1984 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 33rd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 11, 1984

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

4349 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Skagit Environmental Enhancement Act (Bill 12). Hon. Mr. Brummet.

Introduction and first reading –– 4349

Oral Questions

Expo 86. Mr. Lauk –– 4349

Mr. Barrett

Tabling Documents –– 4351

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Health estimates. (Hon. Mr. Nielsen)

On vote 34: minister's office 4351

Mrs. Dailly

Mr. Passarell

On vote 38: institutional services –– 4355

Mrs. Dailly

Residential Tenancy Act (Bill 19). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Hewitt)

section 2 4355

Mr. Blencoe

section 3 –– 4358

Mr. Blencoe

section 7 –– 4359

Mr. Blencoe

Division

section 9 –– 4360

Mr. Blencoe

section 16 –– 4360

Mr. Blencoe

section 21 –– 4360

Mr. Blencoe

section 29 –– 4363

Mr. Blencoe

section 30 –– 4364

Mr. Blencoe

section 31 –– 4365

Mr. Blencoe

section 40 –– 4365

Mr. Blencoe

section 42 –– 4366

Mr. Blencoe

section 52 –– 4367

Mr. Blencoe

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

Section 1 –– 4367

Mr. Hanson

section 3 –– 4371

Mr. Hanson

Third reading –– 4372

Appendix –– 4372

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 11, 1984

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, visiting the House today, and in

the gallery facing the Chair, are two prominent British Columbians who

are unfortunately retiring and going to Ontario, perhaps the worst

mistake of their lives. I ask the House to welcome Mr. Julius Martin

and Mrs. Rose Martin from Prince George, and wish them well in their

future.

MR. MOWAT: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery this afternoon is a

friend of mine and a former teacher, Betsy MacDonald, who is now with

Vancouver Community College. I would ask the House to please make Betsy

welcome.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Speaker, in the members' gallery today are

three guests from the Nishga, Rod Robinson, the chief councillor,

Alfred Fraser, the health coordinator, and Perry McKay. I would ask the

House to welcome them this afternoon.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, in the members' gallery today

is the principal of the College of New Caledonia, Mr. Charles

McCaffray, down from Prince George, and I would ask the House to give

him a fond welcome.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today are the

parents of my deputy minister, Mrs. Jill Bodkin. I would ask the House

to welcome Ken and Marie Madsen from the beautiful community of Banff,

Alberta, to Victoria, British Columbia.

Introduction of Bills

SKAGIT ENVIRONMENTAL ENHANCEMENT ACT

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

a bill intituled Skagit Environmental Enhancement Act.

Bill 12 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

EXPO 86

MR. LAUK: I have a question to the Premier. This morning Mr.

Pattison of Expo 86 indicated to the press that he could bring Expo 86

in on time, on budget and at union rates, and that the government's

insistence that the site be openly competitive has forced him to

recommend to the cabinet that Expo be cancelled. Has the government

made a decision?

HON. MR. BENNETT: First of all, the

preamble to the question is not

correct. I think there are two fundamental principles in British Columbia when

the public does business: firstly, when public money is being expended it should

be open to all British Columbians, regardless of organization or affiliation;

secondly, the principle of the best possible price through full competition.

Those who would say that competition should not exist for one sector of society

in the expenditure of public funds are selective in the way they choose to allow

British Columbians to participate. The competitive factor in construction around

this province today means savings of about 10 percent. High and low bids and

what has happened to construction prices would indicate that very clearly. Therefore

full competition must be allowed, and it's very difficult to deal selectively

— picking one group of society and saying that true competition shouldn't

exist.

The second part of the question was: has the government made a decision on Mr. Pattison's proposal? The answer is no.

MR. LAUK: I hope the Premier is not suggesting that Mr.

Pattison is making an incorrect or inaccurate statement. In any event,

he is widely quoted on tape as saying: "On time, on budget, at union

rates." If that's correct, which I believe to be the case, and also

Expo's boards report that it will bring close to $3 billion into the

economy of British Columbia during the worst recession since the

Depression, is the government actually considering cancelling Expo on

this narrow doctrinal inflexibility of the Social Credit Party?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, clearly the question in itself is out of order.

MR. LAUK: Why is it out of order, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, a question must be a question, not

an expression of an opinion, representation, argumentation or debate.

If the question is rephrased, I'm sure the member can do so in such a

way to make it fall within the ambit of....

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, is the Premier suggesting that the

government would actually cancel Expo on the basis of its philosophical

belief that there should be free and open competition on the site?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I guess the member is saying now that

he, like other British Columbians, supports Expo. I want to say that this government

gave birth to the concept of Expo and raised it over a lot of objections — much

of it recorded in the Hansard of the House — that in the early days was expressed

by the now-mayor of Vancouver, who embarrassed us by flying to Paris to plead

against the IBE granting British Columbia the right to hold such an exposition.

The fact that they have now been converted to Expo makes me feel glad because

I do believe Expo would be, as the member now says, good for British Columbia.

But it is not blind to deal with fair competition. Many of the debates of this

Legislature have been over small amounts of money that members opposite feel

are wasteful. I don't think they are suggesting now that they weren't

sincere when they questioned expenditures of some of the smallest amounts and

say that this government shouldn't maintain a policy of getting the best

possible price for the people of this province. Budgets are just that. They're

a proposal of expenditure, and they're a proposal of receipts. Budgets are

there to be improved upon, and if the expenditure of Expo can be improved upon

by fair and open competition, that is in the spirit of British Columbia and

of Canada, as I understand it, without having to make some commitment to some

groups that normal competition doesn't apply. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I

[ Page 4350 ]

would say that the traditional values of fair and open competition should always be there in British Columbia.

[2:15]

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, to the Premier. My understanding from

Mr. Pattison is that the budget was provided by the cabinet; Mr.

Pattison has fulfilled his terms within that budget. In any event, it's

clear that the only way we can get an agreement from the construction

trades for no strikes and no work stoppages is to have an equal rates

agreement. If Mr. Pattison says we can bring it in on budget on that

basis, why is the government playing chicken with the people, the

trades and everything else in Expo 86?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Again, the member, as usual, is incorrect.

The cabinet did not give Mr. Pattison the budget. The budget has been

developed by the board of Expo and the professional management they've

hired. The budget has developed as the size of the fair grew and as it

gained support not only from doubters at home but from those

internationally who feel that British Columbia can put on an

outstanding fair.

The member suggests that the proposed budget is somehow something

that could not be better. I'm sure that if they were cautious, the

financial people in Expo would take into account the highest cost they

could face in putting on the fair. I'm sure they would write those into

their budget, because the last thing they would want is an unrealistic

budget based on a wish list, rather than what they saw as being the top

cost — that being, of course, that provided by those who have union

agreements that all the work would be gotten by the few large unionized

firms who would dominate the site, and, of course, have less

competition. I'm sure that in all parts of their budget they are

hopeful. Everyone understands that in preparing a budget, especially if

you've had to run your own small business, you always try to improve

it. You never try to delude yourself at the beginning by putting in

figures that may be too low. Therefore I'm sure that the directors of

Expo — at least the business side of Expo — would expect its

competition to hopefully provide a better budget with lower costs to

the people of British Columbia, and perhaps have some cushion against

those things they can't control, which Mr. Pattison mentioned this

morning as well. We are dealing with things now where people have some

ability to give some security. These are things where people can agree

not to disrupt the site, where people can agree that they will not

create any disruption in the construction or implementation of Expo.

That's not unreasonable to ask of any British Columbian. All Mr.

Pattison has asked is: "Will you give us your assurances you will not

disrupt the site and will not shut down construction to the point that

the fair cannot meet its obligations?" I'm sure each British Columbian,

individually would give their assurance. I'm surprised he hasn't got

them. It would be nice if Expo could get some cushion against the

things we can't control, and that's the weather. As you know, we have a

domed stadium in Vancouver because it sometimes rains there, and any

period of rain can affect the fair as well. I would hope that they

could have that type of cushion. I hope the bids come in competitively.

I hope they beat their budget.

I hope those who will not give their guarantee that they won't shut

down the fair change their minds and end this difficult choice that

we're faced with.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, the public knows full well that the construction

trades have made an offer for no strikes and no work stoppages based on an equal-rate

formula of some kind. The construction industry itself has stated publicly that

no more than a small percentage of the work can be done by non-union companies

in any event. Why does the Premier insist on this smokescreen? What is the real

reason he wants to shut down Expo? What's the real reason?

HON. MR. BENNETT: It's never been my intent to oppose Expo.

That member and some of them can look at their own record on this

subject, well recorded in Hansard .

Before I'm accused of making an error, I'll correct a statement I made

earlier that the now mayor of Vancouver flew to Paris. He flew a

telegram to Paris.

Mr. Speaker, I guess we have to look at what fair competition means

and the ramification of what that member is suggesting. Throughout this

province, in many communities, public and private works are going ahead

with competitive bids. Some of those people are trade union members,

some are not. How do you suggest to those working at competitive wages

which are less than that because of the marketplace that there should

be some selective area of the province where wages that are much higher

than the marketplace today would be enforced? How do you talk to all

those people out there who have responded to the market, as have most

other British Columbians during this recession, and suggest that some

may be immune?

MR. BARRETT: Tell us about timber.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Maybe you'd like to tell us who gave a $100,000 cheque to your party during the election that might relate to this.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the Premier has announced today

that there is free and open competition at Expo and open sites. I ask

the Premier: on the primary resource of the province of British

Columbia, is the Premier announcing today that there will be free and

open competition for access to tree-farm licences and timber purchases

in British Columbia? Will there be free and open competition for union

and non-union firms on tree-farm licences and timber in British

Columbia?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, there will be the same type of

bidding, with the conditions as laid out in regulations and

legislation, as there are conditions for bidding on construction sites:

that is, the qualification of proving that you can do the job; the

financial ability to stay in business, which is in every construction

bid; the ability to get a bond. Those things apply to the development

of resources or construction — that is, the ability to carry out what

you undertake. Those conditions always exist where sound management is

applied.

MR. BARRETT: At the present time there is no free, open

competition on the renewal of tree-farm licences. I welcome the

Premier's statement today that for the first time under this government

there will be free and open competitive bidding on tree-farm licences.

So that there is no mistake, let that word go out to the forest

industry today that that's the new position of Social Credit.

[ Page

4351 ]

HON. MR. BENNETT: In response to the speech that was allowed

in here and that did not contain a question, I would ask the members

that the Leader of the Opposition is now advising to read what I said

and not his misinterpretation.

Mr. Speaker tabled the auditor-general's third special report to the

Legislative Assembly on the expenditures of the Ministry of Tourism.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to tell you that

in the House today are representatives from the Vancouver Community

College, Mrs. Betsy MacDonald, Mr. Stusiak, Mr. Sandy, Mr. Lewindon,

Mr. Ofield and Mr. O'Neill. Will the House please make them feel very

welcome today.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, may I have leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

MR. BARRETT: In the gallery today is the retired Rev. R.B. Knipe and his wife. I'd ask the House to welcome them.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Might I also have leave for an introduction, Mr. Speaker?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I'm informed that a cultural

delegation from Holland are visiting our province and our city of

Victoria today. I'd like all members to give them a very warm and

cordial welcome.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call Committee of Supply.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH

(continued)

On vote 34: minister's office, $199,325.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I just want to respond to some queries made by the

member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) yesterday. I believe there are about

four areas of concern. One was with respect to ambulance calls in the Cowichan

Valley. Perhaps by way of responding to the question I can just offer some information.

The dispatch system in the Cowichan Valley has, until recently, been handled

by the RCMP. Now professional ambulance dispatchers are being used to cover

the Cowichan Valley. A private phone line has been installed in the Cowichan

District Hospital emergency room, with an extension at the second-floor nursing

station.

The hospital is notified of the patient's condition and estimated

time of arrival. Communication between the crew and hospital is

possible by relay through the dispatch centre. The system works very

well in all other major areas of the province. To date we have not

received any complaints from the Cowichan District Hospital.

The member spoke about the psychiatric wing of the hospital, I

believe. The operating funds for psychiatric beds have been added to

the hospital's funding base, A special note to this effect was included

in a letter to the hospital sent April 1 this year, advising the

hospital of their 1984-85 budget.

The staffing levels and effects on patient care: the Cowichan

District Hospital has adjusted its staffing to the same standards as

comparable facilities throughout the province, which are able to

provide excellent care. I'm advised that we have every confidence the

board and staff will also be able to maintain the level of care with

similar staffing levels.

Was it the member for Cowichan who spoke about the patents on the drugs?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Okay. At the present time in this country,

when a drug manufacturer develops a new drug they take out a patent on

the drug for a period of 17 years. However, since 1969 another

manufacturer can produce the same drug — the generic equivalent — after

four years by receiving a compulsory licence, and they pay a 4 percent

royalty to the company with the patent. The Pharmaceutical

Manufacturers' Association of Canada — mainly international companies —

has been lobbying the federal government to change the provisions of

the Patent Act, which allows for this compulsory licensing. That

organization argues that the costs of research and development of new

drugs are borne by the originating company, and a four-year period of

exclusive marketing is not sufficient to recover the costs and provide

a return on their investment; and they have other arguments. A

competing group, the Canadian Drug Manufacturers' Association, oppose

the strengthening of the patent protection. The CDMA offers lower cost

generic equivalents and stands to benefit if the current procedures are

maintained, or if the patent protection is further reduced or

eliminated.

A provincial and interministerial committee, chaired by

Intergovernmental Relations and Industry and Small Business

Development, including representation from Health, Human Resources and

Consumer and Corporate Affairs, has examined the issue. The conclusion

forwarded by Intergovernmental Relations to Consumer and Corporate

Affairs Canada is that British Columbia supports the existing

compulsory licensing provisions of the Patent Act. I think that is what

the query was.

[2:30]

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, yesterday we were discussing the

matter of areas where efficiencies could perhaps be made in the

hospital system, and I just wanted to mention to the minister that in

reaction to my suggestion that group health clinics might provide some

savings in the overall delivery of health services, he answered that in

his opinion they wouldn't necessarily. I simply want to say to the

minister that I wish that at some period in time he could have his

staff investigate and do a cost study on group health clinics. Perhaps

then the minister may be able to come up with a

[ Page 4352 ]

positive endorsation of community health clinics. I

hope that the minister will have his staff do some kind of an

examination of this, because I don't think it is sufficient for him to

say that he "believes" they do not. I would appreciate it if his staff

could do that at some time.

In the area of discussing efficiencies, I want to make it quite

clear that there are areas where I think that more money should be

injected, and there are also areas where I think we could save. I want

to deal with those two matters now. There is an area where I think

there is no way that we have any right as legislators to approve

cutbacks, and that is particularly in the care of elderly people who

are confined to institutions where they are going to be spending their

last days. I think it is incumbent upon any society to make those last

days, months or years as pleasant and secure as possible, and I'm sure

the minister would agree with me on that. I know he is most interested

in children, and just like children need that security and warmth, I

think that he would agree that it is equally important at the other

end, when a person becomes somewhat helpless and dependent on

governmental policy for their contentment and happiness.

I particularly want to bring to the minister's attention something

which I'm sure he's aware of, but I'd like to ask him what he can do

about it. This is only one area; there are others in the province. Out

at the University of B.C. Health Science Centre — and we won't go into

the details again or questions about whether that should have ever been

built; it is there now — there are 300 elderly, ailing patients at the

present time. I think the minister is aware that there was an article,

and there have also been a number of letters presented to a number of

us, on concerns for the manner in which the cutbacks — imposed by the

government, through their policies of not being able to provide enough

money to some of the hospitals — are actually seriously affecting the

last days, months and years of elderly patients. I think the minister

would agree with me that when patients who are confined to their

wheelchairs can no longer get out of their wheelchairs to be taken for

a swim because of cutbacks, that means a tremendous amount to them.

In many other places we have other areas where the general patient

care and time that can be given by the nurses has been cut back. Some

of these elderly patients have to spend far too long on their own,

without the proper attention they should be getting. This is no

reflection on staff; it is a reflection on policies of cutbacks. One of

the most touching things that I have read about is the fact that as

people are nearing the end of their life, they should have the comfort

and security of knowing that someone from the staff is in attendance

near them. To my knowledge, cutbacks are affecting something as serious

as that.

What I'm trying to say is that we can stand here in this House and

debate dollars and moneys and health policies, but when you get right

down to it it's what's happening to patients in the hospital at the

time they are confined — particularly the elderly in this situation —

that I know must concern the minister as much as it does me. I want to

ask the minister what he is planning to do in that area so we don't

have these situations repeated across our province where elderly people

are not getting the security and attention they should because the

hospitals have had to cut back. I also want to say to the minister: if

we're saying there is only so much money, that is one area where moneys

should not be cut.

You may say: "What are you going to do about the money?" I would

like to point out to the minister — and I know he must be well aware of

this — that the physiotherapists in this province who can enable a

patient to stay at home instead of in an institution, because of

treatment, are in very short supply in British Columbia. There simply

aren't enough of them to go around. In some areas of the province there

aren't any available. UBC offers the only program to train them, but it

doesn't train nearly enough to meet the demand. Because of enrolment

limitations, which, again, are the responsibility of the provincial

government's financial policies, there were 30 physiotherapists

finishing their training in '83-84, and next year it is anticipated

only 18 can go in. Doesn't that seem ridiculous, Mr. Chairman? Here we

are cutting back on a vital service which could keep people in their

homes instead of an institution. I say to the minister: is that not

short-sighted policy on behalf of your government and your ministry in

those areas where you could actually be saving the taxpayers' money by

enabling these people to stay in their own homes because of proper

services? May I say, this applies to homemakers, who have had their

hours cut back, and many other facets. I particularly want to deal with

the physiotherapists because I know that some of the other speakers

have dealt with the homemaker situation.

Another area where the minister could look at costs.... I find it

most interesting, and I simply want to get his reaction to this. I

notice that under one of the votes the Medical Services Commission is

increased by 1.6 percent. The interesting thing is that that 1.6

percent amounts to over $8 million. From what I can see in the estimate

book, that money goes almost entirely for increases for

fees-for-service for doctors. I know the minister was talking about

meeting with doctors and discussing the matters of specialists and how

perhaps he questioned some of the areas there. I understand he's

meeting with the doctors on these very sensitive but very vital

matters. So I say to the minister: if you budgeted for an increase of

$8 million for fee-for-service, can you explain to us the rationale for

that increase at a time when physiotherapists aren't being provided and

when old people are not being given proper care? I'll leave those

questions with him.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Chairman, as we're closing debate on the

Health estimates I have a couple of questions and comments to make to

the minister. Firstly I'd like to thank the minister for the

cooperation that he's offered me this year, particularly with the issue

that I'll be closing my debate with.

The first issue I'd like to discuss is one of the critic roles that

I have, and that's the air ambulance. I'd like to say that that

continues to be an excellent service. I see in the budget this year

that it continues to receive an increase in funding, and I appreciate

that. At times when we took at what this service provides, particularly

when we're looking at a constituency such as Atlin, which is a very

isolated and remote area.... The air ambulance comes in almost as an

essential service when it comes to health care in this province. I

think all residents in the far north appreciate the services that the

air ambulance contributes, particularly when we look at the people who

are behind the air ambulance service: the ground crews, the pilots and

the doctors who fly on that service.

Another statement when it comes to constituency issues is some of

the positive changes that have happened in the last two years. I look

favourably at the minister's positive response to the community of

Dease Lake, where at one time when people were hurt in that community

they had to receive

[ Page

4353 ]

medical attention in a private house. Now there's

an excellent facility in Dease Lake, and I think all residents in Dease

Lake and particularly in the surrounding area appreciate the work that

this ministry has done, as well as the work of the college of

physicians, who staff the facility.

The third issue is the circumstance in the community I live in, the

community of Atlin, where the Red Cross provides medical service. It's

a Red Cross outpost where residents, if they are hurt, have to attend.

Maybe the minister has these figures, but I doubt there are many

communities in the province where the Red Cross is the only facility

for health care. If there are more than Atlin, I think it's time we

came into the twentieth century — and that's not faulting the dedicated

work of the Red Cross. I think it's time that the 400 or 500 residents

of Atlin, summer and winter — it deviates quite a bit — had some type

of health care facility provided by the provincial government.

The last and probably the most important issue is the Nishga

diagnostic centre. As the minister is aware, the Nass is an isolated

area too — particularly when you look at where residents in the Nass

have to receive medical attention through the programs provided by the

federal government. There are problems of transportation in the area.

Look at the road conditions that individuals in the Nass have to

contend with if someone is, hurt. I congratulate the minister again.

Every time I congratulate ministers when they've been helpful, my

mother, who reads Hansard ,

wonders what is happening. Are we getting too cooperative in this

Legislature? I appreciate the cooperation, and I know that as soon as

these estimates close, which will be within the next few minutes, we'll

have an ongoing meeting in regard to making a decision and showing

something on the Nishga position and the facility they would like to

have put into the Nass. It will benefit many residents in the Nass

area. When we look at health, we have to work cooperatively with all

levels of government, particularly when we look at the Nishga proposal,

and work out some kind of formula for a quick resolution to the

problem. I think that when we look at the terms.... People shouldn't

have to ask for health care. It should be something that is provided,

and it should be the best for everyone. Health is much too important to

ever be labelled the result of a political motive on the part of

government or of one political party or another. When we look at the

proposal made by the Nishga, I think that once again we can show people

across this province that we in this House, as lawmakers — even though

the media like to look at it in terms of sensationalism — often work

cooperatively in solving problems for the benefit of people. It would

be the right step in finalizing the Nishga position on this, and I

thank the minister.

[2:45]

HON. MR. NIELSEN: In response to one of the questions asked

by the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly), it is our opinion that

the UBC Health Sciences Centre Hospital has an adequate budget. It's

also our opinion that the firm of Extendicare, which is a consulting

firm which carried out a two-month study of the hospital.... I believe

they identified certain areas of the hospital's management which could

be modified to allow that hospital to stay within its budget

allocation. There were many recommendations made by the firm of

Extendicare, many of which have been acted upon by the hospital. People

who are in the extended-care part of that hospital should be receiving

the care they require. There could be individual complaints, and there

could be others who are making comments for whatever their purposes

might be, but we believe that the hospital is adequately funded. The

hospital had a history of fiscal difficulties, including substantial

deficits. The Extendicare people went in to examine it, carried out

their examination, made recommendations, and many of the

recommendations are now being followed by the hospital. I will have our

long-term care people review UBC extended care, as they do others, to

ensure that the people are receiving adequate care. It is our belief

that there is adequate funding for hospital management, but in some

cases we feel that it is not being allocated as it could be.

Physiotherapists. We've had discussions with UBC and others,

including the physiotherapy consultants within institutional services.

We're going to look at the Physiotherapists Act regulations and see if

that has any effect; we're also speaking with UBC. The member mentioned

that they have a very limited number of people in the courses, which is

correct. If it were my decision I could make some suggestions as to

what other courses could perhaps be dropped if we expand the

physiotherapists course at our universities. Perhaps we will be making

that suggestion. Yes, there are a number of what I guess we could call

paramedical areas of training that don't seem to have adequate

enrolment in our province, and the need is there; physiotherapists are

one, audiologists perhaps another, and so on. We are talking with the

university to see if we could make some changes to try to produce more

of our own. I don't know what the university might say. They might say:

"Well, simply send more money." Perhaps there are alternative

propositions which could be considered; perhaps simply move it around a

bit better.

The Medical Services Commission increase of 1.6 percent doesn't

really reflect an increase in fees as much as it reflects an

anticipated increase in utilization. There's a slight increase in

population and in the aging of the population, thus a slight increase

in utilization. We have not yet concluded an agreement with the British

Columbia Medical Association for 1984-85. In fact, we're always

concerned about publishing a budget before we conclude negotiations.

Utilization is the one factor that all Ministers of Health in Canada,

and the medical associations, have great difficulty coming to issue

with, because it is very difficult to predict accurately. In fact, it's

very difficult to prove what causes this increase in utilization. One

side blames the medical profession, and frequently the other side

blames the patients. It's probably a combination of both.

I appreciate many of the comments by the member for Atlin (Mr.

Passarell), particularly with respect to the air ambulance and the

paramedics involved as staff on these. They have taken a very long time

to train, some at their own expense for much of that time. They are

particularly well qualified. We have expanded the programs, as the

member may know, to increase their capability. They probably rank with

any similar organization anywhere in the world. I think particular

recognition should be given to the infant teams. This program has seen

an incredible improvement in the statistics relating to premature

births and other newly born children with certain medical difficulties

who are taken from whatever remote area they may be in, down to the

Children's Hospital or other suitable facilities. The statistics

indicate that in a ten-year span from about 1971-81 — approximately

that period of time — the survival rates of infants in that category

increased from about 36 percent to about 80 percent. I think that would

be directly related to the expansion of

[ Page 4354 ]

the program and the skill of the people associated

with it. So I think they should be recognized for that. It's a

first-class program.

MRS. DAILLY: I thank the minister for his answers. I have one

final comment on long-term and extended care. I note that in the budget

— and this has been brought up before — there is a $16 million

decrease, in spite of the minister saying that perhaps efficiencies

within hospitals.... I realize that that is a matter separate from the

continuing care budget. It's a matter of philosophy, I suppose: that we

on this side believe it would be better to increase continuing care

rather than to decrease it. Perhaps the minister is able to correct the

information that I have here. We read it as a $16 million decrease,

minus 5 percent over last year's estimates. We consider that in the

long run, that is not only doing great harm to the people who need

continuing cared but is also rather foolish from the point of view of

finances. We think you could perhaps even be saving the taxpayers money

by increasing, not decreasing.

I have a couple more points before we close off the estimates. It is

difficult to keep up momentum when you're on again, off again in these

estimates.

In the matter of alternative health care, I pay credit — as I seldom

do — to the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Reynolds), who

brought in a motion which I know I can't discuss now. I would like the

minister's opinion on the matter of alternative forms of health care,

and whether he is willing to lend his support to perhaps making changes

in the present act and regulations applicable in that area. I know

there would have to be many safeguards, but I also appreciate the fact

that there are many people out there who believe that at the present

time there is a rigidity and an inflexibility in the responsibilities

given to the College of Physicians in this area, and I don't blame the

College of Physicians. After all, government makes the rules and

regulations for them in this area.

Interjection.

MRS. DAILLY: I'm sure the Premier appreciates the fact of the

need every day for vitamins and other forms of alternative health

therapy, which many people out there believe in strongly, and think

would save the Premier and others helpful....

HON. MR. BENNETT: If you eat wholesome, good food you don't need....

MRS. DAILLY: I am glad I have the Premier with me on this

matter, but I'd like to hear from the Minister of Health what his

reaction is to it.

I also want to make the final point, which has already been made,

but I want to say it from my point of view. It is very foolish of the

government to be cutting back in any areas of alcoholism and drug

treatment at this time. Because of the recession I'm afraid more people

are entering into the areas of alcoholism, drug addiction and so on. I

can't understand why the government would cut back in that area. I

leave those matters with the minister.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: With respect to alternative health care, I think there

are two areas to consider. One is the history of the alternative methods and

forms of health care in British Columbia. We are one of the few provinces who

have made room within our Medical Services Plan for what I guess could be referred

to as alternative health care professionals, paramedical — whatever they call

them — such as chiropractors, podiatrists, optometrists, naturopaths and physiotherapists.

Many provinces simply don't recognize those particular methods as legitimate

— that's the wrong word; coming within the area of medical services. In

B.C. we have, as you know, for many years.

We are under constant pressure from most organizations associated in

some way with health or health care to be included within the Medical

Services Plan. Most of them first wish to be recognized and then

possibly included. We know that it would be a considerable additional

cost. The proposition which has been put forward most recently is

possibly permitting the practice of some of these people in their own

area of expertise, but not including that within the Medical Services

Plan as an insured benefit. That has been suggested by some. I'm very

wary of that approach, because I think that once government recognizes

a service, it is very difficult to argue why you are not then prepared

to assist the people in obtaining that service.

There are a few that I'm very concerned about. I won't mention which

they may be today. I think the College of Physicians and Surgeons is

ultraconservative when it comes to those engaged in health matters, and

possibly it's because they feel that in health matters it is best to be

ultraconservative to safeguard against the possibility of damage to

individuals. The college itself, I believe, requires some discussions

with the ministry, and we intend to have those discussions very soon. I

think sometimes authorities granted to organizations should be

reviewed. I think governments have shown wisdom at some points in

history where they recognized they themselves did not have the

expertise and it was best to give that authority to those who did have

the information and ability. But I'm not quite sure if it is still the

same as it was when it was originally considered. We intend to speak to

the College of Physicians and Surgeons about certain matters. We intend

to speak to the other professional organizations who are in effect

self-governing and can to some degree inflict a monopoly upon society.

So we intend to speak to that. I think we'll always recognize their

knowledge and call upon them to assist society to ensure that we are

not embarking on any dangerous practice of health care.

There are a few areas that we are quite concerned with and, Mr.

Chairman, I might make a final comment on that subject. Frequently we

are somewhat restricted in explaining a situation clearly to the

general public because much of the information which we could be

offering is highly confidential, particularly when it is from a

patient's own records or information that's been provided. It would be

in violation of the concept of confidentiality of records, and it does

create a bit of a problem in attempting to explain why you may not

embrace or agree with somebody's statement. Sometimes there's

information that's within the files of the physicians themselves.

I've been getting a lot of mail from that motion; it really

surprises me that the average person in B.C. would actually be reading

the motions on the order paper. I'm sure they managed to get that

information in some other way.

Vote 34 approved.

[ Page 4355 ]

Vote 35: management operations, $65,735,518 — approved.

Vote 36: Medical Services Commission, $539,126,634 — approved.

[3:00]

Vote 37: preventive and community health care services, $187,672,739 — approved.

On vote 38: institutional services, $1,746,349,580.

MRS. DAILLY: I just have one question on institutional

services. I wonder if the minister could tell us what the policy of his

ministry is re employing health consultants. I'm referring particularly

to Eagle Ridge Hospital. I'm doing this on behalf of the member for

Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose), who cannot be here today. He asked me if I

would ask the minister about the employment of consultants instead of

the actual personnel who were used before. Are you embarking on this,

particularly in amalgamation, instead of having the usual personnel in

the administrative areas?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Not as a general rule or as a permanent

situation. There could be consultants hired during a transition or

prior to amalgamation. I think the traditional model of an

administrator, and others within administration, would continue, but

there could be some period of transition where a consultant could be

hired for some specific work. I think the administrators, in most

cases, would be hired as full-time administrators to manage the

facilities. Obviously there would be some consultants hired at some

hospitals for certain purposes, but the basic model we've had for many

years will continue, and it will continue in the Eagle Ridge Royal

Columbian situation.

MRS. DAILLY: Thank you.

Vote 38 approved.

The committee, having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Committee on Bill 19, Mr. Speaker.

RESIDENTIAL TENANCY ACT

The House in committee on Bill 19; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

MR. BLENCOE: This is the section, I believe, that deals with

the application of the act. Mr. Chairman, I'm going to be fairly

specific in my concerns with this bill, since this is the committee

stage. The difficulty we have is that we would very much like to have

seen some reasonableness in terms of the government's position on this

bill. As the House knows, I suggested a process for that, but

unfortunately that's not going to happen. I will try again today to

show to the minister where I think there are some very distinct

weaknesses in this bill, why I think the thing should be totally

rewritten and why we should have a decent, respectable and fair

residential tenancy bill in the province of British Columbia.

Before I get into specifics, Mr. Chairman, I want to make it quite

clear that we feel a bill should be fair to both landlords and tenants.

The minister has said that in our criticisms we are attacking landlords

per se. What we're trying to say is that there has to be a piece of

legislation that ensures there is equity between those two groups. Our

concern is that there is not equity between the two groups. The other

major concern is that in the application of this bill there are going

to be great complications, and cumbersome kinds of approaches, through

the courts, through arbitrators, through charges of $30, which may

affect many people — and we'll get to that

section later on. People

won't be able to afford that kind of process. I hope the minister will

take that into consideration.

Application. Under tnew prhe ovision of

section 2(2)(d), this act

does not apply to leases of over 20 years. According to the definition

section 1, a fixed-term tenancy agreement is "a tenancy agreement

with a predetermined expiry date." Government policy is to allow

tenancy agreements to last over 20 years. It's a radical departure, in

our estimation, and a back-door way of recreating the problems that

faced 99-year leaseholders until a few years ago. The minister is aware

that I have also written to him about some existing and continuing

problems of 99-year leaseholders. I'm hoping he will be reacting to

that separately from this bill. The government, to their credit, acted

to ban 99-year leases. The 99-year leaseholders found that they had

practically no control over the terms of their tenancy or the standards

of maintenance of their building.

Mr. Chairman, I have some concerns about the concept that's coming

in here with this 20-year kind of approach and I have some specific

questions for the minister on this topic. First, 99-year leaseholders

are classified as homeowners for the purposes of a homeowner grant.

Again, my predecessor, Mr. Barber, was instrumental in convincing the

government that that was a right thing to do, and the government

agreed. Is it now the policy of the government to classify 19-year

leaseholders as homeowners? If not, why not?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, the member will know that the

previous Residential Tenancy Act did not apply for a tenancy agreement

term exceeding three years. Under the new legislation,

section 2 of the

tenancy agreement is for a term exceeding 20 years. So there's an

improvement in that area.

MR. BLENCOE: I'm not particularly satisfied with that answer but also suspect that we're not going to get any particular change.

Let me ask another question. It is common practice for landlords to

use printed lease forms when letting premises to tenants. Is it the

policy of the government that the doctrine of contra proferentern —

that's the formal title — should apply? That is that where there is an

ambiguity in a document it shall be interpreted unfavourably to the

party putting it forward.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I must admit I'm not sure what

the member is asking in using Latin terminology, I guess it is. But

with regard to the leasehold under 20 years, this legislation would

apply. That may answer his question.

[ Page 4356 ]

MR. BLENCOE: In these printed lease forms that are going to

be put together there is no guarantee that if there is an ambiguity in

the document — and one of the difficulties in these lease forms is that

there often is ambiguity — it shall be interpreted in favour of the

party putting it forward. That's my concern. What happens is that the

other side.... If we don't have some statement about ambiguity, the

tenant or the leaseholder gets the short end of the stick. I am just

trying to suggest to you, Mr. Minister, that there are all sorts of

problems that are going to come forward in this particular area. Are

you aware of that potential ambiguity, and will you consider trying to

clarify that in terms of this doctrine that I have suggested?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, if we have two parties

entering into a contract — i.e. a leasehold agreement — I am hopeful

that both parties will recognize the value of the written word and how

it is interpreted. However, where there is an issue of ambiguity or of

anything else relating to that contract, I guess that would be a matter

for the courts to decide.

MR. BLENCOE: You see, Mr. Chairman, that's the very point

I've been trying to make in this whole debate about ambiguity. Going

into the courts is a long, complicated, cumbersome process,

whereas

right now, if the rentalsman's office were maintained and improved,

these kinds of things could be dealt with by the rentalsman, and we

would not end up with lawyers getting fat fees and the courts being

bogged down with these kinds of cases. I can assure the minister that

we are going to get ambiguity. It should be decided in an informal way,

as we have in the rentalsman's office now. That's my criticism, Mr.

Minister. You say this is going to streamline the system. I suggest,

and I think you know, that it's not going to streamline the system. If

you don't ensure that you take care of ambiguity and have an informal

process — by an objective person like a rentalsman officer, rather than

the court system.... Why go to that extreme system when you have one in

place now that can work out this kind of problem?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I must remind the committee now

that we are really entering into debate which would be properly

canvassed under second reading. We are in committee and we are

discussing

section 2 specifically, which deals with the application of

the act, and further indicates how the act would not apply. If we can

limit our debate to that specific clause before us, the committee will

be well served.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, the application, of course, does

apply to the concept of tenancy agreements, and I'm talking about

ambiguity in tenancy agreements. The minister has just made a statement

on ambiguity that I can't agree with. They are going into the court

system, and the point I'm trying to make is: why go that route when you

can use the office of the rentalsman as it is now — a far cheaper way?

I'll leave it there, and go to the next question for the minister. I'm

not going to stay long on these things, but I'm trying to suggest to

the minister and to the public that this bill is full of so many

problems that you are going to create havoc and great cost to the

taxpayer.

My third question under the

section 2 application is: what

protection is there for a tenant whose prospective landlord uses a

home-printed tenancy agreement that does not comply with the

requirements of sections 5-8 and 10-17 of this bill?

HON. MR. HEWITT: First I want to clear up the previous

comment that the member made. When I mentioned the courts considering

the concern of both parties on a long-term lease, I assumed they might

opt for the courts; but they could opt for the arbitration system, Mr.

Member. I would point out to the member that the Residential Tenancy

Act that is in existence at the present time doesn't prescribe written

leases between parties.

Although I haven't had an opportunity to quickly swing to the other

sections that the member referred to, my understanding is that such

tenancy agreement would be unenforceable.

[3:15]

MR. BLENCOE: My fourth question to the minister is in an area

which again, I think, revolves around this 20-year lease problem. By

entering into a tenancy agreement of over 20 years, landlords will be

able to evade the limited protections offered to tenants under this

bill. For example, a fixed-term tenancy agreement, while the term of

the agreement may be 20 years, may also contain a clause giving the

landlord the right to terminate on certain notice, and that notice may

be less than the amount set out in the act. Since this bill favours and

is leaning toward the owners of property — and I think that in five

hours I did manage to put some of those concerns over that all I want

is fairness between the two groups, that landlords should have rights

and tenants should have rights — what is there to stop all landlords

insisting, on pain of eviction, that under

section 29(4)(

b) all tenancy

agreements shall be fixed term, and such agreements subject to

termination on, say, a week's notice?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, again, attempting to get an

opportunity to investigate the question that the member's asking, I'm

going to refer to his previous question and refer him to

section 3(5)

with regard to tenancy agreements that are in conflict with the act.

With regard to his last question concerning fixed-term agreements,

where the landlord may insist on a shorter period of time with regard

to the vacating of the property because it is a fixed-term agreement,

I'd suggest to the member that the tenant, in understanding the terms

of that agreement, would not enter into them. This would be prior to

the tenant taking occupancy of the apartment, or whatever it might be.

If the fixed-term agreement had conditions which the prospective tenant

did not agree with, he wouldn't sign the agreement.

MR. BLENCOE: Where the tenancy agreement is for over 20 years

— the minister can tell that I'm concerned about this 20-year

section —

why is there no requirement to register this agreement on the title

deed at the land titles office?

HON. MR. HEWITT: If it's a leasehold, there is a requirement to file in the land registry office. If it's a tenancy agreement, there is not.

MR. BLENCOE: Would you not suggest that a 20-year tenancy

agreement does give some indication of a fairly permanent situation and

that there should be some requirement for registration or something so

that at least the tenant

[ Page 4357 ]

knows that the deed or something is registered on

that particular aspect? I think that's a point the minister should take

up. I'm not going to get into an argument about it; I'm just again

today pointing out what I consider to be some real problems with this

bill.

In another area, I want to ask the minister if he has decided to

bring forward amendments to the definition of the phrase "fixed-term

tenancy agreement" to expand its meaning and deal with the shortcomings

identified here. Or is it the policy of the government that all

landlords should make all tenancy agreements fixed terms to avoid the

Residential Tenancy Act?

HON. MR. HEWITT: I've attempted to answer all the questions

with regard to fixed-term tenancy agreements and the fact that leases

are dealt with one way and tenancy agreements another, and where the

act applies and where it does not. The member opposite calls them

shortcomings of the legislation. I don't agree. I think these tenancy

agreements, whether leasehold or otherwise, give both parties the

opportunity to understand the value of entering into that agreement.

With regard to a lease agreement and to registering it in the land

titles office, it's possibly equally to the landlord's advantage to

register a long-term document as it is to the tenant's advantage. So

both parties, I think, are treated fairly in this regard, regarding the

application of the act in

section 2.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Fixed-term tenancy agreements are discussed in

section 1, hon. members. We are on

section 2.

MR. BLENCOE: Well, fixed-term tenancy agreements are also

referred to in the application of the act in this section. The problem

is that many of these sections do refer to all sorts of situations, and

they repeat themselves in terms of terminology and parts of the act.

I have a supplementary question to that particular question I was

asking. If it becomes clear, Mr. Minister, in this fixed terminancy

kind of situation, that landlords are using it to avoid the Residential

Tenancy Act, are you prepared to take some action on that particular

consequence? As you know and I know, this 99-year-lease problem created

all sorts of headaches, not only for the tenant but also for the

government. I'm really concerned that we're going to have a repeat of

the 99-year lease: no protection, and no act covering these

leaseholders. If it becomes a problem — if they clearly are trying to

get around the Residential Tenancy Act — are you prepared to take some

action?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Basically, nothing has changed from the

previous act with regard to this matter. Under the previous act,

however, a landlord, in having a tenant sign an agreement prior to

moving in, would then have him sign the eviction notice before he moved

in as well, so that the landlord would have in his hand the tenancy

agreement and the signed eviction notice which really said that the

tenant had agreed to notice of eviction on a certain date.

MR. BLENCOE: I don't think that has clarified.... I still

think I have brought up a good point, Mr. Chairman. I think it's going

to become an issue, and the minister can't avoid it. Hopefully he won't

continue to avoid some of the problems I've put to him about the

99-year leases still in place. Now we've got the 20-year lease

situation. I suspect that these 20-year tenancy arrangements are going

to be a way to avoid this Residential Tenancy Act. I was always

surprised that people got into 99-year lease situations, but I suspect

that 20-year lease arrangements are probably going to attract even more

attention. I think you're going to have to apply some regulations in

the Residential Tenancy Act to this kind of situation.

I believe subsection 2(2)(

e) requires some clarification, Mr.

Chairman. Reading this with subsection 7(2), the act would apply to

summer cottages and winter chalets rented during the off-season, but

not in season. Is this what the government intends? If so, can they not

clarify the wording of this section?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, the member moves from one

section to another. In

section 2 the intent, as you can appreciate, is

with regard to "summer cottages, winter chalets or other similar

recreational premises rented on a seasonal basis. Motels are quite

often rented on a month-to-month basis throughout the winter, but come

May 24 it becomes the tourist season, and the owner of that motel might

wish the opportunity to rent on a weekly or daily basis to the tourist

trade. Going through to

section 7, the member talks about the clearing

up of that particular section. I'm not sure of the need to clean it up

or to improve on it. It seems fairly clear to me that this allows for

the landlord to rent seasonal premises as regular accommodation, but it

also gives him the protection of being able to ask the person to vacate

at the end of that term in order to to use the premises for what they

were intended, i.e., tourist accommodation.

MR. BLENCOE: The minister does make a point.

Fair enough. Give him his due. I don't believe we should be totally...honourable.

I'm still on

section 2, the terms of application. This is a major

area of concern. The act does not apply to residents of rooming houses,

which are treated under the Hotel Keepers Act. The government

recognized that the residents of rooming houses were entitled to

protection and passed the appropriate amendments to the Residential

Tenancy Act. The amendments were never proclaimed, because the

government received representations — it is my understanding — from

motel and hotel operators outside of the lower mainland, where there

were few, if any, long-term occupants of hotels and motels. Given that

the government perceives this as a geographically limited problem, why

has the government not provided that the act apply to inns within areas

specified by regulation or by municipalities by motion? I think it's a

point, Mr. Minister, that has come up consistently. We had some

suggested amendments, but they are still unproclaimed. There are people

who reside permanently in those hotels and motels, yet thus far they

are not included. Why? Perhaps you could consider that. Maybe the

minister would comment on that.

HON. MR. HEWITT: On the examples that the member gives with

regard to hotels where people have taken up occupancy, they are

considered a licence situation, where the hotel can rent the room for a

week or a day; as a result, this act does not apply. This act is

looking at apartment accommodation, not at facilities that can be

rented on a daily or weekly basis. In effect, they are probably

licensed as a hotel. If there

[ Page 4358 ]

was a change in that designation and they were identified as an apartment, then of course this act would apply.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

MR. BLENCOE: We still have a problem. Again, the minister and I are obviously not going to agree.

I'll give you a suggestion, Mr. Minister; maybe you would want to

take it away and consider it. If municipalities were empowered — I'll

give you a suggestion, Mr. Minister, and maybe you would like to take

it away and consider it — to extend the protection of the Residential

Tenancy Act to rooming houses, then the interests of tenants could be

protected while preventing motel-owners from being locked into a policy

that deals with a problem not prevalent in their area. I think that's

an option that should be considered. When I was on local council, this

rooming-house thing came up all the time, and unfortunately we weren't

in any position to do anything about it because the Residential Tenancy

Act did not do anything about it. But as a local council we would have

liked to have had something to say about it, particularly in downtown

areas where the occupants of such rooming houses often are those less

fortunate with less income. Often they have a number of economic and

social problems. I think it's most unfortunate that that kind of

occupancy is not taken care of and these kinds of amendments that have

been suggested have not been put forward. I leave that there just as a

suggestion to the minister.

I know that if we were in government we would certainly — of course,

if we were in government we wouldn't have introduced such a bill —

introduce a bill that would protect rooming-house occupants.

[3:30]

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: We'll see in a few years. I'm not a betting

person. I think the people of B.C. are getting the message slowly but

surely about what should be a reasonable government.

There are thousands in hotels permanently, and they are entitled to

protection. They are entitled to the same rights as ordinary tenants

might have. Unfortunately, under this bill not even ordinary tenants

have many rights.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, very briefly, we're talking

rooming houses. The member knows they weren't covered under the

previous legislation. He can also appreciate the difficulty in

administering such things as the tenancy in rooming houses, where

people rent a room and maybe also have board. It would be difficult, to

say the least, to determine the residential tenancy in such an

instance. It's the same with hotels, under common law. It's termed a

licence. The person can take a room by a day or by a week. I'm sure the

member recognizes that when they introduced the Residential Tenancy Act

that has been in existence for a number of years, they also identified

that same problem. Therefore in their legislation that dealt with the

rentalsman's office, they did not include rooming houses and hotels.

Mr. Chairman, it's very interesting to hear the member say that they

would have done it or they will do it, hopefully, sometime in the

future. But I suggest that they will never have the opportunity. I'm

confident that the previous administration, when the NDP were in

office, also recognized the difficulty and the problem with identifying

those tenancies which were in hotels or rooming houses.

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

MR. BLENCOE: I won't take up too much time with this, Mr.

Chairman, but I do have a couple of issues and concerns. I hope we get

some response from the minister.

The present Residential Tenancy Act, Mr. Minister, provides that an

offence is committed where a landlord fails to include a term or

condition required to be included or includes a term or condition

prohibited from being included. This new bill removes that offence

clause. While we are always open to evidence that suggests this bill is

really not a landlord's bill, we ask the minister what his reasons were

for dropping that section.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, in drafting the new bill we

consolidated the offences under

section 52, which the member will be

coming to later on.

MR. BLENCOE: That is not quite a satisfactory answer, Mr.

Chairman, because I happen to feel that the existence of that clause

was obviously successful in seicuring a hgh degree of compliance. The

problem is not with the vast majority of landlords whom I certainly

believe can be trusted, but with the very small minority that can't.

HON. MR. HEWITT: You've changed your tune since the other day.

MR. BLENCOE: Well, you can interpret what I say.

I believe there is a minority that consistently try to rip off their

tenants. I think that clause was specific. There were indeed very few

prosecutions, but the fact that it was there secured a high degree of

compliance. The credit for the clause belongs to the government. While

the original Landlord and Tenant Act introduced by our government in

1975 contained a general offence provision, Rafe Mair, to his credit,

placed this obligation on landlords in 1977. What has changed since

then? Are the landlords so insistent that they want that specific

compliance removed? We then get into ambiguity, in terms of

section 52.

It could very well be that the pressure is so intense that this is the

sort of thing that is going to be removed. I happen to feel that we had

very few prosecutions because it was clear. Rafe Mair saw it was clear.

We had that

section in there, and I believe it should still be there.

The minister agrees?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, either I'm not with the

member, or he is rambling. I want him to identify the

section in the

existing act tat he is referring to. I am having great difficulty in

following him.

MR. BLENCOE: I don't have the exact clause of the act before

me, Mr. Chairman, but there was indeed a

section in there which I have

been referring to. It was

section 7 of the existing Residential Tenancy

Act.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, in attempting to respond to

the member, relating

section 7 of the existing act to

section 3 of the

act we are debating, we have the statutory

[ Page

4359 ]

terms under

section 3 which cover most, if not all,

those which were in before. However, if the member can now look at

section 3 and identify the one that is not in there but was in the old

legislation, I may be able to respond to him regarding what the change

is.

MR. BLENCOE: As I stated, Mr. Chairman, the present

Residential Tenancy Act provides that an offence is committed where a

landlord fails to include a term or condition required to be included

or includes a term or condition prohibited from being included. This

new bill removes that offence clause. The minister said it was included

section 52, or that they've just amalgamated certain things. I

happen to believe that that kind of offence clause was indeed a useful

one, and we don't have it today. I agree we have so many clauses.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, if a landlord does not follow

the statutory terms set out in subsection 3, he commits an offence. All

the offences are identified in

section 52. These are statutory terms

under subsection 3, and they are comparable to the old

section 7, which

was entitled "Covenants of All Tenancy Agreements."

Sections 3 to 6 inclusive approved.

section 7.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, this is a fairly important one. I

don't know if the minister has received the brief — which I think is an

excellent one — from the Vancouver Community Legal Assistance Society.

Have you received it? It may be in your mail somewhere.

HON. MR. HEWITT: What is the date?

MR. BLENCOE: April 10. It was sent special delivery to the

Hon. James J. Hewitt, Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, from

Allan MacLean. It lays out some of the problems that some very talented

solicitors have with this bill. It is quite a long brief, because these

lawyers feel there are indeed a lot of problems with this bill. I'm not

going to go into all the various concerns they have, but

section 7 is

one they basically have a number of things to talk about. I want to

explore it a little, not to get into a long tack back and forth, but

just to point out that there are some ambiguities and problems with

this particular section. This society advises in their brief that there

is a large potential loophole contained in

section 7(3): "A landlord

and tenant may agree, in writing, at the time they enter into a

fixed-term tenancy agreement that, notwithstanding subsection (1), the

tenancy agreement is terminated on the predetermined expiry date." This

should be changed in some way, Mr. Minister, to include only fixed

terms of over six months, at least. The provision ought not to be left

to regulation by the Lieutenant-Governor-inn-Coucil. We agree with the

thrust of the comment made by.... I wish the minister had read this

document, because I can't go into all of it — it's too long. But we

think that the terms should be 12 months. Otherwise the intent of the

act to have rent increases once a year will be circumvented.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I haven't had the opportunity to read the brief.

As the member can appreciate, I have been reasonably busy. He's had the

opportunity to read it. I will read it and consider its content. I'd refer

him to

section 7(6), which he himself has referred to in the bill, where the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may make regulations. After reviewing their brief,

I may consider some of the items that they raise at the time we develop the

regulations under the act.

MR. BLENCOE: Well, I hope the minister will look at this. It

really is a major potential loophole. I hope the minister will

post-haste introduce some changes, or as quickly as possible. The legal

assistance society that I refer to has written you an excellent brief.

I have to comment that that's one of the problems with what's happening

here at the moment. This bill has come down very fast — it has been

pushed through.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Nonsense.

MR. BLENCOE: It is being pushed through, Mr. Minister. The Sun and the Province

are down. "Let's get a piece of legislation through as quickly as

possible so those 400,000 tenants don't know what's going on." That's

part of the game; that's politics.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Let's continue discussing

section 7.

MR. BLENCOE:

Section 7 is an important aspect.... What I'm

trying to say is that I have indicated that a very respected legal

assistance society has done a very detailed brief. It's unfortunate

that the minister in his haste.... He's being overworked. He really

should back off a little bit and take a look at some of these learned

opinions that are coming in. Mr. Minister, I think it's going to help

you. If you go ahead with this bill as is, you're going to have

headache after headache.

I would like to move that this particular

section be deleted.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Hon. member, if you want to delete this, all you have to do is vote against it when we call

section 7.

MR. BLENCOE: You don't move motions of deletion?

HON. MR. HEWITT: No, you just vote against it. And we outnumber you.

[3:45]

Section 7 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 30

Chabot

McCarthy

Nielsen

Gardom

Smith

Bennett

Curtis

McGeer

A. Fraser

Davis

Kempf

Mowat

Strachan

Campbell

R. Fraser

Johnston

Michael

Ritchie

Hewitt

Heinrich

McClelland

Schroeder

Rogers

Brummet

Waterland

Ree

Segarty

Veitch

Reid

Reynolds

NAYS — 13

Macdonald

Howard

Dailly

Nicolson

Sanford

Gabelmann

Blencoe

Passarell

Mitchell

Wallace

Lockstead

Hanson

Skelly

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Section 8 approved.

[ Page 4360 ]

section 9.

MR. BLENCOE:

Section 9 provides for the application to the

courts or to the arbitrator for orders dealing with repairs. "An order

under this

section may contain terms respecting costs, expenses,

remuneration and any other necessary matters." Does this give

arbitrators the discretion to award costs?

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Section 9(4) relates to terms respecting costs regarding the repairs involved.

MR. BLENCOE: Maybe the minister can clear this up, because it

seems to me that this particular

section appears to conflict with

section 49(5).

HON. MR. HEWITT: Jesus, we're onto 49(5) now?

MR. BLENCOE: Well, it's a long bill, Mr. Minister.

Section 49(5) says: "Subsection (4) does not affect the rights or

liabilities of persons between whom, at common law, there is this

privity of contract or privity of estate." This 49(5) appears to limit

the costs to the amount of the filing fee. Does this mean that costs

may be awarded only under repair and service orders under

section 9?

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Section 9(4) relates to the cost involved

with regard to the repair. It may well relate to the expenses incurred,

the costs of the repair, the remuneration, if there were moneys

expended by the tenant, and any other necessary matters. That

section

does not relate to "damages," or that type of cost.

Sections 9 to 15 inclusive approved.

section 16.

MR. BLENCOE: This

section deals with a refund of damage deposits.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Security deposits.

MR. BLENCOE: Security deposits. Actually, before I get into

that, in the brief that I mentioned before they make a good case for

totally doing away with security deposits. But I won't get into that

today.

HON. MR. HEWITT: The landlords don't.

MR. BLENCOE: I know. But if you feel you have a case in terms

of damage to your building.... You're using the argument that you can

go to court for so many other things; why can't you sue in court a

tenant who damages your building? Get rid of the security deposit. I

would suggest that the answer you give to me on court proceedings for

so many other things could be used for security deposits too.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: I'll deal with it, Mr. Member. I just thought it was a point that was worth making.

Subsection (3) says: "After the termination of a tenancy agreement, the

landlord and tenant may agree to waive the requirements of subsection (2)."

I don't like "waiving" clauses. My question to the minister: what

constitutes waiving? The act is silent on this point. A tenant, for example,

could find themselves faced with a landlord who alleges that the tenant waived

their rights to a written statement, or even to repayment of the deposit. The

act is silent on this point. What constitutes waiving, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, the matter of waiving would have to be mutual consent of both parties.

MR. BLENCOE: I have another question. What protection is

there for a tenant whose landlord insists that a waiver of the

repayment provisions be included in the tenancy agreement? There isn't

any. At the very least, the rights waiver should be in writing. That's

our feeling.

HON. MR. HEWITT: With regard to a condition in the tenancy

agreement, the member must recognize that that would be before the

tenant-moves into the accommodation. If he was not satisfied with that,

of course he wouldn't have to move in, and he would look elsewhere. But

with regard to the matter of waiving, subsection (4) says: "After the

termination of a tenancy agreement, the landlord and tenant may agree

to waive the requirements of subsection (2)," which deals with the

accounting for security deposits 30 days after termination of the

tenancy agreement. If the tenancy agreement was to carry on, then there

would be no need to give the accounting. If both parties determine that

after termination they wish to waive it, they have that right — the two

of them. What the member fails to understand, Mr. Chairman, is that

there are two parties to this contract. Prior to any conclusion being

reached, both parties must have discussions and be in agreement. If the

tenant feels that the landlord has done something devious and never

discussed it, of course he has the ability to go via the arbitration

procedure that we've put in place.

MR. BLENCOE: I know there are two parties, and the case I'm

trying to make is that if there are two parties, there should be rules

that deal fairly with both.

Sections 16 through 20 inclusive approved.

section 21.

[4:00]

MR. BLENCOE: This is the "Rent increase with intent to evict"

clause, which is one that I think is going to be controversial and will

create some problems. I said in my speech that proving intent is going

to be extremely difficult, and of course you have to go to court to do

it. The point I make is that if you can't afford the rent increase,

you're not going to be able to afford to go to court.

Mobile-home owners have the right to apply to the courts to set

aside a rent increase and thus forestall eviction. We believe this

right should also be extended to tenants. The right to apply for

compensation afterwards is a hollow remedy, in my estimation. To prove

beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law that the landlord had an

expectation or intention that the tenant would move is an oppressive

burden, in my estimation, to place on the tenant. Intention is a

notoriously elusive concept. A landlord who is able to re-rent the

premises at a rent of 90 percent or more to a new tenant has an

absolute defence against an action by the previous tenant. All a

landlord has to do is rent to a relative, make the

[ Page

4361 ]

transaction purely on paper, and there is

absolutely nothing the previous tenant can do. Mr. Minister, to deal

with these objections, we would like to see some changes to this

section. I think you're going to have to make these changes, and I'm

going to suggest them to you, for the record. Maybe in six months or a

year from now, if not before, we'll see it before this House.

The first would give the same right to all tenants as mobile-home

owners have to appeal to the courts. The second would impose a

threshold increase of 15 percent, above which the onus shifts to the

landlord to justify the increase. Third, delete the references to

intent or expectation on the part of the landlord that the tenant would

move on if the landlord handed down an increase. The fourth would

remove the requirement that a tenant vacate before beginning action. I

think the last one is really the most ridiculous component in this

section. You're out of your premises before you can start an action;

then you've got to get a lawyer and go to court and prove intent; it

could be months down the road. I conclude, Mr. Minister, that this

section is really window-dressing, to give the impression to the public

that you are concerned about economic eviction. But you're not prepared

to put any teeth into that section. I think

section 21 is one of the

areas that is going to create all sorts of hardships, and it is an area

that I don't think you are dealing with properly.

I want to go through and state this learned brief, which the

minister has not yet read — I wish he had. It's the Vancouver Community

Legal Assistance Society brief on this bill.

MR. REID: Have you got extra copies?

MR. BLENCOE: The minister has a copy. It was addressed to him. I've read it even before he has.

MR. REID: We'd like to be able to follow you.

MR. BLENCOE: The onus is on the minister. He is the minister

of the Crown. He's bringing in this act. He is responsible, I believe,

for taking account of learned journals like this.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members.

Section 21.

MR. BLENCOE: The member for Surrey is a little anxious these days.

Economic eviction. I'm going to quote directly from the brief:

"Section 21 provides that a tenant evicted after and as

a result of a rent increase may apply to the court for compensation. Mobile-home

owners, however, may apply to set aside the rent increase and thus forestall

eviction:

section 21(4)."

All tenants should have this right, according to this learned brief.

A right to apply for compensation afterwards is no remedy at all, as I

have already said and the brief has said.

"We believe also that

section 21 should stipulate a

threshold rent increase, say 15 percent, beyond which the onus for

justification shifts to the landlord.

Section 2(4)(

h) requires that a

court or arbitrator be convinced that a landlord gives the increase

with the expectation or intention of forcing eviction. This may well

prove an unjustifiably high burden. Intention is a notoriously elusive

concept. If the government is truly interested in preventing the use of

rent increases as eviction tools, it will be necessary to require land

lords to justify unusually high rent increases where questioned by the

tenant."

Mr. Minister, I believe we have a situation now under rent review,

which you are going to remove by this act.... We no longer have rent

review in the province of British Columbia. I believe that nearly

everybody supported the concept of rent review. This kind of economic

eviction clause could basically be taken care of if you had a system of

rent review. If a tenant can prove that that rent is unjustified in

terms of the marketplace, or whatever criteria they can use, then you

have a rentalsman's officer or what you call an arbitrator able to deal

with that kind of huge rent increase and make a decision. If you're out

of your apartment and you go to court, you have to go through this

incredible problem of proving intent.

I say, Mr. Minister, and I sincerely mean it: this particular clause does not

take care of economic eviction, as you purport to state to the public. It's

window-dressing; it gives the impression of fairness, but I think that over

the next year or so thousands of tenants in British Columbia are going to face

economic eviction but will not be able to prove intent. Not only will they not

be able to prove intent, but they won't be able to afford lawyers. Mr. Minister,

if you're going to make tenants go to court, at least try to convince the

Attorney-General to give those who can't afford lawyers legal aid. Do you

recognize that under your bill, you're forcing tenants into the courts? Those

thousands of British Columbians who won't be able to afford courts or lawyers

have no way of on, paying for the court system that you say is their right.

What are you doing to tenants? Your

section 21 is just a glossy piece of work,

in my estimation, to try to give the impression of fairness. The thousands of

people who can't afford lawyers — those on social assistance or those who

are unemployed — can't even get legal aid to go to court to defend their

rights or to try to even prove intent. It's economic eviction, Mr. Minister.

I ask you to have the guts to stand up to whoever is convincing you

that you should declare that tenants, who cannot afford it, should not

be able to protect themselves in court. I don't know who is putting the

pressure on you, but at least have a system whereby a tenant could

apply to what we used to have as a review process, rather than going to

a court system and not being able to afford it.

The process in a civilized society is that if a person feels he has

been impacted upon, or the law has been broken, he has the right to be

represented in court by someone who is qualified to do that. There are

going to be thousands of British Columbians who will be able to go to

court and prove that their tenant or their landlord is breaking all

sorts of regulations and rules, but there is no support mechanism for

thousands of British Columbians who don't have the money to go to

court. They are being denied their legal rights. I think, Mr. Minister,

that much of this bill will not stand up constitutionally.

Section 21

will not stand up to a constitutional challenge, because you are

denying British Columbians the right to legal representation. Currently

under the legal aid system you cannot get legal aid to go to court for

this kind of matter. You are institutionalizing the denial of justice

and the protection of law to thousands of British Columbians.

Section

21 should be immediately withdrawn and rewritten to ensure that tenants

are not evicted on economic grounds.

[ Page 4362 ]

I know that this minister hears this, but, unfortunately, credible

intense pressure from landlords, owners and corporations or properties

with vested interests are pressuring this minister to pass this piece

of legislation, particularly

section 21. Economic eviction will become

law in British Columbia. It will be institutionalized in British

Columbia. I contend that this section, and much else of this bill, is

unconstitutional. It violates basic freedoms and rights of British

Columbians and Canadians and should be immediately challenged in the

highest court of this land. The minister should be taken to the highest

court of this land for daring to bring down this kind of legislation

and this particular section. You are denying thousands of British

Columbians their legal rights to protect their homes, their families

and their financial status.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I'm not going to say any more; I think it's been said. Suffice to

say that we do feel most strongly about this section, as we feel about

other sections. I would ask the minister to have some guts and

determination and do the honourable thing: go to his cabinet and say,

"Yes,

section 21 is denying the constitutional rights of thousands of

British Columbians." They won't be able to prove intent; they won't be

able to buy a lawyer, because they won't be able to get the finances to

do it. If you're going to use the courts to protect rights, you've got

to ensure that British Columbians can afford those courts. That's

Canadian. We've fought long and hard in this country over the years so

that if somebody feels their rights are being denied, that someone is

breaking the law against them.... You're insisting that they have to go

to court to protect their rights under your legislation, Mr. Minister.

If tenants are going to have to go to court to prove eviction through

economics, then give them the ability to go to court to defend their

homes. You'd better have a word with the Attorney-General as quickly as

possible. In my estimation, this

section is unconstitutional, and it

should be immediately removed.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I don't know how to answer that member. He

carries on in such a way that.... He must think that every landlord in

the province of British Columbia is crooked and unscrupulous, and has

nothing better to do than to figure out devious ways in which to evict

tenants. The tenant does have the legal right that the member is so

concerned about. It happens to be in

section 21, which does give him

the availability of the courts, should he wish to go to court. If that

member stopped to think for a minute, in this democratic country, that

the public of British Columbia and of Canada supply millions of dollars

to provide a court system so that every citizen has the right to go to

court....

Not only does that member now wish to have that system maintained,

but he also now is demanding of the taxpayers of the province that they

should pay the person's way into court. Mr. Chairman, there is a limit

on what the taxpayer of a province or a country can do and can afford

to do. It's time that the New Democratic Party recognized that money

doesn't grow on trees and that there is value in determining whether

the dispute is serious enough to justify either the court or, in the

case of the mobile-home owner, arbitration or the court.

[4:15]

I want to deal first of all with the mobile-home owner. The

mobile-home owner has a valuable asset — his mobile home; his home — on

a rented piece of property. Where, in his opinion, it is a case where

the landlord, the mobile-home park operator, wishes to evict by a

massive rent increase — 200 percent or 300 percent; from $200 a month

to $600 a month — knowing that the tenant can't pay it.... With regard

to the mobile-home owner, he has the right, of course, to go to

arbitration or to court prior to eviction, because of t he value of the

asset in which he lives. That's fair, and I was very concerned about the

mobile-home owners.

With regard to tenants, where a

massive rent increase takes place, if the tenant makes that

determination that he can't afford to pay that massive rent increase,

section 21 gives him recourse in regard to when that accommodation was

rented out, and at what value. In subsection (2) it says: "On the

written request of the former tenant...the landlord shall disclose in

writing to that tenant (

a) whether or not the residential premises

formerly occupied by the tenant have been re-rented within two

months...and (

b) the amount of rent...being paid...." So there's

nothing that the landlord can do. He must comply with the act, and if

he is asked in writing for that information, he must give it. If it is

proven that he used the massive rent increase to evict the tenant, then

that landlord must recognize his obligation and the penalty he will

pay, which is that he will have to pay to the former tenant the actual

and reasonable costs of moving to his new accommodation and he must

also "compensate the tenant for additional expenses incurred or which

may be incurred by the tenant including, for a period up to 12 months,

any increased rent or portion of it that the tenant was obliged or may

be obliged to pay."

So what we've really put in

this, recognizing that without the rent control system the tenant may

be faced with an instance of an uns crupulous landlord — not all

landlords are crooked, Mr. Member, which you'd like to lead this House

to believe — is the opportunity for the tenant to get justice and to

get compensated for his move and for the additional rent that he would

have to pay. I'd also advise the member that it's not necessary to have

that "high-priced lawyer" in court with you. You don't have to have

that lawyer with you in the county court system. You're not obliged to

have him.

The one thing we must recognize, I guess — and which in most cases

is recognized by both parties, because we have many instances where

tenants are given a proper eviction notice, and they leave that premise

— is that it's usually because the relationship between the landlord

and the tenant has broken down. I guess if you have the instance where

you have that relationship breaking down, both parties would like to

part. What we find in the debate in this House, and from many of the

groups or individuals who have exercised themselves over the past few

months by coming to see me and having discussions, is that we're

dealing with those, you might say, exceptions to the normal process of

landlord and tenant relationships when one wishes to vacate or the

other wishes to have an eviction. But

section 21 does address the

question of the rent increase that is put into place to evict the

tenant.

I advise the member that I will review the brief dated April 10, to

which he refers; but, as he can appreciate, I haven't had the

opportunity to read it as yet. If there are areas in there where we

feel there should be changes made, we can, of course, deal with those

at a future date, either under regulations, or, if necessary — because

nothing is etched in stone in legislation — with an amendment.

[ Page 4363 ]

MR. BLENCOE: I am going to finish on this, but the minister's

argument has got a huge hole in it that you can drive a truck through,

in terms of the courts. He has accused me of wanting to spend

taxpayers' money to defend people in the court system. With respect,

Mr. Minister, you are the one who is writing into this legislation that

tenants have got to go to court. If tenants have got to go to court,

don't you agree...?

HON. MR. HEWITT: On monetary issues.

MR. BLENCOE: So what? They've got to go to court. If they

have to go to court, shouldn't they be properly represented? Don't they

have the right to ensure that they have someone who understands? You

and I know that trying to interpret this legislation does take a

lawyer, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. HEWITT: That's not on this bill, Mr. Member; you know that.

MR. BLENCOE: If you are forcing people into the court system

to defend their rights, then you have an obligation to ensure that they

can go to that court system. It's not me that's going to cost the

taxpayer of British Columbia, it's you, because right now we have a

system in this province — the rentalsman's office — that is

cost-effective and doesn't use the court system, as you are going to.

We have a rentalsman's office that is unbiased and objective, and can

resolve these kinds of problems without going to the court system. If

you are going to use the courts, and you are going to throw tenants

into the courts to protect their rights or their rents, or whatever,

then you have an obligation to ensure that they can protect themselves

in that court system, that they can afford to go to court. I am saying

that there are thousands of British Columbians who won't be able to

afford a lawyer and court time. You know what it costs these days. You

haven't resolved that issue. If the only way they can get recourse and

defend themselves by your act is to go into the courts, then you have

some responsibility to ensure that tenants can go into the courts. But

many of them won't be able to. They won't have the funds to do it, Mr.

Minister. You are forcing that.

If you consider this particular course of action, there may be such

an outcry that people may have to insist on having some aid to defend

their rights, and you are going to force the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr.

Smith) to look at the whole funding program for legal aid and put up

huge costs again. I prefer to have non-lawyers dealing with this in an

informal situation, rather than pay the exorbitant lawyers' fees that

are going to be needed for people to go to the court system. Mr.

Minister, we have an efficient system now that will resolve these kinds

of problems, rather than give more and more money to the legal

profession. Use that system and don't throw it out.

The bottom line, Mr. Minister, is that as a minister of the Crown responsible

for administering the law and for ensuring that every citizen has equal access

to the law, and as a minister who is saying that they now have to go to court

to protect their rights — it says it right in here that for money items you

have got to go to court — you have a responsibility to ensure that every British

Columbian and every tenant who wants to go to court is going to be able to.

You are forcing them into that position. I contend, Mr. Minister, that by this

act — which you say is so good — you are cutting off thousands of British Columbians

from their so-called legal rights, because they won't be able to do it.

Section 21 is not worth the paper it was written on. I'll leave it there.

But, Mr. Minister, you are going to have to deal with that problem.

Sections 21 and 22 approved.

section 23.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix. I

Amendment approved.

Section 23 as amended approved.

Sections 24 to 28 inclusive approved.

section 29.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, this is an important

section that

I want to speak to a little bit and get the minister to comment upon.

"Notice of termination; landlord use of property." I'll have to get my

eyes checked; it's getting difficult to read this stuff. Passage of

this

section as it stands, in my estimation, Mr. Chairman, will

seriously erode municipal control over redevelopment, demolition and

conversion to long-term lease. As the minister is aware, conversions,

strata-titling, etc., under existing legislation require municipal

permission be granted. I know I was involved in this numerous times

when I was on Victoria city council. Basically, it is to ensure that

there is a good supply of rental accommodation and that overnight we

don't have a great displacement of tenants for massive strata

conversion kinds of situations.

The Real Estate Act and the Condominium Act will continue to require

municipal consent, but

section 29 of this act does not require consent

before tenants are evicted.

Section 29(5), requiring notice of

application for conversion, is useless as a protection for tenants, in

my estimation. Landlords will evict first, and the approving

authorities will be faced with the application to convert empty

buildings. Again, Mr. Chairman, we prefer the existing statute which

your government placed on the books, and we feel you should not be

taking that away. Municipal control of this situation has been well

utilized. It also allows, when you have that municipal kind of control,

that both sides in the case are heard. I heard many times tenants and

those who wanted to convert — and I have to say that sometimes we went

in favour of tenants because there weren't mitigating circumstances

benefiting the landlord, and sometimes we favoured the landlord who

wanted to convert. It was a fair system. I guess we were the

arbitrators. But you're removing that process from municipal

government. I think this is going to be another issue you're going to

be facing, and I don't think you should take away that local component

— that local access — to this particular kind of conversion,

redevelopment or demolition kind of situation.

The minister may wish to comment.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I'm sure the member is aware

that

section 29(5) indicates that the landlord, before making

application to convert or before converting

[ Page 4364 ]

premises into a strata-title or residential

premises described in

section 2, must give notice of his application or

intention to the tenant occupying or the prospective tenant of the

premises.

MR. BLENCOE: So what?

HON. MR. HEWITT: It gives the tenant an opportunity to have

notice prior to the event taking place. I guess if it's a case of

rezoning or a case of having an opportunity to discuss with the man who

owns the property what the future of that property is, possibly

bringing to his attention the benefits of leaving it in the present

state — that's an opportunity for the tenant. But at least the tenant

is aware of what's going to happen and proper notice has to be given to

vacate after it happens. That, I think, does assist the tenant in

dealing with that type of issue.

MR. BLENCOE: It still doesn't deal with the fact that local

council has had some say in these areas. I think it's worked well.

Again, what we're doing is taking away the checks and balances that

gave tenants some degree of security in the existing piece of

legislation. Once again we're taking one of those checks and balances

away.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I'd just like to respond. You recognize, of

course, that if it's a conversion to a strata-title, the Condominium

Act applies. Of course, the municipality must approve a strata-title

arrangement under the Condominium Act.

MR. BLENCOE: Yes.

HON. MR. HEWITT: If it is a cooperative, they require approval under the Cooperative Act with regard to cooperative housing.

MR. BLENCOE: But you know and I know that any existing rental

accommodation.... Currently if a person wishes to change it from rental

to a strata kind of situation, the local council has some input into

that particular situation. They can say no.

HON. MR. HEWITT: They do under the Condominium Act — that's what I'm saying.

[4:30]

MR. BLENCOE: Under the Condominium Act? I don't recall any

coming forward under the Condominium Act. They always came forward

under this residential tenancy situation.

MR. REE: ...rezoning.

MR. BLENCOE: No, no, not rezoning. This is not a rezoning.

This is changing rental accommodation to strata. It was clearly stated

in the Residential Tenancy Act — and the minister knows this — that

prior to that, municipal approval had to be granted. When I was there,

it always came to us under that act. I think it was a useful kind of

stipulation.

Just a question for the minister: if in the next few months or the

next year or so we do get a massive kind of conversion to strata of

existing rental accommodation, thereby displacing tenants, is that

something that the minister is prepared to take some action on? I

suspect it's going to happen, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I think the member could get an answer to his concern with regard to the approvals under

section 9 of the Condominium Act.

MR. BLENCOE: What does it say?

HON. MR. HEWITT: I wish you hadn't asked. I just closed the book. I will request that you read it yourself, but I'll oblige.

Section 9 says: "On conversion into strata-title lots of a

previously occupied building by an owner developer, the approving

authority may approve the strata plan, refuse to approve the strata

imposed by the approving authority are met. The decision is final."

MR. BLENCOE: I contend that that does not apply to existing

rental accommodation with conversion to strata. Municipal councils have

always had to deal with these conversions under the Residential Tenancy

Act, and I think you can find that we will not have any clout in that

act in terms of "existing." I believe this is a major loophole.

Removing municipal control of conversions is not a good move, and I

hope the minister will be prepared to take some action if he sees major

changes coming in apartments being converted. We will watch that very

carefully. I know I will be.

Section 29 approved.

section 30.

MR. BLENCOE:

Section 30 is compensation respecting

section 29

notices. This is a clause that we had as a component in the existing

Residential Tenancy Act, and it was one that sometimes did raise

problems. I became involved with a number of tenants who felt it was

being utilized unfairly. The current act specifies that the landlord

"Shall pay the tenant without delay where the agreement is terminated

so the landlord can use the property." The new act specifies the

tenants have to go to court. My points of about ten minutes ago are

still valid. Many won't be able to afford to go to court. We think the

landlord should pay, without the necessity of going to small claims

court. I'll give you an example in my riding. We have a woman who used

to be in a suite on Yates Street. She rented it for $187. She was

evicted so that the premises could be demolished and was forced to

re-rent at over $300 on Rockland. She was paid for moving, together

with Hydro and phone hookup, automatically. The law required Mrs.

Mitchell to be treated sympathetically. Under the new bill, the law

requires that she sue to recover moving expenses. That is ridiculous.

Given the delay in small claims court, it would be over six months

before she even got a hearing. We respectfully suggest, Mr. Minister,

that seniors — and she is a senior who deserves better treatment — should

not be required to absorb large moving expenses for that length of

time. We believe and I believe that the existing law was good in this

area. It required payment upon submission of a bill. Mr. Minister, we

hope you will reconsider this particular

section — going to court on

this particular issue. Here is a case where I have a constituent in a

situation where

[ Page 4365 ]

the existing legislation was good, and now you've got to go to court.

HON. MR. HEWITT: We really are dealing with the same issue

that the member addressed in the previous section. He feels strongly

that we should either deal with these issues under the arbitration

system or be prepared to pay the costs of the person going to court.

Mr. Chairman, when I dealt with the changes to this legislation, I

tried to address it from the point of view that where you were dealing

with quiet enjoyment of accommodation, and where there were disputes,

there should be an arbitration system to deal with those disputes. When

we dealt with things other than that, i.e., monetary issues, after the

fact, when the tenant was no longer in the premises, or with security

deposits, we felt that those were contractual matters between the

former tenant and the landlord.

Section 30 deals with compensation

relating to

section 29 notices where the landlord or the owner

determines that he wants to use the property for another use and he

gives proper notice. He says to the tenant, "We're going to convert

this into a strata lot" or "We're going to demolish it" or "We're going

to do something else with it," and in good faith the tenant accepts

that and moves out. Then he finds out at a later date that the landlord

didn't live up to

section 29. As a result, we have

section 30 to deal

with compensation concerning the fact that the landlord did not live up

to that. There is an opportunity there for the former tenant to seek

recourse through the court system. What the member is arguing is that

the tenant shouldn't have to go that route. I just don't accept that. I

feel that the court system can accommodate people who have those types

of issues, and I address the question of a speedy, low-cost approach to

resolving tenant disputes where the tenant is occupying the premises.

So maybe with those comments I've given the member — although he won't

agree with me; I notice he's shaking his head — some insight as to my

feeling when I had the act drafted.

MR. BLENCOE: I know the minister is trying to convince the public that

this act is going to streamline and make things effective and people will be

able to get things done quickly. I've just given you a situation where a

person is evicted. Currently they're entitled to some quick action. Under

your new law they're going to have to wait six months; they're going

to have to sue for it. What's quick about that? You've got a senior

citizen who's on a fixed income who has been forced to move. I don't

think I have to say any more. You're finding it difficult to defend this

act; I know that. It's being forced upon you by outside interests — vested

interests — and it's most unfortunate. Senior citizens, like the person

I commented on here, are being thrown to the wolves by this piece of legislation.

Unfortunately this government's political agenda, and whatever friends,

is pushing this legislation through.... Senior citizens are going to be

thrown to the wolves; no question about it. And he's not prepared to change

that course of action. I'll say no more.

HON. MR. HEWITT: My staff have brought to my attention

section 35, which may address some concern that the member has. Where

the notice of termination is given, and the tenant wishes to dispute it

before he goes out, he can dispute that notice with the arbitration

system if he feels it is not in good faith.

Section 30 approved.

section 31.

MR. BLENCOE:

Section 31(1) provides that a landlord can

terminate a tenancy "where a tenant has given reasonable cause." This

is in addition to the "for cause" reasons listed in

section 27, and the

"change of use" reasons listed in

section 29.

Mr. Chairman, we object to this provision for the following reasons.

(1) It removes any certainty in landlord-tenant relationships.

(2) It

is impossible to tell tenants what "reasonable cause" means, except

that we know it does not mean any of the tenant-fault grounds set out

section 27.

(3) It will allow the discrimination in housing that

Bill 11 professes to prohibit.

(4) In no other sector do we protect

people from personality differences. This

section will impose burdens

resulting from a deteriorating relationship exclusively on one party to

the relationship. The tenant will have to move.

(5) This

section

creates a huge loophole in the concept of security of tenure. In our

estimation, it's effectively eviction without cause.

We believe this

section should indeed be removed. It is totally

unacceptable. It purports to take care of the so-called eviction

without cause, but we believe the statement "for reasonable cause" is

going to be so widely interpreted that it's going to be very difficult.

We're going to have all sorts of evictions based on that particular

section. Again, Mr. Minister, we object to this section. It should be

thrown out, redrafted or something.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, this is one of the most

important sections in the change from the original Bill 5, which said a

landlord could evict a tenant without cause. In that bill we were

attempting to identify the right of a landlord to do what he wished

with his property. After discussion with both tenants and landlord

groups.... When I met with the landlords' associations, they said:

"Basically, Mr. Minister, we don't need that. We feel we can come up

with reasonable cause. We're in the business of providing

accommodation."

[4:45]

After meeting with the various groups, we amended the old Bill 5 and

put in notice of determination related to reasonable cause. If the

landlord gives the tenant notice and gives his cause under this

section, the tenant has the right under

section 35 to dispute that

notice of eviction. If the member looks at

section 35, it says that the

tenant may appeal to a court. I would also refer him to

section 13,

which would indicate that that particular

section 35 is included where

the court or the court system could be the arbitrator. So the

arbitrator is available to the tenant, without involving a lawyer.

There's the opportunity for the tenant, when he gets the notice, to

first discuss it, I hope, with his landlord; and second, if he feels

that the cause is unreasonable, to go to the arbitrator, have both

parties appear there to give their arguments, and for the arbitrator to

rule on the matter of whether t's reasonable cause. It's really not

much different from the rentalsman's role under the previous

legislation.

Sections 30 to 39 inclusive approved.

section 40.

[ Page 4366 ]

MR. BLENCOE: I won't prolong the debate on this particular

section. I think enough has been said about the independence of

arbitrators. Suffice to say that we don't agree with the process you're

going to put in place. We have no argument that there should be an

arbitration process. We would like to see the arbitration process

extended, of course, to moneyed items, but we'd also like to see the

arbitrators be independent of you. It's no reflection on you, Mr.

Minister, but I think it should be separate from the political process,

for fairness and for public perception. I think the current officers —

I've talked about them, and I know many of them — have done a good job.

They haven't been appointed by the minister; they've been appointed

through the usual channels. I don't think this is the best way to

appoint people who are going to arbitrate, quite frankly. I think it

should be done independently of you. Find a system that's independent —

the public service is fine — and let's base it on merit, not

necessarily on the public perception that because they're hired

directly by you they're going to reflect government policy towards this

whole concept.

I think it would be in your interest too, Mr. Minister, to be seen

as lean and clean of this kind of accusation — clean-cut, polished.

It's highly undesirable that this matter could be seen to be

politically motivated. I really wish you would consider the

rentalsman's office, the kind of concept we have in place now, and

utilize that system. I think there are going to be accusations and

suspicion. One of the things about this kind of legal process or

arbitration is that when you're dealing with such important issues as

what's going to happen to a person's home or to the price of their home

— or whether they're going to get their sink repaired or whether their

place is going to be decent to live in — those making the decision

should be above suspicion in terms of political influence. I'm not

saying they'll necessarily be subject to political influence; I just

think you should have a system in place that that accusation cannot be

made about — lean and clean.

Let's have a rentalsman's office, the kind of concept we have in

place. We really oppose the selection process; we don't oppose the

concept of arbitrators, although I would prefer to see the rentalsman's

office. Let's have the kind of style we have now. We would much prefer,

Mr. Minister, to separate it from you. That's all I have to say.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I would make the member aware — and he may

already be aware — that judges are appointed by order-in-council. The

Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. McClelland) from time to time appoints

arbitrators in management-labour disputes. I'm sure the member would

recognize that an arbitrator is bound to obey the law and, of course,

could be at risk if it was found that he didn't. I believe that the

member is attempting to paint a picture of the arbitrators who are

appointed being biased in their thinking. I can only assure the member

that this is no different than other pieces of legislation dealing with

appointments by government, and that I, as minister responsible — and

I'm sure if that member had this responsibility in another government,

he would say the same thing — and as an hon. member, will do everything

to ensure that the people appointed will bring to that arbitration

table an unbiased point of view and a point of view that is one of

assistance to both parties in coming to a reasonable resolution of the

dispute.

MR. BLENCOE: Why will you allow no appeal of the arbitrator's decision?

HON. MR. HEWITT: There is an appeal, a judicial review, with

regard to arbitration. However, going back to the parties involved who

opt for the arbitrator and who will use the arbitration system, again I

advise the member that the arbitrator's role is to assist both parties,

to hear the evidence, and to give an impartial and unbiased decision,

which both parties, I'm sure, would be prepared to accept prior to

going before him, knowing that they would have a good hearing and

recognizing that they would get a speedy resolution to their dispute,

and one that was not costly.

MR. BLENCOE: Is the minister aware that under the existing

Residential Tenancy Act, the rentalsman's office...? If it can be shown

that the officer erred in law or didn't look at a piece of evidence,

that decision can be reviewed and the rentalsman officer can reverse

that decision. There is no process at the moment for a very quick and

cheap reversal. That's a major flaw, I believe, in your piece of

legislation.

Sections 40 and 41 approved.

section 42.

MR. BLENCOE: I have a very simple, but I think very

important, point on

section

Section 42(l)(

d) requires arbitrators

to make decisions in writing, but there is no requirement that reasons

be given for the decision. Most commentators on administrative law now

regard requirement for reasons for decisions to be essential to

elementary fairness. I believe, Mr. Minister, you should include that;

there should be reasons for a decision. It's not a radical request.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Would you just repeat it briefly?

MR. BLENCOE: In subsection

42 (l) (

d) it says: "shall, at the request of the party...make his

decision...." By the way, just a point: in this bill there is reference

all the way through to "his"; you may want to put in "his or her" next

time you rewrite your bill, Mr. Minister. You've got "his" and "her"

behind you, but according to this bill you're not going to have any

"her"s. Under that

section you require arbitrators to make a decision

in writing, but there's no requirement that reasons be given for the

decision.

It's my understanding that most commentators or those who write

about administrative law now say that a requirement for reasons for a

decision is essential to elementary fairness, and I think there should

be reasons for the decision. At the moment all we've got in

section

42(l)(

d) is that the decision shall be made available — that is, why

decide that you shan't win — but there are no reasons. I think that you

should insist in your legislation that the reasons for the decision be

given. I don't think that's such an unfair request.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I think it's fairly common, if

not done in all cases, where a decision given by a judge in a court....

The judge provides the arguments, then the reasons for his decision and

then the decision. When he is requested to give the decision in writing

by a party to the arbitration, he would present the argument, the

reasons and then the decision.

MR. BLENCOE: You know and I know that you cannot in law suppose or assume. That's very weak, Mr. Minister.

[ Page 4367 ]

You'd better include in there that the reasons for the decision have to be given in writing.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Not necessary.

MR. BLENCOE: Oh, we have the learned judge over here who knows all about it, do we?

Put it in writing; put it in your law; otherwise, again it's

ambiguous. Tenants or landlords won't have to be given the reasons for

the decision, and I think they're entitled to it. It's just a point,

and I'll leave it there,

Sections 42 to 51 inclusive approved.

section 52.

MR. BLENCOE: The minister,

about an hour or half an hour ago, made some references to

section 3

and referred to

section 52 as an answer to me. It's the statutory terms

specifying offences.

Section 52, Mr. Minister, says: "a person who

contravenes any of sections 6, 10, 11(1)....is liable, on

conviction...." You said

section 3 was included in

section 52. You

actually have misled the House, Mr. Minister, because that

section is

not included under the offences. It is a weakness that I was trying to

point out to you, and I just noticed it as we went along here.

Section

3 is not included in offences, the whole point I was making.

HON. MR. HEWITT: It doesn't have to be, because those are the statutory requirements. It's a descriptive section.

MR. BLENCOE: Again, Mr. Minister, I don't like leaving things

to ifs and buts. You've made a statement that

section 52 had taken care

of that. It's not written down that

section 3 offences are included in

section 52, and I believe that it should be. The terms of the tenancy

agreement, the offences and the breaking of those tenancy agreements,

Mr. Minister, should be laid down in

section 52: "A person who

contravenes

section 3 shall be liable on conviction to a fine of not

more than $2,000." You said it was, and it isn't.

[5:00]

HON. MR. HEWITT: Just to clarify, if I indicated that that

section was under 52, what the member was dealing with in

section 3 — I

appreciate that we've already passed it — is the statutory terms of

this legislation. Statutory in itself indicates that they must be met

by the parties involved.

Section 3 is primarily a descriptive section.

Section 52 deals with contraventions of the various sections in the act

and what the penalty is.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, I'm not going to take any more time of the House. I will....

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Just doing my job, Mr. Member — 380,000 tenants

are at stake in this legislation, 36 percent of the population of

British Columbia. We are talking about a lot of people.

I'll use this

section to conclude. I hope the minister will read the

learned briefs. If he had given himself the opportunity, rather than

jamming this thing through the House in a few days and trying to get it

into law before people knew what was happening, I think he would have

had the opportunity to recognize that this bill is nothing but one big

headache. It denies