British Columbia Hansard — Monday, November 18, 2002 (37th Parliament, 3rd Session) (H1118pm-07) (H1118pm 07)

H1118pm-07

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

3rd Session, 37th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) Monday, November 18, 2002 Afternoon Sitting Volume 10, Number 7 THE HONOURABLE CLAUDE RICHMOND, SPEAKER ISSN 0709-1281

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Honourable Iona Campagnolo 3RD SESSION, 37TH PARLIAMENT SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Claude Richmond EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council................................................................................. .........................Hon. Gordon Campbell Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations.............................................................................. ..................... Hon.

Greg Halsey-Brandt Deputy Premier and Minister of Education ....................................................................................... ..................................Hon. Christy Clark Minister of Advanced Education................................................................................................. ...........................................Hon. Shirley Bond Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries.................................................................................... ..............................Hon.

John van Dongen Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Treaty Negotiations.............................................................. .................... Hon. Geoff Plant Minister of Children and Family Development.................................................................................... ..............................Hon. Gordon Hogg Minister of State for Early Childhood Development.............................................................................. .................................Hon.

Linda Reid Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services......................................................................... .................. Hon. George Abbott Minister of State for Community Charter........................................................................................ .................................. Hon. Ted Nebbeling Minister of State for Women's Equality ......................................................................................... .................................... Hon.

Lynn Stephens Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise ................................................................................ ..................................Hon. Rick Thorpe Minister of State for Deregulation ............................................................................................. ............................................ Hon. Kevin Falcon Minister of Energy and Mines................................................................................................... ....................................... Hon.

Richard Neufeld Minister of Finance ............................................................................................................ ....................................................... Hon. Gary Collins Minister of Forests ............................................................................................................ .................................................. Hon. Michael de Jong Minister of Health Planning .................................................................................................... ............................................ Hon.

Sindi Hawkins Minister of Health Services.................................................................................................... ................................................ Hon. Colin Hansen Minister of State for Mental Health ............................................................................................ ...................................Hon. Gulzar S. Cheema Minister of State for Intermediate, Long Term and Home Care ............................................................................. Hon.

Katherine Whittred Minister of Human Resources.................................................................................................... ............................................Hon. Murray Coell Minister of Management Services................................................................................................ .........................................Hon. Sandy Santori Minister of Provincial Revenue................................................................................................. ................................................Hon.

Bill Barisoff Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General ................................................................................ ..................................Hon. Rich Coleman Minister of Skills Development and Labour...................................................................................... .............................Hon. Graham P. Bruce Minister of Sustainable Resource Management.................................................................................... ..................................Hon.

Stan Hagen Minister of Transportation..................................................................................................... .................................................... Hon. Judith Reid Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection..................................................................................... ....................................Hon. Joyce Murray LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Deputy Speaker................................................................................................................. ..............................................................

John Weisbeck Leader of the Opposition ....................................................................................................... ...........................................................Joy MacPhail Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole ........................................................................................... .............................................. Harold Long Clerk of the Legislative Assembly .............................................................................................. .........................................E.

George MacMinn Clerk Assistant ................................................................................................................ ................................................................... Robert Vaive Clerk Assistant and Law Clerk .................................................................................................. ........................................................ Ian D. Izard Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees........................................................................................ ............................................Craig H.

James Clerk Assistant/Committee Clerk................................................................................................ ............................................ Kate Ryan-Lloyd Sergeant-at-Arms ............................................................................................................... .........................................................A.A. Humphreys Director, Hansard Services ..................................................................................................... ........................................

Anthony Dambrauskas Legislative Librarian.......................................................................................................... ............................................................. Joan A. Barton Legislative Comptroller ........................................................................................................ .................................................................Peter Bray Published by British Columbia Hansard Services, and printed under the authority of the Speaker by the Queen's Printer, Victoria.

Rates: single issue, $2.85; per calendar year, mailed daily, $298. GST extra. Agent: Crown Publications Inc., 521 Fort St., Victoria, B.C. V8W 1E7. Telephone: (250) 386-4636. Fax: 386-0221. www.legis.gov.bc.ca/hansard In addition to printed transcripts, Hansard Services publishes transcripts on the Internet and broadcasts Chamber debates on television.

Party Standings: Liberal 76; New Democratic 2; Independent Liberal 1. ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Abbott, Hon. George (L) ....................................................................... Shuswap Anderson, Val J. (L) .............................................................Vancouver-Langara Barisoff, Hon. Bill (L)............................................. Penticton–Okanagan Valley Bell, Pat (L).........................................................................Prince George North Belsey, Bill (L).................................................................................

North Coast Bennett, Bill (L) ........................................................................... East Kootenay Bhullar, Tony (Ind L) .................................................................. Surrey-Newton Bloy, Harry (L).................................................................................. Burquitlam Bond, Hon. Shirley (L).........................................Prince George–Mount Robson Bray, Jeff (L)......................................................................Victoria–Beacon H ill Brenzinger, Elayne (L) ...............................................................

Surrey-Whalley Brice, Susan (L) ............................................................................Saanich South Bruce, Hon. Graham P. (L)................................................ Cowichan-Ladysmith Campbell, Hon. Gordon (L)............................................. Vancouver–Point Grey Cheema, Hon. Gulzar S. (L) ..........................................Surrey–Panorama Ridge Chong, Ida (L)................................................................ Oak Bay–Gordon Head Christensen, Tom (L) .............................................................

Okanagan-Vernon Chutter, Dave (L) ........................................................................... Yale-L illooet Clark, Hon. Christy (L) ..................................................Port Moody–Westwood Cobb, Walt (L) ............................................................................. Cariboo South Coell, Hon. Murray (L) ........................................ Saanich North and the Islands Coleman, Hon. Rich (L) .............................................. Fort Langley–Aldergrove Collins, Hon.

Gary (L).........................................................Vancouver-Fairview de Jong, Hon. Michael (L)....................................... Abbotsford–Mount Lehman Falcon, Hon. Kevin (L) .......................................................... Surrey-Cloverdale Hagen, Hon. Stan (L) ................................................................... Comox Valley Halsey-Brandt, Hon. Greg (L) ..................................................Richmond Centre Hamilton, Arnie (L)............................................................Esquimalt-Metchosin Hansen, Hon.

Colin (L) .....................................................Vancouver-Quilchena Harris, Roger (L)......................................................................................Skeena Hawes, Randy (L) ............................................................ Maple Ridge–Mission Hawkins, Hon. Sindi (L).......................................................... Kelowna-Mission Hayer, Dave S. (L) ................................................................... Surrey-Tynehead Hogg, Hon. Gordon (L) ........................................................

Surrey–White Rock Hunter, Mike (L) ...................................................................................Nanaimo Jarvis, Daniel (L)...................................................... North Vancouver–Seymour Johnston, Ken (L)............................................................ Vancouver-Fraserview Kerr, Brian J. (L).............................................................. Malahat–Juan de Fuca Krueger, Kevin (L).................................................

Kamloops–North Thompson Kwan, Jenny Wai Ching (NDP) ...............................Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Lee, Richard T. (L).......................................................................Burnaby North Lekstrom, Blair (L)................................................................. Peace River South Les, John (L) .......................................................................... Ch illiwack-Sumas Locke, Brenda (L) ...........................................................

Surrey–Green Timbers Long, Harold (L) ...................................................Powell River–Sunshine Coast MacKay, Dennis (L)....................................................... Bulkley Valley–Stikine McMahon, Wendy (L).............................................Columbia River–Revelstoke MacPhail, Joy (NDP) ..........................................................

Vancouver-Hastings Manhas, Karn (L) .............................................Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain Masi, Reni (L) ...................................................................................Delta North Mayencourt, Lorne (L) ..........................................................Vancouver-Burrard Murray, Hon. Joyce (L) ........................................................... New Westminster Nebbeling, Hon. Ted (L) ..........................................

West Vancouver–Garibaldi Nettleton, Paul (L).........................................................Prince George–Omineca Neufeld, Hon. Richard (L)...................................................... Peace River North Nijjar, Rob (L)...................................................................Vancouver-Kingsway Nuraney, John (L) ...............................................................Burnaby-W illingdon Orr, Sheila (L) ...........................................................................Victoria-Hillside Penner, Barry (L).......................................................................

Ch illiwack-Kent Plant, Hon. Geoff (L) ......................................................... Richmond-Steveston Reid, Hon. Judith (L)............................................................Nanaimo-Parksv ille Reid, Hon. Linda (L) ................................................................... Richmond East Richmond, Hon. Claude (L) ................................................................

Kamloops Roddick, Valerie (L)..........................................................................Delta South Sahota, Patty (L).....................................................................Burnaby-Edmonds Santori, Hon. Sandy (L)..............................................West Kootenay–Boundary Stephens, Hon. Lynn (L) ........................................................................ Langley Stewart, Ken (L)...................................................... Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Stewart, Richard (L) ......................................................

Coquitlam-Maillardville Suffredine, Blair F. (L) ................................................................Nelson-Creston Sultan, Ralph (L)....................................................... West Vancouver–Capilano Thorpe, Hon. Rick (L) ..........................................................Okanagan-Westside Trumper, Gillian (L)................................................................Alberni-Qualicum van Dongen, Hon.

John (L) ................................................Abbotsford-Clayburn Visser, Rod (L).................................................................................North Island Weisbeck, John (L).........................................................Kelowna–Lake Country Whittred, Hon. Katherine (L) ...................................North Vancouver–Lonsdale Wilson, John (L)...........................................................................

Cariboo North Wong, Patrick (L)............................................................Vancouver-Kensington LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING Abbotsford-Clayburn....................................................... Hon. John van Dongen Abbotsford–Mount Lehman ..............................................Hon.

Michael de Jong Alberni-Qualicum.......................................................................G illian Trumper Bulkley Valley–Stikine ..............................................................Dennis MacKay Burnaby North..............................................................................Richard T. Lee Burnaby-Edmonds............................................................................Patty Sahota Burnaby-Willingdon......................................................................

John Nuraney Burquitlam ........................................................................................ Harry Bloy Cariboo North ..................................................................................John Wilson Cariboo South .................................................................................... Walt Cobb Chilliwack-Kent ............................................................................. Barry Penner Chilliwack-Sumas .................................................................................

John Les Columbia River–Revelstoke....................................................Wendy McMahon Comox Valley .......................................................................... Hon. Stan Hagen Coquitlam-Maillardville .............................................................Richard Stewart Cowichan-Ladysmith .......................................................Hon. Graham P. Bruce Delta North.......................................................................................... Reni Masi Delta South................................................................................

Valerie Roddick East Kootenay .................................................................................. Bill Bennett Esquimalt-Metchosin...................................................................Arnie Hamilton Fort Langley–Aldergrove ..................................................... Hon. Rich Coleman Kamloops ....................................................................... Hon. Claude Richmond Kamloops–North Thompson ........................................................Kevin Krueger Kelowna–Lake Country...............................................................

John Weisbeck Kelowna-Mission ................................................................ Hon. Sindi Hawkins Langley ............................................................................... Hon. Lynn Stephens Malahat–Juan de Fuca .....................................................................Brian J. Kerr Maple Ridge–Mission ................................................................... Randy Hawes Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows .............................................................Ken Stewart Nanaimo..........................................................................................

Mike Hunter Nanaimo-Parksville ...................................................................Hon. Judith Reid Nelson-Creston.......................................................................Blair F. Suffredine New Westminster ..................................................................Hon. Joyce Murray North Coast ........................................................................................Bill Belsey North Island........................................................................................Rod Visser North Vancouver–Lonsdale.......................................... Hon.

Katherine Wh ittred North Vancouver–Seymour .............................................................Daniel Jarvis Oak Bay–Gordon Head .......................................................................Ida Chong Okanagan-Vernon .................................................................... Tom Christensen Okanagan-Westside.................................................................Hon. Rick Thorpe Peace River North .............................................................Hon. Richard Neufeld Peace River South .......................................................................

Blair Lekstrom Penticton–Okanagan Valley ....................................................Hon. Bill Barisoff Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain.................................................... Karn Manhas Port Moody–Westwood......................................................... Hon. Christy Clark Powell River–Sunshine Coast.......................................................... Harold Long Prince George North................................................................................Pat Bell Prince George–Mount Robson................................................Hon.

Shirley Bond Prince George–Omineca................................................................Paul Nettleton Richmond Centre......................................................... Hon. Greg Halsey-Brandt Richmond East .......................................................................... Hon. Linda Reid Richmond-Steveston ................................................................ Hon. Geoff Plant Saanich North and the Islands ............................................... Hon. Murray Coell Saanich South...................................................................................

Susan Brice Shuswap .............................................................................. Hon. George Abbott Skeena.............................................................................................Roger Harris Surrey-Cloverdale ................................................................. Hon. Kevin Falcon Surrey–Green Timbers .................................................................. Brenda Locke Surrey-Newton ............................................................................... Tony Bhullar Surrey–Panorama Ridge................................................. Hon.

Gulzar S. Cheema Surrey-Tynehead .......................................................................... Dave S. Hayer Surrey-Whalley ...................................................................... Elayne Brenzinger Surrey–White Rock ...............................................................Hon. Gordon Hogg Vancouver-Burrard................................................................. Lorne Mayencourt Vancouver-Fairview............................................................... Hon.

Gary Co llins Vancouver-Fraserview ...................................................................Ken Johnston Vancouver-Hastings .......................................................................Joy MacPhail Vancouver-Kensington...................................................................Patrick Wong Vancouver-Kingsway..........................................................................Rob Nijjar Vancouver-Langara....................................................................Val J.

Anderson Vancouver–Mount Pleasant............................................Jenny Wai Ching Kwan Vancouver–Point Grey ................................................... Hon. Gordon Campbell Vancouver-Quilchena............................................................ Hon. Colin Hansen Victoria–Beacon Hill.............................................................................Jeff Bray Victoria-Hillside.................................................................................. Sheila Orr West Kootenay–Boundary.................................................... Hon.

Sandy Santori West Vancouver–Capilano ..............................................................Ralph Sultan West Vancouver–Garibaldi ................................................. Hon. Ted Nebbeling Yale-Lillooet .................................................................................. Dave Chutter

CONTENTS Monday, November 18, 2002 Afternoon Sitting Routine Proceedings Page Introductions by Members....................................................................................................... .............................................. 4445 Tributes....................................................................................................................... ............................................................... 4445 Preston Bruce Hon. G.

Bruce Introduction and First Reading of Bills ........................................................................................ ......................................... 4446 Forests Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2002 (Bill 75) Hon. M. de Jong College of Applied Biology Act (Bill 76) Hon. M. de Jong Acting Police Complaint Commissioner Continuation Act (Bill 77) Hon. R. Coleman Statements (Standing Order 25B).............................................................................................................................. .............. 4447 Contributions of Tara Singh Hayer D.

Hayer Contributions of Norma Mickelson I. Chong Status of B.C. economy R. Nijjar Oral Questions................................................................................................................. ......................................................... 4448 Privatization of B.C. Hydro assets J. MacPhail Hon. R. Neufeld Prevention of street racing R. Lee Hon. R. Coleman Privatization of B.C. Hydro assets J. Kwan Hon. R. Neufeld Government plan for health care system K. Krueger Hon. S.

Hawkins Reports from Committees ........................................................................................................ ............................................... 4451 Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services, first report B. Lekstrom J. MacPhail Hon. G.

Collins Tabling Documents .............................................................................................................. .................................................... 4453 Ministry of Skills Development and Labour annual report, 2001-02 Public Guardian and Trustee of British Columbia annual report, 2001-02

Committee of the Whole House ................................................................................................... .......................................... 4453 Residential Tenancy Act (Bill 70) (continued) J. Kwan Hon. R. Coleman R. Stewart K. Johnston J. MacPhail Forest and Range Practices Act (Bill 74) Hon. M. de Jong J. MacPhail

4445 MONDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2002 The House met at 2:04 p.m. Introductions by Members Hon. R. Neufeld: It's my pleasure today to intro- duce some very special guests. Brit Skjelbred is the State Secretary for Petroleum and Energy. She is ac- companied by His Excellency Ingvard Havnen, the Norwegian Ambassador to Canada; and Stein Gud- mundseth, the Norwegian honorary consul general in Vancouver. The state secretary is in Victoria along with a delegation of Norwegian oil and gas industry repre- sentatives and government officials to share offshore experience with British Columbia. [1405] Just as a note, Mr.

Speaker, I want to leave every- one with this. In his closing remarks, the ambassador said that Norway has no debt. They have $130 billion — get it, $130 billion — in an offshore fund that they're trying to figure out how to spend. Hon. C. Clark: Today in the members' gallery we also have some special guests from Finland. His Excel- lency Ilkka Ristimaki is the Ambassador of Finland to Canada. He's accompanied by Lars-Henrik Wrede, who's the honorary consul general of Finland at Van- couver, and their wives, Kateriina Ristimaki and Riitta Wrede.

Ambassador Ristimaki is making his official calls on the government in Victoria, and I hope that everyone will please make them welcome. Hon. G. Halsey-Brandt: Today in the members' gallery we have a special guest from France. Jean-Yves Defay is the newly appointed consul general of France in Vancouver. He is accompanied by his wife, Marie- N o ë l l e D e f ay . C o ns u l G e ne ra l D e f ay , who s e l as t p o s i - tion was in the office of the Prime Minister of France in Paris, is visiting Victoria to meet with government offi- cials. He is no stranger to Canada, having served in Quebec City.

We look forward to working with Consul General Defay in strengthening cultural and economic ties with France. May the House please give him a warm welcome to our Pacific province. J. Weisbeck: A visitor to British Columbia in the gallery today is Bishop Simon Oketch from the Angli- can diocese of Maseno North in Kenya. Bishop Oketch is here visiting the Anglican diocese of British Colum- bia. With him today are his hosts, Rod and Pat Crossley of Victoria. Would the House please make them wel- come. R.

Sultan: In the gallery today are two very impor- tant women in my life, both of them from my constitu- ency office. Patti Hamilton is a former cabinet secretary in Con- sumer and Corporate Affairs and was producer of the Rafe Mair Show for 17 years, during which time Rafe won the Michener Award for distinguished public ser- vice in opposing the Kemano completion project and during which time Rafe's broadcasts helped defeat the Charlottetown accord.

Susan Lundell is a member of the pioneering Lun- dell family in Vancouver, was introduced to politics at the age of 12 at a John Diefenbaker fundraiser, worked for several Members of Parliament, was frequently seen on the arm of Pierre Trudeau and thinks what he did to Canada is simply…. Well, it merits reconsidera- tion. Would the House please make these two distin- guished guests welcome. W. Cobb: T o d a y i t ' s m y p l e a s u r e … . I d o n ' t s e e them, unless they're behind me here, but I have a group of young people from my riding.

They represent the Royal Canadian Sea Cadets, the Chilcotin corps — and their leaders. With us are Jeff Skea, John MacQueen, Arron Blair, Sheena Jarvis, Daniel Brennan, William Bolton, Janine Johnson, Dorian Johnny, Tyler Lulua, Katelynn Bris- sard, Josh Lulua, Tyler Thompson, Nicole Lachapelle, Kallin Wilson, Riley Gibson, Alissa Clements, Gordon Jarvis, Ashlianna Nyack, Garrett Nelson, Kendra Storozynsky, Megan Frankiw, Trenissa Hoffman, Cory Smithson, Sierra Williams, Rae-Lynn Gilbert-Kerr, Ash- ley Nystrom, Julian Brissard, Cole Mitchell, Frances Rolston and Melissa Bilkhu.

With them are instructors, Bruce Coles and David Feil, and their trainers, Laurie Stapleton and Stacey Paley. They're here on a sailing trip with the federal Department of National Defence. [1410] H. Long: Mr. Speaker, it's good to be recognized so q u i c k l y , s t a n d i n g i n t h i s H o u s e t o d a y . I h a v e i n t h e House today my daughter Brenda and her husband, Tor Birtig, who are here visiting from Powell River. I'd like this House to make them very, very welcome. Hon.

M. de Jong: Joining us in the gallery today are representatives of the Association of Professional Bi- ologists of British Columbia: President Mel Kotyk; Linda Michaluk, the executive director; Linda Stordeur, the registrar; and Pat McLellan, the administrative as- sistant. I hope the House will make them welcome. Tributes PRESTON BRUCE Hon. G. Bruce: I would just l ike to take an oppor- tunity to thank all of you so much — the Premier, the Leader of the Opposition — for your expressions of condolences and sympathy at the passing of my father, Preston Bruce.

I want to tell you, though, it was a very joyous event for us. It's not that we wanted Dad to move on in a hurry, but there have been times when he has told us stories that have gone on and on, and with those thoughts, we thought maybe it would be good for him to move on a bit.

4446 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2002 The fact of the matter is that as life turns and goes along, you can have wonderful times with your par- ents. He was 87 years old. He worked right up to the very end. My brother and I are concerned whether or not we ought to be paying him the full wages for Thursday. As Minister of Labour, I'm looking into that. I would like to say, though, that the Premier did come to the celebration of life for Dad, which was great. His timing was impeccable.

He managed to slip into the front row unnoticed, at the singing of How Great Thou Art, and that wasn't missed by anybody. More alarming to all of us was when the Premier slipped up to the photograph of Dad and put on the corner a cap of the Boston Red Sox, Dad's beloved baseball team. I thought at that point I heard Dad clearing his throat, and I knew he would be passing on some ad- vice to the Premier. The problem was that we only had the theatre for an hour, and if Dad was passing on any advice to the Premier, we would be there for a good while longer than the hour we had.

To you all and to many other people throughout the government…. K. Krueger: Like father, like son. Hon. G. Bruce: Yes. If I may, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to finish by saying to the others through government and through- out the province who have passed on words of condo- lences and sympathy and support, on behalf of my family, thank you all very much. Introduction and First Reading of Bills FORESTS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 2002 Hon. M. de Jong presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled For- ests Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2002. Hon.

M. de Jong: I move that Bill 75 be introduced and read a first time now. Motion approved. Hon. M. de Jong: Today I am introducing Bill 75, Forests Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2002. Bill 75 includes an amendment to the Forest Act that will en- able me as Minister of Forests to access undercut tim- ber for the awarding of forest tenure directly to first nations. The bill transfers the remaining land use plan- ning provisions of the Forest Practices Code to the Min- ister of Sustainable Resource Management.

The bill also includes a number of streamlining amendments to the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act that will help with the transitioning from the existing Forest Practices Code to the results-based forest and range practices regime. The streamlining amendments will have an immediate reduction in regulatory burden, which licensees can enjoy through the two-year transition period until the results-based code is fully implemented. I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 75 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. [1415] COLLEGE OF APPLIED BIOLOGY ACT Hon. M. de Jong presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Col- lege of Applied Biology Act. Hon. M. de Jong: I move that Bill 76 be introduced and read a first time now. Motion approved. Hon. M. de Jong: I'm honoured today to introduce Bill 76, the College of Applied Biology Act.

This legisla- tion, the first of its kind in Canada, gives professional biologists the same recognition and responsibilities as other self-regulating professions like forestry, agrology, engineering and geoscience. The act establishes a col- lege of applied biology to oversee the profession of applied biology.

The college is charged with upholding and protecting the public interest by preserving and protecting the scientific methods and principles that are the foundation of the applied biology sciences; up- holding the principles of stewardship of aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems and biological resources; and ensuring the integrity, objectivity and expertise of its members. Recently I introduced the Forest and Range Prac- tices Act, which establishes a workable results-based code and reduces the forestry regulatory burden with- out compromising environmental values.

The key to meeting this commitment is to ensure that the govern- ment, natural resource industries and the people of British Columbia can rely upon highly trained, dedi- cated, accountable professions to make sound resource- management decisions. The new College of Applied Biology Act builds on that foundation by establishing a self-regulating pro- fession to oversee the field of applied biology. Biolo- gists act in the public interest in protecting the prov- ince's biodiversity, and with this legislation they are getting the recognition that they have earned.

I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today. Bill 76 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.

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 4447 ACTING POLICE COMPLAINT COMMISSIONER CONTINUATION ACT Hon. R. Coleman presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Act- ing Police Complaint Commissioner Continuation Act. Hon. R. Coleman: I move that Bill 77 be read a first time now. Motion approved. Hon. R. Coleman: I am pleased to introduce the Acting Police Complaint Commissioner Continuation Act, which extends the appointment of the acting po- lice complaint commissioner until a permanent com- missioner is appointed by this Legislature.

The appointment of the acting commissioner will expire on November 21, 2002, and there is no provision in the Police Act for the Legislative Assembly to reap- point him. We want to give the Special Committee to Appoint a Police Complaint Commissioner time to select the best possible candidate. It is not in the interests of the people of this province for the position to be vacant. Therefore, it is necessary to make this amendment and extend the appointment of the acting police complaint commissioner until a new appointment is made.

I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today. Bill 77 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. Statements (Standing Order 25

B) CONTRIBUTIONS OF TARA SINGH HAYER D. Hayer: Mr. Speaker, like many of my colleagues, I attended Remembrance Day ceremonies last week to honour all those who gave their lives and all those who fought so courageously for the freedom we enjoy today. There is another remembrance this week, Mr. Speaker, for a freedom fighter. Today is the day I re- member my father, who fought so diligently and was so dedicated to freedom of speech, freedom of expres- s i o n a n d t h e f r e e d o m s o m a n y o f u s t a k e f o r g r a n t e d today.

O n t h i s d a y f o u r y e a r s a g o m y f a t h e r , T a r a S i n g h Hayer, was brutally assassinated for standing up and speaking up through his newspaper for the freedoms we enjoy, for the democracy that we all enjoy today. In fact, my family has established a bursary in his name at Kwantlen University College and North Sur- rey Secondary School so that his name and the princi- ples he lived and died for will carry on. [1420] Another freedom fighter in my family, my uncle Sarwan Singh Shokar, who was a priest in London, England, died a few weeks ago.

We will be setting up a bursary to honour his work as well. So, Mr. Speaker, I remember not just the tragedies that have occurred to preserve our way of life, but I am reminded personally every day that we have all faced s ac ri f i c e s a nd t hat t o k e e p what we hav e and ho l d s o precious to our values, we all must be vigilant and must be willing to fight in as many ways possible so that we can preserve it. Terrorism has no place in our society. Intimidation, threats and assassination are in complete contravention of what Canadians hold so dear. On November 24, Mr.

Speaker, there will be a spe- cial memorial service for my late father at Surrey's Guru Nanak Sikh Temple. I invite all in this House to join me on that day to celebrate the life of my father and the contributions he made to further the cause of peace, security and freedom. CONTRIBUTIONS OF NORMA MICKELSON I. Chong: I t i s m y p l e a s u r e t o d a y t o a c k n o w l e d g e and pay tribute to a remarkable lady in my riding.

Last week while we were back in our constituencies I had the opportunity to attend one of four fall convocation ceremonies at the University of Victoria, an afternoon that had a special meaning for the chancellor, Dr. Norma Mickelson, for it was her last convocation be- fore her term expires at the end of this year. Dr. Norma Mickelson is UVic's eighth chancellor. Elected in 1996, she is an exceptional role model. Norma has dedicated her career to education. After attending Victoria College, she taught elementary school.

She went on to complete her bachelor of educa- tion at UBC before receiving her master's from UVic and her doctorate in educational psychology from the University of Washington. Norma specialized in reading and language acqui- sition. Her accomplishments are many, including the publication of more than 140 scholarly articles and a book, in addition to workshops and conference presen- tations around the world. All her work focused on providing teachers with the tools to teach reading in a supportive manner. Dr. Mickelson achieved many firsts.

She was the first female academic dean at a major Canadian univer- sity, the first woman president of the UVic faculty as- sociation, the university's first adviser on equity issues, and she is UVic's first female chancellor. Her hard work and commitment have been recog- nized through the many honours bestowed on her. In 1991 she received the first Sarah Shorten Award, rec- ognizing her commitment to the advancement of women in Canadian universities. In 1998 she received the Victoria YWCA Women of Distinction lifetime achievement award.

She is a recipient of both the Order of Canada and recently the Order of British Columbia. The alumni association named her one of UVic's most distinguished alumni. As the titular head of the university, who confers degrees, I know many faculty members and staff will

4448 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2002 miss her presence, but we all know that the legacy of her work will continue to benefit future learners. STATUS OF B.C. ECONOMY R. Nijjar: On November 6 the member for Vancouver- Hastings leaned over from her seat and said that she hadn't heard from me in a while. Well, she can hear me now. In the second quarter of this year, retail sales are up two times the national average; housing starts are up 21.3 percent, year to date; consumer spending from January to July is up 5.6 percent over the same period last year.

Between the second quarter and third quarter this year, non-residential building construction is up 6.8 percent in Vancouver and 6.6 percent in Victoria. Value of housing permits is up 38 percent over last year. Motor vehicle sales are up 19 percent in Septem- ber from last year. Oil and gas production is up 22 per- cent. Average weekly wages in B.C. are up 3.6 percent in the last year, and 90,000 new jobs were created in B.C. this year. According to a survey by Watson Wyatt World- wide, Vancouver workers can expect a 3.4 percent in- crease in salaries this year — more than any other Ca- nadian city.

Convergence recently announced that it will add 400 new jobs in its call centre in Kamloops. A n e w L i v e B r i d g e c a l l c e n t r e i n P r i n c e G e o r g e i s n o w expected to create 1,000 jobs in the next two years. The Tembec mill in Cranbrook will reopen after a year-long closure, putting 41 people back to work. [1425] Across government, $142 million is being spent on social housing, the largest provincial contribution to subsidized housing by any government in the history of British Columbia. The number of children in minis- try care decreased by more than 10 percent.

The Ca- nadian Association for Community Living and Inclu- sion International, worldwide organizations, have congratulated the B.C. government for its visionary approach to services for people with developmental disabilities. For the first time ever in the history of British Columbia, two million people are working in this province. Mr. Speaker: That concludes members' statements.

Hon. members, I would urge each and every one of you to read the statement that I left on your desks to- day. [Laughter.] I'm very serious about it, hon. mem- bers, because abuse of members' statements will not be tolerated in the future. Thank you. Oral Questions PRIVATIZATION OF B.C. HYDRO ASSETS J. MacPhail: Last week, after months of secrecy, the Minister of Energy finally told the public that B.C. Hy- dro will be split into two, and private power producers will get unfettered access to Hydro's transmission grid. But according to Michael Costello, B.C.

Hydro's chief operating officer, the downsides of this approach far outweigh the upsides for B.C. consumers, resulting in big rate increases. To the Minister of Energy: why does he insist on breaking up B.C. Hydro if, as B.C. Hydro's own analy- sis confirms, consumers in B.C. will end up paying more for their electricity? Hon. R. Neufeld: That letter was written to the gov- ernment by the president at the instruction of a left- leaning, politically appointed board, which that member was responsible for doing. That's what took place there. We have been very open with the people of British Columbia.

British Columbia Hydro will stay in public hands. We will continue to use B.C. Hydro as our advantage in British Columbia, with low electricity rates going well into the future so that we can create jobs in the province. That's what we intend to do. We intend to take the political meddling out of setting rates for B.C. Hydro, from the cabinet table — which that member was a part of doing — and return it to the B.C. Utilities Commission where it absolutely should be, to set properly for the people of British Columbia. We look forward to more good news in British Columbia. Mr.

Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplementary question. J. MacPhail: Since this letter was written by Mi- chael Costello…. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Let us hear the ques- tion. J. MacPhail: Since this letter was written by Mi- chael Costello, who remains at B.C. Hydro, the situa- tion around independent power production has gotten worse in North America, so for people to somehow disregard this letter is to put them completely out of touch with what's happening elsewhere in the world. That's what people suspect about this government: they are completely out of touch.

As the minister well knows, B.C. Hydro's capacity to sell high to Americans and Albertans at peak times and buy low at off-peak times results in the low rates for B.C. consumers — s o m e o f t h e l o w e s t i n N o r t h America. If we give private power unfettered access to our grid, that advantage disappears. The government doesn't have to listen to the member for Prince George–Omineca. They can call up the CEO of B.C. Hydro today and receive the same advice as is con- tained in this letter. Mr. Costello warns that allowing unfettered access to the grid for private power… Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order.

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 4449 J. MacPhail: …results in jobs leaving the province and big rate increases. Will the minister explain why he's jeopardizing B.C.'s competitive hydro rate advan- tage by breaking up B.C. Hydro and force-feeding con- sumers expensive private power? [1430] Hon. R. Neufeld: B.C. Hydro has been purchasing power from IPPs since 1989. In fact, in April of 2000 the previous administration put out a request through B.C. Hydro for IPPs for clean energy — interesting. Fifty applications came in, and 23 were accepted.

We have been using independent power producers in British Columbia before. We will continue into the future. There's no reason why we shouldn't have independent power producers risk their capital, build plants — not put the province further in debt — and provide good, cheap, clean electricity for the province, which we want to do to take us into the future. Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplementary. J.

MacPhail: I worry about this minister being in charge of such an important issue, because it's as if nothing has changed in North America in the electric- ity market, according to him, since 1989 or 1999. Well, here's what's changed. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order. J. MacPhail: British Columbians are already paying through the nose for Pharmacare, for MSP and for in- creased sales taxes. Now the Liberals want to jack up hydro rates — all to satisfy their ideological preoccupa- tion with privatization. This approach has been a disas- ter everywhere else.

In Ontario, as we speak, prices are going up and supply is stalled because private power companies are refusing to invest in new power genera- tion. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order. J. MacPhail: That's what's changed. B.C. Hydro now wants to do the same thing. Can the minister explain to this House and to every British Columbian why on earth his government is taking us down this dangerous privatization route of independent power when everyone — from the mem- ber for Prince George–Omineca to the mayors throughout this province to the CEO from B.C.

Hydro — is saying that it will lead to huge price increases because the supply will not be there? Hon. R. Neufeld: Well, it's no wonder that that person had trouble when she was in government and was running B.C. Hydro. It's no wonder that govern- ment had trouble adding and subtracting and realizing British Columbia's assets. It's also a little bit hard to take when we have said — and we ran on a platform, each and every one of us… Interjection. Hon. R. Neufeld: …that B.C. Hydro will stay in public hands. The core assets are going to stay in public hands for the benefit of British Columbians.

We're go- ing to re-regulate the industry the way it was before, and we're going to include IPPs in generation of new electricity. I've already explained it. It's interesting. I have a note that came out of her administration when she was in government. It says: "Sell big-ticket symbolic assets — British Columbia Hydro, British Columbia liquor, British Columbia Lot- tery, British Columbia railroad… Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Hon. R. Neufeld: …Columbia Power Corpora- tion… Interjection. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Hon. R.

Neufeld: …Insurance Corporation of Brit- ish Columbia, Bridge Studios, PNE, B.C. Place." It's pretty hard to take that from a member who was going to sell… Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order. Hon. R. Neufeld: …all the assets of British Colum- bia — to start talking the way she is now in this House. PREVENTION OF STREET RACING R. Lee: My question is to the Solicitor General. Traf- fic deaths on B.C. roads due to street racing by young people have become an all-too-common sight in our province.

Many of my constituents have approached me with their concerns and their plans to have the community become more involved in helping to pre- vent these accidents from occurring. However, they also believe that the province has an important part to play in helping to prevent these tragic deaths. Can the Solicitor General tell my constituents what steps his ministry has taken to address the issues of street rac- ing? Hon. R. Coleman: Our government has, as does our society, a zero tolerance with regard to street rac- ing. That's why we brought in legislation that allows

4450 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2002 police to immediately seize a motor vehicle involved in street racing for 48 hours on a first offence by im- pounding the vehicle. In addition to that impound- ment, we also have fines, criminal records and charges under the Criminal Code. We're not going to let people off the hook.

In addition, we also made it possible for the police to contact the superintendent of motor vehi- c l e s f r o m t h e r o a d s i d e i n a c a s e o f d a n g e r o u s d r i v i n g and ask for a suspension. [1435] Since that was put into place, over a hundred driv- ers have had their licences suspended for street racing in the province of British Columbia, and nine vehicles have been seized. I think, actually, we're sending the message to the community that we will not tolerate street racing in the province. Mr. Speaker: The member for Burnaby North has a supplementary question. R.

Lee: Education is one of the most important tools in the fight against street racing. Educating young people about the consequences of dangerous driving is probably the best policy in helping to re- duce incidents of street racing. Can the Solicitor Gen- eral tell my constituents what education programs are in place to teach young drivers the importance of safe driving? Hon. R. Coleman: There's a variety of programs in place. SUCCESS has put together some symposiums a n d d o n e s o m e w o r k w i t h r e g a r d s t o y o u n g p e o p l e and street racing.

There's one out in my riding with regards to what is called STARR, which is Students and Teachers Against Road Racing, that we're helping to get off the ground. CARS-BC, which is a youth-driven initiative, also goes with Road Sense back into schools and tries to work on this. This is a community problem. It's parental. It's the individual. It's education. It's responsibility. Everybody has to understand that we have to take responsibility for our actions. People should not street-race in this province, and we'll deal with it expeditiously if they do. PRIVATIZATION OF B.C. HYDRO ASSETS J.

Kwan: What the Minister of Energy and Mines doesn't understand is this: the previous government did not privatize Hydro. It had a discussion with cau- cus and listened to caucus. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order. Order, please. J. Kwan: All British Columbians want…. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us hear the question. Interjection. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. J. Kwan: All British Columbians want is for the min- ister to come clean on his plans for B.C. Hydro. They want to know why the government is planning to force- feed them expensive private power when B.C.

Hydro already provides the best rates in the country and can generate new capacity cheaper than the private sector. Will the minister agree to immediately table the s e c r e t t a s k f o r c e r e p o r t t h a t h e ' s b e e n s i t t i n g o n f o r eight months — not next week, not the week after, but immediately table the report — and agree to hold for- mal public meetings before he lifts a finger to destroy Hydro and jack up rates? Hon. R. Neufeld: We will release that report in the very near future, along with an energy plan that's go- ing to take British Columbia well into the future.

It's going to maintain low hydro rates in the province. It's going to maintain B.C. Hydro within public hands, owned by the public, owned by the people of British Columbia for our advantage well into the future. It's more good news. I can tell you that people are going to be happy about our plan moving into the future with energy from a wide array of sources, not just electrical energy. They tend to forget that there's all kinds of other en- ergy in the province: coalbed methane, natural gas off- shore. You name it — coal? — we've got it, and we're going to exercise our right to develop that. Mr.

Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a supplementary question. J. Kwan: Well, that's not what Mr. Michael Costello has to say. It is all downside when you privatize Hy- dro, all the downsides to privatizing Hydro. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Let us hear the ques- tion. J. Kwan: It's an embarrassment how this minister has handled the file. He's refused to release the report. He says next week. Why won't he release the report now, not next week, not the following week? Why won't he commit to the public and to the back bench of this government so that they will have a say as well?

Hold full public meetings so that everyone can have a say on the future of Hydro, on the public-privatization of Hydro, before you take action to destroy it. Hon. R. Neufeld: Again, the member's been asleep. We've been out there since last year and, in fact, were criticized for asking for information as long ago as last August. From the public we have letters, all kinds of submissions, where we asked for input to put together

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 4451 an energy plan for the province. This member's just waking up to that today, but those members were too busy… Interjection. Mr. Speaker: Order, order. [1440] Hon. R. Neufeld: …spending about $500 million on fast ferrie s that woul dn't flo at. The province of Britis h Columbia consumes domestically almost all the energy we produce. Those members should know — I hope they would know — that in the last ten years we have been net importers of electricity.

We have to look for new development, new electricity to come on stream, so that we can continue to maintain the lowest-possible rates we have in the province. GOVERNMENT PLAN FOR HEALTH CARE SYSTEM K. Krueger: Recently the Canadian Institute for Health Information released figures demonstrating that on a per-capita basis, British Columbia's spending on health care leads Canada. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order. Order, please. Let us hear the question. K. Krueger: Would you like me to start over, Mr. Speaker? Mr. Speaker: Yes, please do. K.

Krueger: Recently the Canadian Institute for Health Information released figures demonstrating that on a per-capita basis, British Columbia's spending on health care leads Canada. While my constituents defi- nitely want the best health care system possible, they also want a system that is sustainable. My question is to the Minister of Health Planning. What is the government doing to ensure sustainability while at the same time ensuring that British Columbi- ans continue to receive the best-quality health care? Hon. S. Hawkins: Our government wants to make sure patients get the care they need where they live.

That's why we've not only protected the health budget but added $1.1 billion to it over the last year. We're now spending $2,684 for every man, woman and child in B.C. That's $400 more than two years ago, and that's $329 more than the national average. You know, money isn't the only answer. We've made moves to make the system more sustainable.

We reduced the number of health authorities from the mess the last government created — 52 health authori- ties — d o w n t o s i x , s o w e c o u l d f i n d a d m i n i s t r a t i v e savings, so we could decrease duplication, so we could enhance cooperation and coordination of services be- tween communities. Health authorities know that every dollar they save, they target right back to patient care. We're also the first jurisdiction in North America to set access standards for care.

For the first time ever we have performance contracts with our health authorities to make sure they're held accountable for positive pa- tient outcomes. We're working with health authorities to restructure and stabilize services so that patients have the health services they can count on in their communities. [End of question period.] Reports from Committees B. Lekstrom: I have the honour to present the first report of the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services for the third session of the thirty-seventh parliament. I move the report be taken as read and received. Motion approved. B.

Lekstrom: I ask leave of the House to suspend the rules to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report. Leave granted. B. Lekstrom: I move the report be adopted. This report reflects what our committee, the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Ser- vices, heard from British Columbians. We toured this province, travelled to 13 communities, and along with that we received 88 written submissions. This report reflects the true commitment of a government that's open and accountable.

We didn't present a report on what the committee wanted to say; we put forward a report on what the committee heard from British Co- lumbians. This report clearly states that the people of British Columbia that presented to our committee and wrote to us said: "Stay the course. We know it's a difficult decision, but we want you to do that. We want you to balance your budget." But if the opportunity avails itself, there are four key recommendations included in that report. It's very clear that those four recommenda- tions contain monetary issues in them. [1445] What's also in that report, if you read it, Mr.

Speaker — and I'm sure you have — is that these c h a n g e s , i f t h e y ' r e a c c o m p l i s h e d , h a v e t o b e m a d e within the fiscal mandate of this government. I think that's a very key, key statement. I think this report reflects what British Columbians expect from a select standing committee of the Legisla- ture, a committee that has toured the province, a com- mittee that has listened to British Columbians, a com- mittee that reflects what they heard from those British

4452 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2002 Columbians and has not reflected what a government may want to hear. I think it's very clear, though — and I'm very encouraged by the message that I heard, along with my colleagues on this committee — that as diffi- cult as it is, there is no way we can continue down the area of spending more money in this province than we bring in. The people are soundly behind the idea of balancing our budget, and when that budget is bal- anced, then we can begin the economic recovery and debt repayment

schedule that's so rightly needed in this province of ours. In concluding, I want to thank the members of my committee that I had the opportunity to work with. I want to thank the staff that helped out so much in the development of this report, in travelling with us and setting things up, and I really want to commend the people of British Columbia that took the time out of their busy lives to come and present to our committee at one of the public forums or took time to write in and express their views.

I think it says a great deal about the people of our province that when they know times are tough, they want us to stay the course, and if the possibility avails itself once again, there are four key areas they would like us to have a look at in the direc- tion we've taken. Thank you very much. Mr. Speaker: On the question of the adoption of the report, the Leader of the Opposition. J. MacPhail: I was a member of the committee, and I travelled the province as much as I could with the ten other Liberal MLAs. I read every single brief that was presented, including the almost 100 written submis- sions.

I'm not signing on to this report, not because of what's in the report but because of the failure of the committee to address how the Finance minister could possibly achieve the recommendations of this report.

The four recommendations that the committee made did reflect what the public heard — there's no question about that — and the four recommendations, including other notes made in the report, recommend that the Minister of Finance, in the upcoming budget and the following budget, spend hundreds of millions o f d o l l a r s m o r e t o r e c o v e r t h e d a m a g e d o n e f r o m t h e c u t s t h a t h a v e b e e n m a d e b y t h i s g o v e r n m e n t .

W h a t the report fails to do, though, is tell the Minister of Fi- nance how that can be achieved given his failed eco- nomic policies on revenue generation. There is a gap in the logic between the report's rec- ommendations and the reality of this government's eco- nomic initiatives that have failed miserably. The one economic initiative that was promised by this govern- ment and has failed and has led to this report is the submission by the Minister of Finance, by the Premier, that tax cuts would pay for themselves.

Because that has failed, we now have a gap in the two aspects of the re- port: to stay the course and balance the budget and yet spend almost half a billion dollars on social spending that has been cut by this government. It is incumbent on a government that claims to have a responsibility for fiscal matters, a government that claims to be fiscally responsible, for the government caucus to answer that question. I asked for that question to be debated. We didn't, and therefore I have not signed the report. Hon. G. Collins: I think this is a good opportunity for us to have a bit of a discussion around this.

Perhaps the member wasn't paying attention earlier when the member from Vancouver stood up and listed the long list of areas where the economy is performing far better than elsewhere in Canada, where we're leading the country, where we've got great growth and where there are huge job opportunities. I think she should start paying attention to the good news out there in- stead of just the bad news that she tries to perpetrate on a daily basis.

I also know from the deliberations, from what I've heard from our members of the committee, that the member opposite didn't offer any solutions or any sug- gestions as to where those revenues are to come. The only issue I've heard her address today was that issue of income tax reduction. I can only assume that the member opposite, the leader of the NDP and member for Vancouver-Hastings, would be advocating a 25 percent across-the-board income tax increase in order to restore things to the way they were under the NDP, which was leading us down the path of depression, recession… Interjection. Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. [1450] Hon. G. Collins: …and slow growth in British Co- lumbia. Interjection. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Hon. G. Collins: Mr. Speaker, the reality is that this province, which used to lead the country in economic growth year after year after year, declined during the 1990s and in 1999-2000, when that member was a min- ister of the Crown, fell over the cliff and became a have-not province to the point where we now accept transfer payments from the other provinces to British Columbia. We've seen the NDP economic agenda. It took us from first to last.

We're going to turn this prov- ince around. That's well underway. Look at the statis- tics. They're all out there for you to read if you choose to look at them. Mr. Speaker: The member for Peace River South closes debate. B. Lekstrom: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Certainly, I feel it's incumbent on myself to respond to the statements and comments by the member for Vancouver-

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 4453 Hastings. The issue of the committee is laid out quite clearly in our terms of reference. We toured the prov- ince, and we listened to British Columbians. Out of the number of British Columbians that came forward to speak to us at the public hearings or put in their written submissions, I can tell you that what is reflected in that report truly reflects what was said. What wasn't said by members of the public is where t h a t m o n e y s h o u l d c o m e f r o m i f i t c o u l d b e f o u n d .

I think, as a member of a committee and as the Chair of this committee, that it would be very presumptuous of us as a committee to come up with our own ideas and say, "This is what we want to do," when we didn't hear that from the people of British Columbia. J. MacPhail: I bet you the Premier said: "Don't an- swer that question." B. Lekstrom: I think it's very important to recog- nize that the job that our Minister of Finance has…. He carries a heavy load. He takes it on willingly, and he does a tremendous job on behalf of British Columbia. J. MacPhail: "Don't answer that question." B.

Lekstrom: The issue as far as the member stating that we shouldn't answer the question…. I'm more than willing to answer…. Interjection. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order. Just a moment. The Leader of the Opposition, please recognize that someone else has the floor. Thank you. B. Lekstrom: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to read just one part of this report, one sen- tence.

It says: "We recognize that budget-making in- volves making difficult choices at the best of times and that the financial decisions about any additional spend- ing in the next two budgets will have to be made" — and I want this to be listened to and clearly understood — "within the constraints of the existing fiscal plan and the ministry spending targets." With all due respect to the member who won't sign the report, I think, again, that it would be very pre- sumptuous of a committee to tell our Minister of Fi- nance where that money should come from when our Minister of Finance is asked to do this on behalf of the people of British Columbia.

The Premier has asked the Hon. Gary Collins, our Minister of Finance, to work with that portfolio, and I think he's done a tremendous job. I also think that every minister that's involved in this process puts their heart and soul into this job. They come here to make British Columbia a better place. I'm proud of the report we've put forward here today, and I'll stand behind it. Once again, I thank my colleagues that lent their support. Mr. Speaker: The question is the adoption of the report. Motion approved. Tabling Documents Hon. G.

Bruce: I have the honour to present the annual report for the Ministry of Skills Development and Labour for the year 2001-02. Hon. G. Plant: I have the honour to present the 2001-02 annual report for the public guardian and trus- tee of British Columbia. Orders of the Day Hon. G. Collins: I call committee stage debate of Bill 70. [1455] Committee of the Whole House RESIDENTIAL TENANCY ACT (continued) The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 70; J. Weisbeck in the chair. The committee met at 2:58 p.m. On

section 18 (continued). J. Kwan: We were debating

section 18 before we had a break to go back to our own constituencies last week. The issue with the pet damage deposit and the terms in the new act, in my opinion, provide for a lesser act than what was in place,

an act that actually outright allows for the prohibiting of pets. It makes no discrimination between what kinds of pets we are talk- ing about, or the size of pets. There is what some would call the no-goldfish clause. In other words, you could actually be charged a damage deposit if you had a pot of goldfish in your home versus an alligator in your home. This is rather, in my view, problematic.

It is also problematic from the point of view that it imposes a pet damage deposit. [1500] In fact, just last week when I went back to the con- stituency, in consulting with tenants organizations, seniors and individual families about this new act, I was informed by at least one individual that before the act has been passed, the landlord is already imposing a damage deposit on tenants for the ownership of pets — in fact, not even suggesting the half month's applica- tion in terms of a pet damage deposit but a full month's pet damage deposit. This has already taken place.

The damage is already out there in the community. I think it is a very aggressive act. I was very sorry to learn that last Thursday night just before the House recessed, the motion I had tabled to strike out the prohibition of pets and restricting of the sizes and kinds of pets a tenant may keep and also the suggestion to strike out the damage deposit was ruled by the Chair to be contrary to the intent of the act. I was very disappointed about that, because our

4454 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2002 staff did check with the Clerk's office beforehand to make sure that the amendments were in order. Having said that, I'd like to simply conclude that for

section 18, the opposition will not be supporting the amendments as put forward by the government.

Section 18 approved on the following division: [1505] YEAS — 64 Falcon Coell Hogg L. Reid Halsey-Brandt Hawkins Whittred Hansen J. Reid Bruce Santori van Dongen Barisoff Nettleton Roddick Wilson Masi Lee Murray Plant Collins Clark Bond de Jong Stephens Abbott Neufeld Coleman Chong Penner Jarvis Anderson Orr Harris Brenzinger Belsey Bell Long Chutter Mayencourt Trumper R. Stewart Hayer Christensen Krueger McMahon Bray Les Locke Nijjar Bhullar Bloy Suffredine Cobb K. Stewart Visser Lekstrom Brice Sultan Hamilton Sahota Hawes Kerr Hunter NAYS — 3 MacPhail Kwan Johnston On

section 19. J. Kwan:

Section 19, at least according to the gov- ernment's press release, deals with the fact that in addi- tion to half a month's rent, the new regulation will now allow for landlords to collect an extra deposit for keys, access cards and garage door openers. This could be a substantial amount.

The minister, the Solicitor General himself, has said in the House that it could be up to $100, and for tenants on income assistance, on disabil- ity benefits, on fixed income and for seniors who are on fixed incomes, this will of course put financial pressure on them. [1510] Could the minister please advise — and perhaps he may not have consulted with his colleague the Minister of Human Resources — whether or not the Ministry of Human Resources will provide for, under this

section of the act, the extra deposit for keys, access cards or garage door openers? Hon. R. Coleman: The $100 is what we feel would be the maximum, and we will do that in the reg- m a k i n g p o w e r s . W e w i l l i d e n t i f y t h a t a m o u n t a s t h e maximum amount allowable for deposits for keys or things like garage door openers — t h a t s o r t o f t h i n g . That wasn't something that was objected to by either the tenants or the landlord groups. Both of them seemed to feel comfortable with that when we talked to them. I don't know what the member's issue, necessar- ily, is with it. On the other side of the coin, we debated the pet damage deposit in

section 18. I think we were pretty clear on the reasons for that. J. Kwan: That wasn't my question at all to the min- ister. My question to the minister is this: has he con- sulted with his colleague the Minister of Human Re- sources about whether or not they would also provide for the extra deposit that is now required for keys, ac- cess cards, garage door openers and the like? Actually, just last week when the House was not sit- ting, I spoke with seniors, I spoke with tenant advocacy groups, and I spoke with income assistance advocacy groups.

They were very concerned about some of these changes — inclusive of this change — requiring, poten- tially, an additional $100 that tenants would have to pay. The question to the minister is: has he consulted with the Minister of Human Resources on this issue? Would income assistance recipients, as at least one group of the people who would face financial barriers if this deposit were required…? Would there be sup- port from his own government, his own colleague who is responsible for income assistance, that this deposit would be covered by income assistance? Hon. R.

Coleman: I guess we both talked to land- lord and tenant groups last week, because I did too. I even talked to some people that worked in residential tenancy in this province for many, many years and have said they're looking forward to the new act be- cause they think it's actually going to make the opera- tion of residential tenancy relationship in the office that much better. W e d o n't hav e an ans we r b ac k f ro m S o c i al Se rv i c e s for the member's question. We will endeavour to get it, as this debate goes through, and get back to her on that.

My understanding is that they're not anticipating they will pay any pet damage deposits. They'll continue to pay the damage deposit, but there's been no feedback with regards to the up to $100 for deposit for keys. J. Kwan: Wouldn't you think it would be prudent to talk to the Minister of Human Resources to make sure that they will actually provide for this increase in damage deposit? The fact is this: a key is pretty substantive to a ten- ancy. If you don't have a key, you can't get in. If a ten-

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 4455 ant or a prospective tenant doesn't have the money to provide for such a deposit, would that mean they would be denied access to their own new home? Is that the implication? Can a landlord deny that access if they refuse to pay for the key deposit or garage door access card deposit? Is that a requirement as part of the ten- ancy?

If we don't know the answer from the Minister of Human Resources about whether or not they pay for it, doesn't that jeopardize the lowest-income marginalized residents — those who are on income assistance — potentially denying them a home? Hon. R. Coleman: Like I said, I will get the member the answer to that question. I will do that. We will send a note out to see where they're at with that discussion. This is not intended to deny anybody access to their ability to enter into rental accommodation.

At the same time, whatever that amount is — up to the $100 — is something that's negotiated as part of the tenancy agreement. J. Kwan: The minister says and commits that he will speak with the Minister of Human Resources with respect to this question. What if the Minister of Human Resources says: "No, I'm sorry, our budget actually doesn't allow for this deposit"? What will happen in that case? Is the minister suggesting, then, that will not be applied? A landlord cannot apply a requirement for a key deposit as part of a tenancy agreement? [1515] Hon. R.

Coleman: We are going to work those de- tails out as we work through the consultation with the tenants groups and the landlord groups as we do regu- lations. We will get the answer to the other part of that question for you. You know, this is something that both groups have told us they didn't have any difficulty with, so I'm sur- prised that the member has a tenants group that has changed their mind. That doesn't surprise me; I suppose that could happen.

In our consultation process it was a recognized thing that there was a cost in trying to get keys back or garage door openers, or whatever the case may be, in some tenancies. It's not something that has to be charged in every tenancy. It's only cost recovery. It's to make sure that the cost is recoverable for the landlord. R. Stewart: I have a couple of questions about pets in housing. I note that sections 18, 19, 20, 23, etc., all deal with pets in housing and the moves that govern- ment is trying to make to permit or encourage the per- mitting of pets in housing that the government doesn't own, of course.

I was concerned, because I wasn't actu- ally in the chamber on Thursday the 7th, I think it was, when the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant rose and said that the government is now bringing in legis- lation that will allow for refusal of pets in rental ac- commodation. She said that a number of times into the Hansard. She was implying that this legislation will permit landlords for the first time in history, I gather, to refuse to permit pets in rental accommodation.

That one struck me as odd , s o I wanted to ask the Solicitor General, first off: is it the case that this is the first time landlords will have the right to refuse pets in rental accommodation? Hon. R. Coleman: It's never been dealt with in leg- islation before. This actually clarifies the rules as far as a prohibition of pets, allowing for the pet damage de- posit and allowing for the fact that the two — the land- lord and the tenant — can enter into an agreement with respect to pets in the tenancy agreement. R.

Stewart: It's clear that in the past, landlords have refused permission for tenants to have pets in rental accommodation — is it not? It seems to me that is some- thing that has been going on for at least the decade when the previous government was in power — that landlords traditionally…. I guess that was a problem. In fact, the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant referred to it a number of times in her long discussion about this clause and in the discussion at second.

I'm concerned, though, that there seems to be an impression that prior to this, all landlords permitted pets and that now we are going to be bringing in legis- lation that will allow for the refusal of pets. Is it the case that all landlords accepted pets before? [1520] Hon. R. Coleman: In tenancy agreements now landlords can define pets — what type of pet, whether they're allowed or not, or what have you. The problem was in clarifying what a pet was and what a no-pet clause was. This legislation really allows them to define their building — basically, to define that relationship.

The intent here is to say, okay, a landlord can make a decision that he has a building or buildings or a sin- gle unit that he doesn't want to have pets in. They can now enter into a tenancy agreement with somebody who doesn't have a pet and decide between the two of them that they agree that there will be no pet. It also allows for pets to be in the tenancy agreement, for that relationship to take place between a landlord and ten- ant and, if so wished, for a landlord to take up to half a month's additional damage deposit for a pet if they wish to have a pet put in a tenancy agreement.

Now, given that, the comment back by industry was: "If you allow us the deposit and allow us to define the pet within our tenancy agreements, whether we want them or not, then the industry will adjust, and we think that there will be more pets allowed in tenancies.

By not allowing us to have that choice, since we're the investor, we think you're actually going to restrict the growth of investment in property so that we can deal with this." I identified, way back when I was the opposition critic for housing as early as 1996, the fact that I felt this province was going to face a rental crisis simply be- cause there were a number of things within the mar- ketplace, including this situation, that just weren't clearly defined so that people could make the decision

4456 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2002 as to how they could operate a piece of property that they've made a personal investment in and taken a personal risk in. I think the intent of what we're trying to accomplish here is clear. You're going to be able to make the choice as a landlord with your tenant as to whether you're going to have pets or not. When you make that choice, you're also going to be able to identify what the pets are and how the behaviour of the pets should be dealt with and handled within the tenancy for the benefit of both landlords and tenants.

I think that's an important step forward. R. Stewart: I thank the Solicitor General, because I see in this a tremendous benefit for tenants. It has been a concern of mine for many years that landlords had little option when it came to permitting pets in rental accommodation. In fact, it was something I raised with the previous government. I wonder if, perhaps, you could fill me in a little bit. I'm not certain of everything that the previous government did. The Solicitor General was housing critic.

Perhaps I could ask the Solicitor General, then, if at any time dur- ing the previous government's reign, particularly the last term of their time in office, particularly when the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant was in cabinet and particularly when she had some responsibility for the housing portfolio…. Could the Solicitor General explain whether at any time the previous government took a step to try to solve the problem that the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has raised? She has raised the issue that this, for the first time, will allow for the refusal of pets in rental accommoda- tion. That's not true.

The concern I've got, then, is: did the previous government ever do anything specifically to permit a tenant to have a pet in rental accommoda- tion? Did the previous government ever move to solve the problem they have identified so carefully in the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant's private member's bill and in debate of this legislation as well? Hon. R.

Coleman: I think it's safe to say that the same people who — I guess we could call it — lobbied government with regards to pets when we became government 18 months ago were also lobbying for something that said landlords had to have pets in their residential tenancies in the previous time under the previous government. I know I debated with the then Attorney General this particular piece of legislation in its old form many, many times in estimates and had great discussions with them with regards to it. The only thing that ever came forward to the House was a private member's bill that was brought forward.

The Residential Tenancy Act was never the respon- sibility of the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. That act always rested with the Attorney General of B.C. I don't know if the member was here. He may not have been in the House when I began debate on this act. I told the story about the then Attorney General bumping into me in the dining room downstairs prior to some estimate debates back in 1996 with regards to residential tenancy. He said: "How long do you think we'll spend on residential tenancy today?" I said: "Oh, two to three hours." He said: "Good.

I didn't under- stand the act when I was in law school, and I don't r e a l l y u n d e r s t a n d i t n o w . " T h a t m a y h a v e b e e n t h e description of how this piece of legislation, the regula- tions and the rules around it have morphed over time. [1525] Our intent here was to try to strike a balance somewhere to see if we could get the market to start to have more pets in tenancies because we've made the rules clear and actually have people understanding that (

a) you can prohibit pets, but (

b) you can also take pets. We'd like you to take pets and so much so that we're going to allow you to take an additional deposit to make you feel comfortable in taking it and building that relationship with your tenant, which you would then describe in a tenancy agreement as to how you want that relationship with the pet to be handled. As any member of this House that's ever had a conversation with anybody from the different groups knows, it's a difficult issue. It's an issue of: what is the right of the individual to protect their investment?

What is the right of the individual that's going to be occupying a tenancy with regards to that? If you clearly define that in tenancy agreements and build the relationship from that perspective, landlord to tenant, rather than somebody trying to legislate behaviour, I think we're way further ahead. R. Stewart: I really do believe this is a tremendous move forward, and I recognize there's a long debate about whether, in fact, the landlord should have the rights to protect his property by regulating the occu- pants of the property in some way. That debate won't end today. It will certainly continue after today.

I think the move forward that we've made today — the move forward to permit landlords and tenants to work out the arrangements necessary to permit pets, the move that would encourage landlords to accept pets in rental accommodation — is a very good one, and I support that move. J. Kwan: You know what? All any member in this House has to do is look at the previous legislation and see what it says. It is very clear that there are no provi- sions in the previous legislation that prohibit pets in rental accommodations.

What the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville just voted for minutes ago is a clause that says that "a ten- ancy agreement may include terms or conditions doing either or both of the following: (

a) prohibiting pets or restricting the size, kind or number of pets a tenant may keep in their rental unit." Let's be clear in terms of what this legislation says. For the first time in legisla- tion under the Residential Tenancy Act, the govern- ment has now put in a clause that will allow for the prohibition of pets. That was

section 18, by the way. We already debated and voted against…. The member

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 4457 for Vancouver-Hastings and myself in opposition and the member for Vancouver-Fraserview voted against that section. Make no mistake about it. To pretend otherwise, you're only pretending, and I'm not sure who the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville is trying to fool. To suggest that the old legislation says this, and there was nothing the previous government had done…. You know what? The previous legislation never pro- hibited it. Yes, it needed clarity.

After the election this government said that they were going to deal with it and address some of those issues. What kind of clarity was brought forward? It brought forward clarity that said pets could now be prohibited in a rental accom- modation. In addition to that, there would be a damage deposit charge, to many people's opposition. Anyway, I don't wish to re-debate the pet debate under

section 18, because we've already done that both last week and today.

Section 19 deals with the limits on the amount of deposits. The issue that I want to get back to with the Solicitor General is around the amount of deposits with respect to not just pets, but a deposit that will now potentially cost, by the Solicitor General's own admission, up to $100 for keys, access cards, ga- rage door openers and the like. In my view, a key to a home is an essential component to someone's resi- dency. If the person is not able to pay for the key de- posit, what will happen? Can the landlord deny access for that person? Can the landlord deny access for that tenant?

Will there be interest compounded and paid on these extra deposits? [1530] These are questions for the minister. I know the Solicitor General says: "Don't worry. We'll deal with those in regulation." Well, we're passing the act right now, before this House, that allows for such a provi- sion, so I don't think we can wait to find out: "Well, gee, let's see what happens." For the minister to suggest that nobody raised this matter with him….

I know that some of the questions I'm raising in this House and all of these questions from the tenancy advocacy groups and the Tenants Rights Action Coalition were shared with the minister and every member of this House. The minister knows very well about this concern. It wasn't just dreamt up yesterday. The tenancy groups actually raised it. They shared these questions and their con- cerns with the minister. Hon. R. Coleman: The member is actually entering into a debate about what I described in second reading as up to $100 deposit for keys, garage door openers — that sort of thing.

There are some buildings where the actual cost of some of the entry keys or the entry sys- tems are very expensive, so it was felt that it would be fair. Basically, I'll take the member back to the security part of the definition within the act where, under sec- tion (c), it says: "a fee prescribed under

section 97(2)(k) [regulations in relation to fees]." We are going to set that fee in regulation. It's not going to be a fee that, in my opinion, would ever go over $100, because in regulation I can't see where the deposit could be higher, and we're not going to allow it to be higher. It may be that when we do the regulation, that number is $50. We will know that as we go through in consultation, when we do the regulations with industry. The member's question with regards to the tenancy arrangement….

All fees and security deposits are to be deposited at the time of the tenancy as part of the ten- ancy agreement, and the tenant and landlord have to meet the terms of the tenancy agreement. J. Kwan: Will there be interest compounded on this deposit? Hon. R. Coleman: As I said, as part of the tenancy agreement, it has to be part of the very beginning. Ob- viously, if there are a fee and a damage deposit that are due at the time of a tenancy agreement…. If they don't pay, the tenancy agreement hasn't been acted upon, and therefore you have no tenancy agreement.

There- fore, what would you be compounding, unless you're going to, by arrangement, have a particular deposit paid later? And it better be in writing, because the rules will be pretty clear. J. Kwan: Well, under the current rules…. I assume the application will still be applicable here, and that is t h a t e v e n o n j u s t a s t r i c t l y d a m a g e d e p o s i t — half a month's rent, the damage deposit…. The landlord col- lects that money, and until the tenant vacates the unit and when the damage deposit is returned, interest is compounded on that money.

So on these extra fees, which I presume will go through no matter what the amount is, whether it be $50 or $100, the question is: will there be interest compounded on this deposit to be returned to the tenant at the time of the expiry of the tenancy? Hon. R. Coleman: Yes, it would be treated just like a damage deposit and the interest that's prescribed under the regulation. J. Kwan: In the event that the Minister of Human Resources does not have the budget for this extra de- posit…. Maybe for the Solicitor General, $50 or $100 may not be a lot.

In his own press release the Solicitor General said that the deposit could be up to $100. It would be, perhaps, a range — $50, $100. For people on a very low income…. When you are on income assis- tance, your housing portion, generally speaking, for a single person is $325. The food component is less than $200. It's less than $200 with a reduced rate. When you take $50 away from that minuscule amount, which a person…. If they have to pay for a key deposit, $50 or even $20 is a lot of money. [1535] Can I get the commitment, then, from the minister that if…?

I assume this clause will pass, unless the min- ister is prepared to stand it down until such time as we know the answer from the Minister of Human Re- sources, but given that we don't know the answer, will the Solicitor General, in this House, give the commit-

4458 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2002 ment to ensure that people on income assistance would not be denied access to housing because of this extra fee? Will he actually commit to make sure that some- where, whether it be through the Ministry of Human Resources or elsewhere, those extra dollars will actu- ally be provided to people on income assistance so that they will not be faced with a situation where they would not be able to secure a home because they are unable to come up with the extra deposit that is now required by legislation? Hon. R.

Coleman: When we do this regulation, it will deal specifically with something in the order of certain types of keys or access systems where there is a substantial cost to replace. This isn't something about getting the key to the door, which is given on every tenancy. This is about identifying where those concerns are. There have been concerns identified by both land- lord and tenant groups. I cannot speak for the budget of the Ministry of Social Services. They will have to adjust accordingly to how leg- islation passes in this House.

We are going to allow for a deposit for certain types of things with regards to that as we prescribe in regulation, and we'll work that out be- tween all parties, including that ministry and the member, if she wants to have input into it, as we do the regulation. The Chair: For the information of the Chair, there is an amendment sitting on the order paper to

section 19. I'm asking the minister when he wants to introduce that. J. Kwan: The answer that the Solicitor General gave, quite frankly, is not good enough; it's not good enough.

You cannot have one branch of the govern- ment — in this instance the Solicitor General, who is responsible for the Residential Tenancy Act — say that we're now going to put in a clause that would allow for an extra deposit to be required to secure a tenancy and then, on the other hand, another branch of government, who has had no discussion with the minister on this, affecting hundreds and thousands of people who are the poorest people in the province, who depend on government assistance to have shelter, to have food and in order to survive.

If the Solicitor General cannot give reassurances in this House to say that when that extra deposit is required, it will be covered by the Min- istry of Human Resources, then the Solicitor General is putting forward a big question mark in terms of secu- rity of homes for people on income assistance. Quite frankly, it's not good enough.

It's not good enough for the government to come forward with such a change after supposedly ongoing consultation that this Solicitor General claims he has done, and has not even bothered to walk across the office to his colleague the Minister of Human Re- sources to say: "By the by, I'm bringing forward this recommendation, and it may well impact hundreds and thousands of your clients. I want to make sure that this is covered off so that their homes — their need for safe, secure housing — will not be jeopardized." The minister hasn't even bothered to do that. It is shocking to me, quite frankly.

We know from the week before, when we debated

section 18 on the deposit for pets, that the Solicitor General rose in this House and said that this govern- ment is not in the business of providing damage depos- its required for pets and that they will provide a dam- age deposit for humans only, notwithstanding that there are a lot of people on income assistance who have pets, particularly seniors and particularly those on dis- ability. We know that there was no consultation there. I already objected to that issue.

But here on the issue around keys, whether it be a security access thing to get in through the main gate or another lock through the building, it's essentially the same. You can't get into your unit with your own key if you can't get through the main gate. Go figure. It's not that illogical to sort of figure that out and say: "Hey, you know what? If I don't get this access to the main gate, I'm not going to be able to get into my unit." It is the same net effect, and that is that you will not be able to get into your home unless you pay a de- posit. That's what this provision is allowing for.

It will create tremendous hardships for a lot of people. [1540] The opposition will not be supporting this section,

section 19, for all the reasons I've highlighted. We will not support a provision that allows for a damage deposit for pets in addition. I am going to move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper relating to sec- tion 19, "Limits on amount of deposits." The amendment would strike out the words "either" and "or a pet dam- age deposit" in

section 19(1) and in

section 19(2) strike out the letter in parentheses, "(a)," and the last word, "or," then strike out sub-subsection (

b) altogether so that the amended motion would read as follows: [SECTION 19 is amended by deleting the text highlighted by strikethrough and adding the text highlighted by underline: Limits on amount of deposits 19

(1) A landlord must not require or accept either a security deposit or a pet damage deposit that is greater than the equivalent of ¹⁄₂ of one month's rent payable under the tenancy agreement.

(2) If a landlord accepts (

a) a security deposit, or (

b) a pet damage deposit that is greater than the equivalent of ¹⁄₂ of one month's rent payable under the tenancy agreement, or that is greater than the amount the tenant agreed to pay as a security deposit or a pet damage deposit under the tenancy agreement, the tenant may deduct the overpayment from rent or otherwise recover the overpayment.] On the amendment. Hon. R. Coleman: We will not be supporting the amendment as put forward by the member. Just so the member can understand, our intention in regulation is that the normal access, which would be the front door into your apartment or the front door of a building, will be

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 4459 covered as part of our standard-form tenancy agreement. The up to $100 is over and above the basic access to a building. It could be something the tenant and landlord would agree to in a tenancy agreement — that somebody wants an electric garage door opener or whatever the case may be — and allow for that. The basic key access is going to be part of the tenancy agreement. The deposit we're talking about is for exceptions over and above that. It's not even actually included in

section 19. With regards to the rest of it, we feel that

section 19 covers it. We do have an amendment to

section 19(2) that's the clarity of some language, which we'll get to after we deal with the member's amendment. J. Kwan: Speaking to the amendment, on the issue around the pet deposit I will only simply say this. Re- quiring a pet deposit will create a two-tier access issue. Those who have the ability to pay will have a better opportunity to get rental accommodation for the pur- poses of also accommodating a pet. Those who don't have the ability to pay would not have any option open to them when a damage deposit is required for the purposes of a pet. It creates a two-tier system. It's as simple as that.

I don't think we want to, in our society, say that if you have money, you can have better access. That's not choice or access, quite frankly. We should equalize that to give equal opportunity and clarity in legislation to allow people to understand better what is allowed and what is not allowed. I think there should be language that says in the case of pets….

With all of the demonstrated reports — health reports particularly — that say pets are actually good for you, good for a person's health, and that they save govern- ment money and save the individual money for better health, it should therefore be something we should sup- port. To create an extra barrier, a financial barrier, I be- lieve is not the way to go. It's regrettable that the gov- ernment will not be supporting this amendment. [1545] K. Johnston: I was going to ask questions of the minister in terms of

section 19, but I think it's just as well I give my comments speaking to the amendment. I'm a great proponent of, certainly, the Fluffy law that was in Ontario. That was dealt with through sec- tion 18, which I showed my position on. But to me the objective here, through this whole situation and through this act rewrite, is to get more people, more landlords, to accept the fact that it is important to have pets in rental accommodation. As the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant said, it is a health issue beyond even accommodation or a social housing issue or anything like that.

Through the consultation process that's gone on, the landlord groups and, quite frankly, the pet groups that have come to me have said that one way to do that is, in fact, to have a pet deposit. I think it is counterproductive, frankly, to say that by having a pet deposit, they're going to make pets and accommodation inaccessible. It is ex- tremely important, in my mind. In fact, I was even de- bating, myself, an amendment in terms of making an additional deposit to one month. That would maybe be prohibitive, so I didn't do that.

But I think it is absolutely imperative that we offer an incentive to landlords and tenants and that we do some consensus-building and some trust-building and get on with getting more pets into rental accommodations. I think the intention of the member for Vancouver– Mount Pleasant — and my intention is going in the same direction — is trying to get more pets into rental accommodation. I think the ways of doing that are dif- ferent, so I disagree and will not be supporting the a m e n d m e n t .

I w a n t p e o p l e t o h a v e a n i n c e n t i v e a n d landlords to understand the importance of this issue by having a pet deposit of half a month, which people generally, I'm pretty sure, can afford. Because they pay thousands of dollars in vet fees and food and every- thing else, I think it's critical that we do not support the amendment and we offer that incentive to landlords. Amendment negatived on division. Hon. R. Coleman: I move the amendment to sec- tion 19(2) standing in my name in the orders of the day: [SECTION 19 (2), by deleting the proposed

section 19 (2) and substituting the following:

(2) If a landlord accepts a security deposit or a pet damage deposit that is greater than the amount permitted under subsection (1), the tenant may deduct the overpayment from rent or otherwise recover the overpayment.] On the amendment. Hon. R. Coleman: This clarifies that a landlord and tenant can agree to a security deposit and pet damage deposit of one-half month's rent for each but cannot agree to an amount greater than one-half month's rent. If the tenant pays more than one-half month's rent for either of the deposits, a tenant may deduct the over- payment from rent or otherwise recover the amount through arbitration. Both landlord and tenant groups have told us that the language of

section 19(2) is not clear in their minds. It appears to allow the landlord and tenant to agree to deposits in excess of one-half a month's rent, which is not the intent of the legislation. Amendment approved. On the main motion. J. Kwan: On

section 19, the issue is still about requiring an extra deposit. The issue is still about whether or not people on low incomes or fixed incomes would actually have the extra money. The fact of the matter is this. When the minister says that the tenancy agreement will be sub- ject to whether or not the landlord and the tenant agree, the reality is this: when the landlord says, "You know what? I'm going to charge you an extra deposit, and if you don't like it, we won't sign the tenancy agreement," that's denying access to a tenancy. Let's just be very clear.

The tenant would not be able to say: "No, you can't do that. You cannot deny me access to a tenancy by not signing the agreement." It doesn't allow for that, because the legislation

4460 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2002 allows for precisely that right to the landlord to deny ac- cess to a tenancy. So when the minister says, "Well, gee, don't worry. They will still get a key to their tenancy…." But if the tenancy agreement is not signed on the basis of an extra fee, the person is denied access. That's the reality. That's how it operates out there in the real world.

Section 19 as amended approved on division. [1550] Sections 20 and 21 approved. On

section 22. J. Kwan: On

section 22, the start of a tenancy. Ten- ants groups and others have called for the inspection reports, and generally they see that as a positive thing. The issue, though, is that the consequences for tenants, if they do not participate in the inspection, are very onerous and could be abused by unscrupulous land- lords as another way of, quite frankly, ripping off money from tenants with the blessing of government. The reports may also be problematic for tenants and the landlords who perhaps speak English as a second language, who lack literacy skills, etc.

This may be taken into consideration when developing the imple- mentation of this…. The Chair: Pardon me, member. I'm sorry — just a clarification. What

section are you speaking to? J. Kwan: On

section 23. The Chair:

Section 23. I'm sorry. Shall

section 22 pass?

Section 22 approved. J. Kwan: Sorry, I thought you had passed

section 22. My apologies. On

section 23. J. Kwan: On

section 23, Mr. Chair. I thought that you had called

section 22, and we were debating sec- tion 23. Just continuing, then, with my comments. The re- ports may be problematic for tenants and for landlords who perhaps speak a different language or English as a second language, who perhaps lack literacy skills. This, in my view, must be taken into account, into considera- tion, when developing the implementation of this idea. Will there be public education and communication programs around the inspections report? Hon. R.

Coleman: Of course there will be, because that is something that the tenancy branch undertakes already with the literature that it produces, and we would continue to do that. I think this is actually one of the really positive steps of this particular piece of legislation. I think that the two parties going in, doing an inspection and identifying what the state of the unit is when going into a tenancy is an exceptionally good thing. It works in many jurisdictions around the world, as does the inspection on the way out.

This was cer- tainly something that was brought to our attention by both groups, and I think this is something that is a benefit to a tenancy. The member may want to find some fault with it somewhere, of course, but I think this is a step forward. The inspection report will be produced. It will be on line. It will also be available through our tenancy offices. The appropriate educa- tional material, obviously — as we would normally do as part of our day-to-day business — will be developed in order to deal with the issue. J. Kwan: Let me just share these comments with the Solicitor General.

This is from AIDS Vancouver, and here's their concern about the inspection reports clause. Yes, generally speaking, I would concur with that. Having the requirement of the inspection reports is a good thing, because then you know in writing what the status of a particular unit is before a person moves in and when a person moves out. You have it all docu- mented in writing, and that's a good thing. The issue here is this. From AIDS Vancouver: "The legislation, however, provides a loophole for landlords.

The new law says that if a tenant can't make one of two inspection times set by their landlord, they forfeit their right to their deposit. We feel many of our clients will be vulnerable to landlords on this matter. Tenants may be out attending to health-related appointments they may have waited months for, receiving treatment or have urgent business or work commitments during the times stated by the landlord. The landlord may have a difficulty, as he could be arranging many appointments.

This would lead him to set times likely without reference to the availability of the tenant or, worse, do so as a deliberate act. "Often, moving is a stressful situation for most people with a healthy immune system. It could be worse for someone living with HIV/AIDS. It is further complicated if the tenant is moving due to having their HIV status discovered, associated abuse that accompanies these situations, or if they're moving due to an unaffordable rent increase. Our clients already face systemic discrimination in attempting to find suitable housing.

Now they could be subjected to further abuse, even when they have been good, reliable renters." [1555] There are concerns, and I share those concerns, be- cause when I read

section 23, the date of the inspection, of course, is established by the landlord. If you're not available to be there, then you run into a problem. If you're not available, there could be a variety of reasons. If you can't make those appointments, then you're deemed to have forfeited your deposit. There's some- thing unjust about that. The minister says that there will be public educa- tion and communication programs around inspection reports. Could the minister please advise what kind of communication or education programs he is planning to implement?

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 4461 Hon. R. Coleman: The time for the inspections has to be mutually convenient to both parties. What we're going to do is work with both the landlords and the tenant groups as we work through the regulations to define what "mutually convenient" is. It's not some- thing you could do at 3 o'clock and then at 3:05 say that you couldn't make it. We're not going to allow abuses of this. This is something that the industry will adjust to, as will tenants adjust to, simply because it is the right thing to do.

The relationship in a tenancy, to actually clearly inspect on the way in and clearly inspect on the way out, so the parties know the state of the unit, and they can take into account normal wear and tear and what have you…. It can actually end up in a mature landlord-tenant relationship between people. As the member knows, there are 500,000-plus ten- ancies in British Columbia. There may be some people who are going to think that there's some diabolical way that they're going to abuse the system. We're just not going to allow that.

We're going to have strong regula- tions on how that mutually convenient time and those condition reports will be dealt with. Frankly, given that, this is the right thing to do. The member asks me what educational materials will be developed. We will be developing the regula- tions in consultation with the stakeholders in this par- ticular activity, which is tenancy between landlords and tenants. During that period of time we will also develop the materials that we think are necessary as we work through that. This is a change. This is something that we will work together to make work.

It's not something that we're bringing into a piece of legislation so it doesn't work for both landlords and tenants. It's actually some- thing that I think is highly beneficial to both and will actually take an awful lot of the…. In most tenancies — again, you never know — you're going to have abuses on both sides, whether it be landlords or tenants abus- ing the system with regards to inspections or not, or how they actually take care of their units either as a landlord or a tenant.

The intent is to try and get to where we're actually dealing with those issues rather than issues that for the most part, for most people who have a good working relationship between landlord and tenant, should be allowed to continue on. I'm a big fan of this section, because I think it's im- portant. I think it's important from both parties' aspect, because it actually outlines a very important part of the relationship between the two parties. J. Kwan: The

section actually contradicts itself. Sec- tion 23(1) reads as follows: "The landlord and tenant must inspect the condition of the rental unit together on the day the tenancy starts or on another mutually agreed day." That's

section 23(1). Then you go to sec- tion 23(5): "The landlord may make the inspection and complete the report without the tenant if (

a) the land- lord has offered the tenant, in accordance with the regulations, at least 2 opportunities for the applicable condition inspection, and (

b) the tenant does not par- ticipate on either occasion." [1600] I understand and I support the intent of this sec- tion, and that is to allow for inspections and to make sure that inspections in fact take place and that there would be inspection reports. But you cannot, on the one hand, say that the dates on which those inspections take place should be mutually agreed-to dates between the landlord and the tenant and then later on in the act, in the same

section of the act, say: "No, by the way, we changed our minds." If the landlord sets out those dates and the tenant cannot make those dates, then the tenant would be deemed to have forfeited their right to participate in the inspection report. Then, in that case, unscrupulous landlords…. They're the ones that I'm most worried about. The Solicitor General is right. Most landlords are probably not unscrupulous. But I also know of land- lords that are very unscrupulous.

The purpose, I hope, of this act is to make sure, particularly, that those un- scrupulous landlords do not get away with taking someone's damage deposit when they're not entitled to do so — that is to say, when there's no damage done to the rental accommodation. This

section of the act, sec- tion 23(5), allows for that loophole to do exactly that, for the landlord to say: "Here are the dates. If you don't like it, I'm proceeding with it anyway. And you know what? You forfeit your right, and you're not going to get your damage deposit back." That's the concern here. In my own community, in Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, I can't tell you how many unscrupulous land- lords there are, particularly in the downtown east side.

Even in the best of times the landlords will not repay the damage deposit — in this instance to the govern- ment, because many of them are income assistance recipients. It's not in the best interests of government to allow such a loophole to be in place and for these land- lords to exercise that right just to take advantage of tenants and, quite frankly, to take that opportunity to not return damage deposits. It doesn't make sense.

In order to make it far more secure, the clause should simply say that inspection reports should be done either on the day the tenancy starts or on another mutually agreed-to date, and when the tenancy ends or on an- other mutually agreed-to date — but not both, where the landlord says: "Here's two days, and if you don't like it, too bad for you, and I'm going to keep the deposit." Could the minister explain the contradictions be- tween

section 23(1) and 23(5)? Hon. R. Coleman:

Section 23(1) states that the ten- ant and landlord must inspect the condition of the rental unit together on the day the tenancy starts or on another mutually agreed-to date.

Section 23(5) actually says that the landlord has offered the tenant — as I mentioned in my previous comments to the member, in accordance with regulation — those opportunities. Then I went on to explain to the member that we

4462 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2002 would actually work with both parties to decide how that mutually convenient time could be defined in r e g u l a t i o n s o t h a t w e w o u l d t a k e c a r e o f h e r c o n c e r n and my concern, which is unscrupulous landlords, on one side of the coin, or tenants that choose to damage a suite and then leave — not come out to an inspection report and leave damage behind. The intent of this act is to strike a balance. This strikes the balance.

I think that when we say "in accor- dance with regulation," we're clear, and there's no need for any changes to this section. J. Kwan: No, it isn't clear. When you look at the act, the act says that it is either on a mutually agreed-to date or alternatively, the landlord can set out two dates, two opportunities. [1605] The act reads as this: the landlord has offered the ten- ant, in accordance with the regulations, at least two oppor- tunities for applicable condition inspections.

As an exam- ple, a landlord offers a person — let's just say for the pur- p o s e s o f f a c t t h a t w e m a y k n o w t h i s l a n d l o r d t o b e u n - scrupulous and knows that the tenant works evening shifts — two opportunities to do the inspection during a time when the person is working during the evening and the person is unable to attend those inspection times. This will allow the landlord to say: "Hey, I've met

section 23(5)'s requirement, and you weren't able to make any of those inspection dates. Therefore, I'm now going to exercise my right to keep the damage deposit." Isn't that a scenario that could happen? Could the minister not anticipate such a scenario? I could, beca

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	H1118pm-07
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	H1118pm 07
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	328f2657c23b8a22b3d039342e10e949d44070a1

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).