2002 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 37th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 31, 2002

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 9, Number 14

CONTENTS

Routine

Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Lobbyists Registration Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 72)

Hon. G. Plant

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

Kyoto accord

B. Bennett

BCcampus

B. Belsey

Home-based business in Nanaimo

M. Hunter

Oral Questions

Pill splitting

J. MacPhail

Hon. C. Hansen

Drug Costs

J. Kwan

Hon. C. Hansen

Internet access

D. MacKay

Hon. R. Thorpe

Status of salmon stocks

M. Hunter

Hon. J. van Dongen

Tabling Documents

J. MacPhail

Petitions

D. MacKay

W. Cobb

Second Reading of Bills

Residential Tenancy Act (Bill 70) (continued)

M. Hunter

J. Bray

D. Jarvis

J. Kwan

S. Orr

K. Johnston

I. Chong

R. Hawes

L. Mayencourt

Hon. R. Coleman

Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Act (Bill 71)

Hon. R. Coleman

J. Kwan

M. Hunter

Hon. R. Coleman

Vital Statistics Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 68)

Hon. C. Hansen

Royal Assent to Bills

Business Corporations Act (Bill 47)

Elections Statutes Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 59)

Health Authorities Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 60)

Drinking Water Protection Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 61)

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 2002 (Bill 62)

Workers Compensation Amendment Act (No. 2), 2002 (Bill 63)

Human Rights Code Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 64)

Community Services Interim Authorities Act (Bill 65)

Public Sector Employers Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 66)

Transportation Investment Act (Bill 67)

[ Page 4209 ]

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 31, 2002

The House

met at 2:04 p.m.

Introductions by Members

Mayencourt: Mr. Speaker, you may have noticed a few people in the hallways

dressed in great costumes. There's a great sense of celebration in the air.

Though many of you might think that's because of Halloween, it is, in fact,

because it is the birthday today of the esteemed member for Burnaby-Willingdon,

who is — or would have been — right there. Never mind, Mr. Speaker. We're

going to move right on to tomorrow.

An Hon.

Member: He's in disguise.

Mayencourt: He's in disguise today. That's right.

We'll move

on to tomorrow, which is All Saints' Day, November 1. Celebrating his birthday

tomorrow is the very saintly member for North Vancouver–Seymour. Would you

please make them both feel very, very happy for their birthdays. Thank you.

[1405]

Hon. J.

Reid: Joining us today in the House is Andrew Frizzell. He lives near Horne

Lake, which is near my community of Bowser. He is here studying at the

University of Victoria on a Harvey Southam scholarship, taking a post-bachelor

diploma in journalism. I'd ask that the House please make him welcome.

Chong: All of us here today would not be able to fully fulfil our jobs if it

weren't for the support of our very able legislative assistants. I know a number

of them are here, but I'd like to have the House welcome two in particular who

are in the west wing of this building in room 201 — that is, one of my

assistants, Janet Mackenzie, as well as Carla Perry, who I know are watching

question period this afternoon. Would the House make them welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

LOBBYISTS REGISTRATION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2002

Hon. G.

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

intituled Lobbyists Registration Amendment Act, 2002.

Hon. G.

Plant: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion

approved.

Hon. G.

Plant: I am pleased to introduce this minor amendment to the Lobbyists

Registration Act. This bill contains a transitional provision that will close a

loophole that would have allowed consultant lobbyists who are currently engaged

in lobbying for a client to avoid registration. The bill will require consultant

lobbyists to register their existing retainers.

The bill

also expands the power to make regulations to allow for different fees based on

when a registration is filed or on the class of lobbyist. Every day and in every

way, a more open, honest, accountable and transparent government for the people

of British Columbia. Sorry, Mr. Speaker. I was carried away.

I move that

the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next

sitting of the House after today.

Bill 72

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for

second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

b) KYOTO ACCORD

Bennett: The federal government has told the international community that

the Canadian Parliament will ratify the Kyoto protocol by the end of this year.

I will not be asking my constituents in the East Kootenay to make the sacrifices

accord. Here are some reasons why. Have-not provinces, including B.C., will have

to cope with the reduced equalization payments, because have provinces like

Ontario and Alberta will not have their surpluses to share. Energy and

manufacturing jobs will be encouraged to relocate in Kyoto-free U.S.A.

The

Canadian manufacturers estimate that Kyoto could cost the Canadian economy as

much as $40 billion and kill 450,000 jobs in Canada. The federal government's

best-case scenario is that B.C. would lose 11,000 jobs. That's 11,000 jobs from

a province trying to fight its way back to fiscal and economic respectability.

In my

region this unilateral implementation will seriously undermine our major

employer, the five coalmines there, as they compete with Kyoto-free Australia

and the U.S. It will also put at risk the $250 million power plant investment in

the Elk Valley, and it will put at risk the exciting potential for the

development of coalbed methane. My constituents cannot understand why the

even attempting to answer British Columbia's questions about impact and

fairness.

Can it be

that our national government intends not to give B.C. credit for its already

clean energy and vast forests? Canada should be a true federation where all

provinces and territories work together to manage climate change in a way that

is fair to all parts of this country and to all Canadians.

[1410]

BCCAMPUS

Belsey: It is my pleasure and excitement to rise today to speak about the

BCcampus announcement

[ Page 4210 ]

made yesterday by the Minister of Advanced Education. The BCcampus

implementation steering committee, along with students, demonstrated to many of

us some of the features that this new interactive learning tool has. To a

dinosaur like myself, interactive anything on a computer seems a mystery.

However, to the tens of thousands of people around this province, this new

system will be a means of starting, continuing and, in some cases, completing an

education.

Imagine if

you were an LPN living in Stewart, B.C., and wanting to complete your

baccalaureate. You would have to get leave, move to an area of a university and

attend the necessary classes. When BCcampus is fully operational, they will be

able to complete this degree in the comfort of their home. Or maybe you've taken

time off to raise a family. After the kids are off to school or tucked in bed

and things are quiet, you will have the ability to go on line and work towards

completing a degree.

The

potential that BCcampus offers is incredible and very accessible to most British

Columbians wishing to pursue a post-secondary education. Seventy percent of the

residents of British Columbia are currently on line and will, therefore, have

access to BCcampus. In addition, the Premier, along with Minister Thorpe, is

committed to provide high-speed Internet access to 80 percent of the people of

this province by the year 2003. BCcampus is one more example of the government's

commitment to our education system and to the students it serves.

HOME-BASED BUSINESS IN NANAIMO

Hunter: I'm always pleased to rise in the House to note the accomplishments

of people and organizations in my part of the province. I'm doubly pleased when

I'm able to mention accomplishments that show that this government's message

that B.C. is open for business is being noted, copied and implemented by others.

Earlier this week, in a national survey conducted by the Royal Bank Financial

Group, Canada Post, the Home Business Report and Western Diversification

Canada, the regional district of Nanaimo was selected as one of the three best

areas in the country to establish a home-based business.

The

Home-Based Business Friendly Community Award was based on the RDN's new bylaw

which encourages home-based businesses and cuts red tape. We all know how

important small and home-based business is to the economic recovery in British

Columbia. I want to commend the regional district of Nanaimo for leading the way

and for being recognized for creating an environment in which home-based

businesses can grow in my riding.

Mr.

Speaker: That concludes members' statements.

Oral Questions

PILL SPLITTING

MacPhail: I want to ask the Minister of Health Services about pill

splitting. That's where a senior buys a double dosage of her prescription at a

lower cost and then cuts it in half to save money. Can the Minister of Health

Services tell us whether he supports pill splitting as a means for seniors to

save money on their prescriptions?

Hon. C.

Hansen: I have a great deal of confidence in the pharmacists that serve us

throughout British Columbia in communities of all sizes. I think it's vitally

important that any patient that is trying to use a prescription in a way not

prescribed should do that in consultation with their pharmacist, because they

are indeed the experts when it comes to ensuring that people get the proper

medications and the proper use of medications.

Mr.

Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplementary question.

MacPhail: That wasn't actually the issue I was discussing.

Interjections.

MacPhail: Well, no, that's fair enough. Studies actually show that pill

splitting can be an effective way of saving money on certain drugs without

compromising health. I actually have a study from Stanford University. Their

results show that in the U.S., seniors can actually save up to 33 percent for

Lipitor — that's to treat high cholesterol — and 46 percent for Cardura, to

treat hypertension. Those savings are as a result of pill splitting. Those

studies also show that patients should only split pills after consulting their

doctor. In eight weeks the government is going to move thousands of seniors off

Pharmacare. That doesn't leave much time for seniors to find ways to cut their

budgets.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please, hon. members. Order.

Please

proceed.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Let us hear the question.

[1415]

MacPhail: Will the minister guarantee that the Medical Services Plan will

compensate doctors who consult with seniors on pill splitting?

Hon. C.

Hansen: I find it really sad that a member of this House who has served this

House for more than ten years would engage in the kind of fearmongering that

this member is engaged in. In British Columbia today 100 percent of seniors are

covered under Pharmacare. After the changes are made, 100 percent of seniors

will be covered under Pharmacare.

[ Page 4211 ]

To answer

the member's specific question, doctors today are compensated for the

consultations that they do with their patients.

Mr.

Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplementary.

MacPhail: Well, we'll see come January 1, when this government implements

income testing, how many seniors are no longer covered by Pharmacare. We'll see.

We'll see. It'll be….

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order. The Leader of the Opposition has the floor.

Let us hear the question.

MacPhail: There will be hundreds of thousands of seniors who will no longer

have one cent of their drug coverage covered by Pharmacare come January 1. As a

matter of…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order.

MacPhail: …helping these seniors who are on fixed income, splitting

medications will become a financial necessity after January 1. Now the minister

has rejected bulk purchasing of drugs to drive down the costs of Pharmacare. He

refuses to expand reference-based pricing, and he refuses to release the secret

Pharmacare options paper. The only thing that we know for sure is that thousands

of seniors on fixed incomes are not going to have their drugs paid by Pharmacare

come January 1.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

MacPhail: Those are actually….

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Will the member now please put the question.

MacPhail: Right. This is actually a pill splitter. It costs $10. Will the

minister assure the House that MSP will cover the cost of a consultation on the

use of pill splitters? Will he use his bulk purchasing power to provide them to

seniors at a reduced cost?

Hon. C.

Hansen: I believe that this member needs to be engaged in some better

research. Today any consultation that a patient has with their doctor is

covered, whether it's around how to appropriately use medications or any other

reason why a British Columbian needs to go to a doctor.

The member

mentioned the issue of purchasing medications. I have received some information

since the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant raised this last week. Their

facts were absolutely wrong. She talked about the cost of medications in

Saskatchewan versus British Columbia. She said at the time that a drug, a

generic drug called cimetidine, cost 87 cents in British Columbia compared to 7

cents in Saskatchewan. That is absolutely not true.

The cost of

that medication in British Columbia is almost identical to the cost of the

medication in Saskatchewan, if they had done their homework and realized that

the facts that she was quoting were regarding a different product. She also at

the time talked about a drug called naproxen, which she said cost 33 cents in

British Columbia compared to 9 cents in Saskatchewan. That is not true. The cost

of that medication in Saskatchewan is 9 cents. The cost of that medication in

British Columbia is 9 cents. Quite frankly, they should be doing some better

research and stop scaring seniors.

Mr.

Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant.

J. Kwan:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

An Hon.

Member: Why don't you just get up and admit that you made a mistake?

MacPhail: We didn't. We'll see who's right.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please, so that we may hear the question.

DRUG COSTS

J. Kwan:

The issue that the Minister of Health Services misses completely…. The point

is that it is the responsibility of the government to look for alternative ways

to reduce the costs for health care and look into the pharmaceutical companies

to see if costs could be reduced so that that would not be transferred to the

patient and to the seniors.

[1420]

Mr,

Speaker, no doubt the Minister of Health Services is well briefed on Dr. Robyn

Tamblyn's study of the Quebec government's experiment with seniors and

Pharmacare in the late 1990s. The Tamblyn study found that making seniors pay

more for their medicines resulted in a dramatic decrease in the use of essential

drugs by seniors, and it increased health problems. Can the Minister of Health

Services tell this House if he's done any modelling to show his plan to cut

seniors off Pharmacare will affect the health of seniors who cannot afford

medicine prescribed by their doctors?

Hon. C.

Hansen: Perhaps the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant should turn next

to her and ask the member for Vancouver-Hastings that question, because the

member beside her was the Minister of Health in the previous government when

they jacked

[ Page 4212 ]

up the price of medications for the lowest-income seniors by 60 percent in

the mid-1990s.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Hon. members, let us proceed with question period. The member for

Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a supplementary question.

J. Kwan:

The fact is that this Minister of Health is going to be imposing an increase in

cost for Pharmacare for many seniors in less than eight weeks. You know what?

Seniors are going to be forced to make a decision. Do they buy medicine, or do

they pay their rent, or do they eat the food that they need? Their health is

going to be compromised.

No one will

believe that this government's cynical plan to remove $300 million from next

year's budget by kicking seniors off Pharmacare won't have a negative impact on

seniors' health.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

J. Kwan:

When the Quebec government tried to off-load $300 million from its budget, one

in ten prescriptions written by doctors for seniors went unfilled. Will the

minister today commit that he'll take personal responsibility for the impact

that his changes will have on seniors in British Columbia, and will he agree to

commission an independent study to follow and examine the impact of his reckless

plans on seniors and their health?

Hon. C.

Hansen: Again, I must say it is absolutely irresponsible for this member to

be scaring seniors, saying they'll be cut off Pharmacare. There is no senior

that will be cut off Pharmacare as a result of changes made by this government.

What our

changes will do is address low-income British Columbians who today have

impediments to getting the medications they need because of the high deductibles

put in place for low-income British Columbians by that previous government.

Finally,

Mr. Speaker, to answer her specific question about whether or not we will be

studying this: we're way ahead of you. We have already put in place a contract

with officials at the University of British Columbia to make sure that this

transition is properly monitored using PharmaNet data, to make sure that no

senior and no British Columbian is negatively impacted in terms of their ability

— based on their ability to pay — to get the medications that they need.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order, please.

INTERNET ACCESS

MacKay: My question is to the Minister of Competition, Science and

Enterprise. I understand that the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant stated

yesterday that a number of rural communities across B.C., including Smithers,

have no broadband Internet access. The member added that this would preclude

these communities from accessing such services as the BCcampus long-distance

learning initiative announced yesterday by the Minister of Advanced Education.

To set the record straight...

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Can we have some order, please.

MacKay: …Smithers does in fact have high-speed, broadband Internet access.

To the

Minister of Competition, Science, and Enterprise: can he tell us what he is

doing to bring the benefits of high-speed Internet access to other communities

in British Columbia?

[1425]

Hon. R.

Thorpe: Yes, Smithers and other communities along Highway 16 have high-speed

Internet access. Next year 80 percent of British Columbians will have access to

high-speed broadband.

It's our

government's commitment and intention to work very hard to ensure that the

remaining 20 percent of British Columbians also have access. Our ministry is

working with the Premier's Technology Council and forging partnerships with

first nations, communities, the private sector and the federal government to

ensure that every effort is made to ensure that high-speed broadband is

available to the last mile in British Columbia.

Mr.

Speaker: The member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine has a supplementary

question.

MacKay: We live in exciting times. Through advances in communications

technology, many rural and remote communities across British Columbia now have

the opportunity to access services that previously would not have been available

to them locally. To the Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise: what

economic benefits will high-speed Internet access offer communities like the

ones in my constituency of Bulkley Valley–Stikine?

Hon. R.

Thorpe: High-speed broadband to communities throughout British Columbia,

government services like e-education, e-health and the very exciting BCcampus

program announced by the Minister of Advanced Education yesterday — these will

be available to all British Columbians.

Interjections.

Hon. R.

Thorpe: You may want to listen up over there. You just may want to listen up

about economic opportunities in British Columbia, because high-speed broadband

is going to open up opportunities for people

[ Page 4213 ]

throughout all parts of British Columbia, giving them the opportunity to have

jobs that you took away from them.

High-speed

broadband is a commitment of our government, and we are going to deliver it to

British Columbians in all parts of British Columbia.

STATUS OF SALMON STOCKS

Hunter: Last week the federal Committee on the Status of…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. Hon. member, we can't hear you.

Hunter: I can't hear you either, sir.

…Endangered

Wildlife in Canada listed two stocks of sockeye salmon in British Columbia as

endangered. These new listings, made without full scientific analysis, pose a

further threat to all salmon fisheries in B.C., especially to the commercial

fishery already devastated after management decisions in 2002 left $40 million

worth of product in the water.

Can the

Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries reassure every sector involved in

B.C. salmon fisheries that he will work to ensure that the harvest of sockeye

salmon remains a business, social and recreational opportunity in this province?

Hon. J.

van Dongen: The province takes the listing of these two stocks very

seriously. This is particularly concerning given the fact that DFO takes a very

risk-averse approach to the management of the fishery and a particularly weak

stock management strategy.

Based on

this strategy, the impacts of this decision on our commercial and recreational

fishery can be very serious. We intend to be involved in the discussion of

recovery plans for these stocks, and we do commit to the commercial and

recreational fishery that we will work hard with the federal minister to ensure

that our fishing opportunities, our jobs and our economic activities are

maintained in British Columbia.

[End

of question period.]

Tabling Documents

MacPhail: I table the study from Stanford University.

Mr.

Speaker: That requires leave. Shall leave be granted?

Leave

granted.

Petitions

MacKay: I rise to table a petition. This petition is presented on behalf of

3,000 residents of Bulkley Valley–Stikine urging the northern health authority

to retain a full-time surgeon in Smithers.

W. Cobb:

I rise to table a petition signed by over 2,700 residents of the 100 Mile House

area requesting that the Minister of Health Services ensure that the funding for

on-call physicians be fairly distributed throughout hospitals in rural B.C. and

particularly 100 Mile House.

[1430]

Orders of the Day

Hon. G.

Collins: I call continued second reading debate on Bill 70.

Second Reading of Bills

RESIDENTIAL TENANCY ACT

(continued)

Mr.

Speaker: Second reading, Bill 70. We'll just take a moment while members

make their way elsewhere.

Hon.

members, please make your way quickly and quietly to your business so that we

may get on with the debate.

Hunter: I am pleased to rise to speak on Bill 70, the Residential Tenancy

Act. I believe this bill represents a significant and forward step in developing

a workable relationship between those who invest in rental housing and those who

live in it. It is a bill that sets out, perhaps for the first time in this

province — maybe even for the first time in Canada — the obligations of

tenants and landlords and the processes by which disputes amongst them will be

resolved. I want to thank the Solicitor General for the extensive consultation

process which he and his ministry pursued in developing this piece of

progressive legislation.

Clearly,

the issue of shelter and housing and the government's role in it is as crucial

today as it has ever been. It's clear in our society that one of government's

responsibilities is to adopt policies that will assure that affordable and

adequate housing is available for those who do not wish to purchase their own.

As you

know, I came from a society, from a country, where government took this

responsibility for provision of housing much further than we have ever done in

any part of Canada as far as I'm aware. Major public housing investment in Great

Britain was a response to housing shortages after the world wars, when private

capital was in short supply, and it was at those times that national and local

governments stepped in to provide housing for those who simply could not afford

it and to provide a housing stock when private capital could not afford to

produce it either.

We've been

fortunate in Canada and in B.C. to have avoided that council estate feature that

was so much a part of the landscape in the United Kingdom. How have we done

that? Well, we have encouraged private

[ Page 4214 ]

investors in B.C. to build houses for rent. The return on investment that

everyone needs, who is going to be building housing, has been encouraged over

the years by a variety of things including tax measures. Tax shelters like the

federal MURB plan of the 1970s were designed to encourage private sector rental

housing stock, and they were very successful in their day in doing that. In

British Columbia we have benefited from those tax measures, and we've benefited

over the years from a climate that has seen people prepared to put their money

into real estate investments for residential rental housing stock.

It's clear

that over the last few years the balance between those who would invest and

those who would rent has been out of kilter. This lack of balance shows in

various ways. It shows in tight rental housing in some communities and lots of

rental housing in others.

[1435]

This

bill, in my view, goes a long way…. In fact, this bill does rebalance both the

rights of tenants and of landlords as well as their interest in producing

housing stock. It provides for clarity, very importantly, and fairness. Clarity

is important because the last thing we need is to create obstacles, both to

those who are building and to those who are renting private housing stock, to

resolving disputes. Each side needs to know what its obligations are to the

way in that direction.

addresses the issue of pets in rental housing, a subject on which I spoke some

months ago in this House, in a way that provides a small incentive to landlords

and investors. I guess time will tell whether that incentive is enough to

encourage investment in a stock of rental housing that will permit renters —

those who desire so — to keep pets.

I have

concluded that while this bill starts to move us towards the encouragement of

new investment, I also notice that it maintains limitations on rent increases,

and I have some difficulty with that feature of this bill. I'm not convinced at

this stage that evidence from other jurisdictions or, indeed, in our own

jurisdiction supports the hypothesis that government interference in rent levels

encourages private investment in housing, nor am I convinced that limitations on

rent increases act in favour of the tenant. Certainly they might avoid

short-term discomfort of higher costs, but in the longer term they don't solve

anything.

Clearly,

housing is not a monopoly business requiring state intervention. In fact, state

intervention always disrupts supply and demand, and that is no less true in the

supply of housing than in anything else. I believe that limitations on rent

increases could well become a disincentive to the investment that we need to

replenish, restore and create a stock of housing in communities around this

province.

appreciate that the bill attempts to introduce the concept of rent fairness in

terms of its limitation mechanisms, but I am not at this stage convinced that it

does that, and I simply wish to state at this point that I will wish to address

this issue further in committee stage.

J. Bray:

I rise to strongly support Bill 70, the Residential Tenancy Act. This is a bill

that's very important for my community of Victoria–Beacon Hill, which has a

0.5 percent vacancy rate, and over 63 percent of the residents are renters.

This is a

bill that the Solicitor General knows — I've spoken to him before about it —

is critical in my community. It's critical for the well-being of families, our

economy and our environment. I am very pleased to see many of the issues that

are important to my constituents are supported in Bill 70.

The first,

of course, is the whole issue around plain language. There are few relationships

that government involves itself in that are more contentious than that between

landlord and tenant. When government provides a structure for that relationship

that is confusing to all involved, it only makes that relationship more

complicated and often unnecessarily so. I am very pleased that the Solicitor

General has, in fact, met one of our government's commitments to bring forward a

plain-language bill.

Another

issue that is critical in my community, where there is such a low vacancy rate,

is the issue of some landlords — not lots but some — who got into the

practice of charging application fees for prospective tenants. That had an

impact on people who were participating in the rental market. For those on low

and fixed income, of course, that became a hardship that was completely

unnecessary. I am very pleased that the Solicitor General has put an end to that

practice in the act under

section 15. I believe that is a tremendous benefit,

especially in a tight rental market like we have here in Victoria.

Another

major issue that I've heard from my constituents a lot is the issue around

allowing pets in rental accommodations. I have also heard from those who manage

and own buildings and homes that that was a potential concern for them as well.

I am very pleased to see the Solicitor General find a balanced approach,

respecting the rights and needs of both groups by allowing an additional damage

deposit for those wishing to bring in pets.

I believe

that as a first step to ensure that this becomes part of our community, this is

an opportunity to encourage those who own properties and put up their capital

and their risk for those properties to recognize that for many people having a

pet is a critical part of their existence in our community — be those seniors

or be those people with disabilities. The ability to have a pet within their

rental accommodation is significant to their well-being, their health and their

enjoyment of life.

[1440]

I believe

this is an excellent opportunity to encourage landlords to participate in

allowing more units to have rental properties in them, and I congratulate the

Solicitor General for recognizing that.

[ Page 4215 ]

I also

believe one of the issues we hear a lot about is around damage deposits,

especially when a tenancy has ended for whatever reason. I commend the Solicitor

General for recognizing that the relationship between the landlord and the

tenant covers all aspects of the rental agreement, including inspecting the unit

upon entering into the agreement as well as inspecting it upon the termination

of that agreement. I congratulate the Solicitor General. I support strongly the

right responsibility of both parties to agree at the start as well as at the

end. I think that's going to make a big difference to people who are renting and

to ensuring fairness in the whole process with respect to that.

I also wish

to just commend the recognition that if you allow people the freedom to actually

engage in their relationship, the government can move out of it to the

standpoint of allowing that relationship to exist and then ensure at the end

that if there are problems, there are fair, balanced and understandable ways in

which to resolve those differences.

The last

piece I wish to specifically highlight that I'm pleased about is the Solicitor

General's provisions around rent fairness. In an area with tight rental markets,

of course, that's been a major concern for many constituents of mine. I believe

he has found a way to ensure there's rent fairness that will ensure available

spaces in the current market for constituents of mine but that also will allow

for the encouragement of investment in new rental housing, be it in urban or

non-urban areas, given that there is now more rent fairness.

I believe

it is an excellent step at the provincial level in order to encourage more

investment in rental housing and high-density rental housing. I certainly hope

the federal government pays attention and also becomes more involved through

their mechanisms to encourage this investment. I am very pleased that the

Solicitor General has heard the concerns of people around the province and has

addressed all of those in an incredibly balanced way in Bill 70, and I'm very

pleased to be able to stand in support of this bill.

Jarvis: I rise to speak a few words on Bill 70, the Residential Tenancy Act.

Just a few words that I think will be within reason as far as my House Leader

goes.

It's a

welcome bill. I have been, in and out over the years prior to being in this

position as an MLA in North Vancouver, involved with housing, dealing a lot with

rental housing as well. I've always found that the situation has come down to a

process of conflict between the tenant and the landlord, and that, to me, has

always been sort of an unnecessary situation, because it could always be done in

a reasonable manner.

This

present bill, I think, is somewhat, as I say, overdue, but the minister has done

a good job, and it's been a long process that he has gone through. I can recall

about a year and a half ago, two years ago, when I went to his office in a few

situations that I had been called on by various constituents. I can honestly say

the minister was concerned and said that the process he was going through would

take into consideration the tenants' aspect of it and the landlords' aspect of

it.

I think we

should remember that the government really isn't responsible for all rental

housing in this province, but the province has taken on the responsibility, in

this case, to set up some basic ground rules that will be reasonable for both

parties and will be handled in a reasonable manner. I know, in fact, that the

minister has been working hard these last two years to make sure this is done.

Also, I believe it was a commitment we made in our New Era document. As

promised, all groups would be affected and not just one special group.

[1445]

It's easy

to say that this bill…. I've had several calls on it already today from both

aspects, pro and con. It would be safe to say at this time that the ministry has

done a fairly equitable job in that sense, in that it's not a perfect bill. He

doesn't intend it to be a perfect bill at this time, because the minister

himself knows there will be changes as we go along. He has told me he will be

amenable to making changes as we go along over the years to smooth out some of

the things that have come forward which might be contentious or be hurtful in

any way to either side, be they landlord or tenant.

With regard

to the new tenancy act as a whole, it is something I feel is going to be of

value to British Columbians. It will be a benefit in the sense that we can see

there will be the possibility of new rental accommodation coming forward. It's

along this line that I feel we're going to see a great benefit. We are sadly

lacking in new rental housing, and it's a problem that pretty well has to be

solved by the private sector of our province.

This bill

will give them some solace. To be in the rental market up to now has been very

tentative. I was in the rental market, and I'll tell you, it's really not quite

worth it to be in the rental market when you've got a continual fight going on

between your tenants and your landlord. This bill is here in front of us, and

it's designed to affect the behaviour of all those involved.

There's

another aspect that is probably high in anyone's mind at the moment, and that's

the pet aspect. I love pets. In fact, I've had as many as 24 pets in my back

yard at one time, when I was breeding — dogs, that is.

An Hon.

Member: Sure.

Jarvis: And I'm a pet too.

An Hon.

Member: I know.

Jarvis: Sometimes I hope I am.

In any

event, dogs are in most cases the main question that's involved when it calls

for pets to be in rental premises. There are approximately 460 Canadians who get

bitten by dogs every year, and two die. An average of two Canadians a year die

from dog bites. Now, that's not saying that all dogs bite, but that is just one

point where I can say it's a matter of behaviour. Everyone feels that their pet

is the best pet in town and that it

[ Page 4216 ]

will never do anything wrong, but believe me, I've seen it happen. Pets are

like their owners.

Interjection.

Jarvis: They're unpredictable. That's the word.

So no

matter how wonderful you want to be with your pet or if you think the pet is so

wonderful, there's always a problem that could arise. That problem usually

arises when you leave your premises and the landlord goes in to do the final

inspection, and the carpets or curtains or walls are damaged or whatever it may

be. And people have strange pets. I myself even had a beaver as a pet one time,

until I found him chewing on my bathroom doors at nighttime. Then we had to take

him to the zoo — the children's zoo, that is.

[1450]

In any

event, the pet situation is not specifically on one side of the pendulum in this

case. It allows the owner to talk to the landlord, and the two of them can come

to some kind of agreement where they could take a pet in or not take a pet in.

Before, it was a no in all instances.

In the

condominiums I was involved with, we had pets. We were allowed pets without

question, provided the pet was small enough that you could carry it down the

halls. They weren't allowed out into the halls on their own.

There's

always some way you can come to an accommodation for this sort of situation. I

think the minister has done a good job in putting forward the opportunity for

the landlords and the tenants to get together and accept the fact of whether

there's going to be pets or no pets.

In any

event, again, I must say this bill is a type of bill that will make more rental

housing available. The rules and regulations that are coming forward are such

that they will be mild. They're easily discussed with the various parties. It

will be an improvement on the plight of the tenants, for example, far more than

the previous acts that had — or what some people would like to see — a very

heavy-handed regulation put forward. This is not that case. That's why I feel

that it's a compatible bill, with a relationship or

an act as it should be.

It's not

the end, as I said. The minister will adjust it as he goes along if he feels

it's a situation that requires changing. On that basis, I feel no one side has a

greater benefit than the other. It will be a great benefit to this province as a

whole. On that basis, as I mentioned earlier, I will support this bill.

Hon. R.

Coleman: Yes. I rise to close debate on….

Mr.

Speaker: One moment, please. We're at second reading, Bill 70. The member

for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant.

J. Kwan:

It was my understanding there were at least two other members from the

government side who wished to speak on this issue. In fact, just moments ago the

member for Victoria-Hillside came into the House and signalled to me that she

was interested in speaking. Also, of course, the member for Vancouver-Fraserview

suggested he would like to speak as well. He asked if I wanted to speak first or

if he wanted to speak first. I said: "Please, by all means, go ahead and

speak first."

I guess

perhaps these two members have been silenced on the government side, and

therefore they're unable to speak. Perhaps they're not able to speak because I

know that the Government House Leader and the Whip….

Mr.

Speaker: Hon. member, may we get on with second reading debate, please, on

Bill 70.

J. Kwan:

Absolutely. Relating to this bill, I just want to put it on record because I

think that the minister, the Solicitor General, was actually trying to force the

issue to see whether or not the other members would rise to speak. For some

reason — I don't know what it is, Mr. Speaker — on second reading….

Mr.

Speaker: Hon. member, we are at second reading of Bill 70. Whether other

members get up to debate this bill is irrelevant. They may or they may not.

Please continue.

J. Kwan:

Well, yes. I was simply explaining to you…

Mr.

Speaker: Please continue.

J. Kwan:

…what I understood the situation to be…

Mr.

Speaker: Please continue with second reading.

J. Kwan:

…and what I was told by the members themselves, what they said the

situation was going to be. Yet, as I say, it seems to me the Government House

Leader can snap his fingers and actually control his members just like that.

This is an important bill.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Please continue.

[1455]

J. Kwan:

It's an important bill. If members actually want to speak, they can rise up in

the House and take their place. They don't have to heckle one of two opposition

members when the opposition member rises in this House to speak. It befuddles me

that when the opposition member rises up in this House to speak, all of a sudden

the government MLAs find a voice. They have no voice all the other times before

that, but when the opposition has the floor, then all of a sudden the MLA

government members find a voice. They think, wow, they have something to say —

maybe not necessarily about the bill. They simply want to use their usual

intimidation tactic, perhaps, to silence the oppo-

[ Page 4217 ]

sition. Perhaps that's the tactic the government members wish to accomplish.

This bill,

as I began….

Interjections.

J. Kwan:

If members want to rise up in this House, they can — by all means.

Mr.

Speaker: Please continue.

J. Kwan:

Rise up in the House if you wish to speak. Nobody else rose earlier.

It is an

important bill. There's no doubt about it. Let's just look at some background

information before I get into the details of the bill. First, in British

Columbia there are approximately one million British Columbians who are renters.

In Vancouver, the community where I come from, approximately 60 percent of the

people who live there are renters. We know the ramifications of this bill are

far and wide, impacting many, many people who need to secure safe, secure,

affordable housing. Make no mistake about that. The Residential Tenancy Act

impacts their everyday life.

I just want

to share some of the statistics with members of this House, and I hope members

will pay attention. One of the most recent statistics from Stats Canada shows

that homeowners across Canada are now 70 times more wealthy than renters. The

scenario is more likely, of course, in greater Vancouver, the most expensive

housing region in the country, where rental affordability remains a constant

challenge not just for the poor but, in fact, for most. These are stats from

Statistics Canada.

Another

piece of interesting information: rent increases in the greater Vancouver area

averaged more than triple the rate of inflation over the last year. According to

Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the average apartment rent in Vancouver

increased 3.8 percent from October 2000 to October 2001, compared to Statistics

Canada's 1.2 percent rate of inflation for the same period. The CMHC information

shows rent prices in the greater Vancouver area increased an average of 20

percent over the last decade. Renters, as I mentioned, are a significant portion

of the citizenry of Vancouver — approximately a million of them across British

Columbia.

I have

further statistics to talk about and illustrate the greater income divide

between renters and those who own property. The reason why this is important

relative to this debate is that one of the key sections in this Residential

Tenancy Act is that the government is allowing for greater rent increases with

no stipulation whatsoever. Under the current act, before this act is adopted and

voted on in this House, the rent increase is already a challenge for many

British Columbians. Then landlords would actually have to, through an

arbitration if challenged, demonstrate to the tenant that the rent increase was

something they had incurred as a result of repairs or maintenance to the

building or to the suite they rented or actual costs they have incurred as a

result of…. That's under the current act. Already, as it were, rent increases

are causing a tremendous problem for many British Columbians. It's a huge issue

of affordability.

[1500]

I will go

into some details around that in a little while, about what this government is

doing by opening up the door even further for rent increases and therefore

creating even more difficulty for renters to find affordable, safe, secure

housing and jeopardizing, I presume, many people in terms of their ability to

have a home.

Many people

say this: you're only one paycheque away from actually having a home. I've seen

this happen, actually, in my own community, where people have lost their jobs,

might have incurred an illness or dealt with traumas in their lives, and they

find themselves on the street — homeless. I come across these stories far too

often to count. In fact, I know there are people now who are out on the street

sleeping on the sidewalk by the Woodwards Building, because they don't have

safe, secure, affordable housing. Some of them have lost a job, suffered an

illness, and they're now homeless.

Interjections.

J. Kwan:

The Solicitor General and the member for North Vancouver–Seymour say:

"Nobody is building housing." Well, you know what? Prior to this

government's election, there used to be an affordable housing program in this

province provided by the government. In fact, from 1993 until the last election,

7,500 units of affordable housing were either built, committed to or under

construction.

Since that

time this government, in one of their first acts when they became government,

cancelled over 1,000 units of affordable housing. In fact, Mr. Speaker, do you

know when they cancelled the affordable housing units? It was last year,

approximately two years ago, in Affordable Housing Week that the minister

responsible for housing announced the cancellation of over 1,000 units of

affordable housing. You know what happened this year in Affordable Housing Week?

This government, this minister responsible for housing, cancelled Affordable

Housing Week altogether.

So the

Solicitor General and the member for North Vancouver–Seymour are absolutely

correct. Nobody is building affordable housing. The Liberal government walked

away from building affordable housing, escalating the crisis around homelessness

in the broader community, escalating the problems that we now see for people who

are desperately in need of housing. Those are the facts.

That isn't

all. This Liberal government also took away hard-fought money from the federal

government that people have been lobbying for. Community groups have been

lobbying for many years for the federal government to come back and spend money

in building affordable housing. It was this government,

[ Page 4218 ]

this minister responsible for housing under the Liberal government, who took

that money away — $90 million, approximately, of federal moneys — from

building affordable housing. They put it into what they now call supportive

housing for seniors, where they're evicting seniors from long-term and

intermediate care facilities and supposedly putting them into these phantom

units for the seniors that actually don't exist and evicting them from their

homes. You know what? It's not an affordable housing strategy. It is hogwash

when they say it is affordable housing, because it isn't. They're simply using

that to do a health initiative, and health is related to housing. Make no

mistake about it. But to evict seniors from their homes and then rob money that

was fought for by the community from the federal government for housing purposes

— dedicated for affordable, safe, secure housing purposes — and to take it

away from them, and then for the government to say, "See? But we have a

strategy on housing," is complete nonsense.

[1505]

October 7

was international tenants' rights day. From protests in the streets to leaky

condos to unscrupulous building owners to a chronic shortage of rental housing,

British Columbians are only too aware of the daily difficulties they face in

housing themselves and their families.

October 7

marked international tenants day. Unfortunately, it was not a day for

celebration. It is a sad reflection on our society when simply finding and

maintaining affordable rental accommodation takes up so much of the energy and

resources of B.C. families. It is a sad reflection on all of us that the poorest

among us have to take to the streets in protest simply to get the Liberal

government's attention to the pressing need for housing. It's a sad reflection

that the basic right to housing is too often subsumed in the so-called right of

landlords and developers to make exorbitant profits.

The member

for North Vancouver–Seymour was heckling me earlier. He said, "Building

affordable housing?" when I was commenting about the need to build

affordable housing. He heckled me and said: "Big Brother." Somehow in

this member's mind and I suspect in the Liberal government's mind, building

affordable housing is deemed to be Big Brother. Making sure that people in our

communities are not sleeping on the streets — for government to take on that

responsibility and to take on the onus to say, "We must do everything we

can to prevent that," is somehow Big Brother.

I beg to

differ. The fact is that British Columbia is a rich province. Canada is a rich

country. There is no excuse. There is no excuse whatsoever for us to find people

sleeping under bridges — not for a province or a country as rich as ours. It

only brings shame to the hearts of many, I think, who feel differently.

Obviously, the member for North Vancouver–Seymour doesn't think that. I think

he thinks it's okay for people to be sleeping on the streets. Perhaps that's the

sentiment of this government as well. Perhaps that's why they cancelled over

1,000 units of housing, and perhaps that's why there are no new initiatives on

housing from this government.

For the

last decade and more the federal government has abandoned its contribution to

affordable housing. It would appear that social housing is no longer a priority

for governments altogether. Residential tenancy offices established to help

tenants deal with their housing needs have closed. Legal aid is no longer

available to those who have no other recourse except to the courts. Reductions

in social assistance mean that the poor and the working poor are paying more and

more for shelter, meaning they have less and less to spend on other necessities.

In fact,

the shelter rate for some people on income assistance has just been reduced by

this Liberal government. Yet, as I go into this bill, we see provisions to allow

for rent increases. At the same time, the poorest of the poor, through the

Minister of Human Resources…. He's cut the rental shelter component for some

people on income assistance.

In B.C. the

budget for social housing has been cut. Promised changes to the Residential

Tenancy Act, first announced almost a year ago and now before us, are causing

greater concern and uncertainty for tenants and advocates for tenants. Promised

consultation with those most directly affected has not materialized. The vacancy

rates continue to be at an all-time low. Rents continue to increase.

[1510]

Housing is

the very foundation of a healthy community, a vibrant economy. Neighbourhoods

provide us with security, jobs, a social contract and support. Affordable

housing must be seen not as a privilege but as a right — a fundamental right.

Because it is a right, we as the legislators have the obligation to ensure that

none in our society are denied this basic need. To do so not only threatens the

daily existence of far too many people but undermines our very ability as a

community to prosper and for all to share in that prosperity.

The issues

that I know the Solicitor General is very proud of with this act centre around

plain language and centre around rent protection, as he calls it, which is

really rent increase. In reality, when you strip away that so-called coded plain

language, you find something else.

I think

perhaps the best quote that sums up this legislation was in the media this

morning. It said: "If there was a scorecard for landlords and tenants,

landlords come out the winners." The act is called the Residential Tenancy

Act. It's kind of strange that when you have a tenancy act and when you look at

the changes government has proposed, it's the landlords who come out to be the

winners. When you have over a million people in British Columbia who are

renters, who depend on renting to have a home….

That's not

all, though. Interestingly enough, even some landlords are unhappy about this

piece of legislation. I'll talk more about that in the committee stage debate.

First of

all, let's just go to

section 43, which is the rent protection section. This

section is essentially an

[ Page 4219 ]

erosion of rent protection. That's the reality, although it does provide some

certainty as to how much the landlord can raise the rent. It also permits the

landlord to essentially play a game of catch-up if they have not raised the rent

in the past three years.

Let me just

first explore this.

Interjection.

J. Kwan:

The Solicitor General says: "But it's not retroactive legislation." If

you look at the explanatory notes, they say that if a landlord chooses in this

year, when the legislation is enacted, not to increase the rent, next year the

landlord can increase the rent for the prescribed amount, which is up to 5

percent, and cost of living — 3 to 5 percent plus cost of living.

Interjection.

J. Kwan:

Let me just finish my point, and then I will address the heckling that the

Solicitor General is….

MacPhail: Pretty defensive, isn't he?

J. Kwan:

Very defensive. As I understand it, some of the backbench MLAs actually have

problems with this, but I think they're being silenced because they're not

allowed to speak on the matter.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Let us have order, and let us stay on second

reading, the principles of Bill 70.

J. Kwan:

On the bill, in the explanatory notes it says that if you don't increase your

rent this year, you could cumulatively add the amount that you did not increase

last year to the following year or the year after that. Renters could therefore

find themselves facing an increase of some 20 percent all at once, and somehow

this is listed under

section 43, rent protection.

[1515]

Let me just

also put this out. The Solicitor General says that the act doesn't say what the

percentage is, in terms of the rent increase. Yesterday the Solicitor General

told the media very clearly that the rent increases he would allow by regulation

would be between 3 and 5 percent plus cost of living. That means rents could go

up as high as 7 percent if the cost of living is 2 percent — and cumulatively

each year over three years. If a landlord decides not to increase the rent in

year one, a landlord could do so in year two or year three. If the cost of

living is included up to the maximum of 5 percent and assuming the cost of

living is 2 percent, it's 7 percent times 3. That's a 21 percent rent increase

for any one person at any one time. That is the reality before this bill. That

is what people could face.

That's not

the worst part. By putting forward a limitation, if you will, of 5 percent plus

cost of living for rent increase, you could potentially create a situation where

landlords will simply increase the rent every year by the prescribed amount and

automatically just go to the maximum amount irrespective of what the actual

costs might have been for the landlord in repair or maintenance or actual costs

incurred. That will not have to be taken into consideration at all for the

purposes of rent increase. It's a guaranteed 5 percent, plus cost of living,

rent increase for the landlord every year. That's what this piece of legislation

says under

section 43.

I hate to

raise conspiracy theories, but this policy change wasn't laid out clearly when

the act was presented. I hate to imply that this government was being sneaky,

but it does seem rather suspicious. The Solicitor General says it doesn't say

that in the act. Even in the act, if you look at it, it doesn't say clearly —

clearly — that one could accumulate their rent over three years for rent

increases. It says it somehow in the explanatory notes, and then the minister

says: "We'll pass regulation to let you know what the maximum amount is

going to be, but it is going to be somewhere between 3 and 5 percent plus cost

of living."

The press

release stated:

"The

new law will have a simpler formula to calculate rent increases. These will be

set by regulation and will be limited to a small annual increase, initially in

the range of 3 to 4 percent, plus a consumer price index adjustment. This will

limit how much rents will be raised and protect tenants from unrestricted

increases. Changes also give landlords more flexibility in the timing of rent

increases. The old system encouraged landlords to raise rent every year because

increases could not be carried over. Permitting landlords to carry forward

allowable rent increases will give them flexibility in dealing with tenants

while supporting a healthy rental market."

There's

the word again: flexibility. It's sort of like saying: "I'm going to take

education funding away and off-load it to the school trustees, but I've given

you the flexibility to manage that." We hear this all the time — these

buzzwords: flexibility, choice and access. It's quite simple. When the Liberal

government says, "I'm giving you choice in access," do you know what

it really means in the actual community? It means this: you have choice and

access if you have the ability to pay. That's what I've been able to see so far

from all of the government's policy. If you have the money and you have the

ability to pay, then you have choice and access.

Flexibility

means: "Don't blame me. I didn't cut that program; someone else did. Don't

blame me. I didn't bring forward that user fee; the health authorities did.

Don't blame me. I didn't increase your rent, even though I brought in

legislation to allow for that up to a maximum of 5 percent plus cost of living.

Don't blame me. It was somebody else. I didn't off-load that cost onto you,

taxpayer. It was somebody else. Remember? I gave you a tax cut." That's

what flexibility means for this government. It's off-loading it in another way,

in a way that this government promised they wouldn't do but that they're doing

now in every sphere. Now even in the private market we see those increased costs

to an average person in British Columbia who happens to be a renter.

[1520]

The only

clarification, of course, comes in the explanatory note on page 55 of the bill,

which says:

[ Page 4220 ]

"…introduces a rent control system that permits landlords to

increase rent each 12 months in accordance with the regulations, and those

regulations may also authorize landlords to impose simultaneous rent increases

for up to three 12-month periods, in addition to the next 12-month period, if

the landlord did not previously increase rent for those periods."

It just

seems like the minister could not have been much clearer in presenting a change

that could potentially mean as high as a 20 percent increase in one year for

some renters, especially in introducing legislation that is supposed to be clear

and easier to understand — so much for the plain language.

The media

has actually caught on to this. In the Province today there was an

article that stated:

"Tenants

in B.C. can soon expect rent increases of about 5 percent a year. The

Residential Tenancy Act, introduced in the House yesterday by Solicitor

General Rich Coleman, allows cabinet to set the limits for what will be

considered acceptable rent increases.

"Coleman

told the Province that his plan is to pass a single, simple formula

soon and keep it in place for the next several years. He said his plan is for

landlords to be automatically allowed an increase of between 3 and 4 percent

per year plus the annual inflation rate.

"With

the cost-of-living increases currently running between 1.5 and 2.5 percent per

year, that will translate into an increase of about 5 to 6 percent. 'It will

bring some stability to the sector,' Coleman said."

The

question is: stability for whom? Certainly not for some tenants, who could, in a

worst-case scenario, rapidly find themselves priced right out of the rental

market.

The bill

also allows landlords to inspect premises monthly, which apparently the minister

hopes will make it easier for them to discover illegal activities such as

marijuana growing operations. It could also serve to give landlord free licence

to inspect the units of seniors and young women on a monthly basis. Are they

really going to be looking for grow ops?

Interjections.

J. Kwan:

It's a valid question. Maybe members think it's funny. There are actually

real-life circumstances where landlords abuse their power, and they go into

someone's suite and actually harass the tenants.

There are

actually real-life situations like that. Maybe the MLAs who are laughing should

look into that. Maybe they should go out of their constituency offices and talk

to real people. They may actually find out what the real world is like — not

locked behind closed doors in their constituency offices because they're afraid

to go out and talk to the public.

The fear

that I have raised is shared by many renters. The unscrupulous landlords could

use this new power as a tool for what could be perceived as harassment under any

other circumstances. In my opinion, this new

section interferes with law-abiding

tenants' right to privacy in their homes and is open to abuse by landlords who

want to harass the tenants. Single women who fear sexual harassment now could be

further exposed. This opens the door to harassment and penalizes all tenants for

the actions of a few. If the intent of this

section is to prevent grow ops, why

are all tenants being penalized with the loss of their privacy?

I ask the

members in this House how they would like it, if they are not a renter now, for

someone to come into their home once a month just because they feel like it.

They don't have to have a reason. They just want to check out and see what's

going on in your living environment. How would that make you feel in terms of

violation of privacy? I'd be a bit worried about it. Actually, some days, I'm

sure, I'd be potentially embarrassed. I don't do my laundry every day. Some days

I'm rushed, and there are perhaps things lying around that I don't want anybody

to see. They can just walk into my home and take a look-see and see what's going

on. I wouldn't want that.

[1525]

You know

what? Tenants are now going to be exposed to this major invasion of their

privacy. If it's funny for the members who were laughing earlier, who think:

"Hey, you know what? That will never happen. Harassment doesn't take

place." Are you kidding? That's like a joke. It is just so funny that the

member would actually even raise it.

Let me tell

you, a recent issue just came out. It was reported in the paper — in fact, in

the member for Vancouver-Burrard's riding — on October 3 to 9, 2002, in the WestEnder .

The headline of the

article reads "Abusive Caretaker Must Go:

Tenants." Just to quote a couple of lines from the article, "Tenants

looking for help. But it doesn't seem to be close at hand. Despite repeated

letters to the police, city officials, provincial government reps, the

residential tenancy office and the building's multiple owners, tenants say they

are still dealing with an abusive and intimidating on-site caretaker…."

And it actually names the caretaker.

It goes on

to say that a former resident alleges the caretaker hugged and kissed her

against her will after inspecting her bathroom. This is someone utilizing the

auspices of inspection, which is what's being allowed here in this act. At least

once a month, for no reason at all, a person can go in and inspect someone's

suite, where tenants are being abused and harassed. There's actually a whole

litany of tenants who made various complaints around intimidation and

harassments, and you know, the tenants went to talk to the MLA, who happens to

be the member for Vancouver-Burrard, on this issue.

Here's what

the member had to say, and I'll actually quote exactly what the

article says.

The tenant says, "I've had so many conversations with…." And it says

the name of the Liberal MLA for Vancouver-Burrard. "They say they can't

intervene but can only work to change legislation." The member for

Vancouver-Burrard says: "We'll work to change the legislation to prevent

such harassment and occasions for such harassment."

[ Page 4221 ]

What have

we got? Under

section 29(2), monthly inspections are now allowed. You can just

go in there every month whenever you feel like it, if you are a landlord, to do

inspections and expose tenants to further harassment and abuse as has been

reported in the newspaper, the WestEnder . The member for Cariboo South

says it's not true. I would encourage you to read the act, and you will find out

what is true and what is not. Don't just read your government's news releases,

because they don't tell you the truth, and that is absolutely right. You have to

go right to the act and get through all this notion that supposedly this is

plain language and actually read through it to see what it really means. When

you do that, you will find a completely different story.

Despite all

of these concerns, something even more troubling in the rent protection

section

is that the act states that the tenants can no longer dispute these annual rent

increases at arbitration, even if they are living in substandard conditions and

are desperately in need of repairs to the unit. Under the current system, as I

mentioned earlier, tenants could appeal any rent increases to the arbitrator.

Now they no longer have that right.

[J.

Weisbeck in the chair.]

Previously,

rent increases could only be matched by actual increases in costs to the

landlord, whether they were repair and maintenance or whether they were actual

cost in terms of licensing fees, insurance fees and the like. Now you don't have

that opportunity. It's simply an automatic rent increase every year, up to 5

percent plus cost of living or cumulatively over three years, if you didn't get

a rent increase in year one, to a cumulative rent increase of some 20 percent.

[1530]

Plain

language. Let me just address that for one moment. The

section I talked about

section 43, I think — illustrates the plain-language approach this

government has taken. In fact, if you actually read the act, it's anything but

plain language. The plain language of this act leaves a lot to be desired. It

is, in some ways, more confusing than before. This legislation clearly, in my

view, needs more work.

I'll give

you another example:

section 45(1). See if you can decipher this: "A tenant

may end a periodic tenancy by giving their landlord notice to the end of the

tenancy effective on a date that (

a) is not earlier than one month after the

date the landlord received the notice and (

b) is the day before the day in the

month, or in the other period on which the tenancy is based, that the rent is

payable under the tenancy agreement." That's plain language for you.

MacPhail: That sounds like the Premier's office.

J. Kwan:

Maybe it did come out of the Premier's communications shop, which he is

masterminding in his office.

If you read

this, you sit there…. I don't know how many degrees a person needs to have to

try and decipher exactly what that said. Yet that's supposed to be plain

language, according to the Solicitor General. That's right. It is as clear as

mud. If this is plain language from this government, I hate to know what

constitutes complex language.

I know from

the media this morning that the landlords' group and tenants' groups are already

finding that they are reading some sections of the act with very different

interpretations. People read it, and they say, "God, I think it means

this," and somebody says: "Well, I think it means that." How is

that helpful in bringing forward a piece of legislation that's supposed to

clarify and supposed to be in plain language? One example I cited clearly

illustrates that nobody can understand what it actually says.

The

inspection reports,

section 24. The new act requires that the landlords and

tenants fill out a move-in and move-out inspection report, but leaves it totally

up to the landlord to decide when these inspections will take place. If a tenant

can't make two arbitrarily set times for the inspection, they automatically

forfeit their right to their deposit, whether or not they have done any damage.

This means unscrupulous landlords will have an even more convenient way to rip

off tenants of their security deposits. Of course, this will also cut down on

the number of arbitrations, because tenants will now have no right to their own

money, which if you happen to be a pet owner is now doubled. I'll go into that

in a few moments.

How could

it be that the government would bring in a piece of legislation that says if

after two attempts to set a time to inspect your suite when you're leaving and

you as a tenant are not available, you forfeit your damage deposit, irrespective

of whether or not you have done damage to the suite at all? How is that fair?

What if a landlord purposely picks time allocations that the landlord knows the

tenant is not going to be available, might be working, might even work a night

shift or weekend shifts or whatever the case may be? All of a sudden you can't

set those times. Oh well, I guess you forfeited your damage deposit.

Somehow

this is fair and somehow this benefits the million people who are renters in

this province. This is notwithstanding that there are already a lot of

unscrupulous landlords who don't, as a matter of practice, pay back the damage

deposits to the tenants. There are many landlords who do that. They do that

already, and they try to rip off the tenants already, as we know. Now it just

gives them further reason and rationale to exercise their unscrupulous

practices.

[1535]

Application

fees are also another issue. The new act says the landlords can no longer ask

for application fees. This is something tenants asked for, but there's nothing

in the act about consequences for charging a fee or about enforcement of the

section. Enforcement is a problem throughout the act. What good is a law if

there are no consequences for breaking it?

[ Page 4222 ]

You know

what? The Solicitor General promised consultation. It is time to go back to the

drawing board and introduce the act when it is ready and when they have done the

real consultation.

Pets. Pet

owners are clearly the losers in this new act. Not only has the act made it

clear that landlords are able to discriminate against tenants with pets, but

they could also charge pet owners more money by way of extra deposits. As we

have seen from other sections, it will likely be more money that even model

tenants will lose. This act is clearly a disappointment for the majority of

British Columbians who are tenants and who want pet-friendly housing.

In the

spring I introduced a bill, Bill M202, the Pets in Rental Housing Act. This bill

really came about after a very active group called POWER…. They are people who

have been advocating the recognition of pets and the benefits of pets for

individuals in rental housing. They are, of course, extremely disappointed by

this bill. I want to raise now some of the points I raised while tabling that

bill. I can still hope some of this might resonate if not with the minister,

then perhaps with some of the members on the back benches who may share these

opinions.

It has been

well documented that a significant segment of our society shares their lives

with companion pets. A lot of families and children gain immense comfort from

having a pet with them, particularly seniors. For many seniors, the sole source

of companionship would be through the ownership of pets. For seniors, these pets

make a great deal of difference. It has been acknowledged that having a pet can

be a very positive change emotionally and physically for individuals who lack

other human contact. Pets offer affection and companionship to people of all

ages.

I'm a pet

owner myself, and I think they ease social interaction and promote a sense of

community for inner-city dwellers. In fact, that is absolutely true. I go to the

park when I take my dog for a walk. There's a little dog park right by where I

live, and when I go there, there are often other dog owners there as well. We

all congregate, and we all chat about all kinds of things while our dogs play

together. It is quite a way to build community and for me to get to know my

neighbours, especially when I first moved to this area. I didn't know very many

of my neighbours, and my pet actually introduced me to many of them.

The vast

majority of pet owners are indeed responsible pet owners. In B.C., however, only

5 percent of people in the 548,000 rental premises currently own dogs, and 9

percent currently own cats. Over 20 pets per day are turned into the shelters by

people who have given up trying to find a place to live that will accept pets.

Of course, this is not only traumatic to the pet owners themselves but often to

the children in families who are unable to secure housing that would allow for

pets. They're unable to secure a home for themselves and their pets.

The SPCA

also reports that the pets themselves suffer greatly from separation anxiety,

and their health rapidly deteriorates while they're at the shelters. The BCSPCA

just released a poll that I think the minister might be interested in. Let me

quote from their news release dated October 22: "A

recent poll conducted on behalf of the BCSPCA reveals that British Columbians

want to see dramatically improved protection for pet owners under the

Residential Tenancy Act, which is currently under review by the provincial

government.

"While

more than half of B.C. homeowners have pets, less than 5 percent of rental

accommodation in the province allows companion animals. 'Every year,

approximately 5,000 beautiful animals become homeless because their guardians

can't find pet-friendly housing.'"

[1540]

This is

from the general manager of community relations for the BCSPCA. Another quote

from this individual: "This is extremely traumatic for both the animals and

the families, and we believe that responsible pet guardians deserve better

protection under the law." The poll conducted for the BCSPCA by McIntyre

and Mustel Research indicates that a majority, 79 percent of British Columbia

residents, are in favour of legislation that allows pet guardians the right to

keep companion animals — i.e., a cat or a dog — in their rental units,

provided they do not cause unreasonable noise or damage. The polling is clear.

B.C. residents want pets in rental housing.

The

minister wouldn't make changes that the majority of British Columbia residents

want, that tenants' rights groups want and that pet owners want, which studies

prove are highly beneficial in allowing pets in rental housing. I don't know if

the minister is a pet owner, but even if he isn't, he should look at some of the

studies of the health benefits pets could have for their owners. The health

reasons for having pets have been studied and well documented by experts in the

field. A renowned expert in the field of human-animal relations is the author

Dr. Alan Beck, the director of the Centre for the Human-Animal Bond in the

school of veterinary medicine. The centre was established to develop a

comprehensive understanding of the relationship between people and their

companion animals. The letter Dr. Beck wrote to the Pets of B.C. Residents,

POWER, said: "It is well documented that people denied good human contact

and interaction do not thrive well. One way people can be protected from the

ravages of loneliness is animal companionship."

There have

been many exhaustive studies done on the effects pets can have on our

well-being. As an example, seniors who own dogs go to the doctor less often than

those who do not. In a study of 100 medicare patients, even the most highly

stressed dog owners in the study had 21 percent fewer physician contacts than

non–dog owners. In another study the level of daily living activity of seniors

who do not currently own pets deteriorates more than the average of people who

currently own pets. Seniors who own pets cope better with stress that occurs in

their daily life events without entering into the health care system. Pet owners

have lower blood pressure. Pet owners also have a lower cholesterol level than

non–pet owners. People with

[ Page 4223 ]

diabetes have improved health because of pet ownership.

I know that

for a fact. My father has diabetes, and we got the family a dog. The family dog

has actually helped my father's health — regular exercise, getting out there.

My mother is now retired and actually was in superb health before she retired.

After a couple of years of retirement, she found her cholesterol was actually

going up, so she, too, went and walked the dog with my dad twice a day minimum

if not more sometimes, depending on the weather. Her health is improving. It's

proven. It's not just my own story that I have to share; studies have

illustrated that. My own story only goes to point out that I have experienced

the positive effect of pets in my own family.

Companionship

of pets also helps children in families adjust to serious illness and the death

of a parent. A study has also been conducted to show the positive effects of

pets. Pet owners feel less afraid of being a victim of a crime when walking with

a dog or sharing a residence with a dog. Pet owners have minor health problems.

They have better psychological well-being. They enable children to develop

better nurturing behaviour than those who don't have pets. Pet owners have a

higher one-on-one survival rate in terms of heart disease when that issue is

looked into.

[1545]

Medication

costs, as mentioned earlier, have also dropped. On average, it is a drop of from

$3.80 per patient to $1.18 per patient. This was done in nursing home facilities

in New York, Missouri and Texas. Pets in nursing homes increase social and

verbal interactions. They also helped people who perhaps have heart diseases and

decreased the possibility of heart attacks and the mortality rate by 3 percent.

This may not seem like a lot, but in actual numbers this translates into 30,000

lives saved annually.

Pets, of

course, decrease the feeling of loneliness and the feeling of isolation. They

enhance children's self-esteem. They also enhance children's cognitive

development. Children owning pets are more likely to be involved in activities

such as sports, hobbies and clubs. Today, more and more, as we hear in the news

and as new studies are indicating, children are getting overweight in the home

because of lack of activities. Perhaps owning a pet will enable children to get

out with more physical activities — walking the dog and therefore bringing

better health to themselves.

People who

have HIV and AIDS who have pets have shown that they experienced less depression

and reduced stress. It also allowed them to better cope with their day-to-day

living activities.

These

studies have been done over the course of time, and they have demonstrated that

pets are indeed beneficial to individuals — adults and children alike. It is

across cultures. It is applicable to every heritage, nationality, ethnicity.

situations where families are unable to have pets in their homes, in rental

housing, they run into problems. It is particularly traumatic for people when

they have to give up their pets as they relocate from one home to another. It is

traumatic both for the individual and for the pet itself.

There have

been many organizations and individuals who have come out to call for a change

in the Residential Tenancy Act to allow for pets. This of course enables

individuals and families to have the right to own a pet in their home. That's

not to say that there won't be problems. There are some irresponsible pet owners

who create problems. However, we have to recognize that the majority of pet

owners are responsible. Therefore, those responsible pet owners should not have

their rights taken away from them or have their rights jeopardized because of

the potential of irresponsible pet owners.

Many groups

have come forward to support a change in the Residential Tenancy Act to allow

for pets in rental housing. They include the Doris Day Animal League; the

Persons with AIDS Society of B.C.; the BCGEU; the Canadian Council on Animal

Care; the Humane Society of the United States; the Canadian Labour Congress; the

Community Training and Resource Center of New York; the B.C. Federation of

Labour; the B.C. Veterinary Medical Association; city of Vancouver, Animal

Control; the David Suzuki Foundation; the district of Hudson's Hope; the

Victoria Status of Women Action Group; the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation;

the Hospital Employees Union; Family Network of Deaf Children; the city of

Toronto's Federation of Metro Tenants Association; city of New York; Vancouver

Status of Women; CUPE B.C.; and the Ontario Legislative Assembly. I will bring

some information to the House around the changes that Ontario brought about in

this regard.

Other

groups: the Coalition of Progressive Electors; the B.C. Young New Democrats; the

B.C. Retired Teachers Association; the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada,

B.C. division; Canada's Association for the Fifty-Plus; the British Columbia

Association for Community Living; the Developmental Disabilities Association;

the Society to Support Family Bonding and Healing, Vancouver Friends for Life

Society, the Nisha Family and Children's Services Society; the Progressive

Intercultural Community Services Society; the Royal Canadian Legion; the Second

Mile Society; West End Seniors Network Society; the British Columbia Epilepsy

Society; Physiotherapy Association of B.C.; the North Shore Disability Resource

Centre; the Opportunities for the Disabled Foundation; YouthCo AIDS Society;

Advancement of Minority Equality; Little Mountain Seniors Live Wires.

The list

goes on, and there are many more. These are just some of the groups that have

come forward to support a change in the legislation to enable pets to be in

rental housing.

[1550]

Earlier I

mentioned that Ontario has brought legislation forward for pets in rental

accommodation. Pets of B.C. Residents, POWER, has had the opportunity to meet

with many of the stakeholders to gain consensus on a change to the legislation.

They have, as I mentioned, solicited a wide array of individuals and

[ Page 4224 ]

groups to come forward to support and call for this change. In Ontario they

have researched and found that in the last ten years since Ontario brought about

such change, there have been no substantive complaints regarding this change in

the residential tenancy regulations. Ontario had made amendments to their

related acts to disallow the no-pet policies, and the legislation they brought

in is known as the Fluffy law. It was introduced by the then-governing Liberal

Party of Ontario.

In a recent

letter of support to POWER, the Ontario Liberals, now the official opposition,

still refer to it as an important matter. The Ontario NDP Housing critic also

confirmed the success of the Fluffy law. I quote the NDP MPP from Ontario,

Rosario Marchese, who wrote to POWER stating: "Over the past ten years

Ontario tenants have been able to enjoy the family pet within their apartment

unit, exactly the same way as homeowners do. The act is working very well in

Ontario, and as Housing critic for the Ontario NDP, I have not heard of any

complaints from petless residents. I am sure the residents of B.C. would benefit

greatly if such

an act were passed in B.C."

In the city

of Toronto, St. Paul's councillor Michael Walker calls the Fluffy law a

successful policy, adding that pets have an enormously positive impact on the

lives of their owners.

In New York

a similar law was also passed back in 1983. The influential Community Training

and Resource Center in New York wrote to the support group POWER about their

effort, stating that New York's pet law was introduced by city council to

provide protection from widespread abuses by building owners.

The other

jurisdictions that brought about this change have shown that the experiences

have been positive. They have also shown that the problems people worry about in

terms of complaints from non-pet owners, perhaps complaints from landlords, have

actually not materialized. It brings, I think, a great opportunity to British

Columbia to learn from this experience, to learn from the experts in the field

and actually those who have medical health experience, those who have studied

this issue, to understand the positive impacts of pets for individuals, for

seniors and for children, especially now at a time when we have more challenges

in the health care system, when we're looking for ways to reduce health care

costs. It's been shown that pets can be positive in reducing health care costs

for the taxpayers and for government as well.

I would

urge the members to support a change in the bill that would actually advance pet

owners who are renters to have access to housing, and not less, and not be

penalized in such a way that they are now, under this bill, where they could

actually incur more costs by way of a damage deposit. I know members from the

government may well just say, "But there are allergy issues that non–pet

owners might be faced with," and all of those kinds of concerns. You know

what, Mr. Speaker? Those concerns could be easily worked out, and in other

jurisdictions where these issues have come up, they have been worked out. In

fact, as I put on the record by many people who have brought in such

legislation, they haven't experienced the problems or concerns that this

government backbench MLA as well as the minister continuously raised as a way of

saying why they cannot bring in such legislation.

Earlier

this year I tabled the private member's bill, and I withdrew it at the end,

because the Solicitor General said: "Don't worry. We are going to amend the

Residential Tenancy Act. We are going to ensure that the issue is

addressed." You know what, Mr. Speaker? Not only is the issue not addressed

— in fact, far from the truth. In fact — and I'm paraphrasing — there was

an

article in today's newspaper from the people who actually met with the

Solicitor General on this issue. At the time when the meeting took place, the

individual who is advocating for changes in the Residential Tenancy Act to

support pets in rental housing actually thought the Solicitor General perhaps

might be listening and actually heard what was said. In fact, the individual

gave a lot of information to the Solicitor General to read and to be informed on

the issue.

[1555]

Lo and

behold, with the introduction of this act, the comment that this individual made

in the newspaper was that he now wonders whether or not the Solicitor General

even listened or bothered to read the materials that were presented to him.

That's the

reality of it. The issues before us are very significant. They impact many

British Columbians in terms of what could happen in terms of increase in rents,

in terms of intrusion into people's privacy, in terms of the so-called

inspection

section of the act. The issue is also raised that the plain language

is far from plain. Nobody can actually understand it, if you go through some

sections of the act to see what it really means.

The act

itself, I think, as the Solicitor General had put out in terms of the rent

increase portion, can be very misleading to the public, where in one year a

person could actually face as high as 20 percent in increases in terms of rent.

This is all being said in an environment where the government has closed

residential tenancy offices. Even if you had complaints, it's now harder for

landlords to file complaints at the residential tenancy branch, because offices

have been closed.

The serious

concerns from this government seem to me not to be addressed by this act. It

seems to me that the promised consultation that was supposed to take place

didn't take place. In fact, the tenancy groups, the advocacy groups I've spoken

with, all said that the Solicitor General had promised them that before the act

was introduced, they would get to see the act and would actually have a

discussion on this and that there will be further consultation on it. You know

what? It can't be further from the truth. None of that had actually

materialized.

Does the

Residential Tenancy Act meet the test of changes that need to be in place? The

answer is simple: no, it doesn't.

[ Page 4225 ]

I would

like to close with this. It seems to me that if you are an investor, if you are

a landlord and a landowner, then you have something to celebrate with this act.

You're guaranteed an investment in the minimum of 5 percent plus cost of living

every year while British Columbians would not be guaranteed an increase in their

wages in the same amount every year.

What you'll

see is that more and more people will find it more difficult to maintain their

housing. I would suspect that more and more housing units may well see their

condition deteriorate, with no or little recourse, but yet the rents are still

going up. That's the challenge that renters will now face from unscrupulous

landlords. That's the act the Liberal government's bringing in to further

encourage bad practices by unscrupulous landlords in the rental place.

Deputy

Speaker: Speaking to Bill 70, second reading, the member for

Victoria-Hillside.

S. Orr:

I want to just do a little bit of a rebuttal first of all. I was not muzzled, as

I think it was said. I was waiting my turn to speak because I had some research,

which I have now done.

[1600]

Secondly,

I'm going to start by saying that everything I've listened to for the last — I

don't know how long — hour, hour and a half, whatever…. We have talked about

owners and landlords as unscrupulous building owners. I think that was the

comment — unscrupulous building owners. I want to first of all say that as the

MLA whose riding has probably got the lion's share of the rental housing

market…. First of all, I'm going to stand up in support of this bill, and I'll

tell you why. Ninety-nine percent of tenant and landlord relationships are good

ones. They work well together, and they are not unscrupulous people. They are

business people. They're people that in their day have built buildings that have

housed the rental market. This act, as far as I'm concerned — and I have read

it quite thoroughly — is reasonable. It's balanced, but most of all, it's

understandable.

It is long

overdue. The reason it's long overdue is this. In my region, in

Victoria-Hillside, we have a critical shortage of housing, an absolutely

critical shortage of rental units. We desperately need the private sector to

come forward and start building again. We haven't seen a major boom in housing

building in the rental market since the late 1970s or eighties. This is a huge

investment for builders, and we need them. We desperately need the rental

market.

What we

need in Victoria-Hillside is for the private sector to build and to step up to

the plate, because I need housing for the people in my riding who are referred

to as the working poor. Personally, I would prefer to call them the working

proud. This act will give landlords and potential builders in the housing market

the confidence of a stable market, and hopefully, it will encourage them to

build again.

The act

also offers landlords, finally, the opportunity to revisit their policies on

allowing pets. Now, as I said before, for 99 percent of landlords and tenants,

the relationships are good, but some owners were not willing to take pets

because of potential damage, and I don't blame them. I am now a renter in

Victoria-Hillside. I have a landlord. His business is a very good business, and

he's a good landlord. I am renting in an area where there is a lot of lower

cost, affordable housing. Now, finally, an owner can make the decision as to

whether to take the pets themselves because they can now apply a damage deposit

or a pet deposit. This has given them the tools to make that decision.

That is

really important. Most pet owners are very reasonable, but as with everything

else, you always get a few bad apples in the barrel. You're always going to get

some tenants that are not going to be responsible, and having a pet is probably

not a good thing for them. But a lot of pet owners are responsible, and a lot of

landlords…. As I say, 99 percent of landlords are very reasonable people.

They're going to be able to now sit down and negotiate with people and say:

"Well, you know…." If they get some person along who has sold their

home, like I did, and is renting an apartment, like I have done…. I had to

send my cat up to my son in Tofino because I couldn't take it into the

apartment, but now I could go to my landlord and say: "Well, this is just a

small cat. Can I keep this cat, which is 18 years old? Here's the damage

deposit." We would have had some negotiating tools. This is a good thing.

[1605]

The other

thing that is very important is what I refer to as the in-and-out inspection.

That is basically the start of the tenancy and then the termination of the

tenancy. This is going to get rid of a lot of conflict between both the tenant

and the landlord. Now they're both going to inspect the premises together, which

is what should happen, and they're both going to inspect the premises when they

leave. The other good thing, as far as the tenant goes, is that if the landlord

does not give back the damage deposit within 15 days, they can double the damage

deposit, which protects the tenant. This is also a good thing because this will

make people get their damage deposits on time. Most renters need that damage

deposit for the next rental they're going to go into, so they can use it for

that damage deposit. That part of it is very important. It's a piece where I

think, as I say, both tenants and landlords are protected.

When

arbitration is necessary, from now on it will be much quicker. It will be dealt

with much quicker. We have, I think I heard somebody say, 20,000 arbitrations

outstanding. That is an enormous backlog, and this is not good for tenants.

I'm

speaking at second reading. I have read it quite thoroughly. I don't have to go

through the bill

section by section. I think it's a good piece of legislation. I

think it's certainly long overdue. I have to reiterate that where I think it's

going to have the biggest impact is that finally builders and the private sector

are going to say it's now worth building again.

We do have

safe, affordable housing in the rental market that is not under either B.C.

Housing or government housing. There are many, many good rentals

[ Page 4226 ]

out there that are owned by the private sector. They do a very good job of

servicing their tenants, taking care of their buildings and making sure there is

affordable safe housing. Those same people that built those buildings in the

seventies and eighties are prepared to build again. We just have to make sure we

have some sort of a playing field they can work in.

I will not

belabour what I have to say. I just wanted to make sure I made it very clear

that I am very much in support of this. As an MLA that deals in social issues,

poverty issues and issues pertaining to safe affordable housing, I really,

really believe and — I know; I don't believe — I know this is going to

enable us to move forward with more housing stock, and it does protect the

tenant.

Johnston: I rise today to talk about the Residential Tenancy Act. First of

all, I would like to commend some of the work done by the Solicitor General and

others, certainly in terms of the consultation. I've heard today that this

consultation on or talking about adjusting this act started about five years

ago. I understand also that we had 1,500 submissions on this particular matter.

There was

extended consultation between landlord and tenant groups. I think the key they

talk about is balance and fairness. I think balance and fairness between tenant

and landlord is probably one of the key driving issues of this rewrite.

I would

like to just go through a couple of the things I think are really positive in

terms of the act. On the item with regard to screening fees, I'm happy that is

not going to be allowed anymore. It must have been a horrible thing to go around

— it happened to my son, actually — and to have to pay a deposit just for

the privilege, if you will, of looking at a unit. I think that was a practice

that certainly was not conducive to any kind of fairness in the marketplace. I'm

certainly delighted to see that's going to be dealt with.

Across

Canada, I guess, there's a range of half a month to one year in terms of

security deposits, so I was happy to see the half-month situation maintained.

Rent

fairness is being debated a lot today in the House. I think the provisions of

setting the annual percentages or a calculation and keeping a limit on it is, in

fact, fair. I think it's a good thing.

[1610]

In terms of

the joint inspections between tenants and landlords, that is something that

certainly should cut down on, as was mentioned before, the 20,000 arbitrations

and ensure that maybe there's a little more fairness on that side as well.

The member

for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant talked a fair amount about housing stock and

housing needs and the pressure on the housing market. I think with balance and

fairness coming forward and the ability of people to actually invest in new

housing stock, that will be a positive thing. Solutions need to be offered to

the pressures of the lack of housing certainly in the Vancouver and Victoria

areas. I know when I first came here to Victoria — I was elected, I guess, 16

months ago — it was quite a challenge to find any kind of rental situation. I

know that's existing in Vancouver as well.

I'm very

supportive, generally, of most of the initiatives through the act. There's one

particular place where I do have a bit of concern, and I guess I might want to

phrase it as something like "pet paranoia." I know there's an awful

lot of concern out there from a lot of landlords about this perception in my

mind of extreme damage and things caused by the ownership of a pet, a companion

animal. With respect to one of our members here today who talked about dog

bites, saying two dog bites a year end up causing fatalities in British

Columbia, I would suggest that human actions cause an awful lot more fatalities

in this province than that.

Landlords

— this is where we get back to the balancing act — certainly have the right

to decide and should have the right to decide in a free market economy whether

to allow pets. However, there has been great resistance, from what I can see, to

allowing pets and companion animals. We have numbers, and they've been quoted

earlier today, of 5 percent of rental units — this is from the SPCA —

officially allowing dogs and 9 percent allowing cats. There needs to be an

incentive for a landlord to open their mind, if you will, to the possibility of

allowing pets and, I think, the positive nature of letting people have pets.

The

half-month deposit thing I worked through my head last night. I was trying to

figure out if there's a better way of doing this. Would this be an impediment to

people, specifically seniors, who maybe couldn't afford half a month? Or would

this give incentive to landlords to actually provide more units and make them

available for people that own pets? I guess that's the question that's going to

be answered through this in terms of the pet deposit. I know I'm not supposed to

use the words "pet deposit," but that's what this is becoming known

as.

Part of the

problem is the vacancy rate. As I spoke about before, I couldn't find any

statistics today, but I looked back in CMHC, November 2001 — about a year ago

— and Vancouver had a vacancy rate at that point of about 1 percent. According

to those figures, Victoria was about half a percent. I know there's a challenge

there in terms of people trying to find the accommodations that would take pets,

but I guess basically it's a landlord's market.

Just

getting back to this perception that this major damage is done, when I talk this

issue through with people, what I get back is this picture of this vicious dog

ripping the heck out of every single apartment and everybody owning one of

these. I just want to say that in the work…. I spoke on this in the spring.

One of the things of investigating this is that it's just not the case in my

mind and, I don't think, in reality.

Like I say,

I was telling a story about when I first came to Victoria. I actually took on an

apartment that, frankly, the person ahead of me…. I would rather have had an

animal in there. They had to rip out carpets, strip down walls, fumigate and

replace all the appli-

[ Page 4227 ]

ances. I'm sure anybody could tell lots of stories about human tenants as

well as on the pet side.

[1615]

I'm

supportive of the pet lobby, if you will, or certainly pet organizations for a

bunch of reasons. One of them is, in fact, that I've looked at the Ontario

situation, and I've looked at the kind of results they've had over the last ten

years. The statistics are there. Every single political party supports the

initiative. Everybody that has had anything to do with it is positive about it.

In fact, I think that having 1 percent complaints on 800,000 complaints a year

that have to do with pets is itself evidence that the Ontario experience has

worked to date.

There are other initiatives that could have been done, I suppose, to look at

pet insurance and pet résumés. These are things where you have to get

reference letters for your animals and provide them to the landlord. But I think

the thing that drives me most on the pet side is the fact that the health

benefits, which have been read out earlier today from one particular study, to

our seniors, our children and our population as a whole are tremendous.

Scientific evidence is before us regarding the benefits.

A study out

of the University of Melbourne in Australia talked about tremendous health

savings with regard to pet ownership and companion pets. They talked about the

kind of savings in the neighbourhood of $1.5 billion, because people visit the

doctor less. People require fewer pharmaceuticals, and people are generally

socially healthier. There is scientific evidence out there regarding promotion

of health, beating stress, preventing and overcoming heart disease when one has

a pet. Specifically, I look at the senior population, where companionship is a

very critical thing. If you're forced to give up your animal because of the

situation of where you live, it could have a very large detriment on your

lifestyle.

Generally,

I am hopeful there will be some way of actually quantifying and looking at

whether this increase in pet deposit will have a positive effect and be able to

be looked at, maybe after a period of a year or whatever, to see if this will

actually incite them to make more rental units available, as I have been told it

would from apartment owners.

Overall, on

this particular issue I believe that there is tremendous benefit in having

responsible pet owners as part of the rental pool, if you will. There are ways

to protect the landlord's investment, and there are ways to make pet owners

responsible. I hope that when this act is in fact brought forward and enacted in

the spring, we could start quantifying and looking at this issue seriously in

terms of the pet issue, because I think there's tremendous social benefit.

Certainly,

I'm very supportive of the Residential Tenancy Act changes in whole, but I have

just voiced my opinion and, I think, the opinion of many Vancouver constituents

that I would represent with regard to

section 18 and the issue of companion

pets.

With that,

I thank you very much for the opportunity to say those words.

Chong: I also rise this afternoon to speak to Bill 70, the Residential

Tenancy Act. Like those before me, I'm pleased to offer my support for this

legislation.

[1620]

When in

opposition I heard from many constituents who had experienced frustration or

confusion and sometimes both in dealing with the residential tenancy issues. The

previous residential tenancy legislation has been the subject of many complaints

from both landlords and tenants. The problems that were presented to me seemed

rather obvious, and they always seemed to be an easy way to resolve them, but

that never happened. I recall one particular instance when a landlord came to my

office and sat down with some concerns he had in dealing with a tenant. We went

over his issues, and I advised him of his rights. I showed him and shared with

him what he was able to do as a landlord to enforce his rights, and I explained

to him the processes and procedures he would need to follow. He left the office

rather satisfied, having understood things a little better.

Surprisingly,

the very next day another person came into my office, and it happened to be the

tenant of the landlord who had come in to see me the day before. As MLAs, we're

required to represent all our constituents in an equitable fashion, so I showed

him, too, into my office and sat down with him. I heard his concerns, and I

shared with him, as well, what his rights were, what the processes were and what

procedures he would need to follow. He, too, left my office satisfied.

I was

fortunate, because both parties for the same location came to my office, and I

was able to see firsthand how the previous legislation did not work. I saw that

no matter what, neither side was satisfied with the legislation the way it was.

Neither side truly understood it, and both sides, in effect, felt they were

being put through a rather arduous regulatory burden that did not need to be

there.

With Bill

70, which was introduced yesterday by the Solicitor General, we will see some

changes — positive changes. The first is that it puts the act into language

that everyone can understand, and that means, hopefully, less requirement for

people to come into an MLA's office just to ask for clarification on particular

sections. I believe, too, that this new legislation provides protection for both

landlords and tenants, because it ensures there is balance.

It reminds

everyone that if you act responsibly and if you live up to your obligations,

whether you are a landlord or a tenant, your rights will be protected. After

all, right in

section 5 it says that landlords and tenants may not avoid or

contract out of this act. This means everyone must be a part of it, and there

are obligations and responsibilities involved. With that, you will have your

rights.

In another

positive and good step, this bill also restructures the arbitration process, a

process that should be fair and balanced but in the past did not serve landlords

or tenants particularly well. That is not to say that arbitration and disputes

could not be settled, but as

[ Page 4228 ]

MLAs, we generally hear only from people who are encountering difficulty with

legislation or with the regulations. Again, I have to say I heard from both

landlords and tenants on that issue. By clarifying each party's rights, this

legislation will do much to considerably reduce the number of disputes,

resulting in fewer arbitrations and, hopefully, fewer costs to both landlords

and tenants.

When you

have a landlord or tenant who says they had an arbitration hearing and that it

went relatively well — then they received their results, and then within two

weeks there was an appeal, and then there was a further arbitration, and then

another month would lapse and then another result and then another appeal —

you begin to wonder exactly what was going on with a simple enough case, or one

that appeared to be simple, that would carry on for six or sometimes eight

months. People had long since moved on and actually wanted to get on with their

lives, but someone on the other side continually appealed it, because the

processes allowed for that without clarity. I don't think it served either party

well. I had both landlords and tenants throw up their hands in despair.

[1625]

More

importantly, I believe this legislation will begin to renew and rebuild the

relationship and the trust that is so important between landlords and tenants.

As I stated earlier, I've dealt with both sides, and I know my new colleagues,

in their year and a half of being MLAs, have dealt with both landlords and

tenants. We will always continue to do that. I did note there was disdain that

each had for the other side. That did not need to be the case. Surely, when a

home or an apartment or a unit was first rented out, both the landlord and

tenant had to sit down and had to come to an understanding. They had to respect

each other. They had to have been civil to have signed an agreement and

exchanged whatever agreement they made. What happened? What caused such a

deterioration when the tenant moved out or when a landlord requested that a

tenant move out?

I believe

it may have been caused, in part, by the confusion on how to resolve disputes,

based on the previous act. As an MLA, many of the disputes I became aware of or

involved with usually did concern the security deposit or, shall I say, the

return of the security deposit. Landlords complained that the residence was not

properly cleaned or that it was damaged. Tenants came to see me and, in fact,

countered that the place was in even better condition than when they first

rented it and first moved in.

You would

think both parties would have gone to great lengths to ensure that a proper,

fair and simple inspection would have taken care of all this. You would have

thought both the landlord and the tenant would have come to some mutual

agreement to say: "Let's make sure we both agree, because we both have

something we have access to here, and that's the security deposit." You

either, as a landlord, retain it or, as a tenant, wish to procure that back. You

would hope a simple process could have been put in place by both sides. Somehow

that just didn't happen.

What this

act now does — which I think is, again, an important measure in residential

tenancy — is reminds everyone that there is a requirement to adhere to a

move-in and a move-out inspection. This should, over time, ensure that

appropriate sign-offs are gained, ensuring that there are fewer complaints and

fewer arbitrations. This act also affirms the status quo that I think many were

leery of. This affirms that the status quo of the security deposit will be

maintained at the rate of one-half of one month's rent that is payable under the

tenancy agreement.

On the

issue of a tenancy agreement — again, another positive step. You would have

thought that in the absence of a tenancy agreement, the Residential Tenancy Act

would take place. Sometimes, as the saying goes, it goes without saying, but it

goes better with saying. Once again, we have

an act that does go better with

saying or goes better with it being included. Should there not be a tenancy

agreement that was duly authorized or signed, this act will in fact cover off

some outstanding issues.

I've heard

my colleagues before me speak very eloquently on the reasons why they're

supporting it. I've also heard some concerns that are raised, which is very

good. That's very healthy for debate in this House. I've heard the member of the

opposition from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant raise some issues, as well, which I

think, quite frankly, are unfounded. To suggest that landlords and tenants could

not agree to a date to inspect a location is, I think, suggesting there isn't

respect and fairness out there in the residential renting market.

[1630]

Usually

when people move in or move out, there's a date set for when they're moving out,

and there's usually a time frame in which you have to get out of your place.

Usually it's the last day of the month. That's why all the moving vans are all

over the place. I think it's pretty clear that if you're going to be moving out,

you have to have this in-and-out inspection that takes place. That's the

problem. It should have been that obvious, and it wasn't. This act will, again,

ensure that.

I know I'm

going to hear, as all of us are going to hear, some fearmongering from members

of the opposition, but that's to be expected. That's part of their job, but it's

really unfortunate to suggest there is not fairness and balance in this act.

It's very unfortunate they are not willing to hear that landlords and tenants,

for the most part, want to be able to resolve disputes and not go through an

arduous process of arbitration. It would be very important for the members of

the opposition to also listen to those very good landlords and those very good

tenants who are out there. I know from experience they are there. There are

those who were not satisfied with the act, so this is a step forward.

I am

pleased with Bill 70. It's plain language. It streamlines process. It reduces

unnecessary regulation. It brings a fair arbitration process, and so I support

this piece of legislation as it fulfils yet another new-era commitment. By

modernizing this act in plain lan-

[ Page 4229 ]

guage so everyone can understand it, we will have a new era for residential

tenancy in British Columbia.

Hawes: I rise today, too, to support this bill. But now, after listening to

the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, really, I'm compelled to stand.

First, after listening to her fairly lengthy speech earlier, I'm drawn to the

fact that it's really sad for someone to live their life seeing conspiracy in

everything. That's what strikes me when I listen to this stuff. Everything is a

conspiracy. Everybody is plotting against her and the people that she

represents, and on and on. Then the selective victimization — it's always

going to be the tenant who's victimized. There's nothing on the other side.

She talked

a little bit about people who are only a paycheque away from being in the

streets. In fact, some have lost their jobs and are on the streets now in front

of Woodwards. That brings to my mind some stories on the other side, real

stories, from my riding — and I'm sure others here have exactly the same

stories — of young couples who have perhaps invested in a rental home and have

wound up with a tenant who was running a grow operation, and they couldn't get

them out. They destroyed the home, and they didn't have insurance to cover the

damage. As a result, they not only lost the rental home, but they lost their own

home. These are real things that have happened in this province. There are

victims out there other than just tenants. There are bad tenants. It's important

to put together a bill that has balance.

This bill

has balance. When we look at the arbitration process that was in existence and

continues in existence today, it is just fraught with time delay, and there are

no spurious reasons.... Taking landlords to arbitration is frequently employed

to get away from paying rent. I have constituents who have in 18 months of

ownership of rental property collected rent for six and for a year fought

through the arbitration process with tenants who just didn't want to pay and

came to the arbitrator with reason after reason why they shouldn't have to pay

and delay after delay. It's very, very difficult for these people, and that's

driving investors away from the housing market.

This bill

not only makes the process simpler but actually concentrates a lot on mediation.

There's a strong message in this bill, and there will be a strong movement

towards mediating these kinds of disputes between landlords and tenants before

they get to arbitration, which only makes sense. Arbitration is a lengthy,

costly procedure the way it sits in this province, and it's really, really

unfair often to the people who own property. Sometimes it's unfair to tenants.

It can go both ways.

[1635]

The reason

we have these kinds of bills is to control the small percentage of disputes, the

small percentage of renters who aren't good tenants, the small percentage of

landlords who are bad landlords. The vast majority on both sides are fine, and

the relationship between them doesn't ever require any kind of mediation,

arbitration or anything else. They talk their problems out between them.

The problem

has been that the legislation as it exists today evolved in a one-sided fashion

and considered only one set of victims in these kinds of disputes. This

legislation understands and brings to the forefront the other side. There are

often two victims. Landlords are victims too. I listened to that member talk

earlier…

Interjection.

Hawes: …and I'm listening to the Leader of the Opposition. You know, using

her words, after what I heard today, it was just outrageous. It was really

outrageous, but it all came clear to me. The whole agenda of that other side

came very clear to me as