British Columbia Hansard — Monday, November 4, 2002

H1104pm-16

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

3rd Session, 37th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) Monday, November 4, 2002 Afternoon Sitting Volume 9, Number 16 THE HONOURABLE CLAUDE RICHMOND, SPEAKER ISSN 0709-1281

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONTENTS Monday, November 4, 2002 Afternoon Sitting Routine Proceedings Page Introductions by Members....................................................................................................... ............................................... 4255 Introduction and First Reading of Bills ........................................................................................ ......................................... 4256 Community Care and Assisted Living Act (Bill 73) Hon. K. Whittred Forest and Range Practices Act (Bill 74) Hon.

M. de Jong Statements (Standing Order 25B).............................................................................................................................. .............. 4257 Conference on mental illness and the workplace R. Stewart Adoption awareness B. Locke Safety of international students in B.C. L. Mayencourt Oral Questions................................................................................................................. ......................................................... 4258 Enforcement of environmental standards in forest industry J. Kwan Hon. M. de Jong Hon. J.

Murray Consultation process on Forest Practices Code J. MacPhail Hon. M. de Jong Kyoto accord R. Nijjar Hon. R. Neufeld Memorandum of understanding on services for aboriginal children S. Brice Hon. G.

Hogg Tabling Documents .............................................................................................................. .................................................... 4260 Ministry of Finance, report of guarantees and indemnities authorized and issued for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2002 Committee of the Whole House ................................................................................................... .......................................... 4260 Residential Tenancy Act (Bill 70) J. Kwan Hon. R. Coleman J.

MacPhail Vital Statistics Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 68) Report and Third Reading of Bills .............................................................................................. ........................................... 4284 Vital Statistics Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 68) Second Reading of Bills ........................................................................................................ ................................................... 4284 Open Learning Agency Repeal Act (Bill 69) Hon. S. Bond J. MacPhail R. Hawes

4255 MONDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 2002 The House met at 2:04 p.m. Introductions by Members J. MacPhail: I have two introductions to make. One is that we're joined today by a group of, I think, mostly women, who are the heart and soul of our government. They're the administrative services component representatives of all the people who do the hard, behind-the-scenes work in government.

Let me name them, please: Sandi McLean from Victoria, Lori Joaquin from Quesnel, Katie Scott from Victoria, Elaine Bubrick from Coquitlam, Dorothy Barker from Courtenay, Dolly Zawaduk from Kelowna, Russell Katzer of Victoria, Terrence McKenny from Victoria, Peg Orcherton from Victoria, Leslye Nixon from Co- quitlam, Joanne Harder from Kamloops, Louise Dunn from Cranbrook, Sue Wilkie from Nelson, Rhonda O'Toole from Fort St. John, Susy Veld from Prince George, Marnie Grafton from Prince George and Rusty Blanes from Terrace.

Please say thank you and welcome. [1405] My second introduction is from farther away but is still a representative of the public service. Steven Miles from the Queensland Public Sector Union in Australia joins us here today. Would the House please make him welcome. He's accompanied by Bill Harper. Hon. G. Halsey-Brandt: Today in the members' gallery, I would like to acknowledge 11 second- and third-year political science students from Linfield Col- lege in McMinnville, Oregon, which is just south of Portland and one of the oldest colleges on the Pacific coast. They're here with their professor, Dr. Dawn Nowacki.

I'm very pleased to be meeting them this afternoon as they further their study on British Colum- bia's political system. Of course, with tomorrow's mid- term elections in the United States, this will certainly give them the opportunity to compare and contrast the two systems. Would the House please make them feel welcome. J. Les: I would like to welcome two people to the House today. The first is Sarah Bonner, who is the managing director of the government caucus. With her is her mother, Sydnie Bonner, joining us in the House today and celebrating her birthday. I'm reliably in- formed it's her thirty-ninth.

Would the House please make them both welcome. S. Orr: I am very pleased today to introduce a per- son by the name of Marc Owen-Flood. If you recognize the name, his father is the Hon. Dermod Owen-Flood. Marc was the past president of the Victoria Real Estate Board, and he's now the chairman of the government liaison committee. He's also an absolutely fabulous realtor, and I would like this House to please make him very welcome. M.

Hunter: A s w e a p p r o a c h t h a t i m p o r t a n t n a - tional holiday Remembrance Day, a week from now, it's appropriate that today in the precinct are approxi- mately 50 air cadets from 205 Collishaw Air Cadets in Nanaimo. These are young people who are carrying on a proud military tradition. Will the House please make them welcome. J. Kwan: Visiting us today are two guests from the Tenants Rights Action Coalition, Kris Anderson and Linda Mix. They are strong community advocates for tenants rights and strong advocates for housing rights.

They've come to the Legislature today to scrutinize the debate on the Residential Tenancy Act changes and to also, hopefully, express their concern to the minister with respect to the bill. D. Chutter: I would like to introduce to the House today a fellow rancher and the president of the B.C. Cattlemen's Association, Agnes Jackson. Would the House please make her welcome. [1410] Hon.

M. de Jong: The government has embarked on a project over the last year, and I'm pleased today t h a t a n u m b e r o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l s w h o h a v e b e e n i n - volved in that project and made valuable contribu- tions to it are here in the House. I hope the House will indulge me as I list some of them that are present: from Prince George, Mayor Colin Kinsley; Port McNeill, Mayor Gerry Furney; from the Truck Log- gers Association, president Rick Jeffery; from the B.C. Chamber of Commerce, president John Winter; from Weldwood of Canada, president and CEO Jeff Hearn; from the B.C.

Institute of Agrologists, president Larry Bomford; from Slocan, president and CEO Jim Shep- herd; from the Association of Professional Biologists, president Mel Kotyk and executive director Linda Michaluk; from Lignum, chairman Jake Kerr; from the B.C. Cattlemen's Association, president Agnes Jack- son; from International Forest Products, president and CEO Duncan Davies and chief forester Ric Slaco; from the Association of B.C. Professional Foresters, president Bill Warner, executive director Van Scof- field; from Weyerhaeuser, the VP of B.C. operations, Craig Neeser; from the Federation of B.C.

Woodlot Associations, president Chris Cunningham and Brian McNaughton; from Flavelle sawmill, executive vice-president David Gray; from the Western Silvi- culture Contractors Association, president Chris Akehurst; from Aspen Planers, president Surinder Ghog; from the B.C. Lumber Trade Council, presi- d e n t J o h n A l l a n ; f r o m M i l l a n d T i m b e r P r o d u c t s Ltd., resource manager Hans de Visser; from Canfor, chief forester Ken Higginbotham; from the Council of Forest Industries, president and CEO Ron Mac- Donald; and from TimberWest Forest Ltd., president

4256 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 2002 and CEO Paul McElligott. I hope all members will make all of these individuals feel welcome here to- day. Introduction and First Reading of Bills COMMUNITY CARE AND ASSISTED LIVING ACT Hon. K. Whittred presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Community Care and Assisted Living Act. Hon. K. Whittred: I move that Bill 73 be read a first time now. Motion approved. Hon. K. Whittred: I am pleased today to intro- duce the Community Care and Assisted Living Act.

This legislation replaces Bill 16, which was intro- d u c e d l a s t A p r i l , a s p a r t o f a c o n s u l t a t i o n p r o c e s s with facility operators, client groups and individu- als. Consultation took place via 11 sessions in six com- munities, website consultations and written submis- sions. We listened to British Columbians and heard, first of all, that the current Community Care Facility Act, which dates back to 1969, is outdated, overly pre- scriptive and complex.

We also heard that the way we are doing things today does not meet the needs of children receiving care in child care settings and of persons in residential care. We listened to British Columbians about how to make things better. With their input we have a strong bill that streamlines, updates and modernizes the gov- ernance of British Columbians' community care and child care, including the significant addition of a new

section to address assisted living. This bill establishes clear distinctions between community care facilities and assisted living resi- dences, and will ensure that the health and safety of those in care is not compromised. Assisted living is an important element of this gov- ernment's new-era commitment to meet the needs of B.C.'s growing and aging population by providing an additional 5,000 home and community care spaces by 2006. With this bill we are making a solid step towards meeting those goals.

I now move that Bill 73 be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today. Bill 73 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. FOREST AND RANGE PRACTICES ACT Hon. M. de Jong presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor: a bill intituled Forest and Range Practices Act. Hon. M. de Jong: I move that Bill 74 be read a first time now. Motion approved. [1415] Hon.

M. de Jong: This government was elected on a promise to establish a workable, results-based Forest Practices Code with tough penalties for non- compliance. Today the introduction of Bill 74, the For- est and Range Practices Act, fulfils that promise. This legislation will enable government to create a forest management system for British Columbia that is light on bureaucracy and focuses on environmental pro- tection. It fulfils our commitment to cut regulation with- out compromising environmental standards. The act is called the Forest and Range Practices Act.

That's because it impacts not only those large licensees. Thanks to the input we received, we've addressed the distinct needs of many smaller operators who work in our forests, includ- ing people like ranchers and woodlot licence holders. B.C.'s forest industry has long laboured under a system that seemed to have more to do with processing paperwork than protecting forest values. This bill changes that. It will set clear standards. Forest licen- sees, woodlot owners, ranchers and the resource pro- fessionals that work with them will decide the best way to achieve those results.

They will be accountable for delivering those results, and there will be tough penal- ties for any that fail. I'm pleased to advise that the accountability of re- source professionals involved in forest and range man- agement will also be enhanced. Subsequent legislation will create a new college of applied biology act. There will be amendments to the Foresters Act and the Agro- logists Act. This legislation is the product of valuable advice that we received through an extensive consultation process earlier this year. In particular, I want to thank Prof.

George Hoberg, from the University of British Columbia, and the member for North Island and the members of his committee who took submissions from over 400 individuals and agencies. We have no intention of turning back the clock. Rather, we are looking to the future, where British Co- lumbia's forest industry is given the opportunity to do what it does best, and that is to find innovative ways to practise sustainable forest management. Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be placed on or- ders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

Bill 74 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 4257 Statements (Standing Order 25B) CONFERENCE ON MENTAL ILLNESS AND THE WORKPLACE R. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, last Thursday I was pleased to join the Minister of State for Mental Health at an important conference on clinical depression and anxiety in the workplace. Anxiety disorders and clini- cal depression combined will affect some 350,000 Brit- ish Columbians in their lifetimes. Mental illness is the fastest-growing cause of workplace disability. This year it will account for more than 60 percent of all short-term disability claims.

Certainly, one of the most vocal and effective public advocates for this issue is talk-show host Rafe Mair, who spoke eloquently of his own personal fight with clinical depression. Another media personality, Kevin Evans, also added tremendously to the discussion with his personal experience. The Premier, a longtime advo- cate of mental health issues, spoke passionately about the challenges we face in pushing for greater accep- tance of this important workplace health issue and the consequences of not addressing it.

One of the real shames of this outstanding confer- ence, though, was that the president of the BCGEU was a no-show for political reasons. George Heyman had committed to playing an important role as a presenter but apparently cancelled out because of the Premier's presence at the conference.

It's truly a shame that poli- tics would be a barrier to working on an important conference such as this, a conference whose main pur- pose is the welfare of employees, the workers of our community. [1420] I want to congratulate the B.C. division of the Ca- nadian Mental Health Association, all of the conference organizers and all the attendees who spent an impor- tant day addressing a very important issue. We have to improve the way we deal with mental illness in the workplace and elsewhere in our society.

According to some studies, less than 7 percent of the workforce cur- rently living with mental health problems receives adequate treatment. That's a sobering fact. This isn't a political issue — o r i t s ho u l d n't b e . I t 's a he al t h i s s u e , and we must address it. ADOPTION AWARENESS B. Locke: November is Adoption Awareness Month. It's a great honour to celebrate with all the families that have been touched by adoption. My fam- ily is one of those that has been blessed by adoption.

There is no greater joy in anyone's life than their chil- dren, and adoption has given my husband and me that incredible gift. Over 700 older children and young adults in our province are in desperate need of a devoted and stable family, and the Ministry of Children and Family De- velopment is placing its emphasis on the adoption of these precious children. Each child's situation is unique. Some birth parents make the difficult and un- selfish decision to give up their child for adoption, while other children are taken into custody by the Min- istry of Children and Family Development.

Many of the children currently waiting for perma- nent families have suffered abuse and have serious challenges. The Minister of Children and Family De- velopment makes every effort to ensure that the spe- cific needs of each child are complemented by their adoptive family. You don't have to be wealthy or married or child- less to adopt. Adoption is one of the very important ways to support and encourage the healthy develop- ment of children. Adoption is about giving, sharing, caring and nurturing and, as I can personally attest to, is a most rewarding experience.

During the month of November I encourage everyone to participate in adop- tion recruitment and awareness events in their com- munities. SAFETY OF INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS IN B.C. L. Mayencourt: My interest in international student safety has been driven by the senseless attack against Ji-Won Park, a young Korean student who resided in my riding. This talented and outgoing young person is undergoing treatment here in British Columbia, but she will face a lifetime of challenges resulting from this attack. My concern has heightened with other inci- dents, most recently the murder of Amanda Zhao.

There are currently 60,000 international students in British Columbia. They're here as our guests. They're living here while they access our education system, and they bring much-needed revenue to our private language schools around the province. As host we have a duty to protect these young peo- ple, and no aspect of that duty is more important than their physical safety. British Columbia has a well- deserved reputation as a safe, clean and desirable place to be. Unfortunately, the attacks on Ji-Won and others have brought that excellent reputation into question.

We have a duty to protect these students, to safe- guard the safety of these guests to our province, at the same level we provide to everyone else. International students likewise have a duty to protect themselves, as well, and to develop lines of communications with their schools, police authorities and family and friends. Language schools and the agencies that match them up with students must communicate more effectively with students in their home countries to ensure their safety. The community at large can also help.

Over the past few months I have been meeting with multicul- tural agencies like the Korean Society, English lan- guage schools, law enforcement personnel, civic lead- ers and others committed to addressing these complex challenges. Many of these have had great success in getting messages about safety to international students, but much more must be done. Together, we must all

4258 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 2002 work to make B.C. a safe, desirable place to live and learn. [1425] Oral Questions ENFORCEMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS IN FOREST INDUSTRY J. Kwan: Big forest companies gave the Liberals over $2.5 million in campaign donations. Ainsworth Lumber is one of those companies. It has one of the worst environmental records in B.C. Recently it pleaded guilty to dumping harmful substances into the Seton River.

According to leaked Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection documents, Ainsworth Lum- ber would now receive automatic approval for con- struction projects it wants to undertake near B.C. streams and rivers. Can the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection explain why a company with a long environmental rap sheet will now be given automatic approval to proceed with construction projects in B.C.'s watersheds and streams? Hon.

M. de Jong: Well, happily, the member is going to have an opportunity to discuss in detail in the days ahead the regime we are putting in place to ensure there actually are appropriate environmental safeguards in place that properly balance the absolute need to ensure there is adequate protection, to ensure that we maintain the highest possible environmental standards but do so in a way that makes common sense, as well, and doesn't drive investment from this province. I'm looking forward to the debate that I know is about to unfold.

As we have that debate, let us keep in mind that it was this member and the government that she was a member of that had a different sense of balance. That balance was: "We'll promise to cre- ate 38,000 jobs and instead lose thousands upon thousands of jobs in the forest sector." Those days are over. Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a supplementary question. J. Kwan: Let's be clear. It's the leaked document of the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection's minis- try which shows she's not doing her job.

Rather than stopping pollution before it happens, the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection is moving to a system where polluters are being punished after damage has already been done. The only problem is that the minis- ter has fired most of the people who do the monitoring. It is akin to installing fire alarms in a house after the house has been burned down. Again, to the Minister of Water, Land and Air Pro- tection: can she explain how her kid-glove approach to polluters is supposed to work with forest companies that are logging in the same — and some of British Columbia's most sensitive — ecosystems?

Hon. J. Murray: Under our approach, my ministry will be focused where it should be, which is on setting standards and making sure they are enforced. Over the years the Forest Practices Board has complained again and again that the former Ministry of Environment did not enforce the Forest Practices Code. Why? Because they were tied up in their offices doing plan after plan and…. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. Hon. J.

Murray: I am very pleased to say that I have been part, from the beginning, of a new approach to the Forest Practices Code, a results-based code that will have my ministry staff actually in the field where they can do the most good: protecting the environment. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a further supplementary. Let us hear the question, please. J. Kwan: If the minister's approach to enforcement is the example of Ainsworth Lumber, where she actu- ally approves automatically construction approvals for this company, which has a long history of environ- mental violations….

You know, no one believes the minister is serious about protecting the environment, and they have good reason to suspect her motives. Thirty-two of B.C.'s biggest polluters gave the Liberals more than $1.9 million to fight the last election. In re- turn, she took these companies off the government's environmental non-compliance report. In fact, she stopped publishing the report altogether.

Can the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection explain to British Columbians how they are to have any faith in her when she's fired one-third of her employ- ees, when she's granting automatic approvals to com- panies who want to construct in B.C. streams and wa- tersheds and when she's shielding B.C.'s biggest pol- luters from public scrutiny? [1430] Hon. J. Murray: The non-compliance list that the member opposite is talking about had taken 18 months to publish under her government's watch and was a document that reflected a compliance system in disar- ray.

I've actually asked my staff to come forward with a strategy for compliance reporting that will be system- atic… Interjection. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Hon. J. Murray: …will be provincewide… Interjection.

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 4259 Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order. Hon. J. Murray: … a n d w i l l m a k e s u r e t h a t w e know who is in compliance and who is not. CONSULTATION PROCESS ON FOREST PRACTICES CODE J. MacPhail: No wonder that when this government is faced with doing some hard work around environmental protection, this minister just does away with it, gives up and says: "Oh, we won't bother publishing a non- compliance list." The last non-compliance list was Au- gust of 2001.

No wonder people are concerned about the process that leads up to this legislation that was tabled today. Let's talk process today. The list of people who are here today are a fine group, a fine group of opinion leaders, but there are many people missing from the list. The Minister of Forests invoked the name of Dr. Hoberg, who did do a review of the consultation process. Let's see what Dr. Hoberg actually said. The report made it clear. He told the government it should conduct addi- tional discussions with first nations prior to finalizing the results-based code.

Can the Minister of Forests say if he missed people from first nations from his list of introductions today, or did he ignore Dr. Hoberg's recommendation? Has he shut first nations out of the development of a new code? Hon. M. de Jong: I know times are tough, but I'm going to speak to the Minister of Finance. We've got to find some money for the research staff over on the other side of the House. We engaged in an unprecedented degree of consul- tation. Two committees: an MLA committee that met publicly in 13 communities, Professor Hoberg…. They entertained submissions in excess of 400 submissions.

Following that, we embarked on a second round to consult with people. We involved first nations, up- wards of 21 submissions from first nations. Look, let's face the facts. There's a group over there — and I guess this member is one of them — who likes to paint cattlemen, woodlot owners and actually mem- bers of the IWA as being hostile to the environment. We're not amongst that group. We're for environ- mental practices, but we're for putting people back to work in B.C. as well. Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplementary. J.

MacPhail: It's interesting that when I talk about first nations, the minister talks about environmentalists and completely ignores the issues I raised around first nations. No wonder the Carrier-Sekani tribal council had to write to this minister just last week. Here's what the Carrier-Sekani tribal council put to the government. Everyone here in this chamber knows that land use certainty is key to investment here. Everyone knows this, and first nations are key to that. Here's what the Carrier-Sekani tribal council did last week.

On October 22 they put the government on notice that they are exploring the full range of legal options to defend their aboriginal title and rights against this government's infringements through the new Forest Practices Code. [1435] Interjection. J. MacPhail: The Minister of Finance says: "What a surprise." Well, they've taken this action because the government is ignoring its obligations to consult first nations as defined by the courts and as recommended by Dr. Hoberg.

Again to the minister: can he tell this House how much the government has put aside to spend on litiga- tion defending the new Forest Practices Code? Hon. M. de Jong: All the research dollars in the world won't help this member if she doesn't listen to the answer or read the documents, and that's the fact of the matter. I'm uncharacteristically going to try and keep this brief. The irony is this. The Carrier Sekani and the gov- ernment are indeed having a discussion, but here is the irony.

They have withdrawn from an agreement that this government is endeavouring to uphold, which that mem- ber's government entered into. Isn't that ironic? And this just in. Isn't it ironic that this member stands up and criti- cizes this government for enforcing an agreement her government entered? That's the height of irony. KYOTO ACCORD R. Nijjar: My question is to the Minister of Energy and Mines. Recently my constituents were alarmed to learn of the federal government's suggestion that nuclear- generated electricity should be considered as a means of meeting Kyoto targets.

Reducing greenhouse gas emis- sions is a laudable goal but not at any cost. My constituents of Vancouver-Kingsway do not support nuclear power plants, nor should the construction of nuclear power plants be considered as an environmental step forward. Will the Minister of Energy and Mines tell us if, under the federal government's current plans, nuclear power would have to be considered? Hon. R. Neufeld: The use of nuclear energy is not in the current plan that was put forward by the federal government, but it has been talked about quite widely by the minister responsible, Mr.

Dhaliwal, in recent news articles about the use of nuclear energy to deal with the Kyoto protocol. We in British Columbia are totally opposed to nuclear energy in the province and will work to that end. Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver- Kingsway has a supplementary question. R. Nijjar: The majority of British Columbia's power is produced emission-free by B.C.'s large dams.

4260 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 2002 Clearly, B.C.'s dams reduce the overall emissions re- leased in this province. If the purpose of Kyoto is to reduce the overall emissions released in Canada, will the Minister of Energy and Mines tell us why the fed- eral government will not give British Columbia credit for the large steps it has taken with investments in hy- dro and forestry? Hon. R. Neufeld: Yes, the British Columbia gov- ernment, my colleague the Minister of Water, Land and Air and myself lobbied hard on the fact that we should b e c re d i t e d f o r o u r f o re s t ry s i nk s .

W e s ho u l d b e c re d - ited for our agricultural sinks. We should have credit for clean energy exports, and we should have credit for the industries that have actually reduced greenhouse gases in the province. After all, British Columbia on a per-capita basis is the second-lowest emitter of green- house gases in all of Canada. Through all that arguing, we were not able to con- vince the federal government that (

a) they should give us our forestry and agricultural sinks or (

b) that they should give us any credit for clean energy exports. In fact, COP-7…. Just understand that the minister re- sponsible, Mr. Anderson, says it's off the table alto- gether. We will not accept a plan that does not address those items for the people of British Columbia. [1440] MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON SERVICES FOR ABORIGINAL CHILDREN S. Brice: My question is for the Minister of Children and Family Development. Recently the Premier signed a historic memorandum of understanding with the aboriginal groups across this province.

This agreement marks the first time that first nations and the govern- ment have reached an understanding that puts the in- terests of children first. Can the minister explain what the MOU means for the first nations children of British Columbia? Hon. G. Hogg: Unfortunately, aboriginal children and youth are seven times more likely to be in the care of the state than non-aboriginal children and five times more likely to be involved in a justice facility of the state than non-aboriginal children.

This memorandum of understanding allows us to work in cooperation with the aboriginal communities to move forward and respond to their needs at the local level. It means fewer children will be in the care of the state because we'll develop safe care plans for them within the context of their home and communities. Just last week the provincial medical health officer issued his report on the health of aboriginal children. In that, he said that aboriginal children who are not in the care of their own communities are more likely to be committing suicide. The rates are higher.

This means we're going to have services and responses at the community level, and we'll see a reduction in the sui- cide rates. I think, most importantly, this represents a better future for aboriginal children in care. It means they're going to be more likely to graduate, more likely to be employed and more likely to have a healthy future. It means that, because those services are provided at the local level. Their opportunities are going to be much better, because we know research and practice tell us that when services are provided in that context, they have a better future.

We're looking forward to that. [End of question period.] Tabling Documents Hon. Gary Collins: I have the honour to present the guarantees and indemnities authorized and issued report for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2002, in ac- cordance with the Financial Administration Act, sec- tion 72(8). I call committee stage debate of Bill 70. Committee of the Whole House RESIDENTIAL TENANCY ACT The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 70; J. Weisbeck in the chair. The committee met at 2:44 p.m. On

section 1. J. Kwan: I wonder if, before we begin, the minister could introduce his staff. Hon. R. Coleman: It's Karen Ayers, senior policy analyst for the ministry. [1445] J. Kwan: Under the

definitions section,

section 1, the implication of adding, under "security deposits," postdated cheques for rent…. Is it the intention of the bill to allow for landlords to demand postdated cheques for rent? This seems to be consistent with the minister's remarks in the House. In many cases, tenants want to pay by postdated cheques, but it should be on the basis of mutual agreement. In fact, many agencies and advocates who deal with tenants, particularly the Tenants Rights Action Coalition, have heard from ten- ants that landlords have moved to requiring that post- dated cheques be given to them.

Of course, this can potentially put tenants at risk. Tenants ought to enter into giving postdated cheques to the landlords if it is on the basis of mutual agreement. The problem lies in this: when postdated cheques are given, if the tenant moved out, as an ex- ample, it's not always the case that the landlord actu- ally gives back or tears up the postdated cheques in some instances. The tenant then has to go and cancel the cheques. In some cases it actually costs them

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 4261 money, depending on the banking agency with which they deal. In adding this new definition, "postdated cheques for rent," is it the intent of the government to allow landlords to require postdated cheques? Hon. R. Coleman: The present act prohibits post- dated cheques. This is to allow the landlord to take postdated cheques and make it part of the agreement with the tenant to do so. J. Kwan: I don't believe it's the case that the previ- ous act — actually, the current act — prohibits post- dated cheques.

It doesn't actually stipulate it by providing for postdated cheques. There seems to be some discrepancy around that issue. Can the minister then state clearly that by adding this definition, it does not allow the landlords to re- quire tenants to provide postdated cheques? Postdated cheques could be provided if it is mutually agreed upon between the two parties. Hon. R. Coleman: My understanding is that this does not allow them to require it but allows them to do it, which they couldn't do before.

For the member with regards to postdated cheques not being allowed in the previous act, it was in the definition under "security deposit." J. Kwan: Just to be clear then, a landlord cannot demand postdated cheques from a tenant at any point in time. Hon. R. Coleman: It can be set out in a tenancy agreement and agreed to by the parties. J. Kwan: Can the landlord make it into a condition of tenancy? Hon. R.

Coleman: The tenancy agreement is probably a condition of tenancy, so if it's in the tenancy agreement a particular landlord has, it would be a mu- tual agreement between the tenant and the landlord when they enter into the tenancy. J. Kwan: Could the landlord refuse tenancy to a prospective tenant if the tenant is not prepared to pro- vide postdated cheques? Hon. R. Coleman: Theoretically, yes, because that would mean they wouldn't have come to an agreement on the tenancy agreement. J.

Kwan: In other words, adding this definition into the act actually allows for a landlord to require post- dated cheques as a form of tenancy, as a right to ten- ancy by the tenant, and if the tenant refuses, the tenant may well not have access to the rental accommodation. It has the same effect that is now being experienced by some of the tenants where landlords are requiring postdated cheques and don't give them back once the person vacates.

It puts the onus on the tenant to go cancel the postdated cheques and, of course, incur ex- tra costs. [1450] It makes no sense to put in such a requirement so heavily biased against a tenant in favour of the land- lord. The landlord has all of the control to decide who to rent to already. To add in a provision to say, "Unless you give me postdated cheques as a condition of ten- ancy…" simply further heightens the landlord's control of the situation. It makes absolutely no sense. I don't know how this is advantageous for tenants. How is this advantageous for tenants? Hon. R.

Coleman: This is actually normal business practice in a lot of areas of consumer relationships be- tween two parties, and I don't see that this is…. This isn't set out to make it adversarial. It's just to have an option that wasn't contained in the previous act for the landlords with regards to their business relationship with their tenants. In actual fact, in discussing it with different people in the industry, both sides have felt that they needed as seamless a relationship in the ability to pay as possible.

There actually is, I guess, the ability to also do automatic debits, as there are in some strata corporations with re- gards to that, but we haven't dealt with that in detail. Tenancy agreements are going to be there for peo- ple to enter into a business relationship with regards to a tenancy, and this can be part of the tenancy agree- ment. J. Kwan: The only problem is that by providing this requirement, if it is not mutually agreed upon, the pro- spective tenant actually suffers a consequence; that is, the landlord could refuse to rent to this tenant.

That has huge implications, especially when rental accom- modations in British Columbia, particularly in the lower mainland, are scarce. In the area of Vancouver- Burrard, as an example, the vacancy rate is something like less than 4 percent. I think it's 2 percent, to be more precise. That really puts a lot of stress on tenants. This change in the legislation allows the landlord to penalize tenants for not agreeing to provide postdated cheques, and then there's a consequence which the ten- ant may be faced with. I fail to see how that is helpful.

In terms of business practice that the minister talks about, as far as I can see, the previous act does not pre- clude you from providing postdated cheques. If the tenant wants to do it and if the landlord wants to ac- cept it — if it's mutually agreed upon — I think that they can. Where does it say in the act that it prohibits postdated cheques? Hon. R. Coleman: Under "security deposit" in the previous Residential Tenancy Act subsection (e): "a prepayment of rent for other than the first month of a tenancy agreement." J.

Kwan: The way I read that, it doesn't actually preclude you from providing postdated cheques. It just

4262 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 2002 says that security deposit "means money or property advanced or deposited, or a right given, by or on behalf of a tenant or prospective tenant, to be held or enforced by or on behalf of a landlord…a prepayment of rent for other than the first month of a tenancy agreement." So a person is required to prepay rent for other than the first month. That is what it says in the act. It doesn't say that if you do end up, through mutual agreement with the landlord and a tenant, giving postdated cheques, you've somehow violated the act. It doesn't actually say that.

I don't believe it says that. [1455] Quite frankly, having been a tenant before, I myself gave postdated cheques on mutual agreement with the landlord, especially when I rented an apartment here in Victoria. Sometimes on the first of the month I'm not in Victoria, and it was actually a lot more beneficial for me to give my building manager postdated cheques j u s t i n c a s e I h a p p e n e d n o t t o b e h e r e t h a t w e e k , s o I wouldn't end up not having paid my rent and then being evicted from the building.

But now the difference in this act is that by adding the postdated-cheque pro- vision for rent, it does more than allow for mutual agreement for postdated cheques to be used. It can be utilized as a penalty against tenants by the landlord, if the landlord puts it into the tenancy agreement.

Why doesn't the minister then, if the intent is sim- ply to facilitate — if he thinks that the old act precludes you from using postdated cheques — just simply pro- vide it as an option and say that postdated cheques for rent can be utilized as an option if it's mutually agreed to by both the landlord and the tenants so the landlord understands very clearly that the landlord cannot put into the tenancy agreement a requirement that post- dated cheques be given? That way, you're not penaliz- ing anybody.

You're simply facilitating the process, if the minister thinks that the old act does not allow for this facilitation. Hon. R. Coleman: Let me see if I can get this expla- nation for the member so that we can both understand it. If you take postdated cheques today, under the definition of a security deposit…. If you were to take postdated cheques for, let's say, six months of a ten- ancy in advance as part of the rental agreement, you're technically taking more than a half month's damage deposit, because you're taking those cheques in ad- vance.

The feeling is that under the definition of this section, that had to be cleared up. You can still only take a half month's damage deposit, but the extension over was that it was a problem with regard to the abil- ity to do one versus the definition of the other. J. Kwan: But if the minister suggests that the cur- rent act disallows postdated cheques under

section 1(e), that's one thing. But the remedy that the minister has brought forward under this act does not fix that problem. It does not. It goes further to allow for penal- ties to be put in place — I hope inadvertently. From the way it sounds from the minister, it's not so. Somehow if a landlord chooses to put in the ten- ancy agreement that you're required to provide post- dated cheques under the definition of the act, then if you don't provide them, I can refuse tenancy to you. If that's not the intent of the government, then it should state that clearly in the legislation.

But the minister just rose up minutes ago to say that yes, a landlord could do that. They could reject someone's tenancy if they didn't provide postdated cheques. They could make that a requirement of the tenancy. There's something wrong with that process. It does not remedy the issue that's been raised by the minister. It actually goes to penalize tenants in a very negative way, to the point that they would actually, potentially, lose their tenancy if they were not prepared to provide postdated cheques. Hon. R.

Coleman: It's no different than if you said: "I'm going to allow pets in my tenancy, and this is the description of pet that I'm going to allow. And you're going to agree to that as part of the tenancy agree- ment." This is also part of the discussion and negotia- tion of a tenancy agreement with a landlord. The land- lord and tenant have to come to that agreement. I don't see that as a problem. J. Kwan: We'll get to the pets issue in due time. There's a huge

section here that also penalizes tenants when it comes to pets. We will have a lot of questions and debate on that

section — make no mistake about it. [1500] This is not the same as facilitating in many ways, as the minister would like to make it sound. The minister is providing provisions within the act right off the top in

section 1 to potentially deny tenants the right to ac- cess rental accommodation. They're to be penalized for it, to put all of that onus on the negative side onto the tenants. The landlord could absolutely have control in every way, shape or form. You know, why doesn't the act add in a definition to say that landlords are required to give postdated cheques back to the tenants when they vacate the building? The reality is that this doesn't always hap- pen, and sometimes landlords have gone as far as to cash postdated cheques when the tenants have already vacated the premises.

The onus, then, again is on the tenant to go and cancel these postdated cheques, which costs them an additional financial burden. Why is it so lopsided towards the landlord's benefit and not to- wards an equal benefit for both the tenant and the landlord? Hon. R. Coleman: I think it is equally beneficial to both landlord and tenant. It just makes the relationship as to how the funds are collected or how they have to be delivered on a monthly basis to the landlord. Obvi- ously, it would be irresponsible and unconscionable for a landlord to cash cheques when the tenant is no longer there.

There are provisions, obviously, within law and small claims and what have you, but I can't see a land-

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 4263 lord going out and saying: "I'm going to continue to charge rent for an empty thing." In the tenancy agreement there should be a rela- tionship with regards to the postdated cheques. When the tenancy agreement is ended, there should be a clause in there that says the cheques are returned to the tenant. Frankly, we could probably do that in the de- sign of the tenancy agreement that we'll do in regula- tion. J. Kwan: With the exception that it's not the minis- ter who puts out the tenancy agreement; it's the land- lord who puts out the tenancy agreement.

He said so himself. Tenancy agreements will not be put out by regulation. It's designed by the landlord. There is a substantive difference here. What about tenants who are on fixed incomes, many of them? Let's just take somebody who's on in- come assistance, as an example. In fact, in my own rid- ing there is a huge number of people who are renters. Many of them actually don't have access to banking services. They don't, so they don't have cheques. There is no capacity for them to get cheques, because they don't have banking services. That is a reality in my riding right now.

In that instance, tenants in my own riding could be refused accommodation, because they're not able to provide postdated cheques because they don't have a chequing account. Does that not amount to discrimina- tion? Hon. R. Coleman: This doesn't make it absolute that you have to take postdated cheques. It's part of the relationship between a landlord and tenant. I know the situation in the member's riding. I also know there are different forms of the way that they pay their rents in particular areas of the province with regards to the business relationship between a landlord and tenant. This is just one more area.

In the standard terms of the tenancy agreement that we will form in regulation, we will make sure that your concern with regards to re- turn of postdated cheques is part of the standard terms of the tenancy agreement that will apply. J. Kwan: To prevent discrimination, for someone to actually refuse tenancy to someone on the basis of their ability to provide postdated cheques…. Really, it re- lates to individuals who live in poverty. A lot of the people who live in poverty, as I mentioned, may not have access to banking services, may not actually have cheques available to them. They could lose their ten- ancy.

Why not put in the regulation, then, that the land- lord shall not penalize a tenant if it is not mutually agreed upon that postdated cheques be made avail- able? Why not put that in? It just protects both the ten- ants and the landlord. It doesn't penalize the landlord in any way, shape or form. It protects both sides. "If it's mutually agreed upon, here's the way that you can do i t . I f i t ' s n o t a n o p t i o n f o r y o u , f o r w h a t e v e r r e a s o n , that's okay too. On that basis you will not be penalized for your access to accommodation from a rental point of view." Hon. R.

Coleman: We don't think that's necessary, because the terms of a tenancy agreement are agreed to by both parties prior to them entering into a tenancy agreement. They have a mutual relationship going in. I don't think it's…. To try and go that way, the next thing you would be wanting to "shall not" this and "shall not" that. Frankly, that's the way we've designed the act, and that's the way we'll proceed. [1505] J. Kwan: With all due respect to the minister, I dis- agree. Simply suggesting that a tenancy agreement will fix that is not true. It's simply not true. Interjection. J.

Kwan: If members actually have something to say in this chamber, I wish they would get up and say it. If they think the opposition should not ask questions in this chamber and they just want to move forward and ram this legislation through, they need to under- stand the rules of the House — that members can actu- ally engage in questions. I would appreciate that op- portunity as the only opposition member, so far, who is asking questions of the minister about some of these changes that will be hurtful and, in my view, discrimi- natory to the tenants.

When a tenancy agreement is put forward by the landlord with the stipulation that says the landlord could actually refuse tenancy to a prospective tenant if they don't meet the conditions — and one of those conditions is that you're required to provide postdated cheques — then there's discrimination against the ten- ants, particularly those who don't have the ability or the capacity to provide postdated cheques. There are many people who are in those circumstances.

It astounds me for the minister to simply say: "Hey, don't worry; be happy." Perhaps he's not in a situation where he would have to rent accommodation, where his home would be dependent on that and where he may not have access to banking facilities to actually get a cheque. The answer the minister has given on this issue is very disappointing from the opposition's per- spective. I was hoping he would assure me that unless it's mutually agreed upon, there would not be a re- quirement that tenants give postdated cheques to the landlords. On another question.

With respect to the definition, where it states under the tenancy agreement definition that it includes a licence to occupy a rental unit, could the minister please explain where it reads "…includes a licence to occupy"? Is the intent to expand the coverage of their Residential Tenancy Act to licensees — i.e., roommates — within the rental accommodation? Hon. R. Coleman: We can probably deal with this a bit more in

section 4, but this act is actually…. As I un- derstand it, the reason this is in the act — when we

4264 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 2002 went through this — is so that we're not going to be moderating disputes between roommates with regards to their relationship in their own tenancy. This is a landlord-to-tenant relationship, so it's not exclusive. It basically, by definition, tells you who is covered by the act in

section 4 by telling you who it doesn't apply to. Therefore, that takes care of the member's concern. J. Kwan: It's not the intent of this addition to ex- pand to include roommates? Hon. R. Coleman: That's correct. J. Kwan: Pardon me. I'm suffering from a cold, so from time to time my voice may give. My apologies. [1510] Under the definition section, the terminology "ten- ant" is included. But under (

b) it states that a tenant includes"…when the context requires, a former tenant." The definition does not include the notion of a prospec- tive tenant — that is to say, someone who may become a tenant, someone who signed a tenancy agreement and who has not yet moved in but will soon become a tenant in accordance to the act. Because this

section actually has relevance to other sections of the act, par- ticularly

section 15, why would the minister not in- clude the words "prospective tenant" as well? Hon. R. Coleman: In actual fact, that question did come up in the drafting of the act, as I understand it. By allowing that, it would have meant it would be open to anybody in the province — that type of thing. When we're dealing with legislative drafting, as the member knows, they look at those sorts of things, and it was found that that wouldn't be appropriate to be in the act. Basically, the context of subsection (

b) of "ten- ant" is so that a person who is no longer a tenant can still go after, in the landlord and tenant relationship, things like their damage deposit or damages that are owed to them by a landlord. J. Kwan: I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. I'm having a little bit of trouble actually hearing the minister, especially to- wards the end. It just sort of becomes one big mumble. It could be that because of my cold, my hearing is be- ing affected. Could the minister please repeat the last bit of his answer, and could he perhaps speak into the mike a little bit more? I'm having just a little bit of diffi- culty hearing the minister. Hon. R. Coleman: Subsection (

b) of "tenant," which is under the

definitions section, states: "…when the context requires, a former tenant." It is basically about a tenant that is no longer a tenant who has a dispute with the landlord. It would allow them to continue to be able to go after a process, whether it be with regard to damages owed to them or to go after the damage deposit. J. Kwan: Okay, that addresses one thing. However, for someone who is a prospective tenant,

section 15 actually allows for recoveries of application fees, but this

section does not include a prospective tenant. Therefore, the recovery of application fees…. If a land- lord illegally collects one under

section 15, it would not be possible, then, for the prospective tenant to bring the matter to the Residential Tenancy Office for dispute resolution. That is another aspect on which concerns have been raised. Could the minister please address that? Hon. R. Coleman: Maybe we can canvass this in more detail when we get to

section 15, but I think sec- tion 15 is actually good news for tenants, not bad news for tenants. It actually prohibits a landlord from taking application fees and those types of fees that have been in this industry before.

It was something that the ten- ants rights groups certainly identified for us as a con- cern of theirs with regards to the act, and of course we do have enforcement and penalty provisions within the act. [1515] I guess the one challenge the member is question- ing is if it's in advance of a tenancy agreement, because we haven't put them in the definition section, the arbi- tration issue might not apply to them. Maybe by the time we get to that section, I can clarify that answer for you.

But I think you may be right that they would have to seek it in a small claims court, and/or they would make a complaint to us, and we would follow through on a landlord that's in breach of the act. J. Kwan: I'm not disputing that

section 15 is good by putting this in to say that here are certain things that a landlord cannot do — i.e., accept an application for a tenancy, etc., which we'll engage in further discussion on under

section 15. The problem is that I don't see the enforceability of it. Especially, it makes no reference in terms of who is a tenant under the

definitions of the act. If you stipulate very clearly that a tenant is some- body who may be a former tenant, someone who has left a tenancy — but a damage deposit, among other things…. A person can actually have recourse to go through to ensure that their rights are being protected through the residential tenancy office. That is being addressed in the definition for the purposes of who is a tenant. Yet for someone who is a prospective tenant — that is to say, someone who has not yet moved in but is looking into moving into a particular accommoda- tion…. If the landlord at that point illegally collects an application fee, as an example, under

section 15 the person then has no recourse under the Residential Ten- ancy Act, because that person is not deemed to be a tenant under this definition. In my view, it could be easily fixed if the intent is to say, you know, collecting application fees is inappropriate for people who are looking for tenancies. If at the end of the day, as an example, a person makes an application, and then the tenancy agreement…. Just using the example we're discussing now, if the tenants are required to provide postdated cheques and,

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 4265 for whatever reason, the tenants are not able to, the application fee that was applied to them should be null and void and the person should be returned the mon- eys. Notwithstanding that this is actually against the law under

section 15, that person right then and there has no protection under

section 15, has no protection under the act, because that person's not deemed to be a tenant as of yet. People could be faced with tremen- dous disadvantages and abuses by the landlord in that regard. This could be easily prevented by simply adding the words "or prospective" after the word "former" and before the word "tenant," so that you can actually say t o p e o p l e v e r y c l e a r l y t h a t f o r m e r t e n a n t s a s w e l l a s prospective tenants should have protection, and the application of the act applies to them. To that end, I have an amendment to make to

section 1, to add in the words "or prospective" after subsection (

b) so that it would read as follows. "Tenant includes…(

b) when the context requires, a former…" and then adding the words "or prospective" tenant into this definition. Here is a copy of…. Oh, you've got…. The Chair: We have a copy. J. Kwan: Okay. Maybe I can ask: do you have cop- ies for all of…? The Chair: W e h a v e c o p i e s o f a l l y o u r a m e n d - ments. J. Kwan: Fantastic. Okay. I brought three copies up. If everybody's got copies…. [Section 1 is amended by adding the text highlighted by underline: "tenant" includes (

a) the estate of a deceased tenant, and (

b) when the context requires, a former or prospective tenant.] On the amendment. J. Kwan: I hope the minister will support this amendment. It's, I think, a friendly amendment to simply state clearly and give protection for tenants who are both former tenants under the definition of a tenant as well as individuals who would become prospective tenants, so they have protection under the Residency Tenancy Act. The Chair: Are you speaking to the amendment? J. Kwan: Yes, Mr. Chair. I'm just also seeking the minister's thoughts on this. Perhaps he may actually accept this as a friendly amendment.

I would like to hear the minister's response on that. Hon. R. Coleman: W e a c t u a l l y f e e l w e c a n a c c e p t this amendment with regards to this section. We had some discussion during leg review with regards to this. We would like to just sort of get a quick opinion on it with regards to it, but if we could just sort of stand it down for a bit, we could bring this amendment back so we can have a bit of input on it. It is a concern identified. One of the concerns is that these fees are pretty low, and with regards to….

If somebody actually goes to arbitration, their cost of arbitration is about $40, and the fees have been $25 to $40. It's illegal. We're expecting some discipline in the marketplace to make sure they follow the law of the act. If it meets within what we think it does, then I think we could probably accept the amendment. If we could just sort of move off this definition for now and come back to the amendment, is that possible to deal with? [1520] The Chair: Member, we could stand down the amendment, but that would mean we would have to stand down the section. If that is the wish of the com- mittee…. Hon. R.

Coleman: I think that's appropriate. Then we could move on to a couple of other sections, and by that time we should be able to deal with it. Okay? The Chair: Is it the wish of the committee to stand down this amendment and the section? J. Kwan: I'm fine about that. Perhaps before we stand it down, I could just make one final comment, then. I note the minister made a comment that the fees may well be low, that illegal charges of fees may well be low. That may well be the case, and therefore, by going to the residential tenancy office to file a com- plaint, a person may actually end up having to pay more.

The other side of it, of course, is that if you're required to go to small claims, you also have to pay a fee. It kind of equalizes it. Perhaps this will just send a strong signal to people of what "tenant" means and therefore, I think, is better protection for the tenants. I am prepared to accept the standing-down of sec- tion 1 until the minister further investigates the pro- posed amendment, and then we can deal with that at a later time. The Chair: Member,

section 1 is stood down. On

section 2. J. Kwan:

Section 2 deals with what is included in terms of the types of properties or, if you will, rental accommodations for the purposes of this act. For a long time the community has advocated for residential ho- tels or rooming houses, if you will, to be included un- der the provision of the Residential Tenancy Act. Yet under this revision of the act, I don't see the addition of residential hotels or rooming houses. Could the minis- ter please explain why? From my own perspective, there are some 7,000 units of what we call SRO — single-room occupancy — housing in my riding. These are all tenants. In fact, they are tenants who pay the highest rent on a per-square-

4266 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 2002 foot basis. They are essentially rooms that are about 10 by 10. If you're very lucky, you will have a hotplate in your room. If you're triply lucky, you might even have a bathroom. For the most part you don't, and it's all shared facilities. It's definitely accommodations. The landlords for a lot of these hotels are particularly unscrupulous and mistreat the tenants in a variety of ways. When we were changing this act, I was hoping that we would include this class of tenants so that they, too, can enjoy residential tenancy protection. Hon. R. Coleman: Actually, the reason we put the definition that's in "tenancy agreement" under

section 1 was to include "a licence to occupy a rental unit." It was put in that specifically to cover off that definition within the relationship in residential tenancies. Then in

section 4 the act identifies what it doesn't apply to. That basically takes care of the member's concern. If the member wants more questioning of that sec- tion, fine. Otherwise, I think we're prepared to move ahead with the amendment. If you want to go back to

section 1, we can move ahead with the amendment and then move on. J. Kwan: I'm prepared to just stop for the moment and deal with

section 1, and then we can come back to

section 2 on the amendment. The Chair: We'll refer back to

section 1. On

section 1 (continued). Amendment approved.

Section 1 as amended approved. On

section 2 (continued). J. Kwan: If under

section 2 the intent is to actually cover off residential hotels or rooming houses under the

definitions section…. I'm sorry. I have to sort of refer back, because it does kind of jump all over the place in terms of where each

section relates. If the words "includes a licence to occupy a rental unit" in- clude rooming houses and residential hotels, and as the minister referenced under

section 4, it's also the intent under

section 4 to do that, then why…? [1525] I mean, it's just to sort of make it explicit, make it clear? Part of the rewrite of the Residential Tenancy Act is exactly as the minister suggested in second reading stage, and that is to put it in plain language so everybody understands who is included, who is not included and what it all means. In that respect, when I read it, it wasn't clear to me that rooming houses, as an example, would be included as a class of tenants. Why not simply state very clearly under

section 2 that it includes residential hotels or rooming houses? If the minister is amenable, I actually have an amendment to that effect that states this. It would clarify and put into plain language very clearly who is included and who is not. The amendment under

section 2 would read as follows, Mr. Chair. It is underlined on the amendment sheet. It says: [Section 2 is amended by adding the text highlighted by underline: What this Act applies to 2(1) Despite any other enactment but subject to

section 4, this Act applies to tenancy agreements, rental units and other residential property, including residential hotels or rooming houses.] Comments from the minister. On the amendment. Hon. R. Coleman: Well, you win one and you lose one. I think we're fine in this definition. We outline what it doesn't apply to in

section 4, and we're not in favour of the amendment. J. Kwan: I hadn't realized this was meant to be more of a game, where a person would win one or lose one. I was simply trying to advance these amendments in such a way that would clarify the act and make it very clear, so people would understand who is in- cluded and who isn't. I don't think it's contradictory to the intent of the act, so I don't think it does any harm, and it is important from my perspective. Why is that?

A lot of people in my riding, as I've mentioned — some 7,000 people — live in what we call SROs, in these rooming houses or hotel rooms, if you will. Many of them don't know what their rights are a lot of times. A lot of them are, in fact, denied a lot of these rights, and it's unfortunate that this has to be the case. They ought not to be denied these rights. For the purposes of clarity in the act, it would be useful — advantageous, I think — for both the landlord and the tenants so that they know who falls under the act and who doesn't and who has access to the protec- tion of the Residential Tenancy Act.

I move the amendment in my name that has been passed around, and we'll have a vote on it. Amendment negatived on division. Sections 2 and 3 approved. On

section 4. J. Kwan:

Section 4 could also potentially have this ramification. When a person reads this

section of the act, the concern is that students who are in student housing may be exempted from the Residential Tenancy Act. In the past only dorm-style housing was exempted. The question to the minister, of course, is why self-contained apartments and townhouses should be exempted solely because they are run by a college or university. [1530] If the reason is to limit time to allow for the student to live in a particular building, then one could use the

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 4267 option of a fixed-term tenancy agreement. There could be those kinds of limitations if, in fact, that's the intent. If it isn't, then I see no reason at all why student housing should be exempted from the Residential Tenancy Act. Hon. R. Coleman: This is something that the colleges and universities have identified to us as being a problem in the past with residential tenancy.

Fixed-term tenancies don't actually work in this situation, because sometimes the relationship is applied back to other levels of govern- ment funding or applied to how long it's going to take to finish, whether it be a thesis or a degree or whatever the case may be. It doesn't fit within the boxes of how you would manage a normal tenancy. There's student representation on the boards of these tenancies, as I understand it. There's an appeal mechanism, and there are rules and regs put in place on the university side.

This is something they felt would allow them to manage their housing for their students in a better way. The Chair: Member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. Member, I've just had a request by some members of the House. They're having difficulty hearing you. If you could just speak up a tiny bit. J. Kwan: Okay. Well, it doesn't make sense to me that you would simply exempt an entire class of tenants from accessing rights prescribed under the Residential Tenancy Act, if the issue is about the term of the tenancy.

If the issue is such that the educational institution needs to somehow work out with the students what the term of the ten- ancy is, then there's got to be some other capacity to do that, other than simply saying to the entire class of stu- dents who access rental housing through student hous- ing: "In this instance you have no residential tenancy rights. You're exempted from its application to you by law." It simply doesn't make sense to go that far. The minister suggests that fixed-term tenancy doesn't work for the university.

I'm not quite sure what it means when it comes to issues around funding, and so on and so forth. Fixed-term tenancies could be agreed to and entered into by both parties — the pro- vider of the housing as well as the student who is ac- cessing it — and the terms of the fixed-term tenancy could be defined in the act under "tenancy agreement." I f y o u j u s t d e c i d e i t d o e s n ' t w o r k b e c a u s e o f a t e r m issue, you now have no rights afforded to you under the Residential Tenancy Act. It certainly would seem to me like an overkill.

Where's the protection, then, for this class of tenants, given that the act does not apply to them? Hon. R. Coleman: The protection is through the university and the institutions with regards to the rela- tions that they have. You should understand that the majority of students are and were already exempt with regards to dormitory-style residences at university. This is actually a very small portion of it. To have the universities having to deal with two sets of rules and two sets of processes with relationship to the tenancies that they have on their properties….

It's just felt that this will work better for them. They feel they can disci- pline it and make it work. If we find out down the road that it doesn't work, I guess we would address it. J. Kwan: T h e m i n i s t e r s a y s t h a t f r o m t h e i n s t i t u - tions' point of view, they said it doesn't work for them. Has the minister spoken with the students, from their perspective, on what their thoughts are on this? [1535] Hon. R.

Coleman: We have had some input from students, yes, and they would actually like to see it reversed — that residential tenancy be applied to every dormitory relationship in the province. For a long period of time there have been some contractual relationships that seemed to work within dormitories in universities and within the relationship in the tenancies at universities. That's why this definition is in there. J.

Kwan: I would suggest that it is important when we're talking about the application of law, and in this instance as we relate it to residential tenancy rights, that that application be utilized for this class of tenants — namely, students. It doesn't make sense to me that if the issue, from the institution's point of view, is around terms of tenancy — the period in which a student can stay in student housing — that the approach in address- ing the issue is to deny students who happen to be ten- ants living in student housing all of their rights as ten- ants. It makes no sense to me at all.

I think one could get around that by simply providing a special provision around terms in these situations through discussion with the institution or whatever the case may be. Simply saying that we have a concern from the in- stitution on this side so therefore none of the tenancy rights now apply to you is, I think, overkill. I think students who happen to be tenants would be faced with twice the barriers of regular tenants. It doesn't seem fair or appropriate to put in place where the gov- ernment is now saying that we can choose who has access to the application of this particular law and who doesn't apply.

I have particular problems with this section,

section 4(b). Casting that aside for a moment, I want to ask the minister a question around

section 4(g)(v). This

section appears to be clearly targeted at supportive or assisted- living situations. If these facilities are exempted from this act, then is it the case that…? Where would this class of seniors or people who live in health facilities have their access rights? Would that be covered under the new bill that was introduced by the Minister of State for Intermediate, Long Term and Home Care? Is that the intent, so that's why they're excluded? Is it looked at as a health issue, so therefore it's under a different act? Hon. R. Coleman: For the most part, these types of tenancies weren't included in the previous act either.

4268 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 2002 That is why there's some other legislation coming with regard to

definitions of contractual relationships in things like assisted living. There's always the argument about what is the rent, what is the service, what is the GST applicable and what is the PST applicable. We just felt that within the Residential Tenancy Act, this is something that doesn't apply to this particular form of legislation. That's why we've done that within this act. It's basically been that way by a lot of people's different

definitions over the years — the same way. The Chair: Members, we're going to have a five- minute recess. The House recessed from 3:40 p.m. to 3:43 p.m. [J. Weisbeck in the chair.] [1545] J. Kwan: This class of tenants, if you will, would be protected under a different bill, as I understand it from the minister's response. Could the minister please ad- vise what description the minister has adopted in clas- sifying health facilities? I know in this

section of the act it says: "…health facility that provides hospitality sup- port services and personal health care…." It's not very prescriptive in terms of what falls into the definition of health facilities. I wonder if the minister could expand on this definition of health facilities a little bit further than what is now in the act. Hon. R. Coleman: Excuse me; I have the same problem as the hon. member. It's not clear what form the assisted-living defini- tions…or how it will be dealt with in the future.

That's why there's some consultation going on now with re- gards to the definition of assisted living — whether it's going to require legislation, standards, licensing, what form of consumer protection, etc. What we do know is that that is the consultation and work being done by the Ministry of Health and the ministry responsible for housing, which is Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services, who will be dealing with this portion of this form of housing. It is not some- thing we would include in a residential tenancy rela- tionship. J.

Kwan: Supportive living or supportive housing is not included under the Residential Tenancy Act, under this

section of the bill. Is that the only class of health facilities, then, in the definition of this

section of the act that this would apply to? Are there other health facili- ties to which this

section of the act would also apply? We now know that supportive housing is excluded. That's being addressed and looked into by the Minister of Health and the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services. Is there any other class of health services that this would include? Hon. R. Coleman: All of

section 4(g) — sub- subsections (

i) to (vi) — identifies those that are not included in the act. That includes things like Commu- nity Care Facility Act, Continuing Care Act, the Hospi- tal Act, the Mental Health Act, a housing-based health facility that provides hospitality services and personal health care, and "that is made available in the course of providing rehabilitative or therapeutic" services. That's the combination. As the member knows, there are probably a pleth- ora of

definitions and titles that can be given to those forms of housing. That's why those

definitions will be dealt with in legislation with regards to that and the consultation process ongoing by the members. It's not the intent that this act will be responsible for that type of facility. J. Kwan: I'm just trying to determine from this sec- tion of the act which other facilities would not be in- cluded. I know that sub-subsections (

i) to (iv) indicate a variety of health facilities that would be excluded, and it's spelled out clearly in the act. But in sub-subsection (

v) it simply states: "…health facility that provides hos- pitality support services and personal health care." That, to me, is not necessarily clear for one to under- stand to which health facilities this does apply. The one answer that I did get from the minister is that supportive housing, supportive living or assisted living would not apply. Is that the only other class, then, that would apply? I understand when the minister says sometimes people use different terminology to describe different things; I understand that. The intent behind it in de- scribing what supportive or assisted living is….

One becomes very clear in terms of what those provisions are for one to be eligible for supportive and assisted living in the new guidelines. That's easy to define. You might not call it supportive or assisted living. You can call it whatever else you want, but under the qualifica- tions for a person to fit into that category, it is clearly being identified — same thing with those who are un- der the Mental Health Act, as an example, continuing care, etc. One becomes clear. When you look at the condi- tions of those settings, you know what they mean even though you may have a different word for it.

The ques- tion then becomes: is there any other class that we're missing, or does this encompass all of it, under the cur- rent intent of this act from the minister? Hon. R. Coleman: I'll stay away from titles. I think that basically, under subsection (g), this sets it out about as clearly as you possibly can, pending any con- sultation on housing names or

definitions or what have you with regards to…. When it says "in a housing- based health facility that provides hospitality support services and personal health care," I think that's the definition that we need to go back to rather than just a title. [1550] J. Kwan: From the way it sounds, there are no other classes, then, which health facilities would fall under

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 4269 with the exception of assisted living or supportive housing. The conditions that apply to this category are clearly stipulated through the other two ministries, so one knows even if someone else calls it a different name. Am I right to understand that? I just want to know if we are missing any other groups of tenants that may not be included or would be involved or have their rights protected through some other act. I just want to clarify who is included and who is not in- cluded. Hon. R.

Coleman: Again, through to the member, I think it's as clear as we can get it. This definition was provided to us with consultation with Health and with regards to residential tenancy. I think you have to remember that the residential tenancy agreement is really aimed at a consumer rela- tionship between a landlord and a tenant in the provi- sion to housing and not for the provision of additional services, add-on services or other facilities within that realm.

The Residential Tenancy Act is covering the people that are in a relationship where they rent an apartment, a condo, a townhouse or a home from a landlord with regards to their relationship and how that relationship should be managed. J. Kwan: I'm not sure. The minister keeps saying it is clear, but when I ask for just a simple answer, it's just exhaustive. In other words, do we understand this cov- ers all the groups of tenants that would be excluded from this act under this section? The minister actually hasn't said what the answer is.

I suspect he's not going to say any more than what he has already said, but it is unclear. It's unacceptable — I have to say this, Mr. Chair — when the minister likes to get up and say that this is meant to be in plain language. People are sup- posed to read it and understand what it all means, but yet there's vague language within the act that doesn't tell you very clearly who is included, who is excluded and who is covered. You think that's a basic premise of plain language, so you know whether or not this act applies to you. If not, where else would it be covered?

That's the purpose of this debate under committee stage: to get the answers. So far, I must admit, Mr. Chair, I haven't got the answer from the minister. He likes to say it's clear, but it isn't. It simply isn't. He says: "Oh well, too bad." Maybe that's the attitude the minister would like to take: "Too bad. Sorry for all of you out there who are concerned about whether or not this act applies to you. I f i t ' s u n c l e a r t o y o u , w e l l , t h a t ' s j u s t t o o b a d .

" Y e t somehow the minister likes to claim that he's bringing forward legislation in plain language and that some- how when people read it, they'll understand very clearly what it all means. You know, maybe it's just me, but it seems to me there's a bit of an attitudinal problem. Maybe the min- ister's just going through this because it's pro forma, but maybe it doesn't really mean anything at the end of the day. If the attitude is just like, "Hey, if it's not clear to you, too bad," there's something wrong with that. Interjection. J. Kwan: It's not an issue about being nice or about being not nice.

This is a serious issue. Over a million people in British Columbia are renters, and they need to be able to know what applies to them and what doesn't. Maybe this government doesn't care and doesn't care to know because of attitudes like: "If you don't get it, too bad. Let's just get on with it, move forward." The Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services is saying: "Let's get on and not ask questions anymore." Maybe that's the attitude of this government. Yet, you know what? A lot of people in British Columbia care about this act. They need to know what this act means and how it impacts them.

That's what this debate is about. I assume we're not going to get an answer, any fur- ther clarification, from the minister, because his atti- tude is: "Too bad. You don't need to know. If it's not clear to you, that's just too bad." [1555]

Section 4(

k) of this act is problematic as well. It's a brand-new subsection to the act. It simply says "pre- scribed tenancy agreements, rental units or residential property." Reading this together under

section 4….

Section 4 begins, "This act does not apply to" subsec- tions (

a) to (k). Under (

k) it simply says "prescribed tenancy agreements, rental units or residential prop- erty." Who is this supposed to apply to — anybody? E v e r y b o d y , a s l o n g a s t h e r e ' s s o m e s o r t o f t e n a n c y agreement that applies, some sort of rental units that apply, some sort of residential property that applies? How is that clear for the public, for them to know whether or not they are exempted from this act or they have protection from this act? Subsection (

k) is a big, wide-open net to say all kinds of people could be ex- empted. Why isn't it more defined so that people know exactly who is covered and who is not covered? Hon. R. Coleman: Subsection (

k) basically gives us the ability to add to this list if there are licences or something out there we're not aware of that shouldn't be in this act and that we could add to this list of regu- lation. It really is the ability for us to…. Just in case there's something in here that really doesn't belong and isn't on the list in

section 4 and needs to be added, it's basically enabling for regulation to deal with that. That is just something that's put in to allow us to do that if it's necessary. J.

Kwan: If the intent is to allow for the minister to add other classes of tenants to be excluded from pro- tection of the Residential Tenancy Act, instead of sim- ply sort of putting a broad statement out there that says the act could not apply to prescribed tenancy agreements, rental units or residential properties, why doesn't the minister put it through actually appropriate amendments in the House so that people know who is being exempted as new classes come up or if the need arises? We sit in the House every year; this happens every year. This now simply allows for a potentially

4270 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES M ONDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 2002 very broad use of exclusion of basic rights for tenants, and nobody knows who they might be under this clause of the bill. Hon. R. Coleman: This is actually doing what's already in the existing act, exempting a landlord or tenant or class of landlord or tenant from the provision of this act, which is in

section 90(

c) of the previous act. Basically, it's in that act for the same reason that it's in this act. J. Kwan: It's all very well and fine to say that it was in the previous act, but the minister actually went through a process of consulting with the public sup- posedly. He supposedly went through the process of wanting to clarify the act to make it more clear. The previous act by no means was perfect. That's what this exercise is about: actually addressing some of the con- cerns that surfaced from the previous act and then making sure clarification is brought about and then making sure rights….

One would hope residential ten- ancy rights are applied more fairly and broadly for people who are involved, whether it be tenants or land- lords — and for a balanced approach to be taken. It's simply not a good enough answer to say: "Well, it was there before, so we just left it." If it was a flaw in the previous act, it should be taken out. I would say that it was a flaw in the previous act and that it should be taken out. To that end, I have an amendment to make to amend section (4) to delete subsection (k). [Section 4 is amended by deleting the text highlighted by strikethrough: (

k) prescribed tenancy agreements, rental units or residential property.] If there are new classes the minister wants to add to this in terms of exemption for residential tenancy sup- port, bring the amendments forward in the House. Interjection. [1600] J. Kwan: Y e s , d e l e t i n g s u b ( k ) . T h a t ' s t h e a m e n d - ment I would like to move at this time. Copies are be- ing passed to the minister. Amendment negatived on division. J. Kwan: I just wanted to be clear and on the record that I'm not going to support

section 4. Most notably, the issue is around student housing. There's a large class of people who would be exempted from access to this particular law, and that is the right to have the protection of the Residential Tenancy Act. I don't think the answers the minister has given so far are sufficient reasons to exclude students from having access to the protection of the Residential Tenancy Act. For that rea- son particularly, I'm going to vote against

section 4. Also, as a result of the subsection (

k) amendment having failed, the broad allowance for exclusion of ten- ants in the future — we don't even know who they might be — I think is very problematic. I don't think that government should take easily the stance in actually excluding various citizens of British Columbia from accessing fundamental, basic rights. One would think that residential tenancy rights are one of those funda- mental, basic things that people should have access to.

Section 4 approved on division. On

section 5. J. Kwan:

Section 5 is a positive change. We touched on this briefly, but I want to ask the minister this ques- tion: how does the enforcement take place for

section 5? Where does it apply? I should state very clearly, because

section 5 states: "This act cannot be avoided." Under 5(1), "Landlords and tenants may not avoid or contract out of this act or the regulations," and subsection (2): "Any attempt to avoid or contract out of this Act or the regulations is of n o e f f e c t . " T h i s i s a p o s i t i v e c h a n g e i n t e r m s o f amendments to the Residential Tenancy Act, to disal- low for contracting out of the application of this act. But how does one go about enforcing it? That's the question to the minister. Hon. R.

Coleman: First of all, this is so people can't decide they're going to go outside this act and increase t h e d a m a g e d e p o s i t h i g h e r t h a n w h a t s h o u l d b e a l - lowed. It clearly states that. The enforcement side of that, if somebody decides they're going to be outside the act, is the arbitration process. J. Kwan: Given the amendment earlier to, say, pro- spective tenants…. With the amendment change, pre- vious, former and existing tenants would have the residential tenancy office to file their complaint to and have their issues and concerns addressed. Is that the intent?

Section 5 approved. On

section 6. [1605] J. Kwan: While it may appear that under this sec- tion there are no substantive changes, there is one word that is being changed under

section 6(3)(b). It is v e r y c o n c e r n i n g i n t e r m s o f t h e c h a n g e i n t h e o n e word.

Section 6 reads as follows: "The rights, obliga- tions and prohibitions established by or under this act are enforceable between a landlord and tenant under a tenancy agreement." Then

section 6(3) goes on to say a term is not enforceable under 6(3)(b), if "the term is unconscionable." The change here is this. What used to be in the pre- vious act is the term "unreasonable." Now the term "unconscionable" is being used. When I looked up the term unconscionable in the legal dictionary, it actually provides for a more heightened, if you will, and nar- row…in defining what is reasonable versus what is unconscionable. Why would the minister change the

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 4271 word unreasonable to the word unconscionable? And what does unconscionable mean in this context? Hon. R. Coleman: Basically, it raises the standard. First of all, we have to understand there's going to be a standard-form tenancy agreement as determined by regulation. Then there will be the ability for landlords and tenants to negotiate other areas within their ten- ancy agreement, whether it be pets or whatever the issue is for them.

It is the same standard that is applied in other consumer contracts that we deal with in gov- ernment, and we feel that term is applicable in this particular case. J. Kwan: Yes, there's no doubt for me that the word unconscionable implies a much more narrow approach than the word unreasonable. In this instance it has and can have huge ramifications for both the landlord and the tenant. Take as an example what is deemed to be uncon- scionable.

I would assume that if the landlord requires the tenants to provide sexual favours to them for them to continue to have access to the rental accommoda- tion, that is unconscionable. I would imagine that. Yet in another situation if, let's say, on Sundays laundry facilities would not be open for tenants' use, for what- ever reason, I would assume that might not fall into the category of unconscionable, but it would seem to me as a tenant that it's unreasonable.

Yet the definition of that with the new terminology of unconscionable makes it, perhaps, much more narrow for one to establish the case as to what is reasonable and what is not reason- able, and what's conscionable and what's not conscion- able. Again, tenants may well be disadvantaged as a result of this narrower description of unconscionable versus unreasonable. Could the minister advise then: in the case around someone who might be denied access to the laundry facilities on a Sunday, is that unconscionable or is that unreasonable? Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, let's make something clear.

If somebody's out there asking for sexual favours for a tenancy in the province of British Columbia, I would expect that we're going to deal with it as a criminal matter, not just through a residential tenancy agreement, to draw that parallel. That is unconscion- able, it's criminal, and it's unacceptable to anybody in any society. We should be clear about that. To draw those comparisons, when we're dealing with

an act that deals with a consumer relationship between a landlord and tenant, is not appropriate in this context. With regards to laundry o n a Sunday. If it's i n the tenancy agreement that's agreed to between a landlord and tenant, that's a reasonable situation, because the two have agreed to it in a tenancy agreement. So it's obviously not unconscionable. [1610] J. Kwan: Well, you know, it might shock the minis- ter in cases where people are demanded for sexual fa- vours in a tenancy situation. It might shock the minis- ter. It's absolutely unacceptable; there's no doubt about that. It's absolutely criminal.

There's no doubt about it. I want to say that very clearly. But the reality is also, particularly in my riding, that many people are put in the situation. They're hugely compromised and abused by unconscionable and unreasonable landlords. That's the reality of it. I hear from my constituents. There are lots of is- sues, and some of it is criminal — absolutely. It's unac- ceptable that this kind of practice goes on, but it does. People look for the broadest and widest ways in which they can address these issues.

Part of the issue is, of course, under the Residential Tenancy Act, where these kinds of things happen, so yo u want to ensure there's allowance for people to take recourse. That is the pur- pose of this debate here. I'll give another example — again, in my o wn rid- ing I know this happens regularly — where people have to actually perform a variety of services in order for them to maintain their tenancy, whether it be housekeeping for the landlord's apartment or buying alcoholic beverages downstairs at the pub — as a lot of people live in these buildings where there are pubs, for example.

Those, to me, quite frankly, are unreasonable and unconscionable — those kinds of favours that are demanded of tenants. The reality is that people are faced with these situa- tions. When you're so very marginalized and you have very few options and choices before you, people find it difficult to cope, and often they are faced with the abuses of the landlord. That's the reality of it. I know this happens, having been a residential tenancy advo- cate prior to this time. I know it happens even though it may be illegal. Recourse is important.

To heighten and narrow the provision for what tenancy terms are unreasonable to the term "unconscionable," to make it even harder to establish the tenant's case, I don't think is acceptable. It's not acceptable. It's not within a reasonable rationale in the broader public's mind. One would expect that terms that are put forward that are unreasonable should not be allowed under a tenancy situation. It is reasonable, I would think, to expect that you could do your laundry on a Sunday, as an example.

You would think that's a reasonable thing to ask for as a tenant, but if it's in the tenancy agreement to say, "Well, you're not allowed to do laundry on a Sunday, even though that may be your only day off," can you then establish that as unconscionable? Can you establish that as un- conscionable, and who gets to decide what is uncon- scionable? What is the definition of unconscionable in the case of tenancy disputes? Hon. R. Coleman: This particular piece of legisla- tion puts in place by regulation a standard-form ten- ancy agreement that's deemed to be in place if there isn't one signed by

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	H1104pm-16
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	H1104pm 16
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	da201b875500e72e6ec36fffcc30dc582aba6a03

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