1984 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 33rd 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, APRIL 9, 1984

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

4287 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Constitution Amendment Act, 1984 (Bill 16). Hon. Mr. Chabot.

Introduction and first reading –– 4287

Oral Questions

Ministry of Forests scaling practices. Mr. Skelly –– 4287

Sealed washrooms on Gray Line buses. Ms. Sanford –– 4287

Mrs. Dailly

Informational forum on B.C. special-waste management program. Mrs. Wallace –– 4288

Bank charges to MHR clients. Mrs. Wallace –– 4288

Milk board quotas. Ms. Sanford –– 4289

Accommodation in Terraceview Lodge. Mr. Howard –– 4289

Duty-free zones. Mr. Lea –– 4289

Mount Klappan anthracite project. Mr. Howard –– 4289

Residential Tenancy Act (Bill 19). Second reading.

Mr. Blencoe –– 4290

Mr. Mitchell –– 4310

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. MOWAT: Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure, on behalf of my

colleague the Hon. Grace McCarthy, Minister of Human Resources, to

introduce to the House today the Vancouver–Little Mountain Social

Credit executive. We're pleased that they made the crossing today in a

very stormy sea, and we think they'll be staying for the evening. I'd

ask the House to make welcome our president, Mr. George L. Andersen, of

an old pioneer family; our treasurer, Mr. Tony Christie; our secretary,

Mrs. Elma McLellan; and our directors, Mr. Jim Vernon, Mr. Dick Hussey,

Mr. Walter Pruden, Mrs. Hope Wotherspoon, Mr. Gim Huey, Mr. Hector

Wright, Mr. Jeff Moore and Mr. John Rose.

MR. PARKS: Mr. Speaker, this past weekend a group of

school-age children from across the province gathered in a provincial

championship for a new competition called Olympics of the Mind. It's

certainly a fine example of the youth of today taking

part in an

imaginative new program that has been extremely successful.

Of the 52 final entry teams 13 were from Coquitlam: eight finished

in first place, four finished second and one finished in third. There

is one particular school and one particular team that I'd like to give

special mention to. It's the team that won the Camelot contest, from

Glenayre School. It was sponsored by Mrs. Linda Lewis. I'd like the

House to join me in congratulating the team members: Chilwin Cheng,

Lara Graham, Carolyn Kwan, Erin McLennan, Kimberley Pawelchak, Lia

Shukin and one Shalan Parks.

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, I'd like the House to welcome the

best executive members of the best executive in the province: the

president of North Vancouver–Seymour, Roberta Kelly; secretary Betty

Waters; treasurer Ernie Sarsfield; and member of the executive Mike

Gill. While I'm at it I'd also like to welcome members from the board

of school trustees on the North Shore, Marg Goodman and Ross Regan, and

Steve McMinn, who is an alderman in North Vancouver.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the House to welcome

the various organizations that met with the Minister of Consumer and

Corporate Affairs today about Bill 19: the B.C. Tenants' Rights

Coalition, the Welfare Action Coalition, representatives of the First

United Church, the Solidarity coalition, the Downtown Eastside

Residents' Association, Women Against the Budget, the B.C. Old Age

Pensioners' Organization and the Council of Senior Citizens'

Organizations. I would like the House to welcome them.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speaker, some of the stalwarts of our

community are here. They are the Fasts, the Schmidts and the Walls.

Please make them welcome.

MR. MICHAEL: On behalf of the Minister of Finance, who is absent today

on government business, I would like to introduce two of his guests: Mrs. Alice

Howes, a constituent of his from Saanich and the Islands, and Mrs. Florence

Wintemute, who is visiting Mrs. Howes from Calgary. Would the House please make

them welcome.

Introduction of Bills

CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1984

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

a bill intituled Constitution Amendment Act, 1984.

Bill 16 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on

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

after today.

Oral Questions

MINISTRY OF FORESTS SCALING PRACTICES

MR. SKELLY: A question to the acting Minister of Forests.

With reference to the minister's statement on April 5 that he will take

action to issue supplementary stumpage billings to B.C. Forests

Products at Shoal Island, does the minister also plan to supplementary

bill the operators of the five other log-sorting operations where

defective scaling practices were employed as well?

HON. MR. SMITH: I thank the member for his question, and take it on notice for the minister.

MR. SKELLY: I have a second question for the acting minister.

Has the minister done an investigation to find out what the stumpage

losses were at the other five sites mentioned by the Ombudsman?

HON. MR. SMITH: Same response, Mr. Speaker.

SEALED WASHROOMS ON GRAY LINE BUSES

MS. SANFORD: This is a question for the Minister of Human

Resources, responsible for transportation and buses. Is the minister

aware that since privatization it has been the policy of Gray Line of

Victoria to lock and seal the washrooms on the buses operating on

Vancouver Island?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: No.

MR. SEGARTY: Were you locked in?

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, these people can make light of this

question, and I'm sure that they will continue to do so, but not

everyone in this province flies on a government aircraft. A lot of them

do have to rely on bus transportation — a lot of older people, a lot of

single parents with children — and I resent the flippant manner with

which these people are dealing with this.

Mr. Speaker, I'm informed that this policy of Gray Line of Victoria

has already resulted in a number of unfortunate incidents, and is of

considerable concern to passengers and drivers alike. I would like to

ask the minister whether or not the agreement for sale of PCL to the

companies involved permits them to lock these washrooms.

[ Page 4288 ]

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, the question is a little out

of order, I would suggest, because I think the member well knows that

when a business is sold, questions as to its operation should rightly

be asked of that private entrepreneur — it really has no reference to

the government at this point.

[2:15]

MS. SANFORD: Well, Mr. Speaker, we've been asking to have the

agreement for sale tabled in this House, and have not been able to see

what was provided. But we have been assured by the minister that

service would be continued on that bus line. I'm wondering whether or

not this kind of thing is allowed under that agreement for sale, which

is a legitimate question to ask that minister responsible.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I have no trouble in

providing the agreement for sale to the House when it is possible to do

so. I have made that undertaking on two occasions, and I will certainly

follow through and file those papers in the House at the earliest

opportunity — that should be in the next few days.

MS. SANFORD: Could the minister inform the House whether the

government has been paid in full for the sale of the buses and the

equipment that were formerly the property of Pacific Coach Lines,

including the buses and the equipment on that Fraser Valley route?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: That information, too, can come forward

at the time of the finalization of all the moneys paid. There will be —

and the member should know — equipment left over, which will be placed

on sale. It is an ongoing transaction.

MS. SANFORD: Does the minister, then, inform the House that

she will be filing all of the details with respect to the moneys

exchanged to date?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I've already said that.

MRS. DAILLY: To the Minister of Health. My question is

related to the question that was just asked. It was not answered to our

satisfaction by the Minister of Human Resources, who was in charge of

the sale. Do you have regulations which would apply in the case of a

private bus company which does not provide proper sanitary facilities

for its passengers? I don't think the government can evade their

responsibilities here.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I'd be pleased to inquire.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, I hope that the Minister of Health realizes there is a certain amount of urgency to this matter.

INFORMATIONAL FORUM ON B.C.

SPECIAL-WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

MRS. WALLACE: Tomorrow — Tuesday, April 10 — there is to be a

informational forum on the B.C. special-waste management program in

Ashcroft. Has the minister decided to attend?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I decided quite some time ago that I would

not attend that protest rally, and I have made that very plain. Yet

some of the people are still persisting that I should, or trying to

pressure me into it.

MRS. WALLACE: I wonder if the minister is talking about the

same thing. He referred to a protest rally. My information is that this

is an informational forum. In a letter from the mayor of Ashcroft to

the minister, dated March 28, inviting him to attend an informational

forum, the mayor states: "If you are not there, the community will take

it as a firm indication your proposal is not environmentally sound but

merely politically and economically expedient." Is the minister

prepared to defend his proposal by attending the meeting or having a

representative attend on his behalf?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Perhaps the member should realize that I

have just spent Saturday night, all day Sunday and all of this morning

at a special-waste information symposium, and answered any and all

questions that I possibly could. No, I am not prepared to attend that

meeting. That letter from the mayor came subsequently. I will have

staff there.

MRS. WALLACE: In a front page story in the Ashcroft-Cache Creek Journal on

April 3, Mr. Geoff Swannell, of the minister's information office in

Cache Creek, stated that he "has access to a broad spectrum of speakers

available on request." I wonder if the minister would tell me whether

or not he is one of the speakers included in this broad spectrum. Is he

not included in the broad spectrum of speakers available?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I have been there several times. I am

certainly included as one of the speakers in this broad spectrum, but I

have declined this particular meeting.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: It can be stated. I know that there's a lot

of communication going on. There's also some effort to set me up to

force me to go to something that I had declined some time ago. When an

invitation arrives, I accept or I decline. In this case, some time ago

I declined on this invitation. The proponents of this meeting persisted

in putting my name on the announcement, despite the fact that they

clearly knew that I was not able to be there; and that's what I call a

setup.

BANK CHARGES TO MHR CLIENTS

MRS. WALLACE: I have another question, this time to the

Minister of Human Resources. The Bank of Nova Scotia in Duncan has been

charging $10 to MHR clients for a letter stating that there's no more

credit available to them. I understand that it's general bank policy to

charge for a letter relative to credit rating, but with a variable fee.

Inasmuch as such a letter is now required by the Minister of Human

Resources to qualify for hardship grants, is the minister prepared to

have the Ministry of Human Resources refund the cost of this personal

credit information?

[ Page

4289 ]

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I'm not aware of that, but I'll be very

glad to look into it and bring the information back to the House.

MILK BOARD QUOTAS

MS. SANFORD: I have a question for the Minister of

Agriculture and Food. Since the transfer of all milk quotas has been

frozen by the Milk Board, a case of hardship has come to my attention,

in which for medical reasons the farmer has been asked to sell his herd

and get out of the dairy business. What steps has the minister taken to

ensure that quota transfers take place in hardship cases?

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: I'd ask the hon. member to forward the particular case to me, and I'll carry it to the Milk Board personally.

MS. SANFORD: The person involved has already contacted the

Milk Board and has been told very firmly that all quotas are frozen

until the end of August. Does this mean that the minister is intending

to set up his own appeal procedure — through him as minister?

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: What I have undertaken to do simply means

that I'll look at the application and carry it personally to the board.

If it's a hardship case, it may deserve special recognition.

MS. SANFORD: Could the minister advise the House whether or

not he supports the actions of the Milk Board with respect to the five

people who have opted out and are circumventing the system that's been

established in British Columbia?

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: The Milk Board was established on the

recommendations of the industry itself. The industry supports the

board, and I support the board.

ACCOMMODATION IN TERRACEVIEW LODGE

MR. HOWARD: I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of

Health. Has he received a report from the members of his department who

went to Terrace last Wednesday or Thursday, with respect to their

discussions with the Terraceview Society and others in Terrace about

protecting the interests of a number of elderly citizens who are in

Skeenaview and others who actually live in the community and need

long-term care?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I haven't seen the report yet, Mr. Speaker, but it could very well be on its way, or it could be on my desk.

MR. HOWARD: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In view of the urgency of

the situation, could I ask the minister if he would mind taking the extraordinary

step of asking for that report to be presented to him as quickly as possible

in order that the minister may, if the report is negative, carry out his commitment

to this House to visit Terrace himself?

DUTY-FREE ZONES

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, keeping in mind and in line with the

hon. member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Parks), and as this is a

day to be thinking about Olympics of the mind, I'd like to ask the

Minister of Universities, Science and Communications a question. The

throne speech — and since that time mentioned by the Minister of

Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) — said that

the government is interested in setting up duty-free zones, I'd like to

ask the minister whether the government has any details on what a

duty-free zone would be.

HON. MR. McGEER: I'd be very pleased to take that as notice for the Premier, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MOUNT KLAPPAN ANTHRACITE PROJECT

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the

Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. McClelland) in his capacity as the acting

Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. Can the minister

advise the House what the status is of the proposed anthracite coal

project by Gulf Canada Resources Inc., identified as the Mount Klappan

coal project?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I'll take that question as notice for the minister and have him report back to the House.

MR. SKELLY: I ask leave to make an introduction, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

MR. SKELLY: I'd like to introduce a person in the gallery who

last year fell just short of performing one of the greatest services a

person in this province could perform on behalf of the other citizens

of British Columbia. I ask the House to welcome Jean Swanson, who is

the NDP candidate in Vancouver–Little Mountain.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, could I also ask leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

MR. MITCHELL: Last year on April 9 I opened an office in

Sooke and a young lady, who came in there for the first time — and it

was the first time I had ever met her – stayed to be exploited by my

political party. For the last year I have worked her to death in doing

many valuable projects in my particular campaign and in my

organization. I'd like the House to welcome Kathryn Clarke from Sooke,

who is my constituency association secretary.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, prior to the next order of

business I would remind all hon. members that reading telegrams,

letters or extracts from newspapers, etc. as an opening to an oral

question is an abuse of the rules of the House. I would commend that to

all members, including the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace).

[ Page 4290 ]

[2:30]

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Leave to proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 19.

RESIDENTIAL TENANCY ACT

(continued)

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, on Friday in debate on this bill I

was trying to explore with the minister or recommend to the minister

that perhaps there were some areas in which he, in his position as

minister responsible, could perhaps take a look at rewriting this

particular piece of legislation. There are a number of areas of deep

concern which I have expressed and which are being expressed now by

many tenant organizations and other institutions in our province.

Basically what we're asking the minister and the government to

consider is ensuring that there is equity and equality between two

global parties in British Columbia: the tenants and the landlords. We

feel that the office of the rentalsman for the last few years has done

an excellent job of ensuring that fairness and equal treatment under

the law were maintained. Our concern today, as it was on Friday and

will be for some time is that if this bill becomes law, there will be

one set of rules for the owners of property and another for those who

have to rent.

Basically what we want the minister to do in fairness is to ensure

that landlords and tenants are treated equally. This current bill does

not do that. I recognize that the minister and the government retracted

Bill 5 and did not bring it to this House. There were, indeed, some

odious components of that piece of legislation. On the surface there

have been some changes to that bill. However, the overriding concern

with this current piece of legislation is that tenants will not have

adequate protection. It's our position, as the New Democratic Party,

that 380,000 tenants making up over 36 percent of all households in

British Columbia are entitled to a better piece of legislation.

I would like to make a proposal to the minister. In light of the fact that

perhaps we don't have access to all the wisdom and all the various intricacies

of good legislation that might be brought before this House, I would like to

propose to the minister that we put this bill aside for a little bit and put

it into a committee of this House. It is unfortunate that we are debating this

piece of legislation which we just saw a few days ago and are proceeding with

very quickly. We are introducing and debating a piece of legislation that will

have a dramatic impact upon thousands of lives of families in this province

— not only the lives of the families of tenants but also those who own property.

It's our contention that this bill is very cumbersome and difficult and

will create all sorts of problems for both tenants and landlords, but particularly

for tenants. It's our contention that the two-tiered kind of system that

the minister has decided to introduce — the arbitration process with those arbitrators

appointed by the minister himself, and the moneyed kind of disputes that will

continue to arise going to the court system and the kind of concerns and problems

and difficulties that will bring about — is not the best way to go. There are

better alternatives, not only socially and efficiently but also that are cost-efficient.

Mr. Minister, I think it would be very useful today for both sides

of the House, rather than to continue what is pretty much a fundamental

philosophical battle — I touched upon that on Friday — between the

rights of the people who don't own property but contribute to our

community and the local taxes by their rent and are therefore entitled

to protection under the law, and the owners of property.... It's a

classic fight. I went back to Magna Carta and read into the record one

of the the sections of Magna Carta where there was a form of rent

control, some system whereby those who rent property do have equity

under the law and their rights are protected. We have to find a

mechanism that balances and protects the interests of both sides so

that they feel they have equal access to ensure their rights are

protected — in particular, that tenants are not going to be priced out

of their homes.

Mr. Speaker, I suggest that this piece of legislation go to a

committee of this House, that both sides of this House be represented

and we take a look in a rational, intelligent, non-emotional and, as

much as possible, a non-partisan manner. It's going to be difficult, I

know that, because this is a philosophical discussion. Let's look at

all the mechanisms that are available to ensure that all interests in

this particular issue are protected and enhanced. Let's have a thorough

investigation of the mechanisms that are open to us to ensure that we

have a fair and just system for both landlords and tenants.

Let's take a look at other jurisdictions. The minister may have done

this; I'm sure he has, because the minister does a good job. The

minister does his best. Unfortunately, he has a cabinet that appears to

be on a political mission: that is, to remove some of the basic rights

and privileges of tenants in British Columbia. I think that member, if

he can, should try to persuade his colleagues to take a step back and

establish a process of this House in committee as it's done in other

jurisdictio ns. We should look at all the avenues

open to us to ensure that we have a piece of legislation and a

rentalsman's office — or whatever you want to call it, Mr. Minister —

so that both parties are going to feel they are being dealt with

equally. For instance, let's take a look at the Conservative government

of Saskatchewan. I ask again — the minister will become bored with this

— why Grant Devine's Saskatchewan government has decided to introduce a

new renter protection program. Why have they decided to limit rent

increases to an average of 5 percent? Why has the minister said that

the government must have an influence in the marketplace, that tenants

must be protected from unreasonable increases? Why does Saskatchewan

feel that they must have a fair residential tenancy act? Let's

investigate why this government feels so uptight or so convinced that

the existing rentalsman and the existing Residential Tenancy Act is not

good enough for British Columbia.

Mr. Minister, today I am offering an olive branch, because I think

we have to sort out the disagreements. The overall interests of all of

us in this House are the concerns and the rights and the protection and

ensuring that 380,000 tenants and their families in British Columbia

have a fair system that they know will protect them in difficult times,

that they won't be facing massive rent increases that will make it very

difficult for them to hang onto their homes, particularly those who are

on fixed incomes senior citizens, those on fixed pensions, the

handicapped and those on a lower income:

[ Page 4291 ]

the poor, the unemployed and those on welfare. I'm

offering an olive branch. Take it out of this arena today and let's

have a thorough.... We could do that kind of discussion in a week.

We've got all sorts of organizations in British Columbia which are

willing to participate. They recognize that there has to be some give

and take on this particular issue. Let's try, for once, to have a

process that recognizes moderation and compromise and that politics is

the art of what is possible. But politics is also about ensuring as

much as possible that all interests are protected and treated fairly

under the law. I would like to suggest that process to the minister,

because there is deep concern about many of the aspects of this

particular legislation. I will go through those as we progress in this

debate.

In the interests of proceeding and trying to develop a fair process,

I'd like to reflect on some of the statements that have been made by

Socred members over the years about this whole issue of rent controls,

the rentalsman's office and rent review. I think it's useful to put

them on the record and to ask what happened to some of those views. Why

do we have a determined effort in this province not to ensure that

tenants and their rights are protected and that their families have

security of tenure?

In April 1977 the Premier of this province, Premier Bennett,

announced tighter rent controls for British Columbia, cutting the

allowable rent increase from 10.6 to 7 percent. That was, I would say,

in a troubled time in terms of the housing market, but it certainly

wasn't as troubled as what we have in terms of the recession and

depression in the province today. Yet the Premier of that time — who is

still the Premier today, for a short time — wisely, I think, decided to

reduce the allowable rent increase. The announcement at the time ended

speculation that the government was considering abolishing rent

controls. I should add for Hansard that this is taken from the Colonist , April 2, 1977:

"The 10. 6 percent ceiling was brought in by the New Democratic

Party in January 1975, and has been the target of many attacks by landlords

who claim the allowable annual increase did not enable them to keep pace with

inflation. Premier Bennett made no excuses for the 3.6 percent reduction in

the allowable increases." And here's a very interesting quote from

Premier Bennett.

" All Canadians must show some restraint to fight

inflation. The 7 percent will cover most landlords' actual cost

increases, and I'm sure that landlords recognize their duty to assist

the government and all the people in the fight against inflation."

There's the Premier, in 1977, talking about, recommending and

introducing a reduction in the allowable rent increase but making some

fairly significant statements about the responsibilities of landlords

and the owners of property to participate jointly in the struggle to

end the recession. The landlords have a responsibility to participate

in the recovery program, and the owners of property must partake of

that process.

[2:45]

I made the case last Friday that many tenants are seeing their

incomes frozen and wages either not increased or minimally increased —

certainly not above the inflation rate. They are tenants, wage-earners,

pensioners, etc., who are being told to tighten their belts and not

expect any increases at all. In the province of British Columbia today,

if this bill becomes law, we will have one rule, one set of

instructions, for the average tenant and the average British Columbian

— "Pull in your belt; don't expect any increase; show restraint" — and

the owners of property, the landlords in the province, will have a

wide-open spectrum in terms of what they can increase their rents by.

There will be double standards and double jeopardy. I don't think any

government member can accept that kind of double standard. In 1977 the

Premier of the province recognized that particular aspect. Premier

Bennett categorically said that the owners of property must participate

in the recovery program and must show restraint, and he and the

government of the day introduced a reduction in the annual allowable

rent increase.

What's happened today? Today we are far worse off. The situation is

ten times worse. Many of those tenants for whom we in the New

Democratic Party are fighting in this House today are the unemployed,

the poor, the welfare recipients, the pensioners, those on fixed

incomes, those wage-earners who are being told to restrain and pull in

their belts, yet this legislation says there will be no control at all

on what a landlord can do to rents. There will be no rent review

process, even if a tenant can document and fairly state that the rent

increase which they're accepting cannot be justified in terms of the

market in that particular area. If they want to complain about some of

the aspects of what might happen in their tenancy agreements, they've

either got to go before a friend of the minister, in terms of the

arbitrator or....

HON. MR. HEWITT: Order!

MR. BLENCOE: We take that back. They have to go before an

arbitrator that is appointed by the minister, or they have to go to the

court system.

I call upon the government of British Columbia today to recognize

that we are in the worst time since the Depression. We have

212,000-plus people unemployed, and thousands more are on welfare. We

have far worse times than when the Premier made some of these, I think,

quite dramatic statements in 1977. It's a time now for the Premier of

the province of British Columbia to say that the owners of property

have some responsibility to participate in sharing the load. Yet we

don't have that. The pressures must be so intense on this government,

in terms of those owners and those landlords, that the landlords are

getting a bill that basically reflects landlords' interests and

landlords' rights. I have no argument that those owners of property

should have rights. If a tenant is bad and is destroying property or

there is good reason to remove that tenant, fair enough. But I also

believe that there must be a guarantee in any legislation that ensures

that tenants have equal access to the law and that the legislation

reflects their interests and rights as well.

In 1977 the Premier of the province of British Columbia felt that

times were so bad that he said: "We will tighten up rent control. We

will reduce the allowable...." And that happened. For some unknown

reason there seems to be a feeling on the government side that things

aren't bad enough today to ensure, at least during this depression or

recession in British Columbia, that tenants have some safety net.

The Premier made some other statements which I think are

fascinating. "Landlords facing genuine hardship at the lower rent level

already have the option of applying to the Rent Review Commission for

an increase greater than the basic amount. This provision has been in

the legislation from the start, and some landlords have received this

relief." We

[ Page 4292 ]

have no argument that if the minister in his

wisdom, and the government in its collective wisdom, decided to keep

the office of the rentalsman, and if the minister in his wisdom wishes

to lean and clean it, if you will, fair enough. I may disagree with how

it comes about and with what happens, but at least try and consider

what the office as it exists now has done. It has served this province

well, I have no argument that the office of the rentalsman can do the

very thing that the Premier is saying here. It has been done over the

years. If a landlord can document and justify and prove to an

objective, non-government-appointed rentalsman or arbitrator that their

particular building has special needs, special problems and special

financial considerations, there can be — and are, currently — clauses

or legislation that allow that landlord to go beyond the allowable

amount. There's nothing wrong with that. We need that in this

legislation, so that when the landlord makes a huge rent increase,

there is some process of review. If a tenants' organization proves that

that landlord's rent increase is totally unjustifiable and does not

reflect market conditions or the particular problems the landlord is

having with that building, why should the landlord get a 40, 50 or 60

percent increase just because the law now says that any increase is

legal in the province of British Columbia? Fairness, equity. I call

upon the government and the Premier of the province of British Columbia

to reaffirm their bold statements of 1977.

On November 27, 1979, in the Daily Colonist ,

it said on page 37: "B.C. Rent Curbs to Stay." "There are no plans 'at

this time' to end rent controls, but current high interest rates and

their effect on landlords could mean individual punctures in the 7

percent ceiling, Consumer Affairs Minister James Nielsen confirmed

Monday." I reiterate: if a landlord can document and utilize

legislation that's fair and reasonable, and can justify that the rent

increase has to go beyond the 7 or 10 percent level, fair enough. But

let's ensure that a process does exist between landlord and tenant to

review that kind of problem. At the moment we're not going to have

that, because all the landlord will have to do once a year is increase

the rent as much as he likes.

Let's go back to when Mr. Rafe Mair was in charge of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I'll read again from the Daily Colonist of August 30, 1977. The headline is: "New Reins on Rents?"

"Consumer and Corporate Affairs Minister Rafe Mair

said Monday that 'post-control controls' would prevent landlords from

demanding exorbitant increases once rent controls are lifted. 'We've

taken care to design a

section that will provide a tenant some rights

of appeal, and hopefully force landlords and tenants alike to be

reasonable about what is fair in the circumstance. In no way does a

phasing-out of controls mean that we are abandoning the tenant to the

vagaries of the marketplace and to the tender mercies of the landlord

who might think that he can get away with anything.'

" 'In fact, tax changes coupled with rising inflation

and other trends had a disastrous effect on vacancy rates, ' he said,

adding that 'the logical political alternative' was rent control."

What has happened to these particular positions that were perhaps taken by more reasonable people? I don't know.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Fraser Institute.

MR. BLENCOE: It could be that this government has taken

advice from those who are on the extreme right — the ultra-right-wing

gurus of the wreckonomics institutes. I don't know, but I would ask the

minister and his government to have a more balanced view of this

particular issue, and to try to make up their own minds about what's

fair and not always take the advice of some extreme wreckonomics crew

like the Fraser Institute.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Remember, you are dealing with lives. You are dealing with close to

400,000 tenants and families in the province of British Columbia. You

are dealing with homes and futures and what's going to happen to their

living environment and their shelter. You're dealing with 36 percent of

all the households in the province of British Columbia. That issue

cannot be treated lightly. That population base is entitled to a piece

of legislation that is second to none in Canada.

We have the opportunity, if the minister will accept my olive branch

today, to meet and talk about legislation that is fair to all groups.

We have a chance to establish the finest piece of residential tenancy

legislation in this country. I believe the minister and I, those on

this side and other members of the government, have the ability to look

at this issue and separate our personal feelings, in order to look at

not who is right but what is right. I have to say, Mr. Minister, that

the legislation before us is not what is right in terms of ensuring

that all interested parties have equal access to equal rights and

legislation that is fair.

This from the August 30, 1977, Daily Colonist,

headlined: "Poor Won't Lose Rent Controls." "Consumer and Corporate

Affairs Minister Rafe Mair said Monday night he 'doubts if rent

controls will be lifted in my lifetime for the economically

disadvantaged.' " That's an amazing statement. Unfortunately Mr. Mair is

no longer in this House.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Mair has a lot of respect in this province.

He is considered to be a fair and reasonable person. Let's not get into

personalities. I believe that Mr. Mair is highly regarded, and I think

he's still highly regarded by many members on the government side. The

member to my left here does not regard Mr. Mair in a favourable light,

but I happen to. Here is Mr. Mair saying: "In my lifetime rent controls

for the economically disadvantaged will not be lifted."

Mr. Speaker, if there's anything this government should do to modify

its position, it has to be with respect to the impact of this

legislation on the unemployed, the poor and the disadvantaged in our

province — of which there are thousands at the moment. This legislation

will directly impact on those least able to afford huge rent increases

or user fees for an arbitrator. I really wish you would reconsider that

user fee, Mr. Minister, particularly for those disadvantaged who often

have to live in accommodation that is not the best. For example, can

you see someone who wants their sink, bathtub or door repaired paying

$30 to an arbitrator to ensure it's done? That's crazy. That's

ludicrous. The minister has got to reconsider that $30 application on a

universal basis. For many who are on a set income today — those on

social assistance or unemployment — that $30 will come directly

[ Page

4293 ]

out of their food budget. You will be taking away from their food budget.

Mr. Minister, you are already going to spend $2 million on this new

operation. I would suggest that if you analyze what you are going to

do, in terms of the costs in the court, you could keep the existing

office very well and save yourself money. That's the bottom line. In my

estimation, this legislation in this particular direction is going to

cost the taxpayers of British Columbia in excess of the costs of the

current office. I have on occasion asked the minister, and I and others

have asked the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith), if they can document

the court costs. What are the cost implications to the taxpayer, in

terms of the many items that are now going to go into the court system?

That's not even to separate the issue of whether tenants have to go

to a court to get back what is rightfully theirs, such as a security

deposit, when they can deal with it informally by the process which we

now have in the rentalsman's office — the rentalsman, of course, not

being appointed by the minister, but having a high degree of

objectivity. Do we want to go back to the court system? I believe not,

and I think the minister probably doesn't want to either; but

unfortunately, for whatever reasons, he has been forced into this

position.

[3:00]

The poor won't lose rent controls in his lifetime, says Rafe Mair.

What's happened to this government since some of those reasonable

people left — the Rafe Mairs? Particularly for the economically

disadvantaged.... The implications of this bill are going to ride on

the backs of the disadvantaged and poor, particularly those who will

have to use the arbitration process or the court system. They are going

to pay dearly for this piece of legislation. That must be reconsidered,

Mr. Minister, and I hope you will take that more seriously. Rafe Mair

made this statement outside the Legislature, after undergoing several

hours of intense criticism from the opposition. I might add, to be fair

about this, that during that attack Mair and his government had been

accused of not reporting accurately to the people of the province of

British Columbia on the rights of renters. But obviously Mr. Mair

believed that there was a case to be made, particularly that there must

be some protection for the economically disadvantaged in any difficult

times. The attack came during debate of Bill 86, the Residential

Tenancy Act.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Oh, we're not going to quit on this particular bill. It's a very important piece of legislation.

In another statement at that time Mr. Mair said: "I have said

before, and I say again, that the economically disadvantaged among us

are and will be protected." The minimal thing the minister and the

Premier of British Columbia can do in this situation is ensure that the

economically disadvantaged are protected in their legislation. It is

our contention that they will not be. I hope the minister will hear

that and take the advice, not just from the opposition, but from

someone who over the years has worked with many tenant groups and

organizations and with those who are dramatically affected by any kind

of rent increase or change in tenancy rules.

When I closed on Friday I was talking about a theme that the minister and this

government are always very interested in talking about: let the marketplace

take care of problems; let the market work. The basic assumption, and one which

I pointed out that I thought was false, is that rental housing is susceptible

to the laws of supply and demand and that government will have no effect in

the marketplace.... I gave some examples and some discussion which I think....

Although many members of the government tried to give the impression

they weren't listening, they took up some of the things I did say. In a

couple of statements I used the wrong figures inadvertently, and they

immediately perked up; they said, "That's not what you said five

minutes ago, " and they were quite correct. The government is listening

on this issue, I contend, and the reason they're listening is because

they can try very hard to convince those 380,000-plus tenants and that

huge population base in the province of British Columbia that they're

right about the marketplace, but when it comes to protecting your home

and guaranteeing security, guaranteeing that you have a home you can

pay for and not be forced out, that's an issue even this government

cannot avoid. I know the government is listening. I believe the

minister has heard from some of the tenant organizations in this

province and I can assure him he'll be hearing from lots more. He'll be

hearing particularly from senior citizen organizations, of which there

are thousands in this province, particularly in my riding, which has

the largest senior citizen population in this province.

Let's just complete that theme, Mr. Speaker, about the nature of the

B.C. housing market in relation to the minister's "let the market work"

approach. To go to some learned people in this particular area, I have

some statements made by Jack Hayes of the Rental Housing Council, which

represents about half of B.C.'s landlords, about why there is a

shortage of rental accommodation in Vancouver, for example. The

clipping is from January 7. 1984. Let's see what Mr. Hayes has to say

about the shortage of rental accommodation in Vancouver, which is an

issue. Any legislation that deals with the lives of a huge portion of

the population of the province of British Columbia must take into

consideration these ancillary considerations and concerns. "There is no

land to build new apartments on in Vancouver, and there hasn't been for

many years. Apartments are being built on reclaimed property, which

means you have to tear something down to put something up." Supply of

land therefore puts intense pressure on existing accommodation, which

means, of course, that landlords will be able to charge whatever they

want because of that intensity. It's an issue that must be looked at

and discussed, and one that has to be resolved to some degree in any

kind of legislation.

Jim Patterson, the current rentalsman, is responsible for this piece

of legislation. Unfortunately, it's a piece of legislation that.... If

he were permitted to write something that wasn't subject to intense

political pressure, I think Mr. Patterson would be quite capable of

writing a fairer piece of legislation. Mr. Patterson said that high

cost is related to demand — meaning high cost of land, I believe. This

is from the same Vancouver Sun story, January 7, 1984.

" 'Vancouver is a popular place to live, that's the

problem. If we were to blow up the mountains and fill in the bays, the

rents would go down.'

"The city's apartment occupancy rate was listed by the

rentalsman at 1.7 percent in October, down from 3.2 percent the

previous April. Patterson said the vacancy rate is continuing to

decline. He expects it will drop to the near-zero level by 1986, unless

the federal government expands its rental housing programs by the end

of this year."

[ Page 4294 ]

Again something for the provincial government to consider: we do

have a supply problem in terms of affordable housing in the province of

British Columbia; and your legislation will continue to intensify the

pressure on existing affordable accommodation. Of course, this means

that as that intensity mounts, any increase being legal with this

particular piece of legislation, rents will rise considerably — way

beyond any level that is necessary to make that particular apartment

block economically viable. Way beyond.

Jim Patterson, the rentalsman, is projecting that vacancy rates will

fall to near-zero by 1986. At this point I would like to touch upon an

issue that I think the minister is going to have to deal with in 1986

if Expo indeed goes ahead. It's an issue that happened in Knoxville,

and I'll be giving that example. It will put undue pressure on many

housing situations. Unless we have a bill to ensure that this can't

happen, we will have an incredible situation with Expo. Landlords close

to the site will evict tenants, because Vancouver has a chronic hotel

shortage, and landlords will be able to make much more money from a

series of short lettings than from letting to the existing tenants.

Evictions will be secured by the landlord under

section 29(4)(e), which

specifically allows eviction for short-term conversions of residential

premises.

This happened in Knoxville, Tennessee, last year when landlords

discovered that for a short time they could make seven or eight times

as much by short lettings than from their regular tenants. Then, after

the world's fair in Knoxville was over, the premises were relet.

I bring this issue in now because this tenancy legislation will not

deal with that issue, which is, I understand, already beginning to

surface in Vancouver. There are already rumblings that owners of

properties will be terminating regular tenancy agreements and, of

course, evicting people so they can take advantage of Expo. That's an

issue that this tenancy legislation has got to pay attention to,

because at the moment the legislation would allow that kind of eviction

to go ahead. It could create all sorts of problems in residential

tenancy buildings in Vancouver.

I'll just give the minister some insights into what happened in

Knoxville. I think the adage is: be prepared, plan for it, and try to

avoid it. That's what we're trying to say here. Maybe in this bill we

need to have some insurance that this kind of situation — which was an

awful situation in Knoxville — cannot happen in our province. Let me

just read from Newsweek of March 1, 1982, about what happened in

Knoxville, Tennessee.

"When the eastern Tennessee city of Knoxville won the

right to hold a world's fair this year, most of its residents were

thrilled by the prospect of showcasing their city and attracting a

needed infusion of cash from developers and tourists." Sounds very

familiar — of course, Expo here will hopefully do the same sort of

thing.

"Few realized the price many of them would pay for the privilege.

With the Knoxville International Energy Exposition less than three months away,

about 1,000 local residents, many of them students or elderly and poor, are

being forced from their homes on short notice by landlords eager to collect

higher rents from well-heeled visitors. 'All along we've have plenty

of greed at the top, ' says University of Tennessee associate professor

Joe Dodd, long a critic of the fair. 'Now it's sweeping across the city.'

Landlords have created vacancies by implementing dramatic rent hikes of as much

as 50 percent and restrictive new rules that, for example, ban pets."

I don't want to get into that.

"Apartments that rented for less than $300 a month

will bring more than $100 a night during the fair's run. Landlords are

also exploiting a condominium conversion law that permits long-term

leases to be broken on short notice but does not require conversion

until the fair has ended.

"Once ousted, tenants confront a dwindling rental

market. 'We've been looking for two months, and we still haven't found

a place, ' says David Bower, assistant manager at a local supermarket."

Not only is that a distinct possibility in Vancouver with Expo 86,

but there are a number of other issues that are a problem too. One of

the things the old Residential Tenancy Act allowed was that for a

strata conversion you had to go to the local council for permission to

end a building or unit being a rental unit. You had to get permission.

Now that's not in here. What we could have is a mass movement by the

owners of rental accommodation, particularly in Vancouver prior to

Expo, to change their buildings from rental to strata and utilize them

on a short-term basis for Expo 86. That rule was in that Residential

Tenancy Act for a very good reason. What conceivably could happen, and

did, I know, happen in Victoria, was that overnight long-term residents

of apartment blocks — without knowing it, of course — were out on the

street and mass strata-titling went ahead. I can see that happening in

Vancouver, and I think there has to be some local say about that

particular issue. I think, Mr. Minister, that you've got to put back

into the legislation some control over that particular aspect,

particularly with Expo 86 around the corner.

[3:15]

Again, related to Expo 86 and this kind of dramatic situation that

may arise.... Hopefully it won't, but I think we should be prepared for

it. One of the most serious loopholes in your piece of legislation is

section 7(3). It will allow the landlords to require prospective

tenants to sign written, fixed-term tenancy agreements with no right of

renewal at the end of the term. Once the six months, the year or

whatever is specified has run out, the tenant must move out unless the

landlord agrees otherwise. I can see that happening leading up to Expo

86 and all sorts of tenants moving into a building being forced to sign

these fixed-tenancy agreements, and after six months they're on the

street because of the potential to make dramatic profits from Expo 86.

I've got no problem with landlords' making money, but I think we have

to be very careful and ask, is an apartment-owner in the business of

renting to good tenants? Is he establishing some degree of security of

tenure? Suddenly at a whim, because of something like Expo 86, all the

rules are out the window and a fixed written tenancy forced upon them.

Under

section 7(3) they lose their apartment. It's a very serious

loophole, Mr. Minister. I hope he will review that particular section.

Of course we will go through these when we get to committee stage, but

I wanted to tie that into the Expo 86 concerns I have. I know that it's

already been discussed, and there are rumours flying around

Vancouver.... I don't want to get into rumours, but it's around this

particular issue. This bill does nothing to ensure that that aspect is

taken care of.

Going on to the "let the market work" approach, I just gave an example. There's got to be a balance; you can't have

[ Page

4295 ]

extremes. We've got to find the middle road on this

particular issue, and that's what I'm trying to do. At the moment we're

at the far end of the spectrum in terms of this piece of legislation,

and I think we've got to move back to the middle. If you let the jungle

or the marketplace totally dictate what happens with your legislation

or with your residential tenancy situation.... Government does exist to

be concerned about the interests of citizens. When you've got the kind

of situation where it is their home, you have to ensure you're in the

middle ground, that you've got balance in your legislation. With

respect — through you, Mr. Speaker, to the minister — I don't think you

have achieved that in this legislation. What did Greg Richmond of the

West End Tenants' Association have to say about the problems of average

rents?

"Vancouver's high rents have been no secret to

apartment dwellers looking for accommodation, West End Tenants'

Association project director Greg Richmond said. He disputed

Patterson's $423 Vancouver average rent. He said an informal survey by

the association in the West End found rents about $50 below the

rentalsman's statistics. His organization has a keen interest in low

rent averages. If the averages are low, a landlord wanting to raise

rents cannot claim his or her raise is only being done to bring the

rent up to the average."

Interesting comments. I just put them in to give an aside to this particular issue.

Richard McAlary of the B.C. Central Credit Union on the high cost of

housing: it's been one of the major reasons hightech industries are

hard to attract here. Again, in trying to look at some ancillary, or

tangents if you will, in this particular piece of legislation. It is

very important legislation not only to tenants but its impact is felt

like a fan — it goes out right across our communities. We have to

ensure that we take these ancillary matters into consideration.

"Greater Vancouver's position didn't surprise Richard

McAlary, chief economist of the B.C. Central Credit Union. Housing

costs are one damper on the province's search for new industry, he

said. 'Rental housing, combined with the high cost of housing, is one

of the major factors for the province not being successful in

attracting high-technology industry. When an industry is looking for a

place to locate, the cost of shelter for its employees is of major

importance. High costs means higher wages.' "

It's an ancillary matter, but one that the minister has got to

recognize: in British Columbia we are going to have no restrictions on

increases in rental accommodation. As that vacancy rate drops we

know.... We've had the scenario before: a big fight, and the rents

skyrocket. What Mr. McAlary is saying — and I think it's an excellent

point — is that what you may be trying to do on one level may be

counterproductive on another. Here he's saying...trying to attract new

industry. If there is a perception by those talented people who want to

come to this province for the high tech that rental accommodation is

just too high, they're not going to come here. It's a damper on that

particular growth industry. It's a point that I think is worth the

minister perhaps taking into consideration.

In Victoria the vacancy rates are dropping quite dramatically,

despite the record unemployment. The CMHC says that the average vacancy

rate is 1.2 percent, down from 2.8 percent in 1983, and now the average

annual vacancy rate is 2.9 percent. I touched upon this particular

issue on Friday. It has to do with the concerns of manufactured-home

owners — or mobile-home owners, to use the colloquial term.

Manufactured-home owners are still under the Residential Tenancy Act,

despite representations that they be covered by a separate act. The

concerns expressed by, I think, a fairly articulate gentlemen, Mr. Vern

Bennett, were stated in the Vancouver Sun

on July 20, 1983. I would like the minister to consider this particular

mobile-home owner problem. I did mention it last time, but I'm giving

some specifics today. I am now reading from the Vancouver Sun story:

"Mr. Bennett. 62, who has lived for three years in the

Bear Creek Glen Mobile Home Park on King George Highway, said he

represents about 2,000 people in 23 Surrey mobile-home parks. He said

these people own their homes but rent the land, and they want the

provincial government to deal with them separately rather than lumping

them together with apartment and housing tenants under the Residential

Tenancy Act. He said they deserve a special classification because of

the difficulty and costs involved in moving. 'We're hardly mobile, '

said Bennett, adding that it would cost him about $7,000 to move his

double-wide trailer to another location."

I think it's a very important point. We tend to treat these people

as if they're going to move and up and go on a daily basis, but it

costs $7,000 for this person to move. Because they live in what's

considered a manufactured kind of unit, to all intents and purposes

they are permanent. I think we have to remove the perception that they

are mobile. I think Mr. Bennett makes a good point.

Again, I don't think this act does deal with their particular concerns. I would hope the minister would take up.... Maybe

the second member for Surrey (Mr. Reid) will want to get hold of Mr.

Bennett, and perhaps meet with him on this particular issue.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: You have?

MR. REID: That's why the number has been established at $3,000 by the minister, which is fair.

MR. BLENCOE: I'll just finish off with Mr. Bennett. "'If they

want to jack up my rent here, it's not as if I have a choice about

paying it or moving.' Bennett said. 'There's nowhere else to go.' " I

don't believe that the concerns expressed by Mr. Bennett have been

addressed in Bill 19. Any rent is legal. As Mr. Bennett said. "'If they

want to jack up my rent here, it's not as if I have a choice about

paying it or moving. There's nowhere else to go.' " I hope the minister

will take those words and concerns under advisement.

Mr. Speaker, I want to move on to a new theme. I think this is the

critical point that I have alluded to and talked about, but now I want

to be specific — that landlords and tenants, Mr. Minister, have access

to a fair, impartial system of dispute resolution superior to the

rentalsman; that this particular legislation is superior to the

rentalsman. I don't believe it is. I think we are doing a disservice

not only to tenants but also to landlords in the province of British

Columbia by insisting that this piece of legislation will become law.

I'm hoping that the minister will see that there are some, I think,

good opportunities to review this particular bill. I have been a little

disturbed that it's going through the House so quickly. There

[ Page 4296 ]

are many organizations that would like to meet with

the minister, to ask him to reconsider. Today I have provided an olive

branch, asking the minister if we can put this bill into some committee

structure, and in maybe a week or two let's try to develop something

that brings us back to the middle ground.

System of dispute resolution. Dealing with the government argument

that landlords and tenants will have access to a fair and impartial

system of dispute resolution superior to that of a rentalsman requires,

I think, some elaboration. I've already indicated that there are

problems of partiality, in terms of the kind of people the minister is

considering as arbitrators. I think he got the message quite clearly,

and I hope the minister will again take that under advisement. Maybe he

will take a look at removing the current system of rentalsman's

officers from the political arm and not have it subjected to possible

political interference, which is a much better system. It certainly

gives a public perception that there won't be any interference. I just

happen to believe that many tenants will be suspect of this particular

process, with the current arbitration process, yet they are in a

catch-22 situation. They pay $30 to a ministry- appointed arbitrator

who may hear the case, or they have to go to court and pay a lot more

money. I don't think that's right. I think we've got the capability to

have a better system, one which can be built upon the existing

rentalsman's office. If the hangup is the term "office of the

rentalsman, " then let's get another term. Let's not throw out the baby

with the bath water and the bathtub, and all those people who have

served the tenants of this province so well. Generally speaking,

landlords and tenants have been pleased and I think the costs to the

taxpayer have been minimal, compared to what the costs will now be in

terms of the court processes that have to take place.

[3:30]

I've already indicated that there are problems of partiality in

terms of the kind of people the minister is considering as arbitrators,

and I sincerely feel that. I would like the minister to reconsider

that. Why have that? There's really no reason, unless the minister does

have an ulterior motive; but I don't think so. I don't think there is

any need for the minister to be appointing the arbitrators. If you go

through the public service, based on merit and ability, with some

degree of separation from your office, landlords and tenants will know

that there will be no attempts or opportunities for political

interference. If a decision doesn't please the minister, the arbitrator

may not have a job, having been appointed by the minister. We need

impartial process and objectivity, unbiased and away from the political

arm. Heaven forbid, we don't need any more political interference in

processes in British Columbia, particularly in this issue.

I presume these arbitrators are all from business. I expect the

minister will attempt to deal with this criticism by appointing a few

tenant representatives, since I think their only mandate will be to

interpret a slanted law. Landlords will probably stand that much. I

don't think we should even be getting into who is going to be appointed

— that person will be a so-and-so person, that person will be a

landlord person, that will be a tenant person, that will be a Social

Credit person or a New Democrat person. Any system that allows that

kind of discussion to arise — and it is guaranteed that this system

will allow it — is going to be counterproductive. Go through the public

service merit hiring process, not subject to the minister appointing

them, or us being involved. Someone suggested to me that the government

and the opposition should put some names forward. We want nothing to do

with that. In this very critical area we want the best person for the

job, based on ability, not on political appointment. We want fair,

impartial arbitrators.

The difficulties facing tenants and, to a lesser extent, landlords

by the new system do not become apparent until you consider each of the

major problem areas dealt with now by the rentalsman. Consider the

following situations, Mr. Speaker, bearing in mind always that the

system, after Bill 19, is supposed to be fairer and more impartial than

the rentalsman system now in operation. Dealing with the minister's

argument that landlords and tenants will have access to a fair,

impartial system, and a dispute resolution superior to the rentalsman,

let me give you this situation. What happens if a landlord changes the

locks or denies entry? Under the rentalsman, an immediate investigation

and a binding order made when required. What happens under Bill 19?

Tenant and landlord may agree to an arbitrator on their own. Not

likely. Changing locks is an offensive act by the landlord designed to

pressure the tenant. Or the tenant applies to the registrar giving full

particulars — and thirty bucks — asking him to designate an arbitrator.

Delays in the mail and in the bureaucracy. The arbitrator may decide

the complaint is not worth hearing. If the landlord has exercised his

option under

section 56, and decided that arbitration is not part of

the tenancy agreement, the tenant may apply to supreme or county court.

The application costs money; it costs money for a lawyer. Again we get

delays in getting into court because they're clogged. It's an expense

for the tenants. Welfare claimants are denied access. The bottom line,

Mr. Speaker, is that the tenants get the short end and cannot get

prompt relief from their predicament as they can now under the

rentalsman. That's why the rentalsman's office was established — to

avoid this clogging, delaying procedure. I reiterate that we're going

back 10 to 20 years in landlord-tenant regulations in this province.

I think these are interesting scenarios for the minister,

considering that they will all arise and he will, as minister, have to

deal with them. I'm trying to tell him now that he's going to have to

deal with problems that he doesn't want, and that if he takes care of

them now in a bill that's fair, he will avoid them.

Situation two. What happens if a tenant pays no rent, seriously

damages the suite, and refuses to move after legal termination notice

takes effect? Today, under the rentalsman, a possession hearing is

scheduled within 10 working days and a possession order is made. After

Bill 19 becomes law, tenants and landlords may agree to an arbitrator

on their own. Not likely. Refusing to pay rent or refusing to move

after termination notice takes effect is designed to frustrate the

landlord. Or, another option, the landlord applies to the registrar,

giving full particulars and asking him to designate an arbitrator.

Delays in the mail and in the bureaucracy again. Here's another option

in this particular scenario. The tenant has exercised his option under

section 56 and decided that arbitration is not part of the tenancy

agreement. The landlord applies to the supreme or county court. Dollars

needed for the applications — crazy. Dollars needed for a lawyer —

ridiculous. And to get the nearest one to the premises for an order of

possession.... Again there is delay in getting into court because

they're clogged. It's expensive for the

[ Page 4297 ]

landlord — even if the application for possession

is unopposed. There's inconvenience for the landlord if the landlord's

office is in Vancouver and the premises, for instance, are in Prince

George or Terrace.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

I don't believe that you've taken into consideration these

particular situations. That's why I'm trying to get into the nuts and

bolts of this particular legislation — to show to this government that

they're asking for nothing but trouble with this piece of legislation.

Pull it back, take another look, pick up the olive branch by trying to

get into committee and finding some middle ground. I have said

categorically and I'll say it again: this is a bad piece of legislation

— of course, giving the reasons why it's bad and at the end voting

against it. But we still have a piece of legislation that's not fair.

It's partial. It does nothing to ensure security of tenure — security

of tenure for many supporters of this government as well as this side

of the House. I think that's what we would like to see happen.

Here's another scenario I think is interesting, What happens if a

landlord seizes the tenant's furniture because he is late with the

rent? With the rentalsman's office, the rentalsman immediately orders

the landlord to release the furniture or face prosecution. The tenant

is advised to pay the rent or face eviction. Quick, efficient — people

know where they stand: tenant wrong, face eviction; landlord, etc.,

etc. It works well and I can't understand why the minister would want

to eliminate that particular process. What happens under Bill 19? The

tenant applies to the provincial county or supreme court for relief.

Why go to the court system? The tenant pays dollars for the

application, dollars for a lawyer, and faces delay because the courts

are clogged. It is not likely that the tenant will be able to pay for

court fees or lawyers if he cannot pay for the rent. That's the trouble

with your

section 21, I might add, in which you're saying that you

don't want to have economic eviction. I would contend that not only is

it going to be virtually impossible to prove intent under this

particular clause, but if tenants can't afford a rent increase like 50

percent or 60 percent, or whatever, they certainly won't be able to

afford to go to court. That's the double jeopardy kind of situation

you're setting up under

section 21, and it's not going to work. To

prove intent is going to be very difficult, and if they can't afford

the rent increase they certainly can't afford to go to court to beat it.

Tenants are going to give up, and of course what will happen is —

under the minister's bottom line in this whole issue, which is why I

have been very critical of him and still will be — the tenant can

always move. That's the answer.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Well, if you'd been here, Madam Member, I have been trying to give some alternatives....

MRS. JOHNSTON: I've been listening to every word.

MR. BLENCOE: Oh, good. Glad to hear it, because I've been giving a little bit of an olive branch here.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Did you talk to any of your tenants? Did you

offer them the Saskatchewan bill or the British Columbia bill? It would

be interesting to see what the result would be in Surrey. There are

many tenants in Surrey.

Tenants will give up under this legislation. They won't go to the

court system, because they won't be able to afford it. They won't be

able to take the risk,

whereas with the rentalsman, as we have now,

they at least know that they've got a chance to have justice done,

fairness applied, and equality under the law be the rule.

Another situation. What happens if the premises are unsafe,

unhealthy or in serious need of repair? Under the rentalsman, the

rentalsman orders the landlord to bring the premises up to reasonable

standards or collects the rent to make repairs. It's quick, efficient,

fair, both sides are represented informally, and it's no big deal. They

get it resolved. After Bill 19 tenants and landlords may agree on their

own to an arbitrator appointed by the minister. The tenants are not

likely going to accept that, since landlord-tenant relations have a

habit of being strained when the tenant has rain coming through the

roof. The tenant applies to the registrar, giving full particulars and

his $30 and asking him to designate an arbitrator. There are delays in

the mail and in the bureaucracy, and the arbitrator may decide that the

complaint is not worth hearing. Or, if the landlord has exercised the

section 56 option and decided that arbitration is not part of the

tenancy agreement, the tenant applies to the court for an order.

Tenants have to be careful to choose the right court; if they try in

the provincial court, and the repairs cost more than the limits of

small debts court, then the tenant loses because the provincial court

cannot make orders over $2,000. So the poor tenant has to have a

working knowledge of the cost of repairs, which most of them do not

have. Again, you're putting an incredible load on the tenant. That's

not their job. They want something repaired, which is fair, and they've

got to go to court to get that. Mr. Minister, reconsider that. Two

thousand dollars does not buy many repairs. So the tenants would be

better to try the county or supreme court, if they can afford it. A

simple leak in the roof could entail major structural renovation. For

these reasons orders relating to repairs will, for reasons of

practicality, tend to be dealt with in the county or supreme courts,

despite the provisions of the act now before the House,

Why clog senior courts with such mundane issues? Why make a tenant

go that route just to get some repairs done to a building? Maintain the

office that you have today. Let's the discuss that office today. If you

want to change the name because of the problems you have with it, okay,

fair enough. But don't set up this cumbersome, complicated, costly kind

of system — not only to the tenant but also to the landlord.

Lean and clean is what this government talks about. Well, let's have

a clean bill and regulations that are fair and don't put incredible

onus not only on landlord and tenants but also on the court systems.

The courts have enough problems to deal with — serious crime — so let

them get on with that. The Law Reform Commission, for very good

reasons, recommended that these things get out of that court system. I

contend that the taxpayers have saved millions of dollars in the last

ten years because of that kind of legislation and that rentalsman's

office. It has saved the taxpayers millions of dollars, and now we're

going back to the old system.

[3:45]

Here's another situation. What happens if a tenant believes he's being

evicted unfairly? Under the rentalsman, a tenant disputes the notice, and the

rentalsman will make a

[ Page 4298 ]

decision after hearing both sides. Both sides are

heard by an independent rentalsman's officer, who is highly regarded by

both sides. He is objective and his decision is highly regarded and

believed. Again, if you get a decision from an arbitrator who is

appointed directly by the minister, it brings suspicion into the

process.

What happens after Bill 19? The landlord and tenant may agree to an

arbitrator on their own. That's hardly likely if the landlord is

annoyed enough with a tenant to evict. Or the tenant applies to the

registrar, giving full particulars and his or her $30, asking him to

designate an arbitrator. If there are delays in the mail, bureaucracy

could deny the tenant a hearing because of the very tight time-frames

specified by the act during which appeals have to be lodged. There is

another option: if the landlord has decided that arbitration is not

part of the tenancy agreement, the tenant may apply to the county or

supreme court. Here we go again! Dollars for the application, dollars

for the lawyer; delays getting into court because they are clogged; an

expense for the tenants, the possibility that seniors will just accept

the eviction because they tend to get confused if they are subject to

legal hassles. I can assure you of that, Mr. Speaker, it happens so

often. Welfare recipients will not be able to afford the costs. Legal

aid will not cover any of these kinds of costs. It means that the

disadvantaged, the poor, the unemployed and those on welfare will not

have the recourse to the law that they're supposed to have under the

act. You're disenfranchising thousands of British Columbians from

access to the courts. They won't be able to afford legal aid to go to

the courts to protect their rights.

What kind of province are we living in? I thought this government had learned its lessons in the last session.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: With an accent like that, you should be

happy and grateful to be in this great province and not back home in

England. That's what I feet.

MR. BLENCOE: If that's their only argument, Mr. Speaker, for

what I'm giving forth, they really are in trouble. Unfortunately, that

was not uttered by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, who

I know will give far more intelligent answers than the Municipal of

Affairs often does.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I wouldn't go back. No way!

MR. BLENCOE: The issue is not whether I am going to stay or

leave. The issue is whether 380,000 tenants and their families — 36

percent of the population of British Columbia — are going to have

rights, privileges, entitlement to a fair hearing, and a proper piece

of legislation that brings balance between both sides. That is the

issue, and I will continue to talk about in this Legislature.

Welfare recipients, the poor and seniors won't get into legal hassles because

they won't want to go to court. Students, of course, are in a similar position.

The end result is that the power rests squarely with the landlord, and tenants

will likely avoid courts to same money. So landlords will get all sorts of increases

in their rents because tenants will not be able to afford to go back to get

security deposits or anything like this. Why should a tenant have to go to court

to get his or her money back? How can that be justified? If you've paid

a security deposit, you can prove it. It's documented. It gains interest.

When you leave you should be able to get your security deposit back without

going to court. I hope the minister agrees that we're going to see a change

in this legislation. It is ridiculous that tenants will have to go to court

to get back their security deposit; it's money that is rightfully theirs.

I hope this government will retract and reconsider this particular piece of

legislation.

There's another situation that will arise because of this particular

piece of legislation. What happens if the landlord or tenant wants to

avoid an eviction notice by working out a problem? The rentalsman

attempts to mediate every dispute; in over 80 percent of all their

cases they are successful, and both parties are happy. It's a success

story in the province of British Columbia, Mr. Speaker. Why, for

whatever political reason or uptightness they have with the office of

the rentalsman, upset that success story? The office of the rentalsman

is a success story, and it should be maintained. Maybe some super

ultra-right-wing members of your party are pulling strings these days,

but I would hope that the sensible, rational and intelligent members of

the Socred members — I know there are some — will see that this bill is

not sensible, rational and intelligent.

Under Bill 19, if a tenant or landlord want to avoid an eviction

notice, what would happen? Well, you'd have to have a lawyer — dollars

again — contact his lawyer if you can't deal with it face to face. It's

all going to cost money. The weakness of Bill 19 is that there is no

provision for mediation. Arbitration and court proceedings are both

confrontational in nature. In labour relations bargaining usually goes

through several stages: face-to-face bargaining, mediation,

arbitration. At any stage a settlement is possible in face-to-face

bargaining, mediation, arbitration. I contend that the office of the

rentalsman is doing that so well in the province of British Columbia

that it's ludicrous, it's ridiculous, to remove the very successful

process and go into Bill 19. It will set us back 30 years, or even

further, in residential tenancy situations.

Bill 19 goes straight from face-to-face bargaining to arbitration or

the courts. If the government says that the labour negotiations model

is appropriate, they should take steps to make sure that the mediation

processes built into the modern collective bargaining system are

reflected in the process the government is imposing on landlords and

tenants. I hope the minister is listening. We argue that the changes

proposed by the government are unhealthy, preferring the present

rentalsman structure. But if you must go this route, you should

mitigate in some small degree the harm you are doing by injecting

mediation services into the process. I hope the minister is listening,

because we're trying....

As you know, Mr. Speaker, in this marvellous province that we have,

it's often said in this House that we don't know when one gives

constructive ideas of alternatives.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Who said that?

MR. BLENCOE: I don't know who says it, but it's an accusation.

Today I'm trying very hard to give this government some

alternatives, some different ways of looking at things, which I think

would be a far better system in terms of serving landlords, tenants and

the taxpayers in the province of British Columbia. This bill is going

to cost the taxpayers a lot more money than is currently spent on the

residential kind of problems.

Here's another situation. What happens if the landlord unfairly

holds the security deposit? Under the rentalsman, the tenant files a

claim with the rentalsman. A hearing is

[ Page 4299 ]

convened within one to two months. After Bill 19

becomes law — and let's hope it doesn't become law — the tenant files a

claim in small claims court, and a trial date is set for six months

later. A landlord is unfairly holding a security deposit, and you've

got to wait six months to get into small claims court to get back what

is yours. You've got to say: "Why not use the office of the rentalsman

that you have now that resolves those kinds of things on a daily basis

without any big deal?"

Here's another situation. What happens if you don't know your rights

or obligations as a tenant or landlord? Under the rentalsman, you drop

in or telephone the rentalsman. Each year almost 62,000 people visit

the rentalsman for information, according to the latest available

ministry annual report for 1982. There were 373,000 inquiries received

by phone, a large number of which were seeking information, although

the report does not furnish a separate analysis. Under Bill 19, what

happens if you don't know your rights or obligations as a tenant or as

a landlord? You have to hire a lawyer, which costs everybody a lot of

money, more court time and, of course, at more cost to the taxpayer. To

resolve a simple dispute or mediate a simple problem, why should a

tenant or a landlord have to go the long, convoluted, lawyer, court

route? It doesn't make sense. I think many people on all sides are now

saying that about this particular bill.

It's our contention that the role which the rentalsman enjoys today

has a very broad public acceptance among landlords and tenants. I was

particularly impressed by the number of landlords who spoke out for

that office when Bill 5 was presented to the House last session. Within

the limits set by the government, they have been successful in

dispensing a unique blend of mediation and arbitration that met the

toughest test of all: did it work effectively? That's the toughest

test. If we're all honest with ourselves about this particular piece of

legislation before us now, we'd ask: is it going to work effectively,

from all sides and all interests? If we look at this legislation and at

how the office of the rentalsman has worked over the last few years, we

will know that it is not going to work effectively.

In answering the question of whether the office of the rentalsman

worked effectively, I have to give an emphatic yes. I have already

spoken about those dedicated public servants who have worked there for

many years. I know many of them personally, and they are good friends.

They have worked hard and have lived under heavy pressures, often with

actual lives and home environments being in their hands. I know how

seriously the staff have taken that role, and they are to be

complimented for their work over the years. In my humble opinion the

government has not treated them very fairly, in terms of what they have

given the tenants and landlords of this province. They deserve better

treatment. Many of them have worked way beyond the usual statutory

hours and have taken work home or been available for advice. I believe

the staff of the office of the rentalsman have been some of the finest

public servants this province has ever seen. They have been a success

story in the province of British Columbia. I think, the New Democratic

Party thinks, and I think thousands of British Columbians think and

believe that that success story should not be destroyed. Why destroy

it? It has effectively resolved disputes on behalf of thousands of

British Columbians over the years. To the question as to whether it

works effectively, I give an emphatic yes.

[4:00]

[Mr. Passarell in the chair.]

I don't plan to dwell at length on the fact that it was a New

Democratic Party innovation or on the arguments that were put forward

by the members on the government side when they were in opposition.

Sure, we established it when we were in government, as we established

many other good things in this province.

I really would ask the government to try and separate your political

direction and try and concentrate on how effective this particular

office has been in this province of British Columbia.

Suffice to say, Mr. Speaker, that the concerns put forward by Social

Credit proved unfounded. The rentalsman staff are professionals in

their field and have developed respect in the community because they

have been impartial to both sides. This particular piece of legislation

will institutionalize partiality. The effective balance we have

achieved between landlords and tenants will be eradicated and

obliterated in this province. I think that has to be considered and

dealt with.

On the occasion when fresh evidence came to hand, the rentalsman's

officer could convene a hearing: an important and necessary process,

and a safeguard, if you will, Mr. Speaker, which is not granted the

arbitrators who will take the rentalsman's place, as currently proposed

in this bill. There will be no appeal to the minister's appointments

who will be the arbitrators. Not only will you have an arbitrator who

is a friend of government, a friend of the minister, perhaps — who

doesn't necessarily have to hear your case — but you can't even get an

appeal to that decision. That's not a fair process; that's more like a

court of Star Chamber, for those of you who are familiar with that

ancient court. Even in Magna Carta time they ensured that there was

some balance between landlords and tenants and some kind of control

mechanism to ensure that renters were protected.

On the odd occasion when the rentalsman erred or made a mistake in

law, an appeal lay to the courts — an essential safeguard against

kangaroo court justice, or Star Chamber procedures, as I've already

stated. This safeguard has not been put in place for the arbitrators.

It creates the impression that the minister and this government are

more concerned with disposing of complaints than they are with the

niceties of fair play. That phrase "fair play" — I think most British

Columbians react quite vehemently to any system, whether it be in

government, in the private sector or in sports....They believe in fair play. They believe in referees being impartial.

Here's an analogy that perhaps the minister or the government may

understand. You have a Stanley Cup hockey game. Everything's riding on

it. Montreal versus the New York Islanders. Here's the scenario

vis-à-vis the arbitrator process we have: the referee is hired by the

Montreal Canadiens, and he will referee that game. The referee in that

hockey game will not be impartial. He's been hired by the Montreal

Canadiens to ensure that the hockey game's result favours the Montreal

Canadiens. No hockey fan or sports fan in Canada or in the province of

British Columbia would ever endorse such a referee system. They've

never endorsed that. Can you imagine — a referee who's hired by one of

the hockey teams playing in the Stanley Cup? There would be a riot, Mr.

Speaker. There certainly would be a riot in New York, I can tell you.

Well, just use that analogy and apply it to the arbitration process.

The referees will not be independent or impartial. I think all British

Columbians believe in fair play, as they believe in fair play in hockey

or basketball. They believe in an

[ Page 4300 ]

objective, neutral referee. Today I call upon the

government to ensure there's a neutral referee in landlord-and-tenant

issues in the province of British Columbia. This bill has a referee

hired by the Montreal Canadiens, using the analogy of the hockey game,

and it's not a fair result. You will have stacked results, and you will

ensure that one side wins all the time. But that is not in the

interests of British Columbians, and certainly would not be in the

interests of Canadians. Canadians are fair-minded people. British

Columbians are fair-minded people, and they believe in fair play in any

mediation system. This bill does not introduce that.

Specifying, as the minister did on the CBC on Friday, that the

arbitrators would be from the business and professional communities,

ruled out many tenants. It's no accident that the business and

professional communities form the bulk of small landlords in this town.

Justice must also be seen to be done. The minister appears to have

forgotten that in his attempts to satisfy some of the more extreme

members of the government side, who hold that possession of property

makes you a lord, in the literal sense, with rights of seigneurship

over the vassals who pay you homage.

Mr. Speaker, I used the analogy of feudal times, because I think

it's quite appropriate. This is a feudal bill, unless it's amended,

unless the minister takes my olive branch, unless the minister

recognizes the examples I've given today, unless the minister is

prepared to be reasonable and call for fair play, as in a hockey,

basketball or baseball game. That's all we ask: fair play. We believe

in that in sports. We don't believe the Montreal Canadiens or any other

team should hire the referee who's going to adjudicate the results of a

game. Fair play is what Canadians believe in. It's a fundamental

principle that this country was born out of — fair play, fair

treatment, fair access to law, fair protection, equal protection.

Canadians accept that as a fundamental part of living in Canada.

The analogy of the hockey game, in terms of the arbitrator, is very

appropriate. You will have a referee hired by the government, with its

attitudes towards tenants, who will be making decisions for which nine

times out of ten you will know the result. I want to be proved wrong in

that accusation. The only way I can be proved incorrect is for the

minister to take away the political interference that may be brought

about with the arbitration process. We don't want a stacked situation.

We don't want a referee who reflects only one side; we want a referee

who believes in fair play.

Mr. Speaker, I want to go through some of the concerns that some of

the tenants' organizations have expressed about this piece of

legislation. The Tenants' Rights Coalition, which represents thousands

of tenants in British Columbia, has put together a very useful, I

think, analysis of this piece of legislation, and I would like to

discuss it now. It's the general contention that in many respects the

tenant movement has won some concessions with this legislation —

certainly compared with Bill 5. To be fair, we are going to keep some

kind of referee process, but as in my analogy a minute ago the referee

process will be stacked. But it is still my contention and the

contention of the Tenants' Rights Coalition that Bill 19 is

fundamentally a betrayal of British Columbian tenants. There are some

things which if improved and changed around we could support. I already

offered that olive branch to the minister. The government has abandoned

the concept of eviction without cause; there's no question about that.

However, the new bill is riddled with gigantic loopholes that turn

security of tenure into a matter more of form than of substance.

One of the more serious aspects I've already mentioned to the

minister is

section 7(3), which will allow the landlords to require

prospective tenants to sign written fixed tenancy agreements with no

right of renewal at the end. That, I hope, is one of the areas the

minister will review immediately.

Another glaring loophole for tenants is

section 31, termination for

reasonable cause. Here, to bend the phrase, equity is as long as the

arbitrator's foot. No reasonable cause is laid out. Whatever a judge or

arbitrator considers reasonable will be grounds for eviction. The

arbitrator's decision is final and binding —

section 44(2). I believe

that part of the

section has to be cleared up. That could be utilized

as an eviction without-cause component of this bill. I know that the

minister has heard the concerns about this particular section, and I

hope that he's got it under advisement.

Bill 19 slashes the notice period for evictions for demolition or

conversion to two months —

section 29(4). The requirement for municipal

approval of conversions to strata title, which I've already mentioned,

was in the previous act but is now absent.

Another difficulty with the termination provisions is the very short

limitation period for tenants to file disputes. It varies from 5 to 15

days.

[4:15]

I've only touched upon the rent increase problem, but suffice to say

again — and obviously this is one of the Tenants' Rights Coalition's

major considerations — that the sky will be the limit in rent increases

in British Columbia. The only constraints are the once-a-year rule —

although landlords can raise rents at will between tenants — and

largely illusory protection against rent increases with intent to

evict. I've already gone through the problems with

section 21. In those

cases, a tenant must prove that a landlord gave a rent increase with

the expectation or intention that the tenant vacate the premises. The

onus is on the tenant to show what was going on in the landlord's mind.

If the landlord fails to re-rent at over 90 percent of the new rent,

the tenant can claim moving expenses and other costs. But they're

already out of there; they've already lost their apartment. And as I've

already said, if they can't afford the rent increase, they're not going

to fight it in court — but I'm trying to go through the thing, if

indeed someone does try to take the course laid out in

section 21. The

rent increase will not be rolled back or the tenant reinstated, except

for mobile-home tenants, under

section 21. But even if the suite is not

re-rented at 90 percent, all the landlord has to do is claim that he

really didn't expect or intend that the tenant vacate, or that the

landlord was a victim of market considerations. That's

section 21(3).

The section, in my opinion, is devious. It gives the impression of

being fair but is really a very clever, devious section. It should be

thrown out, or at least there should be a review process by an

arbitrator — an impartial referee who can say, "Yes, that apartment

does not justify that rent increase based on the market, " to use the

minister's argument about market. If you're going to use the arguments

about market, then you've got to play the other side. If a tenant can

justify, in a review process or in an arbitration process that's fair,

that a rent increase is way beyond the market for that apartment and

therefore is a rent increase to get rid of that tenant, then let's have

a review process for that, and not force people into a court situation.

There is no provision for a prescribed form of rent increase notice

in this legislation and no forum for dispute as long as the one-year

rule is followed, in most cases.

[ Page 4301 ]

I've gone through many of the other concerns that the tenants'

coalition has, but basically the tenants' coalition is concerned, and

quite rightfully so, that this piece of legislation will not ensure a

fair and equitable system.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to deal with the government's argument

that, under Bill 19, the interests of tenants and landlords are fairly

balanced. I think this has to be tackled and discussed. An interesting

analysis of last year's session, and Bill 5, was submitted by the West

End Tenants' Association and the North Shore Tenants' Association to

the Premier and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs on

September 3, 1983.

I note that both Richmond and Blackburn have welcomed Bill 19 as

marginally more reasonable than last session's Bill 5. That's very

surprising, when it comes down to it. The government has made

concessions on just two of the eight requests they put to the

government. They got their first request — removal of the "no cause"

provisions — though how wonderful the government's concession has been

is a matter of judgment. Experts in the area have suggested to me that

tenants would be better off heading for the hills after Bill 19,

because while the new bill does not say "eviction without cause, " the

eviction provisions are so broad that there is little practical

difference.

They got dispute provisions put back in the bill, which was their

second request. They were turned down when they asked for the office of

the rentalsman to be retained, and after their eloquent plea about the

relative importance of landlord tenant cases in the courts, I would

have hoped that the government would have gone a little further.

Certainly for the reasons outlined earlier in my speech, the opposition

did not regard the arbitration system as an acceptable substitute,

because it's not independent of the minister. There is no appeal from

the decision of that partial arbitrator, and the arbitrators are to be

amateurs from the business community with some basic interests as

landlords. Again I refer to the fair-referee system that we think is

absolutely necessary in this province.

They didn't get anywhere when they asked for no fixed phase-out of

rent review. After the fulsome praise heaped on the rentalsman by the

minister in his opening remarks.... It is interesting that the minister

heaped praise on the rentalsman's head; that is, the current

rentalsman, Mr. Patterson. It's a pity that the minister could not have

included a form of rent review in his bill, because the rentalsman has

been adamant that a form of rent review is essential if the balance is

to be maintained. Will the minister please consider at least some form

of rent review?

There is no standardized tenancy agreements or provincial

standards-of-maintenance code, nor have we seen any provincial program

of Crown-owned housing in the form of rent-to-own cooperatives. I'll

move on to talk about those a little later on.

I want to quote from the West End Tenants' Association brief that

they presented in September 1983 to the Premier and the Minister of

Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I believe it is a very useful document,

and I think it should be put in the record.

"For centuries landlords and tenants have had a

mutually beneficial relationship, in that one party invests in an

appreciating asset and the other pays for that asset's use.

"No reasonable, rational tenant expects their government

to legislate or regulate their relationship to the point that they — the tenants

— are guaranteed possession of property that they do not own, no matter what

their conduct. But conversely, if a tenant has been honouring his portion of

the contract, is it fair that he be put in a position that honour and good faith

are not enough to preserve that contract? We suggest that it is not fair."

Those were the opening remarks from this particular brief. A

Section in this brief talked about the courts and the rentalsman:

"Historical British parliamentary and judicial customs have

recognized that highly trained judges and expensive court proceedings are best

used to determine whether a young child should receive disputed life-supporting

medical care or whether an accused child-killer is guilty or not, should go

to jail or not. By comparison, lanlord-tenant disputes have to be considered

to be trivial in nature when put in the jurisdiction of the high court. Our

'trivial, ' though descriptive, does not ignore the fact of the requirement

of someone or something to apply a buffer between landlords and tenants in dispute."

We need that buffer, which is what we have in the office of the rentalsman

today. "Tribunals," in the words of the West End Tenants' Association

brief, "were invented to take the strain from the high court."

"Our point is to bring us to a position of how to best determine

the method of restating your (our) Governmentos sensitivity to its historical

role of being the repository of the wisdom that prevents one segment of our

community from gaining an unfair advantage over another segment of our community.

We obviously support the continuation of the office of the rentalsman as the

best cost-effective tool of the government to play its role in a fair and democratic

society."

Dealing with the government's argument that landlord tenant

interests are reasonably balanced, Bill 19 is predicated on the notion

that there should be bargaining between landlords and tenants on the

labour relations model. As I've indicated, Mr. Speaker. landlords have

an incentive to form cartels, while tenants' rights are very

restricted. The government bill has a basic weakness. It has wiped out

the mediation function currently performed by the rentalsman's office.

You haven't replaced it with anything at all, and there is evidence

that bargaining with landlords without mediation simply does not work.

I again want to quote from the September 30, 1983, edition of the Vancouver Sun , which describes what happens when tenants try to bargain with their landlords. They get ignored, and they tend to get gouged.

"West End residents of apartments controlled by Zen

and Aquilini companies have begun to receive new, smaller notices of

rent increases, but the tenants' association says the reductions are so

paltry it has given up on negotiation. 'The gloves are off, ' said Greg

Richmond, project director of the West End Tenants' Association, in an

interview Thursday. 'Obviously our previous attempts to negotiate were

a waste of breath. I've only had confirmation from one of the eight

buildings so far, and it looks like the original average increase of 92

percent is down to 76 percent. That's still a disaster area. It's far

from being a good enough decrease. What was the point of our whole

exercise? It means that an apartment with a

[ Page 4302 ]

monthly rent of $195 which was increased to $375 is now down

to $345. That's still unacceptable!' "

The point I'm trying to make is that it is extremely difficult for

tenants to get into negotiation with their landlord. There has to be an

impartial mediator in these particular situations. Emotions run high;

everyone believes they're right. You've got to have somebody in the

middle who is not necessarily reflecting one position or the other.

Again, the impression given by this bill is that the government must

more and more rely on this kind of process whereby the landlord and the

tenant are somehow going to be able to miraculously resolve their

problems. Sure, that may happen on occasion, but generally speaking

it's very difficult for those two, particularly when you're dealing

with the very important aspects of tenure, rent increases and what

their living environment is going to be like.

[4:30]

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Again dealing with the minister's argument that landlord tenant

interests are fairly balanced in this bill, consider the case of Gordon

McPherson and Richard Mitchell of 630 East Broadway in Vancouver. Mr.

McPherson lives on the ground floor of the old house. He's just been

informed that his rent is to be increased from $218 to $500, an

increase of 130 percent. His neighbour upstairs rents the attic; his

rent is going from $147 to $420, an increase of 186 percent. Mr.

McPherson is an unemployed carpenter; he has to move. I think there are

two important points in this story. First, is this a rent increase that

the landlord has decided to charge in order to increase the revenue

from his property, therefore causing hardship to the tenants, as a

result of the free market system? Or is this rent increase designed to

get the tenants out? Who's to tell? Under the current situation, it's

going to be an impossible situation, unless you have some form of

control mechanism when there are increases of 186 percent and 130

percent. There was a building permit filed at Vancouver city hall; that

could be just coincidence, but who's to know? How could these tenants

prove the intent of the landlord to evict them? In order to get relief

from this legislation, they're going to have to do that under

section

21, as it supposedly provides. The truth of the matter is that there is

no way tenants can get relief.

Section 21 is a veneer, a gloss. It

tries to give the impression of fairness, but I believe it is a

somewhat devious

section of this legislation. It's trying to convince

tenants that they will be protected from eviction because of huge rent

increases; but they won't be, unless there is some form of rent review

procedure with an independent arbitrator who can mediate between the

two, in terms of what the tenant believes is a reasonable increase and

what the landlord feels is a reasonable increase. All we're asking for

is a fair mediation system; basically, that's the office of the

rentalsman. I know the minister is going to be able to respond to this

at some time.

Section 21 does not do the job in terms of protecting

tenants from eviction because of economics.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would remind the hon. member that specific debate dealing with a

Section is best dealt with in committee.

MR. BLENCOE: I recognize that, Mr. Speaker. The reason I

brought it up is because it's this kind of

section that the minister

emphasized in his discussions in the public forum as to why this bill

is good. That's why I referred to this particular section. I think it's

not a good section, and the minister should review it as quickly as

possible.

I won't go into the press story about Gordon McPherson and the

examples I gave. They are representative of what is happening to a lot

of folk in British Columbia. I think this government has to pay

attention: they cannot abandon the rights and privileges of 380,000

tenants. They have a responsibility to ensure that that 36 percent of

all the households in British Columbia have a piece of legislation

that's fair and just.

Continuing in this theme and dealing with the government's argument

that the interests of landlords and tenants are fairly balanced by this

bill, the Vancouver Sun

on February 13, 1984, offered the government some advice about the

rentalsman's office under the heading: "Name It Anything." I've already

said that: name it anything you like, but don't get rid of the office

of the rentalsman as is. Sure, let's talk about how we can change it;

we can do that in a special committee of this House. The Vancouver Sun thought the government would substitute for the rentalsman a quasi-court for making peace between landlords and tenants. The Sun editorialized: "That move looks like a substantial retreat from the government's original intent to abolish a control office."

Had the government given us a mechanism for making peace between

tenants, this side would have said: "Hurray! Well done.

Congratulations. You've done something good." We would have given the

minister credit for showing the wisdom of Solomon in this difficult

situation. Unfortunately, we did not get a peace-making body. We got

one that's going to create further difficulties and a cumbersome

process. You are giving us a mechanism that is tied to the minister,

not subject to rules of process or appeal, whose only function is to

look after the minister's friends in the landlord fraternity. I've got

a suggestion, Mr. Speaker, for the minister. Take the advice of the Vancouver Sun :

name it a rental or a grievance board, if you will, but make sure that

it is impartial, like the courts, rather than a haven for failed Socred

candidates, for that is what could happen under this legislation. All

we're asking is that you make sure that it is impartial like the

courts. I don't think that's unreasonable. At stake here is our belief

that the tenants of this province are entitled to a piece of

legislation that represents their views as well as the landlords'. I

don't think that's a lot to ask for, Mr. Minister.

MS. SANFORD: It's tunnel vision.

MR. BLENCOE: I think you're correct. It may indeed be tunnel

vision, but I think that if the minister and this government were to

give various groups and tenants' organizations the opportunity to

review this bill in depth, then we could have a meaningful dialogue on

what we need in terms of tenant legislation in British Columbia. I am

convinced that we can come up with a model piece of legislation for

this province.

Again I refer to the olive branch that I offered to the minister.

This side of the House is quite prepared to participate in a special

committee of this House to find a mechanism that brings us back to the

middle ground on this issue, because that's what we need. We need a

system that's fair and impartial and not the analogy I used of the

hockey game. I don't think that is too much to ask for. We have the

opportunity and the obligation to do that very thing. It's not good

enough to say: "We are the government of the day. This is our

particular philosophy on many things." You can get away

[ Page 4303 ]

with that. That's a reasonable excuse, I suppose.

But when you're dealing with the lives, families and living situations

of a huge portion of the population of British Columbia — 36 percent of

all households — the political agenda is not acceptable. You've got to

do what is right for those people, and you've got to achieve that

balance that I think we all want, not only on this particular piece of

legislation. The people of British Columbia want us to come back to a

sense of balance, perspective and rationality in what we do in this

House and this province.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Rationality? It's hard, I know, but I think

that's what we're asking for — a rational approach to this particular

kind of legislation. At the moment we don't have that. I have referred

to it a number of times. Again, if the minister would perhaps withdraw

this bill for a little while and take a look at what's happening in

Saskatchewan, I think that would be a useful exercise. They have

overcome, I suppose, their obvious political agenda, which would be to

do exactly what this...maybe not exactly what this government is doing,

because I don't think any government in the world does exactly what

this government does. But they have overcome some of their political

hang-ups. They have overcome some of their obvious biases and have been

able to introduce a fair system of rent control, review and

stabilization, and a residential tenancy act that I think could be

something we all learn from. I made a statement today that we on this

side of the House are quite prepared to take a serious look at the

Conservative rent control and stabilization program in Saskatchewan. We

think it's a good start, and should be a good start for this

government. That government believes they should be involved in the

marketplace to bring some balance; they should have a say in what is

going to happen to tenants, That's all we're asking for in this

particular piece of legislation.

One of the groups I introduced earlier was the Downtown Eastside

Residents' Association, They represent about 10,000 people in that area

and have done a lot of good work over the years. I would like to honour

them for all the work they've done by putting into the record their

feelings about this particular piece of legislation, and I think

support their particular position.

Mr. Speaker, the Downtown Eastside Residents' Association has called

for the immediate withdrawal of Bill 19; it has urged the minister, I

believe in a telegram, to do just that. The residents' association

states that not only does this bill adversely affect tenants throughout

B.C.; it specifically excludes the thousands of tenant-residents in the

downtown eastside. According to the president, Glenn Bullard, it

"...leaves downtown eastside residents with absolutely

no rights as tenants. We have fought unsuccessfully for over ten years"

— this is an important part that I want to develop a little bit with you, Mr.

Minister — "to have tenant rights extended to permanent residents of hotels

and rooming houses. The failure to include them in this new bill shows once

again that the Socred government is more concerned with the interests of landlords

than keeping a secure roof over people's heads. With developments such as

B.C. Place and Expo 86, many residents will face displacement as buildings are

converted to luxury accommodation for Expo clientele."

In the words of the Downtown Eastside Residents' Association: "Bill

19 is a straight giveaway to developers and landlords, who can evict

long-time residents so that premises can be rented at high rates for

the duration of the fair."

I want to go over this particular aspect. It's one I haven't

discussed as yet but one that is conspicuous by its absence from the

legislation. There are, particularly in the urban areas — I have many

in this riding — many people who live permanently in hotels and rooming

houses. They have no protection whatsoever. They are not even mentioned

in this legislation. I think it's appropriate that we pay some

attention to this particular aspect. I'm going to go through it a

little bit now.

[4:45]

Currently' hotels and lodging, rooming and boarding houses are

licensed under the innkeepers act rather than the Residential Tenancy

Act. This means that residents are not classified as tenants and

therefore can be evicted without notice. It's an incredible situation.

For any reason, their rents can be increased by any amount without

notice, whenever the landlord decides. They're excluded from the

protection and mediation of the office of the rentalsman, and their

belongings can be withheld by a landlord for non-payment of rent or for

any damages he or she thinks they may have caused, regardless of

whether or not they caused the damages. It's incredible that that kind

of situation can still be in place in 1984 in British Columbia.

In June 1980 the B.C. Legislature passed a bill that would amend the

Residential Tenancy Act to provide residents of hotels and rooming

houses protections similar to those of tenants in other neighbourhoods

throughout the province. The amendments would protect the residential

character of the downtown east side — in particular, it is the downtown

east side which, of course, they're concerned about — and, more

importantly, protect the people whose home it is.

As I said, the Downtown Eastside Residents' Association has fought

for many years to have tenants' rights extended to permanent residents

of hotels and rooming houses, and since 1980 to have the Residential

Tenancy Amendment Act proclaimed. They have met with the rentalsman and

with the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. They haven't been

successful. The Vancouver city council has taken similar actions in the

past. Mayor Harcourt and various other people have come to Victoria to

discuss this important issue. In my discussion of this particular

legislation, there have been a number of things that I've said were

important; this is on an equal footing.

There are thousands of British Columbians who live in these hotels

and rooming houses. They have no protection at all now. At least in

Bill 19 tenants are mentioned and have some gloss of protection. But

these people........ Once again, many of them are poor, unemployed,

people who have less income than most. They're the ones who often have

to reside in such establishments. I urge the minister to please

introduce something that includes the occupants of such accommodation.

They are disadvantaged, many of them, and this bill will be on the

backs of those disadvantaged people.

Over the years the ministers have cited a variety of reasons why

they refused to proclaim the Residential Tenancy Amendment Act, 1980.

However, there are no excuses. Where there's a will, there's a way. And

this particular issue is very important. I don't know the exact number

of people living in rooming houses and hotels, but I know that in my

particular riding there are many, and they have no protection

[ Page 4304 ]

— absolutely nothing at all. It's not good enough. The minister should take that under advisement.

It's true that the majority of people residing in residential hotels

and rooming houses, particularly in the downtown east side, are in

receipt of income assistance. However, the Ministry of Human Resources

has stated that they will pay the security deposit for individuals who

are required to make such a deposit, as it does for other renters on

GAIN. While it may be true that the vacancy rate for market

accommodation is increasing — again, in the example I'm using this

afternoon, the downtown east side, hotels and rooming houses are not

included in the surveys now being done to determine vacancy rates — the

vacancy rate for affordable low-income accommodation is not increasing.

People living in the downtown east side, the majority of whom are

single unemployed men living on a fixed income, receive a maximum of

$200 a month shelter allowance. Therefore monthly rent payments in

excess of $200 would have to come from money allocated for food,

clothing and other essentials. Our party seriously questions, as does

the Downtown Eastside Residents' Association, whether or not the vacant

units which exist in the Vancouver metropolitan area rent for $200 a

month and therefore are available to the residents of the downtown east

side. In fact, it was reported on a CBC radio documentary in July 1982

that the average monthly rent for a one-bedroom apartment in Vancouver

was above $400. That was in 1982; it's way higher than that now.

Housing is the biggest problem affecting the thousands of people who

are living in the downtown east side in Vancouver. With developments

such as B.C. Place, Expo 86 and False Creek, this problem will only

increase and intensify for those residents. Because of these

developments, many hotels and rooming-houses in the community are being

threatened with demolition or conversion to luxury accommodation with

the result that thousands of long-term residents....

The average period of residence is 13 years, by the way, in the

downtown east side. The community is the most stable in Vancouver. They

will be displaced, and they've got nowhere to go.

The problem can be mitigated with the introduction of legislation,

particularly in Bill 19, that will provide residents of hotels and

rooming-houses with tenant rights, thereby easing their daily struggle

to secure and maintain decent accommodation. It would be an appropriate

gesture on the part of this government to support such an amendment to

this legislation. It's absolutely necessary, and I can't overemphasize

that particular point.

There are certain items that should be included in this legislation

that will take care of this particular problem, and I'd like to list

some of them. Number one: residents of hotels and rooming-houses must

be deemed tenants under the Residential Tenancy Act, unless a landlord

applies to the rentalsman otherwise — or to this new group, whatever

it's going to be called, under the minister. This would be a change

from the existing legislation, where a resident must apply individually

to be designated a tenant. A residency requirement of two months should

be set. Anyone living in a hotel or rooming-house who meets this

requirement would automatically be considered a tenant.

Number two — and this is controversial, but I think absolutely

essential — a rent freeze during 1986 shou