989 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, MAY 23, 1989

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

6909 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Finance and Corporate Relations Statutes Amendment Act, 1989 (Bill 29).

Hon. Mr. Couvelier

Introduction and first reading –– 6910

Oral Questions

Ingenika representation at federal-provincial meeting. Mr. G. Hanson ––

Stumpage payment loophole. Mr. Miller –– 6910

Use of French in court system. Mr. Davidson –– 6911

Komagata Maru incident. Mr. Sihota –– 6912

Realtors' mortgage company referral fees. Mrs. Boone –– 6912

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Labour and Consumer Services estimates.

(Hon. L. Hanson)

On vote 41: minister's office –– 6912

Mr. Sihota

Mrs. Boone

Mr. Blencoe

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm

Hon. S.D. Smith

Mr. Clark

Mr. Loenen

Mr. Barnes

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

Today I have the distinct honour of introducing some special visitors

from the People's Republic of China to our Legislature. As many of you

are aware, a delegation of very important officials from the China

State Education Commission has been visiting our province this month on

a goodwill tour.

As part of this tour, these distinguished

guests are visiting the Canadian College for Chinese Studies in

Victoria, hosted by the college's president and founder, Dr. Wee-chong

Tan.

We are fortunate today to have with us in the House

the following distinguished visitors: Prof. Li Ke-gang, dean of studies

for the Central Institute of Education Administration, who is

responsible for training university presidents for all of China; Mr. Ji

Ming-ming, director of the training office of the personnel department

for the China State Education Commission, who is responsible for the

training of high-school principals for all of China; Mr. Li Zhong-shan,

director of the Training Centre for Education Administration at Shaanxi

Normal University, who is also in charge of the entire northwest of

China; Mr. Chen Zhong-wen, associate dean of the faculty of education

administration at Beijing Normal University; and Mr. Gao De-cay deputy

director of administration at the Training Centre for Education at

Tianjing University.

As I mentioned, this group is hosted by Dr. Wee-chong Tan. Along with the members from Victoria — and indeed all of those associated with furthering closer connections with our Chinese friends from the People's Republic —

I know you join me in congratulating Dr. Tan for his continued

leadership in developing cultural and educational links with our

Chinese friends and in welcoming our guests to the Legislature today.

MR. JONES :

We on this side of the House would also like to welcome the visiting

delegation of distinguished Chinese educators. We appreciate the

difficult times that their country is going through now, and we wish

them an enjoyable visit and enhanced good relations with Canada from

their visit.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : In the building

today is the administrator of Surrey Memorial Hospital. I would ask the

House to please welcome Roger Bernatzki.

HON. MR. REID : It gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce Miss

Nicole Bernatzki, one of the finest young ladies in the province of British

Columbia. Miss Bernatzki is Miss White Rock and also the current Miss Lady Fair

for the PNE. She graces us with her presence in the audience today. Would this

House make her especially welcome.

MR. LOENEN :

On behalf of the Premier and myself I would like to take this

opportunity to welcome to the House some constituents and also some

very distinguished guests from Wakayama, Richmond's sister city in

Japan. They are a delegation of Japanese business people looking at

business opportunities and at strengthening our business relationships.

Mr. Kazo Kuki, head of the delegation, is a member of Wakayama

municipal council; Mr. Sadao Tanaka, managing director of Wakayama

Living Newspaper Co. Ltd.; Mr. Shinichi Sugimoto, faculty member of

Osaka University of Arts; Mr. Tadakuzo Hatakeyama, manager of the Kyowa

Realty Agent Co.; Mr. Alan Kishuichi, Allegro Development Ltd.; Mr.

Toshiak Nomade, Wakayama Sister City Committee; and Mr. Tsumi, director

of waterworks for Wakayama. They are accompanied by Richmond residents

Mel Goodwin, chairman of the Richmond Sister City Twinning Committee;

Lino Siracusa, business development officer, corporation of Richmond;

Irene Firth, chairman of the North Fraser Harbour Commission and former

alderman; and Gord Ellis of the Wakavama Sister City Twinning Committee.

We want to wish them well; we know they will do well here. I would ask the House to please welcome these distinguished guests.

MR. PELTON :

Hon. members, in the gallery today is the Hon. George Shaw, President

of the Legislative Council of Tasmania, and Mr. Roger Kimmerly, former

Minister of Justice for the Yukon Territory. Would you please welcome

these two distinguished gentlemen.

MR. MOWAT : I'm

very honoured today to introduce a group of directors from the

Vancouver Chinatown Merchants' Association. The directors we have today

are: Mr. King Wong, president of the Vancouver Chinatown Merchants'

Association and also president of Dollar Food Manufacturing; Mr. Edmond

Lee, director of the association and also a director of Cathay

International Television; Mr. Hau-cheong Chau, president of Polex

Manufacturing; Mr. Derick Cheng, vice-president of Fred Tay Associates;

and Mr. Al Degenova, project coordinator for the Vancouver Chinatown

Merchants' Association. Earlier this morning they met with Mayor Gordon

Campbell, in the buildings, and they'll be meeting later this afternoon

with the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mrs. Johnston) and the

Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Reid) regarding the parking problems in

Chinatown. I would ask the House to please make them welcome.

MR. CHALMERS :

On behalf of the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Long), I'd like to introduce

eight students visiting from Sir Alexander Mackenzie School in Bella

Coola, accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Robin Burgess. They are part

of the Fletcher Challenge student visit program, and I'd like the

members here today to make them welcome.

[2:15]

[ Page 6910 ]

MR. ROGERS :

In the history of every nation there are days of which the nation can

be very proud, and often those days are celebrated by way of a national

holiday and celebration. But every nation has a day in its history

which must be considered a dark day and a day of national or, in this

case, provincial disgrace. Today marks the seventy-fifth anniversary— May 23, 1914 — of the entrance into British Columbia waters of the Komagata Maru and the disgraceful performance of the governments of both Canada and British Columbia. Its passing should not go unnoticed.

Introduction of Bills

FINANCE AND CORPORATE RELATIONS

STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

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

a bill intituled Finance and Corporate Relations Statutes Amendment Act, 1989.

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

This bill introduces amendments to several statutes administered by the

Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations. These amendments are

considered by the government to be housekeeping in nature and are

mainly designed to improve the administrative effectiveness of the

ministry.

The statutes amended by this bill are: the Budget

Stabilization Fund Act, the Company Act, the Education (Interim)

Finance Act, the Income Tax Act, the International Financial Business

(Tax Refund) Act, the Logging Tax Act, the Mining Tax Act, the Property

Purchase Tax Act, and finally, the Taxation (Rural Area) Act.

Bill

29 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of

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

Oral Questions

INGENIKA REPRESENTATION AT

FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL MEETING

MR. G. HANSON :

I have a question to the Premier. There is a very important meeting

tonight between the Minister of Native Affairs (Hon. Mr. Weisgerber)

and his federal counterpart, Mr. Cadieux. Among the issues to be

discussed is the future of the Ingenika band. The Ingenika band has

requested that they be allowed to participate in these discussions with

the two individuals who hold their fate in their hands. This has been

rejected. Will the Premier consider overturning that decision and

allowing the Ingenika people to make representation at the meeting

which affects them?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : I met with Ingenika representatives three or four

weeks ago in Prince George, and we had a good meeting. The meeting being held

today is in part a result of the representation made at the meeting on behalf

of the Ingenika people. They outlined what they were faced with and had suffered

from over the past many years.

I'm

very pleased to see we've been able to bring the federal and provincial

ministers together for such a meeting. We can then bring the requests

which were presented to us to the ministers, and hopefully they can

make a favourable and fair decision on behalf of the Ingenika people. I

don't think I can tell a federal minister — nor should I —

that he ought to include others in particular meetings, particularly

since I believe they've already received the information, as I did,

from the Ingenika people.

MR. G. HANSON : Clearly the

Premier recognizes that two parts of the equation are present, but the

third

part isn't. The Ingenika people's situation, as the Premier

knows, is one of the most glaring injustices in the history of this

province. The first member for Vancouver South (Mr. R. Fraser) talked

about an earlier one; this is certainly in that category.

Would

the Premier not reconsider and advise the minister that it would be, in

his judgment, prudent to have the Ingenika people present?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

As I said, I did receive representation from the Ingenika people in

Prince George about a month back. It was an excellent presentation. We

received all of the detail, and certainly we went over much of the

history as well. They gave us their position, and we promised to take

this forth to the federal government and to bring the province and the

federal government together in attempting to bring a resolution to this

matter.

The meeting today, as I said a little earlier, is

in part as a result of that. I realize that the Ingenika people may be

here today, and it would be, I suppose, politic to say that they ought

to be included in this meeting; but on the other hand, I think, in

fairness to the minister who has travelLed here from Ottawa to have the

meeting.... I understand that he is travelling north to meet with

another native group tomorrow, and I don't think it is fair for me to

impose on him or his meeting, especially since I believe a resolution

is near. All of the facts as presented by the Ingenika people are being

considered fairly.

STUMPAGE PAYMENT LOOPHOLE

MR. MILLER :

A question to the Minister of Forests. The minister received a letter,

of which I have a copy, sent on April 25 from RCMP Inspector Terkelsen

regarding the stumpage issue. The letter says: "The logging industry

has found a loophole which enables them to delay payment of stumpage

sometimes indefinitely." He goes on to describe the situation where

operators walk away from their stumpage bills and then are allowed to

bid on new sales under a different name.

First of all, can the minister advise the House just how much revenue we are losing or have lost as a result of this loophole?

[ Page

6911 ]

HON. MR. PARKER : The report says it could happen; it doesn't say it does or did happen.

MR. MILLER : Supplementary on the same topic. The letter says: "As you are well aware" — addressed to you —

"there are those contractors who do not in the end pay their stumpage

bills and continue to receive timber sales by bidding under different

company names or having a relative bid for a new sale." Is the minister

saying he is unaware of this situation?

HON. MR. PARKER : Contractors don't pay stumpage; licensees pay the stumpage. The contractors generally work for the licensees.

There

are occasions when licensees don't pay their bills, including the

stumpage bill. Where they are identified, their opportunity to

participate in a small business program is taken away from them for

several years — I believe it's a minimum of two. Some of these

licensees will participate behind other corporate names, rather

indirectly. It's difficult to identify them, but where we can, they are

exempted from further activity in a small business program for a

minimum of two years.

MR. MILLER : It certainly takes a lot to drag things out of this minister.

Would

the minister advise, in response to my first question, how much revenue

was, or is being, lost? Secondly, what steps has the minister taken

specifically to deal with the situation outlined by Inspector Terkelsen

in his letter?

HON. MR. PARKER : Mr. Speaker, I don't have the letter in hand, like the chap across the way.

The question, I think — perhaps he would like to clarify it — is: how much stumpage is lost by those licensees who don't pay their bills? Is that the question?

MR. MILLER : Well, we'll get the answers some time, whether we get them here or later.

The

letter goes on to say: "Without criminal prosecution there is no

compulsion to pay stumpage that is due." The RCMP are quite frustrated

in trying to deal with this issue. The inspector says this situation

was much less prevalent when Forests conducted all their own scaling.

"At present, Forests is relying on the honesty of the private scaling

industry...." Then he goes on to say that Forests has effectively

relinquished control of scaling to the private industry.

Could

the minister advise what specific steps are being put in place to allow

the RCMP to do their job to stop this revenue escapement?

HON. MR. PARKER : Mr. Speaker, it's not the RCMP's job to stop

revenue leakage as such. We, the Forest Service, ask the RCMP to investigate

whenever we think there may be criminal misdoings. The investigation took place

because we flagged it to the RCMP and asked them to take a look at it to see

if there was any criminal wrongdoing.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please.

HON. MR. PARKER :

The responsibility of the Forest Service is to make sure that timber is

scaled and that revenues due to the Crown are collected. The very first

premise that we have, unlike the members opposite, in dealing with

British Columbians, for whom every one of us works, is that they're

honest. We follow that as the first rule, and the balance of control is

through an audit process. Wherever we encounter wrongdoing, we take a

look at it; if it's considered to be criminal, then we ask the RCMP.

But we look after it.

MR. MILLER : Mr. Speaker, a

case came to light just in the last little while where an operator had

a scaling sheet tucked away in a drawer for nine months. And the

minister is relying on the honesty of the private sector to collect the

bills for the trees that are owned by the people in this province? What

specific steps has the minister put in place to prevent this kind of

theft taking place?

HON. MR. PARKER : Mr. Speaker,

one out of several thousands has misplaced a scale sheet, so that makes

everybody in the private sector guilty of a misdemeanor, considered by

the opposition to be less than honest; and these are the very people

that are paying their salaries, their bills, and making sure they're

living comfortably here in Victoria.

This ministry took to

heart the constructive criticism we received from the auditor-general,

and we have directed staff and added necessary personnel in each region

to make sure that the revenue is identified and collected according to

the law.

USE OF FRENCH IN COURT SYSTEM

MR. DAVIDSON :

I have a question to the Attorney-General. In view of the fact that in

French, depending on whether the person involved is French-speaking or

and French?

HON. S.D. SMITH : The government of

Canada enacts the Criminal Code of Canada, and we administer it. It is

the case that all indictments and all processes for criminal offences,

as of the end of March, I believe, are by law to be provided in both

official languages. That is what we're doing in the province of British

Columbia. That is the law for everyone in British Columbia, and it must

be dealt with by all members of the system, including the judiciary.

MR. DAVIDSON : In view of that answer, if the province of Quebec continues on the policy that they

[ Page 6912 ]

have at the present time, will the Attorney-General review the policy he has in place?

HON. S.D. SMITH :

We always keep our policies under review, and we'll make certain that

they're consistent with national standards. There's no question about

that.

KOMAGATA MARU INCIDENT

MR. SIHOTA : I have a quick question to the Minister of Tourism. Today marks the seventy-fifth anniversary of the Komagata Maru incident, which, of course, is a matter of note to the Indo-Canadian community in British Columbia. The Komagata Maru

was here from May 23 to July 24. What steps is his ministry taking to

come up with some type of commemorative recognition to mark the visit

of the Komagata Maru and that incident in Canadian history? Will there be some kind of commemorative here in B.C. or in Vancouver?

HON. MR. REID : The simple answer is nothing.

REALTORS' MORTGAGE COMPANY

REFERRAL FEES

MRS. BOONE :

I have a question to the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services. As

the minister is aware, real estate agents currently recommend

particular mortgage companies to clients and receive a good fee in

return. Since these referrals may not be in the client's best interest,

has the minister decided to take action to protect home-buyers in B.C. ?

[2:30]

HON. L. HANSON : The

article in the Vancouver Sun

is interesting. To the member opposite, my ministry continues to

monitor that situation; but I believe that the people licensed under

the Real Estate Act come under the jurisdiction of the Real Estate Act.

MRS. BOONE :

Supplementary to the minister. The problem is that consumers are being

subtly influenced to use a particular mortgage company, and they're not

informed as to why that company is being recommended. Has the minister

decided to require that real estate agents at least inform clients of

their options?

HON. L. HANSON : Again, Mr. Speaker, I

believe the responsibility for the Real Estate Act lies with Corporate

Relations, under the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier), and is

not under my purview in any case.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. RICHMOND : I call Committee of Supply, Mr. Speaker.

The House in Committee of Supply: Mr. Pelton in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF LABOUR

AND CONSUMER SERVICES

On vote 41: minister's office, $273,577 (continued).

MR. SIHOTA :

I just want to continue that last question from question period with

the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services. It hadn't been my

original intent to do this, but between myself and my colleague for

Prince George North (Mrs. Boone), some important questions arise here.

We're

not talking about matters that fall under the Real Estate Act; we're

not talking about regulation of the industry through amendments to the

Real Estate Act. We're talking about consumer legislation and consumer

information. That's distinct from what falls within the purview of the

Minister of Finance. Maybe the minister didn't hear, so I'll go over it

again. What we're talking about in terms of information to people who

buy homes and the requirement for disclosure doesn't fall under the

purview of the Real Estate Act; it falls under consumer law and

consumer regulation in this province. The minister has broad powers to

provide for consumer regulation. Given that explanation, could the

minister explain why his government is not requiring disclosure of real

estate agents?

HON. L. HANSON : Maybe I could ask the

member a question. Are you suggesting disclosure of why the

recommendation is a requirement of consumer protection?

MR. SIHOTA :

What I'm saying to the minister is that real estate agents who steer

business to mortgage companies and get a kickback for it should at the

very minimum be required to disclose the fact that they're doing that

and receiving a commission for it. That's not really asking for a lot.

It's simply a requirement of disclosure.

That isn't

something you have to do through the Real Estate Act; you've got enough

power under your consumer legislation to allow that. All we're asking

for is disclosure, a disclosure statement, a one-page statement saying:

"Yes, the purchaser of the home is hereby advised that the real estate

agent is also receiving a kickback from the mortgage company for

steering the purchaser of the home to that mortgage company."

HON. L. HANSON :

I certainly will keep that in mind. I haven't been made aware of the

great difficulty that the member on the other side is suggesting, but

certainly we'll keep that in mind. I would think that the government's

decision as to how they may require the industry to reveal that will be

a future decision. At this point, I have no intention of introducing

that into consumer legislation.

MR. SIHOTA : Maybe we on this side of the House are not making ourselves clear. The government

[ Page 6913 ]

doesn't

require legislation; it just requires regulation. It might simply even

require voluntary compliance by the real estate industry. I'm sure that

they themselves would not object to disclosure of that very basic

information. But it's a matter of consumer protection, so that the

consumer is advised that the agent receives a benefit for steering

somebody to a particular mortgage company.

It's no

different than lawyers who, under their rules, are prevented from

steering business to another firm and receiving a kickback for doing

so. That's contrary to the rules of practice.

It's not as

if it doesn't exist in society today; it does. We're wondering why it

doesn't exist in the real estate trade, given the fact that this type

of steering is taking place. It's a matter of just simple ethical

involvement by government. It's not overregulation; it's not extensive.

It's just something that gives the consumer information in advance that

there's a benefit to be derived by the real estate agent — a factor which they can take into account when deciding to go to the particular mortgage company.

You've had editorials this morning, I think in the Times-Colonist ,

saying that you ought to look into it. I don't think your answer, quite

frankly, in question period was adequate, because it missed the point,

and that's why we are dealing with it now. It doesn't require a major

enactment; it requires regulation or compliance. Again, I don't

understand why the minister hesitates at the introduction of that type

of disclosure requirement.

HON. L. HANSON : As I said earlier — I will state it again — we have no intention of introducing consumer protection legislation at this point to deal with it.

might point out to the member that the Real Estate Association, which

is self-governing and a self-regulating body, I have always found to be

a very responsible and publicly aware group. I'm sure that if they find

there is a need within their industry, they can well introduce it

within the real estate association.

It is interesting to

note that the member is raising the issue as a result of an editorial.

My research has told me that a number of the financial institutions

have refuted any association with this sort of practice. Again, the

real estate industry has been a well-known and very well-respected

agency in the province, and I'm sure that if they see that as a need in

the consumer area, they would look at introducing internal rules.

will continue to monitor it from the consumer protection side of my

ministry, but I have no intention of introducing changes at the moment.

MRS. BOONE :

The minister is missing the point here. It's not the fact that the real

estate people are going to be protecting themselves; they are not the

ones at risk here, or do not have all the information. The fact of the

matter is that some mortgage companies would be giving a benefit and

that the consumer would not be given the full range of choices

there. They wouldn't know, especially first-time homebuyers. If

you go into a place and you're with a real estate agent who suggests

somebody, you ought to know that that person who has been suggested is

being suggested on the basis that this real estate person is getting a

kickback from it, and that it may not be the company which has the best

rates or the best deal for your needs.

Surely the minister

can't object. It's not the real estate company we're looking at to

introduce regulations within their own selves to protect their own

people; it's the government's responsibility. It's the Minister of

Consumer Services' responsibility to ensure that the purchaser of that

product — which in this case is a mortgage — is given every

option open, is given all the companies there; also that they know that

the particular one being advocated for is giving a fee to the real

estate company. Surely that's nothing the minister can object to. Or

what objection do you have to that?

HON. L. HANSON :

I guess I should go back and tell the member that if the real estate

association sees it as a problem, I am sure they would have no

difficulty in requiring their members to make the disclosure the member

was asking for. Quite frankly, the editorial is the first I have heard

of this being a difficulty in the province. I don't oppose the

disclosure part; I simply say that the problem is not a major one in

British Columbia. We will continue to monitor it; when it becomes a

major problem this government will act, as it always does.

MRS. BOONE :

Mr. Minister, you are denying that you are even going to look into

this. You have said that you just found out about this today, yet you

say it is not a problem. If you've just found out about it today, at

least give us the assurance that you will investigate, review the

process and, if necessary, introduce legislation to protect the

consumers, to ensure that consumers have all the information necessary

to make a wise decision regarding a mortgage.

You stand up

there right now, when you've only heard about it today, and say that

there is no problem, there is no need, and when the real estate

companies see that there is a problem they will deal with it. I can

guarantee you, those people who are getting kickbacks are never going

to see that there is a problem there. They are not the people that you

are out to protect, Mr. Minister; it's the consumer that you are out to

protect, and it is the consumer who has the right to have all the

information.

If you don't know that it is a problem — and you've just said you don't —

and if you've only just heard about it today, give us the assurance in

the House today that you will investigate and if there is a problem out

there you will put in the necessary legislation to protect the

consumers of this province.

HON. L. HANSON : I guess

the member doesn't listen well. I have said that we will continue to

monitor it. I simply said that when there is a consumer protection

problem, it usually comes to the

[ Page 6914 ]

attention

of the ministry long before someone writes an editorial on it. Quite

frankly, I have not had any news of this. We will monitor it. If we see

it as a problem we will act, as we always do.

MRS. BOONE :

Did it ever occur to the minister that perhaps it has never come to

your attention because the consumers out there were never aware that

there were kickbacks taking place and that the people who were

advocating a certain company were receiving money back? If they have

not been told this is taking place, how are they to know about it? It

has come to the front, and it's up to the minister to take action on it

now and not wait until some public wave sweeps him into action. Let's

have some action on behalf of people, and not reaction later on. Let's

work on behalf of the people of this province, Mr. Minister.

MR. BLENCOE :

Mr. Chairman, I wasn't intending to get up at this point, but the whole

question of real estate dealings and transactions is, I think, one of

great interest, particularly at this time because the market is hot and

there are a lot of things happening out there. Although the minister

may say it's not specifically within his purview, I think he has the

power and responsibilities; and, quite frankly, I think he has the

interests of the consumer at heart. There are some decisions he has

made recently that I applaud him for.

[2:45]

In terms of real estate transactions and some of the things that are

going on, particularly right now.... Let me give you one instance, one

thing that is of concern to me: the whole question of real estate

agents who do their own appraisal on a house, list it and buy their own

listing. It brings up questions of ethics and of the general public not

being able to participate in that kind of operation. A number of cases

have come to my attention where it is quite clear that the agents

involved had every intention of buying the house but, for various

reasons, listed it, did the appraisal and then bought it themselves

without its ever going on the market. There are some ethical questions

there, Mr. Chairman, and I am wondering if the minister is aware of

some of these things that are going on. Is any review of this area

being conducted?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : There may be

some confusion. I thought I was participating in the estimates for the

Minister of Labour, and the questions we're being asked from across the

floor appear to be related more to the Ministry of Finance.

MR. LOVICK : Consumer Services.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

Consumer Services. I realize perhaps it could be tied loosely into that

and, frankly, I feel that I have a duty to stand up and participate to

some extent in this debate.

I look across directly from

where I sit, and daily see the Leader of the Opposition missing from

his chair. I have seen the Leader of the Opposition go about Vancouver

talking about some of the problems in real estate. They appear to be

addressing the wrong minister, but we'll hear from the minister in that

respect momentarily, I'm sure.

We've heard it said by the

Leader of the Opposition that he's really concerned about the plight of

the elderly and people seeking accommodation during difficult times,

not knowing who to turn to, what information to get or where to seek

the proper legal advice, etc. The reason I stand up here, Mr. Minister,

is not so much to ask you a question but to get some clarification.

do so largely on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition who is so often

absent from the House. I think the question ought to be asked. It's

unfortunate that he can't be here sometimes to ask these questions

himself. It's unfair that we label him the absentee landlord, but

that's what he's been called. However, having said all of that, I do

think that we should....

MR. BLENCOE : On a point of

order, I wonder if the Chairman would give us an opinion or reflect on

the fact that the hon. member makes reference to another member's

attendance. I don't think that's very honourable, and it's certainly

not a tradition in this House. Perhaps the Chairman could give us a

ruling on that.

MR. CHAIRMAN : The only point the

Chair would like to make in this regard is that relevancy, of course,

is the main thing with respect to this debate. We are debating vote 41,

which deals with the Ministry of Labour and Consumer Services. Having

said that, maybe the Premier would like to continue.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

Frankly, I don't want to talk about the Leader of the Opposition while

he's absent; then again, he's never here, so I really don't have much

choice in that matter. If I ever want to mention him or ask a question

on a matter that I know he's concerned about, I have to make reference

to him while he's absent, because he's never here. Having said that, I

would like to....

MR. BLENCOE : Politics, politics, politics.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Politics? Come on! We wouldn't play politics in this House —

unheard of, terrible. The second member for Victoria suggests that

we're politicking. It's terrible to suggest that. I should raise a

point of order on that matter, but I won't.

I would like to

ask the minister to consider the questions that have been asked.

Frankly, I was of the opinion that they might have been asked more

appropriately of the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations (Hon.

Mr. Couvelier). Has consideration been given by the ministry to develop

some means by which we might assist particularly our seniors in cities

like Vancouver where there are often pressures upon them and where they

need to seek some legal information? Has consideration been given to

providing a means by which we can refer

[ Page 6915 ]

them

to an appropriate agency? Possibly you already have within your

ministry a means whereby you would refer them to an appropriate agency.

Unfortunately,

with housing being what it is today, there is a shortage of rental

accommodation. Many people are being displaced because properties are

being redeveloped to a higher use. Whenever that happens, we do find,

unfortunately, that especially seniors are displaced by this. It's a

very difficult situation for them. If there is a means by which we

could have them referred to someone who has the necessary information

and expertise to assist them, I would like to know. It would be a help

to me as well.

It's not so much a problem in the

constituency of Richmond. I suppose we experience some of this, but

it's more a problem in Vancouver proper and perhaps in parts of

Burnaby. If you could answer me in that respect, I would appreciate it.

HON. L. HANSON :

Yes, we have so many branches of the ministry in the consumer

protection side. When it deals with housing, we have within the

residential tenancy branch a group who will advise people where they

can get information relating to their particular difficulty.

For

example, in some of the housing problems that have been created by the

changing of land use from a rental apartment building to a condominium

or strata title type of arrangement, we've had excellent cooperation

from the Rental Housing Council of British Columbia. On referral from

our ministry, some of those developers have actually assisted people in

finding other accommodation. We have that resource in place.

might add to the hon. member that the issues raised at the consumer

protection branch of my ministry are varied and many. We do have a

system of referring them to the proper information, be it within our

ministry or be it within another ministry.

To the member

for Victoria, in dealing with the question of a real estate operation

doing their own appraisal, their own listing and then the individual

buying himself, if the member has knowledge of specifics, he should

report it to our ministry to see if there is a consumer problem within

that. I think, most importantly, that information should be given to

the Real Estate Council of British Columbia, who I'm sure would deal

very swiftly and correctly with that sort of situation if it isn't

aboveboard or revealed. My remembrance of the real estate requirement

is that if the salesman who took the listing made an offer on that

listing in his own name, there was a very definite requirement to

reveal why he was buying it and that he was in the business of buying

it. As a matter of fact, I think this disclosure is a requirement of

almost every real estate person.

I think the real estate

governing body does an excellent job of looking after its members and

the internal disclosures that are necessary to protect the public.

MR. BLENCOE :

I'm sorry the Premier feels so offended that we're talking about

consumer issues and people issues. I don't want to get into politics.

We're here to deal with the people's issues, not with the Premier's

politics of the day.

The minister refers to the real estate board as very much self-policing — that they take care of themselves —

but there are times when that kind of regulation needs review in terms

of consumer protection. I think there are concerns out there,

particularly in a market such as we have today, that some of the

requirements for special disclosure.... For instance, a real estate

agent makes a special disclosure on why they want to buy their own

listing. After they've done the appraisal, they put it on the market

and then instantly buy it. Some of the reasons are pretty vague. Of

course, we find that the real reason for buying it was to put the house

back on the market two or three months hence at an incredibly inflated

cost, basically flipping the market and not living in the property.

That's going on, and those in the business will admit that it's going

on.

I think there needs to be a review, not just in terms

of consumer protection but in the interests of British Columbians

trying to get into the market. I don't know how widespread that sort of

activity is; I know it's going on. If it is widespread, we have the

industry itself participating in a major way to cause the cost of

housing to spiral by that kind of use of the current rules, such as

disclosure, which is very vague. You can list virtually what you want

to buy your own listing, and then the company flips it some months

later, making incredible capital gains subject to no speculation tax in

this province. I think there's a need in terms of the interest of the

consumer, the average guy on the street who wants a house. Referring it

back to the industry to take a look at itself is fine, but there are

times when government, in the interest of the public, who don't know

this is going on.... I suggest that most times when this happens the

general public is not aware that it's happening. They're not aware that

these listings are being dealt with in this way by the industry itself

and that consequently homes are not made available to them because

they're dealing with it themselves. I think there needs to be a review

of this kind of policy.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : What's this new tax you want?

MR. BLENCOE :

The Premier is aware of the kind of tax that the Leader of the

Opposition has called for. It's done in Ontario. I don't have to go

over it today.

I think there needs to be a serious look at

some of these aspects of the real estate industry. I'm not doing it in

an attacking fashion, I'm doing it in terms of taking a look at what's

going on and some of the activities that are sometimes close to the

line.

HON. L. HANSON : I feel I have to respond to

that. I think the member opposite well recognizes that the

superintendent of real estate lies within the Ministry of Finance and

Corporate Relations. My

[ Page 6916 ]

experience has been that any time my ministry needs to refer a consumer protection problem to the real estate industry — or to the Law Society or the medical society, if you will —

those societies are very sensitive to their reputation and their

standing and their ability to self-regulate. I would certainly urge the

member, if he has any specifics, to make the Minister of Finance and

Corporate Relations aware. He will raise the issue with the appropriate

body, and I'm sure it will be well investigated.

MRS. BOONE :

One wonders what this Minister of Consumer Services really does. The

mortgage issue is under the Minister of Finance. This issue is under

the Minister of Corporate Relations. Other issues that I've brought up

with him regarding labelling are under the federal jurisdiction. It

appears very much that there's not a heck of a lot that the Ministry of

Consumer Services does to protect the public in this area.

[3:00]

There is definitely an area here — and this is under your area —

that is of great concern to all of us. The Premier mentioned to you a

concern about people who were being removed from their houses — a

little after the fact, I think. We'd like to see the ministry take some

action through the Residential Tenancy Act to deal with the issue of

helping people before they are evicted from their homes, Mr. Premier.

Mr.

Minister, it's very upsetting to have phone calls and letters from

various people being evicted, who have been given notice to leave their

homes — sometimes with very little notice — and they have to

remove their children from their schools, and all of these things. It's

clear to me that there is practically no protection for tenants in this

province, who are virtually at the mercy of their landlords. They can

go through the arbitration process, but it's a sham. Very few of those

arbitration processes ever come out on the side of the tenant, and

there's nothing they can do.

We have rents being increased tremendously — not

just in the Vancouver area, where we see it on television every day,

but in any area with a shortage of housing. In the very small community

of Mackenzie, because it is a company town, there is a zero vacancy

rate now, and landlords there are virtually doubling the rents. You've

received letters from the residents of that area — and so have you, Mr. Premier —

complaining because they have doubled the rent in that area, and

there's nothing they can do about it. There are no places they can move

to. Even having some place to go to for a referral wouldn't help,

because there are no referrals there. There is no empty housing. Some

people are not in a financial situation where they can afford to

purchase a home.

What we have been asking — and my colleague from Victoria has asked you numerous times and has brought this up in a private member's bill —

is that you reintroduce legislation that would bring back some

protection for the tenants, so that they have an area to go to; we call

this a rent review. The government likes to twist this around and say

that we want to put in rent controls. That's not what we're asking for.

We are asking for a legitimate form of rent review, where both

landlords and tenants can go to have their rent reviewed. If it's

justified, then so be it; if it's not justified, and it's totally

outrageous — given the accommodation there — then we believe

there ought to be some recourse for people to have that increase

denied. We've asked for this, and the minister keeps coming back saying

there is no need for rent controls. We're not asking for controls, Mr.

Minister; we're asking for rent reviews with regional rental mediators

to deal with this — not somebody in Vancouver. It doesn't help

somebody in the interior to have to deal with a rentals person in

Vancouver. Have a regional rental mediator in the region, where they

were before 1983, and where they were able to give some protection to

the consumers there.

Mr. Minister, I'd like to hear your

comments on this and to ask you for your response as to why you won't

consider reintroducing this office.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to hear the answer and the explanation for

regional rent reviews and regional rent review coordinators, as

proposed by the NDP. I'd like to hear from the minister on that.

I'd

also like to hear from the minister on a point which was raised by the

second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe), because I realize I can't ask

him the question. But I'd certainly like to have some explanation. Does

the minister have information — it might have been provided to him by the opposition —

on what the NDP proposes when they talk about a new tax called

"speculator's tax"? Mr. Minister, if you've received this information

in written submission from the NDP, I would like to have you explain

it. I wonder, when the NDP or the Leader of the Opposition talks about

a speculator's tax, if this is on someone who sells a home. Is it

someone who sells a home because they purchased it and perhaps decided

they didn't like it? Or are they selling it because they have to move?

Or is it someone who buys a lot with the intention of building and then

later decides they don't want to build? I don't know what the reason

might be, but it could be that they weren't able to raise the mortgage.

Is it any number of those things that the NDP are talking about when

they talk about a new tax on so-called "speculators"? I'd certainly

like to have a definition of that, Mr. Minister. If it has been

provided you by the NDP, it would be of help to me.

I would also like to ask the second member for Victoria —

but obviously I can't ask him, so I would ask you, Mr. Minister,

because possibly your staff has had some opportunity to review a

private member's bill presented by that member — where there is a

proposal to levy an amount on an individual who gives notice to a

tenant. I'm wondering if any details are available on that proposal

from the NDP, where I believe the suggestion is that if you give notice

to a tenant, it has to be six months and there's up to a $2,000

discomfort fee, or something along that line. If

[ Page 6917 ]

you have any information on that, it would help me in that regard.

MRS. BOONE :

On a point of order, I fail to see the relevancy of any of this. From

what I understand, we are in the minister's estimates and we are

discussing the minister's spending authority. We are not discussing

anything to do with a private member's bill by the New Democratic

Party. I would ask the Chair to bring this member back into order.

MR. CHAIRMAN :

Thank you, hon. member. There are some problems involved in dealing

with this particular portfolio, certainly with respect to relevancy,

because we are dealing with two things, consumer affairs.... As you'll

recall, some time ago the corporate part of that ministry was broken

off, and it does make it difficult for relevancy. Therefore the Chair

is trying to be as lenient as possible. But the point the member makes

is very well taken.

Before we proceed, Mr. Premier, the first member for Vancouver South would like to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. R. FRASER :

I think members of the House have seen the students on the far side of

the gallery, and it's my great pleasure to advise you that those same

students are from the great riding of Vancouver South. They are from

Moberly Elementary School and are accompanied by their teacher, Mr.

Garside. Would the House please make them welcome.

MR. LOVICK : Be an example and try to be relevant.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Yes, I certainly wouldn't want to offend the House through the use of irrelevance.

I was only citing these examples because I'm here — like I'm sure the majority if not all of us are —

to seek other ways of possibly assisting those who are having some

difficulty, particularly since we're talking about housing and, if not

the availability of it, certainly the fairness in how people might be

provided notice or what information they may be given or where they

could seek information. So I suppose it's a fairly broad-ranging

discussion we're having here with the minister under the consumer

affairs part of his portfolio. But again, if he does have some

information that has been provided him by the opposition — I can't ask the opposition in the House —

with respect to the new proposed tax or with respect to the penalties

that are being suggested by others regarding people giving notice to

tenants, and if he has any further information on this regional review

proposal involving these regional arbitrators, I would appreciate that.

HON. L. HANSON :

I was interested to hear the comment from the member for Prince George

about what this ministry looks after. I guess I'd have to suggest in

all fairness that if the research was done other than in the media, you

may know what this ministry is responsible for. In any case, the

research the member has done obviously doesn't suffice her in the

knowledge she should have.

The member's reference to a rent

review is interesting. The members opposite quite often suggest that

there should be a rent review. I have a little difficulty in

determining how that would have any practical effect, without some

mandate of those who were conducting the review to deal with increases

or other issues if they are out of line. To be anything but rent

controls.... I don't understand how you can give that other title to

it. Simply changing the name from rent controls to rent review doesn't

in fact change the procedure.

There has been a very

well-received process whereby when we have had some indications of rent

increases that are at least claimed to be out of proportion, we've had

the Rental Housing Council of B.C. look into the issues for us. They

have done things such as go to the actual location to view the

accommodation. They have then done a study of similar accommodation in

the general area to get a feeling of what the market is. They have

talked to the owners, who have, in many cases, gone on a fairly

extensive renovation program providing fridges, stoves, carpets,

renovating buildings and that sort of thing. In some cases they have

had rents not necessarily rolled back, but they've had an

agreement — because the rents were proportionately low to what market was —

that the increase was a very substantial amount over a short period of

time, and they have phased in the increases over a couple of years. In

some cases they rolled them back; in others they adjusted them. In some

cases, after looking at all the different circumstances, the tenant has

come forward and said: "When you explain all these things to me, these

rent increases are not what we would consider out of proportion."

It's

interesting and, I think, fair to quote the Leader of the Opposition,

although he is not present today. It's taken from the Journal of Commerce

of February 6, 1989, and your leader is quoted as saying: "I,

personally, even when we, the NDP government of the early 1970s,

introduced rent controls, was opposed to them. Our party is not

advocating rent controls."

I know that there has been some consideration — particularly

by the city of Vancouver, where the apartments that might be converted

to strata title or at least torn down for the erection of a condominium

or strata title type of building — of recommending that some fee

be imposed. I think the fee was $1,000 per unit that they were required

to pay as demolition fees. I'm not sure that they have gone ahead with

that.

[3:15]

There was also some movement or at least some suggestion from the

members opposite that there be a longer notice period required. There

are a number of notice periods required, the least of which is about

ten days for notice of eviction, usually related to

[ Page 6918 ]

non-payment or some problem within the building — damages

to the premises or whatever. That's the shortest one. There are others

up to a maximum of two months in the majority of cases.

One

of the difficulties with the six-month requirement is that in many

cases, when notice of a building conversion or demolition is happening,

the notice triggers a number of people to find other accommodation, and

then there's a vacancy. There are a lot of things to be considered.

Under

the circumstances, the majority of the difficulty being created is

because of the shortage of rental accommodation available. I'm sure the

members opposite are well aware that it isn't cost only. In many cases,

people can't afford the rent, whatever it may be. There are some social

service programs to help people in financial difficulty which — again to the member opposite — lie within another ministry.

have looked at the Ontario system in depth and found it to be less than

effective. Ontario is having great difficulty with it. The last

knowledge I had, there were about 16,000 cases to be heard by the

review panel in Ontario. I think it is generally felt that if there is

a method of providing adequate supply — or encouraging adequate supply, as we are doing in a number of initiatives in this government; not in this ministry — that is really the answer to those difficulties.

The

Premier's question on the opposition member's initiative on taxing was

again directed to the Minister of Finance, but my understanding of it

was that there should be a tax on those people who acquire property and

turn around and sell it very quickly at a high profit. I think that was

the gist of the suggestion.

The budget initiatives

mentioned and the social service programs that we have in place are

good programs that, I think, will help with the difficulties. At this

time we have no intention of introducing rent controls, but we monitor,

as we should, the situation on a current basis and will continue to do

that.

MR. BLENCOE : I'm pleased that the Premier is

interested in our initiatives. It goes to show that this side of the

House is clearly setting the agenda in British Columbia today. I wasn't

quite sure, during that exchange with the Premier, whether they were

already looking at themselves as the opposition and this side of the

House as the government — coming forward with progressive and

innovative ways to deal with the problems of British Columbia today.

I'm pleased that the Premier is already getting himself into the mode

of playing the role of opposition. It's certainly in keeping with the

times. We will be pleased to meet his request when he calls the

election.

I want to continue to cover the issue of rent

review and the residential tenancy branch. I will start by asking the

minister a very simple question: will he confirm that any rent increase

today in British Columbia — no matter how much — is legal?

MR. CHAIRMAN : The Premier has asked leave to make an introduction. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

I note in the gallery a very good British Columbian who is working very

hard on behalf of those involved in the labour movement and striving in

every way to make this a better province for all concerned, Mr. Ken

Georgetti. I would ask the House to welcome him.

MR. SIHOTA : I'd also like to welcome Mr. Georgetti, and Joy McPhail, who is with him.

MR. LOENEN : Do you have permission?

MR. SIHOTA :

Will you just listen for a minute? Behave, and I'll continue. I think

the Premier should have a chat with his seatmate from Richmond over

there so he knows what's going on here. He can go back to sleep now if

he wishes.

The Premier was saying that Mr. Georgetti is

doing a good job and working hard on behalf of British Columbians. I

know that nothing would bring more joy to Mr. Georgetti's heart than

the election of a New Democrat government. I would invite the Premier

to make Mr. Georgetti really happy right now by calling an election so

we can give him the satisfaction that he so deeply desires.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : You're being political.

MR. SIHOTA : The Premier says I'm being political — of course, this is not the place for politics, in this chamber.

MR. CHAIRMAN : I just might remind all hon. members that I believe we are dealing with vote 41.

MR. SIHOTA :

Sorry. I had trouble trying to figure out what the Premier was dealing

with. I understand that in my absence he was asking the opposition for

more information with respect to a speculator's tax and rent review and

all of these important issues that afflict British Columbia today.

Again, if the Premier wants more details, just call an election. We'll

be happy, on the campaign trail, to give him as many details as his

heart desires. Mr. Premier, the challenge is to you.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : That's the third tax you've proposed today.

MR. SIHOTA :

Third tax? He overlooks the fact that the government, through the

Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier), introduced a bill at 2

o'clock today increasing four different taxation mechanisms in the

province. The Premier must have been oblivious to that — asleep or not communicating with the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations.

[ Page 6919 ]

In any event, I want to deal with the Ministry of Labour and Consumer Services.

AN HON. MEMBER : That would be refreshing.

MR. SIHOTA : It is refreshing to see the Premier in the House for a change, I must say.

were talking the other day about health and safety regulations in

British Columbia and the fact that a new board is proposed under Bill

27, which I've said, in principle is good legislation. There are

regulations being developed right now through an internal mechanism in

the WCB.

Would the minister not agree that in light of the

pending legislation, which in all likelihood would get our support

fairly quickly and passage through the House, the process they've

commenced internally in the WCB to review, modify and develop health

and safety regulations should now be stopped pending the implementation

of the new board? Would the minister not agree with me that that's

prudent?

HON. S.D. SMITH : I have a couple of matters

I would like to raise with the minister. One relates to the provisions

section 7 under the former Labour Code and how they still relate to

an injustice which is going on in the province, and it has continued

for a good long time. It relates to 90 workers at Kamloops, former

members — some still current, in fact — of the IWA, which

union, I hasten to point out, has, in my view, a justifiably good

record of performance in this province with respect to fairness on

behalf of its workers.

This particular issue is an

injustice and is now before the ombudsman of British Columbia. It is

one in which the workers have been denied, through a combination of the

efforts of their union leadership and, I dare say, an acquiescent

management, the most valuable possession that any worker owns, what is

really the most important property anyone has under a collective

agreement: namely, their seniority. They have been denied that because

under the constitution of their union there was a provision that

mandated — not only encouraged — those members and the

leadership of that union to seek a single seniority. In the case of

then Balco Industries, they had a mill and they had a plywood plant.

The workers throughout that period had separate seniorities. During the

course of some negotiations with management, there was an agreement

reached in which the seniority of 90 workers was sold for $20,000 — a pittance.

have a question for the minister. When you are dealing with grievances,

like the

section 7 grievance that is still ongoing in this instance,

there seems to me inherent in the system if not an outright conflict of

interest, then a process that necessarily will guarantee either that

justice will not be done or most certainly will not be seen to be done.

The problem is very simply that when these workers went under the

provisions to bring a complaint against their own union and their own

employer, they were confronted with a board that was made up of an

independent chairman, a representative of their union and a

representative of management. There's no way, under that kind of a

provision, they can get justice. Two of the folks that they are

aggrieved about are sitting with representatives on the board. That is

the problem.

The process is bad. The process was bad for

the Balco workers, and it is still as bad today in that circumstance.

When a worker has a grievance against the organization that is

representing him and/or the organization that employs him, then it

seems to me that that worker ought to have the right to a process that

is, in fact, independent and is seen to be independent. It is a very

serious problem.

In the case of the Balco workers, it still

goes on. They have had people acting on their behalf gratuitously now

for some seven years to try to bring some resolution to this. There is

no question, because it is in testimony now, that their own leadership

lied. There's no question about that; that has been acknowledged as

fact. There is no question that there was collusion between their

employer and their union to hose them out of their most valued property

possession, their seniority.

[3:30]

They don't seek to bring down the system. They don't seek to get rid

of their union. They are proud members of their union. They quite

properly seek to have redress. They have gone through the process. They

have gone now to no fewer than five hearings before the old labour

board and now through the Industrial Relations Council. They have now

gone to the ombudsman, who has drawn it back together again. They still

presumably have an avenue of going to the courts. Obviously, that's

extremely expensive.

What they have lost is of great value.

Coincidentally, just after the seniority was merged, Balco was bought

out and the sawmill was shut down. Of course, the effect of that,

because the sawmill was older and the folks in the plywood mill had

lost their seniority through the merger, was that they were out of a

job, even though it was the plywood mill that stayed running and

continues to uphold the value of that operation and even though those

workers were the major contribution over the years to the success of

that plywood mill.

They've been screwed, to put it in the

vernacular. There's no question about it. They've been screwed out of

their seniority by their own organization in concert with their

employer. I want to tell you that it's not right. There's nobody in the

system prepared to stand up on their behalf and take a look at that

thing. It is a good little way of getting together in a nice, clubby

atmosphere and making sure that above all else you preserve the system.

That's the whole point. The system in this case became a greater

article of preservation than the seniority rights. The people who were

involved in the grievance process were more interested in maintaining

their relationships and the clubby way of resolving disputes than they

were in ensuring that these people got redress.

I implore

the minister to review that, to take a very hard look at the process

for resolving disputes inside the system, where the grievance comes from

[ Page 6920 ]

individuals

against the organization that is supposedly bargaining collectively,

and fairly so, on their behalf. It has not worked in this case. It is

just flat wrong.

You would think that somebody in the system — be it the employer, the trade union, the Industrial Relations Council or the old Labour Relations Board —

would twig, would have a little light bulb go on and see the inherent

flaw in that. You can't expect someone to go in front of a committee of

three comprised in two instances of the very people against whom he has

a grievance and in the third instance of a chairperson chosen by those

two parties. It is just flat wrong; it doesn't work.

those workers have been done a grievous injustice by the system, and

the system has a responsibility, and all of us on both sides of this

place have a responsibility, it seems to me, to stand up on behalf of

people who have lost something of real value. As I said at the outset,

there is nothing of greater value to those in the position where their

rights are subsumed by the collective organization, where their

individual right to bargain is subsumed, and they give that up because

of the greater strength they get. What they get out of that is

seniority, and that seniority has a real and absolute value. When their

own organizations are prepared to sacrifice and compromise the

individual's seniority in order to preserve something that was manifest

within their own constitution, that is wrong, and we all have a

responsibility to look at that fairly and openly and redress it. We

haven't done that. Hopefully, in the case of the Balco 90, the

ombudsman will be able to bring some redress where others have so far

failed.

I must say I have raised the Balco 90 before, and I

am going to raise it in this place and everywhere else I can until

their improperly taken seniority is either returned or compensated for.

It is something I think simply cannot be left undone. It is not a

partisan issue, and I am sorry to see only three members of the

opposition in the House today for this very important discussion on

labour matters. I think it is something that deserves greater

attention, particularly from the Leader of the Opposition, who can't

even bother to be here when this debate is on.

But the

issue is not a partisan one; the issue is one of fairness, equity and

process. Let us all be reminded that our rights and our

responsibilities — but particularly our rights and our freedoms —

repose in and are protected by process; not ad hockery, not little

backroom deals where we get together and look at the constitution and

nod and say, "I guess silence means consent" — quoting from that deal with Balco. Silence doesn't mean consent; you have to stand up.

have one other question. We had a debate in this House a couple of

years ago on what was then called Bill 19. That piece of legislation

brought the best debate, I think, from all sides of this House. During

that time a commitment was made by the opposition that they would lay

before this minister a new bill to replace Bill 19. That was their

commitment; they gave their word to the people of British Columbia that

they would bring in a new bill. They would put before the people and

this Legislature a new document that would replace Bill 19, that would

eradicate Bill 19, that would remove all of Bill 19: not bombast,

bafflegab and legalese out of lawyers from Esquimalt, but a bill, a

document that people could see, touch, look at and think about. They

gave their word to the people of British Columbia two years ago that

this would be presented to the House, that it would be done and the

alternative would be there for everyone to see, so that people could

see how what we did was different from what they would do, and how it

would work. They brought in a lot of bills this year on the

environment, parroting what the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr.

Strachan) had already done last fall, but I haven't seen their

alternative to Bill 19. I stand to be corrected on that; I may well be

wrong. So I'd like to ask the minister if he yet has received a copy of

the proposed legislation that the opposition promised to put before the

people so that we could all see their alternative to Bill 19.

HON. L. HANSON :

The Attorney was referring to

section 7, the duty of representation, in

Bill 19. I'm very aware of the situation the member raised. As I

believe he mentioned in his remarks, it has been referred to the

ombudsman.

I'm sure the member is aware that there is legislation — I think it's been there since the days of the NDP in the seventies —

or at least a portion of a bill, that would allow for the appointment

of a labour ombudsman. That has never been done, for a number of

reasons. At the time when it was originally brought in, I don't believe

there was an ombudsman as such. We've seen a number of overlapping

responsibilities as the legislation is currently written.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

It's

interesting that you should bring it up, because I have been discussing

that with staff. We will be testing the community to get their feelings

about the ombudsman's responsibilities as they relate to labour. I do

see that and those particular circumstances as bearing some

investigation.

I am aware of those suggestions made by the

opposition members not only, I believe, in this House.... Although I

don't remember the specific member who raised it, I know it has been

mentioned a number of times in speeches around the province. As yet I

have not seen that. I've had the odd letter from members asking me

something about the act, but I haven't yet seen that; nor have I any

indication that they have any intention of tabling it with the

ministry. I certainly would like to look at it. It might be interesting

to get the members opposite to make a commitment in public as to

exactly what they would do in the labour relations field.

MR. CLARK :

I wasn't planning to speak in this debate, but I have to rise at least

briefly to comment on some of the remarks made by the Attorney-General

in this debate. We're used to hypocrisy in this chamber and in

politics, but I think his remarks have

[ Page 6921 ]

reached a new zenith. The Attorney-General talks about the sanctity of seniority....

MR. LOENEN :

On a point of order, I think all members are offended when we hear the

word "hypocrisy" applied to the Attorney-General. I would ask the

member to withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Were you impugning the motive of the Attorney-General?

MR. CLARK :

No, I wasn't at all. I was commenting on an observed fact. I wasn't

impugning motives. I will withdraw if it offends the Attorney, but I

note that the Attorney didn't ask for a withdrawal.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Please proceed. I would note that we are proceeding on vote 41, the estimates of the Ministry of Labour and Consumer Services.

MR. CLARK :

Mr. Chairman, we had a 15-minute discussion of the merits of seniority

in this chamber by the Attorney-General, with respect to 90 people in

his constituency. I suggest to the Premier, the Attorney and the

Minister of Labour that this government, through Bill 19, has removed

more seniority rights from employees than any government in the history

of British Columbia. Where was the Attorney-General when it came to

successor rights in Bill 19 and the elimination of seniority in the

event of bankruptcy? Where was the Attorney-General when he was a

backroom boy to the Premier and they made the Expo site a union-free

zone — or tried to, at the very least? Where was he when he dealt

with the inviolable rights of seniority in those days? Nowhere. But

when he has 90 people and can make a speech in the House that he can

mail out for part of his leadership campaign, he's all keen to talk

about seniority.

We've seen hypocrisy in this chamber. It

reminds me of when he dealt with the Charter of Rights. The

Attorney-General said he's opposed to the Charter of Rights but is in

favour of including property rights in the Charter, which prompted one

judge to say: "There are those who are against the Charter and those

who are in favour of the Charter. Then there are those like the

Attorney-General who are both."

Here we have the same

situation with respect to seniority. Where is the Attorney-General when

we want to deal constructively with protecting seniority in British

Columbia, which Bill 19 does nothing about? Where is the

Attorney-General when we want to deal with questions about

section 7?

By the way, Mr. Chairman, nobody likes the present

section 7

procedure — unions, management or otherwise There are other ways

of dealing with it. The Attorney-General suggested one, but there are

others What about dealing with lawyers? What about dealing with getting

rid of lawyers at the labour board, and the tremendous cost to unions

and employers with respect to lawyers?

[3:45]

Some jurisdictions — the Minister of Labour may be interested in this —

don't allow any lawyers at labour relations tribunals unless both

parties agree. Maybe the minister could consider that. No, we haven't

heard anything like that from the Attorney-General; we've just heard a

speech given for a mail out. There's nothing to help those 90 people,

and there's nothing to deal with the real question of seniority in

British Columbia, which this government has consistently undermined.

MR. CHAIRMAN :

Before proceeding, I understand that the debate had ranged prior to my

taking the chair. I allowed the opposition to readdress that particular

point; I would now ask members to deal with points relevant to the

minister's estimates.

MR. LOENEN : I want to deal

with the labour

section of the minister's portfolio, and I would

preface my remarks by saying that my constituents are mighty happy with

Bill 19. In fact, we had a delegation of Japanese businessmen who are

interested in our province and our city. They were very impressed: in

1986 over 2,500 worker-days were lost to work stoppages, but in '87

that was reduced to just over 500; in '88 it was further reduced to

just over 400. That's the trend we're seeing, and if Bill 19, which was

introduced in the intervening years, is responsible for it, that's good

news indeed. I know I speak on behalf of my constituents when I

congratulate the minister for setting the tone for good industrial

relations not only in this province but in this country — and the figures prove it.

want to ask a specific question related to a labour issue that has been

festering in our municipality for altogether too long. I'm referring to

a labour dispute at Western Canada Steel Ltd. that affects some 400

workers. These are CAIMAW union workers. They and their families have

suffered immensely as a result of that labour dispute. The minister

knows that certain features in the history of this make it particularly

important for us to have a review of the circumstances that led to the

closure of that mill. About three and a half years ago this government

instructed and commissioned the then commissioner of critical

industries, Art Phillips, to see what jobs could be saved at the mill.

As a result, all kinds of concessions were put together by a variety of

people, including B.C. Hydro, Workers' Compensation Board, the

municipality of Richmond, in order to save those jobs for the workers

themselves, first of all, but also for their families and dependants.

Last

year the Western Canada Steel mill was subject to a labour dispute, and

subsequently it was sold to Ipsco in November. In December they

publicly admitted in a letter that they had no intention whatsoever of

ever opening that plant; in fact, they had bought it with the intent of

closing it. It has been suggested that this was a betrayal of the kind

of collective bargaining that had proceeded and that was still ongoing

at that time. Those kinds of circumstances around the sale and the

closure of that plant have left a bitter taste in the mouths of many of

my constituents.

[ Page 6922 ]

I say, Mr. Minister, because some $5 million of public money in the

form of tax concessions was given to the former owners — and perhaps also to the present owners —

the question becomes all the more pressing: were those moneys used for

the intent and purposes for which they were given? And why is it that

after all that goodwill and all that community effort the plant

nevertheless shut down? What happened to those funds, and what happened

to the obligations that were undertaken at the time by the people who

received the benefits? Moreover, what about the aspect of seeing the

last steel mill in all of British Columbia close? What about our

ability to recycle some of the large items, such as fridges and stoves,

that are now put into landfill? What about the environmental impact?

Those questions remain.

I would very much like to ask the

minister whether he could tell the House and my constituents what his

ministry has done to bring those parties together, what he has done to

ascertain whether or not the funds were used appropriately, what he has

done on behalf particularly of the members affected, those union

workers in those jobs. I know this is of concern to the workers. It's

of concern to their families. I know the minister carries a special

burden for workers and their families and the various people who depend

on a pay cheque, and I would like to hear the minister explain what he

sees can still be done to save those jobs.

HON. L. HANSON :

The issue of Ipsco, the closure of that plant, has been a long tale.

Although I don't have any direct knowledge of it, I know that the

critical industries administrator was responsible for a number of

concessions given to the operation by the municipality of Richmond,

certainly by the Workers' Compensation Board, by B.C. Hydro and a

number of.... Those were some of the methods by which the critical

industries commissioner was able to keep some things operating. The

conditions of those concessions I'm really not aware of nor have I

dealt with those aspects in my ministry. I know that the Ministry of

Regional Development had attempted to investigate that, if you will,

and also had done some work in hopes of keeping the plant operating,

from an economic point of view, particularly since there isn't a

resource now to dispose of some of those things, such as refrigerators

and other metal.

The issue is now before the Industrial

Relations Council to determine the nature of the closure, whether it

was in fact a strike or a closure. The nature of that stoppage will

determine what the members of the workforce are entitled to in terms of

separation That hasn't been determined yet, so I'm a bit restrained in

what I can refer to.

The Industrial Relations Council part

of my ministry certainly was involved, in the hopes of mediating the

dispute, and has spent a fair amount of time, sometimes in cooperation

with the Ministry of Economic Development, in that hope. In fairness to

the people who purchased the company, when they originally purchased

it, they said publicly and without any reservation that they had

purchased it for the asset and had no intention of operating it,

although there were some negotiating sessions that went on after that.

guess another question being asked of the Industrial Relations Council

is whether those negotiations and any of the things that happened would

constitute an unfair labour practice, and the council is pondering that

difficulty. But the firm that purchased the plant had originally

intended to close it. They have, to the best of my knowledge, removed a

lot of the equipment to other plants that they have in Canada and

British Columbia, and it's my understanding now that there isn't any

hope or suggestion that the plant will be reopened, although I can't

deal with that in absolute.

The severance problem will be

dealt with when the Industrial Relations Council has made its decision.

It is an unfortunate incident that a plant of that size.... I think the

Ministry of Economic Development is actively searching or encouraging

anyone who may want to get into that sort of industry in British

Columbia to establish here — as a matter of fact, I know it is.

But dealing with the specifics of that plant, at this point there is no

hope that I can see of its reopening.

Certainly the members

of the Industrial Relations Council, the mediation side, spent a lot of

time and effort trying to resolve the dispute and keep the plant open,

and it really is unfortunate that we're still awaiting the decision of

the council on the questions they have before them.

MR. BLENCOE :

Before we go into the latest labour part of the debate, I want to go

back to the rent review and the area of responsibility that the

minister has for tenants in British Columbia.

I asked the minister a question, and I'll put it again: will the minister confirm that...?

AN HON. MEMBER : You're not interested?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : It's so boring.

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE :

It's unfortunate that the Premier decides to leave when I'm going to

talk about 1.2 million tenants in the province who have virtually no

protection in terms of the Residential Tenancy Act. A lot of British

Columbians — through Mr. Chairman to the Premier, as he is about to leave —

are very concerned about the lack of a level playing-field in terms of

tenants' rights and responsibilities. I want to ask the minister

responsible: is it accurate? Will he confirm that any rent increase in

the province of British Columbia — any amount — is legal?

HON. L. HANSON :

First of all, I have to put this in the right context. The member

opposite is asking whether any amount is legal. In the Residential

Tenancy Act, if a rent increase can be construed or looked at as being

a deliberate attempt to evict simply by making the rent totally

unrealistic as it

[ Page 6923 ]

relates

to market and other things, that determination would be that it is

another method that they can use for eviction and therefore circumvents

the protections. In that sense, any amount of rent increase is not

allowed.

[4:00]

But there isn't a ceiling. We don't have rent controls in British

Columbia. If you look over the last five or six years, you will see

that the rent increases in British Columbia have been really relatively

moderate and have, if anything, reflected nothing but the increase in

costs, inflation and the other things that we see in the province. They

do have a security of tenure; they can be evicted under some

circumstances, but only for really just cause.

I know that

the member opposite is trying to make a point, but I think the point is

that the marketplace does determine what is fair and reasonable.

Despite some remarks made by, I think, the member for Prince George

North (Mrs. Boone), to the best of my knowledge there is rental

accommodation available just about everywhere in British Columbia — to a lesser degree in some communities; I certainly would agree with that —

but if you look back at history and how effective the system has been,

it has been very effective in British Columbia. The aberration that we

see at the moment in a shortage of rental accommodation has to be

attacked in a positive manner, such as we have done in a number of the

initiatives in the budget to encourage the building and provision of

more rental accommodation so that there is the marketplace discipline

that comes with that.

MR. BLENCOE : I think the

minister is trying very hard to avoid the issue that thousands and

thousands of British Columbians wish to be addressed: that is, a fair

system of rent review.

Let me go back in history. I recall vividly in this House, in '83 and '84, when the former government — I know this member was not here then —

gave their rationale for eliminating all those security issues like the

rentalsman, rent review, the old Residential Tenancy Act, which I think

was much fairer to both landlords and tenants. The argument they gave

for eliminating those quite progressive pieces of legislation — obviously there are some things that always need to be reviewed —

was that if you removed them, the construction industry would boom and

housing would be built and the private sector would take care of the

housing needs.

All the evidence is in now that the private

sector has not. The market has not been able to respond, and indeed, if

you look at the evidence and the unit construction since '83-84.... We

have had that field vacated. The rentalsman disappeared; rent control

went; rent review went.

Construction, particularly in key areas like Vancouver and Victoria, in non-condominium kinds of units — the regular apartment units —

dramatically dropped at a time when the government said: "Get rid of

those checks, those mechanisms that affect the supply of housing, and

we will have all the housing we need." It simply did not happen.

The bible in housing — according to the Fraser Institute —

failed miserably. This Fraser Institute line to get rid of all those

innovative and progressive pieces of legislation that gave some

protection to tenants — remove them and affordable housing would be constructed by the private sector —

has been a miserable failure. This government's policies have been a

miserable failure in supplying housing in the last six years in the

province of British Columbia.

There is a good reason why I

asked the minister to confirm that any rent increase is legal in the

province of British Columbia. It is accurate: any amount. There is a

section in there — I forget which

section it is — which basically, in lay terms, is economic eviction. You talk to lawyers — and I've talked to many — about

trying to use that section. As far as I know, no one has tested it, no

one has wanted to test it, because what is construed as an economic

eviction? Sixty percent, 70 percent? I've got rent increases, as have

many as my colleagues and you across the other side — of 50

percent or 60 percent. The minister says that up until the latest

hiatus in the market and the problem we've got today, the rents were

reasonable. But now the market tightens up and the rents become, in

many instances, very unreasonable.

I want to know what the

minister says. To that minister: what do you say to senior citizens,

for instance, who are on a very fixed income, pension, and all those

life savings...? The portion is given over to rent. Suddenly,

overnight, in a building 200 or 300 senior citizens get an increase of

50 percent or 60 percent. It's happening. There's every evidence — and this is the point I want to make —

that if we had a review board or an appeal board, those senior citizens

could go and lay the evidence that the rent increase was unjustified,

that the market, even, didn't determine that rent increase.

Why

does this government refuse to have at least a review system whereby

families or tenants or senior citizens, or whatever, who feel aggrieved

that 50 percent or 40 percent is unfair have somewhere they can go and

say: "Will you please look at this?" There's nowhere in the province

today.

We're just asking for basic fairness; we're not

asking for rent control. I make it quite clear, and I've said that over

and over again. We're not asking for an arbitrary ceiling on rent

increases. We're saying — and I want the minister to answer this other question too —

that most landlords are reasonable and fair; most recognize that there

are difficulties; most try to give reasonable increases. But there are

those who in difficult times take advantage. Right now you have no way

to help those seniors or those families have reviewed increases by

those landlords who are taking advantage. That's all we're asking for.

recognize that most landlords and owners are fair. But what do you say

to those senior citizens or those thousands of families — and there are over a million in this province now —

when they get a rent increase that is so dramatic? It's clearly because

they're taking advantage of a tight market. It's not justified by the

market. Oh, it is in terms of them knowing they can get it. Sure, if

they go back and

[ Page 6924 ]

keep taking and taking, people can't move anywhere because there's nowhere to move.

Why

can't the minister have a decent, fair and just review system,

particularly for those on fixed incomes? What's wrong with that? Don't

you believe in a fair system, or do you believe any rent increase is

legal and the only solution is to move?

HON. L. HANSON :

I guess I will repeat the answer that I just gave, because it really

hasn't changed anything. The member opposite has gone through a long

discourse about the need for rent review.

I have asked a

question, which he didn't answer in his long speech about rent review:

what happens if there is a rent review system and then there is a

determination that a rent increase is not to market?

What happens with the system — and the member opposite well knows it —

is that once you establish a rent review process, you establish also

what is fair and reasonable as far as a rent increase is concerned. If

you do that, then what you establish as being the ceiling on rent

increases becomes the norm; and unless the review process has an

ability to deal with an increase — in other words has a method of effectively rolling it back — then it doesn't have any effect.

did say to the member opposite, and I will repeat it, that the Rental

Housing Council of B.C. has very nicely offered, and has done, a number

of reviews in cases where we have knowledge of rent increases that are

above and beyond market.

I would point out to the member

that if market for a particular establishment is $400 and the rent is

currently $200, if they bring it up to market, that's a 100 percent

increase. In fact, the Rental Housing Council has been successful in

getting — if that has happened — a recognition by the

landlord that that is too much of a shock, too much of a burden, even

though they do recognize that the amount is within the market. They

have been able to get the landlords to phase it in over a period of

time, so they can reach market.

A number of circumstances

recognized in the process were renovations and improvements to the

building, better amenities and so on. I don't know what the average

increase has been, but when we look at the removal of rent control — which was in 1983, I believe most of the rent increases have been reasonable and moderate. In some cases — where

the rents have fallen behind the market and a new landlord attempts to

bring them to the market value at that time, there is a perception that

the increase is unfair. I don't think the ones I've been able to look

at have been unfair, in the sense that they are unfair as relates to

market. They may be unfair in relation to what was being charged in the

past.

I do not want to downplay the difficulties

people face, particularly senior citizens who have lived for years in

one particular location. It's a traumatic thing I've had some stories

about apartments that were going to be demolished to make way for a

condominium or strata title development — mostly in Vancouver. Elderly residents have lived there for 20 or 30 years —

a major part of their lives. Although it is a rental apartment, after

that length of time a sense of ownership is established and is

certainly recognizable. It is a very difficult situation. In most cases

the rental housing council has been able to find accommodations. If the

member opposite were to speak to them.... I have some copies of reports

that they have provided me with which look at some of these

difficulties. They have been dealt with in a very fair and reasonable

manner.

Up to September or October of last year, the

average rent increase was very reasonable and in most cases less than

the inflation rate or very close to It. We have been successful in

getting some rollbacks where things have been pointed out. There is an

unofficial review process that has been effective and has worked very

well.

The imposition of rent controls and rent reviews — if there is a control, it is a rent control —

in all jurisdictions I have been able to study has had a negative

effect on the supply of rental housing. We have not seen instances

where it has been successful in increasing the supply of rental

accommodation. That's the measurement that provides the discipline in

the system.

[4:15]

Through the Ministry of Social Services and Housing, we also have

assistance to individuals on fixed incomes who have difficulties with

rent and other things. Also, as I pointed out to the member earlier, we

have taken a number of initiatives in other ministries to encourage the

provision of housing and rental accommodation. These also have a

balancing effect on the market.

As I pointed out to the

member, we do have an informal procedure. I can give the member some

information. We did a little research on the period from July 1988 to

March 1989. During that period, about 15 cases of rent increases were

brought to our attention. Some were individual cases, and several

others were all within the same building. The Rental Housing Council of

British Columbia was able to.... In one case the rent was rolled back;

in another couple of cases it was phased in. But in most cases the

result of the investigations was that the owner was either reaching

market by those increases or had been providing improvements to the

facilities that justified the increases.

There was and is

an informal method in place. If the member has knowledge of situations

that need to be looked at, I would appreciate that and certainly will

get a report.

MR. BLENCOE : The minister really

misses the point. I realize that there are times when pressure can be

mounted against a particular owner. It can be done, but it depends on

an informal procedure that may or may not be satisfactory. I think the

minister and the government are missing the point, and politically

they're missing the issue. This is a big issue.

[ Page 6925 ]

Over

1.2 million tenants with families don't want an informal procedure.

They may happen to know the owner, deal with him one to one and maybe

get it rolled back quietly behind the scenes. They don't want that.

They'll take it, I suppose. What they want is a very simple mechanism

whereby if they can show that the increase for their building is unfair

and unjustified with clear evidence of taking advantage of a tight

market and really gouging.... I don't know how the minister deals with

gouging. You don't deal with gouging today, because you say they can

move, I suppose. But how do you deal with those who are very unfair?

You're leaving thousands of tenants subject to great unfairness out

there.

All they're saying is: "Look, give us a review

system." The old rent review system used to do this. If it's market, so

be it. If there are circumstances where the owner is having difficulty

with refinancing or additional costs, fair enough: pass some of those

on to the tenants. But tenants shouldn't have to absorb all the

additional costs of the owners — maybe partial. Right now they're taking it all, Mr. Chairman. Anything goes in the province of British Columbia.

The

Minister of Social Services and Housing (Hon Mr. Richmond), when he was

being pressured on this issue some months ago, said: "Oh, there is rent

appeal in the province of British Columbia." He quickly had to

backtrack when he realized that the government had gotten rid of that

some years ago He then thought there was rent appeal. It didn't seem

alien to him when he said there was. But it was eliminated in 1983.

Why

not? Why, in these difficult circumstances, when you have those owners

gouging and being unfair...? They're a minority. How do you deal with

them? How do you say to senior citizens — as the minister said —

who have lived in the same building for 15 or 20 years: "I'm sorry. We

don't like rent review, because it's rent control. We don't want a

rentalsman, because the owners might get upset." What do you tell

them? Move? That's always been the argument; it's the bottom line from

Social Credit: you can move. But during these times, where do you move

to?

This government knows it's a major issue. It's all political stripes

right across the board. People want a fair system of review. They don't

want tenants to have more rights than landlords, or landlords and owners to

have more rights than tenants. They want a playing-field where both can go face

to face when they have to resolve these issues. That's why we used to have

a rentalsman, and that's why I'm going to reintroduce a bill called

rentals mediator to do that very thing: a level playing-field and equality in

the system, so that all are treated fairly and have their day in court, if you

will — the rentals court. What's wrong with that? Are you so afraid of it?

Are you afraid that we might catch some of those people who are taking advantage

of the situation? We might make them roll back their rents to a reasonable level

based on what is happening generally in the market. Is that what the government

is afraid of? Or has the government made so many commitments to those people

that it can't see that this is a major issue for tenants, families and households?

They just want to shove it under the carpet. That's what you're doing.

That's what you're saying over and over again.

This

minister and the Minister of Social Services and Housing know that

people want fairness in the system. That's all they're asking for.

They're not asking for rent control; we're not saying arbitrary limits.

If a tenant feels an increase can be shown to be unjustified, we're

saying that it can be appealed to rent review and can be heard. An

independent review committee — as we used to have — takes a look at it. What's so bad about that? What's wrong with fairness and equality between the parties?

Right

now we don't have it. Despite what the minister says about economic

eviction, basically any rent increase is legal today. Anything goes.

You can gouge, you can take advantage and you can do what you will.

We're saying yes to rent increases based on fairness, on costs and on

making a fair return on your investment. But if you go beyond that, if

you try to take advantage of families because of a tight market and

impose increases way beyond what can be justified in a rent review

procedure, then no. You're going to have it reviewed, and it's going to

be rolled back. It's fair.

Mr. Chairman, there are so many

British Columbians today facing these circumstances. I'm not talking

about isolated cases; it's the general rule today. Over a million

tenants wonder what's going to happen to their rent this year. Is the

owner going to try to make — instead of a 10 percent or 15 percent increase —

a 30 percent or 50 percent increase, because they know there's nowhere

to move, and this government won't ask them to justify the increase?

The government is not playing fair with those 1.2 million tenants. Why

not play fair?

HON. L. HANSON : I'm not going to

repeat the answer that I've given so many times, because the member has

heard it. He keeps referring to fairness. There is a fairness in the

marketplace; it's there now. He keeps referring to 50 percent and 60

percent rent increases. Give me an example of that. If that is a 50 or

60 percent rent increase over market, that's a different situation than

a 50 or 60 percent rent increase. The majority of British Columbians,

in terms of rental accommodation and those rent increases, are not

finding that situation. The member keeps referring to 1.2 million

tenants, with the inference that all those 1.2 million tenants are

facing exorbitant rent increases. I think it's only fair to point out

that the few cases the member is talking about.... If he will give me

the circumstances, we'll look into them. But we have been able to deal

with every one that we have looked into at this point.

MRS. BOONE :

To the minister, I will give you some examples. I have letters, and

you've received copies of them, from people in Mackenzie. Probably

close to a hundred have written to you, me and the Premier expressing

their concerns about Camp De-

[ Page 6926 ]

velopments,

which is gouging the people in that community. These people are living

in accommodations, Mr. Minister, that have towels covering cracks in

the doors and doors that are nailed shut. One of the places I went

through would have been a fire disaster, a fire hazard. If the fire

inspector had gone in there, he would have closed the place down. The

front door was nailed shut, because it won't stay shut.

They

have blankets over the windows in this particular condominium to keep

the cold out, because there is as much as a quarter inch to half an

inch showing where you can hear the wind whistling through. Believe me,

when you get to 40 below up there, that's pretty cold, and you can see

those things. There are door handles missing in their apartments, sinks

not working, lighting fixtures not properly there. And they received a

notice from Camp Developments of a 35 percent increase in their

rent — in Mackenzie, where there is a zero increase. Come on! This is true.

you will look into these, I will give you every single letter from the

people there. And I expect you to look into these, one at a time, and

make some commitment to these people to review this process. These

people have written to everybody. They've had a public meeting. They've

called on Camp Developments to reduce their rent, to not increase it,

and Camp says that they are going to be doing some repairs. Well,

they've already increased their rent, and they haven't done the

repairs. They've lived in these substandard conditions for ages.

There

is no building going on there, Mr. Minister. It doesn't matter how many

programs you've got going. I phoned throughout the area last week — or two weeks ago, I guess it was —

to the construction association, various builders, the municipality,

the regional government there, trying to find out if anybody was

interested in building there, because there is no rental accommodation.

The answer is that nobody is interested in investing in Mackenzie

because the future is unstable. Every time the forest industry goes

into a downturn, the future goes down, and suddenly there's a rental

accommodation surplus. So right now these people are being kept at the

mercy of the landlord, Camp Developments, who right now owns the

majority of the rental properties up there. It has further bought

property in Prince George, the lowest income property that we have. And

we are already hearing that these people are receiving notices of their

rent doubling. Gouging is taking place. Our homes aren't rising in

price to a tremendous degree in either Prince George or Mackenzie, yet

rental prices are increasing there, because there isn't any rental

accommodation and because one company controls things to the extent

where they have the people at their mercy, where the people are afraid

to complain. If they complain, they will get an eviction notice, and

then they'll have no place to go. That is the situation out there right

now.

[4:30]

It is not fair. For you to sit there and say that it is fair, that

these people have some place to go, is ridiculous. There was a public

meeting and legal advice came in to tell them: "There is nothing you

can do. The landlord can do to you what he wants. He can increase your

rent. He can give you an eviction notice if he wants to, and there's

nothing that you can do." That's the message that came out loud and

strong to these people. So don't give me this stuff that there is

something out there, that there is fairness out there. There is no

fairness out there. Maybe in your circle you don't know people who are

having problems in accommodation; that may be true. But I can tell you,

in the circles that I deal with, there are plenty of people having

difficulty with accommodation, and they're not very happy that this

government is not doing anything about it and is totally unwilling to

even look at anything.

I will give you those letters, Mr.

Minister. If you want exact cases, I'll give them to you. I invite you

to take a tour of those places and tell me then if you think they're

worth 35 percent increases. I'll show them to you personally. I will go

to Mackenzie with you and personally show you those places if you want

specific cases, because we have them for you.

MR. BARNES :

I will join the member for Prince George, who is going to escort the

minister around to find some of the problems in the housing field.

Certainly there's no lack of cases where people need intervention and

assistance in dealing with unfair landlords and exorbitant rent

increases.

I wanted to ask the minister something slightly

different, although it's on housing. The minister promised to bring in

amendments to the Landlord and Tenant Act last December which afford

protection to long-term tenants in hotels and rooming houses. At that

time the minister said it would be about four months before he would be

introducing legislation. That would have brought it to last April; last

month would have been the time for that bill to be introduced.

There

was a press conference, apparently, when you had the support of people

of the downtown east side. Jim Green was quoted as saying: "After 15

years of struggle, it's finally over." You did make quite a few people

happy with the announcement. Has the minister changed his mind? Will

that bill be coming in? When will it be coming in?

The

problem hasn't gone away. We've discussed this In the past. Perhaps you

would like to bring us up to date with respect to your intentions.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

HON. L. HANSON :

First of all, I'd like to deal with the previous member's statements. I

think they're a little misleading. The member is suggesting that a 35

percent increase is totally unjustified. That statement in itself is,

in my opinion.... I agree; it is unjustified. It depends on where the

base is that the 35 percent is taken from. If the market rents in an

area are — to pick a figure — $300 a month, and the current rent on a place is $200, then you could get an

[ Page 6927 ]

increase of that size. It depends on where the base starts from.

There

was some investigation done in the Mackenzie area. The determination

was that, in most cases, it was market. If the member has specific

instances, I would be pleased to have my people look at them.

had, and do have, in place in the residential tenancy branch a

requirement for reasonable maintenance and repairs. The way the member

was describing some of the accommodation in Mackenzie, I wonder if the

people who live in Mackenzie would appreciate the description of their

living accommodations. I was getting the attitude that there were

cracks in the doors and windows and so on. I haven't been there, but I

suggest to the member that if she has examples of that, we'll go and

look at that without any difficulty.

In answer to the

member's questions on hotel residency, I acknowledge that I had hoped

to introduce that in the last session. Unfortunately I wasn't able to.

It's my hope that I will be tabling that legislation in the House in

the next two weeks, just as soon as we can cross all the t's and dot

all the i's. I have not abandoned it, nor do I intend to abandon it.

There

is some further information that the member may be interested in. The

issue of security deposits and dealing with monetary disputes will be

added to the residential tenancy branch's responsibilities. That is

partially as a result of the justice report that came in and partially

as a result of the ministry. I believe the limit will be the same as is

proposed for the small debts court — up to $5,000. It will deal with other disputes — other than security deposits —

in the case of damages or expenses the tenant may have faced. All going

well and not having any unexpected problems, we hope to introduce that

in about two weeks.

MR. CHAIRMAN : just before we proceed, hon members, it might be an appropriate moment —

and I hark back to the point of order that was raised earlier today by

the hon. member for Prince George North (Mrs. Boone) — to bring

the House's attention to the famous Sir Erskine May and his nineteenth

edition on page 741 where it deals with the general restrictions on

debate in supply. Just to read this one short sentence: "The

administrative action of a department is open to debate, but the

necessity for legislation and matters involving legislation can only be

discussed in Supply on a substantive motion."

MR. BARNES : It's encouraging indeed to think that the minister is going to honour his promise and bring in those amendments.

As you were speaking, I got the sense that you were perhaps reflecting on the problem in terms of its broader implications —

not just the protection of residents of hotels, but disputes, security

deposits, issues in general; pretty much the kind of responsibilities

the rentalsman's office once looked after.

What it sounds

like to me is that the government is perhaps considering bringing back

the rentalsman in a different form. Is that a possibility? It's

certainly necessary. We — especially the critic, the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) —

have been saying that steadily; all of us have been saying that. There

is a need to bring back the rentalsman. Is that part of the

government's intention? If it is, we certainly will support it.

HON. L. HANSON :

The member has been here somewhat longer than I have and is probably

more aware of the rentalsman's office as it existed before. I certainly

have no intention of introducing the rentalsman as such in the

Residential Tenancy Act. We have determined that some of the abilities

it has, or its mandate to deal with certain issues, will be expanded,

particularly in the case of the circumstances in downtown Vancouver,

which I was taken on a tour of. It isn't our intention to reintroduce

the rentalsman as such, but to broaden some of the mandates that the

existing legislation allows the branch to deal with now.

MR. BLENCOE : Mr. Chairman, with your remarks in mind, I am not going to reflect on possible or potential legislation. I'm interested — the minister talked about it some time ago, and he has referred to it again —

that he believes that security deposit disputes, which are major

monetary disputes, should no longer be in small-claims court. I've

always contended, and so has this side, that that was one of the major

things the rentalsman's office could resolve.

Interestingly,

the minister says that he considers this to be a major monetary item.

Up to now, under this post-'83 Social Credit administration, all

monetary items have been in small-claims court. This is a major shift

in dealing with financial matters up to $5,000. If the minister — and I applaud him for doing this —

is prepared to do this with a major monetary item up to $5,000, why not

go the next step and deal with rent increases up to $5,000? They don't

go up to $5,000, but why not go that step? Have the residential tenancy

branch, under a rent review section, review monetary items such as rent

increases.

I am pleased — I'm not reflecting on any legislation —

that the minister has said he is coming forward with some changes:

security deposits back to the residential tenancy branch, something

that should never have disappeared. This is a major monetary item. Rent

increases are probably the monetary item; security deposits are maybe

second. Why not bring rent increases, and the disputes around them,

back into the residential tenancy branch? That's just a suggestion to

the minister: go the next step.

MRS. BOONE : I can't

let go undisputed the fact that you think I was exaggerating. I can

tell you, Mr. Minister, that I wasn't exaggerating the state of those

places. I know for a fact that the people who own that place would not

complain, because they specifically took me, along with some of the

media, through their accommodation to show us just exactly what it was

like.

[ Page 6928 ]

You

said you investigated it. I would like to know just what form the

investigation took and how you formulated your decision that the

increases were justified.

HON. L. HANSON : I'm sorry if I misled the member. The Rental Housing Council of British Columbia looked into it; my ministry didn't.

MRS. BOONE : It is my understanding that the Rental Housing Council is the council of landlords. Is that correct?

MR. BLENCOE : The owners.

MRS. BOONE : They reviewed this and — amazing! —

found that it was justified. It's incredible, isn't it? You ask the

landlords to review their own increases, and then they come out with a

decision that it's valid. Come on, Mr. Minister, let's be a little more

sensible than this. The problem we have here is that this ministry does

not investigate anything, does not question any of those things, and

takes the landlord's word that those rent increases are justified. If

you accept that as acceptable, and if you think that's acceptable to

the people, I think you're sadly mistaken, and I think you'll find that

out very soon.

I'd like to move to something a little bit

different here. I know this ministry does not involve itself with

labelling, but I would like to know if the ministry involves itself in

packaging at all. Does the ministry become involved in any of the

packaging of products?

[4:45]

HON. L. HANSON : I guess it

would depend on what the member is referring to. If there is some

suggestion of a consumer concern with packaging that is misleading or

something like that, then possibly that would be the case, but

packaging from a health point of view and others are generally not this

ministry's responsibility.

MRS. BOONE : I think this

is both a consumer services point of view and an environmental point of

view. A tremendous amount of garbage is created by unnecessary

packaging — and that's the environmental point of view, but

there's also the consumer aspect. Any one of us has gone to the store

and had to purchase three batteries when you really only need two

because they come in a bubble package where you're forced to purchase

three rather than two. Just about everything nowadays comes in these

bubble packages and the consumer is constantly being forced to purchase

more than they require in order to obtain any at all. If you want six,

maybe you have to buy ten because they come in packages of five. It's

frustrating as a consumer.

Then, of course, you have to

open them, and that's the other story there. I think you have to be a

magician to do that. There is definitely a very real consumer problem

here and a consumer issue regarding the whole packaging issue. I

believe this ministry should be looking at this from the aspect of

protecting the consumer.

The ministry should also be

working in conjunction with the Ministry of Environment to deal with

the issue of excess garbage, because we have a tremendous amount of

garbage not just in this province but in the world as a whole. We ought

not to be contributing to it by producing unnecessary bubble packages

to force us to purchase more than we require of anything. Has the

minister reviewed any of this or had any thoughts on this issue at all?

HON. L. HANSON :

The question is sort of interesting. My experience has always been that

the marketplace determines these sorts of things, and if a package of

three batteries is not acceptable to the consumer, the marketers who

deal in this consumer market are astute enough to provide packaging

that is to the likes of consumers.

If the member is

suggesting that all of these packagers of goods get together and have

an understanding that they won't do anything but package them in those

quantities to do what the member is suggesting, I would think that

there's federal legislation that would be very concerned about

that — probably under the Combines Investigation Act.

do know what the member is talking about in terms of batteries, but I

also know they're available individually at many retailers, not even

packaged, and at a lesser price. I think the consuming public is

intelligent enough to do that sort of research. I know that I certainly

do that sort of research when I'm buying something, and if the package

is something that is out of the context that I want to use it, I search

at a place that sells them otherwise.

I am a firm believer

that if someone provides a package that is more acceptable to the

consumers, whether it be single or two or three, that probably is where

the consumers will go to make their purchases. I believe that the

marketplace deals very well with that.

I understand what

the member is talking about in the difficulty of the environment. I was

a member of a municipal council, and the disposal of garbage is a

continual problem that is certainly growing. I think the Ministry of

Environment has been doing some studies on it. I know it is of major

proportion. The system that we had of sanitary landfills.... Land is

very difficult to find. The environmental impacts are becoming more and

more difficult to measure.

The aspect of containers doesn't

lie within my ministry. I think the member would accept that as fair. I

have no difficulty in commenting on these sorts of things, but it's

probably unfair that the ministry responsible be deprived of the

privilege in their estimates.

MRS. BOONE : Again I

beg to differ with the minister in that the consumer has a choice.

There are times when the consumer has no choice; things are packaged.

You can go all over town, I suppose, to find something that is not

packaged.

[ Page 6929 ]

use batteries as an example. There are many other commodities that are

also packaged in such a manner that you are forced to purchase much

more than you require. This is the frustration of many people who do

the shopping for the family. They go out and purchase these things, and

later they find one of something around, and by that time they have

purchased another set, because they have forgotten about the other one

that they've got.

This is not a partisan thing. It's a

consumer thing. It's a concern of people that they pre being forced. As

Minister of Consumer Services you ought to be out there protecting

those people's rights, making sure that they are not forced into

purchasing more than they require.

I would like to go to

something I know will cross several different ministries: the task

force studying the fish-farm industry, and some of the consumer

aspects. There are some concerns regarding the labelling of products

from wild and farmed fish. There is also some concern regarding the

improved regulations and inspections of wild fish as well. I am

wondering if the ministry has looked into the concerns that have been

brought up regarding the antibiotics — and what have you —

that are found in the fish that are farmed as compared to wild fish; if

there has been any thought to making recommendations for labelling on

cans to distinguish between them; or if there is any thought to

improving regulations or inspections of those fish.

HON. L. HANSON :

I think the task force the member is referring to was initiated by the

Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries. I am not aware of what that

report will eventually determine. As the member said herself, the

labelling issue is a federal issue. I haven't dealt with it within my

ministry quite simply because there are some parameters for the

responsibilities of the various ministries. I believe the member is

referring to fish caught by fish boats, or those running wild, and

those that are raised on the farm. I can't answer that. As I said, I

haven't looked into it. We'll talk to the Ministry of Agriculture to

see where they are with that. If we feel that it is a consumer issue,

we may look at something, but at this point I think it is amply covered

by the Ministry of Agriculture and the federal legislation. I have no

immediate thought of getting into that.

MR. SIHOTA :

I'll switch gears a bit. I want to ask the minister a number of

questions about the lack of corrective action taken by the Ministry of

Social Services and Housing with respect to the employment standards

legislation and the employment standards branch.

This deals

with a case that I am sure that the minister is well aware of. It's the

case of R