2002 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 37th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2002

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 10, Number 7

CONTENTS

Routine

Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Preston Bruce

Hon. G. Bruce

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

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 25 B )

Contributions of Tara Singh Hayer

D. Hayer

Contributions of Norma Mickelson

I. Chong

Status of B.C. economy

R. Nijjar

Oral Questions

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

Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services, first report

B. Lekstrom

J. MacPhail

Hon. G. Collins

Tabling Documents

Ministry of Skills Development and

Labour annual report, 2002-02

Public Guardian and Trustee of British Columbia annual report, 2001-02

Committee of the Whole House

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

[ Page 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 introduce some very special guests. Brit

Skjelbred is the State Secretary for Petroleum and Energy. She is accompanied by

His Excellency Ingvard Havnen, the Norwegian Ambassador to Canada; and Stein

Gudmundseth, the Norwegian honorary consul general in Vancouver. The state

secretary is in Victoria along with a delegation of Norwegian oil and gas

industry representatives and government officials to share offshore experience

with British Columbia.

[1405]

Just as a

note, Mr. Speaker, I want to leave everyone 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 Excellency 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 Vancouver, 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-Noëlle Defay. Consul General

Defay, whose last position was in the office of the Prime Minister of France in

Paris, is visiting Victoria to meet with government officials. 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.

Weisbeck: A visitor to British Columbia in the gallery today is Bishop Simon

Oketch from the Anglican diocese of Maseno North in Kenya. Bishop Oketch is here

visiting the Anglican diocese of British Columbia. With him today are his hosts,

Rod and Pat Crossley of Victoria. Would the House please make them welcome.

Sultan: In the gallery today are two very important women in my life, both

of them from my constituency office.

Patti

Hamilton is a former cabinet secretary in Consumer 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 service 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 Lundell 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

reconsideration.

Would the

House please make these two distinguished guests welcome.

W. Cobb:

Today it's my pleasure…. I don't see 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 Brissard, 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, Ashley 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 quickly, standing in this House

today. I have in the 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 Biologists of British Columbia: President Mel Kotyk;

Linda Michaluk, the executive director; Linda Stordeur, the registrar; and Pat

McLellan, the administrative assistant. I hope the House will make them welcome.

Tributes

PRESTON BRUCE

Hon. G.

Bruce: I would just like to take an opportunity 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.

[ Page 4446 ]

The fact of

the matter is that as life turns and goes along, you can have wonderful times

with your parents. 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 advice 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….

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 throughout the province who have passed on words of condolences

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 Forests 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 enable me as

Minister of Forests to access undercut timber for the awarding of forest tenure

directly to first nations. The bill transfers the remaining land use planning

provisions of the Forest Practices Code to the Minister 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 College 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 legislation, 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 college 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; upholding 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 Practices Act, which establishes a workable

results-based code and reduces the forestry regulatory burden without

compromising environmental values. The key to meeting this commitment is to

ensure that the government, natural resource industries and the people of

British Columbia can rely upon highly trained, dedicated, accountable

professions to make sound resource-management decisions.

The new

College of Applied Biology Act builds on that foundation by establishing a

self-regulating profession to oversee the field of applied biology. Biologists

act in the public interest in protecting the province'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.

[ Page 4447 ]

ACTING POLICE COMPLAINT

COMMISSIONER CONTINUATION ACT

Hon. R.

Coleman presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill

intituled Acting 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 police complaint

commissioner until a permanent commissioner 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

reappoint 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

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 remember my father, who fought so diligently and was so dedicated to

freedom of speech, freedom of expression and the freedom so many of us take for

granted today.

On this day

four years ago my father, Tara Singh 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 Surrey Secondary School so that his name and the principles 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

sacrifices and that to keep what we have and hold so 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 special 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

Chong: It is my pleasure today to acknowledge 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 before 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 education 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 acquisition. Her accomplishments are many,

including the publication of more than 140 scholarly articles and a book, in

addition to workshops and conference presentations 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 university, the first woman president of the UVic faculty

association, the university's first adviser on equity issues, and she is UVic's

first female chancellor.

Her hard

work and commitment have been recognized through the many honours bestowed on

her. In 1991 she received the first Sarah Shorten Award, recognizing 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

[ Page 4448 ]

miss her presence, but we all know that the legacy of her work will continue

to benefit future learners.

STATUS OF B.C. ECONOMY

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

September from last year. Oil and gas production is up 22 percent. 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 Worldwide, Vancouver workers can expect a 3.4

percent increase in salaries this year — more than any other Canadian city.

Convergence recently announced that it will add 400 new jobs in its call centre

in Kamloops. A new LiveBridge call centre in Prince George is now 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 ministry care decreased by more

than 10 percent. The Canadian Association for Community Living and Inclusion

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 today. [Laughter.] I'm very serious about it, hon. members,

because abuse of members' statements will not be tolerated in the future. Thank

you.

Oral Questions

PRIVATIZATION OF B.C. HYDRO ASSETS

MacPhail: Last week, after months of secrecy, the Minister of Energy finally

told the public that B.C. Hydro 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 analysis confirms, consumers in B.C. will end up paying more for

their electricity?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: That letter was written to the government 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.

MacPhail: Since this letter was written by Michael Costello….

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Let us hear the question.

MacPhail: Since this letter was written by Michael Costello, who remains at

B.C. Hydro, the situation 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 — some of the lowest in North 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

contained in this letter. Mr. Costello warns that allowing unfettered access to

the grid for private power…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order.

[ Page 4449 ]

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

advantage by breaking up B.C. Hydro and force-feeding consumers 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.

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

electricity market, according to him, since 1989 or 1999. Well, here's what's

changed.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order.

MacPhail: British Columbians are already paying through the nose for

Pharmacare, for MSP and for increased sales taxes. Now the Liberals want to jack

up hydro rates — all to satisfy their ideological preoccupation with

privatization. This approach has been a disaster 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 generation.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order.

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 member 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 government 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 going

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 Lottery, British Columbia

railroad…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. R.

Neufeld: …Columbia Power Corporation…

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. R.

Neufeld: …Insurance Corporation of British 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 Columbia — to start talking the way

she is now in this House.

PREVENTION OF STREET RACING

R. Lee:

My question is to the Solicitor General. Traffic 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 prevent

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 racing?

Hon. R.

Coleman: Our government has, as does our society, a zero tolerance with

regard to street racing. That's why we brought in legislation that allows

[ Page 4450 ]

police to immediately seize a motor vehicle involved in street racing for 48

hours on a first offence by impounding the vehicle. In addition to that

impoundment, 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 vehicles from the

roadside in a case of dangerous driving and ask for a suspension.

[1435]

Since that

was put into place, over a hundred drivers 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 reduce incidents of street racing. Can the

Solicitor General 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 and done some work with regards to young people 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 caucus 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 minister 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 secret task force report that he's been

sitting on for eight months — not next week, not the week after, but

immediately table the report — and agree to hold formal 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 going 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 energy in the province: coalbed methane,

natural gas offshore. 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 Hydro, all the downsides to privatizing Hydro.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Let us hear the question.

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

[ Page 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 ferries that wouldn't float.

The province of British 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

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.

Krueger: Would you like me to start over, Mr. Speaker?

Mr.

Speaker: Yes, please do.

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 definitely 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 Columbians 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 authorities — down to six, so we could find

administrative savings, so we could decrease duplication, so we could enhance

cooperation and coordination of services between 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 patient 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

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.

Lekstrom: I ask leave of the House to suspend the rules to permit the moving

of a motion to adopt the report.

Leave

granted.

Lekstrom: I move the report be adopted.

This report

reflects what our committee, the Select Standing Committee on Finance and

Government Services, 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

Columbians.

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 recommendations 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 changes, if they're accomplished, have to be made 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 Legislature, a committee that has toured the province, a

committee that has listened to British Columbians, a committee that reflects

what they heard from those British

[ Page 4452 ]

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 difficult 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 balanced, then we can begin the economic

recovery and debt repayment

schedule that's so rightly needed in this province

of ours.

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 direction

we've taken. Thank you very much.

Mr.

Speaker: On the question of the adoption of the report, the Leader of the

Opposition.

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 submissions. 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 of dollars

more to recover the damage done from the cuts that have been made by this

government. What the report fails to do, though, is tell the Minister of Finance

how that can be achieved given his failed economic policies on revenue

generation.

There is a

gap in the logic between the report's recommendations and the reality of this

government's economic initiatives that have failed miserably. The one economic

initiative that was promised by this government 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 report: 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 instead 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 suggestions 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 Columbia.

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 minister 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

province around. That's well underway. Look at the statistics. 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.

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-

[ Page 4453 ]

Hastings. The issue of the committee is laid out quite clearly in our terms

of reference. We toured the province, 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 that money should come from if it could be found.

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.

MacPhail: I bet you the Premier said: "Don't answer that

question."

Lekstrom: I think it's very important to recognize 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.

MacPhail: "Don't answer that question."

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.

Lekstrom: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to

read just one part of this report, one sentence. It says: "We recognize

that budget-making involves making difficult choices at the best of times and

that the financial decisions about any additional spending 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 presumptuous of a committee to tell our Minister of Finance 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 trustee 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.

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 talking 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 constituency, 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 application 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

[ Page 4454 ]

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

section

J. Kwan:

Section 19, at least according to the government's press release, deals with the

fact that in addition 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 disability 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-making powers. We will identify that amount as the maximum amount

allowable for deposits for keys or things like garage door openers — that sort

of thing. 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, necessarily, 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 minister. My question to the minister

is this: has he consulted with his colleague the Minister of Human Resources

about whether or not they would also provide for the extra deposit that is now

required for keys, access cards, garage door openers and the like?

Actually,

just last week when the House was not sitting, 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, potentially, 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 support 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 landlord 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 because they think it's actually going to make the

operation of residential tenancy relationship in the office that much better.

We don't

have an answer back from Social Services 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 tenancy. If you don't have a key, you

can't get in. If a ten-

[ Page 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 tenancy?

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 details out as we work through the

consultation with the tenants groups and the landlord groups as we do

regulations. 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 surprised 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.

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

government is trying to make to permit or encourage the permitting of pets in

housing that the government doesn't own, of course. I was concerned, because I

wasn't actually 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 legislation that will allow for refusal of pets in rental

accommodation. 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, so 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 legislation before. This actually

clarifies the rules as far as a prohibition of pets, allowing for the pet damage

deposit and allowing for the fact that the two — the landlord and the tenant

— can enter into an agreement with respect to pets in the tenancy agreement.

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 something 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 legislation

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 single 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 tenant 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."

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 because there were a number of things within the marketplace, including

this situation, that just weren't clearly defined so that people could make the

decision

[ Page 4456 ]

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.

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 during 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 accommodation. 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 accommodation? 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 responsibility 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 understand the act when I was in law

school, and I don't really understand it now." That may have been the

description of how this piece of legislation, the regulations 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.

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 occupants 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

provisions 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 tenancy 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 legislation under the

Residential Tenancy Act, the government 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

[ Page 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 prohibited 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 accommodation. 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, garage door openers and the like.

In my view, a key to a home is an essential component to someone's residency. If

the person is not able to pay for the key deposit, 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 provision, 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 concerns 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 systems 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

section (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

tenancy 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. Obviously, 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.

Therefore, 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 that even on just a strictly damage deposit —

half a month's rent, the damage deposit…. The landlord collects 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 deposit…. 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 assistance, 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 minister is prepared to stand it down until such time as we

know the answer from the Minister of Human Resources, but given that we don't

know the answer, will the Solicitor General, in this House, give the commit-

[ Page 4458 ]

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

somewhere, whether it be through the Ministry of Human Resources or elsewhere,

those extra dollars will actually 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 landlord and tenant

groups.

I cannot

speak for the budget of the Ministry of Social Services. They will have to

adjust accordingly to how legislation 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 between 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 government — 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 Ministry of Human Resources, then the Solicitor General is putting

forward a big question mark in terms of security 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 Resources 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 government is not in

the business of providing damage deposits required for pets and that they will

provide a damage deposit for humans only, notwithstanding that there are a lot

of people on income assistance who have pets, particularly seniors and

particularly those on disability. 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 deposit. 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

section 19, "Limits on amount of

deposits." The amendment would strike out the words "either" and

"or a pet damage 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

(1) A landlord must not require or accept either

a security deposit or a pet damage deposit that is greater

than the equivalent of Z\x 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 Z\x 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

[ Page 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. Requiring 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 purposes 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 government

money and save the individual money for better health, it should therefore be

something we should support. To create an extra barrier, a financial barrier, I

believe is not the way to go. It's regrettable that the government will not be

supporting this amendment.

[1545]

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

section 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 extremely important, in my mind. In fact, I was even debating, 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 different, so I disagree and

will not be supporting the amendment. I want people to have an incentive and

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 everything 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

section 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

overpayment 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 subject 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

[ Page 4460 ]

allows for precisely that right to the landlord to deny access 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.

section

J. Kwan:

section 22, the start of a tenancy. Tenants 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

landlords 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

skills, etc. This may be taken into consideration when developing the

implementation of this….

The

Chair: Pardon me, member. I'm sorry — just a clarification. What

section

are you speaking to?

J. Kwan:

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.

section

J. Kwan:

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

section 22, and we were

debating

section 23.

Just

continuing, then, with my comments. The reports may be problematic for tenants

language, who perhaps lack literacy skills. This, in my view, must be taken into

account, into consideration, 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 certainly

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 educational 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 documented 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, because 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 something unjust about

that.

The

minister says that there will be public education and communication programs

around inspection reports. Could the minister please advise what kind of

communication or education programs he is planning to implement?

[ Page 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 something 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 tenancies 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 regulations 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

regulations in consultation with the stakeholders in this particular 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 something 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 abusing 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 important. 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.

Section 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

section 23(5): "The landlord may make

the inspection and complete the report without the tenant if (

a) the landlord

has offered the tenant, in accordance with the regulations, at least 2

opportunities for the applicable condition inspection, and (

b) the tenant does

not participate on either occasion."

[1600]

understand and I support the intent of this section, 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 landlords that are very unscrupulous. The purpose, I hope, of this

act is to make sure, particularly, that those unscrupulous 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,

section 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

landlords 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 government, 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 landlords 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 another 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 between

section 23(1) and 23(5)?

Hon. R.

Coleman:

Section 23(1) states that the tenant 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

[ Page 4462 ]

would actually work with both parties to decide how that mutually convenient

time could be defined in regulation so that we would take care of her concern

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 accordance 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 tenant, in accordance with the

regulations, at least two opportunities for applicable condition inspections. As

an example, a landlord offers a person — let's just say for the purposes of

fact that we may know this landlord to be unscrupulous 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, because the legislation allows

that.

Section 23(5) allows for that scenario to take place.

Hon. R.

Coleman: I disagree with the member completely. I don't think it allows for

that scenario. You can paint any scenario you want, but the bottom line is that

we're going to have defined in regulation what the mutually agreeable times are.

I think it will work for industry and for landlords and tenants.

J. Kwan:

With all due respect, all the minister has to do is actually bring forward an

amendment to this

section of the act to make it clear, not just rely on

regulation but make it into legislation to make it clear, that the dates have to

be mutually agreed to — stop. Then there are no more ifs, ors and buts — no

loopholes to it allowed. Then you would have precluded any abuse of the act by

any party. You would have stopped the potential for that taking place in the

act.

I do have

an amendment to that effect, and I don't think it's contrary to the bill. If

what the minister says is the intent, it's not contrary. You can put it in

legislation as well as in regulation. I think putting it in legislation is a

much stronger statement than putting it in regulation. It gives people the

reassurance right now, as we're debating this bill, as these sections are being

passed in this House, so that people know what their protection and their rights

are relating to this.

I will be

moving a motion on

section 5 relating to that, but before I go there, I would

like to touch on

section 23(4). The reason I went to

section 23(5) first is

because 23(1) relates to that. Let me go to

section 23(4) for one moment.

Section 23(4) reads: "Both the landlord and tenant must sign the condition

inspection report, and the landlord must give the tenant a copy of that report

within seven days after it is signed."

Again, the

clause is good to say that there's a requirement and a time limitation for

inspection reports to be made available. The issue is that there is no

consequence if the landlord decides to breach

section 23(4). If the landlord

does not comply with this section, the tenant's obligation to pay rent ought to

be suspended until a copy of the report is delivered to the tenant. As soon as

the copy of the report is delivered to the tenant, any rent that was not paid to

the landlord in reliance on this subsection becomes immediately due and payable.

This, of course, would be in keeping with the old

section of the current act,

section 19(2), where tenants can withhold rent if they sign an agreement and the

landlord does not provide a copy within 21 days.

There's an

incentive for the landlord to provide a copy of the inspection report. It gives

the legislation teeth, in other words. You must do this to comply with the act,

and if you don't, there is a consequence. The consequence is a financial

consequence that doesn't have to be permanent. It's up to the landlord to act

— that is, to provide the report — and then your rent is due immediately to

you. Otherwise, the tenant should have the right to withhold the rent until such

time….

My question

to the minister is: why did the minister decide to change the act from the

current 19(2), with a consequence clause that applies, to taking away any

consequence if the landlord decides not to provide a report? I know there's a

difference. Before it was a tenancy agreement, broadly speaking, and this is an

inspection report, but the same principle applies: making sure that written

reports are being provided for tenancy agreements and inspection reports are

being provided for the tenant. If they don't do that, there's a consequence. The

landlord is given an incentive to act.

[1610]

Hon. R.

Coleman: We're actually going to deal with this in

section 24, but the

consequence is that by failure to do this, you are basically giving up your

right to make any claim against either the pet deposit or the damage deposit,

because you haven't done the condition report.

J. Kwan:

The standard tenancy agreement would still apply. If they don't give an

inspection report, does that mean to say the landlord forfeits their right to

withhold damage deposits, as an example?

Hon. R.

Coleman: The consequence in

section 24, which is the next

section of this

act, is that the landlord's right to claim against a security deposit or a pet

damage deposit for damage to residential property is extinguished —

extinguished — if the landlord does not offer the tenant, in accordance with

the terms of regulation, the inspec-

[ Page 4463 ]

tion opportunities — which again it says are as defined in regulation —

or if, having made an inspection, he does not complete the condition report and

provide the tenant with a copy of it. By not doing so, he is extinguishing his

rights to claim against those deposits.

J. Kwan:

All that does is say that the standard tenancy agreement would apply — the one

the minister presumably would put in regulation. That's all it does. For extra

provisions the landlord may want to put in place, they would not have the

opportunity to do so. That's what the minister is saying — that it would just

be a standard application of the tenancy agreement. What if, at the beginning of

the tenancy agreement, the landlord has said, "Hey, you're allowed to have

pets, and there will be no extra damage deposits," and that was supposed to

be in writing, and then you don't get that report? Then what would apply?

I haven't

seen the regulation in terms what the standard tenancy agreement might look

like, but presumably it might give language to say that the landlord could apply

a damage deposit for pets. I would assume so, because that's what the thrust of

this act does and allows for. But it could be a lot simpler than even all of

that, simply by putting forward an amendment consistent with the old act that

says that if you don't provide the inspection report under this

section within

seven days…. The intent of that is to say you have to provide a copy of it,

and if you don't, there will be a penalty that applies. Your rent could be

withheld by the tenant.

I move the

amendment standing in my name on the order paper:

[SECTION 23 (4) is amended by adding the text highlighted

by underline:

(4) Both the landlord and tenant must sign the condition

inspection report and the landlord must give the tenant a copy of that

report within 7 days after it is signed.

(

A) if a landlord does not comply with subsection (4),

the tenants' obligation to pay rent is suspended until a copy of the report

is delivered to the tenant, and as soon as the copy of the report is

delivered to the tenant, any rent that was not paid to the landlord in

reliance of this subsection becomes immediately due and payable. ]

Amendment

negatived on division.

On the main

motion.

J. Kwan:

Section 25, which is what we were talking about earlier….

The

Chair: Sorry, member — 23(5).

J. Kwan:

Sorry.

Section 23(5) was what we were talking about earlier.

Section 23(5)

allows the landlord to offer the tenant two opportunities to do an inspection,

and if those two opportunities are not taken up by the tenant, according to this

act, then the tenant relinquishes his right to the landlord. Again, if the

intent of the act is not to allow for that kind of abuse to take place, then

legislation should read clearly what it really means and what it really intends.

[1615]

To assist

in that effort, I have an amendment to make for

section 23(5), to add in the

words that are highlighted and the words that are struck out in the amendment

that has been shared with the minister and with you, Mr. Chair.

[Section 23 is amended by adding the text highlighted by

underline and deleting the text highlighted by strikethrough:Condition

inspection report: start of tenancy or new pet

(5) The landlord or tenant may make the inspection

and complete the report without the tenant other if

(

a) the landlord has offered the tenant,

in accordance with the regulations, at least 2 opportunities for the

applicable condition inspection, and

(

b) the tenant does is

not able to participate on either occasion.]

I think

that with that amendment, you would make it clear the expectation is for these

appointments made for the purposes of the inspection are to be mutually agreed

to and the same application of when those appointments are being offered is

applied to both the landlord and the tenant in terms of their availability to

attend the inspection.

Amendment

negatived on division.

On the main

motion.

J. Kwan:

It's disappointing that an amendment that clarifies a change would not be

adopted by the government. This is all related.

Section 23,

which talks about the start of a tenancy or a new pet, the condition inspection

reports — subsection (6)…. The concern is that it should not be just the

landlord who gets to decide and completes the report if the tenant is not

available. If on the other side, the landlord is not available when the tenant

offers those dates, then the same opportunity that's being offered to the

landlord to fill out the report should be offered to the tenant as well, so

there is actually incentive on both sides. Right now as the act is written under

section 23, it assumes that maybe it's the tenant who is trying to avoid being

there or participating during the inspections, but perhaps it's the other way

around too.

To equalize

that, there should be a clause that should read: "A tenant can complete the

inspection report if the landlord refuses to participate." That way, both

sides have to live up to and own up to their responsibility. I think that's

fair. I don't think it contradicts the intent of the

section of the act. So, Mr.

Chair, I'm going to put forward another motion —

section 23(7), following

section 23(6) to read:

[SECTION 23 is amended by adding the text

highlighted by underline:

(7) A tenant can complete the inspection report if the

landlord refuses to participate. ]

Amendment

negatived on division.

On the main

motion.

[ Page 4464 ]

J. Kwan:

Further to preventing abuse by the landlord relating to this, as we often see,

unscrupulous landlords actually try to withhold the damage deposit and not

return it to the tenant. Under this

section of the act there's a loophole that

would allow for the landlord to do exactly that: set up inspection dates for

which the tenant is not available and do it on two occasions. Then they can

actually come forward and say, "Guess what. I'm not going to return your

damage deposit," irrespective of whether or not there's actual damage done.

By not making the appointment, it allows for a deposit ripoff, potentially, by

unscrupulous landlords, and it's wrong.

[1620]

I don't

think that's the intent of the act, so we should be very clear in saying what

the intent of the act is and to say to unscrupulous landlords: "You cannot

use this act as a loophole to get away with that." If a landlord decides to

withhold some or all of a damage deposit, the landlord must be required to

provide clear proof of the damage in writing. They must provide proof that there

is actual damage. If there isn't damage, then they have no right to keep the

damage deposit, and that should be explicit in the act.

To that

end, I actually have two amendments relating to it.

[SECTION 23 is amended by adding the text highlighted by

underline:Condition inspection report: start of tenancy or new pet

(8) If the landlord decides to withhold some or all of

the damage deposit, the landlord is required to provide clear proof of

damage, first of all, in writing. ]

Then, for a second amendment, for

section 23(9):

[SECTION 23 is amended by adding the text highlighted by

underline:Condition inspection report: start of tenancy or new pet

(9) The landlord may not retain any portion of the

damage deposit unless actual damage has been identified. ]

I've put

these into two separate amendments, Mr. Chair —

section 23(8) and then 23(9)

— and I would move these amendments.

Amendments

negatived on division.

The

Chair: Shall

section 24 pass?

J. Kwan:

Given that the government is reluctant to accept any of the amendments that

would lay out clearly what the protection ought to be for both the landlords and

the tenants with respect to inspections, with respect to damage deposits — who

could keep it and when, to ensure that there's no abuse where people would take

advantage of tenants and that no abuse would take place within a tenancy across

British Columbia that is in a rental accommodation…. I have to say that I'm

deeply disappointed with that, and to that end the opposition will not be

supporting

section 23.

The

Chair: Member, we had already passed

section 23.

J. Kwan:

As amended?

The

Chair: There are no amendments, member.

J. Kwan:

Sorry, hon. Chair. I put forward the two amendments, and you called the motion

on the two amendments, on 23(8) and (9). I heard that that did not pass, but I

did not hear the vote to be called on

section 23.

The

Chair: Just to reassure you, shall

section 23 pass?

Section 23

approved on division.

The

Chair: We'll have a recess for five minutes.

The

committee recessed from 4:23 p.m. to 4:27 p.m.

[J. Weisbeck in the chair.]

section

J. Kwan:

Section 24 is similar to

section 23. This clause allows for the landlord to

decide, quite frankly, when he or she would pay back a damage deposit, whether

it be a security deposit or a pet deposit. The issue remains that if an

inspection date is set on two separate occasions and the landlord or the tenant

is not able to participate — and particularly in this instance it's the

tenant, because it's the landlord who gets to decide what those dates are —

when that happens, whatever report is being put out by the landlord is deemed to

have been accepted by the tenant. The issue is that both parties should have the

right to sign off on the report. You've got to make sure those opportunities are

equally available for all parties so that it is not skewed in one way or the

other. It's the same issue we were discussing under

section 23, for

section 24.

[1630]

The people

in Terrace have actually raised this issue with their concerns. They suggest

that it may well then come down to an issue of he said, she said. Although the

bulk of the province's landlords do carry on as reasonable business people, the

fact remains that (

a) there are landlords out there who don't believe the act

applies to them and therefore they're not governed by it; (

b) they will find the

loopholes to keep every cent they can, even if they're not deserving or entitled

to it, really; (

c) our current system has a loophole in place for landlords who

have no grounds to keep the deposits — many of the clients of this group from

Terrace were ones who were not knowledgable of their rights, and by the time

they found out they could do something about it, it was well beyond the current

allowable time frame for them to do something; and (

d) they also find that

landlords have missed the 15-day time frame for applying to keep the damage

deposit. Then, in fact, when the tenant applied for arbitration, the landlord

made a claim under

section 84 that exceeded the amount of the security deposit

they held. In most cases, because there was no pre-inspection report, it came

down to who was more of a credible party.

To fix the

problem and to require inspection reports is good, but to not go further to

equalize the opportunities for those who decide when inspection dates should

[ Page 4465 ]

be applied and then the consequences of it…. That is to say now, in this

instance, the landlord can decide that and fill out the report all on their own

without the tenant present. Then it creates a loophole. It creates a loophole

for abuse, and the act should be clear in its definition of the times when these

inspections should take place. It should be mutually agreed to by the landlord

and the tenant. In the minimum, for the penalty to apply, not only should the

landlord have the right to just write up the report, but then an alternative

should apply. The tenant should also have the right to just write up the report

and for that to apply as well.

Section 24,

quite frankly, doesn't do the trick. It doesn't do the trick to allow for both

parties to have the same rights, and if they need to go to arbitration, they

have the same rights to go to arbitration. It does not skew the burden of proof

one way or the other. There's a way to fix that.

To that

end, there is an amendment standing in my name on the order paper under

section

24. The amendment deletes

section 24(1),

section 24(1)(a),

section 24(1)(

b) and

a small phrase under

section 24(2).

[SECTION 24 is amended by deleting the text highlighted by

strikethrough and adding the text highlighted by underline:Consequences for

tenant and landlord if report requirements not

met

(1) The consequence of not participating in an

inspection is that the landlord or tenant, whichever party did not

participate, is considered to have accepted it.

(1) The right of a tenant to the return of a

security deposit or a pet damage deposit, or both, as applicable, is

extinguished if

(

a) the landlord has offered the tenant, in accordance with the regulations, at

least 2 opportunities for the inspection required under

section 23 (1) or

(2), and

(

b) the tenant has not

participated on either occasion.]

Section

24(2): "The right of a landlord to claim against a security

deposit…."

The

Chair: Member, excuse me for a second. Are you dealing with two separate

amendments? I have on the orders of the day…. It looks like two separate

amendments to

section 24, but they are different. One of them just deals with

section 24(1), and then the next one….

J. Kwan:

I see.

The

Chair: Perhaps we could just deal with

section 24(1) first of all.

On the

amendment.

J. Kwan:

Sure, we can deal with them as separate amendments. That's not a problem. I was

going to sort of expedite. I was anticipating that the minister perhaps would

not support this, and expedite the process, but we can deal with them

separately.

Let's just

deal with

section 24(1), by deleting the words under

section 24(1) and replacing

them with the following words: "The consequence of not participating in an

inspection is that the landlord or tenant, whichever party did not participate,

is considered to have accepted it." That is to say, on the amendment, that

both parties have the onus to participate and the responsibility to do so. When

they don't, both parties have to deal with the consequences of that, whether it

be the landlord or the tenant.

Hon. R.

Coleman: Yes, the member is correct. We're not going to support either

amendment.

Actually,

section 24(1) does what we want it to do and, I think, what the member wants it

to do. Again, it's in accordance with regulations relative to the inspections.

Again, it actually tells you that the landlord gives up their right to certain

things if they don't do certain things, and the same with the tenant. That's

where the discipline comes in to make the inspection report work. I'm quite

comfortable with it. Frankly, I think the

section works fine.

[1635]

In addition

to that, landlords that think they can keep damage deposits unscrupulously are

also, in this legislation, subject to double the damage deposit having to be

paid to the tenants, etc. I think on this one here, I'm quite comfortable with

the section, and I don't see any need for any amendment.

J. Kwan:

I just want to be clear so that we understand what is being replaced by way of

my amendment. The minister says: "Don't worry; everything is fine."

Let's just put on record what

section 24(1) reads, "The right of a tenant

to the return of a security deposit or a pet damage deposit, or both, as

applicable, is extinguished if (

a) the landlord has offered the tenant, in

accordance with the regulations, at least 2 opportunities for the inspection

required under

section 23(1) or (2)" — which we just finished debating.

That is to

say that the tenant loses his right to his damage deposit if the tenant is

unable to attend inspection dates that have been set out by the landlord. That's

what this

section says, and it is penalizing for the tenant. It is unfair for

the tenant. Why should the tenant lose that right just because the tenant on two

occasions could not meet on the days the landlord says: "These are the

dates we're inspecting your suite"?

Alternatively,

when a tenant says, "Here are the two dates that I want to do the

inspection, landlord, so you must comply with that," why don't we put that

provision in place, as well, if we're going to go with this? Both parties can

put those demands to say that these are the dates, and if you relinquish your

right, then both parties — whoever it is — would have deemed to accept

whatever report they put forward. That's fair; it's fair. It doesn't bias one

against the other; it doesn't give an advantage to the landlord over the tenant.

Both parties have to share the responsibility of making themselves available.

Both parties will face consequences when they don't. That's what the amendment

does. The amendment reads, "The consequence of not participating in an

inspection is that the landlord or tenant, whichever party did not participate,

[ Page 4466 ]

considered to have accepted it" — accepted the report as put forward.

[H. Long in the chair.]

Amendment

negatived on division.

J. Kwan:

Then moving the other amendment,

section 24(2), by striking out the words….

Before I move that motion, I will yield the floor to the member who wishes to

make an introduction.

Hayer: I seek leave for an introduction.

Leave

granted.

Introductions by Members

Hayer: It gives me great pleasure to introduce to the House two special

guests: Mr. B. Jaishankar, consul general of India, and Anil Kumar Anand, consul

from the Consulate General of India. They were here discussing business

opportunities in British Columbia and Canada with my colleagues. Would the House

please make them very welcome.

Debate Continued

J. Kwan:

The second amendment is specifically related to the pet damage deposit component

and to be consistent with all the amendments that I have been moving throughout

and to, of course, encourage that landlords not take advantage of tenants on the

issue around pet damage deposits and therefore not return pet damage deposits if

they're unable to make the two appointments or the two opportunities that the

landlord has offered. The amendment would strike out the words "or a pet

damage deposit, or both, as applicable."

[1640]

[SECTION 24 is amended by deleting the text highlighted by

strikethrough and adding the text highlighted by underline:Consequences for

tenant and landlord if report requirements not met

(1) The consequence of not participating in an

inspection is that the landlord or tenant, whichever party did not

participate, is considered to have accepted it.

(1) The right of a tenant to the return of a security

deposit or a pet damage deposit, or both, as applicable, is extinguished if

(

a) the landlord has offered the

tenant, in accordance with the regulations, at least 2 opportunities for the

inspection required under

section 23 (1) or (2), and

(

b) the tenant has not

participated on either occasion.

(2) The right of a landlord to claim against a security

deposit or a pet damage deposit, or both, as applicable,

for damage to residential property is extinguished if the landlord

(

a) does not offer the tenant, in

accordance with the regulations, at least 2 opportunities for the inspection

required under

section 23 (1) or (2), or

(

b) having made an inspection with

the tenant, does not complete the condition inspection report or provide the

tenant with a copy of it.]

On the

amendment.

J. Kwan:

This, I think, reverses the onus — not just for pet damage deposits, but

actually for both security deposits as well — to say to the landlord:

"You do not have the right to actually take away a damage deposit just

because someone is not able to make the two opportunities that were offered by

the landlord to inspect the suite." Again, it's an attempt to make the

application of the act fairer and to make sure that unscrupulous landlords do

not take advantage of tenants.

Hon. R.

Coleman: Again, we won't be supporting this amendment, but I should just

discuss this

section as we move forward because we obviously have some concerns

with what the member has to say. This

section extinguishes the right of a tenant

by not attending an inspection in accordance with the regulations on at least

two opportunities under

section 23(1) and (2). It also extinguishes it if the

tenant has not participated on either occasion. It extinguishes it for the

landlord if they do not offer, in accordance with the regulation, at least two

opportunities for the inspection required on 23(1) and 23(2) and provide a copy

of the inspection report with the tenant that they are extinguishing their

rights to the pet deposit and/or damage deposit. It's fair for both, and I'm

quite comfortable with the section. That's why we don't see any reason for the

member's amendment.

Amendment

negatived on division.

Sections 24

and 25 approved.

section

J. Kwan:

I see under

section 26 on the issue about….

Section 26 deals with the rules

about payment and non-payment of rent. The change? Again, this is actually a

positive change, but again there is no enforcement associated with this. The

enforcement, if you will, is referred to under

section 95 of the act in terms of

the application of penalties. Could the minister please advise…? I guess I can

wait until

section 95 to deal with the offences related to it. The concern