had no

basis for his statement, and I wish you would hear me out,

because I would like to read into the record exactly what he

said. After I took my seat after reading a letter, he did say

that this letter was supposed to have been kept in confidence.

There is nothing in the record, says the letter, and neither

does the letter say the record as though I were misleading the

House, Mr. Speaker. I feel that a wrong has been done against

me and it has taken me up until today to do my research. I feel

I have been wronged as a Member of this Legislature and you are

not hearing me out!

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out that there are two things

recommended in the mother of parliaments, in London, that I

think we should follow. One is that you always give notice of

any complaint to the Member that you intend to address

[ Page 4105 ]

your remarks to, in this case the Minister. This should apply across the House,

that you give notice of what you intend to do.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: It is also a courtesy that you give notice to

the Speaker so that the whole matter can be considered by the

Speaker as well in advance of just throwing it on the floor of

the House in this fashion, which is quite irregular.

MR. PHILLIPS: It is not irregular at all.

MR. SPEAKER: It is irregular under our rules. You can't just

stand up and say that some other Member deliberately misled the

House. If the Minister said that to you I would ask him to

withdraw, but you haven't given me any evidence that he did

so.

MR. PHILLIPS: You won't give me a chance to give evidence!

All you want me to do is defer it to question period.

MR. SPEAKER: Do it in a proper manner, then.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm doing it in a proper manner! I'm raising

on a point of privilege, and that's exactly what's been done in

this House before by Members on both sides of the House, but

today I rise and you're trying to refer to the question

period.

I'll certainly give the Minister an opportunity to withdraw

and I'll give you the opportunity to listen to the rest of my

statement.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm asking the Member now to obey the rules of

the House and withdraw his statement that the Minister

deliberately misled the House.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, will you give me the opportunity

to read why I feel that the Minister…?

MR. SPEAKER: You obviously have a right in the rules of this

House to raise that question in question period, in a proper

fashion, without accusing another man of deliberately

misleading the House.

MR. PHILLIPS: I also, Mr. Speaker, have the right to rise on

a point of privilege. It was the Minister who impugned me in

this Legislature by saying that I misled the House and I had

read a letter into the record that was supposed to have been

kept in confidence. Mr. Speaker, I'm the person who has been

impugned in this House and you won't give me the opportunity to

state my case.

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out that if you will comply with the rule that

you withdraw your statement that the Minister deliberately misled the House,

which I must first ask you to withdraw under our rules, I will certainly hear

you out on your complaint to determine whether it is a matter of privilege.

But I can't permit you to go ahead making judgments you have no right to make

at this stage.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I'll withdraw the statement for

the time being that the Minister did deliberately mislead this

House, but I would like to go on with my statement and read

into the record, out of Hansard , what the Minister said

after I read this particular letter in the….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! At this stage it is not a point

of privilege, the way you have raised it. If you have a point

to question the Minister on in question period, for heaven's

sake reserve your right to question period. Then it is a matter for both you and the House to determine in terms of the

answers you receive. Now would you kindly obey that rule?

I would urge Members in future that either we make it a rule

or follow the convention in May of giving notice so that

we are aware of what the problem is without just standing up in

this fashion.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I have withdrawn, but it seems

odd to me that the Minister of Transport and Communications

(Hon. Mr. Strachan) could stand in this Legislature and, with a

newspaper article, accuse the leader of the official opposition

(Mr. Bennett) of making false statements outside this House,

the business of which had nothing to do with the Legislature.

I'm quoting from Hansard , the written rule. It is

certainly not the Blues , Mr. Speaker….

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out to the Hon. Member that he did

not stand up and say that he had been impugned. If you had a

complaint of that order — that someone has called you a liar,

or had called you another insult outside the House — it is a

matter of privilege and it is properly raised inside the House.

This is not what you have been doing.

You are complaining that somebody else told a different

story than what you expected to believe. That is not the same

as a point of privilege and I point that out to you now. You

can now raise it in question period and I ask to go on to the

next order of business.

MR. PHILLIPS: Just a moment, Mr. Speaker….

HON. MR. BARRETT: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: What is your point of order?

[ Page 4106 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: The reference made by the Member related

to the official opposition leader. At that time the Minister

did go and see the official Leader of the Opposition (Mr.

Bennett) in his office before the matter was raised in the

House.

The procedure to handle the complaint was followed by the

Minister by directly going to the official Leader of the

Opposition, and I suggest that that Member follow the same

procedure or use question period, but I do think that we should

move on to the next order of business.

MR. SPEAKER: I just called for the next order of

business.

MR. McCLELLAND: I would just like, Mr. Speaker, to clarify

whether or not from now on when a Member wants to have the

record cleared on a statement that was made by anyone else in

this House he should do it now in question period. Is that the

purpose of question period from now on? That's what the Member

is attempting to have done as a point of privilege and it is a

perfectly valid point of privilege, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Anything touching upon yourself may be a

question of privilege, depending on the circumstances.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! You can raise the matter in

question period and then we can determine from there where we

go. But you can't complain about what another Member has said

unless he accused you of having lied.

MR. PHILLIPS: The Minister was misleading the House,

directly impugning me, because he said, in essence, that this

letter was supposed to have been kept secret. He deliberately

accused me and challenged me of bringing up a letter in this

Legislature which was supposed to have been kept private and

secret, and that is not the case, and that is why I stand on a

point of privilege. If I haven't been impugned on page 3569, he

challenged my integrity, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I suggest at the moment, in view

of your complaint that I look at it, study those pages, and

deal with it at a later time. You are throwing something here

onto the floor that is impossible to judge or assess in terms

of a point of privilege without reading the words, without

understanding the situation. I'll take it under advisement and look at it….

MR. PHILLIPS: You'll take your orders from Mr. Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Ohhh!

MR. SPEAKER: No. Under no circumstances.

MR. PHILLIPS: Absolutely! The Premier's just advised you to

do that.

MR. SPEAKER: Under no circumstances. I'm trying to be fair

with you, and to understand your complaint, but I must look at

it and then make a decision. I'm not going to do that rashly or

without serious consideration.

MR. CHABOT: You're not going to do it rationally?

MR. SPEAKER: I said "rashly." I wouldn't do it rashly. I

would like to look at it and study it.

Now, could we all settle down and get on with question

period?

MR. PHILLIPS: I feel, Mr. Speaker, that you have not even

given me the opportunity to….

MR. SPEAKER: Order! I'm looking at it.

MR. PHILLIPS: You can't make a decision here today because

you haven't let me read the words from Hansard and state

my case! That's why you can't make a decision here! That's why

you've got to take it to your office!

MR. SPEAKER: Order! It is impossible to hold up the

proceedings of the House indefinitely in this type of

interchange. I will look at the problem and then report back to

the Hon. Member and the House.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, when a person's integrity is at

stake in this Legislature we should hold up this Legislature

for 24 hours, if necessary.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, I point out that in Britain it is

a practice for the Speaker to reserve on every question like

this for 24 hours…

MR. PHILLIPS: But you haven't heard….

MR. SPEAKER: …and to give 24 hours notice as well.

Oral questions

STAFF SHORTAGES AT PEARSON HOSPITAL

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Health. I've

had complaints over the weekend

[ Page 4107 ]

again of serious staff shortages at Pearson Hospital in that

orderlies are serving two and three wards, where the normal

practice has been that orderlies are available for every

ward.

I wonder if the Minister is aware of this staff shortage,

and whether or not there are attempts being made now to correct

any shortages.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, Pearson

is better staffed now than it has been staffed in history.

The fact of the matter is that from time to time in some

areas health people, as other people, leave their work.

Sometimes there is a shortage. But there is no long, persistent

problem at Pearson any longer. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker,

that I have very few reports of any problems in any of our

institutions any longer. I can say that we are on top of these

kinds of situations. We've added more staff, as that Member

knows; he's the health critic. We added more staff to the

institutions in this year's estimates, as we did last year. He

voted for them. They're on line.

MR. McCLELLAND: That was really not a very satisfactory

response to the question I asked. Really, there are staff

shortages today. I wish that the Minister would reassure the

patients, not me. It's the patients that are complaining about

this.

I'd like the Minister to tell me whether there is a staff

shortage at Pearson today. Is he having problems getting staff?

Have applications for orderlies in fact been turned down in the

face of this staff shortage?

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I just can't answer a question

like that off the top of my head. We have some 10,000-odd

people out there.

While I'm on my feet, Mr. Speaker, I'll answer a question….

MR. McCLELLAND: Will you take it as notice or something?

FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY OF

GOVERNMENT IN AMBULANCE SERVICE

HON. MR. COCKE: Yes, I'll take it as notice.

Mr. Speaker, I will answer a question that was given to me

the other day by the same Member — I believe it was the same

Member — with respect to the ambulance service.

What financial responsibility will the Provincial Government

accept as of July 1?

It is our intention to assume full financial responsibility for the ambulance

service throughout the province as of July 1. On this date billing by the service

to private individuals will cease. This responsibility will be assumed by the

Emergency Health Services Commission, who will bill the individual at a rate

of $5 per call.

At the present moment it is our intention that where a third

party is involved we will be billing the two costs to the third

party — for example: insurance corporation, Workmen's

Compensation Board, the federal government or whatever. But

that will be the case as of July 1.

MR. McCLELLAND: A supplementary on that one, Mr. Speaker:

for those municipalities who are in the process of putting out

subsidies for their local ambulance services, will you be

reimbursing them for that or will they bill that subsidy

directly to the provincial government?

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the municipalities won't be

called upon for a financial commitment. After all, if we're

picking up the tab, then they don't have to subsidize the

present operators. What we need is six months to go over the

system — at least six months; I'm not positive we can do it in

that time — so that we can assess each vehicle, assess each

operation and slowly but surely integrate them into the overall

ambulance service.

As far as the municipalities are concerned, our

responsibility begins as of July 1, 1974 — an historic day, Mr.

Member.

B.C. FARM LABOUR

PROCUREMENT PRACTICES

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Speaker,

to the Hon. Minister of Labour: could he advise the House

whether he or his department is making any investigation into

the farm labour procurement practices in the Province of

British Columbia?

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I have a

motion to introduce at the appropriate time in today's session

related to that issue. Perhaps the Member can wait and see the

motion, which does deal with the whole question of farm and

domestic labour.

GOVERNMENT PURCHASE OF

JIMINY CRICKETS KINDERGARTEN

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, last Wednesday I

asked the Minister of Labour if the Workmen's Compensation

Board had at any time purchased the property known as Jiminy

Crickets. I asked if it had been turned down by the cabinet.

The Minister asked for some further evidence.

I have here an agreement to purchase to the extent of

$285,000 signed by R. Coldicott, executive director of the

Workmen's Compensation Board, and a further document stating

that the Workmen's

[ Page 4108 ]

Compensation Board are unable to proceed with the purchase

as the necessary order-in-council has not been granted. That's

a letter dated May 30, signed by R.A. Holloway. I wonder if the

Minister has been able to find out why the cabinet did not

approve the purchase.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I was not aware that there was

any signed agreement to purchase.

As far as the decision of cabinet is concerned, I'm not at

liberty to discuss the basis on which cabinet makes their

decisions. But I was certainly not aware that there was any

agreement to purchase.

I would like to see a copy of that document.

MR. WALLACE: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I understand that

the Minister, in his original answer to my question on

Wednesday, said that it had not been before cabinet. I'm

confused by his answer today. Am I to understand that the

Minister was unaware as to whether it had been to cabinet or

not? Or had it been to cabinet and was turned down?

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to give the

impression that the question had or had not been before

cabinet. I simply meant to imply that I'd have to read the

precise exchange again. I was not aware of any agreement for

sale which was turned down by a cabinet decision. I knew that

negotiations had been underway. I knew that final authority had

not been given for the purchase of that property. I did not

mean to imply, if I indeed did, that the question had not been

brought before cabinet.

MR. WALLACE: Just a final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I

realize that the confidence of cabinet may be involved here.

But can the Minister assure us that the refusal had nothing to

do with the fact that the owner of the property is a very

vocal, outspoken opponent of this government, and is a leading

member of the Majority Movement? We couldn't attribute that as

the reason for it being turned down, could we?

HON. MR. KING: The Member is free to draw whatever

conclusions he chooses to. Quite frankly, I don't know the

gentleman's name. I didn't know that the Member for Oak Bay was

affiliated with the Majority Movement.

AN HON. MEMBER: Come on now; come on!

HON. MR. KING: But I certainly do not know the name….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Hon. Member on a point of

order.

MR. WALLACE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I certainly

in no way said that I was affiliated with the Majority

Movement. I ask the Minister to withdraw.

MR. SPEAKER: It's only in the case of an insult that one…. (Laughter.) If the Hon. Member considers it an insult….

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, in that case I definitely

withdraw.

Quite honestly, to the Hon. Member for Oak Bay, I do not

know the individual. I don't even know his name.

MEMBER'S TRIP TO VENEZUELA

FOR LAW OF THE SEA CONFERENCE

MR. CHABOT: A question to the Minister of Recreation and

Conservation: when is it expected that the Member for Delta

(Mr. Liden) will be leaving for Caracas, Venezuela, to attend

the Law of the Sea Conference, and how long will he be

there?

HON. J. RADFORD (Minister of Recreation and Conservation): I

believe that the Member is leaving at the end of this month,

Mr. Member, and will be there for approximately four to six

weeks.

MR. CHABOT: A supplementary question: will he be

representing the provincial government's point of view, or that

of Homer Stevens and the United Fishermen and Allied Workers

Union?

HON. MR. RADFORD: No, he's just going as an observer, Mr.

Member.

MR. CHABOT: A supplementary question: what is the expected

cost of this socialist MLA holiday?

HON. MR. BARRETT: When is your leader coming back?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

HON. MR. RADFORD: I have no idea, Mr. Member.

MR. CHABOT: One last supplementary question. In view of the

fact that….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. CHABOT: Roll up your sleeves, Mr. Minister of Highways

(Hon. Mr. Lea).

In view of the fact that we do have a fisheries department,

what benefits will possibly accrue to the provincial government

by this observer being at this

[ Page 4109 ]

conference, and will the Member be tabling a report of his

observations in the Legislature?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Author, author. Dan Campbell? — as

always.

HON. MR. RADFORD: He will be down there as an observer. If

he wishes to bring back a report or make a report, that will be

up to him, Mr. Member.

MR. CHABOT: A short supplementary. Who will be paying his

expenses if he's not going to be tabling a report to this

House?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. RADFORD: I'll take that as notice, but I believe

that the federal government is partially paying for his

transportation and expenses down there.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): A quick supplementary: in view

of the fact that other members of the provincial public service

are attending that conference as official members of a

delegation, will the Minister please take the question as

notice and reply as to the relationship between a provincial

government observer — or, at least, a provincial MLA as an

observer — and the official members of the provincial civil

service who will be there as part of the regular Canadian

delegation?

EFFECT OF OLD-AGE PENSION

INCREASE ON MINCOME SUPPLEMENTS

MRS. D. WEBSTER (Vancouver South): Mr. Speaker, my question

is directed to the Minister of Finance.

MR. WALLACE: When do we get paid? (Laughter.)

MRS. WEBSTER: Well, it's not when you get paid…. But it

has been announced by the federal government that the old-age

pensions will be increased as of July 1 because of the

escalated cost of living, and that the old-age security pension

plus the guaranteed income supplement will go up by $4.87 to a

new rate of $192.18.

I would like to ask the Minister what effect this will have

on the Mincome cheques that will be sent out by this

department.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Madam Member, thank you for notifying me

that you were going to ask the question; there is a copy of a

reply on the way to your office. The information given to me

through the Department of Human Resources is that the new Mincome rate, effective July 1, 1974, will be $222.04, up

$4.87 from the previous….

Further, I am informed that while the federal allowances

apply only to persons aged 65 or over who qualify under the

basis of the new guaranteed supplement income test, the new

Mincome rate of $222.04 applies to all persons receiving the

handicapped allowance as well as to senior citizens aged 60 and

over….

There are presently 124,000 people who are receiving

Mincome, all of whom know that it was this government which

initiated the programme.

INTEREST RATE

ON TAX DEFERRALS

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Nice of you to

recognize me, Mr. Speaker. I never thought he would quite get

down to this corner of the room.

I asked the Hon. Premier a question last week concerning

misleading newspaper advertising. I am shocked to find that the

newspaper advertising that has been misleading has been

compounded 800,000 fold, notwithstanding the points that were

raised in the House last week. We still see within this

advertisement that the interest rate is a modest 8 per cent a

year on tax deferrals.

I would ask the Hon. Premier if he is aware of the fact that

it is compound interest as stated in the bill. Secondly, is he

aware of the fact that 8 per cent per year compounded comes to

16 per cent in 10 years?

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I want to thank you for giving me notice,

Mr. Member. You said you were going to ask this question by

picking up the pamphlet. The facts have been provided to me as

follows: The interest is calculated once a year at a rate of 8

per cent on the outstanding amount. In year 1, the 8 per cent

is applied as simple interest to the amount owed. In year 2,

the 8 per cent is applied to the principal plus last year's

interest. Our legislation is flexible to allow for the

calculation of straight and simple interest. This is so because

each person can pay off that year's interest charges so

that next year's interest is calculated only on a total….

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Could I have some order, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Could we have a little more

interest in the subject?

HON. MR. BARRETT: So our brochure is correct.

[ Page 4110 ]

The 8 per cent is calculated annually. The rate is modest

and the repayment provisions are also detailed in the pamphlet.

Read the rest of the pamphlet.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: "Any or all of the amount can be paid back

at any time without a penalty charge." Quote and unquote.

(Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: Is there a supplementary?

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the House to move

the following motion without notice.

MR. SPEAKER: Could you explain to the Hon. Members what it

is so they know what they are giving leave to?

HON. MR. KING: It is a motion that the House instruct the

Select Standing Committee on Labour and Justice to examine the

exclusion of those employees who are engaged in agriculture or

domestic service from the Labour Code, from workers'

compensation coverage, and from other labour standards

legislation.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. KING: I move that the House instruct the Select

Standing Committee on Labour and Justice to examine the

exclusion of those employees who are engaged in agriculture or

domestic service from the Labour Code, workers' compensation

coverage, and from other labour standards legislation to

determine if there is a need for reform of the status of

agriculture workers and domestic workers under provincial

legislation.

Such committee to be empowered to sit after prorogation or

during adjournments of the House and that the committee be

empowered to send for persons, papers and records, and to hear

representations from such organizations and individuals as may,

in their discretion, appear necessary.

The chairman of the committee shall file with Mr. Speaker a

monthly report setting forth particulars of the meetings,

proposals for agenda and a general statement of current

activities and expenses of the committee during the preceding

month.

Motion approved.

Orders of the day

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Committee on Bill 15, Mr.

Speaker.

RECREATIONAL LAND GREEN BELT

ENCOURAGEMENT ACT

The House in committee on Bill 15; Mr. Liden in the

chair.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

section 4.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Chairman,

section 4 is, in

my view, essentially the essence of the Act since it means that

recreational facilities will enter into agreements with the

government. These agreements will include certain covenants. I

wonder if the Minister can briefly tell us what the very

important aspect of public access will be that will be adopted

in relation to this particular

section of the bill. This really

is the degree to which this bill can be either very reasonable

or make the intent of the bill completely unworkable.

Could the Minister comment on that?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, we wrestled with the problem

of defining, perhaps through regulation, some method of minimum

standards of access. We found it was impossible.

We have had letters of intent from many of the golf courses

and other recreational facilities outlining specific programmes

they have in the area of youth access, lower fees, or perhaps

even establishing a bowling green for senior citizens or others

interested in bowling lawns on the premises of the golf

courses.

Therefore, it was decided that a committee, with the

Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford) as a

member, would sit and hear the plan of each particular unit

that was approaching us for tax deferral or tax removal under

this Act.

Anything that is reasonable; flexibility is the key. We will

not be rigid in terms of minimum standards. Each specific

resort will be able to define for the Minister and to his

satisfaction. Once satisfied on that basis, with a great range

of flexibility, then, of course, the Act will be applied.

MR. WALLACE: Will there by any written guidelines provided

for golf courses? Then, each one can apply and be treated on

its own merit. Do you not feel that guidelines are really

feasible and that is is each case on its own merit?

HON. MR. BARRETT: The general guidelines have been

enunciated in response from the golf courses themselves and

from statements made by the government. They are very general.

That is, greater

[ Page 4111 ]

access to the public with emphasis on special programmes

such as youth or the elderly. If they can somewhere within that

framework come up with a programme, then I am sure this Act

will apply to them.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): I take it, then, that once

that agreement is signed and accepted it will last a full

five-year term. In other words, there won't be any change in

that agreement which would then put them in default and have to

pay back.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, Mr. Member. Unlike the Tories in

Alberta, once the agreement is signed we will not break it. We

hope they won't either. Unlike the Liberals…. Can I give a

few examples there?

The idea is to provide mutual understanding. I believe the

response to this bill has been earnest and sincere. I believe

from the mail I have received from the golf courses and the

other facilities that they seriously intend to show that they

are either already extending services or greater access or they

will initiate programmes.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Chairman,

I understood the First Member for Victoria spoke about a

five-year term. There is no five-year term.

HON. MR. BARRETT: There is no five-year term.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: This is an arrangement in perpetuity.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's right.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: In that respect, could the Minister

indicate whether or not there is any likelihood the

reimbursement will be less than for all of the taxes on a

particular recreational property? In other words, if only part

of the properties are made available to a bowling green or

general public access, would you consider dividing the taxes in

some way, or must they qualify for their total recreational

lands or not qualify at all?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, you know, the area of improvement…. I don't suspect that anybody would use this as a device

to, say, extend the golf clubhouse and expand the service of

the bar. It applies to the whole service available. If they

make the youth programme available, if they make a bowling

green available and they tell us that they're not involved in a

junior programme they're developing, then the total facility

would come under that.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: That's fine.

HON. MR. BARRETT: But at this point, I must say there's a

positive response from the golf courses. Perhaps they'll even

think of new ways of bringing people onto the course.

Sections 4 to 10 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise

and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

Bill 115, Recreational Land Green Belt Encouragement

Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time

and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 105, Mr. Speaker.

LANDLORD AND TENANT ACT

The House in Committee on Bill 105; Mr. Liden in the

chair.

Sections 1 to 5 inclusive approved.

section 6.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, if I could draw the

Attorney-General's attention to subsection (2) of

section 6,

there is a provision there where a person is evading service. I

wonder if the Attorney-General would indicate who is to

determine whether the evasion takes place. Without having to

thrust the parties into the courts at the earliest moment, is

it considered that the rentalsman will be given any

responsibility in this regard?

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): I would think if

somebody resorted to that kind of service rather than personal

service, if it was an application to the rentalsman, the

rentalsman might say, "I don't think it's sufficient. You had a

chance to serve personally; you didn't. I won't hear the

matter." If it was a court, the same thing. I think the

overriding authority as to whether or not proper service had

been made was whatever tribunal the application had been made

to. That would be the only safeguard.

Section 6 approved.

section 7.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I move

[ Page 4112 ]

the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. (See

appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 7 as amended approved.

section 8.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment

standing in my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 8 as amended approved.

section 9.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment to

section 9 in my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 9 as amended approved.

section 10.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to ask the

Minister: I have received a letter stating that

section 10, in

fact, expresses the opposite of the point of view put forward

by the Law Reform Commission. The letter asked whether or not

this was a drafting error. Could the Minister explain that?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I believe this

section is consistent with the recommendation of the Law Reform

Commission.

Interjection:.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: They drew it, this section. A lot of the

other things have been changed. They drew it, yes.

Section 10 approved.

section 11.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: The written tenancy agreement specified here "…may contain reasonable obligations and restrictions upon a tenant respecting

the tenant's use, occupation and maintenance of residential premises… "

Who will determine the reasonableness of this provision? If the Attorney-General

could indicate that. If it's to be the courts, are we going to throw landlords

and tenants back into the courts to determine whether these contracts are reasonable

or not? There must be some forum to test it.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Again, Mr. Chairman, it's where the

lease comes up for enforcement, it gives, say, the rentalsman,

if he's the person who's acting in this case, the power to

refuse to enforce an unreasonable covenant in the lease. If it

is a matter that does go before court, the court, too, could

refuse to enforce what, in their discretion, was deemed to be

an unreasonable covenant.

Now in this area, there's some advantage toward moving, but

I think it could be done over a period of time, to one standard

form of lease which contains reasonable provisions and which

excludes unreasonable ones that are unfair to the tenant, or to

the landlord for that matter. But with this kind of a section,

we can move slowly toward that thing. They have it in the

Province of Quebec at the present time where there is a

standard lease, and unfair practices are distinctly

proscribed.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, interfering unduly with the civil

liberties of the tenant in some way, some fashion of that kind.

I think we've moved toward that in this province, but I don't

think we can do it all at the same time. Therefore we leave it

to the rentalsman or the court at this time to begin to

establish some common law as to what are unfair practices.

MR. MORRISON: Mr. Chairman, does that mean that each tenant

will be required to have some form of tenancy agreement or is

it not necessary that everyone have one?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It could be written or oral.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No, there's no prescribed form.

MR. MORRISON: I was referring to the written.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It could be a month to month.

Sections 11 and 12 approved.

section 13.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I understand this

section tends

to put the landlord in a difficult

[ Page 4113 ]

position if he allows temporary use of facilities as some

kind of, for example, storage facility, on a temporary basis on

a one-shot deal. But the

section then makes it illegal if he

doesn't then continue to provide such service. I wonder if the

Minister would comment on that and consider the suggestion that

was made to add at the end of the paragraph "without the

rentalsman's permission."

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, if it's some temporary

advantage granted in special circumstances to a tenant, that

should not become part of future leases. This again is

something on which the Law Reform Commission had hearings, and

they listened to both parties. They thought that with the

provision in the Act, giving a lot of discretion in a matter of

that kind to the rentalsman, and an easy appeal procedure, it

would not work hardships on landlords. I would think some

temporary, special advantage extended to a tenant would not, by

reason of this section, be embodied for all time thereafter.

But we'll have to watch and if it's abusive, we'll have to

correct the thing in future.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, could I take it the Minister

implies that the rentalsman has the authority to listen to such

a situation without it necessarily being inscribed in stone? It

will be the rentalsman's authority and jurisdiction to listen

to a landlord who might be in this position, and the

rentalsman, although it isn't stated in this section, would be

able to give a binding decision. Is that the Minister's…?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That's correct, Mr. Chairman.

Sections 13 to 15 inclusive approved.

section 16.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I wonder if the Attorney-General could

indicate the rationale where in a weekly tenancy you must give

28 days notice, but on a month to month tenancy, you only have

to give 30 days' notice. It seems to me there's some

inconsistency between these two types of tenancies. Weekly

tenancy would seem to be applicable in normal landlord and

tenant relationships to a less constant form of relationship

and premises which are not usually those containing

housekeeping facilities and so on. They are more of a

transient-type facility. Yet in order to terminate the weekly

tenancy you must give 28 days' notice. I wonder if the

rationale of this could be cleared up.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, the Law Reform Commission recommended

in the case of a weekly tenancy, four weeks, which is the 28 days, and the old

rule about monthly tenancies remains 30 days.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: It used to be a month.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, a month, Not necessarily 30 days;

one month for a monthly tenancy.

But it's just four weeks and that's the recommendation made

to us.

Section 16 approved.

section 17.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS:

section 17 indicates that a landlord who

bona fide requires the residential premises for occupation by

himself can terminate the existing tenancy on 60 days notice.

It seems to free him from any of the other strictures there may

be about terminating a tenancy.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I think this is manifestly unfair to

those individuals who are not dealing with apartments or the

like, but are in turn dealing with a single-family residence

which is rented. And indeed it may be absolutely essential that

the owner regain possession of those premises, not for his own

occupancy, but so that he can sell it. This is surely not a

conduct that is being prescribed. What about the situation

where an owner of a single-family residence requires possession

of the property in order to conclude a bona fide sale? Perhaps

he's moving from the province; perhaps changing financial

circumstances have obliged him to dispose of the property — surely he's entitled to regain possession so that he can give

vacant possession to a prospective purchaser.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, the section, of course,

doesn't include the provision that if you sell the property you

can put them out. You have to sell subject to the Act and

subject to existing tenancies. This is the thing that the Hon,

Member says is unfair to the landlord, is that right? — that he

should be able to sell the house vacant. But if we wrote that

into the landlord and tenant bill there might be a lot of sales

just in order to clear the premises.

I think you sell property subject to the laws of the

province, which will be the Landlord and Tenant Act,

and subject to existing tenancies as they are affected by that

Act.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I'm sorry I didn't make my point well

enough for the Attorney-General to understand.

What about the individual who has a single-family residence

which is rented and changing circumstances

[ Page 4114 ]

oblige that man to sell that property? Are you saying that

section 17 of the Landlord and Tenant Act precludes that

man from disposing of his property on a bona fide sale? Not

wanting to get the tenant out — as I say, perhaps the man is

moving from the province, perhaps he has died and it has to be

cleared up in an estate. Are you saying that single-family

residences which are rented in British Columbia are rented in

perpetuity? Is this what

section 17 means? Who wrote the Act,

anyway?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The landlord would have to sell subject

to the existing rights of the tenant, unless under

section 23,

which is quite broad, he found some reason to obtain vacant

possession of the property. But just to say, "Because I'm going

to make a sale of this place I can throw the tenant out," is not simplicity in that way in this Act.

Section 17 approved.

section 18.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment

standing in my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 18 as amended approved.

Section 19 approved.

section 20.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment

standing in my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 20 as amended approved.

Sections 21 and 22 approved.

section 23.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I move the amendment standing in my name

on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

section 23 as amended.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Chairman, in speaking to

this section, it appears to me that you give the landlord very little leeway

in dealing with a tenant who should be, for instance, in violation of the law.

There is nothing in this

section which says that a tenant in a suite shall not

comply with the law.

In other words, a woman of ill repute could rent an

apartment, carry on a business in that apartment, and not be

evicted by the landlord,

whereas in your Strata Titles

Act, Bill 141, you say that the duties of the owner are to

not carry on any illegal practice in his condominium which he

or she owns. You further say that he shall not use his lot or

permit the same to be used in a manner or for a purpose that

will cause a nuisance or hazard to any occupier of the lot,

whether an owner or his family. Yet there is nothing in

section

23 that will give a landlord the power to evict a tenant if he

or she does something in the apartment which he or she rents

that is illegal.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Look at (k).

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, (

k) doesn't cover it either.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, it does.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'd like to hear your comments on that, Mr.

Attorney-General.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It's up to the rentalsman, but if you

rented it as a residence and you found a business being carried

on there, it would seem to me that was something the rentalsman

would deal with in terms of issuing an eviction order. I'm not

referring to the particular business that the Member referred

to. I think it comes under (

k) if it doesn't fit in under some

other section.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, on somewhat the same theme, the

possibility seems to exist that there are many areas or many

reasons that might exist to justify termination of an agreement

which are not included in

section 23. Once again it's a little

bit like the

section I raised earlier on where the Minister

answered by saying that it is implied that the rentalsman has

the power to listen to a dispute and consider that the reason

is adequate.

Would the Minister consider then putting in a final little

paragraph at the end saying that the reason is sufficiently

important and justified in the opinion of the rentalsman? A

general clause. For example, the questions I'm thinking about

are where some elderly person was quite capable of managing

their own affairs when they took on the tenancy of an apartment

but they became disabled. As a matter of fact, I'm going to see

one just like that tomorrow — where she can no longer really

manage but she has enough mental capacity left to resist being

moved. This leads to all kinds of dangers to herself — to fire

and other hazards and so on.

[ Page 4115 ]

Not only that, but there are other reasons that were

outlined in a communication from one of the parties concerned.

There's the question of children under the age of 12 being left

alone by parents who are out at work and who leave the children

for long periods of time unattended and unsupervised.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That's (c) — 23 (2) (

c) would cover

that.

MR. WALLACE: "…that the quiet enjoyment of other tenants is

disturbed…" That possibly would cover that, but what about

the example I raised of the elderly person who becomes sick and

will not accept being moved, yet who is a danger to herself

and, to others in the building? This just happens a great deal

in Victoria, I can assure you, Mr. Minister, with some of the

large high-rise apartments which exist in the James Bay area.

Every week or so physicians are concerned with this kind of

problem — that somebody in an apartment like this just retains

enough will and mental capacity to refuse to move, but at

certain times of the day or night they certainly wander around

and are a danger to themselves and to the people in the

building.

Now, what is the protection, or what would be the clause

under which such a person could have their agreement

terminated?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Briefly, I would think, Hon. Member,

that these subsections are pretty broad. If a person is simply

a danger to themselves, then that's the end of it. That's a

health problem. We shouldn't deal with that in the Landlord

and Tenant Act. But if they disturb the enjoyment of

neighbours in the same building, or if there is a danger of

damage to the premises rented, then the rentalsman can deal

with that under this

section — either under (

d) or under (k).

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Just two points, Mr.

Chairman, apropos of the remarks a few moments earlier by the

Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) and

the Attorney-General's response, who said one has to take a

look at

section 23, and that within 23 we find the areas

whereby tenancies can be terminated.

But what you did not respond to was the suggestion raised by

the Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound. What about where

you have the situation where you have an ill landlord who no

longer, by reasons of health or what-have-you, can continue on

in the business he had?

He no longer is able physically to see that his house is

rented. He may require the additional funds from sale for the

purposes of his own health.

Or you can get into the situation, of course, which happens all the time, of

deaths. Under those circumstances the terms of a will usually call upon the

executors to liquidate the estate and transmit assets. Certainly liquidating

an estate — say a man dies and happens to have a house that is rented — under

those circumstances his executors should certainly have the right, as they do

under the common law and within the express terms of the man's will, to sell

that home, to liquidate it and to divide the assets of the estate, and apart

from anything else to pay his succession duties. You can prevent that happening

here.

I've come upon a rather interesting term. You mentioned

23(2)(

c) where you talk about "quiet enjoyment." You are

certainly modernizing the definition of "quiet enjoyment." In

the field of landlord and tenant laws the Attorney-General

knows that quiet enjoyment doesn't have anything whatsoever to

do with noise but has something to do with the assertion of

title from a landlord to a tenant. I would hope that that would

not be the subsection itself.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No, not in this section.

MR. GARDOM: It is an interesting use of the two words. The

draftsman, whoever is responsible, must have really had a bit

of rather sticky, cobwebby legal humour when he came up with

those two terms.

But you have not yet responded to the questions raised by

the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) or

for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) or from myself concerning the very

limited rights that the landlord does have under

section 23.

You say he does have these rights to terminate a tenancy.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I would ask the Member to

look at

section 14(3) as well in considering this matter.

AN HON. MEMBER: Also 14(2)

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, which we have already passed.

In terms of an executor not being able to sell, that is the

case. Suppose the house is rented out for five years; you

would have to sell subject to the existing lease. If the house

were under this Act, you would have to sell subject to this Act — subject to the existing tenancy as it may be affected by this

Act. In special circumstances you might make an application

under

section 14 that I referred to. That's the way it is.

We are trying to give tenants some security of tenure.

That's the recommendation made to us. That is the justice of

the situation. We are doing it. But there is always a tribunal

that will work this thing out over a period of time. There is a

lot of discretion in

[ Page 4116 ]

the rentalsman.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No, he doesn't have a discretion, if it

is an estate, just to say because you want to pay death duties

or something you sell the house with the tenants out. He says:

"Sell the house, by all means, to pay those death duties, but

subject to the existing tenancy."

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the

Attorney-General: if he says that he is going to let the

rentalsman use a lot of discretion, why doesn't he put a

section in to the effect that the reason is sufficiently

important and justified in the opinion of the rentalsman that a

tenant can be evicted?

I would like to refer again to Bill 141, Strata Titles Act,

second

schedule on page 46, where it spells it out very

specifically. Here, Mr. Chairman, for the record, is a person

who has purchased and is the owner of a condominium. It would

be a heck of a lot harder to evict a person from a condominium

than it would be from an apartment. You spell out very

specifically that an owner shall not use his strata lot for any

purposes which may be illegal or injurious to the reputation of

the building or,

section b, make undue noise in or about any

strata lot or common property or keep any animals on his strata

lot or the common property after notice in that behalf from the

council. Yet you don't give the owner of an apartment building

the same rights that you do the council of a strata titles

lot.

It seems to me that you are leaving a lot up to the

discretion of the rentalsman and you really have nothing in the

bill that says that the rentalsman shall decree that this is a

reason for eviction. Certainly I realize that this law will

have to find its own medium and you will have to amend it, but

you have nothing in here to put any teeth in to give the

rentalsman something to use. You've tied his hands. You've laid

down sections (a), (b), (c), et cetera, but you really haven't

given the rentalsman the right to have just cause, if a lessee

goes over, above and beyond the few minor sections that you

have laid out in the bill, to evict the lessor of the

apartment. I feel that you have erred in this bill. You've left

a horrible situation. You've spelled out very specifically in

the Strata Titles Act where a person actually owns his own

condominium. But I could go into an apartment and conduct acts

that I wouldn't conduct in my own condominium. I could go into

an apartment and do that and be scot free. The landlord

couldn't evict me; nor could the rentalsman, because there is

nothing in your bill that says that the rentalsman can do

it.

I would like you to give us your comments. I realize you are

going to amend the Act. But in the meantime are you going to

have a list a mile long?

You know there will be things cropping up every month, every

day that goes by, that people will find to use their apartment

for to disturb their neighbours. You have nothing in there.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Disturbing your neighbours is in

there.

MR. PHILLIPS: You can do things in your apartment that won't

disturb your neighbours that are illegal, but you still don't

have it in the Act.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Question.

MR. PHILLIPS: Are you not going to give me an answer? I've

outlined something. I would appreciate an answer.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I don't want to repeat

myself, that's all. I'm glad to do it if the Member wants. I

think that

section 23(2)(

a) to (1) — and it has been expanded

with two more in there and runs to about (

n) now, I think,

because we provided for that employment situation as well — is

very broad. I think they confer under

section 23 a broad

discretion in almost every kind of human situation you could

enter into in an apartment building where the rentalsman can

use good judgment, but still there is a code which he is

obliged to follow. It is sort of a charter of the rights of the

tenants — their right to occupancy.

You have to look also at

section 14, which is sort of the

exceptional circumstance thing, and look at

section 51, which

we haven't come to yet, which enables the rentalsman to use a

good dose of common sense in the kind of decisions he makes

under this Act. Then you have to watch the kind of decisions

that come down in the course of a year.

It may be that you would want to amend (

a) to (1), but at

the moment I think they are broad enough that the rentalsman

office will be able to establish a sort of common law under

them. He will deal with this kind of a dog case; this kind of a

case involving noise; quiet enjoyment. A little body of

precedents will be built up over a period of time. I think this

will be fair to the rights of tenants and fair to those seeking

possession of the building they have leased out.

I suggest it should be watched carefully for those

precedents. The powers we have given, which are basically the

recommendations of the Law Reform Commission, are pretty broad

if you look at 23, 14 and 51.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, the Minister has answered by

relating

section 23 back to

section 14. Am I to understand that

in that case if the landlord is unsuccessful under

section 23

he can have the

[ Page 4117 ]

rentalsman make an order which then means going before the

courts?

To me, as a layman, this is all very confusing. It would

seem to me that it would be the simplest thing imaginable to

put in a paragraph in

section 23 which, in effect states in

the bill that if the rentalsman does think there is sufficient

reason not covered by (

a) to (

l) or (

m) or (

n) or whatever it

is, surely this final paragraph would simply document in clear

means to give to the rentalsman anyway. I am at a loss to know

RON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman,

section 14(2) gives the rentalsman

further power. I certainly wouldn't want to go beyond that, because even tenants

are entitled to know where they stand. If they are being faced with eviction,

which might mean greatly increased expenses for them and for that family with

moving costs, they are entitled to say: "Show me the grounds." We spell them

out in kind of broad terms with a lot of discretion to the rentalsman, but nevertheless

we spell out that code. I would not want to add to that code saying something

to the effect that for any other reason that the rentalsman might think of he

can still make an order. We've practically done that in

section 14, but that

is intended to apply to a very exceptional kind of case. I wouldn't want to

do that. I think it is right that we in the Legislature define the code.

I think it is right that we in the Legislature define the

code, albeit to be interpreted in the light of

section 51,

which says look at the real merits and look at the background

and use some common sense.

MR. GARDOM: Apropos of your comments, Mr. Attorney-General,

if the rentalsman is going to be, I think you used the words

"making a lot of common law himself" — and you're nodding in

acquiescence — unless it's within the statute and has not been

able to be located by myself, I don't see any provisions within

this very enormous statute, which is going to create a new

branch of law in this province as we had under the similar

situation under the Labour Code, whereby the rentalsman has the

duty and responsibility to deliver written reasons for his

judgment. If it's there, maybe Mr. Harrington could assist.

Nor do I see that this body of law that he develops would be

available for inspection and consideration by any member of the

general public. If he's going to be a law-making individual, as

you indicated that he definitely will be, and there's no

question of a doubt about that under this bill, that will be

developing a body of law and that body of law has got to be

made ready and available to anyone at any time.

I don't wish to leave the

section in question but it has

come up now, and just I would mention, with leave of the Chair,

that under

section 51 there's a statement to the effect that he

has to make his decision upon the real merits and justice of an

application. He's got an opportunity to make up his mind as to

what type of evidence he receives. But I don't see any

responsibility upon him to deliver reasons for his decision,

nor any responsibility that there be maintained a set of

decisions. That's just a ghastly oversight.

Is it in the Act? If it's not in the Act, then it is indeed

a ghastly oversight. It' it's deliberately not included in the

statute, you're going to create something here that will be a

little more wondrous than Alice behind the looking glass. It's

a preposterous suggestion.

RON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, you could write up this Act so the

rentalsman had to hold a hearing with Philadelphia lawyers on everything that

came up, If you want to write in here that every decision he makes or a Deputy

makes has to be in writing and after a full hearing, maybe with the right of

counsel and so forth, you'd make the thing so cumbersome that you wouldn't believe

it. I would think that the important cases that are not decided…and some

might be decided over the counter with friendly advice to both sides — is that

a decision?

MR. GARDOM: No.

RON. MR. MACDONALD: I don't know. There wouldn't be any reasons in that.

But as it becomes an important case, what do you mean by "quiet enjoyment" in

section 23?

MR. GARDOM: Yes.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I would think in time those important

things would come up for decision in a kind of a hearing and we

would have some body of common law growing up, but not in every

case.

MR. GARDOM: On that point then, in order to overcome the

problem of importance, I agree with you that a lot of the

decisions here will be made quickly and in many cases it will

not really be matters of considerable legal moment. We're

thoroughly in agreement there. But I do feel it in order to

make it mandatory that he do deliver written reasons, I would

say upon the request of parties, on the request of the landlord

or upon the request of the tenant, so that it is the

responsibility of the rentalsman to deliver written reasons for

any decision he would make. Then you'd overcome the problem

you're talking about as well, because in a frivolous situation

or in

[ Page 4118 ]

matters that were not of considerable moment, they'd never

be requested in any event.

We had a lengthy debate on the Labour Code on this point.

Hopefully I'm going to find it before we get to the

section in

question, but I believe that an amendment was granted by your

colleague during the debate on the Labour Code to cover this

very point. It's a bad oversight.

MR. PHILLIPS: I would like a little further explanation on

section 23(2)(1): "the notice of termination was given in

respect of caretaker's premises." That in essence leaves

caretaker's premises above and beyond any regulation. The

Minister has quoted the report of the Law Reform Commission,

and their recommendation is that the proposed Act contain a

statutory definition of the term "caretaker's suite" and

provide that it is included in the definition of "residential

premises." But the recommendations relating to tenants'

security should not apply to a caretaker's suite.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That's what we've done in 23(2)(1).

MR. PHILLIPS: Not really. I'm not a lawyer, but the way I

read it is that "the notice of termination was given in respect

of caretaker's premises" does not apply. In other words, a

caretaker should be able to be evicted in the case that he

ceases to become caretaker.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'd like you to write that in, because you

will have people who will take over as caretaker of a certain

apartment building strictly for the purposes of obtaining a

permanent residence in that particular building, then give

their notice that they no longer wish to be caretaker and the

landlord cannot evict them so that they can get a new caretaker

in the premises. As I say, maybe I'm misreading it, but would

the Attorney-General read into the record the proper

interpretation?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, this is, in effect, to put

it bluntly, a ground for eviction. You've lost your job as

caretaker; you are therefore no longer subject to the

protection of this section.

MR. GARDOM: While we're again reiterating this point, I've

now found the

section in the Labour Code dealing with the

publication of decisions, and it's

section 23. "The board" — referring to the Labour Relations Board — "shall make all its

decisions in proceedings under this Act available in writing

for publication."

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: Well, I said I wasn't sure. It wasn't an

amendment; it was in the original statute — more compliment to

you, Mr. Minister, and the Attorney-General for not having it

in his bill. But there's very good logic for this. I remember

that when we did debate

section 23 there was a request that it

be mandatory that they would have to deliver it as opposed to

making them available in writing for publication. That was

rejected by the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King). But the

Minister of Labour at least did bring in something to the

effect that it does make this new body of law something that is

definite.

Mr. Attorney-General, a law to be any good has got to be

concise, it's got to be certain, it has to be capable of being

defined, and it's got to be found, it's got to be located. We

don't want to have decisions in the desk drawer of the

rentalsman dealing with one set of circumstances in Prince

George and an entirely similar set of circumstances arising in

New Westminster where there's 180 degree turn in decision. And

that can happen. Mr. Attorney-General, there's never been a

larger body of administrative law developed in this country

save and except about the last 10 years. You have freely stated

in your remarks here that you're giving this man the

opportunity to be a lawmaker. A judge is not a lawmaker; he's a

law-interpreter. This man is a lawmaker and he's a legal

interpreter.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No.

MR. GARDOM: Oh, yes.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Subject to the Act.

MR. GARDOM: Subject to the Act, sure.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Just

interpretation, really.

MR. GARDOM: Well, I think it goes a little further than

that. He's going to have an awful lot to do with fact and an

awful lot to do with law, and his only guideline is this

statute. But there is no right to me, as an aggrieved landlord

or as an aggrieved tenant, to come to the rentalsman and say:

"I wish to have the case of the rentalsman versus Macdonald in

Vancouver because I've got a similar situation that has arisen

in Namu, and I want to find out what that decision was. I

gather the facts are identical. What was the decision?"

You've got to provide for that, Mr. Attorney-General. I'm giving you lots of

notice. I'm going to propose to amend

section 51, which is the appropriate place

to put it….

[ Page

4119 ]

HON. MR. MACDONALD: 52.

MR. GARDOM: No, 51.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We're dealing with 23 now.

MR. GARDOM: I know. I just thought it would be fair to the

Attorney — General so we don't have to take the time of the

House and go over these remarks again. When we get to 5 1, and

between…. What are we at now?

MR. CHAIRMAN: 23.

MR. GARDOM: Between 23 and 51, I'd like to see a little bit

of sunshine come into this Act. That's what I'd like to see

happen.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: The Attorney-General, it seems to me,

places overmuch faith in his

section 14. The scheme of this

Act, Mr. Chairman, is simply this, with regard to termination

of any tenancy agreement: no tenancy agreement can be

terminated unless there's notice from the landlord or the

tenant or unless the premises are abandoned. So first of all

they give a notice. As soon as a landlord gives a notice to a

tenant, he places himself in a position where the tenant, if he

wishes to dispute it, uses

section 23. The rentalsman, under

section 23, has no discretion whatsoever.

If any one of the situations is found not to exist — it's a

negative situation — then the rentalsman is obliged by the

statute to throw out the notice of termination, and the tenancy

continues. So there's no discretion there at all. Absolutely

none. Only if you avoid all of the various subsections of

section 23 does the rentalsman then begin to have any

discretion, and he can still throw the notice terminating a

tenancy out on other grounds.

Therefore, when you say that

section 23 is a codification of

tenants' rights, you are not being exactly fair to the

situation. What you are saying is that

section 23 is the

barricades behind which a tenant may rest in complete

security.

Now there are some shortcomings in

section 23. It talks

about the way in which tenants disturb other tenants of the

residential building. All of the activities of the tenant, in

section 23, either relate to the premises of which he is the

tenant or to his landlord.

Now there is no provision in here, for example, for a

landlord to give notice and terminate a tenancy of someone who,

by their conduct, is interfering with the rights of enjoyment

of some person on neighbouring property altogether. This very

seriously affects the landlord and the other tenants of the

landlord.

I've seen the situation where a party is going on and the people on the balcony

throw beer bottles across the street onto neighbouring apartment buildings.

The first thing that happens is that the police are called; you get that kind

of alteration.

Nothing in

section 23 gives the landlord any rights with

regard to that. There is only one, and as it….

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, it's under (k).

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: No, there is only one, and that is if you

can go and get a court order. You still won't read it, Mr.

Attorney-General. It says: "the safety or other bona fide and

lawful right or interest of the landlord or other tenant in the

residential building…." But what about the person who

lives in the adjoining apartment building and who is

continually harassed by a tenant in your apartment building up

on the 14th floor?

So they start phoning up the Attorney-General and saying:

"Look, either you get rid of that tenant out of your building

or we're going to have a serious dispute." You say: "I'm sorry,

but under

section 23 I can't get them out, no matter how bad

their behaviour is."

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That's the lawful right of the landlord

under

section 23(k).

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: No, it's with respect to the residential

building only.

Mr. Chairman, I don't think that we can go on at length with

this. It's quite obvious that the Attorney-General has got his…. I was going to say "his mind made up," but that

would be unfair. He's got his mind closed about the direction

on which he's going to move. But what he is doing is creating a

situation where the rentalsman is not going to be able to

function for the rational resolution of disputes between

landlords and tenants as he should. If you go back to the

famous

section 14, which the Attorney-General is so happy

about,

section 14 would seem to give the rentalsman some

jurisdiction, some discretion, but there is no way of getting

yourself before the rentalsman, because he has a stop by

section 23.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: He would make a separate

application.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Oh yes, he could make a separate

application, but by statute the rentalsman still cannot

terminate the tenancy agreement unless there is a notice. Your

section 14 makes it quite clear.

The rentalsman might come to the conclusion that there is

the grossest kind of conduct going on. But unless he can get a

notice from the landlord to terminate it, he can't do anything

about it. I think that it would be pretty easy to get one, but

he is only energized if one of the parties will give a

notice.

[ Page 4120 ]

Section 23 as amended approved.

Section 24 approved.

section 25.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I move the amendments to

section 25.

(See appendix.)

Amendments approved.

Section 25 as amended approved.

section 26.

MR. WALLACE: Just a very brief question, Mr. Chairman. Could

I ask the Minister whether this

section will cover the existing

dispute which occurs with regard to cablevision charges, which

are such a contentious issue in certain apartment buildings

where one tenant moves out and the next one moves in? They find

out that it's not $ 1.25 per month, but $4.50 per month.

I know that the CRTC are to be holding hearings in Victoria.

But regardless of their decision, how would the law under

section 26 be applicable to that particular dispute?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: We can't control cablevision charges

that are set by an outside body. But the rentalsman would have

a discretion to say that an unreasonable increase in

cablevision charges was, in effect, a rent increase for those

premises. If it were a normal increase, $4 to $5 a month or

something of that kind, I don't suppose he would make a case

involving opening up the lease for that kind of thing. He has

quite a bit of discretion.

In the future the rentalsman can look at these increases. If

they are significant, he can say: "That is, in effect, a rent

increase for that particular tenant."

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, with respect, I find that answer

confusing. First of all the Minister said that the rentalsman

probably has no jurisdiction over the cablevision issue since

the rates are set by a federal authority. Then he went on to

say that depending on the extent of the increase the rentalsman

might have some jurisdiction.

Surely he either has jurisdiction or he hasn't. The

increases I'm talking about went from $1.75 to $5 a month.

Frankly, I can't appreciate the distinction which the Minister

made that if the increase on cablevision weren't very much,

maybe that would be all right. But if the rentalsman thought it

might be too much, he could, in fact, bring about some action

by considering it as a rent increase, even though the cable

rate is set in the first instance through the approval of a

federal authority.

I'm confused. I feel that this

section does not, in fact,

cover the cablevision dispute because of the authority of CRTC.

I was just trying to get a clear answer. Does it or doesn't

it?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I think that in words it could, but in

fact it is not intended to deal with that kind of thing. It's

intended to deal with the increases that are imposed by the

landlord toward his tenant.

This is some outside body that's up to something and gets

past the CRTC. I wouldn't think that the rentalsman would look

at that, or really could. That's not the purpose of the

section.

Sections 26 and 27 approved.

section 28.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I move the amendments to

section 28.

(See appendix.)

Amendments approved.

section 28 as amended.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, this is the heart and soul of the

Landlord and Tenant Act, 1974. This is the allowable

rent increase in

section 28 (2), and the capacity to prescribe

different allowable rent increases in respect of different

parts of the province and so on and so forth. I just want to

make it very plain that this is the

section of this bill which

gives the Conservative Party the greatest concern, at a time

when rental accommodation is in short supply; and the greater

degree in which the owner of the property is restricted or

controlled, fairly or unfairly, is just one more disincentive

to investors and builders to build more rental

accommodation.

Without belabouring the point, that is — the whole nature of

the accommodation problem in the province right now. We passed

the Interim Rent Stabilization Act as a temporary

measure, and we were told during that bill that there would not

be rent control, that the 8 per cent freeze was a temporary

measure. Then we had this bill tabled which, in fact, is rent

control. You can't call it by any other name.

You can use the phrase "allowable rent increase,"

which is the phrase used in

section 28 (2). But the fact is

that it is rent control within the discretion and judgment of

the person called the rentalsman.

Again, we recognize that the real problem is a shortage of

rental accommodation and that controls and restrictions, which

are not just temporary, but permanent…. Let's not kid

ourselves about that. This bill makes it very plain that the

rentalsman will recommend to the cabinet what he considers to

be an allowable rent increase. I suggest that that is very

[ Page 4121 ]

definitely rent control. You can't call it anything else.

Until there is some incentive to investors and builders to

create more rental accommodation, this rent control will fail

to achieve the goal it is trying to achieve, which is a fairer

measure of justice in the marketplace for the renter.

We certainly oppose this concept in the absence of some kind

of companion legislation to provide incentives for the

construction of rental accommodation.

MR. PHILLIPS: I feel the same way as the previous speaker. I

feel by not setting down in this

section some definite

guidelines for the rentalsman, who, I might add, has been

appointed….

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No, no.

MR. PHILLIPS: He had been appointed prior to this Act

becoming law.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No, no.

MR. PHILLIPS: Certainly.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: He can't be.

MR. PHILLIPS: Certainly, if you haven't appointed him, you

have intimated to him that he is going to be it. You have

intimated his salary which, to my way of thinking, is again a

sort of slander against the Legislature.

You are going to allow this man to make decisions on

individual situations based, I hope, on the retail values of

the tenancy. You're going to leave this man open as a

decision-maker in British Columbia as to whether new

accommodation will be provided, much as it is needed.

Certainly, with the legislation which has been passed in this

House and knowing the guidelines which the Department of

Housing has been given, this rentalsman could, in essence,

curtail any increases in rent by the tenant-owners association

so that no one will go into the business, and indeed, force

some of those already in there out of business so that the

Department of Housing can provide, as your young New Democratic

association has recommended, all of the housing and all of the

new construction in British Columbia.

If you take this into consort with the rest of the

legislation which has been passed in this House, this

section

is very, very dangerous. Who is going to provide the

guidelines?

When you have a tenants' association which is asking for an objective or guideline

from the Legislature not to have their rents increased by over 12 per cent,

and go around shouting for glee that the Legislature put a curtailment of 8

per cent on rental increases, what type of political influence is this new rentalsman

going to be subject to? On the other hand, what type of influence is he going

to be subject to from the landlords' association?

In a situation as critical as housing is in British

Columbia, I feel that the Attorney-General should have written

into this legislation more definite, binding guidelines for

this man whom he appointed before the Legislature even passed

the bill.

I would like the Attorney-General, if he will, to give the

House some assurance that there is not going to be one rule for

one set of tenants in the Vancouver area and one rule for one

set of tenants in another area.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: There could be a difference.

MR. PHILLIPS: There could be a difference?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: There may be no need for any rent

restraint, say, in the Peace River. It might be exempted.

MR. PHILLIPS: Do you not feel, Mr. Attorney-General…? I

shouldn't be talking extemporaneously. I'll sit down and let

you write that into the record.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I have to admit there is a philosophic

difference of opinion between the Hon. Members and the

government on this question. We think we have flexible, minimal

standards to protect tenants in this bill, and it need not

apply throughout the whole province. We have provisions where

it can be delegated, in part at least, to a municipality, or to

exempt an area where there is no housing problem.

In that sense, I couldn't stand up and say it will apply to

everybody equally. It may not. For example, recently under the

8 per cent we exempted the municipality of Coldstream, I think

it was, near Vernon. They didn't have any rental units. No

problem. They wanted exemption. They got it. An area of the

province might very well say, "We have no problem; we would

like to be exempt." That could happen.

MR. PHILLIPS: What the Attorney-General has just said is

that, sure, he exempted from Bill 75 the area of Coldstream

outside of Vernon which has no apartments.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Big deal, eh?

MR. PHILLIPS: Big deal is right. But you are not going to

treat all areas of the province the same, yet when Bill 75 was

being piloted through the House there were no exemptions for

any area. There were

[ Page 4122 ]

no exemptions for downtown Vancouver where the housing and

apartment crisis is the greatest of any place in this area.

You're setting this rentalsman up as judge and jury. If I

happen to be a retired person who had no previous business

experience whatsoever and I wanted to take up my entire life

savings and put it into a 12-unit apartment building — and

maybe I don't read a financial too well because I've been

employed on the railway all my life, or in some other

jurisdiction where I wasn't required to read a financial

statement — and I can't prove my case to the rentalsman, I

can't read my financial statement, I don't know about

depreciation, I'm not able to talk about taxation and so forth,

but I know I'm losing money because my bank statement at the

end of the year says I'm in the red…. If I can't in essence

prove my case to the rentalsman, who will become very

proficient — at least, I hope he will — in listening to

experts, some of those, maybe, with large apartment buildings

who can hire a lawyer or an accountant to go to this rentalsman

and try and prove his case, then that man…. And I want to

remind you that the number of owners of small apartment

buildings of 30 and less apartments consist of probably over 50

per cent of this accommodation in British Columbia…. If I am

not able, through my own experience, to sell my point of view

to the rentalsman that I should have a rental increase I won't

get it. I will have to go out and hire a high-priced accountant

or a lawyer. I've only got 30 units; I've got my life savings

in it.

I think this is being discriminatory against a group of

people in British Columbia who have put their life savings into

a rental unit rather than by buying insurance or buying a

pension plan. They have put their life savings into buying a

small rental accommodation which they can rent to provide them

with something over and above what the provincial government is

going to provide them in their old age. These type of people

are going to be discriminated against.

I would like the Attorney-General this afternoon to assure

me that the rentalsman is going to take all things into

consideration; that he is going to take into consideration,

regardless of whether the unit is paid for or isn't, paid if

there is a need, if the financial loss shows on the financial

statement, that these persons should have a rental increase for

the accommodation which they are providing. They provide, as I

say, more than 50 per cent of the accommodation.

When you talk about rental accommodation, you seem to think

of big conglomerates who are impersonal — apartment buildings

being owned by someone off in the clouds somewhere in Ottawa or

New York. But that is not the case. Ninety per cent of the

rental accommodation is owned by people who live in British

Columbia, who put their investment into British Columbia. It is

not some impersonal deal.

These are the people who I am concerned about. This

rentalsman is going to have to take their circumstances into

consideration.

I would like the Attorney-General to assure me, as I have

asked, that, regardless of whether the case is well put or put

by a layman, the rentalsman is going to take all things into

consideration.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I can assure the Hon. Member that the

rentalsman will have the power to look at factors such as fair

return to the investor. In fact, under

section 28 (1) (c), even

in housing which does not exist as rental housing at the

present time, somebody can come to the rentalsman and say, "Why

should I go into that field unless I have some assurance of a

fair return on my capital?" I would assume that would be

something better than first mortgage money because why put up a

building if all you are getting is the first mortgage rate? Put

it out in first mortgage. So he does have that flexibility.

If it is a case of existing buildings, the landlord can go

to the rentalsman and say, "I am not receiving a fair return on

capital. I am justified to a rent increase which is more than

the percentage fixed for this particular year." He produces his

books; he would have some assistance from that office, I would

think. You spoke of someone who didn't have their own lawyer or

accountant. I would think the rentalsman's office would be of

some advantage to that particular party. He could go there — it

will be staffed, I presume, with an economist — and he will

really get some free advice.

MR. PHILLIPS: The Attorney-General said something in his

revelation just a moment ago — if it were more than the amount

fixed for one year.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That's in the section.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, there is nothing in this

section which

says you are going to fix the amount of rate increases for one

year. But this is evidently going to be the policy of the

government.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No.

section 28 (2).

MR. PHILLIPS: We have what I have been asking here. The

government is going to go out and continue on exactly what we

talked about when Bill 75 was going through this House. You are

going to set a fixed rate for rental increases in the province

for any given year.

I remember, while Bill 75 was going through this

Legislature, the Attorney-General said this was only going to

be a temporary measure. It was only going to be for a period of

time until the new Landlord and Tenant Act appeared. So

the new Landlord and Tenant Act comes in and takes over

exactly where

[ Page 4123 ]

Bill 75 left off and the Lieutenant-Governor-Council will

continue the 8 per cent increase. Absolutely. That's in the

back of your mind.

I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that if this ceiling,

which is an unfair ceiling, on rental increases continues and

the government tries to go in and build all the rental

accommodation in the Province of British Columbia, we are

heading toward ghettos. That is exactly what will happen, Mr.

Chairman. It has happened in other countries and it will happen

here in British Columbia.

The government, by their great business experience, is going

to determine what the rental increases shall be. As I asked the

Attorney-General just a few moments ago, will it be the same

for all areas of the province?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No.

MR. PHILLIPS: He said no, but there is nothing in 28 (2).

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, there is.

MR. PHILLIPS: There is nothing in 28 (2) that says there

will be a difference in different parts of the province. Maybe

the Attorney-General would like to explain that.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, it's right there, Mr. Chairman. It

says they may prescribe a different allowable rent increase in

respect to different parts of the province. That's because the

cost situation may be quite different in different parts of the

province.

You might have in the lower mainland a big tax increase.

This is not fixing the rate; this is fixing the amount. If you

went beyond that rate, you have to make your application to the

rentalsman.

Say it was 8 per cent again. That doesn't mean you are bound

at 8 per cent. It means if you go up to that amount you can do

it on your own. If you go over that amount, you have to justify

it before the rentalsman. It can be different in different

parts of the province because the cost of natural gas, taxes,

labour and other things might be different in different parts

of the province.

The rentalsman's recommendation is that threshold thing,

beyond which you have to go to him and justify your rent

increase which may be made in the light of increases in cost in

normal operations in that area.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, one last comment. This, in turn, leaves

the rentalsman open to political influence and political pressure, which is

the trouble with the whole bill. Supposing the landlord happens to be a good

member of the New Democratic Party, although I don't imagine there are too many

free-enterprisers in the socialist party who own apartment buildings, but supposing

you should have one….

AN HON. MEMBER: The Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain

(Mr. Cummings) has one.

MR. PHILLIPS: Sure, supposing the Member for

Vancouver–Little Mountain would like to take the profits from

his ice cream operation and put it in a tenant building. Then

he would be able to go to the rentalsman and say, "Look, I've

been a good NDP member…."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. I would like to draw the Member's

attention to the fact that he is discussing the bill in

principle, which he should have done in second reading. We are

supposed to be discussing

section 28.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, no, I am not. Absolutely not. As a matter

of fact, I will get you right down to details. I'm discussing

section 28 (2) where a person has to prove to his rentalsman,

who, unless he is Solomon himself, will not be above and beyond

political pressure.

You get a man who maybe has served on the NDP…. I

wouldn't bring this up if this type of political pressure was

not going on and the hiring of political hacks in the province.

This rentalsman is going to be subject to political pressure.

If you want an increase in your rental accommodation, all

you've got to be is a good NDP member.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, we've done many things in

this session of the Legislature for people. We've listened to

that kind of attack which we've just had. We put this outside

of the hands of government into an independent agency. But we

get from this opposition…. I regret to say that I have lost

confidence in the opposition as a result of this session.

We get a stream of mudslinging and hate-mongering and

charges and innuendoes of a bankrupt opposition. Have you

nothing positive to propose to the people of this province? The

little Social Credit Party. Oh, what a ball you've had. Really,

I've watched the performance over this session. Your friend

implies people are lying, Ministers are lying. Big deal! What

does that contribute to the Province of B.C., that kind of

innuendo?

MR. CHAIRMAN I remind you to stick to

section 28.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mudslingers and hate-mongering. There

has been too much of that in

[ Page 4124 ]

this session. Let's begin to build this province with

positive programmes. Make some good suggestions that will help

people. I don't mind whether they are landlords or tenants — let's help people. Let's get away from this innuendo and this

mudslinging.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Chairman, I

almost feel guilty at entering this little session of brickbat

throwing back and forth between….

MR. CHAIRMAN: You're really supposed to be dealing with

section 28.

MR. McGEER: Yes. The Attorney-General raised what I think is

a valid point. I would like to have him describe a little more

how he intends to see this point followed through under the

legislation. He said it was appropriate that there be a fair

return on capital investment for people who are landlords.

What is a fair return on invested capital? He says higher

than mortgage interest rates. How much higher? If the

rentalsman doesn't agree with the opinion of the

Attorney-General and he is given sole authority under this Act — that's how I read

section 28 (2) — what do we do in the event

that the rentalsman happens to think a fair return is 6 per

cent when mortgages are 10 per cent? What happens then? We

don't know what the opinion of the rentalsman is going to be in

these matters.

In my view, it is entirely irresponsible for a Legislature

to grant to an appointed individual judgments of this nature.

What on earth do we sit in the Legislature here to do? You pass

on something which is as critical as this happens to be to

someone not responsible to the people whom you appoint.

I don't care who that man is. He happens to be a personal

friend of mine, but no man should have that kind of

authority.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: He doesn't. Read the section.

MR. McGEER: I read the section.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I want to remind the Member that you're in the

kind of debate that should have taken place in second reading.

You're supposed to be dealing, in committee, with

section 28.

You're dealing with the bill in principle. I would ask you to

stick to

section 28 which is on the floor at this time.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, that is exactly what I am doing.

The Attorney-General recommended to me that I read

section 28

(2) which I did just before I got up and spoke. I suggest that

he read it and that you read it.

It gives powers to a rentalsman which are irresponsible for a Legislature to

give. It is that simple. That Attorney-General offered a judgment as to what

is a fair return for a landlord, but it is still a judgment and it is still

the Attorney-General's judgment. I agree with that judgment but we don't set

as a condition of the appointment of a rentalsman that he agrees with the judgment.

If his judgment happens to be bad, we will just introduce chaos, worse than

we have now, into the housing industry.

What needs to happen, Mr. Chairman, is that this

section be

properly cleaned up. The Attorney-General and this Legislature

should decide what an appropriate return is to keep the rental

section of our economy operating at an appropriate level. We

have laid the groundwork for its destruction, just as we have

laid the groundwork for the destruction of so many aspects of

our society during this session. I include the mining industry

among them but there are others as well.

This government has to come to its senses, Mr. Chairman. You

can't regulate every little thing. You can't appoint

commissions, give them absolute authority and give it to some

civil servant under the cabinet. When you do this kind of

thing, you just tear the roots out of a society that at the

present time is functioning well. It will not be if this kind

of legislation continues to clutter our books.

MR. PHILLIPS: I would like to sort of speak on the same

terms as the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr.

McGeer). It was the Attorney-General who just a moment ago

stood in this Legislature and said he shall see that the

renters get a fair return on their investment. How much over

the first or second mortgage are you going to allow?

I think that you should tell this Legislature this

afternoon, because you justified in this Legislature not very

long ago when Bill 75 was passing through this Legislature,

with opposition from all three parties, an 8 per cent increase — when you're increasing the cost of natural gas by 30 per

cent, when you're increasing taxes in British Columbia in some

cases on commercial property as much as 60 and 300 per

cent.

Yet you're going to justify…. You and the

Lieutenant-Governor are going to be the ones who are going to

tell that segment of the business how much money they shall

make. That's like you're going to tell the petroleum industry,

like you're going to tell the construction industry, like

you're going to tell the mining industry. It's all very

relevant.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I want to bring to your attention that

you are really discussing the principle of the bill. In this

reading you are supposed to be dealing with

section 28 in

detail and in the manner in which it's being applied. All of

these arguments you have advanced really have been advanced in

the

[ Page 4125 ]

second reading in principle.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Chairman, I certainly accept your

remarks. But what I'm trying to point out again is that this is

a section, as there are sections in all of the other

legislation that's been passed by the socialist government,

where they want to control every segment of business in this

province. This is exactly what they want to do here. They are

doing it to the detriment of every individual who wants to rent

premises in British Columbia — to the detriment of housing and

to the detriment of tenants.

The very thing, Mr. Chairman that they are trying to….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Member, I want to point out to you,

whether you voted for it or not, that the principle has been

adopted in this House. You are now dealing with

section 28, and

that's what you should be dealing with — not a principle

speech.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Chairman, I suggest that

section

28(2) should be amended so that it goes before a board of

businessmen, unbiased businessmen — maybe not businessmen in

the rental business, but businessmen who know and can read a

financial statement and will point out what is a fair return,

and not the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. This is a very

dangerous

section of the bill. When this becomes law it will,

to the detriment of all those people who need accommodation in

British Columbia, curtail by the private sector any

construction of new apartment buildings in British

Columbia.

Section 28 as amended approved on the following

division:

YEAS — 30

Hall

Macdonald

Barrett

Dailly

Strachan

Nimsick

Calder

Hartley

Nunweiler

Brown

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

Williams, R.A.

Cocke

King

Lea

Young

Radford

Lauk

Nicolson

Skelly

Lockstead

Gorst

Rolston

Anderson

Barnes

Steves

Webster

Lewis

NAYS — 14

Chabot

Fraser

Richter

McClelland

Morrison

Schroeder

McGeer

Anderson, D.A.

Williams, L.A.

Gibson

Gardom

Wallace

Curtis

Phillips

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I would ask, when the Chair

reports to the Speaker, that you report the division in the

committee and ask leave of the House to have the division

recorded.

section 29.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I move the amendment to

section 29. (See

appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 29 as amended approved.

Sections 30 to 32 inclusive approved.

section 33.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Could the Attorney-General indicate why

the consent must be given at the time of entry? Surely, if the

tenant consents to entry by the landlord, it could be for some

future time. I'm thinking of the very practical situation where

a landlord desires access to the premises in order to carry out

certain repairs which may not be in the matter of emergency. He

gets hold of the tenant and says: "Can I get into your premises

one afternoon? The plumber's coming." The tenant says: "Fine,

I'll give you my consent." Why does it have to be at the time

of entry?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That should be treated a little loosely.

"At the time" doesn't mean at the exact moment. But it also

does not mean at the time you go to sign the lease, and the

the lease that I can come in at any time." We want to outlaw

that. But we want to make it related to the incident in

question. If it's a plumber thing, say, coming in this

afternoon, before he goes to work in the morning he gives his

consent; that's the end of it. That should be considered at the

time.

Section 33 approved.

section 34.

MR. WALLACE: Just a small point, Mr. Chairman. In 34(2)(

b) can the Minister tell us whether the rentalsman has a specific

power to order repairs? The reason I'm asking the question is:

if he hasn't got that power, what's the point of the

subsection? On the other hand, if he does have the power, who

decides on just how much in the way of repairs and the expense

involved, which might be more than the fraction he retains out

of the rental payment?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr., Chairman, this

[ Page 4126 ]

section only deals with the amount of money retained by the

rentalsman. He can direct that this money can only be used for

repairs, but he can't actually order that those repairs take

place.

MR. WALLACE: I'll just ask the question, then: what's the

point of saying that the money be directed towards repairs? It

still might mean that repairs aren't carried out.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: There could be a requirement under

section 31 with respect to the condition of the premises, but

not under this which just deals with disposition of the

money.

Section 34 approved.

section 35.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: In

section 35 (4) it makes mention of a

rent subsidy. Could the Attorney-General indicate to what that

may refer? If you're in public housing and receiving a rent

subsidy, you can't sign or sublet. What does that mean?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Of course the whole

section is subject

to regulations. It will describe that kind of thing. It's

basically the public housing thing where the rent, say, is

adjusted according to the income of the person who is the

tenant.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I'd like the Attorney-General to

assure me that in this particular

section a person cannot

re-lease an apartment at more than the prescribed rate of

increase based on 28 (2).

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, the rent increases are tied to the

premises. So there is no incentive for the landlord or for the

tenant to clear out the apartment in order to change the rent.

The rent stays for a year.

MR. PHILLIPS: That's not my question. Suppose I'm running an

apartment, Mr. Chairman. I might go around the City of

Vancouver and rent several apartments and then sublet them at

10 or 20 per cent more than what I'm paying.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: You can't do it.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, tell me where it says so in the Act

then.

HON. MR. MACDONALD:

section 28; I think it's 28. You know,

changing the tenant doesn't change the rent. It can't change

the rent.

MR. PHILLIPS: Just a moment now! The tenants can change if

he is subletting.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, it doesn't say that in

section 28.

HON. MR. MACDONALD:

section 25.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, make up your mind.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: As amended.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, but that doesn't refer to subleases.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, the

section as it's

amended —

section 25 that has already passed — makes it clear

that your rent pertains to the premises, not to the person who

might be occupying those premises. That rent can only be

changed once a year. So whether or not there's a subleasing in

the course of that year does not make any difference. The rent

remains the same.

Sections 35 and 36 approved.

section 37.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I feel that

section 37, the way

it is written, is really a detriment to the tenant. In about 90

per cent of the cases in rental there is no need for a

security deposit to retain the rent. It's not happening. So

what you're doing and what the Law Reform Commission

recommended…. I'd like to read from the Law Reform

Commission report. It says:

"The landlord be permitted to require at the commencement of

a tenancy that a tenant pay to the rentalsman a statutory rent

deposit of an amount less than or equal to the first month's

rent or a statutory damage deposit of an amount less than or

equal to one half of the first month's rent or both."

The people that I have been talking to in the rental

business really don't require the first month's rent in

advance. So you're penalizing people to put up a month's rent

in advance, when the Law Reform Commission clearly recommends

that a deposit of one-half a month's rent….

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, yes, you are. Well, all right, if I'm

interpreting the

section wrong, then I'd like the

Attorney-General to inform me that I am.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The Law Reform Commission wanted to put a ceiling

of a month and a half on security or damage deposits. This legislation has the

ceiling at one month.

[ Page

4127 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Chairman, that is not the way I read

or….

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I know; that sentence is unclear, I

agree, but read the whole report.

MR. PHILLIPS: I've read the whole report and I interpret the

Law Reform Commission to recommend "either or" — not both, but

"either or." You can't have both. That isn't the intent of the

Law Reform Commission report. But you've interpreted it wrong.

Still, with one month's rent in advance….

HON. MR. MACDONALD: In one sentence they are very ambiguous,

I agree. They were really saying a month and a half if you read

the whole thing.

MR. PHILLIPS: A limit of a month and a half. But they also

recommend that maybe a half month's rent for damage would have

been sufficient. The industry itself does not in 90 per cent of

the cases require a tenant to pay a month's rent in advance.

I've rented here in the City of Victoria a fair amount in the

last year and a half, and I have never been required to pay a

month and a half rent in advance. But I have been required in

some instances to give a damage deposit.

Really, you haven't protected the landlord for damage. He

has to make out a claim and go to the rentalsman who will in

his discretion either recommend that the claim be paid or not.

Further on in the sections you haven't really delineated what

he has to furnish for cleaning. So, really, in this

section

you're not doing the landlord any good, and you're working a

hardship on the tenant, making him cough up a full month's rent

in advance.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No, that's just a ceiling, Mr. Chairman;

he doesn't have to cough it up. The existing practice is that

there aren't a great many of these demands for security

deposits anyway. We place merely a ceiling on them, which is

half a month below what the Law Reform Commission recommended.

Then the rent deposit has to be sent in to the rentalsman's

office. So in that sense we have discouraged them too.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I interpret this

section 37 as an

invitation to irresponsible tenants to play fast and loose with

the property of the landlord. People that otherwise would have

been careful and restrained, because of a more or less equal

relationship between landlord and tenant, are being given an

invitation by this government and this legislation — and

particularly

section 37 — to say: "Ah, to heck with it!" They

can be as careless as they like, knowing that an appropriate

mechanism is lacking for collection of damages caused by a

tenant.

I would like to ask the Attorney-General what protection a

landlord has against someone who takes this particular act of

licence to do what he wishes with property, and when he moves

to a job in Toronto or Hong Kong or the United States or

somewhere else, just to leave a wreck behind and leave the

landlord holding the bag. What mechanisms do you have to

protect the landlords of British Columbia against this kind of

action? Is this particular

section not an invitation to

irresponsibility?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, it's similar to the old

law in many respects, except under the old law that month could

be increased, that ceiling, to more than one month by a

municipality. It's very seldom done.

MR. McGEER: Yes, but isn't this the very protection that was

needed, Mr. Chairman? Hasn't the Attorney-General with this Act

taken out the one safeguard that was there? Shouldn't you have

at least allowed that protection to remain in? What's your

motivation for removing it?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It's still there. There's a ceiling of

one month, but it's still there. That's the existing law,

subject to this municipal thing.

Sections 37 and 38 approved.

section 39.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman,

section 39 deals with what

happens to the deposits once they have been made. The

subsequent section, which we'll deal with in a moment, deals

with uses of the deposit when the occasion arises; Maybe the

Attorney-General can point out to me where I'm wrong, but there

is no place in these sections — and it should be in 39 — where

a tenant can get his security deposit back.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: There is an amendment there —

section

43. We amend that. There is an amendment on the order

paper.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Thank you.

Sections 39 and 40 approved.

section 41.

MR. PHILLIPS: I think that this

section 41, where nobody

shall make a claim unless…. It seems to me that this is very

ambiguous, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to have the

Attorney-General's ear.

[ Page 4128 ]

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, okay.

MR. PHILLIPS: Suppose, for instance, a person spills a quart

of paint on a floor or a rug. This could be entitled normal

wear and tear.

MR. MR. MACDONALD: Or a pint of blood.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, all right, or a pint of blood. This in

concert with some of the other sections of this deal could be

considered just normal wear and tear. But if the landlord wants

to replace the whole rug, then he has to claim. Who makes the

decision as to what is "cleaning?"

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, obviously dropping a can of paint

on the rug would not be normal wear and tear; it wouldn't be

normal cleaning. The abuse we're correcting in this

section is

that too many landlords said "I've got a right to clean up the

premises just after normal usage." And they withheld the

security deposits for that reason. Now if it's normal usage by

the tenant of the premises, clean and n