1984 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 33rd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, APRIL 10, 1984

Morning Sitting

[ Page

4313 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Residential Tenancy Act (Bill 19). Second reading.

Mr. Mitchell –– 4313

Mrs. Dailly –– 4315

Mr. Lauk –– 4316

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 4320

Division –– 4322

TUESDAY, APRIL 10, 1984

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

Prayers.

MRS. DAILLY: Visiting the precincts today, and hoping to meet

with most of the MLAs, is a group from the Association for the

Protection of Furbearing Animals of British Columbia. I would like to

mention that we're pleased to have them here. Also, I recall — although

not many others would — the times of Ernie Winch, who used to sit in

this House; he was actually one of the founding members of this

association. So I hope that the members will find a few moments today

to meet with these people.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, leave to proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

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

RESIDENTIAL TENANCY ACT

(continued)

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker....

HON. MR. CHABOT: Nobody over there supports you, so I might as well.

MR. MITCHELL: To answer the Provincial Secretary: you don't know how true that is. That's only for my leadership race.

What I would like to do is give some reasons, and maybe some

historical ones, why we are opposed to this particular bill. It's not

so much that we're opposed to the concept; it's what it fails to

contain. I think the important

part is when you look at the need

for.... I know the minister is going to jump up when I say rent

controls, but it's the concept of some sort of overriding need to

provide one of the fundamental requirements of every one of us, which

is shelter. If you look at it historically, the need for affordable

housing has in the past been met by various other methods. Rent

controls first came in under the NDP government, in tandem with the

provincial housing....

HON. MR. HEWITT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I raised

this point of order yesterday, and I am looking to the Chair for

guidance. I understand we are debating the principle of Bill 19, which

does not address the lack of rent controls but deals with the rights of

tenants and landlords and an arbitration system. I'd like the Chair to

advise whether I'm incorrect, and if I am, I'll take my place; if not,

I'd ask the Chair to bring that member to order, because rent controls

are not in the principle of the bill.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the matter referred to by the minister was

addressed yesterday, and while some very casual reference may be somewhat in

order in the broad scope under second reading, nonetheless the member has an

obligation to confine his remarks to the act before us, which is not dealing

with rent control.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, maybe you weren't in the chair

when I brought up the point that

section 18 of this bill does

definitely refer to rent controls in that it limits rents to being

increased once a year. I know the minister is aware of that

section

because he drafted this bill, but he keeps getting up with the

interjection that the

section doesn't refer to rent controls.

To get back to my speech, when rent controls came in under the NDP

as part of the Residential Tenancy Act, they were in tandem with the

B.C. Housing Management Commission, which at that time had a mandate to

provide affordable housing to the people of British Columbia. We all

realize that housing that is affordable for the middle and higher

income is readily available, but there are still a large group of

people within our communities who are not able to afford housing. When

the housing corporation came in, their mandate was to provide that type

of housing. Some of it was senior housing, with the rents based on

income. There was other housing designed at that time to provide for

single parent families, families at low incomes, families on

handicapped pensions. These two particular bills came in together. I

know that at that time the government, in a lot of their wisdom, did

support the need for rent controls. I won't use that word any more.

It's interesting when you go through.... I know I can't hold this up

for the rest of the people to read. It's an ad that appeared in the Vancouver Sun ,

which said: "Social Credit will not abolish rent controls." That's what

the Social Credit campaigned on. Part of the ad said: "This is only

part of the answer to the high cost of shelter."

I find it very strange that I have to refer to a Social Credit ad.

They state what we on this side of the House state: rent controls in

their original concept were there to stop the high cost of shelter,

which is one of the main components that every one of us should enjoy.

In 1977, I believe, the government abolished the B.C. Housing

Corporation. They abolished the concept of providing the additional

rental accommodation for either pensioners, single parents or those in

the lower income group. I felt that once you take one horse out of

tandem, you have an uneven development within the farm and it's the

uneven development in the providing of housing accommodation. I think

this is what we should look at.

[10:15]

There was another historical way that low-cost housing was provided.

I guess they were known in a homey manner as the in-law suites. In many

homes throughout the community there was an in-law suite built, some to

provide for in-laws, some to provide for aged parents, and some, as in

my particular case when I first got married, to provide for the younger

person who was first married. That type of accommodation did supply the

market for a lot of lower-cost housing that was competitive, that was

on the market that people could rent. But because of municipal

regulations and changing concepts in the communities, the development

of in-law suites was made illegal. The worst part about it, Mr.

Speaker, was that the more illegal ones are still there. The better

class of in-law suites have disappeared. There are a number of reasons

for the shortage of low-cost housing today for those who need it. If we

take out the last bit of protection that people have and turn it open

to the open market, we are not

[ Page 4314 ]

providing the necessary support to the community, to our citizens, as it is needed.

When you go through this bill, I think there are other issues you

must look at. I quite believe that the government has received a lot of

publicity on their use of the word "restraint." They have used it in

their high-priced advertising, in their political propaganda, in the

statements made in this House that we must practise restraint. They

have openly advocated to their own employees that we must not look at

anything more than a zero increase in wages. They have said this in the

private sector, that wages must be restricted this year to a zero

increase. But at the same time they have turned the rental

accommodation over to an open market where 15 percent to 100 percent

increases are the norm. You just can't have one

section of the

community receiving increases of 15 percent to 100 percent.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

If this bill had laid down some broad, intelligent guidelines: that

there should be a fair return on the investment, that rents should be

based either on what it costs for the initial investment in that

particular unit or on the assessed value on that unit or on a fair

return on the money that you have invested in it; if they used any of

the economic criteria that we claim to practise in this community, this

province or in this country; if you had some semblance of order in what

return landlords should get from their investment or what percentage of

their income people should be forced to pay for their rent; if they had

some of these bases in the bill, it would make sense. The present bill

is just a sham. The community knows it's a sham, and this House knows

it's a sham. This is why, I am quite convinced, there wasn't one

government member in this House last evening who was prepared to stand

and defend this bill.

When you go through the bill — I won't refer to the sections,

because I know, Mr. Speaker, you would rule me out of order — there is

a

section that says what is available to take to arbitration. It lays

out some of the rights that are common for those who rent or those who

own property and rent it out — the strict maintenance of that

particular property. The majority of landlords do maintain their

residences in good condition to retain their value. But we all know

that there are some in this community that will abuse it; they will

milk it all they can. This is why we have laws — to make sure that all

of us live up to our responsibilities. A person who is attempting to

appeal a common thing like a plugged sink, renew plumbing or the

maintenance of a building should not have to either take it to court or

pay $30. There are cases where it may be frivolous. Maybe the board of

arbitrators should rule that they should pay $50 or $100 if it's a

frivolous charge. But for the protection of those who need that right

to appeal, it should not be held up for $30. As the second member for

Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) very ably stated yesterday, in many cases $30 is

money that would have normally been used for food, medicines and the

necessities. I think this is what we should look at. There should be

something in there that allows an escape for those who need it. But

there is nothing in there.

If the minister had wanted to get some political Brownie points....

I think that politicians as a whole have a right to expect to get their

position across so it's accepted in the best manner. I think he made a

big mistake when he held to himself that sole right to appoint the

arbitrator. Without getting off the subject, when we look at the

Workers' Compensation Board and the Labour Relations Board, there is an

area where those in the labour movement and those in the business

community and those in the government can each recommend somebody to

represent their interests. I think the minister should give serious

consideration that out in every area there are people who do understand

the problems of the landlord, and they could properly and sincerely

represent that group. There are other groups out there who represent

the tenants' organizations. Tenants' organizations were not formed to

obstruct landlords but evolved over the years because certain landlords

were abusing the tenants. The tenants' organizations grew to protect

those who are forced to rent homes.

There are groups out there that could nominate and recommend to the

minister their voice in the board of arbitration. I think the minister

made a big mistake in not consulting these groups and asking how they

would like the arbitration set up and what type of input to the

arbitrators they would like. This is the important part: not only must

something be right but it must appear to be right. The bill itself has

missed that point.

We're talking about a bill that is going to affect 380,000 tenants.

Over 60,000 people in that group are presently paying over 50 percent

of their income for rent. Central Mortgage and Housing recommends that

shelter should take no more than 30 percent of your income. For senior

citizens they recommend that no more than 25 percent of your income

should go to shelter. But today, out in the marketplace, over 60,000

people are paying over 50 percent towards shelter. This is something

that we must address.

There are another 60,000 people out there, and I would like to bring

their problems to the minister's attention. Something that he partially

addressed was the 60,000 who are living in mobile homes in British

Columbia. I hesitate to bring it to his attention, because I remember

when his predecessor brought in amendments to the same act, and at that

time I asked that the minister should consider people living in mobile

homes. At that time they were treated like any other tenant living in

an apartment or a house. If for any reason that particular park was

being closed down for demolition or changed from a park to

strata-title, they were given 120 days to relocate. I said earlier that

the availability of affordable housing is ten times, in many cases,

worse in the mobile-home park industry. The availability of pads for

mobile homes is non-existent for a number of reasons. It's non-existent

because a lot of the homes that are being used in some of the older

parks are over ten years old. In many regional districts and

municipalities, though they are non-conforming and they are allowed to

remain in their present location, if that park is shut down, they

cannot relocate in any of the urban areas or even in the rural areas of

my particular riding because of the various building code standards

that have changed. They have changed in the same way that they have

eliminated a lot of in-law suites. The regulations have eliminated a

lot of mobile homes that were available.

Interjection.

MR. MITCHELL: I know the member for Kootenay (Mr. Segarty)

thinks this is a big joke, but the member for Kootenay has not met with

senior citizens who, because they have lived in one mobile-home park

for 10 to 20 years with their life's investment in that mobile home,

and because that land all of a sudden is worth more as a townhouse or

shopping

[ Page

4315 ]

centre site, are evicted. Not only are they evicted from that location, but

they lose their investment because they can't move their home to another

location.

[10:30]

I know that the member for Kootenay thinks it's a big joke, but I'll

tell you, Mr. Speaker, when you are meeting with senior citizens who

are crying because they do not have a place to go.... They have all

their possessions in one mobile home, and because it was built before

1974, they can't move it into an area where they have family and

friends. These are the issues that were never faced by this government

when they abolished the B.C. Housing Corporation, which had a mandate

to provide proper and available mobile-home pads.

When you wipe out one

section of a government service and try to

patch up another one, you are going to have problems. You cannot have

affordable housing available to all sections of the community unless

you work at it properly, sincerely and compassionately. This government

has not worked at providing housing properly. They have not worked at

making other types of housing more available for senior citizens or

those in the low income group, and they have not looked at the

amendments to this act with any compassion. This is what bothers me. I

am not one who feels that we should always have rent controls. There is

nothing I would more like to see than the marketplace providing the

housing and shelter, but that must be properly organized and there must

be assistance for certain segments.

If this government had looked at the housing corporation and

provided the needed senior citizens' homes so that there was a surplus

of them and not long lineups to get them in every community.... There

are a lot of cases where husbands and wives, and in many cases widows,

are living in three-bedroom homes which they cannot maintain, but

because that is the only thing they can afford they are staying there.

If there were additional facilities, a lot of widows would move into

apartment buildings located close to the city, hospitals, shopping

centres and senior citizens' Silver Threads centres. We must look at

giving them the opportunity to move out of the homes they are living in

today, and then these homes would become available to others and some

of the pressure would be taken off the housing shortage of today. I

think the government should look at the whole picture and not be under

the pressure of the lobbyists who want the opportunity to gouge and

gouge and gouge.

I know that there is going to be a housing shortage in the Vancouver

area during Expo 86, and maybe it will spin off to the Victoria area.

But there is a shortage today, and this government has not looked at

it. They did not look at it in 1977 when they abolished the B.C.

Housing Corporation, and I don't believe that they are looking at it in

any broad sense within the government. The trouble is that this

government goes from one crisis to another, and they react to whatever

the lobbyists tell them, or whatever the Fraser Institute is

suggesting. As MLAs on both sides of the House we have a responsibility

to tell this government to look at shelter as one of the basic

necessities of every citizen of British Columbia.

I am a little hesitant to speak to the minister about the mobile-home industry.

When I talked to the minister's predecessor, I suggested that the time limit

should be raised from 120 days to one year before anyone could be evicted from

a mobile-home pad. That minister's answer was that he changed it from 120

days to 119 days. The present minister has made one contribution: he has recognized

that people living in a mobile home are in different circumstances than those

living in an apartment. It is far more of a problem to move and find a place

to relocate a mobile home than it is a houseful of furniture. Even six months,

when the availability of pads in my community is non-existent.... I think the

minister should give serious consideration to raising the time limit to at least

a year before a mobile-home owner can be evicted from a park without cause.

I believe in Ontario it is three years, and in England and the United States

it is five years. Six months is too short of a time and is not practical. These

people are not being asked to move for cause or disruption of the park, but

before any park can be closed down for demolition there should be a longer period

of time given for these people to find a place to relocate. I ask the minister

to give this serious consideration, and I hope he doesn't follow his predecessor

who, when I asked for an addition, knocked off a day.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, because the bill is short on so many cases,

I am giving notice that I am going to vote against it, as I did against

the last bill amending the same act.

MRS. DAILLY: I don't intend to take much time at all on this

bill; after the hours of debate that we've already had on it, I believe

the major points and objections of the opposition have indeed been

made. The reason I am taking my place is that I feel I would be remiss

in my duties, in representing a large urban riding, if I did not make

at least a few points in relation to my concern about how this bill

will affect the residents of Burnaby North, many of whom are indeed

tenants.

My main concern is that in spite of the fact that some changes have

been made — and for those changes which we hope will be positive I give

the government credit — I have to weigh this new bill in terms of

whether it is better on the whole than what we had before under the

former bill. I have to look at it in terms of whether it is better for

the tenants, and of course for the landlord. I regret to say, after

listening to many of the comments made by the member who spoke

yesterday and the one who just took his place, that enough things in

the new bill concern me so that I cannot support it. Primarily, my

concern is the fact that the whole rentalsman office has now been

gutted. I know that all this is done in the interests of the government

for restraint. I would like to know, however, if in the long run these

policies, produced from a government obsessed with "restraint," are

really going to save the government and the people of British Columbia

that much money.

For the amount of money they're saving from the removal of the

former rentalsman's office, I'm wondering just how much is now going to

be taken out of the pockets of the consumer tenant, who in many

cases.... I listened to the matter of the $30 which now must be used if

one wants to go before the arbitrator. I listened to a landlord on a

television program the first night this bill came out. I must admit

that at that time most of us had not had time to read it, including the

people on this particular show. I was rather taken aback by a comment

made by.... I don't know whether the man himself is a landlord, but I

believe he was speaking for landlords. When the matter of the $30 was

broached, he said: "Well, anybody can come up with $30 today." I think

that is the crux of the problem with part of this bill. Inherent in

this bill seems to be a lack of understanding that even the sum of $30

is very difficult for some people to produce.

[ Page 4316 ]

The very fact that the government has now set up a bill where there

is an imposed financial penalty before one can go for their rights as a

tenant — before, they could go before the rentalsman without cost in

the initial stage — is something that concerns me. It's a philosophical

concern that once again this government, in their move to what they

consider restraint, seems to think that the average renter is in a

position to pay $30. Maybe the average renter is, but many people are

making below the average wage today. People who are unemployed, who are

on welfare, are going to find this extra $30 an increased burden, and

in many cases will probably throw up their hands and say: "Well, if it

makes the difference of another bag of groceries, I guess I'll have to

put up with the situation." There are many other people in the province

who will be able to produce the $30, but it's the basic policy here

that concerns me: that the Social Credit government, in their intent to

bring about what they call savings.... It always seems to me that the

person who is doing fairly well today and is fairly secure is not hit

nearly as hard as the person who is not. Many of our renters are in an

economic situation where they are going to be hurt by this bill, and

not only financially. An emotional feeling of insecurity can now be

created by the new bill, which has taken away what before was

considered by many people to be a pretty fair bill.

I don't understand. When the minister closes debate, I hope he will

be able to explain to the members what benefits there are in this bill,

aside from the matter of saving the government money. What pluses are

there in this bill for the tenant and the landlord which outweigh what

was in the former bill? I think that is the basis upon which any

reasonable member of this Legislature would have to weigh their vote.

Without going into all the details of this bill — which is a pretty

detailed bill and will, I know, be discussed again in committee stage;

I'm trying to keep this in the general terms of second reading — I hope

the minister will be able to explain to us in more detail why he made

these moves here. I accept the fact that there are some positive moves,

but overall I contend that I do not feel that this bill in the long run

is the kind of bill that should be brought in at this particular time —

in fact, probably at no time, but even more so at this time when there

is so much economic insecurity out there in the province.

In my own constituency of Burnaby North, in my office, I receive a

number of complaints about rents and problems, even under the old bill.

But at least you could say to people at that time: "Go ahead; the

rentalsman's offices are set up." Now we have to give them completely

new direction. They're going to have to put up money. They're going to

find that even complaints to do with money matters don't go before an

arbitrator. Now they must go before the small claims court.

[10:45]

What I don't understand is the cost of these extra cases in court.

Does the minister not believe that the increased pressures on court

costs will not in the long run perhaps cost all the taxpayers of

British Columbia more money? I simply don't know where the answers are

in this new bill to many of these questions. Those are the things which

concern me on behalf of the citizens of Burnaby North. I know that when

I return to the riding and meet people on the weekends and whenever the

Legislature is closed, I have to answer to them questions about any new

piece of government legislation. I can give them my concerns, and I

will be able to explain to them why the official opposition did not

support this bill. We know the matter of sheer numbers means that this

bill will probably go through the House, although we would hope that

some amendments will perhaps be accepted. I do hope that the minister,

in closing the debate, will present to the Legislature some more basic

reasons for this major change from the former act.

MR. LAUK: It's too bad that my colleague the first member for

Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) is not here; he's ill. But I've discussed

this matter with him, and I speak for both him and me when we speak on

behalf of the most densely populated area of the city, the West End.

Throughout the core of that riding, east or west side, is perhaps a

greater proportion of tenants than in any other constituency in the

province, and certainly the greatest number of tenants in one

constituency. It is also a constituency that has the widest spectrum of

type of tenant, from those who own a freehold, if you like, strata

title in a very attractive townhouse type of accommodation to the

downtown east side hotel by-the-week, by-the-month rental of those

dingy rooms. There is the whole spectrum, as I say, of tenants. These

are people who come from all walks of life, who have in many cases

worked very hard in this province over a great many years: railway

workers, loggers, fishermen, construction workers, truck drivers,

miners and so on. Most of them, because of their occupation which

traditionally has required hard labour, although not old people, are

people beyond those years when they could make a good living in those

occupations, and who for a variety of reasons live in accommodation

which they hope will be stable accommodation for them in the coming

years.

I'm talking about a lot of senior citizens who do not fall under any

form of subsidized housing or rental protection. There are thousands of

them in Vancouver Centre. I'm also talking about young people who

acquired accommodation when they were employed when the unemployment

rate in this province was not so high. They budgeted so they could not

only afford the accommodation they have but save money as well. Now

that they are on UIC and in some cases welfare, they can no longer

afford the accommodation.

The major criticism that I want to make against Bill 19 has to do

with its unrelenting mindset against a form of rental regulation: in

other words, rent control or rent review. This mindset is not based on

fact. It is based on serious fabricated evidence from the Fraser

Institute; the serious part of it is that it was fabricated. I'm

suggesting that because of the pseudoscholars associated with the

Fraser Institute, it was deliberately fabricated by these people. They

put together a book on rent control which I have read. I've checked the

information they claim to have put into the book. It's either

fabricated or completely and deliberately misrepresented.

It's ironic indeed that these lies — these fabrications are in

keeping with the philosophy of a man who is also a liar, Milton

Friedman, a man who deliberately fabricated evidence for his major work

on monetarist theory for which he received a Nobel Prize. I think that

a committee should be formed to demand the Nobel committee to withdraw

his prize — his laureate. It should be withdrawn from Milton Friedman.

If anybody has any respect for science or scholarship in the world

today, they would demand of the Nobel committee that it withdraw the

prize from Dr. Friedman because he's a liar. He deliberately

manufactured monetary figures for the 1920s and '30s to support his

theory that inflation is caused by too much money in the economy. He

deliberately fabricated that evidence to support his theory.

[ Page

4317 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Preposterous!

MR. LAUK: It is preposterous, absolutely preposterous!

How do we know this? There is a group of economists in Oxford — the

Oxford group they're called in the economic world — who have finally

got around....

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Socialist economics.

MR. LAUK: Oh, yes, Oxford socialist economics. What abounding

ignorance, Mr. Speaker! I knew that was going to happen. I waited; I

was slowly moving my words because I know this genius from the rube

band — the chief of the rubes — would say: "Socialism, Oxford." Two of

the economists are right-wing Nobel laureates themselves. They're

anti-socialist economists who have exposed Milton Friedman as a liar.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Order! That's an unparliamentary word, Mr. Speaker. Poor Milton Friedman can't defend himself against this attack.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, the minister says poor Milton can't

defend himself. The reason Milton can't defend himself is that he's

left himself defenceless, by his choice.

HON. MR. HEWITT: He's got less hair than you.

MR. LAUK: In spite of the fact that he has such a

distinguished appearance, the man is defenceless because he did what

scholars should never do: he made it up. Do you remember the

Pulitzer-prize-winning story from New York about a little kid on

welfare and it was such an elaborate tearjerker that the Pulitzer

committee gave this woman journalist a prize and then she finally had

to admit she made it up?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Yes, I remember that.

MR. LAUK: I do too. Same thing.

In 1984 we're finding out about manufactured evidence — doublespeak,

doublethink. A revisionist beyond revisionism is our Milton Friedman.

Here we have, in an electronic age — an age of information — all of the

cautions given to us by McLuhan and others cast aside, and we're

finding that journalists and economists make it up as they go along.

What's true yesterday is not true today, because we've changed the

facts. So as I was going through my copy on rent controls from the

Fraser Institute, I saw clearly the lies, the misrepresentations and

the fabrications in that book. I recommend that book to all people who

want to read about the so-called right-wing economics of today. They

discredit the scholarship of economists around the world. They are

nothing but propagandists for the kind of politics in which they

believe, simply so.

Rent controls, if properly used, can so regulate rental

accommodation construction that it can, from time to time, encourage

construction of rental accommodation and, from time to time, discourage

it when construction needs to be directed elsewhere.

It seems that the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) has an inquiry.

The question from the learned gentleman from North Vancouver–Seymour is: "When

did rent controls ever encourage housing construction or rental accommodation

instruction?" Well, in 1973 and 1974, and into 1975, there were rent controls

in my constituency. With certain incentives from the federal — and also from

the provincial — governments, housing construction in rental accommodation was

never higher, either before or since.

Now instead of inquiring why that happened, our friends here just

accept blindly the statement that rent controls discourage rental

construction. "No question," he says. There is no question at all.

AN HON. MEMBER: True.

MR. LAUK: He's sitting there like a Pickwickian page,

unruffled by the facts, impervious to the truth, because he believes in

the true word of Miltie. Miltie is correct in no facts. No challenge to

his beliefs will be brooked by the hon. member. But the fact is, Mr.

Speaker, that in 1973, 1974 and 1975.... We had not witnessed or

experienced more rental housing construction in our history. Neither

before nor since have we seen such construction of rental housing.

Now when rental housing decreases, it means that the construction industry and developers can make more money elsewhere.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Are you making that up?

MR. LAUK: No, I think that makes sense, Mr. Speaker. The hon.

Minister of Agriculture asks if I'm making that up. No, that's an

opinion that I think makes enough common sense that it's generally

accepted: if most people experienced in housing construction can make

dollars elsewhere, they'll move elsewhere. And developers and investors

will move elsewhere as well.

Condominium development really didn't take hold until late 1974, but

it was really in late 1975, '76, '77 and '78 that condominiums just

took off; they skyrocketed. They moved the whole housing construction

industry toward town-housing and condominium building. They moved

developers and investors into taking over rental housing and

transforming it into strata titles, because that was the thing of the

day. But it was only a phase. It was only in that period of time that

the great move to strata-title ownership was catching on. It cannot be

used by any reasonable observer of this kind of thing as the pattern

that will be established for future decades in this province, and in

the city of Vancouver, as far as housing accommodation construction is

concerned.

[11:00]

Indeed, it's proved to be the case. Strata titling has become more

and more regulated. If there's ever another upturn in the economy —

assuming there's a change in government and an upturn in the economy

can become possible again — in British Columbia, and strata titling

does start to skyrocket again, we can redirect the funds and the

investment to rental accommodation during those boom times by a proper

look at the windfall profits from transforming rental accommodation

into condominiums. That's the one area that we haven't looked at

realistically. It's an inflation-creating area that we as a government

have to regulate.

What do rent controls do? Rent controls can be used in a positive

way, together with other incentives, to encourage rental accommodation

construction at appropriate times. It can discourage the pure windfall

profit-taking in some areas of housing, such as transforming rental

units into condominiums. At times it can discourage the needless

destruction of still usable and adequate housing just for the sake of

[ Page 4318 ]

putting something new up there and increasing

profit-taking, which just adds to the inflationary spiral. It doesn't

add jobs, incomes or wealth to the economy; it just takes the wealth

out of the economy in that sense.

Mr. Speaker, I know this is falling on deaf ears and on the mind-set

of Social Credit philosophy, which is based on the lies and

fabrications of Uncle Miltie, but it has to be put on the record in any

event, I'm reminded of back in 1975 when a young Leader of the

Opposition, who didn't read Uncle Miltie, who was not aware of Uncle

Miltie, and who did not have the benefit of Dr. Block from the Fraser

Institute, placed an ad in the newspapers. He was fighting the mighty

team of Lauk and Barnes in Vancouver Centre. The ad was to try to

discredit our attack on Social Credit as being abolishioners, saying

"Social Credit will not abolish rent controls," and he signed it. He

couldn't blame that on Brown and the advertisers. It says: "Bill

Bennett, British Columbia Social Credit Party." Somewhere, riding his

beast of burden toward Damascus, he was delivered a message from Uncle

Miltie and the Fraser Institute, "Thou shalt not have rent controls."

What does this make the signator of this ad? Well, we will not mention

it in this chamber, Mr. Speaker. We won't even whisper what this makes

the signator of this advertisement. We won't call him the fabricator;

we won't say that he's a dissembler; we will not say that he deceived

the public of British Columbia. We will just say that somewhere between

then and now he changed his mind.

The most insidious attack of Bill 19 is that it buries rent control.

They won't look at forms of rent control; they won't improve or

redesign it and meet some of the needs of the marketplace in housing.

No, they will abolish it to give a completely free rein to the

developers and investors in the housing market. They will abolish it

because it's their steadfast belief that they should not interfere in

the housing marketplace, that it's free enterprise. Let me tell you,

Mr. Speaker, there is no free enterprise in housing. There hasn't been

in 7,000 years. There hasn't been free market housing in 7,000 years,

and there never will be. There's no such thing as supply and demand in

housing. It's always government-regulated or — effected control,

directly or indirectly. You can't have it any other way. If you want a

completely free market system, then take the sovereignty of the land

away from the Crown and take zoning away from municipalities. Take the

land use act and repeal it. Repeal the Municipal Act, the Vancouver

Charter and any other statute that interferes directly or indirectly

with the use of land in this province. Eliminate the Land Commission,

eliminate the agricultural land reserve, eliminate parks. Eliminate all

of that legislation — federal, provincial and municipal — that deals

with the use of land. Then you'll have a free market system such as you

haven't seen since the days of the Visigoths and the Huns who ravaged

Europe and the Mediterranean. That kind of barbarian chaos is the only

way you can have a free market system in housing anywhere in the world.

And, of course, we can't; we don't and we never have had it. This is

the kind of dangerous philosophical mindset that the government has

towards rent controls.

What damage it does to ordinary people! In many cases we've placed

them on fixed incomes. There are over 200,000 on unemployment insurance

and on welfare. There are people in the unorganized labour force who

have not had a raise in years. There are many people in the organized

labour force who have not had increases because of restraint and the

economy, by agreement. How can they rely on a stable rent?

There are some people who have lived in the same accommodation for

many years who must now move at the slightest increase because their

income is now fragile. Their budgeting has reached the point where they

cannot possibly afford to stay in their accommodation if their rent

goes up. We're talking about ordinary people, working people; we're not

even talking about people on fixed incomes. And those on fixed incomes

who are not protected by subsidized housing, that vast majority of them

who are out there in the marketplace, are competing on a paltry

pension, on a basic pension, to survive. Over 50 percent of their

income now goes to rent — in many cases much more than that. They

cannot survive.

What really burns me is this government's attitude toward older

people. Bill Vander Zalm used to be in this House, and I have a lot of

respect for him in many ways. But one of the things that really

irritated me is.... He was reported to have said that he was not

worried about senior citizens because by the time the next election

rolled around, they'd all be dead — or many of them would be dead. I

couldn't believe my ears. He didn't deny it. He said he was quoted out

of context. But I'll tell you something. It does reveal the kind of

attitude of electoral parties that just have the idea of winning at the

ballot box. Don't they care for these people at all? Are they just

votes — an X on the ballot? Don't they understand that these people

were around before us, that they've built this country? The failures of

the economy today have a lot more to do with us than them. Don't they

understand that these people can no longer get into the workplace, even

if there were no unemployment? It's through no fault of their own that

rabid, unreasonable inflation has eaten away any possibility of them

living on their savings. Do they understand the vulnerability of these

people? Do they respect them? They don't have to like them, but do they

respect them?

I was thinking about the bus fares the other day. Do they resent the

fact that we have subsidized bus fares for senior citizens? In some

countries senior citizens ride free, and it's a badge of honour, and

people are glad to have them on public transit. In Zurich, Switzerland,

anybody over the age of 60 rides free as a badge of honour and respect

of the society as a whole.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think we are straying a bit from the principle of this bill, hon. member. This is Bill 19, the Residential Tenancy Act.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

MR. LAUK: What I was trying to introduce, Mr. Speaker, was

the idea of some principle involving respect for the contribution of

our senior citizens to our society and to British Columbia as a whole.

They are left defenceless without rent controls and without protection

as tenants. It makes for a very impoverished society. The way we treat

our senior citizens in British Columbia is a measure of our

civilization, graciousness and civility. People will judge us by the

way we treat the older people of our community, to whom we owe a great

deal. Instead of them being humiliated by being asked to beg for what

they have, they should be given it freely with a sense of honour and

respect. Instead, this government has an attitude toward senior

citizens that I find reprehensible. It seems, to me that by eliminating

rent controls in this bill and driving the last nail in the coffin, the

government has turned their backs on those people in particular.

[ Page 4319 ]

Is it a peculiarly right-wing philosophy, Mr. Speaker? I don't think

so. My friend the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) pointed out

that there is a new renter protection program under Premier Devine in

Saskatchewan, a Tory rent control program. This is the only

Conservative government in Canada that is so radical it cannot see.

They are so doctrinaire and inflexible that they bring great hardship

to the civility of life in British Columbia.

The new Residential Tenancy Act, as proposed by Bill 19, does

something else, and perhaps in my own economic interest I should praise

the minister for once again saving lawyers from economic deprivation.

It always happens, doesn't it, Mr. Speaker? In 1973 there was a great

worry among the legal profession that there were too many young people

graduating from law school. The NDP saved the day by passing the Family

Law Act. A few years later more law students were being ground out of

the law schools, and again we were worried that our incomes would drop,

but Trudeau saved the day with the Charter of Rights — the need for

more lawyers. That's not good enough, we're still nervous in this time

of economic recession, and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate

Affairs has brought in his new Residential Tenancy Act to provide work

for all these fledgling young barristers who are pouring out of our

legal institutions. Isn't that wonderful? There are only a handful of

small claims court judges — provincial judges at the provincial court

level.

As a result of these changes proposed by Bill 19, within four or

five years they'll have to triple the number of provincial small claims

court judges, they'll have to double the accommodation, and they'll be

opening a night court in Vancouver, and in Victoria as well, for

landlord and tenant. I predict this to happen within three or four

years. On a slow night Clem Chapple, CTV and John Stanton can go down

and film these poor wretches standing before the judges trying to get

justice at 10 o'clock at night under landlord and tenant legislation

such as this. The lawyers for the landlords — in their thousand dollar

three-piece suits — will walk in and point a finger at the senior

citizen who is standing there alone appealing her case for an improper

rent increase, lack of repair, eviction without cause and so on. That's

the kind of thing we're going to be facing. No one likes a bureaucracy,

but if you're looking at economics, it just doesn't make sense at all.

In many cases people will not go to these courts and they will lose

their rights. They'll be afraid to go to court; they won't be able to

afford a lawyer. But Zen and Aquilini can afford the best lawyers in

the city of Vancouver. The people who have made a profit off the backs

of ordinary people in this country can afford the lawyers. All the

$1,200 three-piece suits in the city can be represented as long as

money pays the shot. That senior citizen on a GIS pension — what's she

going to do? She's got to hope that she can convince the judge on her

own, without any fancy legal arguments, or that there may be some young

lawyer who has nothing better to do that day; she'll sign an agreement

with the young lawyer to pay him $50 a month for three years for

whatever it costs. If that's saving the government money, so be it —

pensioners' money, fixed income. They'll go with less. You and I have

seen these people. Mr. Speaker, you've done your own grocery shopping

from time to time. Occasionally you wander into the vegetable

section

of the supermarket when you're in a healthy mood or on a diet. Raw

vegetables come to mind.

You and I will go there and we won't think twice about how much the

cauliflower, the carrots, the lettuce or the cabbage costs. But stand

back in that vegetable

section and watch these people who are nutrition

conscious, the ones on pensions. You know the ones I'm talking about.

They try to be as unobvious as possible. They're standing there,

comparing the price: can they afford to buy this or not, or will it

last the week, the month, the two weeks? Well, they're not starving to

death, some of the Socreds say. That's true, but it's a hell of a way

to live out one's twilight years in the city of Vancouver, in the

province of British Columbia.

It's a hell of a reward for ordinary, decent people who contributed

so much to the province of British Columbia to have to live that way in

their senior years. One of the ways we are trying to protect them is

through some form of rental regulation, some form of easy access of

redress or justice or fairness with their landlords. That's what we

think the rentalsman represented. The argument is that nobody liked the

rentalsman's officers; landlords complain, tenants complain. We heard

it every day. If landlords complain and tenants complain, shouldn't

that give you an inkling? Doesn't that suggest that they were doing a

good job? If you're dealing fairly with both sides, sometimes the

tenant complains and sometimes the landlord complains. That's the

surest sign that they've done a good job. It's like a labour

settlement: when both labour and management complain, you know you've

hit pretty close to the mark as far as fairness is concerned.

As a lawyer, I think I can find better things to do than to make a

dollar here and a dollar there off some poor tenant, or in charging a

landlord a certain amount of money for fees, knowing that it's going to

be passed on to the tenants. Somebody pays somewhere along the line. I

think the old right-wing slogan, "There's no such thing as a free

lunch," ought to be recited once again for my friends across the way.

They've forgotten that. You may save money for the government on a

short-term basis, and make the government look good in the short term,

but it's always the people who pay. They're the ones who get sucked in.

They're the ones who have to dig into their pockets. Sure, the

provincial government sometimes looks good at the expense of the

federal government, the federal government sometimes looks good at the

expense of the provincial government, and both of them look good at the

expense of the municipal government. It goes along, a merry-go-round.

But there are always the poor would-be taxpayers, the ordinary

citizens, standing at the side looking at this merry-go-round going

round and round, and they're fed up. Nobody seems to get off that

merry-go-round and actually pay attention to the ordinary person who

pays the bill, who wants fairness. They're sick of it, and I don't

blame them. This is just another cosmetic change, in a way. It gives

the impression that there's a saving of money, the cutting down of

bureaucracy; Consumer and Corporate Affairs saves money, but soon the

Ministry of the Attorney-General is going to be overburdened with the

demand to increase courtrooms, judges, legal aid and whatever.

The arbitration system is fine. If you're going to make any change,

I think that an arbitration system is probably not a bad idea. But the

appointment of the arbitrator still leaves in the hands of the minister

the power to be partisan, the power to appoint people he knows will

protect at all costs the prevailing philosophy of the government. It

seems that the minister wants more and more access to the pork barrel,

to hand out to friends and supporters in various jurisdictions the

[ Page 4320 ]

fees that will have to be paid to these arbitrators

to take these cases. It defeats the whole idea of arbitration, and it's

unfair.

Overall, the minister has laboured and concentrated very long on

these changes to the Residential Tenancy Act, and he has failed. He has

failed because, irrespective of his vast intellect and famous

knowledge, his widely known understanding and wisdom, he has been

blinded by the doctrinaire inflexibility of the Social Credit

philosophy, based on Uncle Miltie, which guides the government.

I want to thank Mr. Speaker for this speech, I want to thank the

hon. member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) for keeping it

moving along, and I wish to announce my opposition to Bill 19.

HON. MR. HEWITT: In rising to close debate, I want to respond

to some of the questions raised and possibly take up a bit of the time

of the House, although since I've sat through two days or so of

opposition drivel, I feel I should have the opportunity to make some

comment, at least for the record.

I'd like to deal with the recent remarks by the members who spoke

this morning regarding the mobile-home owners. I think it's fair to say

that the new Residential Tenancy Act does address some of the concerns

they raised with regard to the fact that they own the mobile home and

it's located on a rented pad. We increased the time of notice for

having to vacate their lot from three to six months — and also the time

for rent increases — to allow them a further opportunity to find new

accommodation. We also looked at the fact of increasing the costs

related to moving that mobile home from what was in the old Residential

Tenancy Act.

The member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) asked in her comments:

"Is the new bill better than the Bill 5?" I would like to indicate some

of the areas in which it is better, and the areas which are a result of

the consultation process that went on with both landlords and tenants,

and mobile-home owners and mobile-park operators, last fall after Bill

5 was introduced. The second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe), in his

remarks yesterday, of course talked about withdrawing the bill, and

having further consultation and the opportunity for people to have

input. Mr. Member, we went through that, and I think it's fair to say

that you wouldn't agree with anything we brought into this House.

That's the problem with your party. You never look at anything in a

positive light; it's always negative, negative, negative. Yet we took

the opportunity last year to meet with the people involved and came up

with a bill that is fair and honest to both the landlord and the tenant

in this province.

The arbitration system will provide speedy resolution and a low-cost

service to those people who are involved. I'm hopeful that I will be

able to have arbitrators appointed in various communities throughout

the province, rather than in just a few communities in the province, as

it was under the old rentalsman's operation.

In the legislation we gave consideration, as I mentioned earlier, to

the mobile-home owners in this province, with the increased notice and

also reasonable moving costs. We also addressed the question of

assignment of pads — where the mobile-home owner wished to see their

mobile home.

We also recognized — which the NDP legislation would never really

recognize — the fact that the landlord has rights. The landlord has

some rights too, and certainly has the right to deal with his own

property, in which he has made an investment, recognizing that he has

to take into consideration the fact that a tenant occupies the

premises, whether it be an apartment or a mobile-home pad. The landlord

has to give some consideration to the impact on that tenant, should the

tenant be asked to move.

We took away the eviction without cause clause that was a major

issue in Bill 5, which was before this House last year, and identified

it as an area where a landlord, having his rights, could for reasonable

cause request that the tenant vacate the premises. The tenant had some

recourse under the new legislation to dispute or to go before an

arbitrator to determine whether or not the cause was reasonable or

unreasonable.

[11:30]

We feel, as economists have stated in the past and continue to

state, that it will provide opportunities for new construction in a

society where you don't have rent controls, which, in some cases, ends

up with the landlords subsidizing the tenant. Should that happen and

carry on happening over a period of time, you find that the tenant's

accommodation deteriorates because the landlord does not keep proper

maintenance and repair on the premises. As a result the tenant's

accommodation gets worse and worse and in the end — if you look at some

of the cities in the United States — that property is actually vacated

and abandoned by the landlord because he finally recognizes that he has

no value in that land because he can't afford to pay the cost of

operating, maintaining and repairing it on behalf of his tenant. We

feel that this type of legislation identifying landlord and tenant

rights fairly for both parties is much better than a socialist approach

to things, which is government intervention in the marketplace.

I mentioned the better service throughout the province with the

appointment of arbitrators. I've mentioned that in this act we're

clearly stating landlords' and tenants' rights, which I believe are

fairly clear in their purpose. My residential tenancy branch, which

will be set up when this bill passes, will provide information to both

landlords and tenants so they can clearly understand the intent of the

legislation and their rights under that legislation.

We also have the opportunity for landlords and tenants to enter into

written agreements for fixed terms, to give comfort, if you will, to

the tenant and the landlord. They have that comfort in knowing that for

a year or two years, whatever the case may be, they are assured of

accommodation, and the landlord is assured of a regular rental cheque

and also that his building will be occupied.

The member for Vancouver Centre attacks Milton Friedman. That's just

about the way he approached the Canadian banking system a year or so

ago, too. He made some great comments in this Legislature. But usually

his comments are without research. Maybe he should write a book with

regard to rent controls versus no rent controls. He has some pretty

strong opposition if he wants to deal with men of such stature as

Milton Friedman and also the economists from the Fraser Institute, who

have nothing to gain by analyzing the marketplace and attempting to

give assistance and direction to society in saying that if you go far

enough down this road of government intervention and control you will

end up with a worse situation that you would have if you didn't have

this type of control or intervention.

The member for Vancouver Centre also talks about the treatment of

seniors by this government and the terrible state that seniors are in.

The major issues in any country, of course, are food, shelter and

clothing for seniors in any country. You talk about the cost of

accommodation for seniors in this province. I suggest to you, Mr.

Member, that there are very

[ Page 4321 ]

few places elsewhere in the world that have some of

the types of accommodation for seniors with and without government

involvement from the service clubs — the Kiwanis villages, senior

citizens' societies throughout this province. Excellent accommodation,

such as intermediate-care facilities, is being developed throughout

this province for those people who may be semi-invalid, etc.

Mr. Speaker, there is one area where the member neglects to make a comparison:

that is, food costs. If he wants to make a comparison that indicates how foolish

his debate has been, the cost of food in Canada equates to about 17 percent

of net disposable income. In the European countries you referred to their costs

range from 25 percent to 43 percent of net disposable income. I would think

that's far more tragic, Mr. Member, when the food costs are that far out

of line when you compare it to your comments about accommodation. We do have

social programs that deal with accommodation — the SAFER program and shelter

under our GAIN programs. For those seniors and others who are not able to provide

funds to meet a certain standard of living, social programs come into play,

the same as with the $30 dispute fee, to go before the arbitrator. If the Ministry

of Human Resources find a crisis has developed where a person can't put

food on the table or has a major problem, there are programs to deal with that

type of problem. But don't put it up front where we're dealing with

a system of arbitration that if you say it's free, then you have all the

"frivolous" disputes coming before the arbitrator and taking up his

time and the landlord's time. Let's remember that there are two parties

to a dispute. If a tenant comes forward to an arbitrator with a just complaint,

asks for arbitration, pays the $30 and the arbitrator finds in favour of the

tenant, he can request the landlord to pay the $30. The $30 that the tenant

paid can be refunded to the tenant or deducted from the tenant's rent for

the following month.

I think this bill is fair and equitable to both the landlords and

tenants. It better defines, as I say, the tenants' rights. It does one

major thing, in my opinion, and I've said publicly on many occasions

that it meets part of the mandate that we received from the people in

'83, which was less government involvement in the marketplace. Behind

the thrust of this bill and many other pieces of legislation we've

brought before this House is this key: the fact that government has

been too involved in the marketplace in the past.

I'd just like to comment further in fairness to the second member

for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe), who raised many issues. He talked about the

$2 million gravy train that the arbitrators would be on. Mr. Member,

for your information approximately $1.3 million of that $2 million that

we have as an appropriation under the bill is for the residential

tenancy branch function. Approximately $700,000 would go to the

arbitration system. The residential tenancy branch really takes the

place of the rentalsman's office and provides information and guidance.

It also provides a vehicle whereby people who phone in or call in, to

raise a particular issue — for example, a broken window or a leaky

faucet.... Some of those things can be resolved quickly by my staff in

the residential tenancy branch by phoning the landlord, advising him of

the complaint or the concern of the tenant and having it resolved

without going to arbitration. The rentalsman's office did the same sort

of service in the past.

The second member for Victoria talked about a kangaroo court. Mr.

Member, it's not a kangaroo court. I'd like to think of it as being a

court of assistance to two parties of a contract without the

involvement of lawyers and without the time delays. It's a speedy

resolution by an arbitrator who sits down and hears both sides of the

argument and gives his ruling. Both parties would walk away feeling

that justice has been done.

MR. LAUK: Where does it say "no lawyers?"

HON. MR. HEWITT: I'm glad the member brought that to my

attention. I wouldn't want this House to think that lawyers couldn't be

involved. I said it would be basically without lawyers, so that in most

cases — and I probably suggest 90 percent of the cases — the

arbitration system would be of an informal nature where both tenant and

landlord would be comfortable in appearing before the arbitrator

without having the need of a high-cost lawyer appearing on their

behalf. That's for the benefit of the second member for Vancouver

Centre (Mr. Lauk), Mr. Speaker.

There is the opportunity to protect the tenant against unreasonable

rent increases that are put into place to allow the landlord to evict

the tenant via a massive rent increase. There is recourse for the

tenant with regard to that. Many of the rights mentioned by the second

member for Victoria concerned lost rights. A lot of those were in the

previous Residential Tenancy Act and they're in the current Residential

Tenancy Act. I don't want to forget anything here because I know the

second member for Victoria would like to hear it all.

The arbitrator can determine that applications for arbitration are

frivolous, and that's no different from the previous legislation; the

rentalsman could also determine that a dispute was frivolous and

therefore wouldn't become involved with it. In my opinion and the

opinion of my colleagues, and I think it's fair to say even from some

residential and tenants associations that have read this bill, as

opposed to just debating it on the philosophy, like some that appeared

in my office yesterday.... As the second member for Victoria would

approach it, just from a philosophical standpoint, he's opposed. I can

tell you that some tenancy associations have read the bill, understood

it and have commented on the improvement over the previous bill, and

also over the present legislation.

The member made a comment about the right of appeal. There is the

same right of judicial review as in the current Residential Tenancy

Act. Again he makes a statement without knowing all the facts.

I want to say in closing that the legislation is fair and equitable

to both landlords and tenants, and that's really what responsible

government is all about: to be fair to all citizens, not just to

special interest groups that the second member for Victoria would

associate himself with. The NDP would have state-owned housing; that's

their philosophy. The government would build the houses, and they'd all

be sitting in ticky-tacky boxes, paying their rent to the state. They

wouldn't allow for opportunity in the marketplace.

Mr. Speaker, where injustice exists, this legislation will provide

recourse for the injured party. As I've said before, there are social

programs through the Ministry of Human Resources to assist those who

are less fortunate than us. In the end we recognize both parties to the

landlord and tenant situation, but we cannot, as the NDP would want,

accept the philosophy that if you can't have state-owned housing then

you might as well let the landlord subsidize the tenant. It doesn't

work that way, Mr. Member, if you want to have good

[ Page 4322 ]

accommodation for the people of the province of British Columbia.

The second member for Victoria made the statement that we should be

concerned about all British Columbians, not just our landlord developer

friends. Well, Mr. Member, in my view you've defeated your own

argument, because for the whole presentation you made, with the

exception of maybe one or two times, you attacked the landlords of this

province as cheating, conniving, dishonest individuals, and in my

opinion that is a poor example for a politician to set before his

constituents. Like the members of this side of the House, you also have

landlords who may have one or two suites in their buildings, as well as

large development companies that have large residential properties to

rent. You have to identify with all your constituents, and when you

attack your landlords who provide the accommodation for the people who

rent their premises, you are just supporting "special interest groups"

that appeared in your office as well as mine yesterday, who

philosophically are looking for government to take care of everything

and never let anybody make any return on their investment. Your

approach is wrong. That is why you people will be over there and never

over here.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On second reading

debate I rise under standing order 42 to correct a statement made by

the minister vis-a-vis my speech, prior to his rising in his place to

close debate.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEWITT: You didn't say anything. That's what he said.

[11:45]

MR. LAUK: Someone has sent him to get me from a previous life — the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis).

I rise under standing order 42. I did not say in my speech that I

was a high-priced lawyer. I said that the quality of work I do as a

lawyer would give the impression that I was a high-priced lawyer.

MR. BLENCOE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I also rise

under standing order 42. The minister said that I attacked landlords in

my speech. That's not true. What I said was that I wanted a balance

between landlords and tenants — balance and fairness. That's all I said.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. There is a question before us. We

could have the debate all over again, hon. members. The question is

second reading of Bill 19, Residential Tenancy Act.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 29

Chabot

McCarthy

Nielsen

Smith

Curtis

A. Fraser

Davis

Kempf

Mowat

Strachan

Campbell

R. Fraser

Johnston

Pelton

Michael

Ritchie

Richmond

Hewitt

Heinrich

McClelland

Schroeder

Brummet

Waterland

Ree

Segarty

Veitch

Parks

Reid

Reynolds

NAYS — 16

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

Dailly

Stupich

Lank

Nicolson

Sanford

Gabelmann

Blencoe

Rose

Passarell

Wallace

Hanson

D’Arcy

Skelly

Division ordered to recorded in the Journals of the House.

Bill 19, Residential Tenancy Act, read a second time and referred to

a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of

the House after today.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:53 a.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1985,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada