1988 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 34th 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)

FRIDAY, APRIL 22, 1988

Morning Sitting

[ Page

4003 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Social assistance benefits for employable single mothers. Mr. Barnes –– 4003

Bank of Canada interest rate. Mr. Davidson –– 4003

Free trade. Mr. Rose –– 4004

Mr. Stupich

GATT ruling and fisheries. Mr. Guno –– 4004

Pesticides. Mr. Miller –– 4005

Private Members' Statements

Right to vote. Mr. Barnes –– 4005

Hon. Mr. Brummet

Young entrepreneurs and small business. Mr. Bruce –– 4007

Ms. Marzari

Fisheries and the economy. Mr. Guno –– 4009

Hon. Mr. Savage

Seniors - contributions and health care costs. Mr. Serwa –– 4010

Mr. Rose

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Labour and Consumer Services estimates. (Hon.

L. Hanson)

On vote 48: minister's office –– 4012

Mr. Blencoe

Mr. Barnes

Mr. S.D. Smith

Mr. Sihota

The House met at 10:06 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

It gives me a great deal of pleasure to rise in this assembly today to

introduce a gentleman I've had the opportunity to meet on many

occasions with respect to the fishing industry, and particularly the

concerns of the deep-sea trawlers relative to port facilities for

docking: Mr. Doug Marsh from Surrey. Would the House make Doug welcome.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

It's indeed a pleasure for me to introduce a good friend to the House

today. This friend always wears white, and that's because he's a good

guy. He's a long-time ambassador for British Columbia, particularly for

the city of Vancouver; he's a former alderman and a restaurateur in

that city. But more important than all of this, he's a trumpet player,

and there's a shortage of good trumpet players. I would like the House

to welcome Frank Baker to the Legislature.

MR. ROSE :

It's sort of reliving my youth when I look at Frank Baker up there. I

worked with Frank years and years ago. He is certainly a trumpet

player, but I think he's used his lip in other ways most effectively.

He's an old friend of mine. I worked for his brother. As a matter of

fact, we worked for Gary Lauk's dad one time; that's how far back we

go. We certainly welcome Frank here and just hope that he doesn't try

to play his home in this building.

MR. BARNES : I

wasn't going to get up, but since Frank Baker is here I feel I should

comment, mainly because of the comments by the Minister of Social

Services and Housing that he's wearing white so that means he's a good

guy. Knowing Baker the way I do, and Baker knowing me the way he does,

I'm sure he would agree that if he were wearing black he would still be

a good guy.

HON. MR. REID :

I would like to echo the comments of the previous speakers in relation

to, first of all, Frank Baker — and I know Frank from his years in

Kinsmen.

Interjections.

HON. MR. REID : Do you want me to get into my cultural pitch, or do you guys want to hear this?

behalf of the Ministry of Tourism, I want to reflect upon Frank Baker

as the ambassador of tourism. He is one of our ongoing ambassadors, and

for the job that he does on behalf of the province and the city of

Vancouver and the music industry, we commend him.

While I'm

on my feet, I would also like to recognize a man previously introduced

in the House, Mr. Doug Marsh, who used to be a Liberal. Now I think

he's even close to being a Socred. He lives in my riding. Welcome to

Victoria, Doug.

MR. MOWAT : As the MLA for Vancouver-Little Mountain, where Frank Baker

lives and has his restaurant at 14th and Cambie, may I tell you members that

the salad bar is excellent.

Oral Questions

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE BENEFITS

FOR EMPLOYABLE SINGLE MOTHERS

MR. BARNES :

A question to the Minister of Social Services and Housing. The Premier

states that the minister is taking a good, hard look at his $50 cutback

for single mothers on income assistance who have babies 15 weeks of age

and younger. Has the minister finally come to the realization that his

government's actions are unfair and unnecessary, and without delay will

he assure this House that the rumour that the Premier is suggesting he

is considering is true, and that he will rescind that order requiring

these mothers to lose $50 a month?

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

First of all, to simply state that the policy was to remove $50 from

mothers is erroneous; there's much more to it than that. The purpose of

the move was certainly not to create anxiety or any undue hardship.

There

has been a tremendous amount of misinformation about this. It seems

that even certain columnists are unable to read the news release and

get it straight. Yes, we are taking a look at it, Mr. Speaker. We are

reviewing it and have been for a few days now. There will be more

information on this forthcoming.

MR. BARNES : I

appreciate the acknowledgement that the minister and his government are

reconsidering their initiative in this regard. I think that in the

meantime, the suffering as a consequence of this decision is pretty

overwhelming. I hope the minister will indicate to this House that

there will be no undue delay in coming to a decision with respect to

this very serious, onerous problem that single mothers are facing today.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : To repeat, Mr. Speaker: the change was from 24 weeks to 15 weeks —

a difference of nine weeks, and that is the part we are reviewing.

Nothing has been instituted, so there hasn't been any hardship placed

on anyone. Most of the anxiety has been caused through misinformation.

We are reviewing it.

BANK OF CANADA INTEREST RATE

MR. DAVIDSON :

Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance. In view of the

tremendous negative impact on the entire provincial economy by the

latest Bank of Canada prime rate increase of an additional one-half

percentage point, what steps has the minister taken to convey his

concerns to Ottawa, particularly when the policy of the central bank

appears to be the only method by which the Canadian dollar can be

artificially kept at its present rate?

[10:15]

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

I thank the hon. member for that question. A matter of continuing

concern to this government — and indeed to most western provincial

governments —

is the fear that these intercessions in interest rates can be

frequently dominated by the needs of the moment of central Canada. As a

consequence of that, we made specific reference to our concern in this

respect in the budget speech, as I'm sure the hon. member will

remember. We continue to have discussions with the federal authorities

about our concern

[ Page 4004 ]

that respect, so the issue is correctly identified by the member as

being important to the British Columbia economy. I can assure the hon.

member that this government continues to do all it can to influence

national decisions in that respect.

MR. DAVIDSON : Can the minister convey what specific steps he might be taking in this regard?

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

As I mentioned to the hon. member in my earlier reply, we are doing

what we can appropriately, and I don't happen to think there is any

useful service provided by me embarking on a public discussion of the

issues. They are many-faceted. They can be simply stated, but certainly

how influence might be applied is a matter that would involve all of

the province and all of the provincial interests. This must necessarily

mean that there will be a dialogue involving many players. In that

respect, we're merely one of many players.

FREE TRADE

MR. ROSE :

I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. If he is

unable to answer it, perhaps he could ping-pong it over to the Minister

of Finance, and I am sure he will give us a lengthy answer. I don't

know how accurate it will be, but it will be lengthy.

Six

months ago I predicted that there would be, even before the

Reagan-Mulroney trade deal had been signed, profound and tragic effects

on some participants in the wine industry, with more to follow. I don't

think we've seen the list of losers yet. Yesterday a wine grower in

Kelowna — perhaps you know the story — received this little

missive from a financial institution with which he had been a customer

and a client for years. It says: "If the free trade agreement with the

U.S.A. is implemented, the grape industry in the Okanagan will be

decimated. Therefore it's unfortunate for your family we can't grant

you a loan." So the family risks losing everything: two homes, the

breakup of the family and no further income. What kind of adjustment

grants or compensation packages has this government got in place to

look after some of the losers that are bound to come about because of

this Mulroney-Reagan trade deal?

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

I'd like to respond by saying that I can't reveal the details of the

figures, but I can tell you that I am well aware that there's a problem

out there. We all recognize that, and we are working diligently to try

to resolve the problem. The issue of whether the particular wine

producer has a problem going to his authority for lending him money,

whether it be a bank or a credit union, relates to the assumption out

there that we will not be able to be competitive. I believe there are

some sectors in the grape industry where we in fact can be competitive.

The

other side of the scenario is that we have guaranteed the price of the

grapes; we've already put that in place. For that person to say he's

having problems with his banking community.... That's the subject

matter of concern. I believe that can happen if there be some transfer

of the vineyards to different varieties. But I cannot reveal the

details of discussions that are going on between the province and the

federal government until those discussions are completed.

MR. ROSE :

The minister mentioned that the problem is out there; the problem is

right over there. You're the bunch that wants the free trade. There's

the government that's going to send a lot of the grape growers and

other orchardists down the river. Do you realize the number of people

in agriculture appearing before the debt review board just in the

Okanagan Boundary-Similkameen areas? Orchardists, 32 percent; beef, 25

percent; horticulture, 24 percent. Before they all go down the tube,

they don't need any sweet talk; they need some help financially. You've

put them out of business. When are you going to announce some help for

them?

HON. MR. SAVAGE : I've been meeting this

morning with a number of fruit producers. For the member opposite to

say that I'm putting them out of business is somewhat of an erroneous

statement, because that is not the truth at all. I'm doing everything

within my power, as is this government, to make sure they have an

industry.

MR. ROSE : I didn't mean you personally; I

meant your government. Does the minister, or does he not, fully support

the Mulroney-Reagan free trade deal?

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

I support B.C. being part of the free trade agreement. I well

recognize, as I have stated on many occasions, that there are some

areas where there will have to be some adjustment. As a minister I well

recognize that there are some problems out there in particular sectors

of this portfolio.

MR. STUPICH : A question to the

Minister of Finance. The Premier said recently that multi-millions of

dollars would have to be spent helping those B.C. industries that would

be hurt by the free trade deal. He mentioned, in particular, the grape

industry. Does the Minister of Finance have any specific plans to deal

with the grape industry, or was the Premier just blowing in the wind?

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

Contrary to public opinion, the Minister of Finance is merely the

Minister of Finance, not the minister in charge of all government

affairs. It's traditional, with our form and structure, that each line

ministry would bring forward their own initiatives as they may impact

their responsibilities. As the hon. Minister of Agriculture earlier

replied, the issue referred to earlier in question period is being

examined very closely, and all levels of government are anxious to

ensure that B.C.'s competitive position and the very important role

that agriculture plays in our economy are protected and preserved to

the extent possible.

MR. STUPICH : Mr. Speaker, let the record show that the minister said no, at this point in time.

GATT RULING AND FISHERIES

MR. GUNO :

I have a question to the Minister of Agriculture and sometimes

Fisheries. When the federal government capitulated with regard to the

GATT ruling last month, we were assured that a landing requirement

would be put into place to prevent massive job loss in B.C. Would the

minister tell the House on what date the landing requirement for fish

caught off B.C. shores was implemented?

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

The GATT ruling was in Geneva, where the decision was eventually made

by the council. The Canadian government has agreed that it will not

implement

[ Page

4005 ]

that agreement until at least January 1, 1989. In the meantime, as you are,

well aware I am sure, negotiations will continue, and legislation may well be

brought in to make sure that the landing requirement is part of the agreement.

MR. GUNO :

Supplementary. As you know, the GATT ruling is a purely voluntary one.

In view of the fact that fishermen and thousands of workers in B.C.

industry are waiting for action by this government, can the minister

guarantee that when the landing requirements are put into place it

would indeed protect the fishing industry and not one B.C. job would be

lost?

HON. MR. SAVAGE : No, Mr. Speaker.

PESTICIDES

MR. MILLER :

I was going to pose this question to the Minister of Environment, who I

was notified by the government Whip would be here this morning. It's

unfortunate. I'll have to pose it to the parliamentary secretary to the

minister. In the recent ombudsman's report on pesticides and pesticide

appeal procedures, Mr. Owen stated in the overview that his study and

recommendations are, "supported by the public officials" — and ministers —

"responsible for their implementation and administration." Could the

parliamentary secretary confirm that the ministry does support the

recommendations contained in the report?

MR. DE JONG : I'll take that question as notice at this time.

MR. ROSE :

I notice the culture minister on the other side has just given a rating

for our question period: 3.2. I see three of the ministers away in the

front row, but the .2 is sitting in the back row. We're not short of

good questions in this House; what we're short of is good answers. It's

very difficult when we see the devastation that's hit the front bench.

We ask the questions over here. We've got lots of questions, but we

have few ministers available to answer them. Where are they when we

really need them?

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please. The hon. member knows that is not a point of order.

MR. DAVIDSON :

Mr. Speaker, any time an individual gets up in this House on a point of

order, it should have some semblance of a real point of order.

MR. BRUCE :

It's my pleasure today to introduce to you and this House a number of

members from my constituency executive. If I may, I'd just like to

introduce to you Wayne Bauer, my brother Gary Bruce, Bruce and Shirley

Atkinson, Norm Fraser, Joan Dickinson and my wife Anneke Bruce. Please

make them welcome.

Private Members' Statements

RIGHT TO VOTE

MR. BARNES : I am very pleased to have an opportunity to talk about the

right to vote. Unfortunately, I notice the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Veitch)

is away this morning. I had hoped that he would be able to respond, but perhaps

there is someone else over there who is committed to the democratic ideals of

our great country and province and will provide us with the response on behalf

of the government.

you know, Mr. Speaker, the question of voters' rights is one that

concerns all politicians especially and certainly the public in

general, but unfortunately, no matter how strident and excited we get

in fighting for the right to vote, it seems to be an issue that

attracts very little attention. Because of this lack of enthusiasm on

the part of people generally, it's an uphill battle.

The

right to vote in a democracy has been and continues to be a rather

evolutionary experience. It's something that has a long odyssey of

trials and ups and downs.

The right to vote is a concept

that strikes awe in the minds of some people, especially those who are

fearful that it may be exercised against them. This is really the point

of the brief comment that I wanted to make this morning. I don't want

to lecture the House about the importance of the vote as much as I want

to point out that politics are being played in a very real and imminent

way with respect to the franchise of British Columbians.

Most of us realize that not too long ago — in fact, less than 70 years ago or thereabouts —

half of the population in this country was unable to vote because of

their sex; we're talking about women. We know that not more than 40

years ago there was no franchise for native Indians, Chinese or

Japanese in this province — or in this country, as a matter of

fact. Why would such a situation prevail? Why is it so difficult to get

the right to vote in a democracy, and why must there be such strident

effort on the part of all of us to ensure that this is in no way

diminished?

[10:30]

As I said before, the vote is translated into politics and politics

is votes, especially in a democracy, where we suggest that everyone has

a right to participation and fair representation. As it is stated in

some of the journals that are analyzing the franchise, the right to

vote for one's representative is the fundamental political right. It

produces a most direct verdict by citizens on the performance of those

who govern them. "It is," states James McRuer, a Supreme Court judge,

"the keystone in the arch of the modern system of political rights in

this country." We know that that's an ideal to be pursued; it's an

objective that should prevail in every democratic society. As recently

as 1982, under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, that right was

enshrined in constitutional form to ensure that every citizen has the

right to vote. It makes no distinction even with respect to age. That

is an

interpretation left to the provinces. As we know, this province

lags behind with respect to the right to vote, because it requires a

person to be 19 years of age before he can vote provincially,

whereas

in every other province it is 18 years of age, and in fact that is the

federal law. So British Columbia is still playing politics with the

right to vote.

There are many examples of what it takes

to ensure that people have the right to vote. There were days when you

had to own property and you had to have so much wealth. There's a poll

tax, certainly in the southern United States. Even in my day I can

recall the problems that the blacks went through in trying to get the

right to vote and trying to maintain that right. Even when you do get

it, it can be undermined. This is what we're experiencing in the

province today. This is what the

section 80 amendment to the Election

Act in this province did. It took away something that had

prevailed — something that has caused very little reaction in the

public. It makes one wonder if the public really understands what is at

risk.

[ Page 4006 ]

Those

of us on this side of the House are playing politics too, because we

want to ensure that everybody has a fair chance. We believe it is the

only way that people who concern themselves with human rights, fairness

and an even break in society would have a chance.

So those

are our politics, but what are the politics of the government side? The

government is contrary to that. It would like to see people under

control, to manipulate the right to vote, to put as many obstacles as

possible in their way. That is the clear implication of the amendment

the minister just introduced to the Election Act. It's quite obvious

when you take a look at the number of people who are eligible to vote

in this province and the number of people who are on the voters list.

We recall that in March 1986, when the New Democrat provincial

secretary, Gerry Scott, petitioned the Supreme Court of British

Columbia, hoping to overturn a decision by the provincial government,

to ensure that voters had the right to vote on election day....

MR. SPEAKER : I regret to inform the member that his time is up under the standing orders.

MR. BARNES : Okay. I'll deal with it in

summary.

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

Since the Provincial Secretary couldn't be here, he asked me to listen

to see if anything different was said today, and perhaps to try to

respond to it. I don't know that anything different has been said, but

I'll do my best to respond to the member.

I don't know what

the issue is, because we, as well as the members on that side, support

the right of every citizen to vote. There seems to be an implication

that for some reason or other we don't. I guess what the Election Act

says, and what we've said, is that there's also a responsibility on the

part of citizens to establish their eligibility. If you follow the

argument that if they can't register on voting day, somehow or other

they are deprived of the right to vote, then by implication you could

say: "Don't bother to establish eligibility, because you can just walk

in and say, 'I'm a citizen. I'm here. I want to vote."' Why would

people be encouraged to establish their eligibility in advance if there

was no need for it? The opposition seems to indicate that it's okay to

come in on that day and put all of the onus on the officials to try to

reach a decision as to whether you are eligible or not.

Certainly

there are envelopes and all sorts of things that can be done, but it's

a process that is absolutely unnecessary if people will take the

responsibility with the right; and we suggest that. If the opportunity

for people to register before voting day was limited, then the member

might have a point. But the opportunity is there now. At any time, a

person can go in to any government agent office, or to various other

offices in this province, and say: "Am I on the voters list? If not,

then please put me on. I'm eligible and I can establish that."

The

new Election Act has increased the time when the focus is on this.

People may not be so election-conscious right now. But certainly once

the writ is dropped, they have ten or 15 days in which they can go in.

There will be a lot of publicity from government, from the registrar of

voters, from both political parties. I can assure you, saying: "Look,

please get on the voters list. You have only 16 days out of the 28 to

do it." I really think that with that and the opportunities provided

for people to register, there is no need to say: "Look, don't bother

with all that. Just show up on the day, wherever." Then you have the

confusion of whether they're voting in the right area or the wrong area.

All

of these things have to be determined at the last minute under

pressure, when they can be established very well in advance. That can

all be done without trying to force it, to determine eligibility under

pressure, at the last minute. I have no problem with the right to vote

for citizens. As for some things the member referred to about past

injustices, I hope that most of those have been rectified. Right now,

citizenship is a requirement, and people who owe their primary loyalty

to another jurisdiction surely shouldn't have the decision-making power

in this country. So citizenship, I would think, is a major requirement,

and everybody then has the right to do that.

The

opportunity to register is there, and that is simply to establish

eligibility, right up until a few days before the election, when the

whole province, the media and everybody know there will be an election

on a certain day. I don't think that is asking too much.

suppose, from the socialist perspective, government should take on the

responsibilities for what every individual should do. I suggest that

under socialism you say that the government should hold your hand to do

everything. If that is the case, it becomes a pretty firm grip as to

who tells them what to do. I think people can make those decisions; I

think people can establish their responsibility as well as their rights.

MR. BARNES :

Obviously this is a debate that requires considerably more time than is

allotted to us this morning. I just want to say that the response

failed to address the real issue, which is the fundamental right of

every citizen to vote, period. It should not be left up to politicians

to determine when they can exercise that right.

For

instance, in this province, up until this amendment, a person had the

right to exercise the vote up until the second the polls were closed,

and you're suggesting that they shouldn't have that right. You're

suggesting that the lineups are inconvenient, that there is cheating

going on, that all kinds of things are happening on election day that

you want to clean up in the name of efficiency. This is why you've cut

out registrations on election day.

We in the opposition are

not saying that everybody should wait until election day. Obviously no

one wants to stand in queues that go for blocks. A person has to be

pretty highly motivated to do that in the first place. There is a

reason why people line up. It is because some of them are in transit,

they may have moved, and under your new rules, if you move, you are

jeopardizing your right to vote. "It's too bad," you're saying. We're

saying that there are circumstances beyond the control of the voter

which justify their being able to go down and register on election day.

they don't show up on election day, that's their problem. Then you can

say: "Well, they had the right to be there; they weren't there." You're

taking that away now. You're now saying that that is cumbersome and

awkward, and we're not going to stand for it; we're going to clean

things up." But the point I want to make, Mr. Speaker, as far as the

Gerry Scott petition is concerned, is that in 1985 there were 2,120,730

eligible voters aged 19 and over, but only 1,560,174 were registered on

the official voters list.

This is not acceptable. This is a

situation that is happening now. It is what is going to be happening in

Boundary Similkameen, in Nanaimo and Alberni when those by elections

take place, because you are not allowing people to register up to three

days before the election day. You have

[ Page 4007 ]

said in this House that you will not hold complete enumerations. There is no effort, really, to get people on the voters list.

Voter

cards are not available to those people trying to organize and get

people on the voters list. This a backward step; it is out of step with

what the trend should be. We all know that voting has been an uphill

battle and that people have fought for it all over the world, and we

also know that there are some countries where people don't even have

the right to vote. But we do have it in this country, although it's

relatively new as far as universal franchises are concerned.

has been an uphill struggle, but it is still at risk. There are still

those who would use subterfuge for political reasons, to undermine the

right of people to vote, and this is what we're talking about today.

YOUNG ENTREPRENEURS AND SMALL BUSINESS

MR. BRUCE :

It's a pleasure for me today to stand and speak about some of the

wonderful, good things occurring in this province. It's interesting to

note that we've just had this little chat about the right to vote. By

the time the next election rolls around, with all the good things

happening in this province, the people will be lined up there in

queues, waiting to vote for us again to return us for another three,

four or five years.

What

I'd like to talk to you about today — and I've got a lot of good

things to say, so I'll try to get through them as quickly as I

can — are young entrepreneurs and small business. There are some

really good things happening.

First

of all, it's important that we understand how important small business

is to the economy in British Columbia. Did you know that of the total

of 112,837 firms found in British Columbia, 86,144 of them employ fewer

than five people? That is absolutely incredible when one looks at those

numbers. Of the firms in B.C., 92 percent employ less than 20

employees. So you can see that that small business component means a

tremendous amount to our economy. This accounts for approximately 96

percent of new job openings that are created each year. Approximately

one-third of all employees in the private sector work for small

businesses. So it doesn't take very much for one to understand the

importance of small business.

What is our government doing

for small business? Well, let's take a look at it. A few years ago we

embarked upon a program called Partners in Enterprise, and the majority

of municipalities throughout this province took advantage of this. It

had a number of components to it and was found to be extremely

successful.

Last year we lowered the sales tax to 6

percent, which resulted in an incredible growth in retail sales

throughout the province — a good move. This year, mark my words,

again this government took action by substantially lowering the small

business corporation income tax, another good sign to small business in

this province of British Columbia. Of course, we have the B.C.

Enterprise Centre, which offers tremendous support services to

entrepreneurs and investors alike. When you see all that package, you

can see there are some good things happening in the province of British

Columbia for small business. But hang on ladies and gentlemen, there is

still more.

MR. RABBITT : More to come?

MR. BRUCE :

More to come. What I would like specifically to talk to you about today

is the young entrepreneurs program. It's an excellent program. It's a

comprehensive program that trains people to capitalize on

self-initiative — I stress self-initiative — and on their dreams of owning their own businesses.

Was

important to understand that when you go into small business you should

have some sort of training or some sort of background so you don't get

yourself into trouble. What this government have done is recognize the

importance of a basic training program so that people can be encouraged

to get into small business, be self-reliant, be innovative, be

producers for the economy of this province.

[10:45]

This

government took advantage of the HETADI program. You're probably all

sitting there — I can tell by the way you’re sitting on the edge

of your seats —

wondering what HETADI means? HETADI is the Hawaii Entrepreneur Training

and Development Institute. I'll ask you about this later. It has two

main component parts.

MR. WEISGERBER : Are we going to be tested?

MR. BRUCE : You'll be tested afterwards.

There's

a basic training program and there is a residential training program.

Now the residential training program, of course, is extremely

interesting. We put this program on. I would ask you: even in your

foggiest or your wildest imagination, could you come up with where you

think this residential training program was held? In what constituency

in the province of British Columbia do you think they held this

residential training program? Of course, Cowichan Malahat, an

innovative, progressive riding.

The residential training

program was held at Shawnigan Lake, for your information. It was

sponsored by the University of Victoria and the province of British

Columbia through the Advanced Education ministry and Economic

Development. Education, Economic Development, University of Victoria,

all working together. An interesting program. It shows good government

and it shows that commitment to small business.

The basic

training program itself has a seven-hour, pre-business workshop. That

allows people to get some idea of what small business entails. The

second component is a one day workshop, which allows people to learn

the techniques of finding and testing new business ideas, and using an

interactive computer video program — now there's a handle for you —

again showing we are in the twentieth century. We're moving ahead.

We're not just fumbling in the darkness; we're laying out strategy so

that people can get involved in small business.

Also

combined with that is a two-day market research and business plan

workshop, which again allows and helps to provide a basic understanding

of the business planning process. It's important that you do have that

understanding, of course.

The residential training program

is extremely interesting. After you have gone through those three

stages, 25 of those people who have been in that first stage are asked

to carry on and attend the intensive 24-day, live-in sessions. Out of

this first class that was put together, 25 were selected. Their average

age was 26.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

[ Page 4008 ]

What

happened in that 24-day period is just incredible. Living there

together, ideas are bounced back and forth as they attempt to build

their business plans, the marketing that's necessary, the financing

that's necessary. They have data collection and analysis, strategy

formulation and forecasting, marketing, etc., to develop viable

business plans. They also, very importantly, are taught and have that

interaction with lending institutions, so when they put their business

plan together and take it to a financier, it's already in place, and

it's proven.

They understand where their markets are, what

they're looking to achieve, and how they're going to get there. They're

not just set out on a course and left there to fend on their own.

They're given the assistance through this training program to move into

the marketplace, and they have excellent success rates. More than that,

they have some excellent programs and ideas of what they're attempting

to do, which have helped many people in providing new jobs, new

commodities and new markets.

As we've mentioned, small

business is extremely important to the province of British Columbia.

The particular development they put together at these workshops....

We've had two now in the province of British Columbia. One was held in

Port Alberni and one in the Shawnigan Lake area. There are some fine

examples, and I will be happy to share them with you when I finish up

in a few minutes.

MS. MARZARI : I had anticipated

getting involved with a deeply probing investigation into young

entrepreneurs and small business. I didn't realize we were going to be

subjected to a sales pitch, right up there with one of those late-night

TV sales pitches that tell us to send our money in, and we will get

what we want with a live-in business training program.

Mr.

Speaker, let me suggest to you, before we run off and sign contracts

with this private training institution from Hawaii, that what small

business in this province is looking for and needs is economic

stability, long-range planning, solid investment, loan guarantees,

promises and contracts developed with credit unions so that programs

can be carried out, and equity.

What small business needs

in this province is equity at the first stage of entering business, and

then a bit of a line of credit that can be backed up, especially if

that small business is run by a young person or a woman. We know that

they are the big movers in this province who are creating the jobs.

Those are the people — young people and especially women —

who are developing small businesses that are successful; 80 percent of

small businesses are being run by women, and they're doing a good job

at it.

The quick-fix solution — we've just found a training program from Hawaii that works —

is not what small business is looking for in this province. Small

businesses in this province, especially those directed towards youth

and women, have been to this point half-planned, not seriously

thought-out, and short-lived. In fact, the youth program that I

remember coming in contact with was for university students or

post-high-school students. It was a four-month program where the

student was expected to come in with a business plan, receive a little

cash and have to pay that cash back before school started in the fall.

The

small business community in the province laughs at this program, and we

who have been in small business have very often seen young people run

through the front door of the store or the shop saying: "Help me out

here. I've got to make back my money." You can't run a four-month

program for young people to start them off in business when the society

we live in and the business world operates on 90-day repayment plans.

You can't do it. That's the kind of incentive we have provided our

young people with.

When this side of the House talks about

investing in young people, women, innovators and entrepreneurs, we're

talking about building social infrastructure. We're talking about

investing in them when they're little kids and investing in the

stability of their families. We're talking about investing in them as

they go through their school years and teaching them how to make

decisions and choices. We don't believe in feeding them propaganda

about having babies for the state and all that stuff that you guys are

peddling lately.

When they get older, we've got to invest

in their post-secondary education. We've got to ensure that they have

some reasonable capacity to think that they're going to have low enough

actually going to mean something to stay and invest in B.C. That's the

kind of investment we're talking about, because then we are ensuring

that we have provided an example to and a long-term interest in young

people, so that they can afford to have a long-term interest in the

economy of British Columbia.

What we say on this side of

the House is no quick fixes, please. Let's build the programs by

starting with the kids. Then let's build the social infrastructure,

because that's what the banks look for in the last analysis, and it

will come right back to where we were at the beginning. Small business

in this province needs investment, equity and guarantees. High risk

small business needs to be told that the money is going to be

there — guaranteed by the provincial government perhaps —

through their credit union or bank. It's going to be there for them in

six months and a year, so that their business plans can be developed

with a one-year, 18-month or two-year plan. That's what they need. They

don't need five years of education to teach them that; they need a

solid grounding, and then they need some money. They need some

investment in them.

The volunteer community, the business

federation and the small business federation are very interested in

looking at that. We are told that B.C. Central Credit Union is ready to

work on a program with this government to try to ensure that seed

capital is made available through the credit unions to young

entrepreneurs, to young women working, to creators and innovators. I

haven't seen the announcement for this program yet. I haven't seen the

$6 million that was available. I say then, Mr. Speaker, that this is

the kind of investment that we've got to be talking about, not quick

fixes.

MR. BRUCE : Let's talk about success. If you

want to send your money to me at night, that's fine; I'll take it. I

have no problem with that at all. But let's talk about success. Let's

look at the facts.

It's interesting that the member for

Vancouver-Point Grey has said certain things, many parts of which we

are already far ahead in putting in place and developing. So it's good

that they recognize that. But when you look at this particular program

in itself, it's not a quick fix; it's long-lasting.

Look at

some of the success rates: 80 percent of the graduates of this program

start a business in the first year. In the Shawnigan Lake example, 13

of 25 have already started businesses and eight more will be in

operation by the end of this year. What does that mean? It means that

of the 13 already started, there are 15 jobs created, and it's expected

[ Page 4009 ]

that by year's end over 60 jobs will be created as a result of this program.

What

did it cost? It cost $200,000. What did that $200,000 mean? Well,

certainly some of it got into the community of Shawnigan Lake, which

helps those businesses and the people in that area; that's great. The

business that ran the training program derived a benefit from it,

certainly; nothing wrong with that at all. And at least 21 new small

businesses will be developed as a result. The short-term estimated

costs are very low when you look at the aspect of job development: it

works out to about $3,000 per job. But they are good, long-term, solid

jobs because they have a good business plan and a good marketing plan

behind them; they make sense. It's with the info that people learn in

this program that they're able to put together proper financing

programs and be able to go to private and commercial lenders to get the

money that they need.

Let's

just very quickly take a look

at a few of the examples of what people were doing there. One business

operation is a nanny agency. Because of their success, they're going to

franchise offices — they're already in operation — which will

be opened across Canada and in the United States over the next three

years. What's the purpose of this business plan? It's to revolutionize

the nanny industry and capture our share — Canadians' share —

of the market in the next three years. These nanny agencies are

included in the child care industry, and are a relatively new concept

in child care that offer an alternative — and that's okay too in

this society — to parents who would otherwise be choosing day care

or unscreened baby-sitters to care for their children.

What

does this mean in sales and gross profit? In the first year of

operation, it's estimated that they'll make some $82,680. Not bad, eh?

A good, local, Victoria, British Columbia Canadian. Hey, that's okay,

isn't it? By year three of operation, this particular agency is

estimated to have sales of $940,000 and a net profit of $343,000. Now

aren't those some good things that are happening in the province of

British Columbia?

[11:00]

FISHERIES AND THE ECONOMY

MR. GUNO :

I'm happy today to rise to speak on what I consider an important issue.

I want to bring to the House's attention the significance of British

Columbia's fishing industry to the economic well-being of the province.

I believe this to be highly appropriate in view of the Minister of

Environment's (Hon. Mr. Strachan'

s) recent sojourn into silliness or, I

guess we can say, foray into foolishness. At any rate, this is in

reference to his assertion that commercial fishermen should be banned

from our offshore, that commercial fishing is essentially a welfare

state; and I'm sorry to see that the Minister of Environment is not in

the House today.

As a personal note, I found his remarks to

be highly objectionable. I come from a fishing family. I fished

commercially myself for three years. My father started fishing when he

was about 12 years old and fished until he died almost 60 years later.

He and countless others like him have worked, and are still working

very hard, in a highly dangerous occupation. I find the minister's

reference to their occupation as a welfare state to be very

objectionable.

One can ignore such non sequiturs, but since

this one came from a member of this government, we have to be concerned

about the appalling ignorance it represents about such a vital resource

industry. There's no doubt about the importance of this industry —

and it's longstanding. The aboriginal people were among the first to

engage in it in a very significant way, and it grew and developed.

Today it is still a very significant source of employment for many

people who live in small communities along the B.C. coast. It employs

thousands of women. So for the minister to dismiss it out of hand is

simply irresponsible.

No one is suggesting that the

industry is one of the most efficient. I would concede that it's far

from it. The industry today faces a myriad of problems, many of them

complex. I think it's almost axiomatic to say that what we have today

in our fishing industry is too many fishing-boats chasing fewer and

fewer fish. Because of this burgeoning conflict over the resource, I

think it's important that both the senior governments get together and

try to resolve some of their conflicting jurisdictions with regard to

this industry.

I just want to look at some of the economic

factors with regard to this important industry, and I take this from

the Price Waterhouse report. The British Columbia fishing industry

employed 24,000 people full and part time at the peak of the season,

creating 14,000 direct man-years of employment in the province. This is

about the same number as was generated in 1986 by all of the producing

mines in British Columbia, so it's a significant job-creating industry.

In terms of economic spinoffs, direct fishing industry expenditures on

goods and services, combined with employee spending, created an

additional 15,000 full-time equivalent man-years of employment in B.C.

and elsewhere in Canada.

In 1987 the industry had a gross

revenue of $747 million, representing 30 percent of total Canadian fish

sales. About $573 million in fish sales involved exports to foreign

markets such as Japan. the European Economic Community and the United

States, making the industry an important Canadian generator of foreign

exchange. In terms of quality of product that this fishing industry

produces, it's first-rate. It's one of the most important in the world.

Nearly

7,000 commercial fishing vessels were licensed in B.C., creating work

for an estimated 14,000 fishermen. Commercial fishermen received $390

million for a 1986 catch of more than 220,000 tons of fish. Salmon

accounted for 65 percent of the value of all B.C. fish landings. There

were 170 fish processing plants operating in B.C., paying something

like $129 million in wages, salaries and benefits to an estimated 7,500

employees. The fish-processing industry spent about $540 million on

domestic and foreign fish purchases, and on processing, warehousing and

transportation.

There's no doubt that this industry is a

significant one. It contributes greatly to the economy of not only B.C.

but Canada. There have been studies which show that it ought to be

supported. I believe this government has failed to appreciate the

tremendous economic contribution that the fish industry represents in

B.C. I think this government must show that appreciation by being

prepared to work with the federal government, who have a clear

jurisdiction to work out and reconcile their separate and sometimes

conflicting interests and responsibilities. As Peter Pearse called for

in his 1982 report, this government must begin to work with the federal

government in terms of....

DEPUTY SPEAKER : Hon. member, your time is up under standing orders.

HON. MR. SAVAGE : To the hon. member for Atlin, I'd like to respond by saying that the facts presented by the

[ Page 4010 ]

member

are very close to dead on. I compliment him for that, and commend him

for his statements. But the fact that you think.... The latter part of

your address — that this government doesn't have some concern about the Pacific fishery —

is erroneous. I don't recollect considering at any time, as the

minister responsible for the industry, that this government would be

abandoning the west coast fishery. We are doing everything within our

power to have more say in what happens in the Pacific coast fishery.

MR. LOVICK : What about what Strachan said?

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

I cannot answer for the member. I can tell you that I've met with the

fishing community in Prince Rupert on many occasions. As the member

from Prince Rupert could attest to if he were in the House, I have made

myself available at every occasion that I've been asked, and as often

as I possible can, to make myself available as the minister responsible

to the industry, to hear their concerns; and of course their concern is

that it is a valuable contributor to the economy of this province.

Your

number of $747 million is correct. The 7,000 vessels is very close to

dead on, with 14,000 people being employed on those vessels. All very

important. But I guess some of the numbers we don't tend to bring

forward are those that relate to the value of investment. Those 7,000

vessels probably represent well in excess of billions of dollars of

investment, not only by the companies but by the independent people who

own their own vessels. Then there's the millions and millions in

equipment on board those vessels. The processing facilities, as you

said, run into the hundreds of millions of dollars, all contributing

towards the economic generator of this province. Let me assure you that

this government well recognizes that.

There are other

aspects that should be pointed out as well. Approximately $22 million

is paid in federal taxes by the industry, approximately $10 million is

paid into provincial coffers and approximately $3 million generated in

municipal coffers. So it all adds up to an economic generator.

The

other aspect that is often not talked about is the sport fishing. We

know the value of both, but the fact of the matter is that the vast

majority of the fishermen on the Pacific coast here have bought homes

and businesses of their own. All are dollars that are generated

entirely within the province. Of course, I would be the last person, as

the minister responsible, to say that it doesn't play an important role

in the economy. It is obviously one of the key economic generators of

dollars. For every dollar that is invested in the fisheries on the west

coast, we get a sevenfold return from the fishing community. So nobody

can say that they don't pay their way, if you like to use that term.

well recognize that a great many of those jobs that are secured in that

industry are full time, not part time. It is often assumed that the

people who work in the processing plants are all part time, but there

is a terrific sector that is on a full-time basis. There is the

marketing of the product, the retail value, the value added for

distribution — it just goes on and on. Don't think for one minute

that I, as a minister in this government, do not recognize the value of

that sector. You can rest assured that I will do everything within my

portfolio to make sure that we enhance that wherever possible,

including conservation measures that are necessary to undertake. If we

are to have a resource and jobs for the future, that will all be part

of the mandate, to make sure that this government covers off for future

generations to come.

MR. GUNO : I appreciate the

comments of the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and I have no

doubt about his commitment. I'm glad to hear that he has acknowledged

the importance of this industry.

What remains troublesome

are still the echoing remarks of the Minister of Environment, who

should be one of the key players working in conjunction with the

Minister of Agriculture in terms of working towards better conservation

programs to protect the fish habitat. So I hope that we will not be

hearing differing signals from this government about the priorities

they place on this industry.

I think this government must

be prepared to show its commitment, not by just saying that they are

not abandoning the industry, but by starting to look at some of the

industrial activities going on right now that are a clear threat to the

fish habitat. I name three. The offshore drilling: we have a moratorium

on right now, I know, but I know the government is considering lifting

that moratorium in spite of the fact that the full environmental impact

on that particular activity has not been studied. So there is no clear,

biological baseline research conducted in that area.

Fish

farms: there are some very grave concerns about the threat that this

particular activity has on wild stock. Again, there is simply no real

study being conducted on the part of this government. In terms of

forestry — this has been ongoing for years — the fish are the

last to be considered when forestry plans are put into place. There is

simply no development of plans being insisted upon by this government.

we need more than just assurances, Mr. Minister. We need action so that

the people who are engaged in this industry will know that this

government does care.

SENIORS — CONTRIBUTIONS

AND HEALTH CARE COSTS

MR. SERWA :

I've entitled the topic I am going to speak about with a special quote:

"Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your

country." The quote is taken from John F. Kennedy's inaugural address

in 1961. I believe that this statement is symbolic of the attitude of

seniors towards the development of this province. It could well be

accepted as the creed of seniors in British Columbia. They built this

province and this country, and in their retired years they continue to

serve.

Much has been said of late in the media about the

Social Credit government's policy towards seniors. The media appear to

be giving the impression that we do not care about our senior citizens

or value their ongoing contribution to this great province of ours. I

want to state here and now that nothing could be further from the

truth. Seniors are part of our province's most valuable resource, its

people. Seniors continue to play a vital role in our society. The

wisdom, intensive knowledge, experience and many talents of seniors

result in an invaluable contribution to the community.

Seniors

today are far from being the stereotypical rocking-chair grandparents

with ill health and fading eyesight. Seniors are physically active,

healthy, better educated, independent and more involved in their

communities than ever before. In my constituency of Okanagan South,

seniors participate in and make significant contributions to every

club, organization and society. Our seniors, whether they spent the

majority of their years here in our province or have adopted our

province in their later years, continue to make significant

contributions to the life of our province.

[ Page 4011 ]

[11:15]

have an ageing population. Today just over 10 percent of Canadians are

seniors; by the year 202 1, nearly 30 percent will be 65 or older. In

the next 20 years, British Columbia's senior citizen population will

rise from 373,000 today to 550,000 in the year 2008. Due to our mild

climate, our excellent social services and the high quality of life,

British Columbia is the favourite retirement destination for people

from across the country. As the MLA for Okanagan South, I know that the

people of my constituency welcome seniors from across Canada to our

thriving community. We are more productive and economically more stable

as a result of their choosing to live in our communities.

Many

continue to create employment opportunities for others by maintaining

active business interests. Retired people have a positive impact on our

economy and lifestyle. Through their purchasing power and significant

disposable income, seniors have created an ever-expanding retirement

industry. Developers provide a diverse range of housing for seniors.

Building construction for the retirement industry alone has been a

major force in the economic recovery in my constituency.

One

senior from Australia has invested millions of dollars of new capital

into the Big White ski area. The resulting increase in winter tourism

has benefited the whole of my constituency. Another senior builds sites

and maintains birdhouses for bluebirds. His group has placed hundreds

of these birdhouses. Both these seniors have in their own way added to

and enhanced the quality of life for the residents of the Okanagan.

Today's

retiree has much more disposable income in real terms than ever before.

A recent estimate is that 50 percent of the disposable wealth of this

country is held by people 55 years and older. The income generated by

the retirement industry provides our economy with stability, and this

in turn creates employment in many sectors. Their activities and

interests stimulate the development of the arts, crafts and cultural

activities and educational endeavours.

Beyond economics,

seniors contribute many valuable intangibles. Our communities are

richer for the hours of dedicated volunteer service given by our

seniors. Their time and patience in transmitting their knowledge to

others and providing for future generations the values which made our

province and country great are beyond value. We owe to our seniors a

debt of gratitude for the province and the communities that they have

helped build.

However, health costs are a reality that we

need to address in a realistic way if future generations are to enjoy

the equivalent standard of care. It has been pointed out that while

people age 65 and over constitute just over 12 percent of British

Columbia's population, they account for nearly $1.8 billion, or almost

half, of the $4 billion Ministry of Health expenditure. These costs

will continue to increase as the number of seniors grow.

address the economic reality of our rising health care costs, I propose

that we re-examine the current cost-sharing agreement between the

federal and provincial governments covering health care costs.

Currently, the federal fiscal arrangements for health care costs

provide grants based on the provincial population and the historical

costs of the programs, escalated according to the rate of increase in

nominal gross national product minus 2 percent. As the amount of the

federal transfer is unrelated to current provincial expenditures in the

field of health care costs, this could prove to be a problem to our

province in the future, as the percentage of seniors increases and

health costs grow.

We may need to re-evaluate the current

system of allocating transfer grants simply on the basis of population,

by taking into account the age of the population in allocating funds

for health care. By making grants based on both the provincial

population and the age of that population, provinces with a greater

portion of seniors would receive larger grants to offset the higher

costs associated with providing basic health care services to this

segment of the population. Such a scheme would, in my opinion.... I'll

conclude in the last three minutes.

MR. ROSE : I'm

always pleased to listen to the member for Okanagan South, who is an

old friend of mine and a very sincere person, I'm sure: he does his

homework well. I know how he loves seniors. As a matter of fact, I love

seniors too. I have a mother who is 89, and I'm almost getting to be a

senior citizen myself, along with you, Mr. Speaker. It's not a state of

life that most of us aspire to, but it happens to even the best of us.

So that's about all we can say.

We have about 2.5 million

seniors in Canada, and their numbers will be growing as we have better

health standards and better education and all those things. I want to

tell you some startling statistics. Over half those 2.5 million seniors

receive the old age supplement. The only people who qualify for the old

age supplement, which is a supplement beyond the old age security, are

those who have no other income. So over half the senior citizens in

Canada are broke, or else they couldn't qualify for the supplement.

was quite interested in what the member for Okanagan South had to say,

and how much he loved the seniors, and how much he felt their

contribution should be recognized. I wondered how he was going to vote

on a number of items that affect seniors. How did he vote? For

instance, in 1987 the premiums for medical insurance were increased by

10 percent in the budget. How did the member vote? User fees in the

1987 budget were introduced in physiotherapy, podiatry and chiropractic

services — $5 each visit. How did the member for Okanagan South

vote? Did he support these premium increases? Did he support the

medical fee increases?

In 1987, the seniors had another

cruel double-whammy. Prescription drug fees went up, making seniors pay

75 percent of dispensing fees on their purchases up to a maximum of

$125 per year. Did the member for Okanagan South support this budget

item for seniors, or did he vote against it?

Ambulance

fees in 1988 — the cost of transporting the patient —

increased 25 percent from $28 to $35 for the first 40 kilometres. Does

he support that increase?

Long-term

care rates are going from 75 percent to 85 percent of the seniors'

combined security and guaranteed income supplement. Does he intend to

support this? How did he vote on the budget? Did he vote for this

increase, or did he oppose it?

The housing allowance: no

increase in SAFER. We know that over half of the 2.5 million on old age

supplement are broke. Many seniors pay as much as 50 percent of their

income on housing. Has he called for an increase in the shelter

allowance?

Property tax in 1987 for seniors increased from

a minimum of $1 to a minimum of $100. A lot of people have worked all

their lives to build their little mortgaged ivy covered cottage, and

their tax increased 100 percent.

[ Page 4012 ]

There

was a 5 percent drop in the budget for homemaker services. How has the

member called for that to be reversed? Personal income tax increased

8.4 percent for low- and middle-income seniors. The lack of

consultation, all of these things....

I know the member for

Okanagan South loves his mother; I love my mother. She's soon going to

be 89, and she's so healthy I accuse her sometimes of denying me my

inheritance. Nevertheless, if you say you love me and it's not

Valentine's Day for a few months, show me.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I want the member for

Okanagan South to get up there on his heels and fight this rampage

against seniors; not to be part of the gang that attacks elderly

people, but actually to fight for them — not in words, but in deeds. It's deeds that count.

MR. SPEAKER : I regret to inform, the member that his time is up under standing orders.

MR. ROSE : You're a good deal younger than when I first started this speech. [Laughter.]

MR. SERWA : I would just like to conclude my prepared statement.

Such

a scheme would, in my opinion, make it possible for any province to

maintain basic health care services for seniors at a prescribed

standard, without imposing undue taxation on younger generations.

response to my colleague and senior in the Legislature, I'd like to go

back historically a little. The two parties that evolved from the

harsh, difficult, Depression were the Social Credit Party and the CCF.

The bedrock foundation of both of those parties was a very strong

social conscience. I believe that the budget that was recently brought

down indicates the determination, the commitment and the resolve of

this government to provide for the security of seniors in both the

short as well as the long term. I am very proud of our government's

commitment to seniors.

The people who grew up through the

Depression, and were perhaps in their teens and twenties then, grew up

in a period when there were no social safety nets. We have grown a

great deal in the amount and the variety of protections that we now

have. What we have today is probably the finest care system in the

world, whether it's through social services or the medical field. I

defy hon. members to find any country in the world that exceeds the

levels and standards of commitment of our government.

want to ensure, that seniors receive the support and assistance they

need. But neither I nor they believe in a welfare state. There is

nothing that vanishes quite so quickly as unearned capital. They are

proud, they are innovative and they are resourceful. They have come

through difficult periods, and every one I have talked to is proud and

willing to make a fair share of continued contribution and to shoulder

part of the burden of operation of this province.

We have a

number of programs, hon. members, that are absolutely outstanding. We

have increased the GAIN for Seniors supplement; it's $21.5 million.

This is the area the member was speaking about. There is a substantial

commitment in there.

MR. SPEAKER : I regret to inform the member that his time is up under standing orders.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : Committee of Supply, Mr. Speaker.

[11:30]

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

LABOUR AND CONSUMER SERVICES

(continued )

On vote 48: minister's office: $272,097.

HON. L. HANSON :

Yesterday the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Cashore) asked a

number of questions, and I'd like, for the record, to put those answers

forward now.

On the question of the $50 filing fee as it

relates to the small claims court, I have determined that that fee

cannot be waived, and I understand that there is no authority for

Social Services and Housing to pay for it. However, Social Services

does pay for arbitration fees when necessary, because arbitration cases

are usually the most urgent — possession cases, for example.

might also suggest that there is an initiative now to put in place an

arbitration mediation service on a trial basis that the members to the

dispute could take advantage of if they agreed to settle their dispute

in that manner. To my understanding at this point, there's no fee for

that, but I intend to clarify that.

As for the proclamation

on the Residential Tenancy Act that the member suggested for the

downtown east side, there's nothing to proclaim, really. We don't feel

the sections of the act fit that particular situation. However, I would

like to advise the House that my ministry is presently reviewing the

options relating to persons living in hotels in the downtown east side,

and as a result of that there may be some changes in the act.

Moving

on to the illegal lockouts and seizures, there were approximately 60

cases of that last year. Most of those cases involve innocent mistakes

on the part of the landlords, and we found that most of those problems

are easily resolved as a result of a phone call from the residential

tenancy branch. If the members have knowledge of situations that have

not been brought to our attention, certainly I would deal with them.

There

was a question about staffing in that consumer affairs branch of the

ministry. The residential tenancy branch staff complement at this point

is set at 20. Last year, we had three and a half arbitrators in

Vancouver. Unfortunately one of those arbitrators passed away, and we

are currently hiring as required. Through an advertising and interview

process we will be increasing the complement of arbitrators, and they

will be serving on an on-call basis — as opposed to a full-time

basis — so we should have adequate coverage. In Victoria, there

are arbitrators on site two days a week.

do travel to different regions of the province as it is necessary. Last

year arbitrators heard 1,055 cases in communities other than the lower

mainland. Some of the examples were: in Prince Rupert, we heard 39; in

Terrace, 21; Prince George, 82; Kamloops, 66; Kelowna, 86; and

Chilliwack, 29. Those examples represent about 30 percent of the

caseload outside of the lower mainland.

To the questions

raised that there should be regional residential tenancy offices, we

believe that's not a requirement. We believe that the system in place

now is certainly

[ Page 4013 ]

very

adequately serving the concerns. We live in an age of almost instant

communications, so we don't feel that a greater number of regional

offices are really necessary at this point.

We do use the

government agents. I think the suggestion was that the government

agents provide information. It's true, they do provide information, but

we also use the government agents to communicate with the residential

tenancy branch directly if the individual needs it. The cost of all

those calls is charged against the government. The liaison that exists

with the government agents certainly appears, in our opinion, to be

adequate and serving the needs very well.

We're not aware

of any complaints about the level of regional service; it certainly

hasn't been a major issue brought to our attention. We have the same

position on the toll-free line.

The question was asked: how

do we communicate the rules on residential tenancy? We have an

excellent brochure called "Renting in British Columbia," and it

details the Residential Tenancy Act in language that is easily

understandable. It's available in all the ministry offices and also

from the government agents. We print about 100,000 of those each year,

which gives you some indication of how popular they are. We also have

staff members appearing on television and radio in ads to inform the

public.

MR. BLENCOE : Fireside chats.

HON. L. HANSON : No, the member is suggesting that they're fireside chats, but they're really information advertisements.

to the number of prosecutions, the member suggested that he had asked a

question that I had committed to answer and he had not yet received the

answer. I would like to place in evidence before the House that we did

respond to the critic of my ministry in that particular area. We did

that on July 13, 1987. I have a quote from that letter: "Please find

attached in

summary form the responses to those questions in, I trust,

sufficient detail to provide you with the information which you and

your colleagues were seeking." Although several cases were examined

with a view to such proceedings, no prosecutions were actually

commenced during the last fiscal year. I'd just like to put on the

record that this ministry did answer that query. It's unfortunate that

the information didn't get to the particular individual, but it did go

to the critic.

There was a question from the member for New

Westminster (Ms. A. Hagen) regarding the comparison of the office of

the rentalsman and the residential tenancy. I also responded to that,

on February 10 of this year. I could read that letter, but I certainly

would be prepared to provide a copy of it. I don't think the House

needs to be going through the correspondence at this point.

MR. BLENCOE :

There will be more discussion this morning of the Residential Tenancy

Act and the lack of a rentalsman in the province of British Columbia,

but let me say right off the top that our party policy is to bring back

the office of the rentalsman and introduce a fair process of rent

review. The residential tenancy branch....

MR. S.D. SMITH : Even though it's not needed anymore.

MR. BLENCOE :

Oh, it's needed, in our view, as the tenants of the province of British

Columbia continue to be underserved and lack protection in rental

issues. We'll get back to that later this morning.

I want

to continue with the discussion that the minister and I were having

yesterday vis--vis cemetery services, particularly phone solicitation

and the kind of activities that continue to be offensive to thousands

of British Columbians. The minister concluded yesterday that he is

bringing in legislation, but there are obviously no details. I want to

put on the record that we obviously will welcome legislation, but what

we on this side of the House — like all British Columbians, I think —

want to see is legislation that clearly articulates a policy that this

kind of phone solicitation for services related to funerals and

cemeteries is not allowed in the province of British Columbia. We hear

rumours that the government is considering just controlling the hours

or the kind of phone solicitation that can happen, allowing both

funeral homes and cemeteries to conduct solicitation activities. In our

estimation, that would not be acceptable. We require legislation that

clearly articulates that this kind of activity, for sensitive areas

like funerals, should not be allowed to continue. I will pursue that a

little more with the minister later on.

Yesterday I was

providing the House and the minister with some specific concerns from

correspondence that I have received. I should add that for two or three

years I have been drawing this to the attention of the government. Thus

far they have failed to act, when they have had overwhelming evidence

that British Columbians find this activity offensive. Senior citizens

who are terminally ill or families who are ill or have just come out of

the hospital, or days before or after going into major,

life-threatening operations, get this kind of call with high-pressure

sales. Sometimes they have bargain days on Thursdays or $1.49 day:

"Today we can give you a deal on your funeral." That's not acceptable

in our society.

We know where it's coming from, and the

minister knows where it's coming from. I have also drawn to his

attention that we find many of our funeral homes being bought up by

American interests or major transnational corporations. It's a big, big

business; and they are bringing kinds of activities into Canada and

British Columbia that I don't believe British Columbians accept.

I've

shown the minister another area of concern. Many funeral homes are

being pressured to affiliate themselves with these kinds of activities

because there's a vacuum in terms of legislation that would cool down

this kind of activity, that would say this kind of activity is not

acceptable in the province. For instance, a Texas-based corporation,

Service Corp. International, is now very active in British Columbia. I

know that in my riding another funeral home has associated itself with

this major American corporation, and is now phone-soliciting for their

Guardian Plan. It is heavy-pressure sales to elderly people, and more

and more funeral homes are being forced into this kind of activity

because we haven't had the legislation to control it.

Mr. Chairman, yesterday there seemed to be a reluctance by some members on

the other side of the House to understand the importance and critical nature

of this issue. So let me provide some more evidence from correspondence I have

received in the last year or so. Another letter from a Victoria resident:

"In late June of this year my brother-in-law passed away. He was

interred at Hatley Memorial Gardens and my name was listed in the

obituary notice in the paper. I am a widow. It was less than a week

later that I

[ Page 4014 ]

received a phone call from Hatley Memorial Gardens asking if

I would make arrangements for a plot, plus services. They would send me some

brochures. I said: 'Not at present. I will make up my own mind about arrangements

when the time comes. Please do not phone me again.' A couple of days later

they sent me out all the data and phoned again, saying they would send out a

representative to go over arrangements with me, plus costs, etc., etc. Again

I said no, and that was it. "

This person says, look, this kind of activity has got to end: "I don't need that kind of harassment."

Another letter, Mr. Chairman:

"Two days

ago I received a phone call from a solicitor representing the Hatley

Memorial Gardens. As I have an incurable blood disease, I replied:

'This is very poor taste and I intend to phone the Better Business

Bureau and report this.' The reply was, 'That is your privilege,' said

in a very rude tone of voice. In the morning's paper, in an

article on

the back page of

section 2, we are advised to hang up. I have done this

for two years and still the calls come. Is there no solution except to

disconnect my phone?"

MR. S.D. SMITH : Do you support the Better Business Bureau?

[11:45]

MR. BLENCOE : Yes, I do. The Better Business Bureau wishes to end this. They are on record in the city of Victoria....

MR. S.D. SMITH : Do you support them as an entity?

MR. BLENCOE :

Of course, I support them. They are on record as opposed to this kind

of activity. Just a matter of a few days ago, my staff received a call

from a constituent who received a call from Memorial Gardens regarding

pre-planning funerals. Her father's funeral was on that day, and the

call was answered at her mother's house. Of course, the trauma and

concern it brought to that household on the day of the funeral....

To get this high-pressure sales, asking, "Do you want to arrange for

someone to come out? We've got special deals for you," was totally

offensive and very disturbing to that family. Another letter reads:

"This

week, day and night, has been spent at the hospital beside my

critically ill husband who still lies in intensive coronary care. To be

a victim of such a telephone call at a time of family illness is bad

enough, but I must say with greatest emphasis that it is the second

such ill-timed call in two years, the last being in Oak Bay when

serious illness was also present. My outraged response was given

immediately to the Hatley people, for all the good it did. If the

directors — or better, mis-directors — of such business methods condone

this type of money-making by telephone soliciting to anyone on their

current hit list, then they are cruelly responsible for trauma

inflicted on many defenceless people."

I have letters from reputable funeral homes, in particular McCall Bros., who

have served this community since 1921, I believe, a family business which has

tried to get this minister.... Other family funeral homes have tried to get

this government.... Not just this minister, I might add; it's been a

number of ministers. This minister is not totally responsible, and I put that

into the record. As a matter of fact, I think this minister has tried to deal

with this issue fairly, but that doesn't change the fact that we've

had no action.

Mr. Dave McCall, president of McCall Bros., writes:

"As

you know, I have become frustrated with our provincial government's

stance not to ban telephone solicitation by members of the cemetery

industry in our province. Complaints have been numerous, but government

inaction continues to be 'in vogue.' Cemeteries have even acquired

funeral homes in order to prearrange the entire funeral package and

thus circumvent the law that prohibits funeral homes from soliciting

prearranged funerals by telephone. "

He then goes on to say

what Ontario is doing. They have moved ahead boldly in this area, and I

think we should do so in this province. I quote again: "It is evident

that our provincial government is getting bad legal advice or does not

understand the offensive nature of soliciting by telephone for funeral

or cemetery services."

The activities of the one company in

this town which continues to offend daily.... They don't even identify

themselves correctly when they solicit. They don't say "Hatley

Memorial"; they say "Memorial Gardens." Many elderly people have phoned

me to say: "I thought they were the Memorial Society." There's no

reference to Hatley Memorial, to who they really are. As I said

yesterday to the minister, so many elderly people have them in their

home and sign up. They're confused and don't realize what's going on.

They think they're part of the Memorial Society and get themselves

locked into multi-thousand-dollar contracts that they don't require.

I've got a number of those.

This activity must be curtailed in British Columbia; it's got to stop. I know what's happening in cabinet.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE :

Well, I know some of the things that are happening. You know what's

happening. You've got those wide-open marketplace proponents who say:

"Anything goes in the marketplace." But you know, this activity cannot

be equated with selling vacuum cleaners or carpet cleaning or other

kinds of things. The attitude that currently seems to pervade this

government is that this kind of activity should be allowed because

everybody else does it. Is the minister prepared to recommend to

cabinet immediately that this activity should be controlled; that we

should have legislation — as they have in Ontario — that phone

solicitation for funeral services or cemetery services is not permitted

in British Columbia? We need that. We've waited too long. Too many

people continue to get offensive calls. Just recently a women called to

inform me that the day before she was scheduled to go into hospital for

open-heart surgery she received a hard-sell phone call concerning

funeral services and that she could make plans. She's going in for

surgery and she's worried, and hours before she's due to go in she gets

this phone call: do you need to prepare?

Is this kind of

activity to be permitted in British Columbia? Do we need this kind of

thing? Is it appropriate? No, it is not, and I would like the minister

to say today that he is prepared to fight once and for all for

legislation to protect our seniors, families that are going through

trauma, through illness, or terminally ill patients; that we are once

and for all

[ Page 4015 ]

prepared

to deal with this issue in a forthright and wholesome way rather than

just to avoid it. It's time we had legislation to end it.

HON. L. HANSON :

I have very few comments on the member's speech. One that is

appropriate is that I think the member was suggesting that the

telephone solicitation problem, as he describes it, is partially a

result of American influence. I think it has been going on in Canada

for a number of years and really has nothing to do with an import

problem, if you will.

As I said, my ministry is in the

process of drafting legislation; it will be presented to the House

shortly. It's not my intention to reveal the government policy until

the appropriate time.

MR. BLENCOE : Will the minister

tell us if he supports the end of phone solicitation for the kind of

services I've put out today? We've asked him before on liquor

privatization. Is he prepared, as one member, to say he finds this

offensive and wants it dealt with in a forthright way? What's the

minister's opinion?

MR. BARNES : I had hoped to get

up yesterday in order to stick with the various topics, but

unfortunately we had to jump around a little bit. I want to talk about

the residential tenancy situation that was raised by the member for

Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Cashore) and to which the minister has

already responded, filling in on some of the questions. The issue is

one that we've been dealing with as long as I can remember: people

living in hotels and treating them as a permanent home, and the lack of

residential law to protect their rights as long-term tenants. I should

acknowledge that the minister and I have talked on and off about this

issue for perhaps a year or so now, and it has always been with a view

to there being a problem and genuine interest in finding a workable

solution. I think we've reached a level of cooperation as far as the

issue is concerned. The thing is the remedy, the way in which a

solution can be found.

Clearly, the position of this party

is to remove the existing bureaucracy — that is, the residential

tenancy branch — as the arm dealing with this matter and bring back the

rentalsman, giving him the power to define what is a residence and what

isn't within his jurisdiction, so that all matters such as this can be

addressed.

We had a situation between 1972 and 1975 when

persons living in hotels could benefit from being designated during

their tenure in a particular unit. I think something along that model

is what we are looking for now, and there are a couple of ways in which

it can be dealt with. You could amend the definition of a guest in a

hotel. For instance, the Hotel Keepers Act could be amended to the

point that you have two categories of guest. One might be the standard

or ordinary transient off-the-street guest who comes and stays for a

day or two, or a week or a month, up to two months, which is the cutoff

point as far as your social service tax law is concerned. That is in

itself recognized, and to some extent is the distinction between a

person who is staying on a temporary basis and someone who is staying

on a long-term basis. Then perhaps we should create a new category

around the definition of a long-term or extended-stay guest.

you can make that distinction, this could be part of the

definitions

under the Residential Tenancy Act. When you begin to describe

facilities that are under that jurisdiction, simply include this new

one as pertaining to the Hotel Keepers Act; I think that would solve

the problem. It just means that a person going to a hotel to rent a

space for any period of time less than two months would be a standard

guest; but if a person were going to a hotel, such as in the downtown

east side and many of those places where they are staying for an

indefinite period of time, they would have a right to enter a contract

agreement which would allow them to benefit under the Residential

Tenancy Act, and hotel operators would know this.

The

benefit of an idea like this is that it's not just restricted to the

downtown east side. It deals with a hotel anywhere in the province. As

we know, there are cases where even in the big hotels some of the more

affluent tenants do reside in those hotels for periods of time longer

than the ordinary one or two days.

I think that we would

benefit — the rich as well as the poor, so to speak — with a concept

like this, and it would be fair. It would address some of the concerns

that we have been talking about as to security of tenure and the right

to protect one's security deposits, and they would have some access to

a kind of independent arbitrator, or a means by which they could

address grievances.

So that is one idea in mind. It hasn't

come easily; we've been addressing this for years. We know the

consequences if we don't act. I think we have all seen ample evidence

of what is happening to people in these hotels in the downtown east

side, in these rooming or boarding houses or whatever may be the case,

that somehow are not regulated under our residential tenancy

legislation.

[12:00]

I'd like to

get your response in terms of how imminently you see your ministry

coming forward with a solution or a proposal in terms of legislation. I

think it would be sort of like your knife legislation, a very grand and

glorious day in B.C. history when we begin to recognize its reality,

because it is a longstanding problem. It's not new. It's been a

grievous one for those of us who work with people in some of these

areas. They are basically people without homes.

I think on

any fair

interpretation of what a home is, these are less than

adequate. Quite often they are without the amenities that you would

expect in a normal rental facility. A lot of the toilets, for instance,

are shared. Quite often there are no units within those rooms where

they can look after themselves in terms of cooking facilities or have

any degree of privacy. They quite often are captives of a landlord who

can determine, for instance, who may visit, when they may visit, and

the hours when they open and close. In other words, it's not really a

home in the usual sense. Many rules are imposed on these people, and

they are quite often without the confidence that they can defend

themselves or speak back. There's always the risk of being evicted

without notice and without recourse, even though you may have resided

in one of those facilities for ten or 20 years. Furthermore, many of

these people are elderly — pensioners, senior citizens, early pioneers

as well, if I can so refer to them. Some of the people that we've been

describing are here today. Those people who no longer have active lives

and are in various stages of retirement need protection; they are

feeling more and more alienated, more and more out of touch with the

traditional changes that are taking place in life, and deserve our care

and our concern.

Obviously, had we a more aggressive program of construction of affordable social housing for these people, we

[ Page 4016 ]

wouldn't

have this situation. I recognize that that is not likely to happen

overnight. But there is something we can do overnight: we can recognize

this problem and address it.

I'd like to get on to another

matter. I wanted to make those comments on the record. Perhaps I could

get a response: or, if you prefer, I will continue, because I'm going

to switch.

HON. L. HANSON : The member is quite

correct that he and I have discussed this a number of times, most

recently last month. I did take a tour of the downtown area. I looked

at a number of the locations that the member is talking about. We do

feel — and I feel — that some help is needed there. We're now reviewing

the situation, and hopefully we will be able to find a solution that

will be helpful.

The statistics from the earlier years when

the application was there really didn't indicate that that process was

the answer, if you will, because of the numbers of applications. I have

to admit that the statistics that we have are not completely accurate

on an annual basis. We have the total numbers, but the times are a

little.... In any case, yes. we acknowledge that it is a

difficulty. Yes, we are working on legislation, and as soon as we have

a position, the government's position, it will be introduced just as

quickly as we have that approval.

During the tour I took

the opportunity of looking at a number of these residences. I was

accompanied by an individual from the staff of the city of Vancouver. I

have to commend the city on some of the actions that they are taking.

They have been able to rectify some of the problems, but certainly they

are a long way from total success. I just wanted that on the record:

they have been doing things that have been helpful in relieving the

difficulty. But we recognize the difficulty. We're reviewing the

situation. I can say that as and when determinations have been made,

then we will introduce it.

MR. BARNES : Thank you,

Mr. Minister. I will be introducing a private member's bill on this

subject, probably in another week or so, and I would certainly like you

to take a look at it. I can appreciate that as a bill from the

opposition it's not likely to be enacted, but nonetheless it may

provide some insights into how to go about this situation. So I thank

you very much for your encouragement, that serious consideration is

being given this problem. I hope this means that we can look to an

early announcement that we're finally going to resolve this matter, at

least under present conditions.

The other point, though,

that I'm going to talk about briefly is not one that we are likely to

enjoy as much congeniality and constructive rapport over, because I

think that in going against this Jansen report, as far as

recommendations on the privatization of liquor stores are concerned,

the government is most disappointing. I can appreciate what the

government has said its objectives are with respect to downsizing

government, getting out of enterprise as much as possible and trying to

provide the private sector with an opportunity to do what the

government figures is its legitimate domain — the providing of the

non-essential services and programs in the community. I have no

argument with that. That's a philosophical or ideological point of

view, in terms of the state not being involved in any more than is

absolutely necessary. That's fine; as far as it goes, that is a point

you could probably at least break even on in a debate. But let's

consider the matter you are talking about; it's the matter itself that

concerns me.

The privatization of something which has been

documented throughout the centuries, ever since it was discovered, as

fundamentally an evil — to use a harsh word — substance.... It

brings more grief than good. But booze is here to stay. It's not my

argument that we should go back to the days of prohibition or that we

should not recognize that this is a condition that is here, just as

much as we are here with all of our shortcomings, attributes, etc. The

good and the bad are here, sort of like the issue of prostitution. It's

a tough one.

The point I'm making is that while we

recognize that this problem is here, why don't we recognize what we're

doing before we get involved? I think what you're getting ready to do

is a disaster; it's an absolute disaster. There is no way that you can

privatize something which in itself is corrupting.

I don't

exclude myself when I talk about the effects of alcohol. Some of the

statistics I'm looking at here suggest that young people are starting

to drink at the age of 12 or 13. I can tell you that I had my first

drink at six. I think I may have mentioned that once before. I had to

steal it from the adults because they wouldn't allow me to have it, but

I was curious. I saw everybody drinking, and I wanted to have a drink.

I must say up that until recently I had been drinking ever since and

enjoying it, having a good time and partying, because it's what we do.

When

you talk about privatizing this substance, this nonprescription drug

that everyone uses for all kinds of reasons, probably many of them very

good.... It relaxes you; it allows you to forget, to take leave of

your senses. Some of us use it as an excuse, rather than assuming any

responsibility. But the tragedies are manifold. For every dollar you

make in revenue, you lose five in social costs. It's indisputable;

there's all kinds of evidence to substantiate this point.

I'm

disappointed, because we have the lid on it, at least to a point right

now, because the government's in control. The government can monitor it

and the government can downplay it. The government doesn't have to

promote it. We can recognize that it's there if we want it, but we

should be putting up signs saying: "Can't you think of something better

to do than coming in here and getting a case of beer?" But we don't

have the courage to do that. Besides, the revenue has multiplied many

times, almost at an exponential rate, since we began to tax booze,

until we're getting today.... Just over the last decade, we've been

benefiting from hundreds of millions of dollars as a result.

can see the motive from a budgetary and revenue point of view, but

what's the motive in terms of responsibility to the people of this

province? Where is the leadership? Where is the morality that the

government talked about when it made such a great, strong case for the

right to life and protecting the fetus? We bring them into the world

and then we get them drunk and keep them drunk. More and more people

are suffering from the abuse and misuse of these substances than any

other cause, and we're doing it legally. But the reason we're doing it

is that we don't think we can stop it, so we join.

But must

we throw it open to the entrepreneurs out there on the streets and tell

them to go for it? Their motive is profit, understandably; that's their

business — to make money. So what are they going to do? Are they going

to be concerned about my concerns or your concerns — the Minister of

Health or the Minister of Social Services and Housing? Are they going

to be concerned about students who are not concentrating on their

studies because they think they found a way to trip out and to get away

from it? There are all kinds of problems with this.

[ Page 4017 ]

I'm

disappointed that we're taking this step. I can understand the problem

of trying to get revenue. We need it; we need all we can get. But

there's more to it than that. They're our youth — our young people. The

government has an initiative to support the family and maintain the

integrity of the family; this isn't going to achieve that. This is the

opposite. This is bringing misery — predictably — and we know it. It's

all documented. You should keep a lid on this thing. You should

maintain this program as you have it and even try to scale it down.

Listen to some of the things being said in studies on the effects of

alcohol on young people:

"Scientists indicate

several key aspects of alcohol and youth which have implications in

formulating alcohol policy. Problems among adolescents stemming from

alcohol consumption have been described in several reviews on the

subject. These problems are wide-ranging and include — but are not

limited to — impediment of interpersonal relations, vandalism, suicide,

accidental injuries and the affliction of alcoholism itself. "

Mr.

Chairman, alcohol, barbiturates, cannabis, cocaine, all kinds of

commercial designer drugs, hallucinogens, heroin and inhalants all seem

to follow those young people's first experience with alcohol. All of

this is documented. It's all predictable; it's a vicious circle. We

read in the paper almost daily that young people are losing their lives

while they're out having a party and drinking and losing their senses.

It's such a customary thing. It's so common, and we're so used to it

that we seem to have lost our senses. We've really succumbed to this

thing. I'm afraid that we're making a serious error in judgment if we

think this, for any reason, is a good initiative.

[12:15]

We've

brought gambling in on a bigger scale. When I was first elected in this

province, the only way you could gamble was to buy an Irish sweepstake

ticket, which was illegal. You had to sneak in and buy one. We have

since gone a long way from those days. Everywhere you look, it's Lotto

6-49 or one of the different.... There are so many; I don't know how

many there are. But there are an awful lot of ways in which you can

spend your money on gambling — hoping for that big break. That tied in

with gambling, casinos and cutbacks in programs to societies providing

services, forcing them to go into the bingo business and joint ventures

with commercial operators in order to get funds that should available

through general revenue,

We're going in the wrong

direction. We're putting this province at risk. We're putting our youth

at risk. We're acting desperately; we're not acting rationally. We're

not acting as though we want to have our sovereignty and our future as

British Columbians and as Canadians. I don't know where these

initiatives are coming from, but it is as though we're being advised by

absentee owners or absentee interests in this society. They certainly

don't live here. How can we anticipate benefiting from this kind of

initiative? I think we're going to pay for it, and it's the wrong way

to go. I don't want to have to say "I told you so" later. But you're

making a mistake, at least on this aspect of privatization.

have been talking about others. You have a better case for those, even

though we question whether they're going to be successful. But on this

one with alcohol, where the industry has profit as its motive, it is

going to go after our young people. In fact, an interesting anomaly in

all of this is that young people are the ones who are smoking. The

adults have begun to realize the negative effects of smoking, and

advertising doesn't affect them as much as it does the young people.

The industry realizes this. If we were to have the same initiatives in

trying to deal with young people, it would be counterproductive for the

industry, and they wouldn't see it as a lucrative business. They know

these young people are at risk. Young people themselves can't wait to

have that first drink. There's no campaign to stop it, and I think

that's a tragedy. It's hypocritical in terms of the government's policy

of trying to keep families together.

HON. L. HANSON :

This debate went on for some time with the member for New Westminster

(Ms. A. Hagen), and I don't have an awful lot to add. The member is

making an assumption that the report now before us for consideration is

going to end in privatization of those liquor stores. That decision

hasn't been made yet, but I acknowledge that the publicity has been in

that area.

I'd also like to point out to the member

opposite that there have been a number of privatization initiatives

over the years: the rural agency stores and the LRSs, and the results

the member is suggesting are just not there. That's not to say that

there isn't a problem, as far as alcohol abuse is concerned. There is

no evidence that the reason we have alcohol abuse is that an individual

in charge of selling alcohol is not a government employee. I believe

that the threat of licence termination will be a deterrent, if that

privatization system goes ahead.

With that, I refer the

member to the debate that went on yesterday. We canvassed this in some

detail with the member for New Westminster.

MR. S.D. SMITH :

I want to follow along on some comments made earlier this morning by

the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) when he was talking about

advertising, and particularly when he was discussing it in relation to

the funeral business. He was talking about the high pressure techniques

of targeted solicitations. Just before I get into that, I should say to

the minister, perhaps, that the second member says he knows what goes

on in cabinet, which came as a bit of a revelation to a number of us in

this chamber, I'm sure. The thought occurred to me that in future,

rather than debugging the cabinet chamber, we ought to "de-Robin" it.

want to get to the point about this business of high pressure targeted

solicitations by phone and by mail. It's an area of a lot of concern,

and quite properly so; I think the member should be concerned. From

another movie, I have some experience in the area of targeted mailing

and targeted solicitation, and I can tell you that it is abused. It can

be used well, but in fact it is abused. What happens is that people

— for purposes other than that which the solicitation comes in — try in

particular to touch the nerves of seniors, the indigent and people who

are in a relatively weaker position in society than those who send out

the solicitation. Indeed. as the member said, it is an unwholesome

practice when people do that. It is reprehensible. It is something that

we, as legislators, ought to be vigilant about. Particularly when

people seek to prey on seniors, as he said, I think we have some

responsibility to look into that matter — if not to just examine our

own conscience, perhaps to look into it and see whether there is need

to regulate it.

He asked you if you would convey that

sentiment to your cabinet colleagues, and if you accept from him that

request, I would ask that you perhaps broaden it, because as he was

speaking I happened to be looking over a very similar kind of

[ Page 4018 ]

material

on my desk, this one entitled: "Medicare Notice." This material, in the

same way as he was suggesting, is designed to evoke a response from a

particularly targeted group of people, and it is designed to evoke that

response by playing on any sense of insecurity or uncertainty that they

may have about the particular issue. In the advertising business those

are called code words, and the process is called "pushing the button."

It's a very cynical process he was talking about. It's very calculated,

it's intended and you can actually measure the response.

The

response, almost invariably, is grubbing money, and that's what this

one is intended to do as well. What it does is make a request. It gets

you to open the envelope by putting on the envelope something intended,

because of the demographics of the particular mailing-list they have,

to cause you to open the envelope, to get you into the piece, as they

say in the jargon. That is done by putting on it the words "Medicare

Notice" — nothing else.

When you get into it you find that

what is ultimately being asked for is a contribution to a political

party. Further, you are being asked to join the political party. I

agree with the second member for Victoria that it is a kind of

hypocrisy. It is unwholesome, it is unsavory, it is a kind of scurvy

way to prey on people who have contributed to our society for at least

65 of their years, and it's something which we should all condemn as

completely reprehensible.

I would say to the minister that

if indeed you are going to accept the views and the request of the

second member for Victoria to examine this practice — and it is a

growing practice in our society — then I would urge you to expand that

examination to take into account some of the solicitation practices of

other provincial bodies, including the enormously unsavoury

fund-raising tactics of the New Democratic Party.

MR. SIHOTA :

I'm not even going to bother to reply to the comments made by the

member for Kamloops. If that government wasn't so intent on dismantling

our medicare program in this province, it would not be necessary to

send out to the populace notices indicating what the government's up

to. But the real reason I'm not going to respond to it is that we're

running out of time and I want to deal with a couple of issues that are

very important. If members wish to extend us until 2 or 2:30 today, I

have no problem in terms of trying to deal with it.

However, Mr. Chairman, before I proceed may I have leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

MR. SIHOTA :

In the gallery today are a number of students from the Shoreline

community school, located in the community of View Royal, which of

course is situated in that wonderful riding of Esquimalt-Port Renfrew.

I wonder if the members would join me in giving a warm welcome to the

students and their assistants, who are seated in the gallery.

want to talk about an issue that I raised in this Legislature

approximately a year ago; in fact, it was on June 18, 1987, that I made

reference to it. It's an issue that affects a significant number of

people in my riding, and it is an issue that I feel very deeply

attached to because I think it represents an inequity in society that

must be remedied.

What I want to talk about this morning is

the situation faced by those who lived in manufactured homes: mobile

homes, in the vernacular, but as the owners like to call them,

manufactured homes. It is a critical issue in society. It is an issue

that is province wide; however, it is exceptionally acute in my riding

simply because over the years the development in the Victoria area has

taken place within the core municipalities, while mobile homes or

manufactured homes have been provided in the areas outside of the core

municipalities, in the Western Communities and in the Sooke region.

is of concern to me that those who live in manufactured homes in this

province are covered by the provisions of the Residential Tenancy Act.

It is my submission, and I'll outline the reasons for this in a few

minutes, that there ought to be a separate bill of rights, a special

set of legislation, to govern the interests and the concerns of both

tenants and landlords in manufactured homes. The provisions of the

Residential Tenancy Act, which are designed to deal with apartment

dwellers, are totally different in their interests and objectives than

the interests and the objectives of individuals who reside in

manufactured homes.

[12:30]

The easiest example that I can bring to the minister is really an

example of rent increases. When individuals in apartments are hit with

rent increases, whether it be 2, 8, 10 or 25 percent — what we're

seeing in the Victoria area today, because of the vacancy problem;

whatever it is — those tenants in apartments have the opportunity to go

elsewhere and look for another apartment. There are an abundance of

apartments in the Victoria area, in the sense that there are all sorts

of options. Another issue, of course, is the vacancy rate. But they

have other places to go, and the provisions of the Residential Tenancy

Act are predicated upon those other options that may exist for those

who live in apartments.

If you take the case of someone

who lives in a manufactured or mobile home, that option just isn't

there. There is not a galaxy of paths all over the community, with

respect to manufactured homes. There is a limited number of options

available to people in terms of where they can go. So it's not as if

there's this huge marketplace out there when you're hit with a rent

increase.

I want to tell the minister that I have instances

in my riding where the rent increases have been as high as 63 percent.

I want to bring to his attention, in a few minutes, specific situations

that have materialized over the past year, where the rent increases

have been as high as 33 percent. You're held ransom, because there is

no other place to go. There just are no pads; you can't just pick up

your mobile home and move onto a cheaper pad, at a cheaper rental rate.

That's one dimension of the problem.

The other dimension,

of course, is that it's physically, let alone practically, impossible,

in most instances, to pick up your mobile home — if there were other

pads available — and move on elsewhere. You are really held ransom to

the pad you sit on. There just is not a galaxy of pads all over the

place so that you can move about. I would venture to say that the

problem, which is acute in my riding, is replicated elsewhere,

particularly for those who live on pads elsewhere in this province, and

particularly for those who live in the lower mainland. There is not a

plethora of options available to people when they're hit with rent

increases.

In addition to that, and third, one has to

recognize that it is an investment for many people to own a

manufactured home. It is their equity, particularly in the case of

seniors who have gone out and chosen that lifestyle. And it's a good

lifestyle, one that we ought not to look down on. I know that

[ Page 4019 ]

my riding there are a lot of beautiful, well-established,

well-maintained manufactured home facilities. People make an equity

investment in their manufactured home. They have security, and they

expect some level of security in law to allow them to maintain that

type of security. If you own a house, for example, you don't expect

someone to pull the land out from underneath you and tell you that

you've got to relocate. To many people who live in manufactured homes,

given the nature of their investment, which can range from $10,000 or

$20,000 up to $100,000 and higher.... It's a investment, and they

have some security and equity in their mobile home. That's a far cry

from tenants, who of course have no equity interest and no security.

They don't buy their apartment; they rent those facilities. Again, for

that reason it seems to me that a different set of considerations ought

to apply to those who live in manufactured homes as opposed to

residential tenancy premises.

Fourth, we have seen a number

of situations where individuals were told they have to buy their strata

lot in order to protect their security of the manufactured home. In

other words, the owner of the park makes people buy the land through a

strata program so that these people have the comfort of knowing they're

going to be there for life. Some of them can't afford to do that, but

again they're held at ransom because there's no other place to go. Let

me say again, those types of strata considerations often do not apply

for apartment tenants.

Fifth, manufactured homes are more

susceptible to zoning changes. Inevitably a landlord will take some

bare land, set it up as a mobile home park, wait for a development in

that area and then make application for zoning changes. The security of

lifestyle that people thought they had in their manufactured home and

in their location is immediately removed through the zoning situation.

Again, that is not a situation that those who reside in apartments are

often faced with.

Those are only some of the reasons. I

know the minister must be aware of all of them, because there are

literally a hundred of them that I could sit here and talk about. For

those types of reasons the Residential Tenancy Act, which is designed

to govern apartment owners, ought not to govern owners of manufactured

homes. There ought to be a different set of laws, a different form of

legislation. I call it a bill of rights for manufactured home owners

right across this province.

There are other reasons why the

legislation ought to reflect some changes. I want to tell the minister

in a general way some of the things that people who reside in

manufactured homes have to put up with because they are held ransom in

many ways to the land upon which their mobile home is situate.

For

example, I have seen agreements where tenants are told that the

landlord can unilaterally make whatever changes he wants to make to the

agreements. I think that's unreasonable. There ought to be a law

against it. They are told, for example, in agreements — and I have seen

them — that the landlord will not accept responsibility for any

negligence or death or damage to property which may occur, despite the

fact that it's quite contrary to law. People are forced to sign those

types of agreements in order to maintain the security of their place.

I've

seen agreements where landlords say that if a mobile home is sold, a

commission will be paid to the landlord, whether or not the landlord

participated in the sale. I think that's unreasonable, and I don't

think it should be enforceable. Again, landlords hold tenants to ransom

on those types of agreements. I'm quite prepared to produce those

agreements to the minister if he thinks that they don't exist.

I've

seen other agreements that say that improvements the tenants make often

have to be left at the mobile home park, when those improvements really

are tenants' fixtures. But they sign away their rights in that regard.

Again, legislation should deal with that type of situation. Pets are a

problem that I could get into. Those are the situations one is faced

with in the case of manufactured home owners.

Before I get

into some specific cases that I want to bring to the attention of the

minister, I want to remind the minister that it was about a year ago,

back on June 18, 1987, that I made a speech similar to this in the

House. When I made the speech, I asked the minister what the government

intended to do with respect to new legislation to deal with the

specific interests of manufactured home operators. I raised the matter

and the minister said, after listening to my comments:

"Yes,

you are quite right. I have had a number of briefs from the

manufactured homes society, or whatever their organization is called.

I've also had a number of letters from individuals. I do understand the

problem. I do understand what you are talking about. It is part of the

review process, and it's a serious review that we are doing. I can't

tell you now what we are going to do, but I am reviewing it, and I do

understand the problem very clearly. "

We've had about ten

months now for the minister to look into this issue. My question to the

minister is: what has the ministry done over the past year with respect

to moving toward a separate piece of legislation to govern the

interests of mobile home tenants and landlords, to make sure that there

is some equitable law in place that recognizes that the situation faced

by manufactured home owners, particularly tenants, is different than

tenants who reside in apartments?

HON. L. HANSON : It

is sort of interesting to hear the member's remarks. I know that he is

a member of the legal profession. Far be it from me to suggest that I

can tell him something that he shouldn't or doesn't know, but I think

he will admit that unreasonable conditions are not enforceable under

the Residential Tenancy Act. I think the member knows that. As a matter

of fact, just as recently as a couple of days ago, I had the

manufactured home owners' association again lobbying me for that

legislation.

The member is suggesting that legislation

cures everything. I think there are some other considerations that have

to be taken in, and one of those is that the problem is not that mobile

home pads are unreasonably managed and so on. The problem is that there

is a shortage of mobile home pads, and the continuation of the rent

increases and so on are probably a result of that.

One of

the difficulties in the creation of mobile home parks is that

municipalities are quite often reluctant to provide the zoning on a

piece of property that would allow it to happen. I do recognize that

the majority of the manufactured home owners are seniors. I know that

they do gravitate to these kinds of parks, not usually as a result of a

cost-saving measure, because to the best of my knowledge people pay up

to $100,000 for a super-deluxe mobile home. I think somewhere from

$40,000 to $65,000 is the average sort of range. That's the same type

of investment you would have in a residential dwelling.

[ Page 4020 ]

is a difficult situation. I don't think many people would consider

constructing a residence on a leased lot unless there was a long-term

lease involved, so there is a sort of controversy in that area. Again,

if we put legislation in that controls the difficulties that the owners

are having, then we immediately put a clamp on the initiative of people

to create new mobile home parks.

I think there's an obvious

contradiction here. The representations that I've had are to the effect

that there are tremendous increases far above and beyond what the

market is; but if that is the case, then it would appear to me that

there would be great desire on the part of developers to create mobile

home parks. I do recognize that it is a difficulty, but I am not

convinced that legislation is the answer to the problem.

think there are better solutions. One is that we should encourage

municipalities to provide more zoning so that there can be the creation

of these mobile home pads. Another is — of course, I know the member is

aware of this too — that there are some provisions in the Residential

Tenancy Act that do apply particularly to mobile or manufactured home

owners. There's a notice requirement about six months, and then there

are some requirements as far as moving costs and so on that do

recognize the difference between the two. But again I subscribe, and I

think my colleagues subscribe, to the fact that if we do put too strict

a law in place, there won't be the creation of mobile or manufactured

home lots, and that would be detrimental to the interests of the people

already in them.

[12:45]

MR. SIHOTA : Well, that's not acceptable at all in terms of