1987 Legislative Session: 1st 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)

THURSDAY, JUNE 18, 1987

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

1859 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Adoption Amendment Act, 1987 (Bill 26). Hon. Mr. Richmond

Introduction and first reading –– 1859

Oral Questions

South Moresby national park reserve. Mr. Miller –– 1859

Effects of free trade on wine industry. Mr. Rose –– 1860

Hospital board elections. Mrs. Boone –– 1860

Privatization. Mr. Lovick –– 1860

Premier's former association with electoral boundaries commissioner. Mr. Sihota –– 1861

Proposed banning of 2, 4-D. Hon. Mr. Strachan replies –– 1861

South Moresby national park reserve. Hon. Mr. Strachan replies –– 1862

Presenting Petitions –– 1863

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Labour estimates. (Hon. L. Hanson)

On vote 46: minister's office –– 1863

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. Cashore

Mr. Lovick

Mr. Blencoe

Mr. Barnes

Mr. Sihota

Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 1987 (Bill 36). Hon. Mr. Michael

Introduction and first reading –– 1882

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 1), 1987 (Bill 31). Hon. B.R. Smith

Introduction and first reading –– 1883

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

HON. MR. ROGERS: We are honoured today to have in the

members' gallery Mr. Keijo Seppala, consul-general of Finland.

Accompanying him is Mr. Aarne Hilden, who is the trade commissioner for

Finland. Would the members please make our Finnish guests welcome.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: It is indeed a pleasure to rise in the House

today to introduce two guests from Ontario, Harold and Dorothy Hooper,

who are staying with my sister and brother-in-law, Ken and Sharon

Black. Would the Legislature please make them welcome.

MR. LONG: Today in the House I have two newspaper people from

the Powell River News who are here doing an article. I would like the

House to welcome Paul Galinski and Kathy Northrup.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: It's my pleasure this afternoon to

introduce my wife Lois, who is visiting the House for the next little

while with a very good friend of hers, Cynthia Tansley. I would like

the House to make them welcome.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: As a follow-up to the Premier's meeting

on decentralization, we have in the precincts today Director Dan

Cumming of the UBCM, with table officers Mayor Jackie Drysdale of

Rossland, Mayor Bill Whalley of Mackenzie and Mayor Gil Blair of

Richmond. I would ask the House to please make them welcome.

MR. BLENCOE: Along with the Minister of Municipal Affairs, I

would like to welcome the officials from the Union of British Columbia

Municipalities. I am also participating in the discussions, at the

invitation of the minister. We're having some interesting dialogue on

the whole concept of decentralization. On behalf of our side of the

House, Mr. Speaker, we welcome the members from the UBCM.

MR. LOENEN: Up in the members' gallery there are two dear,

long-time friends of ours from Abbotsford. It's a very special day for

them. It's their twenty-second wedding anniversary, and I'd just like

you to join me in congratulating them and bidding them a fond welcome

to the House. Please make them feel welcome — it's Henk and Alice Roos.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: In the gallery today are approximately 36

grade 7 students from the Dallas Elementary School in the great

constituency of Kamloops. They are accompanied by Mr. Blackwell and six

chaperons. On behalf of the second member for Kamloops (Mr. S.D.

Smith), I would ask the House to please make them most welcome.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, in terms of introductions, I notice that today

all the introductions have been on the government side of the House, indicating

that perhaps our party has no friends at all. I'd just like to tell the

House that our friends will be here tomorrow. [Laughter.]

Introduction of Bills

ADOPTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1987

Hon. Mr. Richmond presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Adoption Amendment Act, 1987.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Mr. Speaker, there is considerable public interest in British

Columbia for an adoption disclosure registry, but the present Adoption

Act prevents the sharing of confidential information. The amendment

being introduced in

section 13 of the Adoption Act allows an adult,

adopted as a child, and the birth parent or parents to register a

mutual interest in contacting each other.

My ministry received over a thousand submissions from a variety of

individuals and groups last fall and earlier this year, and the public

response strongly favoured the development of an adoption disclosure

registry. I am pleased to introduce this bill at the present time.

Bill 26 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House

after today.

Oral Questions

SOUTH MORESBY NATIONAL PARK RESERVE

MR. MILLER: My question is to the Premier. Mr. Premier, we

all want the best deal possible with regard to South Moresby, including

the 28 MPs from B.C. who unanimously endorse that concept. Given the

elasticity of some of the numbers that have been booted around with

regard to the forest valuation — the $31 million, the $40 million and

yesterday the $50 million — will the Premier table today in the House

the B.C. position paper with regard to South Moresby along with

supporting documentation so that we can clear up this confusion

regarding that question of valuation?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I will refer that question to the minister responsible.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I am quite prepared to discuss all the

elements of our proposition to the federal government. It will take

some time, so I advise the House now I will take the question as notice

and give a full disclosure following question period.

MR. GUNO: A supplementary to the Premier. The Premier made

reference to his concern for the 70-some loggers in South Moresby. Will

he reconsider and negotiate the position of the 2,000 Haidas who live

there and have legitimate and historic rights to their ancestral lands,

and who favour a national park reserve as the best solution for all

Canadians?

[2:15]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: That question will undoubtedly need to be dealt with by the federal government.

[ Page 1860 ]

EFFECTS OF FREE TRADE ON WINE INDUSTRY

MR. ROSE: Before I start my question to the Premier, I'd like

to congratulate the Socred caucus for moving from the puzzle palace in

Richmond to some other venue for their meeting this weekend. I guess it

was cheaper to move than to dig the moat; but whatever, I think it was

a rather wise, judicious, sagacious move.

I wonder if I could ask a question to the Premier about the

staggering announcement by his Minister of Economic Development (Hon.

Mrs. McCarthy) that in the bilateral negotiations on free trade

Canada's wine industry was high on their hit list. The Americans, the

American wine industry, want to penetrate our markets. Can the Premier

tell the House what steps he is taking to ensure that our wine industry

is not up for grabs?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, first of all, with respect

to the first part of the question regarding the moving of time and

place for the meeting of caucus, let me assure the hon. member that we

both agree that whether it is the NDP or the Social Credit caucus, they

should be able to choose whatever the place or time for their caucus

meetings anywhere in this province.

Secondly, let me assure the hon. member as well that when asked

whether in fact I believe the NDP was in any way involved in what

appeared to be a situation less than desirable — people coming out

there that obviously could create a situation we would all regret — I

assured the media no, not at all. I didn't believe that for a moment.

So I think we owe each other the courtesy from time to time to

recognize that in our society we do have that opportunity to choose

place and time for our own activities.

Furthermore, with respect to the free trade agreement, yes, we will

hopefully reasonably soon receive at least a copy of the draft

agreement. There was a meeting originally scheduled for Ottawa next

week. This has apparently been postponed, although no confirmation of

that in writing has been given as yet and we are still awaiting further

word. But we have said — and I think I can speak for all of those I

have met with over the past many months — that the agreement will be

carefully looked at by all provincial governments, and certainly our

government and every ministry will have an opportunity to view the

document. If there is something in the document which is of extreme

concern to us as it reflects on a particular industry, that will be

appropriately addressed.

MR. ROSE: I am glad the Premier has put this matter about the

NDP and its involvement to rest. I thank him for slaying all those

mythical dragons.

In a weak attempt this week to calm the storm the economic

development minister created in the wine industry, she suggested she

needed their help and would a 15-year phase-in period be helpful? This

was her question to the wine industry. I want to ask the Premier, does

the Premier expect that B.C. land prices, labour costs and economies of

scale or even the climate in the Okanagan will change much over the

next 15 years?

No? Well, Mr. Speaker, it's like whether or not you want to be shot immediately

or hanged over a long period. What I am really trying to find out is, what difference

does a 15-year period make? If it — will make any difference, why is the government

under the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Savage), in an announcement of June

16, pumping $60,000 more into the Okanagan wine industry in Osoyoos?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I apologize, Mr. Speaker, to the hon.

member for not getting up, but I thought this was a time for serious

questions, so I simply sat back waiting.

Again let me assure the member that until we see what the draft

agreement contains, particularly as it applies to agriculture, nothing

will be done. It will be carefully viewed by the government before

anything is signed or agreed to.

HOSPITAL BOARD ELECTIONS

MRS. BOONE: A question to the Minister of Health. Today is

the day for hospital board elections in Kamloops. It is our

understanding that there have been no changes to the voting procedures

in that area. As of today, a person — as long as they're registered —

living in Vancouver can travel to Kamloops with their five-year-old

child and both would be allowed to vote in the Kamloops hospital board

elections. What measures has the minister taken to ensure that hospital

board elections are democratic elections, that minors are not allowed

to vote, and that they represent the area in which they operate?

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member knows

full well that you cannot change bylaws other than at special meetings

or at the annual meeting. Therefore, if they have not done so at this

point, it will probably come up at their annual meeting.

MRS. BOONE: I think the minister also knows he could probably change those things by order- in-council or some other means.

Interjections.

MRS. BOONE: The same problem has erupted in Vernon. Is the

minister taking any steps to ensure that this will not occur in Vernon?

This same problem has now occurred in Vernon. They have minors voting;

they are allowed to vote with no restrictions on the area that they

operate in; and they have membership fees. What is the minister doing

to ensure that democratic procedures exist in the elections of all

hospital boards throughout the province?

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, there was so much enthusiasm on our side I didn't hear the question.

Interjections.

PRIVATIZATION

MR. LOVICK: I sincerely hope, Mr. Speaker, that I don't have

to yell in order to be heard. My question is to the minister of

governmental affairs, a.k.a. the minister of privatization. It's a

quick question. Will he undertake to table before this chamber the list

of the 17 companies we understand are now being actively considered by

the task force on privatization?

HON. MR. ROGERS: It's public information, Mr. Speaker. The list of Crown corporations in the province of British Columbia is public information.

[ Page

1861 ]

PREMIER'S FORMER ASSOCIATION WITH

ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES COMMISSIONER

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Premier. Will the

Premier confirm, now that he has had an opportunity to consider the

questions I asked yesterday, that his relationship with Judge Fisher or

his firm has extended over 20 years and into the seventies?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I can't get an exact date, but I

believe that the last time Judge Fisher, as a lawyer, did some work for

me was 25 years ago. I know Judge Fisher, however, to be a man of

completely unquestionable integrity. Certainly all of those who've

known Judge Fisher at any time would agree that he's a man of

unquestionable integrity. Prior to the time that Judge Fisher was

appointed a judge of the County Court of Westminster in 1977, his

standing as a lawyer was such that he was elected by his fellow lawyers

to be a bencher of the Law Society. He continued as a bencher for seven

years. In fact, Judge Fisher held the senior leadership position as

treasurer of the Law Society. To my knowledge, he has never been a

political supporter of mine, nor a political supporter of the party.

MR. SIHOTA: A supplementary to the Premier. There are two

counsel advising Judge Fisher on his work: one is Mr. McDonell. Mr.

McDonell represented the government with respect to its "seditious"

writ application in court. Does the Premier not think that there ought

to be an arm's-length relationship between people who have represented

the government and the commission? Sorry — between the government and

the commission?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Oh, I should have added, further to my comments

on the appointment of Judge Fisher, incidentally, that the request to Judge

Fisher was made by the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Veitch). The question

that's been asked now I will defer until the Provincial Secretary is present.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, it's a question of government

policy. The other lawyer that is advising the commissioner on this

matter is Mr. Mitchell, who was appointed by the Minister of Economic

Development to serve on the board of BCDC. Mr. Mitchell also works for

the same firm that had been engaged by the Attorney-General to take

forward the application on behalf of the government with respect to

that same seditious writ. In other words, there are several people that

have had affiliations with this government, or with the Premier, who

are now on this committee.

Does the Premier not agree that it would be appropriate that there

be an arm's-length relationship between the individuals who are on this

commission and the government, as a matter of policy?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: With respect to the work performed by

the other people mentioned by the member for Esquimalt, I'll defer that

question to the Attorney-General.

HON. B.R. SMITH: It is inevitable, Mr. Speaker, that you're going

to have large law firms where somebody does some work for the government and

somebody does some work for a commissioner, but the gentleman mentioned, Mr.

McDonell, is not currently doing work for the government that I know of. As

for Mr. Mitchell, he was a member of the Expo Corporation, and he stayed in

place, along with about four others, to form part of the B.C. Enterprise Corporation

board. Mr. Mitchell is not of this political party, and he is well thought of

in this province — and is known to the Leader of the Opposition and is a friend

of his. So I don't know why he would object to Mr. Mitchell.

MR. SIHOTA: It's nice to see counsel....

Interjections.

MR. SIHOTA: It's a matter of linkages a la Eckardt.

A question again, then, to the Premier. There are approximately 215

judges in this province, some of whom the Premier would have some

affiliation with; many of whom the Premier would not have affiliation

with. Is the Premier assuring this House that his association with

Judge Fisher did not have any influence at all on his decision to

appoint him as the commissioner in this situation?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I repeat that I did not

appoint Judge Fisher; I did not request Judge Fisher. This was done by

the Provincial Secretary, the minister responsible. I knew him to be an

honest man of great integrity, so I certainly would have no opposition

to that — but let me add quickly that I feel that way about all of our

judges.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, as indicated earlier, I wish

to respond to questions taken on notice. I have two of them, and I'll

deal with the South Moresby question next, hon. members. We'll do this

chronologically.

PROPOSED BANNING OF 2, 4-D

Mr. Speaker, on June 11, the member for Surrey Guildford-Whalley

(Ms. Smallwood) posed a question which I took on notice regarding

Agriculture Canada and 2, 4-D. She indicated in her question that

Ontario and New Brunswick had banned 2, 4-D pending federal studies,

and what was the position of the province of British Columbia? I can

advise the House now that while there has been a single study on

laboratory animals indicating that 2, 4-D may induce an increase in the

number of cancerous tumours, there are many other long-term funding

studies on laboratory animals indicating that 2, 4-D does not induce

cancerous tumours. Used for at least 40 years, there is no clear

evidence that 2, 4D may be a human carcinogen.

[2:30]

Currently there is no banning of 2, 4-D in any other province.

Ontario recently lifted its moratorium against allowing new products

containing 2, 4-D on the market, and New Brunswick has lifted its

suspension on the sale and use of 2, 4-D as restricted in commercial

products. Agriculture Canada advises that they have issued an interim

position on the status of 2, 4-D. They are doing studies; other studies

are underway and under review. No change in regulatory status is

contemplated at this time. We go on to say: "Users of 2, 4-D are urged

to follow label directions, particularly in the use of protective

clothing, including rubber gloves, rubber boots and coveralls. If

dermal exposure can be prevented, most significant health risks can be

avoided."

[ Page 1862 ]

SOUTH MORESBY NATIONAL PARK RESERVE

The other question taken on notice was the member for Prince Rupert

(Mr. Miller) asking exactly what B.C.'s position is towards the federal

government with respect to a national park on South Moresby. At the

outset, I must say I find it curious that the member would ask that

question when the Leader of the Opposition has seen that document. You

will recall that some weeks ago we met privately in my office and he

reviewed the document. However, given that he has difficulty from time

to time in understanding what the meaning is, particularly when reading

judgments, I guess the question is current.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, it was a private meeting.

In any event, there were four elements to the proposal to Mr.

McMillan. This last proposal went from my office by FAX on May 15 this

year. Number one: the boundaries of the national park would be

everything south of Tangil. There would also be a consideration for a

marine park. Number two: British Columbia asked that a $100 million

trust fund, to be settled in payments of $10 million per year for ten

years, be put in place for silviculture purposes. This trust would

benefit mostly the Queen Charlotte Islands where the park was not

established, but also other silviculture purposes on the west coast.

The fund would be jointly administered by British Columbia and the

trust, or we would prefer to.

Number three: we asked for a $20 million investment of

infrastructure by the federal government. This would include airports,

docking facilities, coast guard stations and whatever would be required

for the benefit of that park, for the good maintenance of that park and

for the tourism infrastructure. Number four: we asked that Canada hire

an independent accounting firm of national prominence who would conduct

an independent determination of the economic loss to Frank Beban and

his employees, first of all, and to Western Forest Products, and

consider the loss of a TFL and also a smaller timber harvest to

MacMillan Bloedel.

The province of British Columbia agreed to immediately contribute to

this independent accounting firm the sum of $8 million. We asked Canada

to contribute $23 million, for a total of $31 million for the first

part of the fund, so the accounting firm, when they began the

determination of the displacement of people, homes, lost jobs and lost

opportunity, could pay out this money immediately. Because the members

will appreciate that if we go to a national park, Frank Beban's crew

would have to leave. We insisted that that be put in place.

So those are the four elements. Let me just say one more thing. This

is the first time in recent history that I have had Jack Munro on my

side, and I welcome his support. Clearly he has the same concern I do:

that the NDP apparently are selling out the workers by not insisting on

this fund.

MR. MILLER: On a point of order, I assume that what we are

getting is supposed to be a response to a question that was asked, not

a political diatribe casting aspersions on the members on this side of

the House. I would ask that you ask the member to withdraw the

statement he just made that we are "selling out the workers."

MR. SPEAKER: That's not a point of order.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: There was no reference to any other party in the House.

MR. ROSE: On the same point of order, it's clearly an abuse

of questions on notice to use this forum and this platform to take wild

cracks at the opposition or members within it, when they have little or

no responsibility or occasion to respond — like the allegation just a

moment ago, that somehow the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Miller)

should have known what had been told in confidence to the Leader of the

Opposition in your office. If it is in confidence, then how could he

know?

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege, I would

like to have this cleared up by the hon. minister. He suggested — and I

was speaking to our House Leader — that I should have informed the

member for Prince Rupert about some documents or information that he

gave to me in confidence that I agreed I would not release. That was

three weeks ago, and I have not done so. I would like the minister to

clarify his remarks.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: And apologize.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I will apologize. You're

correct, Mr. Member, that I did give that information in confidence. So

I withdraw the prefatory remarks I made in answering the question. I

recognize that the Leader of the Opposition did take our meeting in

confidence. I respect that, and I thank him for it.

MR. MILLER: On a point of order, I just want to clear up some

confusion. I asked a question in question period, and I asked for

documents to be tabled, Am I to assume that this is the response of the

government? Perhaps the government House Leader could clarify that

point. Is this the extent of the kind of response that we're trying to

get? We want to clear up this confusion; we don't want to create more.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I hadn't finished all my

comments on the question taken on notice. What I will do is advise

members that, following our cabinet meeting next Wednesday, when we

discuss the province's reaction on how we're going to proceed with

South Moresby, I will be more than happy to table those documents in

the House. But I could not undertake to do that until such time as we

have had our cabinet meeting next Wednesday.

MR. MILLER: It would have been a better answer to start off with.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The member asked for all the elements of the B.C. position, Mr. Speaker, and that's what I was explaining to him.

MS. EDWARDS: I'm not sure if it's a point of order, but I want to present a petition, and I believe it's the time to present a petition.

Leave granted.

[ Page 1863 ]

Presenting Petitions

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from 111 members

of the B.C. Federation of Labour who live in Kimberley, which is in

Columbia River riding. The petition says: "Bills 19 and 20 are going to

devastate the economy and the education system, and will not create

jobs or bring us industrial peace. Your petitioners respectfully

request that the hon. House withdraw these two bills."

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF LABOUR

AND CONSUMER SERVICES

(continued)

On vote 46: minister's office, $236,168.

MR. GABELMANN: I want to make a few brief additional points

in respect of the Workers' Compensation Board. The first is that it has

been suggested to me that the area offices around this province are

hampered by the fact that the area managers are not in a position to

review adjudicators' decisions. What happens is that an adjudicator who

works in one of the regional offices will make a decision. If there is

some problem or appeal to that particular decision, the process of

review of that decision isn't available to the area manager but rather

must be referred to WCB headquarters at Richmond. As a result, there is

an additional delay process built into the handling of compensation

claims. Quite often these are simple matters, where the manager could

say, "Oh, wait a minute. Clearly this could be solved in a simple way

in the following manner," and he could ask the adjudicator just to

review the particular file.

That process apparently is not available at the present time. The

line of authority is from the adjudicator to somebody at headquarters

in Richmond. In many cases — not all of them, clearly — where there

aren't major policy questions involved, it would be simple to give the

area manager additional power to expedite a lot of these problems

before they become bigger problems. The festering alone sometimes

creates the additional problem.

I would ask the minister to see whether or not this is a reasonable

proposal and whether some expedition of claims could be achieved by

creating more decision-making authority in the regional offices. I also

would wish the minister to review the policy of the Workers'

Compensation Board with respect to overturning board of review

decisions. It seems that far too many board of review decisions are

being overturned under

section 90, or whatever it is, of the Workers

Compensation Act.

I understand why that

section of the legislation is in place. It was

in place when we were government as well. It's a problem in respect of

appeals, because you think you've won your appeal and then you find out

that there is an administrative review of it and the appeal is

overturned. It leads to a situation where you don't have a true appeal

process. That really needs to be dealt with, and I think the current

way of dealing with the need for the board to maintain its policy — and

I understand that point — doesn't work given the current structure.

I just hope that the minister will have a look at that whole process

with a view to finding a way in which the needs of the board to

maintain policy can be merged with the need of the independence of a

review board process. It's a complicated one, and I think it demands

some attention.

In continuing discussion and review of board practices, I hope that

the question of determining a workers' compensation pension on the

previous year's earnings be looked at. The problem with that,

particularly in times of high unemployment, is you may have only worked

for a month or two in the previous year. Your pension is therefore

based on a small portion of what your annual income really is. There

are many cases that one could bring to the minister's attention. I have

decided not to go through

chapter and verse on that but rather to flag

the issue and hopefully resolve it. If not, next year we'll have a

longer debate in estimates about this particular principle. It's a

difficult one, but there needs to be some kind of averaging provision

so that people can have their pension based on a closer reality to

their actual earnings, rather than on what might have happened to them

in the previous year.

Two more points on WCB: one is an issue that I have exchanged

correspondence with the minister about. We have in our correspondence

agreed to disagree, but I still feel that not enough attention is being

given to this issue: that is, the question of members of the Sikh

community and the kirpan. Members of that community who are in WCB

offices for interviews are told that they cannot wear the kirpan, which

is a religious symbol. It seems to me inappropriate to have board

officials demand that people not wear their religious symbol. I

appreciate that it may seem to be intimidating — because a lot of us

who aren't of that particular religion don't understand it and don't

perhaps feel comfortable with some of that community's religious

beliefs and practices — and therefore there seems to be a need to have

a policy which says that this particular religious symbol cannot be won

by members of that religious community while in interviews with WCB

personnel. We have exchanged correspondence on this matter, and the

minister has indicated to me that he just doesn't agree with me. I

would hope that further review with the commissioners of the WCB would

take place on that particular issue, inasmuch as it really is quite

offensive to members of that religious community.

Finally, on WCB, my memory is that we have a statement from the

Minister — I think, in question period — but I just want to get it

again if we do have it, and get it for the first time if we don't.

That's the question of surveillance of board employees. The minister

remembers the particular case. I just think that the practice of the

WCB of hiring private investigators to follow board employees is so

inappropriate and so wrong that I hope we can have a further statement

from the minister in respect of his policies on that issue.

[2:45]

Those are the issues that I wanted to deal with on WCB. It might be

easier if we get them off the table now, and I'll come back to the

human rights issues in a moment.

HON. L. HANSON: I've made careful note of many of your concerns.

I was not aware of the practice that it was not allowed for the

review of an adjudicator's decision at the regional level; I certainly

will review that with the chairman. We will over the next few months be

reviewing the performance of the appeal system in general, and I'm sure

there will be a number of things that will come to our attention.

[ Page 1864 ]

As a matter of interest, as it relates to the Sikh community and the

kirpan symbol, there now is a case before the human rights council and

the WCB, and we await the results of that with interest. Naturally, it

wouldn't be appropriate to comment too much.

I think the last point you raised was the one of hiring a private

investigator. I agree with you: that is a despicable, terrible

practice. The chairman of the board has issued very direct and concrete

orders to his staff that that practice not be continued.

MR. GABELMANN: I'd like to thank the minister for his

answers. The minister didn't deal with the question of basing pensions

on the previous year's income.

HON. L. HANSON: All I can say to that, Mr. Chairman, is that

I will review that practice and see how practical and wide the

philosophy of it is. There's no question that it could present some

anomalies that are probably not in the best sense of fairness. There

could be a situation where a person was unemployed for the total year

or at least very sparsely employed for that previous term, I will give

my undertaking that that will be one of the things reviewed with the

board.

MR. GABELMANN: I agree that it's not a simple issue and there

aren't any magic solutions to it. But I appreciate the minister's

intention to review that.

I want to move on to human fights concerns. At the beginning, I want

to raise a concern that we've raised since the introduction of the

Human Rights Act a couple of years ago in the House: that is, the use

of industrial relations officers as investigative officers for the

human rights branch. We had the debate with previous ministers. I

think, with all the respect in the world for the industrial relations

officers.... Everything I say now is not a criticism of these people.

They do good work. They have not been trained to be human fights

investigative officers; their training is in industrial relations. It

seems to me that it's time to move on to doing what we should have done

in the beginning, which is to have a group of employees of the Human

Rights Council whose job it is to receive complaints and do

investigations on human rights matters; people who are trained in the

theory and philosophy of human fights; people who don't have

conflicting employment responsibilities; people who can devote their

attention to the question of human rights. To try to merge these two

very different functions, I think, is inappropriate and just doesn't

work to the satisfaction of either industrial relations purposes or

human rights purposes. That's the first point.

The second point, because I feel it's important to acknowledge good

things as well as criticize bad things.... I just want to take a

moment to say that when the Human Rights Council was first established,

I, among many, were very critical — not of them, but of the legislation

that they had to work with. We were concerned they would not be able to

do a reasonable job for human rights in this province. Then we had the

first case of any consequence occur. A horrendous decision was made by

the Human Rights Council which was appealed through judicial review to

the Supreme Court and referred back to the council. Subsequently a

better decision was made.

At that time, we were — me included; me perhaps most loudly in this

House — very critical of the behaviour and the decision-making done by

the Human Rights Council. I have to say that since that time, the Human

Rights Council has made some excellent decisions, given the legislation

that they work with, legislation that I don't agree with and I don't

like. But given the legislation they have to work with, they have made

some outstanding decisions. Having criticized Mr. Edgett and the others

when I felt criticism was due, I think it's appropriate that I now say

that some praise is due for some very good decisions; in particular,

some very good decisions in respect of sexual discrimination,

discrimination against women in the workplace. Some of the awards,

particularly one just the other day, go beyond what I thought they

would ever do. They are appropriate, from the facts as I know them, in

terms of the issues involved. Truly, there's much better

decision-making.

That needs to be said. That's not to say that every decision is

perfect, by any means, but they sure have gone a long way past

expectations that many of us had. I think the compliment should be paid

to them for administering what I think is poor legislation in a very

effective way.

Without transgressing on the rules of the House about calling for

legislation, because I recognize that we can't do that in estimates, I

want to raise the whole question of people with AIDS and their

protection under human rights legislation. The Vancouver medical health

officer has called for some protection. The city of Vancouver council

has passed a motion asking for protection under human rights

legislation, I think it's long overdue that this issue was addressed in

some way or other, because clearly there is discrimination. Clearly

it's discrimination of a human rights kind that is going on, and I

think the government should look seriously at finding a way to do

whatever is required to make sure that one cannot discriminate in this

society against a person simply because they have a particular disease.

I want to ask the minister, in his continuing review of his ministry

operations.... Now that we have both a new minister and a new deputy, I

think it's a good time to have a look at the mandate of the Human

Rights Council in respect of human rights education. They technically

do not have the right or the responsibility for developing educational

programs in respect of human rights in this province. That was a point

we made quite strongly a few years ago. I recognize that they do in a

limited way provide some educational material. They have provided

brochures and pamphlets that advise employers of their

responsibilities, and that's part of the overall education job that

they should be doing; but much more could be done. Much of that work

could be done by community agencies as well — Immigrant Services

Society or Mosaic or Success or any of these other groups — and I would

hope that the government would encourage their activity by helping

those groups. The best way of doing that, I think, is by integrating a

lot of the activity that those community groups do with the activity of

the Human Rights Council. They should be allowed to be much more

involved in education about human rights. It's a little-understood

issue in our society, and I think that much more could be done.

I want to suggest one final thing. It's a long list, but it's a

final sort of issue. There are, by my count, at least 14 kinds of areas

in human rights — 14 that I want to identify anyway. No doubt there are

many more that I have not thought of or that haven't occurred to me,

but there are at least these 14 issues in the whole field of human

rights that seem to me to require further public discussion, with a

view to developing public policy, government policy.

[ Page 1865 ]

What I want to suggest is that.... I'm going to read this list of

issues — or not read it; I'll just cite the list of issues — and while

I do it I'd like the minister to think about the possibility of

referring these kinds of issues perhaps to a parliamentary committee.

It seems to me an appropriate task for the labour and justice

committee, for example, of this Legislature, to take on as a bit of

work. Many of us have talked in this House formally and informally

about trying to make the committee system work more effectively, and I

just want to propose that in the human rights area there may well be

lots of room for some productive committee work. So with that in mind

as my proposal, I just want to suggest what some of these areas of

study could include, more for reference for future activity, more for

having them on the record so they're in Hansard, so that if the

committee does work, this is one of the lists they could look at for a

start in thinking about this project.

The first is the whole question of protection for people with AIDS.

I've mentioned that in another context. The second is the whole

question of equal pay for work of equal value, or pay equity, or all of

the issues around paying women in our society what men earn. We need to

discuss further the issue of protection for pregnant women, at the

workplace in particular but beyond that. We need to discuss the whole

question of sexual orientation in respect of human rights laws. It's

now not protected in British Columbia. It's increasingly becoming a

feature of protection in other jurisdictions. The ones I can think of

off the top of my head are the Yukon and Ontario and Manitoba, where

people can now be protected because of their.... They cannot be

discriminated against because of their sexual orientation.

[3:00]

The fifth issue is the whole question of age discrimination. I

recognize that some of those questions are going to end up being dealt

with in the courts as a result of the Charter, but I think that there

are other questions involved, both at the younger end of the spectrum

as well as at the older end of the spectrum. The legislation we have

talks about ages 45 to 65. We really need to deal with some questions

relating to age discrimination. There are a variety of questions and I

won't take the time now to get into them all, but it's a subject that

needs airing. The next....

I understand, Mr. Chairman, that the member would like to make an introduction, and I'll stop for that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. The second member for Cariboo asks leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. VANT: I'm very pleased to have some visitors from Dog

Creek in the southwest comer of the great Cariboo constituency. In the

west public gallery are 16 grade 7 children and their teachers, Ms.

Hancock and Mr. Davidson. I know the House will join me in giving them

a very hearty welcome.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Nanaimo also seeks leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Chairman, I too will take advantage of this

hiatus in the proceedings to ask the House to join me in welcoming a

very dear friend of this side of the House, Mr. John Weir, who is

sitting in the gallery.

As well, can I take this opportunity to ask the rest of the House to

join me in welcoming this whole new batch of visitors in the gallery,

all of whom have arrived in the last 15 minutes, roughly?

MR. GABELMANN: Seventh on this list of issues that such a

committee could consider is the question of discrimination on the basis

of income. For example, you can now be denied rental accommodation

because you are in receipt of social assistance. That seems to me an

inappropriate thing in a modern society. Nevertheless, it is a fact,

and it's something that perhaps could be considered by such a

committee. On the whole question of harassment — sexual, racial and

other harassment — the law at the present time in this province is

implicit but not explicit. There needs to be, I think, some review of

how it is applied in that area.

The eighth issue relates to the whole concept that we debated a few

years ago in the House about putting reasonableness back into the

question of discrimination. No one should be able to exclude or deny

service or to discriminate without reasonable cause. This is an area

that I think would be useful for some committee work. I recognize that

I'm coming close to the edge of the rules here. but I'm not going to do

much of it, nor for very long. So I think it is important that we have

this discussion about this.

The ninth issue is discrimination on the basis of citizenship. We

have restrictions against permanent residents who are not Canadian

citizens, unless.... The whole question of what restrictions should be

in place: does it matter whether or not you're a citizen if you're a

landed immigrant and a permanent resident. If you choose not to take

out citizenship, should there be different kinds of rights and

responsibilities and obligations? Should certain kinds of

discrimination be allowed if you don't take out citizenship? And on and

on — there's a whole variety of issues in that area.

The issue of job applicants being required, in filling out an

application form, to provide information about race, colour, religion,

ancestry, place of origin, political belief, marital status, family

composition, sex, age: all of those things are still showing up on

employment application forms. Some of them probably show up illegally,

some of them still show up legally. But it's the whole question of

those kinds of personal questions which really have nothing to do with

the ability of the person to do the job or not. We might have some

discussion about that.

Eleventh on this list is onus, the whole question of unintentional

discrimination. Is it discrimination if you didn't intend it? There's a

really big area of difficulty in determining whether or not you're

involved in discrimination if it is unintentional. In relation to that

is the whole question of onus. Who should have to prove that it was or

was not discrimination? Is it the person discriminated against or the

alleged discriminator? Who has onus in that situation?

Twelfth is the question of attempts to achieve equality in our

society. Here we talk about accommodations that people have to make to

help other people climb the ladder in terms of getting some kind of

equality: the question of the impact on businesses and other people's

lives of having to make accommodations to deal with groups who may be

underprivileged. That ties in with my final item, which is the....

Incidentally, that issue is a complex one and not one that I understand

[ Page 1866 ]

very well; nor is it one that I know how to design solutions to in law.

Manitoba, Ontario and the federal government have all. In various

ways, commissioned studies on this whole question of reasonable

expectations for people providing a service or running a business, in

terms of allowing other people to have special favours, as it were —

some kind of affirmative action to allow them to gain equality in our

society. This whole issue, of course, the question of affirmative

action by itself, relates to government as well. When you start having

affirmative action, you inevitably have a kind of reverse

discrimination. If you are promoting one group of people in order to

help them gain equality, then you have to at the same time do something

that is unfair to another group of people. The classic situation is the

California school board case. They had an affirmative action program

which said that a certain proportion of black people should be allowed

to get into the school. Well, a case was launched by a white person who

said there was discrimination against, I think, him in that particular

case.

It's a complicated area of law. We on this side of the House have

accepted that you have to do some kind of discrimination against some

people in order to reverse decades and centuries of discrimination

against other people. But it's a complicated question, and I think that

on these kinds of issues, which are difficult and complicated, it's

more useful in our society if we have constructive debate about the

issues rather than a shouting back and forth of the two different,

black and white positions.

That's the list. There's much more, no doubt, that I haven't thought

about. I think it illustrates that there are a whole variety of issues

which could easily be referred to some agency, some committee, for

public discussion in a constructive way, so that we could develop law

that would serve the needs of this province and deal with these issues

— or not deal with them, if that's the decision reached. What I

suggested at the outset was that this is a good topic for the Labour

and Justice Committee of this House to embark upon over the course of

maybe the next year or so, to see if we can't actually do more for

human rights in this province than we've already done.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I think I have exhausted both my notes and myself.

HON. L. HANSON: Human rights is certainly an evolving area;

there's no doubt at all in my mind. There will always be new issues and

new problems that we will be obliged to look at. There's no doubt that

we will be exploring a number of those problems. It's certainly the

Premier's hope and desire that the committee system become more active

and so on. I appreciate those items that you have raised, and I'll be

paying attention to them as I go over the Hansard of this time.

Just a little bit on industrial relations officers being used for

investigations into human rights. There is in fact a training program;

we do give them a training course. We've also taken the initiative of

hiring a supervisor who is solely responsible for the investigative

officers who handle those matters. There is something about it that

provides benefits there might not be under another system. One is that

industrial relations officers are circulated all over the province, and

there is a coverage aspect there that does have some merit. They do

receive some training, but I suppose there is always a question of

whether that training is adequate or not, or how far it should go. It

is certainly recognized that some education or training is required in

the area of investigation of human rights complaints.

We spend a fair amount of time and money on the education process.

We have developed a grade 11 program. It's not mandatory. We're now

looking at some programs for the primary levels. You're quite right,

they do provide brochures and other information. Again you are quite

right that it isn't embodied in legislation as a requirement, but

certainly it's an initiative that we in the ministry have supported,

and it has been, in my opinion, fairly successful — maybe not to the

total degree, but certainly fairly successful.

I am sure that the members of the Human Rights Council would

appreciate your kind words as to their performance and so on, because

1, too, agree that the council has performed a very good job. I am very

pleased with it. I think you made the suggestion that you don't always

agree with every decision. I suppose that would be true of almost any

type of tribunal, going to the highest degree, I guess, in our country.

I think that they will appreciate it, and I certainly agree that it is

a well-functioning tribunal.

The issue of AIDS, which I think you raised, is a subject that has

been considered. Certainly members of my ministry and my deputy and my

assistant deputy, the ombudsman and the chairman of the Human Rights

Council, have been considering the desirability of legislation, but

it's now under review. I might just point out that the Human Rights

Council, like a number of other jurisdictions in Canada, has accepted

complaints of discrimination as a result of that. As a matter of fact,

I believe there is one pending a hearing at the moment, so it isn't

totally left out there. The Human Rights Council, although I don't

suppose it is defined in the act specifically, I think have recognized

that there is a discrimination as a result of a perceived disability.

In closing my remarks, I will certainly take into consideration the

number of suggestions that you have raised. I am sure that we may not

always be exactly agreeable on every one of those issues, but I do

assure you that I will look at them and I will look at them in all

seriousness.

[3:15]

MR. CASHORE: I want to make a few comments with regard to a

human rights issue, and it has to do with compulsory retirement. I

think there are two issues — here: one is that the issue of compulsory

retirement at age 65 is an issue in itself, but I think there is an

added dimension to it that makes it a women's issue.

I want to refer briefly to a letter from a constituent. It's a

letter that was written to the Premier on October 15, 1986. I think she

makes some of the points rather well that could be added to this

discussion at this time. Also, I would want to say in making these

comments that I realize this is an emerging area of change within our

society. Therefore it's one of those areas that I think can benefit

from a consultative rather than from an adversarial approach.

I read from the Public Service Act. This woman outlines from the

Public Service Act the regulation that affects her, and it's

section

49(l): "Unless otherwise provided by the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, retirement is compulsory for all

employees who attain the age of 65 years, and the effective date of

retirement shall be the first day of the month next following that in

which the anniversary date of birth occurs."

Section 49 (2): "Where, by reason of experience and fitness, it is in the public interest to defer the retirement of an

[ Page 1867 ]

employee, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may defer the effective date of retirement for a period not to exceed five years."

Now this woman says in her letter to the Premier: "Who is to say

that at age 65 a person suddenly deteriorates overnight and, even

though productive and able to carry on is put on the shelf, so to

speak." She goes on to say:

"For instance, in my case I have had extensive

experience over the years in general office work. My record has been

responsible and steady: 30 years in the private sector and going on

seven years in the public service. There were 16 years with one

company, eight and a half with another, and yet another three years. I

am fit for my age — in the last two and a half years the only time off

was for vacations."

She told me that her response from the Premier was a letter that

stated that the Premier wished a healthy and happy retirement but

didn't really deal with the issue that she was raising.

She went on to raise the issue with regard to the Charter of Rights.

The

section on equality rights in the Charter of Rights states: "Every

individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal

protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in

particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic

origin...." It goes on to include age. She points out in her letter

that the Charter of Rights was agreed to by the provinces of Canada,

including the province of British Columbia, and that our Premier at the

time was signatory to it. She asks why her concern is not dealt with.

She says:

"I wish to appeal this on the rights of seniors as

according to the Charter of Rights, particularly when other provinces

have done away with the mandatory retirement age. Basically, I would

prefer to stay on for a while, with, say, six-month assessments as to

my competency.

April 17, 1982, and all the provinces, including B.C., agreed and signed

section

15.... The B.C. government could have opted out of signing but did not.

Therefore, isn't this policy...illegal?"

I would like to ask the minister to address this tremendously important issue.

It is also a women's issue, because, as we all know, statistically it can

be demonstrated that the vast majority of women in our society do not have the

work history that men have, and therefore have not accumulated the kinds of

assets and pensions to benefit them during times of retirement. Sometimes a

woman seeks the option of being able to continue in her employment so that she

can deal with her problematic financial situation. This is an issue that would

be most worthwhile to review with regard to this part of his responsibility.

I also refer the minister to Hansard

of June 8, 1985. At that time the member for North Island (Mr.

Gabelmann) was calling for tough new human rights laws. There is some

wording there that I think would deal with this situation and with

these circumstances. I would appreciate it if you would take that under

advisement.

HON. L. HANSON: Certainly it's a very, very complex issue.

The various jurisdictions across Canada have approached it in a variety

of manners. I believe Alberta is similar to ours; and Manitoba does

have some legislation.

But it is a very complex problem. I certainly will give the member

my assurance that it will be a subject of study within my ministry, as

time permits.

MR. CASHORE: There is just one other point that I wanted to

mention. I think it's unfortunate that when it comes to matters in the

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, there's too often a pattern of

waiting for the issue to be brought before the courts. I think we have

that situation right now with regard to age discrimination in terms of

income assistance. The Minister of Social Services (Hon. Mr. Richmond)

is not able to answer questions, because it's before the courts.

I think that a government that is providing leadership would find

that it behooves them to seek to enact appropriate law and regulations

in keeping with the Charter, prior to having to go through the costly

process of dealing with it in court. That kind of leadership is called

for in our province at this time. Certainly with regard to this issue

we've been discussing, I would hope that something would be forthcoming

before we have to deal with it as a result of a court challenge.

MR. LOVICK: Before we make the leap into the other piece of

the ministry, consumer affairs, I would like to pose one short

question, if I could, regarding the Labour part of the ministry's

activities. My question is very simple and direct. It refers

specifically to the increase in appropriation for the budget as

projected for estimates for 1987-88. The increase amounts to some

$963,529, which amounts to an increase over last year of some 4.53

percent. I am on vote 47, ministry operations — the total amount. Are

we together? My concern is whether that increase of 4.53 percent will

be in any way sufficient to accommodate all those changes that have

been introduced by way of Bill 19:

section 62 particularly, with the

creation of a new mechanism for industrial relations dispute

resolution: new council; new provisions for mediation commissioners.

and so forth. I guess my direct question to the minister is whether the

estimates as presented here do indeed accommodate what Bill 19 has

created.

HON. L. HANSON: The answer is no. I believe the first

section

of discussion today in Bill 19 was that there was an appropriation

number 67 for the purposes of this act. The answer to your question is

quite simply no. There is a requirement for more, and this

section of

the act deals with it.

MR. LOVICK: I thank the minister. Did he wish to add

something to that? I see he is conferring with advisers. Otherwise,

what I am going to do now is ask the minister to put on the hat for the

other part his responsibility, namely Consumer Services.

Let me begin my remarks by making just a couple of points. Just as

my colleague for North Island did, I am going to begin by saying I do

not think this is going to be an unduly drawn-out session, for a few

reasons. I want to say for the record that it has nothing to do with

trying to show extra consideration for the minister, who. after all,

has been in this House for lo, so many hours in the past few weeks. I

would like to take credit for humanitarian concerns, but that is not my

reason for why this will be a shorter session.

Rather, it's because there are a number of things that have

obviously shifted. We have a new ministry; we have a new minister; we

have a new critic. We have also a number of

[ Page 1868 ]

things under review. Certainly two of the major

concerns that I would normally be dealing with, and that I shall have

occasion to refer to in my remarks today and in my questions, are both

under review. One is the liquor policy review and the other is the

funeral home task force. Both items are under review, so obviously we

can't spend a great deal of time on those matters today. I am saying

all of this now because I suppose I want to emphasize that perhaps next

time a discussion of the estimates of the Ministry of Consumer Services

will be a rather more lengthy process than it is this time.

I want to begin my comments about those estimates by saying that

there are a couple of themes I want to couch my remarks within. The

first theme, I suppose, is how much there is to be done despite the

fact that we have already made significant progress. I will be the

first to acknowledge that under the heading consumer services, this

government and this minister have done good work. I think there are a

number of initiatives for which the ministry is to be commended, and I

certainly am not reluctant at all to offer those observations as and

when they are merited.

[3:30]

But I want to suggest that what we ought to do when we talk about

consumer services, just as we did when we were discussing human rights

legislation not very long ago, is to set up as a kind of guiding

principle.... I was again delighted to see the minister endorse the

statement made by my colleague that there is indeed work to be done and

we ought to be thinking about regularly trying to find ways in which we

can improve and make things better. I want to suggest a number of

things in the course of my remarks by way of just that theme — how we

can indeed improve upon things, how we can make things better — and I'm

sure the minister will agree with me that that is indeed a philosophy

that ought to guide us.

The second theme I want to introduce in general terms right now, one

again that I suspect I'll have occasion to refer to more than once, is

the use of committees. There are, I think, a number of things in

process or a number of things that ought to be introduced that would

very properly, I think, be assigned to the Select Standing Committee on

Labour, Justice and Intergovernmental Relations. Again I shall be more

specific as I proceed. So those two areas, as I say — or those two

themes — I would like to begin.

For the sake, then, of clarity and to make things proceed as

smoothly as we're able to make them, let me list the broad general

areas I propose to cover in the course of my remarks and questions to

the minister. I will deal with these as individual items, and at the

end of each perhaps invite the minister to comment, if he so wishes,

and also in certain cases allow my colleagues to add some comments of

their own too.

Broadly, then, there are seven areas that I want to touch on briefly

under the heading. The first is the whole area of the cost of credit,

the issue of cost of credit. The second area I want to refer to is the

Consumer Protection Act, specifically to do with

section 12, disclosure

and the proclamation of. The third area I want to touch on is the Trade

Practice Act, again by means of discovering whether in fact everything

is being done that should be done under the auspices of that

legislation. I next want to look at the Motor Dealer Act, specifically

with regard to examining whether we in British Columbia ought to have

what I understand is in place in other jurisdictions — what is usually

called a "lemon" law; and I think the minister is probably familiar

with that terminology.

Next I want to touch briefly on the area of the funeral services

task force. Following that I want to look at the business of consumers'

education, and broaden the parameters of that somewhat to say not only

education but also access and advocacy; and as a subheading under

consumers' education, simply because I didn't have anywhere else to put

it, to be quite honest, Mr. Minister, I want to look at the whole

business of debtor assistance. And finally, I want to end with some

reference to the liquor policy review process. So those are the areas I

propose to cover in the course of my remarks.

Having said that, having, if you like, outlined a kind of approach

to the problem, let me begin by deviating ever so slightly and posing

two very specific questions. The first question I would like to pose is

simply: what percentage of the administration and support services, as

listed in vote 47 of the estimates, is accounted for by consumer

services within the ministry? Is that an easy question, the answer to

which is readily apparent? I can leave it for the time being, if you

want.

HON. L. HANSON: All together.

MR. LOVICK: Okay. That's the first direct question.

The second question, and also a direct one, though I must confess it

probably has a little more of a rhetorical dimension to it, concerns

the increases to the budget. The overall budget increase, as I

mentioned earlier, in terms of the total vote amounts to some 4.53

percent. As one looks at the various classifications, you discover

quite predictably and understandably that most of the increases fall

within that same range. That percentage figure, by the way, I base

strictly on the difference between the projected estimates for '87-88

as compared to the earlier ones of '85-86. I'm simply looking at the

increase in money over the base figure and therefore getting the

percentage increase. As I say, what one discovers there very clearly is

that all of those estimates under each of those classifications in vote

47 tend to be roughly within that 4.5 percent — somewhere between 6 and

2 percent, broadly considered, which makes sense mathematically. There

are, however, two significant aberrations to or departures from that,

and I'm wondering if the minister would care to respond to them.

First of all, there is one figure that stands out outrageously

because it is so very different from the others — namely, the item of

liquor control and licensing, where we see a percentage increase from

one fiscal year to the next of 14.89 percent. The original sum of

$1,898,130 is increased by the sum of $282,618, and that equals a 14.89

percent increase. That by itself wouldn't necessarily be any cause for

concern except that juxtaposed with that is the other aberration, on

the opposite end of the scale. That increase is the one for the

residential tenancy branch, equally startling because it is so

different from all the others. It comes out to an increase, on a base

figure of $832,467, of the princely sum of $905, i.e. 0.11 percent.

A question comes to mind, and clearly one might be a little jaded in

posing the question; I hope I'm not. It seems to me inevitably the

question will be posed: why that incredible discrepancy between the

liquor control and licensing branch within the ministry and the

residential tenancy program, where one has almost a 15 percent increase

in budget, and the other has approximately one-tenth of 1 percent? As I

began by suggesting this is perhaps a rhetorical question, the

conclusion I'm sure that some people will draw is that those two

[ Page

1869 ]

figures make a statement about the priorities. I'm

wondering if the minister might like to respond to that question before

I go any further to look at specifics.

HON. L. HANSON: First of all, I don't have here a breakdown

in the administrative and support services as it relates to Consumer

Services, but I certainly will get it. My deputy minister will ensure

that it comes to you.

As it relates to liquor licensing and control, I believe your

question was dedicated to why that increase would be so much out of the

norm. I think it's understandable and justifiable and certainly doesn't

have any relationship to what we consider to be the most important part

of Consumer Affairs. It simply relates to an ongoing review of the

operations of the various councils and other responsibilities we have

to make sure that we are doing the job that we see as being the norm

that we should be providing. In our liquor control and licensing

branch, we have provided for an additional five full-time employees,

who are dedicated to inspection and enforcement of the rules as they

relate to liquor licensing.

[Mrs. Gran in the chair.]

Your concern was the rentalsman's office, which received an increase

that relates to nothing. During all of our reviews we have looked at

the various operations, and there isn't a requirement at this point.

It's handling its responsibilities very well with the staff that it

does have and the expenses that it is facing, and we didn't see a

requirement to spend money unless there is a real need.

MR. LOVICK: Can I just make sure that I have this clear in my

own mind and ask the minister whether it is safe to conclude from his

remarks, in response to that increase for the liquor control and

licensing branch, that none of that increase is directly attributable

to the liquor policy review. Is that correct? Is that a fair conclusion

to derive from that?

HON. L. HANSON: Yes, that is correct. As you know, we have

done a liquor policy, or are in the process. Liquor control and

licensing is simply a reflection of more licences, of a number of

situations where we feel there is a requirement to provide a service

which we have looked at and have felt to be less than the level we

would like to see it at. So we have recognized that in increased

funding.

MR. LOVICK: The other answer was with regard to the

residential tenancy branch. The claim made, if I can paraphrase the

minister, is essentially that the status quo is acceptable. The branch

is doing its job satisfactorily and there was therefore no perceived or

felt need to increase its budget allotment by any significant factor.

Is that a fair assessment?

HON. L. HANSON: Yes.

MR. LOVICK: Okay. I guess that here, Mr. Minister, is probably where

the answer or the response to your response is going to shake down depending

very much on who one is speaking to. I think it's safe to say that a number

of different individuals with whom I am in contact — and I suspect I am not

in that sense alone — would argue that the status quo is woefully inadequate,

and that there is indeed much room for movement and manoeuvre within the residential

tenancy branch.

On that note, Mr. Minister, I would like to allow my colleague the

member for Maillardville-Coquitlam to perhaps offer a few observations

about that area, given that he has somewhat more expertise than I.

MR. CASHORE: The first comment I would like to make is that

given what shows up in the budget, as has been pointed out by my

colleague, with inflation, services to tenants under the Residential

Tenancy Act are actually cut back. That is certainly a deplorable

circumstance, given some of the information that I believe will come

forward in the next few moments.

[3:45]

It's my understanding that the residential tenancy branch now deals

with only about one-half of the items that were handled by the

rentalsman prior to 1984. A little later on, when the minister is

responding, he might wish to correct me on that. I would be delighted

if I could be corrected on that. It's my understanding that before

1984, there were six regional offices, 35 rentalsman offices and 150

full-time staff to serve tenants in this province. Now there are four

or five arbitrators and a staff of less than 30 people, and no regional

offices except in Victoria and Vancouver. I understand that the people

from these offices do not travel throughout the province to make

services available to tenants who are outside of the lower mainland and

Vancouver. I would like to ask you if that is the case. I also

understand that the residential tenancy branch does not conduct

out-of-town hearings, and I would be interested in knowing if that is

the case. I understand that people who do not live in the lower

mainland and Victoria — people who live in Prince George, the Peace

River country, the Kootenays or the Prince Rupert area — don't have

access to a toll-free line that would enable them to deal with the

branch with regard to their tenancy problems. They have no one to call

for their information.

I understand that the minister will respond by saying that all of

these services are now provided by the government agents' offices

throughout the province. I will pause now and just get your reflection

on some of those statements that I've made.

HON. L. HANSON: I am not exactly certain what was here in

1984, but I would imagine that the member is referring to the fact that

rent controls as such were phased out and are no longer in place. The

people we have within the rentalsman's office, within the scope of the

legislation in place, are certainly handling all of the complaints they

receive on a very timely basis; there is no backlog. We had about

100,000 telephone calls last year, and we dealt with about 4,000

arbitration cases. The arbitrators travel the province for hearings,

but the legislation also provides them with the ability to deal by

phone with some of the cases, if that is appropriate. While there are

areas that may not have a telephone resource, anyone can phone the

local government agent, who, through the provincial telephone system,

contacts the rentalsman's office, the call is returned and

communication is made in that way.

MR. CASHORE: With regard to the comment about the government

agent's office, I think it's very apparent that the government agent is

simply not equipped or trained or prepared to handle tenancy situations

with any sophistication at all. I don't think that's the government

agent's mandate. As I understand it, the main service that the

government agent

[ Page 1870 ]

provides with regard to these issues is giving out eviction forms and arbitration application forms.

I don't think that the minister has really responded to the question

about there being no toll-free line available. I don't believe there

is. I would like to ask the minister: are these services, as you

account for them, advertised? Is there some sort of process for making

this information available to tenants so that these services are

available to them, including the services allegedly available through

the government agent's office?

I would also like to specifically ask the minister how many hearings

have been held outside the lower mainland and Victoria during the past

year — for instance, in places such as Prince George.

HON. L. HANSON: I don't think you understood my answer. First

of all, I should say that I think some government agents might argue

with you on their ability to respond. But that's neither here nor there.

My answer to you was that the government agents, when they receive a

call from a person who has a rental problem, go through a process of

transferring that call.... No, that's not quite right. They call the

rentalsman's office, and then the rentalsman's office returns the call

to the individual who has complained. The communication is made that

way. The government agent is not expected to handle the rentalsman

arbitration process, and I didn't think I gave that impression.

As to the number of cases outside the lower mainland, I don't have

that information, but I would suspect that it would be in the area of

100 or so. I will certainly get you that information. The response by

the rentalsman's office to out of-town cases is as needed, and

certainly as needed they will be responded to out of town. They will

travel to that point. I think anyone would agree, because the majority

of the concerns that the rentalsman must deal with are going to be

generated by the lower mainland and Vancouver Island. I think everybody

would accept that, because that's the majority of our population.

MR. CASHORE: Madam Chairman, I would just like to clear up a

little matter with the minister. I don't think you mean to use the term

"rentalsman." You've used that term a number of times.

HON. L. HANSON: You're right.

MR. CASHORE: What term should you be using?

HON. L. HANSON: Residential tenancy branch.

MR. CASHORE: I think that what we have found here in the last

few moments is a very convoluted process: somebody having to phone the

government agent, and then the government agent having to call a

government office so that that office can contact the person who is

making the call. That certainly is a very inconvenient process, which

could be improved greatly by having a toll-free line.

Also, with regard to the number of hearings that have been held

outside of the lower mainland and Victoria, my information, given by

David Lane of the Tenants' Rights Action Centre, is that as far as he

knows — and I think he's one of the most knowledgeable people in

British Columbia on this issue — there haven't been any: goose egg.

Even if that is not the case, even if it is the handful that you

mentioned — less than 100 — I would think that the minister would

really want to review that and ask how this process serves the people

of this vast province, when the kinds of services that are available in

the lower mainland and Victoria are not available in other major

centres. I would certainly hope that the minister would consider, as a

start, a toll-free line.

While it's possible that government agents might argue with what I

had to say, I would submit that if government agents felt free to do

so, they would want to argue with the minister as well. I have the

greatest respect for government agents and for the work they process

through their offices. I have met with the government agent in New

Westminster, and found the agent to be a marvelous source of

information. I really want to commend the resourcefulness and the

helpfulness of the government agents' offices, but I do not believe

that government agents or staff in government agents' offices have job

descriptions that require them to be experts in the area of residential

tenancy matters. I think the minister will agree with me that this is a

very highly specialized field in our society at this time.

I understand, for instance, that monetary disputes are not being

handled, and therefore small claims courts are not being utilized with

regard to disputes. I understand that there is no information available

to tenants as to how to go about achieving their legal rights with

regard to small claims matters. Also, I understand that there's no

assistance to tenants available through the legal services system,

because the legal services system lacks the funds. I also understand

that the consumer education offices don't exist anymore, to help

tenants understand what their rights are and how they might go about

dealing with their circumstances.

The thing is that over the years there have been huge cutbacks in

service, and we can see that in this budget we also have a cutback, in

effect, because of the very minimal increase, which doesn't keep up

with inflation. According to the Tenants' Rights Action Centre, there

are two times as many tenants not getting security deposits back as

there were prior to 1984.

I'd like to stop before I go on with my comments, and see if the minister would like to comment on anything that I've said.

HON. L. HANSON: Madam Chairman, first of all, the new act

does not allow the branch to handle money matters. I think the member

is well aware of that. In 1984 that was taken out. There's been a new

brochure published, and it deals with all the rights of the various

tenants under the tenancy act. Certainly information about small debts

court is available from the Attorney-General ministry.

Going back to those hearings, I certainly will get the exact

figures, but I think the bottom line of the thing is that if there is a

hearing required, that hearing will held; and if it's required to be

held in Prince George, it will be held there. If there's no demand,

then I don't think we would be going to Prince George to hold a

hearing. I'd also remind you again that there is an ability to have a

hearing over the telephone, if the difference is conducive to that sort

of....

[4:00]

The numbers of problems that I have perceived, or at least concerns

that I have been given, as it relates to the availability — because the

branch is here in the lower mainland.... I've never received one from

the public, quite frankly. I've

[ Page

1871 ]

received a number of concerns, that in people's

opinion rental increases had been too much and so on, but I haven't as

yet received one that I know of — in my short term, I will admit —

where there was a problem with the availability, the contact, and the

difficult process that there was to make the contact.

If the member is suggesting that the legislation should be changed

and we go back to the days of the rentalsman, that is another subject.

But under the act as it is now and the service that we are providing, I

believe it is working well, and working very well; access to that

service is quite acceptable. The political argument about whether there

should be rent controls, and so on, is of course another argument. But

under the statute as it is now, the service is being provided, and I

think quite well.

MR. CASHORE: I would point out to the minister that I have

not commented on rent controls. It's interesting that the minister

would raise that. It certainly is a matter for debate and discussion. I

was not proposing to raise it at this time during these estimates,

because as the second member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick) has pointed out,

I think we will be able to raise some of these issues in the coming

months.

To say that the present act is serving the people well I really

believe is begging the question. I didn't hear the minister respond to

my comment that there are two times as many tenants who are not getting

their security deposit back. As the father of a daughter who went out

into the great world and lived on her own in apartments, I can vouch

for the fact that the first three apartments she lived in, she didn't

get her security deposit back.

I don't think we're talking here about something that is not a

problem. I think that in terms of consumer protection, the issue of

security deposits is really a serious problem and needs to be looked

at. Maybe we need to be looking at the system in Ontario, which is

quite different, but I really think that needs to be looked at. A lot

of the people who are not speaking up for themselves are people who,

sadly, are kind of beaten down under the present circumstances. I don't

think that's a reason for simply going along with the case — the fact

that perhaps these people haven't phoned the minister personally.

David Lane of the Tenants' Rights Action Centre stated to me this

morning — and I hope the minister is listening — that there are many

specific cases of corporate landlords denying, as a matter of policy,

the return of security deposits. If the minister is not aware of that

situation, I would encourage him to call David Lane at the Tenants'

Rights Action Centre to get the data they have and to investigate it.

If there are corporately owned apartment situations where as a matter

of policy security deposits are not returned, then we find ourselves in

a situation where the tenant — often the unsophisticated tenant — is

left with no other means than to go to small claim court. We've already

outlined how unavailable that is.

I certainly would not expect that it was the intention of the

minister, under the present circumstances under the present act, which

has replaced the rentalsman's act, to see any circumstances where

security deposits were not returned as a matter of policy. The

situation we have is the lack of teeth in the present law to deal with

illegal acts that tenants are experiencing in many cases on the part of

landlords. I'm not suggesting in any way that landlords are not a fair

group of people, but just as the original rentalsman act came into

place to deal with those landlords who were not being fair, that need

still exists. A lot of people are seen as fair game under the present

circumstances — for example, landlords locking people out illegally,

seizing goods illegally and causing evictions illegally. Previously the

staff at the rentalsman's office was able to deal with these

situations, but now the staff — a very fine staff, in my opinion — are

greatly overworked, and are not able to deal with the kind of detail

that is needed in order to support the tenants of British Columbia. I

would like to ask the minister how many landlords were prosecuted in

the past year for violations of the act.

HON. L. HANSON: Madam Chairman, first of all, I have received

a brief from Mr. Lane accompanied by a request to have a meeting, but

due to some other recent commitments I haven't had that opportunity

yet. I assure the member opposite that that meeting will happen as soon

as the opportunity is there.

As to the number of cases that have been prosecuted, I can't really

answer that. I certainly will get that information for the member

opposite. I know that in a number of attempts to prosecute there has

been a piece of evidence lacking, and they've been dismissed. Certainly

I'll get the numbers of how many have been prosecuted for the member,

and my assistant deputy will bring that to you.

MR. CASHORE: Madam Chairman. I haven't had an opportunity to

research this piece of information, so it may not be correct, but the

information I have from David Lane is that there were no prosecutions

in the last year If it turns out there were half a dozen or a dozen, I

think that will add some credibility to the situation. I would like to

have the answer, and I know that Mr. Lane doesn't have the facilities

to conduct the kind of research that is available to the minister. I

would like the minister to take it on notice and inform the House just

how many prosecutions there were.

My understanding is that the Crown prosecutor is simply not taking

such cases. I put that to you — that the Crown prosecutor under the

present legislation that deals with tenants and landlords is simply not

taking such cases. Yes, I agree the residential tenancy branch is doing

the best it can with the staff it has, given the cutbacks. They have a

very difficult job, and they don't have the time to intervene

adequately in the situation.

I would like to say that there are 10,000 people in British Columbia

who are residential tenants and who do not have the protection of any

law whatsoever. There are 10,000 people who are the residents of hotels

and some rooming houses. A number of years ago this House passed a bill

that would declare that those people come under the umbrella of the

tenancy act of the day and, of course, that was never proclaimed into

law.

I would like to point out to the minister that Ontario has now

passed second reading in amending their tenancy law to make sure that

those people who are residents of hotels and rooming houses would be

covered and protected as other Ontario citizens are.

I would therefore like to ask the minister if he has plans to amend

the legislation to provide, in fairness, protection for these 10,000

British Columbians, many of whom, as you know, received most unjust

treatment during the time that Expo was on. That's my last question.

HON. L. HANSON: No, I will not tell the member that I have plans to revise the legislation as in Ontario. I will assure

[ Page 1872 ]

the member that we are reviewing the act and we are

reviewing what is happening in other jurisdictions, but I can't promise

at this point how I'm going to react to that review.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: I would just like to inform the hon. members

that legislation, pending or otherwise, is not discussed in Committee

of Supply. Would the second member for Nanaimo care to speak?

MR. LOVICK: Could I ask for clarification of that, Madam

Chairman? It seems to me that legislation is indeed discussed — the

current legislation, but not pending legislation. Is that not true?

MADAM CHAIRMAN: I will read you the section. "The

administrative action of a department is open to debate, but the

necessity for legislation and matters involving legislation cannot be

discussed in Committee of Supply."

MR. LOVICK: Our understanding of that, Madam Chairman, is

that the focus of that has been necessity for new legislation. What

we're talking about is the existing legislation and whether, in fact,

the policy is satisfying the objective.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: No. It says "matters involving legislation," so legislation is not up for discussion. Would the member please continue.

MR. LOVICK: I'm trying, Madam Chairman, but I think there is

an important point here, because theoretically, of course, everything

we discuss in this chamber is legislation, so I think that is too

rigorous and literal a translation of the rule.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: The administration of legislation can be

discussed, but not the need for new legislation or even existing

legislation — just the administrative part of it.

MR. LOVICK: Thanks, Madam Chairman.

It's interesting; after I listen to my colleague the member for

Maillardville-Coquitlam speak about what he perceives — and, I think,

with justification — as an abominable situation in terms of rental

housing in the province, I can't help but recall that he was in another

life a United Church minister. I remember another United Church

minister's comments apropos of this. A United church minister, as Tommy

Douglas used to tell the story, was declaiming about the problems with

the status quo. He said again and again: "The problem we have here,

friends, is the status quo." He kept saying that, and at the end of the

sermon one of the parishioners came up to the minister and said:

"Minister, tell me what you mean by that 'status quo' stuff." The

answer was: "'Status quo' means the hell of a mess we're in."

It seems to me that the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam made that

point rather well. We are concerned that yes, indeed, the status quo

vis--vis residential tenancy is less than desirable. I have two of my

colleagues on this side of the House who also want to speak from

particular and personal experience about precisely that area of the

ministry, and I therefore will defer to them.

[4:15]

MR. R. FRASER: Madam Chairman, I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. R. FRASER: I thank the members for their gracious

hospitality. I would particularly like to welcome, and have you welcome

with me, some students from Sexsmith Community School in the riding of

Vancouver South, who are here with their teacher Mr. Spruston. Would

the House kindly make them welcome.

MR. BLENCOE: I would like to talk very briefly about the

residential tenancy issue and refer to what I think are some of the

problems with the current legislation and with the office of the

residential tenancy branch.

Over the years I have come to know this area of government very

well. I was the critic at the time the rentalsman's office was

abandoned and rent controls and rent review were abandoned. In our

estimation, tenants were to a large degree abandoned in British

Columbia. Indeed, I think we have today many problems with the

residential tenancy branch and the legislation. Given that the majority

of living units in the province are residential tenancies, I think it's

appropriate that we discuss some of the issues at hand. That may have

already been discussed by some of my colleagues, but unfortunately I

have been meeting with the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mrs.

Johnston) and UBCM people, so I haven't been able to hear all of the

debate.

It's my belief that the residential tenancy branch is virtually

unknown to the people of British Columbia. People have found, I think,

through that office and through the arbitration process, that there

certainly isn't the feeling of equity and fairness that we used to have

with the office of the rentalsman. For one, the rentalsman was

appointed by the public service. The arbitrators are not appointed by

the public service but by the minister responsible; they are directly

responsible to the minister. There is a feeling that the residential

tenancy branch is not as objective as it could be in terms of its

dealings with tenants. As a matter of fact, the former minister, now

the Provincial Secretary, appointed a lawyer here in Victoria — and the

person has acknowledged it — a former member of the Social Credit

executive in Oak Bay and a close friend of the Attorney-General of

British Columbia, to a critical position in arbitrating landlord and

tenant issues. I raised that issue with the former minister, and the

response in terms of being a member of the Social Credit Party was:

"Well, she has the smarts to join the Social Credit Party." The

underlying message there was that if you join the Social Credit Party,

you can get these kinds of positions.

That kind of appointment — clear, blatant patronage — to a critical

job arbitrating landlord and tenant issues puts in question that whole

arbitration process of the residential tenancy branch. The former

minister laughs. But you know, Madam Chairman, when it comes down to

dealing with residential tenancy issues and when people go before an

arbitrator, they really have the right to know that they are dealing

with somebody who isn't closely connected to the minister or a friend

of the government and who is as objective as possible in making

decisions, and not a phone call away from a cabinet minister.

In the rentalsman's office we used to have that objectivity. Fair

decisions were made. All sides were heard. But now the residential

tenancy branch is quite tainted by this blatant

[ Page 1873 ]

political system that is in place for deciding disputes in residential matters in the province of British Columbia.

I think it is in the interests of the government — and if I am

reflecting on former legislation, Madam Chairman, so be it — and in the

interests of all tenants to remove the political atmosphere that

surrounds the residential tenancy branch and once again return to the

rentalsman-style officers appointed by the Public Service Commission

based on merit, based on competition and based on their ability to do

the job rather than their connections.

We have in the city of Victoria a blatant case where the current

arbitrator in the residential tenancy branch is a close friend of the

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) and a former executive member of the

Social Credit Party in Oak Bay. That same arbitrator has never, prior

to her appointment in Victoria, practised law in the province of

British Columbia. She has been put in a quasi-legal position of

arbitrating critical issues pertaining to people's homes and their

standing in their homes, and issues that are very important to their

accommodation and their situation and their tenancies.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: A member across the way makes fun of this

particular issue, but I would remind that member that the majority of

people in the province of British Columbia live in tenancies and do

have disputes with their landlords, and there comes a time when they

want a fair arbitrator without having to spend thousands of dollars to

go to the courts. They want a fair arbitrator to hear their case. What

have they got in the city of Victoria? A close friend of the

Attorney-General, an inside appointment to a very critical position in

an area where you are trying to arbitrate fairly about who is right and

who is wrong. The former arbitrator here in Victoria, Mr. Lugosi, was

removed from that position quite clearly because he started to make

decisions that weren't how the government viewed their interests in

residential tenancy matters. He was removed from his job, Madam

Chairman.

So in terms of residential tenancy, this is a critical issue. This

government said when it abandoned the rentalsman, rent review and rent

control that it was going to set up a fair system: the tenants would be

protected; the tenants would be heard in a quasi-legal situation,

objectively by arbitrators. The system, quite frankly, is laughable,

but it is also very sad, because we have got thousands and thousands of

tenants who are going to have their cases heard. Those cases are going

to be heard by people who are well connected to the minister, either

the minister responsible or a minister involved in cabinet. That is not

acceptable when you are dealing with people's lives.

I've got people in Victoria who have lived in their apartments for

15 or 20 years and get into a dispute and want to know that they are

going to be dealt with fairly by the residential tenancy branch. Now I

am not saying that the person who is currently in Victoria is not

hearing those cases as laid out by the residential tenancy branch

today. But when you are dealing with such important matters, when you

are dealing with people's homes and their apartments and the fact that

they want to get something cleared up with their landlord, they want to

know that the person can make a decision that could potentially be

clouded by its connection to government.

The former arbitrator, appointed in the same way, started to make

some decisions, particularly to family composition in apartments, which

I think were very important, as a matter of fact, and was arbitrarily

and swiftly removed from that position. I want to ask the minister

whether he's aware of the situation, whether he has any comments, and

whether he has any plans to bring back fairness and equity and

impartial arbitrators to the residential tenancy branch in British

Columbia.

HON. L. HANSON: Madam Chairman, I didn't know that to be a

friend of the Attorney-General (Hon. B.R. Smith) made you an unfair and

unacceptable person. My personal outlook is that it doesn't matter who

your friends are; it's the individual we're appointing. I might suggest

that the member for Victoria might have a friend I might consider to be

completely unbiased, and it wouldn't matter if that person was a friend

of the member for Victoria.

I do have some difficulty in understanding the remarks. The

arbitrator who is here in Victoria now is a lawyer — a member of the

bar — appointed some two months ago by contract. Is the member aware of

that? I think you suggested that she was not a lawyer?

MR. BLENCOE: We have a new arbitrator in the city of Victoria? The former arbitrator has left the position?

HON. L. HANSON: Catherine Scambler is the individual's name, and she was appointed two months ago.

MR. BLENCOE: There was a change in the city of Victoria,

then, because the former.... I would like to ask the minister how that

arbitrator was put in place. Was that through advertising? Was it

competition? Was it public service?

HON. L. HANSON: Madam Chairman, no it wasn't an advertised

program. There is a list of candidates with a perceived ability, and

from that list this individual appeared to be the most suited and was

offered a contract. I might just add that I don't have any knowledge of

her politics or her friends.

MR. BLENCOE: Madam Chairman, the point I'm trying to make is

exactly the same thing. The position once again has been filled and the

former arbitrator was indeed the person I was talking about. It was

done the same way that the current arbitrator was done. It was done

quietly, behind the scenes, with the minister or whomever taking a

look. It was not subject to a competition or a merit system, or based

upon qualifications, as far as you know, in residential tenancy.

Mr. Minister, I brought this to the attention of the former minister

in terms of the former arbitrator's appointment. It clearly was exactly

as I said, because the former arbitrator did not dismiss or disagree

with what I was saying in terms of her appointment. Now we have a new

arbitrator who has clearly been appointed in the same way.

My question still stands: when you are dealing with such important

issues as residential tenancy and making decisions on people's homes

and the circumstances in which they live, should you not ensure that

that person is totally objective and their job isn't dependent on a

direct minister's hiring — as we had with the former arbitrator, a

well-known friend of the Attorney-General of the province? Should that

system not be

[ Page 1874 ]

cleaned up, and should we not go back to

rentalsman’s officers who are hired on merit by the public service at

arm's length from the minister's office?

[4:30]

I happen to think you're not just hiring somebody to give you

political advice when you hire directly out of the public service. I

don't think anyone disagrees with that — hiring your own personal

staff. We're not talking about personal staff in this issue; we're

talking about a number of arbitrators in the province who are deciding

what's going to happen in those people's homes and in their apartments

and the circumstances and the relationships between their landlords and

themselves. There's no more basic kind of discussion at times than

someone's home and what's going to happen. I'm just wondering if the

minister would agree that perhaps that system should be looked at, and

I don't want to get into.... The minister says I may appoint a friend

to work for me. I'm not talking about those circumstances. We're

talking about somebody in a quasi-legal position making decisions about

very important issues to those tenants. Can the minister respond?

HON. L. HANSON: Madam Chairman, it's sort of an interesting

discussion. I'm not sure what the political affiliation of an

individual chosen to make an arbitrary decision has to do with the

decision. I hope that the decision, no matter what their political

affiliation is, is a fair and reasonable one. I have great respect for

people who take on those sorts of jobs, quite frankly.

It's interesting to hear this discussion. In this particular case,

it was on the recommendation of my former deputy minister, Mr. Leslie,

and my now assistant deputy minister that this be the appointment, as a

result of recommendations from the residential tenancy branch. Quite

frankly, what political party she supports or belongs to is not of

great interest to me, as long as the decisions she's making are fair

and reasonable, with the responsibility that she has.

MR. BLENCOE: The minister is missing the total point I'm

making. This is, and always has been, a controversial area in the

province of British Columbia — landlord-and tenant issues. It's very

controversial. We have a perspective that is somewhat different from

the government's perspective.

The former minister, who removed the rentalsman, rent review and all

those various things.... His bottom line — and he's not here today —

when I asked all these questions about rights of tenants, was: "Well,

they can always move." Our view is that that is not the situation. When

tenants live in accommodation or in a unit, that is their home. They

are entitled to some basic rights, some protection, and laws that treat

landlords and tenants equally.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

This is a very important issue. It's not one where the minister can

just say: "I happen to think that person can do a good job." We're

dealing with a very important issue. In our estimation, when somebody

goes before an arbitrator to be heard on an important item that may

affect their home and living situation, they want to know that they're

being dealt with fairly. They also want to know that if the arbitrator

makes a decision that you don't particularly approve of, that

arbitrator has absolutely no protection; you remove them.

Maybe the minister can see what I'm getting at. They want to know,

because this area is so controversial, in terms of tenants' rights or

private owners' rights — we all know from this afternoon that we have

some differences — that that arbitrator is going to be totally free to

make a decision that may disagree with the philosophy of the government

of the day but will be based on fairness and equity to that tenant.

That's what I'm trying to get at. When you have a political appointment

system to critical positions like this, Mr. Chairman, you can get

yourself in really serious trouble, and those tenants feel they're not

going to be adequately protected.

Does the minister understand now that I'm not just talking about

appointing somebody to some cursory kind of position? Arbitrators are

often called upon to make important decisions that may not be viewed,

if they make the wrong decision, very well by the government of the

day. In my estimation, Mr. Lugosi, when he was the arbitrator some

years ago in the city of Victoria, started to make some decisions that

the government did not like, and he was removed — gone. What kind of

atmosphere does that create for tenants? Most people who live in

British Columbia today are tenants, Mr. Minister. So what do they

think? They go there to have their case heard. They know they're not

dealing with somebody who has public service protection to make a free

decision without interference or being subject to change or influence

by the government of the day on critical landlord tenant issues. In our

estimation, that's very important. Maybe the minister can respond now

that I've given a little more depth to the question.

MR. BARNES: I just want to ask the minister if he is aware of

the living conditions of tenants in commercial premises — the hotels,

for instance, of the downtown east side. I raise that because every

time we get into debate on tenants and their options, the means by

which they can settle disputes with landlords — and vice versa;

landlords being able to protect their properties — and have a venue

where this can take place, one that is easily accessible to all

parties....

Those people who live in hotels should be.... There is quite a

distinction between that class of tenant and those who are in apartment

buildings, who may even be in an illegal suite in someone's home. But

it's a long-standing problem. It's one that goes all the way back.... I

know that when I was first elected we were trying to address this

problem, particularly with the people in the downtown east side who

were living in hotels basically covered under the Innkeepers Act. In

effect, those hotels deal with a transient clientele who are coming and

going. That's their right under that legislation, just as it is the

right of any hotel to rent to a day-to-day, itinerant clientele that's

coming and going. One day, one week, is generally about the extent of a

client.

There is an anomaly here with respect to those hotels in the

downtown east side, that area having been the one sort of designated

for the least in the way of public assistance and amenities, in terms

of the kind of support programs and infrastructure needed to really

make it a functioning community as we normally think of one — schools,

parks, social services and the usual outlets available to people living

in communities, shopping, etc. The downtown east side has four or five

thousand people living in facilities that are not owned by them but, by

and large, by absentee landlords — hotels that are providing a

residential service. This is the thing that I hope the minister becomes

familiar with, because it's probably unique. These hotels are licensed

as hotels, and

[ Page 1875 ]

many of them have liquor licences to serve a

clientele in the pubs, etc. They are also providing a major facility as

far as long-term residential accommodation is concerned. Their clients

are deemed to be going to a hotel in the normal sense. They are without

protection as residents, yet in many instances they have been residents

in those facilities for anywhere up to 20 years. Certainly it's common

to find people who have been living in a particular hotel for a number

of years.

Our problem has always been: how do you address that issue without

changing the nature of that hotel? We appreciate the problem. What we

did between 1972 and 1975 was designate certain of those rooms, which

is a patchwork approach to the problem. Nonetheless, it recognized that

there is a problem. When we found a person living in a hotel for, say,

six months or longer, we designated that particular unit of the hotel

to be permanent, and it was excluded from the normal operations of the

hotel, allowing that person some protection as it came under the

protection of the rentalsman and residential tenancy laws, etc. That

was one way of dealing with the problem — not adequate but at least as

long as that particular tenant stayed in that particular room or unit,

the person had some protection. If that person moved and someone else

moved in, of course it became in the conventional sense just a hotel

room and that person had no protection. So it required a lot of

monitoring, a lot of attention paid to it, especially policing. But it

was better than nothing.

Of course, you know, Consumer Affairs ministers prior to yourself

eventually wiped out the whole concept of the rentalsman's office and

the whole approach to residential tenancy legislation. So today we have

some pretty horrific stories to tell about what is happening to people

who are living in these hotels, because they are not protected at all,

whatsoever. They are considered to be just temporary residents, even

though historically we know for a fact that they are long-term tenants.

Many of them are people without adequate incomes, war veterans, old-age

pensioners, people who have worked in the bush. I remember one famous

case we used to talk about of a guy by the name of Mativovich, I

believe was his name — I believe it was Frank Mativovich — who was a

logger who was living down there, and we used to talk a lot about his

personal situation.

I'm sure there are many tragic stories of old-timers who are without

families, without means of contact in a normal, social intercourse way,

who are finding themselves virtually at the mercy of hotel owners who

can kick them out without notice. They have no recourse, no defence,

and it just seems a tragedy in this day and age. We know for a fact

that they are providing a service to those people in that they are

providing a home. We know there are very few places you can go, for

instance, and get a self-contained suite.

[4:45]

You know, we have to look at this thing. If we break it right down,

what they're doing is living in hotel rooms that quite often have

nothing more than a sink on the wall and maybe a cot, and usually

everything else is communal. If they have to take a bath, they have to

go down the hall; if they're going to use the toilet, they have to go

down the hall. This is quite common in these old hotels. They're

usually paying the maximum amount of shelter cost, whatever the

government is providing in the way of shelter. If it's $200 a month out

of the $350 or $400 that the person may be getting on welfare, then

that's what the hotel room is. The rule of thumb is: whatever the

government is paying, that's what we're charging. So there is a problem

with that in terms of the quality of the accommodation that they are

receiving.

I would like the minister — particularly this minister, Mr.

Chairman, because he obviously is a man who approaches his work

seriously and conscientiously, and I believe he likes to know the

facts; and provided the Premier doesn't interfere in any way with his

efforts, I think he will do a good job.

Putting ideologies aside, I think all members of this House should

be concerned when clearly there is a category of individuals in the

province who have simply been neglected, who have not received their

just due, and are just not being given fair representation. That is

this group of people who are living in these hotels, which by virtue of

conditions for hotels generally are in fact residential hotels which

are relying on the income they get from the government for those people

who are living in those hotels on a long-term basis, but yet don't have

to pay the consequences of being a responsible landlord. They can kick

these people out when they are ready. In fact, many of them are

prisoners in those hotels. They don't even have visitors' rights. You

know, at 8 or 9 o'clock at night they put a chain on the door and lock

the place up. If they had a fire, they'd have to get permission to get

out of some of those places. The doors are locked. You go down there

and try to get into some of those hotels after hours — they call it

after hours. They have no protection; they are prisoners in their own

home, so to speak. The accommodation is dismal.

It's just that I don't think we've really stopped to understand the

tragedy of what happens to those people in the so-called downtown east

side, who are the down-and-outers in the skid road area, decent people

trying to manage where there are just no resources to help them.

I know this issue has been raised many times. I remember the former

Consumer Affairs minister, Rafe Mair, whom I also respected very highly

for his concerns for the community — in many respects. But when it came

to dealing with the issue of protecting tenants and their right to due

process, the parting of the ways seemed inevitably to come. We didn't

agree that tenants had those rights, or that they should be able to

have their day in court. There was this old philosophy that the owner

is the boss; the person who owns the property should have the last word.

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, I believe I'm getting some static in here.

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: You say it's great, eh? Well, I wonder about

that. I want you guys to be quiet. I'm trying to make some very serious

points here. Believe me, I mean what I'm saying.

I can't stress firmly enough that there is a large group of people

living in those hotels who are getting short shrift, who are not

getting their fair share of representation. I don't think it's

deliberate as much as it is due to ignorance or lack of a hands-on

approach by government, or the lack of really understanding what is

going on. I can assure you that if you, Mr. Minister — especially this

minister — took a tour in the downtown east side to some of those

hotels and saw some of the living conditions.... In some instances you

would even find defecation in the halls and on some of the beds that

[ Page 1876 ]

these people have to sleep in. There are some

mental patients down there who at one time were in Tranquille or in

some of the other institutions that the government has decentralized.

They're down there too, without help, without support.

It's a tragedy, because we say that those hotels are in a different

category. We can argue all we want to about rent controls and the

rentalsman, and the rights of people to have their day in court when it

comes to apartment buildings, etc. The normal person has other options.

They have reasonable incomes and can shop around. But there is a group

of people on welfare who have no choice. In fact, those people, if they

were to try to live anywhere else in the city of Vancouver, for

instance, would find it impossible when it came to renting a place for

$200 or less, which is the maximum that many of them can afford to pay

for their rent. I'd say 99, times out of 100 you will not find

accommodation anywhere except in the general downtown east side area.

So much for your freedom of movement in this democratic society. They

do not have that option.

The point that must be made is that these hotels have got to be seen

for what they are. They are residences and always have been residences.

In fact, they rely on the residents to help them meet their costs. They

are budgeting on the basis of moneys they are getting from the

provincial government to pay those costs. But those people have no

protection. That's the point that I want to make today. The main thing

is that there is a distinction between those tenants and other tenants.

It's not a new issue. It's an issue that has been raised in this House

time and time again.

Last year we had those people committing suicide. There was one case

of a man falling out a window in the Patricia Hotel because he had been

given notice. He had been living in that hotel how many years? Some of

you may remember. I forget, but it was in the multitudes of years;

maybe 20 years or so. There were others. There were several people who,

simply out of desperation, took their lives. It was a real tragedy.

The landlords were speculating that they could make a bundle by

renovating their hotels, upgrading them, in order to exploit those

millions of people who were going to be coming from all over the world

to the lower mainland to visit our government fair, Expo 86. Of course,

we all know that it didn't really pan out that way, and that many of

those speculators found that they had to backtrack and try to reclaim

some of those old tenants. Again, that is a story that this House

should understand quite well. It shows you that the so-called right of

the landlord to do his own thing.... Sometimes the landlord needs some

protection. All we need to do is give some leadership and say: "First

of all you have a duty to those people." I know there are a few cases

of where some landlords did resist the temptation to kick out their

long-time tenants because of this short six-month affair.

Is my time up? Perhaps I could get an intervener so that I could wind things up. Or should I wind it up now?

MR. BLENCOE: I would like the member to continue to wind up.

MR. BARNES: I appreciate that. This is one small aspect of a

major issue with respect to tenants. I would just like to conclude by

saying that we should not allow in future a repeat of what happened in

1986 with respect to tenants who were thrust from their homes by

landlords who were, with impunity, able to do so because there was no

law against it. That is the whole point. I am not condemning the

landlords for doing what they could do legally.

But clearly, if it is legal to kick somebody out of their home after

20 or 30 years without any responsibility whatsoever, then I think as

legislators we are not acting responsibly. We are hiding behind a

loophole in the system that allows these landlords to do that, because

they are quite. different in other parts of the city where a landlord

knows his hotel is dealing with itinerant types of clients. That is not

the case in the downtown east side and perhaps in some of the more

remote communities where people rely on the hotels for their main place

of residence. I think we should recognize that, Mr. Chairman.

MR. BLENCOE: I just want to touch on one last issue, and I think there are others who wish to, unless I continue the debate.

Firstly, I recognize that the minister has probably been preoccupied

with labour issues and perhaps he may not be as familiar with the

consumer issues of the past in terms of how the rentalsman's office

used to work and the point that I was making about arbitrators. So to

conclude that discussion, Mr. Chairman, I would just recommend to the

minister to take a look at how it is done today and how it could create

an impression — and does — of a lack of fairness in the system.

I want to touch on one last issue. As we all know, we have no rent

review or rent control or rentalsman in the province. That whole issue

once again came home very clear in the last month in Victoria. I was

asked to represent — and I brought it to the attention of the minister

in question period — two highrises in James Bay with close to 300

people, mostly senior citizens. The frustration set in because those

rent increases were between 12 percent and 18 percent, some even

higher. There was no opportunity in law to even review with the

landlord the rationale for such a major increase, absolutely none. Of

course, now the landlord has announced there is probably going to be

another increase of the same amount next year.

I don't even want to get into the debate about rent control. We

would be here as long as Bill 19 probably. It seems to us that it would

be very reasonable to have some mechanism of review whereby tenants,

when they get a rent increase,