[ Page 4103 ]

CONTENTS

Point of privilege

Mr. Phillips — 4103

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Staff shortages at Pearson Hospital Mr. McClelland — 4106

Financial responsibility of government for ambulance service. Hon. Mr. Cocke replies — 4107

Farm labour procurement practices. Mr. L.A. Williams — 4107

Government purchase of Jiminy Crickets Kindergarten. Mr. Wallace — 4107

Member's trip to Venezuela for Law of the Sea Conference. Mr. Chabot — 4108

Effect of old age pension increase on Mincome supplements. Mrs. Webster — 4109

Interest rate on tax deferrals. Mr. Gardom — 4109

Motions Instruction to Select Standing Committee on Labour and Justice. Hon. Mr. King — 4110

Routine proceedings Recreational Land Green Belt Encouragement Act (Bill 15). Committee stage.

On section 4.

Mr. Wallace — 4110

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 4110

Mr. Morrison — 4111

Mr. L.A. Williams — 4111

Landlord and Tenant Act (Bill 105). Committee stage.

On section 6.

Mr. L.A. Williams — 4111

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 4111

Amendment to section 7.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 4112

Amendment to section 8.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 4112

Amendment to section 9.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 4112

On section 10.

Mr. Wallace — 4112

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 4112

On section 11.

Mr. L.A. Williams — 4112

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 4112

Mr. Morrison — 4112

On section 13.

Mr. Wallace — 4112

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 4113

On section 16.

Mr. L.A. Williams — 4113

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 4113

On section 17.

Mr. L.A. Williams — 4113

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 4113

Amendment to section 18.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 4114

Amendment to section 20.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 4114

Amendment to section 23.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 4114

On section 23 as amended.

Mr. Phillips — 4114

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 4114

Mr. Wallace — 4114

Mr. Gardom — 4115

Mr. Phillips — 4116

Mr. Wallace — 4116

Mr. Gardom — 4117

Mr. Phillips — 4118

Mr. Gardom — 4118

Mr. L.A. Williams — 4119

Amendments to section 25.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 4120

On section 26.

Mr. Wallace — 4120

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 4120

Amendments to section 28.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 4120

On section 28 as amended.

Mr. Wallace — 4120

Mr. Phillips — 4121

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 4121

Mr. McGeer — 4124

Mr. Phillips — 4124

Division on section 28 as amended — 4125

Amendment to section 29.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 4125

On section 33.

Mr. L.A. Williams — 4125

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 4125

On section 34.

Mr. Wallace — 4125

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 4125

On section 35.

Mr. L.A. Williams — 4126

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 4126

Mr. Phillips — 4126

On section 37.

Mr. Phillips — 4126

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 4126

Mr. McGeer — 4127

On section 39.

Mr. L.A. Williams — 4127

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 4127

On section 41.

Mr. Phillips — 4127

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 4128

Amendment to section 43.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 4128

Amendment to section 45.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 4128

Amendment to section 51.

Mr. Gardom — 4128

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 4129

On section 51 as amended.

Mr. L.A. Williams — 4129

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 4129

Mr. McGeer — 4130

Mr. Wallace — 4130

Mr. McGeer — 4131

Mr. Phillips — 4132

Amendment to section 54.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 4133

On section 54 as amended.

Mr. Gardom — 4133

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 4133

On section 57.

Mr. L.A. Williams — 4134

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 4134

On section 58.

Mr. Gardom — 4134

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 4135

On section 63.

Mr. McGeer — 4135

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 4135

Report stage — 4135

Workmen's Compensation Amendment Act (Bill 119). Committee stage.

On section 1.

Mr. Fraser — 4135

Hon. Mr. King — 4136

Mr. Chabot — 4136

On section 2.

Mr. Wallace — 4136

Hon. Mr. King — 4136

On section 9.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4137

Hon. Mr. King — 4137

Mr. Chabot — 4137

Amendment to section 10.

Hon. Mr. King — 4138

Amendment to section 11.

Hon. Mr. King — 4138

On section 12.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4138

Hon. Mr. King — 4138

Mr. Wallace — 4139

On section 13.

Mr. Wallace — 4140

Hon. Mr. King — 4140

Amendment to section 14.

Hon. Mr. King — 4140

Amendment to section 15.

Hon. Mr. King — 4140

Amendment to section 18.

Hon. Mr. King — 4140

Amendment to section 20.

Hon. Mr. King — 4140

Amendment to section 22.

Hon. Mr. King — 4140

Amendment to section 23.

Hon. Mr. King — 4140

Amendment to section 24.

Hon. Mr. King — 4140

Amendment to section 27.

Hon. Mr. King — 4140

On section 27 as amended.

Mr. Wallace — 4140

Hon. Mr. King — 4141

Amendment to section 28.

Hon. Mr. King — 4141

Amendment to section 33.

Hon. Mr. King — 4141

On section 37.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4141

Hon. Mr. King — 4141

Amendment to section 39.

Hon. Mr. King — 4141

On section 39 as amended.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4141

Hon. Mr. King — 4141

Amendment to section 41.

Hon. Mr. King — 4142

Amendment to section 45.

Hon. Mr. King — 4142

Amendment to section 49.

Hon. Mr. King — 4142

On section 49 as amended.

Mr. Chabot — 4142

Hon. Mr. King — 4142

Amendment to schedule C.

Hon. Mr. King — 4142

Report stage — 4142

Statute Law Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 162). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 4143

MONDAY, JUNE 17, 1974

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I'd like the House to welcome some very special guests today from the City of Port Coquitlam. We have the mayor, Jack Campbell, Aldermen Ranger, Laking, Treadaway, Kereluk, and Pollock, and Mrs. Macdonald. I'd like the House to welcome them.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Speaker, I just want to bring to the attention of the House that today marks the 60th anniversary of an epic event in the history of British Columbia, when Vilhjalmur Stefansson began his journey on the Canadian Arctic expedition on June 17, 1913. I know that Mr. Stefansson has relatives in this area; he left from Esquimalt on that epic journey. I'd like the House to at least recognize that marvellous scientific achievement.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to rise on a point of privilege.

MR. SPEAKER: Would you state your point of privilege?

MR. PHILLIPS: I'd like to inform the House, Mr. Speaker, that on May 30, 1974, the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) in charge of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia did deliberately mislead this Legislature.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I don't think that is a point of privilege you stated.

MR. PHILLIPS: I think it is a point of privilege because the Minister was speaking in reply to a letter from a constituent of mine which I read into the record. If you would give me the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote from Hansard, page 3569, dated May 30, 1974, in which statements are duly recorded where that Minister did deliberately mislead this Legislature. Page 3569.

HON. MR. BARRETT: On a point of order. It appears that the Member wishes to make charges against a Member, and the method of dealing with that is not a matter of personal privilege; it is a matter of substantive motion, and I suggest you so move.

MR. SPEAKER: I gather it's stated to be a matter of privilege and a privilege that affects all the Members of the House. First, one has to discuss the question of whether what he's raising is a point of privilege. It appears that it is not, in the form he's couching it. There is no way in this House, as I understand May — that is, Erskine May on parliamentary procedures — there's no way that you can stand up in this House and use that type of insult on another Member. If you feel seriously about a matter that may have happened, the proper way to do, as we all know, if you consult the authorities, is to put a substantive motion on the matter. But at this stage it certainly is not what one could term a question that could be raised in this fashion. I would therefore urge the Hon. Member to do what is a normal course and put a motion on the order paper if he wishes to debate the substantive matter that he raises and complains about.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I'm raising this point at this time because it has taken me until today to do my research to find out if the Minister was deliberately misleading the House, which I have proven that he has, have found out that he has.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. It is not, sir, for you to say. If anybody would say it, it would be for a committee of this House under proper circumstances and not in the manner you propose to proceed. I suggest to the Hon. Member the proper course would be to put a motion on the order paper and the House and consider it in its own way.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, a motion on the order paper would never come to the floor of this Legislature, as you well know. It will never be properly debated.

MR. SPEAKER: That's not for me to say.

MR. PHILLIPS: It's clearly in the record that the Minister did deliberately mislead this House…in two places in Hansard.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: If you wish to move it under the table, to sweep it under the rug….

MR. SPEAKER: I have no choice in the matter. I have to follow the rules, just as the Hon. Member does. And the proper course to follow is if you want to correct the record you can do it; but you must not impute motives to another Hon. Member.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Before we go on to any other

[ Page 4104 ]

point of order, I point out that it is my duty, under the rules, to ask the Hon. Member to withdraw the imputation he has made. No one can say that in this House and be left alone undisturbed to say it. You must withdraw that statement, and if you want another course of action, then you must take it by substantive motion.

MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, to the point you're raising. Mr. Speaker, it's not the intention of the Member for South Peace River to penalize or punish the Minister for his misleading statements in the House. He just wants a clarification. He wants a withdrawal from the Minister.

Mr. Speaker, in all fairness, I don't think you should jump to the conclusion that it's out of order. I think you should listen to the point he's trying to raise. You're not giving him the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to make the point which he is attempting to make. I think you have the responsibility to be fair to all Members of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: I am and I point out….

HON. MR. BARRETT: On a point of order. The Member rose on a point of personal privilege — on a privilege — then immediately sought to attack the Minister directly. Now, the point of order raised by that Member for Columbia River is not a point of order but a point of argument. And if the point of argument is that the Member only wants to clarify misleading statements, there's a question period. But an accusation was made against a Minister, using privilege, and that's out of order.

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out to all Hon. Members that where a question of the reliability of a statement is under attack, on any side of the House, the proper course is if you feel that you can't agree with it, you can draw the point to the attention of the Minister in question period as to how he reconciles the two answers he may have given. But you do not have the right to insult another Member without this House taking action against you for insulting another Member by a statement that he deliberately misled the House.

Having done that, I have no course open but to ask the Hon. Member to withdraw the statement that the Minister deliberately misled the House, because you are not addressing yourself to the rules of the House properly if you stand up and make that statement. The proper course is to put a motion on the order paper, as you know.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of withdrawing the statement, but if you would allow me to continue I would like to have the Minister….

MR. SPEAKER: You must unconditionally, without argument, withdraw a statement that is not permitted in this House by anyone — that is that another Hon. Member deliberately misled the House. It's the same as calling another man a liar, and that is not permitted here or in any parliament. Would the Hon. Member please withdraw that statement now? There are other ways of handling the parliamentary procedure besides that.

MR. PHILLIPS: How you handle it sort of depends on who's making the accusation and what side of the House it's on.

MR. SPEAKER: I've asked the Hon. Members on any side who have said those words "deliberately mislead." I've asked the Hon. Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) and I've asked Members from this side to do so. They have quite voluntarily and quite properly withdrawn those remarks, and I ask this Member to do it now.

MR. PHILLIPS: Usually, Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege you allow a Member to state his point of privilege and go on to read in Hansard what was said, and then you make a ruling on it. But it seems that the rules have changed here today, Mr., Speaker. All I want to do is ask the Minister to withdraw his statement and set the House record straight.

MR. SPEAKER: If the Hon. Minister made some statement about you that accused you of deliberately misleading the House, I would make him immediately, unconditionally withdraw. I would do the same for you, sir, and I am asking you now to obey the rules.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Speaker, he did make a statement against me. He made a statement clearly in the record, in Hansard, that I was misleading the House. He had no basis for his statement, and I wish you would hear me out, because I would like to read into the record exactly what he said. After I took my seat after reading a letter, he did say that this letter was supposed to have been kept in confidence. There is nothing in the record, says the letter, and neither does the letter say the record as though I were misleading the House, Mr. Speaker. I feel that a wrong has been done against me and it has taken me up until today to do my research. I feel I have been wronged as a Member of this Legislature and you are not hearing me out!

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out that there are two things recommended in the mother of parliaments, in London, that I think we should follow. One is that you always give notice of any complaint to the Member that you intend to address

[ Page 4105 ]

your remarks to, in this case the Minister. This should apply across the House, that you give notice of what you intend to do.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: It is also a courtesy that you give notice to the Speaker so that the whole matter can be considered by the Speaker as well in advance of just throwing it on the floor of the House in this fashion, which is quite irregular.

MR. PHILLIPS: It is not irregular at all.

MR. SPEAKER: It is irregular under our rules. You can't just stand up and say that some other Member deliberately misled the House. If the Minister said that to you I would ask him to withdraw, but you haven't given me any evidence that he did so.

MR. PHILLIPS: You won't give me a chance to give evidence! All you want me to do is defer it to question period.

MR. SPEAKER: Do it in a proper manner, then.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm doing it in a proper manner! I'm raising on a point of privilege, and that's exactly what's been done in this House before by Members on both sides of the House, but today I rise and you're trying to refer to the question period.

I'll certainly give the Minister an opportunity to withdraw and I'll give you the opportunity to listen to the rest of my statement.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm asking the Member now to obey the rules of the House and withdraw his statement that the Minister deliberately misled the House.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, will you give me the opportunity to read why I feel that the Minister…?

MR. SPEAKER: You obviously have a right in the rules of this House to raise that question in question period, in a proper fashion, without accusing another man of deliberately misleading the House.

MR. PHILLIPS: I also, Mr. Speaker, have the right to rise on a point of privilege. It was the Minister who impugned me in this Legislature by saying that I misled the House and I had read a letter into the record that was supposed to have been kept in confidence. Mr. Speaker, I'm the person who has been impugned in this House and you won't give me the opportunity to state my case.

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out that if you will comply with the rule that you withdraw your statement that the Minister deliberately misled the House, which I must first ask you to withdraw under our rules, I will certainly hear you out on your complaint to determine whether it is a matter of privilege. But I can't permit you to go ahead making judgments you have no right to make at this stage.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I'll withdraw the statement for the time being that the Minister did deliberately mislead this House, but I would like to go on with my statement and read into the record, out of Hansard, what the Minister said after I read this particular letter in the….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! At this stage it is not a point of privilege, the way you have raised it. If you have a point to question the Minister on in question period, for heaven's sake reserve your right to question period. Then it is a matter for both you and the House to determine in terms of the answers you receive. Now would you kindly obey that rule?

I would urge Members in future that either we make it a rule or follow the convention in May of giving notice so that we are aware of what the problem is without just standing up in this fashion.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I have withdrawn, but it seems odd to me that the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) could stand in this Legislature and, with a newspaper article, accuse the leader of the official opposition (Mr. Bennett) of making false statements outside this House, the business of which had nothing to do with the Legislature. I'm quoting from Hansard, the written rule. It is certainly not the Blues, Mr. Speaker….

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out to the Hon. Member that he did not stand up and say that he had been impugned. If you had a complaint of that order — that someone has called you a liar, or had called you another insult outside the House — it is a matter of privilege and it is properly raised inside the House. This is not what you have been doing.

You are complaining that somebody else told a different story than what you expected to believe. That is not the same as a point of privilege and I point that out to you now. You can now raise it in question period and I ask to go on to the next order of business.

MR. PHILLIPS: Just a moment, Mr. Speaker….

HON. MR. BARRETT: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: What is your point of order?

[ Page 4106 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: The reference made by the Member related to the official opposition leader. At that time the Minister did go and see the official Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) in his office before the matter was raised in the House.

The procedure to handle the complaint was followed by the Minister by directly going to the official Leader of the Opposition, and I suggest that that Member follow the same procedure or use question period, but I do think that we should move on to the next order of business.

MR. SPEAKER: I just called for the next order of business.

MR. McCLELLAND: I would just like, Mr. Speaker, to clarify whether or not from now on when a Member wants to have the record cleared on a statement that was made by anyone else in this House he should do it now in question period. Is that the purpose of question period from now on? That's what the Member is attempting to have done as a point of privilege and it is a perfectly valid point of privilege, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Anything touching upon yourself may be a question of privilege, depending on the circumstances.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! You can raise the matter in question period and then we can determine from there where we go. But you can't complain about what another Member has said unless he accused you of having lied.

MR. PHILLIPS: The Minister was misleading the House, directly impugning me, because he said, in essence, that this letter was supposed to have been kept secret. He deliberately accused me and challenged me of bringing up a letter in this Legislature which was supposed to have been kept private and secret, and that is not the case, and that is why I stand on a point of privilege. If I haven't been impugned on page 3569, he challenged my integrity, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I suggest at the moment, in view of your complaint that I look at it, study those pages, and deal with it at a later time. You are throwing something here onto the floor that is impossible to judge or assess in terms of a point of privilege without reading the words, without understanding the situation. I'll take it under advisement and look at it….

MR. PHILLIPS: You'll take your orders from Mr. Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Ohhh!

MR. SPEAKER: No. Under no circumstances.

MR. PHILLIPS: Absolutely! The Premier's just advised you to do that.

MR. SPEAKER: Under no circumstances. I'm trying to be fair with you, and to understand your complaint, but I must look at it and then make a decision. I'm not going to do that rashly or without serious consideration.

MR. CHABOT: You're not going to do it rationally?

MR. SPEAKER: I said "rashly." I wouldn't do it rashly. I would like to look at it and study it.

Now, could we all settle down and get on with question period?

MR. PHILLIPS: I feel, Mr. Speaker, that you have not even given me the opportunity to….

MR. SPEAKER: Order! I'm looking at it.

MR. PHILLIPS: You can't make a decision here today because you haven't let me read the words from Hansard and state my case! That's why you can't make a decision here! That's why you've got to take it to your office!

MR. SPEAKER: Order! It is impossible to hold up the proceedings of the House indefinitely in this type of interchange. I will look at the problem and then report back to the Hon. Member and the House.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, when a person's integrity is at stake in this Legislature we should hold up this Legislature for 24 hours, if necessary.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, I point out that in Britain it is a practice for the Speaker to reserve on every question like this for 24 hours…

MR. PHILLIPS: But you haven't heard….

MR. SPEAKER: …and to give 24 hours notice as well.

Oral questions

STAFF SHORTAGES AT PEARSON HOSPITAL

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Health. I've had complaints over the weekend

[ Page 4107 ]

again of serious staff shortages at Pearson Hospital in that orderlies are serving two and three wards, where the normal practice has been that orderlies are available for every ward.

I wonder if the Minister is aware of this staff shortage, and whether or not there are attempts being made now to correct any shortages.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, Pearson is better staffed now than it has been staffed in history.

The fact of the matter is that from time to time in some areas health people, as other people, leave their work. Sometimes there is a shortage. But there is no long, persistent problem at Pearson any longer. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that I have very few reports of any problems in any of our institutions any longer. I can say that we are on top of these kinds of situations. We've added more staff, as that Member knows; he's the health critic. We added more staff to the institutions in this year's estimates, as we did last year. He voted for them. They're on line.

MR. McCLELLAND: That was really not a very satisfactory response to the question I asked. Really, there are staff shortages today. I wish that the Minister would reassure the patients, not me. It's the patients that are complaining about this.

I'd like the Minister to tell me whether there is a staff shortage at Pearson today. Is he having problems getting staff? Have applications for orderlies in fact been turned down in the face of this staff shortage?

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I just can't answer a question like that off the top of my head. We have some 10,000-odd people out there.

While I'm on my feet, Mr. Speaker, I'll answer a question….

MR. McCLELLAND: Will you take it as notice or something?

FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY OF
GOVERNMENT IN AMBULANCE SERVICE

HON. MR. COCKE: Yes, I'll take it as notice.

Mr. Speaker, I will answer a question that was given to me the other day by the same Member — I believe it was the same Member — with respect to the ambulance service.

What financial responsibility will the Provincial Government accept as of July 1?

It is our intention to assume full financial responsibility for the ambulance service throughout the province as of July 1. On this date billing by the service to private individuals will cease. This responsibility will be assumed by the Emergency Health Services Commission, who will bill the individual at a rate of $5 per call.

At the present moment it is our intention that where a third party is involved we will be billing the two costs to the third party — for example: insurance corporation, Workmen's Compensation Board, the federal government or whatever. But that will be the case as of July 1.

MR. McCLELLAND: A supplementary on that one, Mr. Speaker: for those municipalities who are in the process of putting out subsidies for their local ambulance services, will you be reimbursing them for that or will they bill that subsidy directly to the provincial government?

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the municipalities won't be called upon for a financial commitment. After all, if we're picking up the tab, then they don't have to subsidize the present operators. What we need is six months to go over the system — at least six months; I'm not positive we can do it in that time — so that we can assess each vehicle, assess each operation and slowly but surely integrate them into the overall ambulance service.

As far as the municipalities are concerned, our responsibility begins as of July 1, 1974 — an historic day, Mr. Member.

B.C. FARM LABOUR
PROCUREMENT PRACTICES

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Speaker, to the Hon. Minister of Labour: could he advise the House whether he or his department is making any investigation into the farm labour procurement practices in the Province of British Columbia?

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to introduce at the appropriate time in today's session related to that issue. Perhaps the Member can wait and see the motion, which does deal with the whole question of farm and domestic labour.

GOVERNMENT PURCHASE OF
JIMINY CRICKETS KINDERGARTEN

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, last Wednesday I asked the Minister of Labour if the Workmen's Compensation Board had at any time purchased the property known as Jiminy Crickets. I asked if it had been turned down by the cabinet. The Minister asked for some further evidence.

I have here an agreement to purchase to the extent of $285,000 signed by R. Coldicott, executive director of the Workmen's Compensation Board, and a further document stating that the Workmen's

[ Page 4108 ]

Compensation Board are unable to proceed with the purchase as the necessary order-in-council has not been granted. That's a letter dated May 30, signed by R.A. Holloway. I wonder if the Minister has been able to find out why the cabinet did not approve the purchase.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I was not aware that there was any signed agreement to purchase.

As far as the decision of cabinet is concerned, I'm not at liberty to discuss the basis on which cabinet makes their decisions. But I was certainly not aware that there was any agreement to purchase.

I would like to see a copy of that document.

MR. WALLACE: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I understand that the Minister, in his original answer to my question on Wednesday, said that it had not been before cabinet. I'm confused by his answer today. Am I to understand that the Minister was unaware as to whether it had been to cabinet or not? Or had it been to cabinet and was turned down?

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to give the impression that the question had or had not been before cabinet. I simply meant to imply that I'd have to read the precise exchange again. I was not aware of any agreement for sale which was turned down by a cabinet decision. I knew that negotiations had been underway. I knew that final authority had not been given for the purchase of that property. I did not mean to imply, if I indeed did, that the question had not been brought before cabinet.

MR. WALLACE: Just a final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I realize that the confidence of cabinet may be involved here. But can the Minister assure us that the refusal had nothing to do with the fact that the owner of the property is a very vocal, outspoken opponent of this government, and is a leading member of the Majority Movement? We couldn't attribute that as the reason for it being turned down, could we?

HON. MR. KING: The Member is free to draw whatever conclusions he chooses to. Quite frankly, I don't know the gentleman's name. I didn't know that the Member for Oak Bay was affiliated with the Majority Movement.

AN HON. MEMBER: Come on now; come on!

HON. MR. KING: But I certainly do not know the name….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Hon. Member on a point of order.

MR. WALLACE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I certainly in no way said that I was affiliated with the Majority Movement. I ask the Minister to withdraw.

MR. SPEAKER: It's only in the case of an insult that one…. (Laughter.) If the Hon. Member considers it an insult….

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, in that case I definitely withdraw.

Quite honestly, to the Hon. Member for Oak Bay, I do not know the individual. I don't even know his name.

MEMBER'S TRIP TO VENEZUELA
FOR LAW OF THE SEA CONFERENCE

MR. CHABOT: A question to the Minister of Recreation and Conservation: when is it expected that the Member for Delta (Mr. Liden) will be leaving for Caracas, Venezuela, to attend the Law of the Sea Conference, and how long will he be there?

HON. J. RADFORD (Minister of Recreation and Conservation): I believe that the Member is leaving at the end of this month, Mr. Member, and will be there for approximately four to six weeks.

MR. CHABOT: A supplementary question: will he be representing the provincial government's point of view, or that of Homer Stevens and the United Fishermen and Allied Workers Union?

HON. MR. RADFORD: No, he's just going as an observer, Mr. Member.

MR. CHABOT: A supplementary question: what is the expected cost of this socialist MLA holiday?

HON. MR. BARRETT: When is your leader coming back?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

HON. MR. RADFORD: I have no idea, Mr. Member.

MR. CHABOT: One last supplementary question. In view of the fact that….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. CHABOT: Roll up your sleeves, Mr. Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea).

In view of the fact that we do have a fisheries department, what benefits will possibly accrue to the provincial government by this observer being at this

[ Page 4109 ]

conference, and will the Member be tabling a report of his observations in the Legislature?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Author, author. Dan Campbell? — as always.

HON. MR. RADFORD: He will be down there as an observer. If he wishes to bring back a report or make a report, that will be up to him, Mr. Member.

MR. CHABOT: A short supplementary. Who will be paying his expenses if he's not going to be tabling a report to this House?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. RADFORD: I'll take that as notice, but I believe that the federal government is partially paying for his transportation and expenses down there.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): A quick supplementary: in view of the fact that other members of the provincial public service are attending that conference as official members of a delegation, will the Minister please take the question as notice and reply as to the relationship between a provincial government observer — or, at least, a provincial MLA as an observer — and the official members of the provincial civil service who will be there as part of the regular Canadian delegation?

EFFECT OF OLD-AGE PENSION
INCREASE ON MINCOME SUPPLEMENTS

MRS. D. WEBSTER (Vancouver South): Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance.

MR. WALLACE: When do we get paid? (Laughter.)

MRS. WEBSTER: Well, it's not when you get paid…. But it has been announced by the federal government that the old-age pensions will be increased as of July 1 because of the escalated cost of living, and that the old-age security pension plus the guaranteed income supplement will go up by $4.87 to a new rate of $192.18.

I would like to ask the Minister what effect this will have on the Mincome cheques that will be sent out by this department.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Madam Member, thank you for notifying me that you were going to ask the question; there is a copy of a reply on the way to your office. The information given to me through the Department of Human Resources is that the new Mincome rate, effective July 1, 1974, will be $222.04, up $4.87 from the previous….

Further, I am informed that while the federal allowances apply only to persons aged 65 or over who qualify under the basis of the new guaranteed supplement income test, the new Mincome rate of $222.04 applies to all persons receiving the handicapped allowance as well as to senior citizens aged 60 and over….

There are presently 124,000 people who are receiving Mincome, all of whom know that it was this government which initiated the programme.

INTEREST RATE
ON TAX DEFERRALS

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Nice of you to recognize me, Mr. Speaker. I never thought he would quite get down to this corner of the room.

I asked the Hon. Premier a question last week concerning misleading newspaper advertising. I am shocked to find that the newspaper advertising that has been misleading has been compounded 800,000 fold, notwithstanding the points that were raised in the House last week. We still see within this advertisement that the interest rate is a modest 8 per cent a year on tax deferrals.

I would ask the Hon. Premier if he is aware of the fact that it is compound interest as stated in the bill. Secondly, is he aware of the fact that 8 per cent per year compounded comes to 16 per cent in 10 years?

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I want to thank you for giving me notice, Mr. Member. You said you were going to ask this question by picking up the pamphlet. The facts have been provided to me as follows: The interest is calculated once a year at a rate of 8 per cent on the outstanding amount. In year 1, the 8 per cent is applied as simple interest to the amount owed. In year 2, the 8 per cent is applied to the principal plus last year's interest. Our legislation is flexible to allow for the calculation of straight and simple interest. This is so because each person can pay off that year's interest charges so that next year's interest is calculated only on a total….

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Could I have some order, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Could we have a little more interest in the subject?

HON. MR. BARRETT: So our brochure is correct.

[ Page 4110 ]

The 8 per cent is calculated annually. The rate is modest and the repayment provisions are also detailed in the pamphlet. Read the rest of the pamphlet.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: "Any or all of the amount can be paid back at any time without a penalty charge." Quote and unquote. (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: Is there a supplementary?

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the House to move the following motion without notice.

MR. SPEAKER: Could you explain to the Hon. Members what it is so they know what they are giving leave to?

HON. MR. KING: It is a motion that the House instruct the Select Standing Committee on Labour and Justice to examine the exclusion of those employees who are engaged in agriculture or domestic service from the Labour Code, from workers' compensation coverage, and from other labour standards legislation.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. KING: I move that the House instruct the Select Standing Committee on Labour and Justice to examine the exclusion of those employees who are engaged in agriculture or domestic service from the Labour Code, workers' compensation coverage, and from other labour standards legislation to determine if there is a need for reform of the status of agriculture workers and domestic workers under provincial legislation.

Such committee to be empowered to sit after prorogation or during adjournments of the House and that the committee be empowered to send for persons, papers and records, and to hear representations from such organizations and individuals as may, in their discretion, appear necessary.

The chairman of the committee shall file with Mr. Speaker a monthly report setting forth particulars of the meetings, proposals for agenda and a general statement of current activities and expenses of the committee during the preceding month.

Motion approved.

Orders of the day

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Committee on Bill 15, Mr. Speaker.

RECREATIONAL LAND GREEN BELT
ENCOURAGEMENT ACT

The House in committee on Bill 15; Mr. Liden in the chair.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

On section 4.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Chairman, section 4 is, in my view, essentially the essence of the Act since it means that recreational facilities will enter into agreements with the government. These agreements will include certain covenants. I wonder if the Minister can briefly tell us what the very important aspect of public access will be that will be adopted in relation to this particular section of the bill. This really is the degree to which this bill can be either very reasonable or make the intent of the bill completely unworkable.

Could the Minister comment on that?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, we wrestled with the problem of defining, perhaps through regulation, some method of minimum standards of access. We found it was impossible.

We have had letters of intent from many of the golf courses and other recreational facilities outlining specific programmes they have in the area of youth access, lower fees, or perhaps even establishing a bowling green for senior citizens or others interested in bowling lawns on the premises of the golf courses.

Therefore, it was decided that a committee, with the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford) as a member, would sit and hear the plan of each particular unit that was approaching us for tax deferral or tax removal under this Act.

Anything that is reasonable; flexibility is the key. We will not be rigid in terms of minimum standards. Each specific resort will be able to define for the Minister and to his satisfaction. Once satisfied on that basis, with a great range of flexibility, then, of course, the Act will be applied.

MR. WALLACE: Will there by any written guidelines provided for golf courses? Then, each one can apply and be treated on its own merit. Do you not feel that guidelines are really feasible and that is is each case on its own merit?

HON. MR. BARRETT: The general guidelines have been enunciated in response from the golf courses themselves and from statements made by the government. They are very general. That is, greater

[ Page 4111 ]

access to the public with emphasis on special programmes such as youth or the elderly. If they can somewhere within that framework come up with a programme, then I am sure this Act will apply to them.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): I take it, then, that once that agreement is signed and accepted it will last a full five-year term. In other words, there won't be any change in that agreement which would then put them in default and have to pay back.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, Mr. Member. Unlike the Tories in Alberta, once the agreement is signed we will not break it. We hope they won't either. Unlike the Liberals…. Can I give a few examples there?

The idea is to provide mutual understanding. I believe the response to this bill has been earnest and sincere. I believe from the mail I have received from the golf courses and the other facilities that they seriously intend to show that they are either already extending services or greater access or they will initiate programmes.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Chairman, I understood the First Member for Victoria spoke about a five-year term. There is no five-year term.

HON. MR. BARRETT: There is no five-year term.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: This is an arrangement in perpetuity.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's right.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: In that respect, could the Minister indicate whether or not there is any likelihood the reimbursement will be less than for all of the taxes on a particular recreational property? In other words, if only part of the properties are made available to a bowling green or general public access, would you consider dividing the taxes in some way, or must they qualify for their total recreational lands or not qualify at all?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, you know, the area of improvement…. I don't suspect that anybody would use this as a device to, say, extend the golf clubhouse and expand the service of the bar. It applies to the whole service available. If they make the youth programme available, if they make a bowling green available and they tell us that they're not involved in a junior programme they're developing, then the total facility would come under that.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: That's fine.

HON. MR. BARRETT: But at this point, I must say there's a positive response from the golf courses. Perhaps they'll even think of new ways of bringing people onto the course.

Sections 4 to 10 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

Bill 115, Recreational Land Green Belt Encouragement Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 105, Mr. Speaker.

LANDLORD AND TENANT ACT

The House in Committee on Bill 105; Mr. Liden in the chair.

Sections 1 to 5 inclusive approved.

On section 6.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, if I could draw the Attorney-General's attention to subsection (2) of section 6, there is a provision there where a person is evading service. I wonder if the Attorney-General would indicate who is to determine whether the evasion takes place. Without having to thrust the parties into the courts at the earliest moment, is it considered that the rentalsman will be given any responsibility in this regard?

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): I would think if somebody resorted to that kind of service rather than personal service, if it was an application to the rentalsman, the rentalsman might say, "I don't think it's sufficient. You had a chance to serve personally; you didn't. I won't hear the matter." If it was a court, the same thing. I think the overriding authority as to whether or not proper service had been made was whatever tribunal the application had been made to. That would be the only safeguard.

Section 6 approved.

On section 7.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I move

[ Page 4112 ]

the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 7 as amended approved.

On section 8.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 8 as amended approved.

On section 9.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment to section 9 in my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 9 as amended approved.

On section 10.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to ask the Minister: I have received a letter stating that section 10, in fact, expresses the opposite of the point of view put forward by the Law Reform Commission. The letter asked whether or not this was a drafting error. Could the Minister explain that?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I believe this section is consistent with the recommendation of the Law Reform Commission.

Interjection:.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: They drew it, this section. A lot of the other things have been changed. They drew it, yes.

Section 10 approved.

On section 11.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: The written tenancy agreement specified here "…may contain reasonable obligations and restrictions upon a tenant respecting the tenant's use, occupation and maintenance of residential premises… " Who will determine the reasonableness of this provision? If the Attorney-General could indicate that. If it's to be the courts, are we going to throw landlords and tenants back into the courts to determine whether these contracts are reasonable or not? There must be some forum to test it.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Again, Mr. Chairman, it's where the lease comes up for enforcement, it gives, say, the rentalsman, if he's the person who's acting in this case, the power to refuse to enforce an unreasonable covenant in the lease. If it is a matter that does go before court, the court, too, could refuse to enforce what, in their discretion, was deemed to be an unreasonable covenant.

Now in this area, there's some advantage toward moving, but I think it could be done over a period of time, to one standard form of lease which contains reasonable provisions and which excludes unreasonable ones that are unfair to the tenant, or to the landlord for that matter. But with this kind of a section, we can move slowly toward that thing. They have it in the Province of Quebec at the present time where there is a standard lease, and unfair practices are distinctly proscribed.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, interfering unduly with the civil liberties of the tenant in some way, some fashion of that kind. I think we've moved toward that in this province, but I don't think we can do it all at the same time. Therefore we leave it to the rentalsman or the court at this time to begin to establish some common law as to what are unfair practices.

MR. MORRISON: Mr. Chairman, does that mean that each tenant will be required to have some form of tenancy agreement or is it not necessary that everyone have one?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It could be written or oral.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No, there's no prescribed form.

MR. MORRISON: I was referring to the written.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It could be a month to month.

Sections 11 and 12 approved.

On section 13.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I understand this section tends to put the landlord in a difficult

[ Page 4113 ]

position if he allows temporary use of facilities as some kind of, for example, storage facility, on a temporary basis on a one-shot deal. But the section then makes it illegal if he doesn't then continue to provide such service. I wonder if the Minister would comment on that and consider the suggestion that was made to add at the end of the paragraph "without the rentalsman's permission."

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, if it's some temporary advantage granted in special circumstances to a tenant, that should not become part of future leases. This again is something on which the Law Reform Commission had hearings, and they listened to both parties. They thought that with the provision in the Act, giving a lot of discretion in a matter of that kind to the rentalsman, and an easy appeal procedure, it would not work hardships on landlords. I would think some temporary, special advantage extended to a tenant would not, by reason of this section, be embodied for all time thereafter. But we'll have to watch and if it's abusive, we'll have to correct the thing in future.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, could I take it the Minister implies that the rentalsman has the authority to listen to such a situation without it necessarily being inscribed in stone? It will be the rentalsman's authority and jurisdiction to listen to a landlord who might be in this position, and the rentalsman, although it isn't stated in this section, would be able to give a binding decision. Is that the Minister's…?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That's correct, Mr. Chairman.

Sections 13 to 15 inclusive approved.

On section 16.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I wonder if the Attorney-General could indicate the rationale where in a weekly tenancy you must give 28 days notice, but on a month to month tenancy, you only have to give 30 days' notice. It seems to me there's some inconsistency between these two types of tenancies. Weekly tenancy would seem to be applicable in normal landlord and tenant relationships to a less constant form of relationship and premises which are not usually those containing housekeeping facilities and so on. They are more of a transient-type facility. Yet in order to terminate the weekly tenancy you must give 28 days' notice. I wonder if the rationale of this could be cleared up.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, the Law Reform Commission recommended in the case of a weekly tenancy, four weeks, which is the 28 days, and the old rule about monthly tenancies remains 30 days.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: It used to be a month.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, a month, Not necessarily 30 days; one month for a monthly tenancy.

But it's just four weeks and that's the recommendation made to us.

Section 16 approved.

On section 17.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: section 17 indicates that a landlord who bona fide requires the residential premises for occupation by himself can terminate the existing tenancy on 60 days notice. It seems to free him from any of the other strictures there may be about terminating a tenancy.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I think this is manifestly unfair to those individuals who are not dealing with apartments or the like, but are in turn dealing with a single-family residence which is rented. And indeed it may be absolutely essential that the owner regain possession of those premises, not for his own occupancy, but so that he can sell it. This is surely not a conduct that is being prescribed. What about the situation where an owner of a single-family residence requires possession of the property in order to conclude a bona fide sale? Perhaps he's moving from the province; perhaps changing financial circumstances have obliged him to dispose of the property — surely he's entitled to regain possession so that he can give vacant possession to a prospective purchaser.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, the section, of course, doesn't include the provision that if you sell the property you can put them out. You have to sell subject to the Act and subject to existing tenancies. This is the thing that the Hon, Member says is unfair to the landlord, is that right? — that he should be able to sell the house vacant. But if we wrote that into the landlord and tenant bill there might be a lot of sales just in order to clear the premises.

I think you sell property subject to the laws of the province, which will be the Landlord and Tenant Act, and subject to existing tenancies as they are affected by that Act.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I'm sorry I didn't make my point well enough for the Attorney-General to understand.

What about the individual who has a single-family residence which is rented and changing circumstances

[ Page 4114 ]

oblige that man to sell that property? Are you saying that section 17 of the Landlord and Tenant Act precludes that man from disposing of his property on a bona fide sale? Not wanting to get the tenant out — as I say, perhaps the man is moving from the province, perhaps he has died and it has to be cleared up in an estate. Are you saying that single-family residences which are rented in British Columbia are rented in perpetuity? Is this what section 17 means? Who wrote the Act, anyway?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The landlord would have to sell subject to the existing rights of the tenant, unless under section 23, which is quite broad, he found some reason to obtain vacant possession of the property. But just to say, "Because I'm going to make a sale of this place I can throw the tenant out," is not simplicity in that way in this Act.

Section 17 approved.

On section 18.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 18 as amended approved.

Section 19 approved.

On section 20.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 20 as amended approved.

Sections 21 and 22 approved.

On section 23.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

On section 23 as amended.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Chairman, in speaking to this section, it appears to me that you give the landlord very little leeway in dealing with a tenant who should be, for instance, in violation of the law. There is nothing in this section which says that a tenant in a suite shall not comply with the law.

In other words, a woman of ill repute could rent an apartment, carry on a business in that apartment, and not be evicted by the landlord, whereas in your Strata Titles Act, Bill 141, you say that the duties of the owner are to not carry on any illegal practice in his condominium which he or she owns. You further say that he shall not use his lot or permit the same to be used in a manner or for a purpose that will cause a nuisance or hazard to any occupier of the lot, whether an owner or his family. Yet there is nothing in section 23 that will give a landlord the power to evict a tenant if he or she does something in the apartment which he or she rents that is illegal.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Look at (k).

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, (k) doesn't cover it either.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, it does.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'd like to hear your comments on that, Mr. Attorney-General.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It's up to the rentalsman, but if you rented it as a residence and you found a business being carried on there, it would seem to me that was something the rentalsman would deal with in terms of issuing an eviction order. I'm not referring to the particular business that the Member referred to. I think it comes under (k) if it doesn't fit in under some other section.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, on somewhat the same theme, the possibility seems to exist that there are many areas or many reasons that might exist to justify termination of an agreement which are not included in section 23. Once again it's a little bit like the section I raised earlier on where the Minister answered by saying that it is implied that the rentalsman has the power to listen to a dispute and consider that the reason is adequate.

Would the Minister consider then putting in a final little paragraph at the end saying that the reason is sufficiently important and justified in the opinion of the rentalsman? A general clause. For example, the questions I'm thinking about are where some elderly person was quite capable of managing their own affairs when they took on the tenancy of an apartment but they became disabled. As a matter of fact, I'm going to see one just like that tomorrow — where she can no longer really manage but she has enough mental capacity left to resist being moved. This leads to all kinds of dangers to herself — to fire and other hazards and so on.

[ Page 4115 ]

Not only that, but there are other reasons that were outlined in a communication from one of the parties concerned. There's the question of children under the age of 12 being left alone by parents who are out at work and who leave the children for long periods of time unattended and unsupervised.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That's (c) — 23 (2) (c) would cover that.

MR. WALLACE: "…that the quiet enjoyment of other tenants is disturbed…" That possibly would cover that, but what about the example I raised of the elderly person who becomes sick and will not accept being moved, yet who is a danger to herself and, to others in the building? This just happens a great deal in Victoria, I can assure you, Mr. Minister, with some of the large high-rise apartments which exist in the James Bay area. Every week or so physicians are concerned with this kind of problem — that somebody in an apartment like this just retains enough will and mental capacity to refuse to move, but at certain times of the day or night they certainly wander around and are a danger to themselves and to the people in the building.

Now, what is the protection, or what would be the clause under which such a person could have their agreement terminated?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Briefly, I would think, Hon. Member, that these subsections are pretty broad. If a person is simply a danger to themselves, then that's the end of it. That's a health problem. We shouldn't deal with that in the Landlord and Tenant Act. But if they disturb the enjoyment of neighbours in the same building, or if there is a danger of damage to the premises rented, then the rentalsman can deal with that under this section — either under (d) or under (k).

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Just two points, Mr. Chairman, apropos of the remarks a few moments earlier by the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) and the Attorney-General's response, who said one has to take a look at section 23, and that within 23 we find the areas whereby tenancies can be terminated.

But what you did not respond to was the suggestion raised by the Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound. What about where you have the situation where you have an ill landlord who no longer, by reasons of health or what-have-you, can continue on in the business he had?

He no longer is able physically to see that his house is rented. He may require the additional funds from sale for the purposes of his own health.

Or you can get into the situation, of course, which happens all the time, of deaths. Under those circumstances the terms of a will usually call upon the executors to liquidate the estate and transmit assets. Certainly liquidating an estate — say a man dies and happens to have a house that is rented — under those circumstances his executors should certainly have the right, as they do under the common law and within the express terms of the man's will, to sell that home, to liquidate it and to divide the assets of the estate, and apart from anything else to pay his succession duties. You can prevent that happening here.

I've come upon a rather interesting term. You mentioned 23(2)(c) where you talk about "quiet enjoyment." You are certainly modernizing the definition of "quiet enjoyment." In the field of landlord and tenant laws the Attorney-General knows that quiet enjoyment doesn't have anything whatsoever to do with noise but has something to do with the assertion of title from a landlord to a tenant. I would hope that that would not be the subsection itself.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No, not in this section.

MR. GARDOM: It is an interesting use of the two words. The draftsman, whoever is responsible, must have really had a bit of rather sticky, cobwebby legal humour when he came up with those two terms.

But you have not yet responded to the questions raised by the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) or for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) or from myself concerning the very limited rights that the landlord does have under section 23. You say he does have these rights to terminate a tenancy.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I would ask the Member to look at section 14(3) as well in considering this matter.

AN HON. MEMBER: Also 14(2)

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, which we have already passed.

In terms of an executor not being able to sell, that is the case. Suppose the house is rented out for five years; you would have to sell subject to the existing lease. If the house were under this Act, you would have to sell subject to this Act — subject to the existing tenancy as it may be affected by this Act. In special circumstances you might make an application under section 14 that I referred to. That's the way it is.

We are trying to give tenants some security of tenure. That's the recommendation made to us. That is the justice of the situation. We are doing it. But there is always a tribunal that will work this thing out over a period of time. There is a lot of discretion in

[ Page 4116 ]

the rentalsman.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No, he doesn't have a discretion, if it is an estate, just to say because you want to pay death duties or something you sell the house with the tenants out. He says: "Sell the house, by all means, to pay those death duties, but subject to the existing tenancy."

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the Attorney-General: if he says that he is going to let the rentalsman use a lot of discretion, why doesn't he put a section in to the effect that the reason is sufficiently important and justified in the opinion of the rentalsman that a tenant can be evicted?

I would like to refer again to Bill 141, Strata Titles Act, second schedule on page 46, where it spells it out very specifically. Here, Mr. Chairman, for the record, is a person who has purchased and is the owner of a condominium. It would be a heck of a lot harder to evict a person from a condominium than it would be from an apartment. You spell out very specifically that an owner shall not use his strata lot for any purposes which may be illegal or injurious to the reputation of the building or, section b, make undue noise in or about any strata lot or common property or keep any animals on his strata lot or the common property after notice in that behalf from the council. Yet you don't give the owner of an apartment building the same rights that you do the council of a strata titles lot.

It seems to me that you are leaving a lot up to the discretion of the rentalsman and you really have nothing in the bill that says that the rentalsman shall decree that this is a reason for eviction. Certainly I realize that this law will have to find its own medium and you will have to amend it, but you have nothing in here to put any teeth in to give the rentalsman something to use. You've tied his hands. You've laid down sections (a), (b), (c), et cetera, but you really haven't given the rentalsman the right to have just cause, if a lessee goes over, above and beyond the few minor sections that you have laid out in the bill, to evict the lessor of the apartment. I feel that you have erred in this bill. You've left a horrible situation. You've spelled out very specifically in the Strata Titles Act where a person actually owns his own condominium. But I could go into an apartment and conduct acts that I wouldn't conduct in my own condominium. I could go into an apartment and do that and be scot free. The landlord couldn't evict me; nor could the rentalsman, because there is nothing in your bill that says that the rentalsman can do it.

I would like you to give us your comments. I realize you are going to amend the Act. But in the meantime are you going to have a list a mile long?

You know there will be things cropping up every month, every day that goes by, that people will find to use their apartment for to disturb their neighbours. You have nothing in there.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Disturbing your neighbours is in there.

MR. PHILLIPS: You can do things in your apartment that won't disturb your neighbours that are illegal, but you still don't have it in the Act.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Question.

MR. PHILLIPS: Are you not going to give me an answer? I've outlined something. I would appreciate an answer.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I don't want to repeat myself, that's all. I'm glad to do it if the Member wants. I think that section 23(2)(a) to (1) — and it has been expanded with two more in there and runs to about (n) now, I think, because we provided for that employment situation as well — is very broad. I think they confer under section 23 a broad discretion in almost every kind of human situation you could enter into in an apartment building where the rentalsman can use good judgment, but still there is a code which he is obliged to follow. It is sort of a charter of the rights of the tenants — their right to occupancy.

You have to look also at section 14, which is sort of the exceptional circumstance thing, and look at section 51, which we haven't come to yet, which enables the rentalsman to use a good dose of common sense in the kind of decisions he makes under this Act. Then you have to watch the kind of decisions that come down in the course of a year.

It may be that you would want to amend (a) to (1), but at the moment I think they are broad enough that the rentalsman office will be able to establish a sort of common law under them. He will deal with this kind of a dog case; this kind of a case involving noise; quiet enjoyment. A little body of precedents will be built up over a period of time. I think this will be fair to the rights of tenants and fair to those seeking possession of the building they have leased out.

I suggest it should be watched carefully for those precedents. The powers we have given, which are basically the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission, are pretty broad if you look at 23, 14 and 51.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, the Minister has answered by relating section 23 back to section 14. Am I to understand that in that case if the landlord is unsuccessful under section 23 he can have the

[ Page 4117 ]

rentalsman make an order which then means going before the courts?

To me, as a layman, this is all very confusing. It would seem to me that it would be the simplest thing imaginable to put in a paragraph in section 23 which, in effect states in clear English what the Minister himself has said. He implies in the bill that if the rentalsman does think there is sufficient reason not covered by (a) to (l) or (m) or (n) or whatever it is, surely this final paragraph would simply document in clear English the authority which the Minister himself has said he means to give to the rentalsman anyway. I am at a loss to know why we can't just put it in about 20 words of English.

RON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, section 14(2) gives the rentalsman further power. I certainly wouldn't want to go beyond that, because even tenants are entitled to know where they stand. If they are being faced with eviction, which might mean greatly increased expenses for them and for that family with moving costs, they are entitled to say: "Show me the grounds." We spell them out in kind of broad terms with a lot of discretion to the rentalsman, but nevertheless we spell out that code. I would not want to add to that code saying something to the effect that for any other reason that the rentalsman might think of he can still make an order. We've practically done that in section 14, but that is intended to apply to a very exceptional kind of case. I wouldn't want to do that. I think it is right that we in the Legislature define the code.

I think it is right that we in the Legislature define the code, albeit to be interpreted in the light of section 51, which says look at the real merits and look at the background and use some common sense.

MR. GARDOM: Apropos of your comments, Mr. Attorney-General, if the rentalsman is going to be, I think you used the words "making a lot of common law himself" — and you're nodding in acquiescence — unless it's within the statute and has not been able to be located by myself, I don't see any provisions within this very enormous statute, which is going to create a new branch of law in this province as we had under the similar situation under the Labour Code, whereby the rentalsman has the duty and responsibility to deliver written reasons for his judgment. If it's there, maybe Mr. Harrington could assist.

Nor do I see that this body of law that he develops would be available for inspection and consideration by any member of the general public. If he's going to be a law-making individual, as you indicated that he definitely will be, and there's no question of a doubt about that under this bill, that will be developing a body of law and that body of law has got to be made ready and available to anyone at any time.

I don't wish to leave the section in question but it has come up now, and just I would mention, with leave of the Chair, that under section 51 there's a statement to the effect that he has to make his decision upon the real merits and justice of an application. He's got an opportunity to make up his mind as to what type of evidence he receives. But I don't see any responsibility upon him to deliver reasons for his decision, nor any responsibility that there be maintained a set of decisions. That's just a ghastly oversight.

Is it in the Act? If it's not in the Act, then it is indeed a ghastly oversight. It' it's deliberately not included in the statute, you're going to create something here that will be a little more wondrous than Alice behind the looking glass. It's a preposterous suggestion.

RON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, you could write up this Act so the rentalsman had to hold a hearing with Philadelphia lawyers on everything that came up, If you want to write in here that every decision he makes or a Deputy makes has to be in writing and after a full hearing, maybe with the right of counsel and so forth, you'd make the thing so cumbersome that you wouldn't believe it. I would think that the important cases that are not decided…and some might be decided over the counter with friendly advice to both sides — is that a decision?

MR. GARDOM: No.

RON. MR. MACDONALD: I don't know. There wouldn't be any reasons in that. But as it becomes an important case, what do you mean by "quiet enjoyment" in section 23?

MR. GARDOM: Yes.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I would think in time those important things would come up for decision in a kind of a hearing and we would have some body of common law growing up, but not in every case.

MR. GARDOM: On that point then, in order to overcome the problem of importance, I agree with you that a lot of the decisions here will be made quickly and in many cases it will not really be matters of considerable legal moment. We're thoroughly in agreement there. But I do feel it in order to make it mandatory that he do deliver written reasons, I would say upon the request of parties, on the request of the landlord or upon the request of the tenant, so that it is the responsibility of the rentalsman to deliver written reasons for any decision he would make. Then you'd overcome the problem you're talking about as well, because in a frivolous situation or in

[ Page 4118 ]

matters that were not of considerable moment, they'd never be requested in any event.

We had a lengthy debate on the Labour Code on this point. Hopefully I'm going to find it before we get to the section in question, but I believe that an amendment was granted by your colleague during the debate on the Labour Code to cover this very point. It's a bad oversight.

MR. PHILLIPS: I would like a little further explanation on section 23(2)(1): "the notice of termination was given in respect of caretaker's premises." That in essence leaves caretaker's premises above and beyond any regulation. The Minister has quoted the report of the Law Reform Commission, and their recommendation is that the proposed Act contain a statutory definition of the term "caretaker's suite" and provide that it is included in the definition of "residential premises." But the recommendations relating to tenants' security should not apply to a caretaker's suite.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That's what we've done in 23(2)(1).

MR. PHILLIPS: Not really. I'm not a lawyer, but the way I read it is that "the notice of termination was given in respect of caretaker's premises" does not apply. In other words, a caretaker should be able to be evicted in the case that he ceases to become caretaker.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'd like you to write that in, because you will have people who will take over as caretaker of a certain apartment building strictly for the purposes of obtaining a permanent residence in that particular building, then give their notice that they no longer wish to be caretaker and the landlord cannot evict them so that they can get a new caretaker in the premises. As I say, maybe I'm misreading it, but would the Attorney-General read into the record the proper interpretation?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, this is, in effect, to put it bluntly, a ground for eviction. You've lost your job as caretaker; you are therefore no longer subject to the protection of this section.

MR. GARDOM: While we're again reiterating this point, I've now found the section in the Labour Code dealing with the publication of decisions, and it's section 23. "The board" — referring to the Labour Relations Board — "shall make all its decisions in proceedings under this Act available in writing for publication."

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: Well, I said I wasn't sure. It wasn't an amendment; it was in the original statute — more compliment to you, Mr. Minister, and the Attorney-General for not having it in his bill. But there's very good logic for this. I remember that when we did debate section 23 there was a request that it be mandatory that they would have to deliver it as opposed to making them available in writing for publication. That was rejected by the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King). But the Minister of Labour at least did bring in something to the effect that it does make this new body of law something that is definite.

Mr. Attorney-General, a law to be any good has got to be concise, it's got to be certain, it has to be capable of being defined, and it's got to be found, it's got to be located. We don't want to have decisions in the desk drawer of the rentalsman dealing with one set of circumstances in Prince George and an entirely similar set of circumstances arising in New Westminster where there's 180 degree turn in decision. And that can happen. Mr. Attorney-General, there's never been a larger body of administrative law developed in this country save and except about the last 10 years. You have freely stated in your remarks here that you're giving this man the opportunity to be a lawmaker. A judge is not a lawmaker; he's a law-interpreter. This man is a lawmaker and he's a legal interpreter.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No.

MR. GARDOM: Oh, yes.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Subject to the Act.

MR. GARDOM: Subject to the Act, sure.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Just interpretation, really.

MR. GARDOM: Well, I think it goes a little further than that. He's going to have an awful lot to do with fact and an awful lot to do with law, and his only guideline is this statute. But there is no right to me, as an aggrieved landlord or as an aggrieved tenant, to come to the rentalsman and say: "I wish to have the case of the rentalsman versus Macdonald in Vancouver because I've got a similar situation that has arisen in Namu, and I want to find out what that decision was. I gather the facts are identical. What was the decision?"

You've got to provide for that, Mr. Attorney-General. I'm giving you lots of notice. I'm going to propose to amend section 51, which is the appropriate place to put it….

[ Page 4119 ]

HON. MR. MACDONALD: 52.

MR. GARDOM: No, 51.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We're dealing with 23 now.

MR. GARDOM: I know. I just thought it would be fair to the Attorney — General so we don't have to take the time of the House and go over these remarks again. When we get to 5 1, and between…. What are we at now?

MR. CHAIRMAN: 23.

MR. GARDOM: Between 23 and 51, I'd like to see a little bit of sunshine come into this Act. That's what I'd like to see happen.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: The Attorney-General, it seems to me, places overmuch faith in his section 14. The scheme of this Act, Mr. Chairman, is simply this, with regard to termination of any tenancy agreement: no tenancy agreement can be terminated unless there's notice from the landlord or the tenant or unless the premises are abandoned. So first of all they give a notice. As soon as a landlord gives a notice to a tenant, he places himself in a position where the tenant, if he wishes to dispute it, uses section 23. The rentalsman, under section 23, has no discretion whatsoever.

If any one of the situations is found not to exist — it's a negative situation — then the rentalsman is obliged by the statute to throw out the notice of termination, and the tenancy continues. So there's no discretion there at all. Absolutely none. Only if you avoid all of the various subsections of section 23 does the rentalsman then begin to have any discretion, and he can still throw the notice terminating a tenancy out on other grounds.

Therefore, when you say that section 23 is a codification of tenants' rights, you are not being exactly fair to the situation. What you are saying is that section 23 is the barricades behind which a tenant may rest in complete security.

Now there are some shortcomings in section 23. It talks about the way in which tenants disturb other tenants of the residential building. All of the activities of the tenant, in section 23, either relate to the premises of which he is the tenant or to his landlord.

Now there is no provision in here, for example, for a landlord to give notice and terminate a tenancy of someone who, by their conduct, is interfering with the rights of enjoyment of some person on neighbouring property altogether. This very seriously affects the landlord and the other tenants of the landlord.

I've seen the situation where a party is going on and the people on the balcony throw beer bottles across the street onto neighbouring apartment buildings. The first thing that happens is that the police are called; you get that kind of alteration.

Nothing in section 23 gives the landlord any rights with regard to that. There is only one, and as it….

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, it's under (k).

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: No, there is only one, and that is if you can go and get a court order. You still won't read it, Mr. Attorney-General. It says: "the safety or other bona fide and lawful right or interest of the landlord or other tenant in the residential building…." But what about the person who lives in the adjoining apartment building and who is continually harassed by a tenant in your apartment building up on the 14th floor?

So they start phoning up the Attorney-General and saying: "Look, either you get rid of that tenant out of your building or we're going to have a serious dispute." You say: "I'm sorry, but under section 23 I can't get them out, no matter how bad their behaviour is."

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That's the lawful right of the landlord under section 23(k).

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: No, it's with respect to the residential building only.

Mr. Chairman, I don't think that we can go on at length with this. It's quite obvious that the Attorney-General has got his…. I was going to say "his mind made up," but that would be unfair. He's got his mind closed about the direction on which he's going to move. But what he is doing is creating a situation where the rentalsman is not going to be able to function for the rational resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants as he should. If you go back to the famous section 14, which the Attorney-General is so happy about, section 14 would seem to give the rentalsman some jurisdiction, some discretion, but there is no way of getting yourself before the rentalsman, because he has a stop by section 23.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: He would make a separate application.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Oh yes, he could make a separate application, but by statute the rentalsman still cannot terminate the tenancy agreement unless there is a notice. Your section 14 makes it quite clear.

The rentalsman might come to the conclusion that there is the grossest kind of conduct going on. But unless he can get a notice from the landlord to terminate it, he can't do anything about it. I think that it would be pretty easy to get one, but he is only energized if one of the parties will give a notice.

[ Page 4120 ]

Section 23 as amended approved.

Section 24 approved.

On section 25.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I move the amendments to section 25. (See appendix.)

Amendments approved.

Section 25 as amended approved.

On section 26.

MR. WALLACE: Just a very brief question, Mr. Chairman. Could I ask the Minister whether this section will cover the existing dispute which occurs with regard to cablevision charges, which are such a contentious issue in certain apartment buildings where one tenant moves out and the next one moves in? They find out that it's not $ 1.25 per month, but $4.50 per month.

I know that the CRTC are to be holding hearings in Victoria. But regardless of their decision, how would the law under section 26 be applicable to that particular dispute?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: We can't control cablevision charges that are set by an outside body. But the rentalsman would have a discretion to say that an unreasonable increase in cablevision charges was, in effect, a rent increase for those premises. If it were a normal increase, $4 to $5 a month or something of that kind, I don't suppose he would make a case involving opening up the lease for that kind of thing. He has quite a bit of discretion.

In the future the rentalsman can look at these increases. If they are significant, he can say: "That is, in effect, a rent increase for that particular tenant."

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, with respect, I find that answer confusing. First of all the Minister said that the rentalsman probably has no jurisdiction over the cablevision issue since the rates are set by a federal authority. Then he went on to say that depending on the extent of the increase the rentalsman might have some jurisdiction.

Surely he either has jurisdiction or he hasn't. The increases I'm talking about went from $1.75 to $5 a month. Frankly, I can't appreciate the distinction which the Minister made that if the increase on cablevision weren't very much, maybe that would be all right. But if the rentalsman thought it might be too much, he could, in fact, bring about some action by considering it as a rent increase, even though the cable rate is set in the first instance through the approval of a federal authority.

I'm confused. I feel that this section does not, in fact, cover the cablevision dispute because of the authority of CRTC. I was just trying to get a clear answer. Does it or doesn't it?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I think that in words it could, but in fact it is not intended to deal with that kind of thing. It's intended to deal with the increases that are imposed by the landlord toward his tenant.

This is some outside body that's up to something and gets past the CRTC. I wouldn't think that the rentalsman would look at that, or really could. That's not the purpose of the section.

Sections 26 and 27 approved.

On section 28.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I move the amendments to section 28. (See appendix.)

Amendments approved.

On section 28 as amended.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, this is the heart and soul of the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1974. This is the allowable rent increase in section 28 (2), and the capacity to prescribe different allowable rent increases in respect of different parts of the province and so on and so forth. I just want to make it very plain that this is the section of this bill which gives the Conservative Party the greatest concern, at a time when rental accommodation is in short supply; and the greater degree in which the owner of the property is restricted or controlled, fairly or unfairly, is just one more disincentive to investors and builders to build more rental accommodation.

Without belabouring the point, that is — the whole nature of the accommodation problem in the province right now. We passed the Interim Rent Stabilization Act as a temporary measure, and we were told during that bill that there would not be rent control, that the 8 per cent freeze was a temporary measure. Then we had this bill tabled which, in fact, is rent control. You can't call it by any other name.

You can use the phrase "allowable rent increase," which is the phrase used in section 28 (2). But the fact is that it is rent control within the discretion and judgment of the person called the rentalsman.

Again, we recognize that the real problem is a shortage of rental accommodation and that controls and restrictions, which are not just temporary, but permanent…. Let's not kid ourselves about that. This bill makes it very plain that the rentalsman will recommend to the cabinet what he considers to be an allowable rent increase. I suggest that that is very

[ Page 4121 ]

definitely rent control. You can't call it anything else.

Until there is some incentive to investors and builders to create more rental accommodation, this rent control will fail to achieve the goal it is trying to achieve, which is a fairer measure of justice in the marketplace for the renter.

We certainly oppose this concept in the absence of some kind of companion legislation to provide incentives for the construction of rental accommodation.

MR. PHILLIPS: I feel the same way as the previous speaker. I feel by not setting down in this section some definite guidelines for the rentalsman, who, I might add, has been appointed….

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No, no.

MR. PHILLIPS: He had been appointed prior to this Act becoming law.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No, no.

MR. PHILLIPS: Certainly.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: He can't be.

MR. PHILLIPS: Certainly, if you haven't appointed him, you have intimated to him that he is going to be it. You have intimated his salary which, to my way of thinking, is again a sort of slander against the Legislature.

You are going to allow this man to make decisions on individual situations based, I hope, on the retail values of the tenancy. You're going to leave this man open as a decision-maker in British Columbia as to whether new accommodation will be provided, much as it is needed. Certainly, with the legislation which has been passed in this House and knowing the guidelines which the Department of Housing has been given, this rentalsman could, in essence, curtail any increases in rent by the tenant-owners association so that no one will go into the business, and indeed, force some of those already in there out of business so that the Department of Housing can provide, as your young New Democratic association has recommended, all of the housing and all of the new construction in British Columbia.

If you take this into consort with the rest of the legislation which has been passed in this House, this section is very, very dangerous. Who is going to provide the guidelines?

When you have a tenants' association which is asking for an objective or guideline from the Legislature not to have their rents increased by over 12 per cent, and go around shouting for glee that the Legislature put a curtailment of 8 per cent on rental increases, what type of political influence is this new rentalsman going to be subject to? On the other hand, what type of influence is he going to be subject to from the landlords' association?

In a situation as critical as housing is in British Columbia, I feel that the Attorney-General should have written into this legislation more definite, binding guidelines for this man whom he appointed before the Legislature even passed the bill.

I would like the Attorney-General, if he will, to give the House some assurance that there is not going to be one rule for one set of tenants in the Vancouver area and one rule for one set of tenants in another area.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: There could be a difference.

MR. PHILLIPS: There could be a difference?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: There may be no need for any rent restraint, say, in the Peace River. It might be exempted.

MR. PHILLIPS: Do you not feel, Mr. Attorney-General…? I shouldn't be talking extemporaneously. I'll sit down and let you write that into the record.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I have to admit there is a philosophic difference of opinion between the Hon. Members and the government on this question. We think we have flexible, minimal standards to protect tenants in this bill, and it need not apply throughout the whole province. We have provisions where it can be delegated, in part at least, to a municipality, or to exempt an area where there is no housing problem.

In that sense, I couldn't stand up and say it will apply to everybody equally. It may not. For example, recently under the 8 per cent we exempted the municipality of Coldstream, I think it was, near Vernon. They didn't have any rental units. No problem. They wanted exemption. They got it. An area of the province might very well say, "We have no problem; we would like to be exempt." That could happen.

MR. PHILLIPS: What the Attorney-General has just said is that, sure, he exempted from Bill 75 the area of Coldstream outside of Vernon which has no apartments.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Big deal, eh?

MR. PHILLIPS: Big deal is right. But you are not going to treat all areas of the province the same, yet when Bill 75 was being piloted through the House there were no exemptions for any area. There were

[ Page 4122 ]

no exemptions for downtown Vancouver where the housing and apartment crisis is the greatest of any place in this area.

You're setting this rentalsman up as judge and jury. If I happen to be a retired person who had no previous business experience whatsoever and I wanted to take up my entire life savings and put it into a 12-unit apartment building — and maybe I don't read a financial too well because I've been employed on the railway all my life, or in some other jurisdiction where I wasn't required to read a financial statement — and I can't prove my case to the rentalsman, I can't read my financial statement, I don't know about depreciation, I'm not able to talk about taxation and so forth, but I know I'm losing money because my bank statement at the end of the year says I'm in the red…. If I can't in essence prove my case to the rentalsman, who will become very proficient — at least, I hope he will — in listening to experts, some of those, maybe, with large apartment buildings who can hire a lawyer or an accountant to go to this rentalsman and try and prove his case, then that man…. And I want to remind you that the number of owners of small apartment buildings of 30 and less apartments consist of probably over 50 per cent of this accommodation in British Columbia…. If I am not able, through my own experience, to sell my point of view to the rentalsman that I should have a rental increase I won't get it. I will have to go out and hire a high-priced accountant or a lawyer. I've only got 30 units; I've got my life savings in it.

I think this is being discriminatory against a group of people in British Columbia who have put their life savings into a rental unit rather than by buying insurance or buying a pension plan. They have put their life savings into buying a small rental accommodation which they can rent to provide them with something over and above what the provincial government is going to provide them in their old age. These type of people are going to be discriminated against.

I would like the Attorney-General this afternoon to assure me that the rentalsman is going to take all things into consideration; that he is going to take into consideration, regardless of whether the unit is paid for or isn't, paid if there is a need, if the financial loss shows on the financial statement, that these persons should have a rental increase for the accommodation which they are providing. They provide, as I say, more than 50 per cent of the accommodation.

When you talk about rental accommodation, you seem to think of big conglomerates who are impersonal — apartment buildings being owned by someone off in the clouds somewhere in Ottawa or New York. But that is not the case. Ninety per cent of the rental accommodation is owned by people who live in British Columbia, who put their investment into British Columbia. It is not some impersonal deal.

These are the people who I am concerned about. This rentalsman is going to have to take their circumstances into consideration.

I would like the Attorney-General to assure me, as I have asked, that, regardless of whether the case is well put or put by a layman, the rentalsman is going to take all things into consideration.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I can assure the Hon. Member that the rentalsman will have the power to look at factors such as fair return to the investor. In fact, under section 28 (1) (c), even in housing which does not exist as rental housing at the present time, somebody can come to the rentalsman and say, "Why should I go into that field unless I have some assurance of a fair return on my capital?" I would assume that would be something better than first mortgage money because why put up a building if all you are getting is the first mortgage rate? Put it out in first mortgage. So he does have that flexibility.

If it is a case of existing buildings, the landlord can go to the rentalsman and say, "I am not receiving a fair return on capital. I am justified to a rent increase which is more than the percentage fixed for this particular year." He produces his books; he would have some assistance from that office, I would think. You spoke of someone who didn't have their own lawyer or accountant. I would think the rentalsman's office would be of some advantage to that particular party. He could go there — it will be staffed, I presume, with an economist — and he will really get some free advice.

MR. PHILLIPS: The Attorney-General said something in his revelation just a moment ago — if it were more than the amount fixed for one year.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That's in the section.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, there is nothing in this section which says you are going to fix the amount of rate increases for one year. But this is evidently going to be the policy of the government.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No. section 28 (2).

MR. PHILLIPS: We have what I have been asking here. The government is going to go out and continue on exactly what we talked about when Bill 75 was going through this House. You are going to set a fixed rate for rental increases in the province for any given year.

I remember, while Bill 75 was going through this Legislature, the Attorney-General said this was only going to be a temporary measure. It was only going to be for a period of time until the new Landlord and Tenant Act appeared. So the new Landlord and Tenant Act comes in and takes over exactly where

[ Page 4123 ]

Bill 75 left off and the Lieutenant-Governor-Council will continue the 8 per cent increase. Absolutely. That's in the back of your mind.

I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that if this ceiling, which is an unfair ceiling, on rental increases continues and the government tries to go in and build all the rental accommodation in the Province of British Columbia, we are heading toward ghettos. That is exactly what will happen, Mr. Chairman. It has happened in other countries and it will happen here in British Columbia.

The government, by their great business experience, is going to determine what the rental increases shall be. As I asked the Attorney-General just a few moments ago, will it be the same for all areas of the province?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No.

MR. PHILLIPS: He said no, but there is nothing in 28 (2).

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, there is.

MR. PHILLIPS: There is nothing in 28 (2) that says there will be a difference in different parts of the province. Maybe the Attorney-General would like to explain that.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, it's right there, Mr. Chairman. It says they may prescribe a different allowable rent increase in respect to different parts of the province. That's because the cost situation may be quite different in different parts of the province.

You might have in the lower mainland a big tax increase. This is not fixing the rate; this is fixing the amount. If you went beyond that rate, you have to make your application to the rentalsman.

Say it was 8 per cent again. That doesn't mean you are bound at 8 per cent. It means if you go up to that amount you can do it on your own. If you go over that amount, you have to justify it before the rentalsman. It can be different in different parts of the province because the cost of natural gas, taxes, labour and other things might be different in different parts of the province.

The rentalsman's recommendation is that threshold thing, beyond which you have to go to him and justify your rent increase which may be made in the light of increases in cost in normal operations in that area.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, one last comment. This, in turn, leaves the rentalsman open to political influence and political pressure, which is the trouble with the whole bill. Supposing the landlord happens to be a good member of the New Democratic Party, although I don't imagine there are too many free-enterprisers in the socialist party who own apartment buildings, but supposing you should have one….

AN HON. MEMBER: The Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mr. Cummings) has one.

MR. PHILLIPS: Sure, supposing the Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain would like to take the profits from his ice cream operation and put it in a tenant building. Then he would be able to go to the rentalsman and say, "Look, I've been a good NDP member…."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. I would like to draw the Member's attention to the fact that he is discussing the bill in principle, which he should have done in second reading. We are supposed to be discussing section 28.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, no, I am not. Absolutely not. As a matter of fact, I will get you right down to details. I'm discussing section 28 (2) where a person has to prove to his rentalsman, who, unless he is Solomon himself, will not be above and beyond political pressure.

You get a man who maybe has served on the NDP…. I wouldn't bring this up if this type of political pressure was not going on and the hiring of political hacks in the province. This rentalsman is going to be subject to political pressure. If you want an increase in your rental accommodation, all you've got to be is a good NDP member.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, we've done many things in this session of the Legislature for people. We've listened to that kind of attack which we've just had. We put this outside of the hands of government into an independent agency. But we get from this opposition…. I regret to say that I have lost confidence in the opposition as a result of this session.

We get a stream of mudslinging and hate-mongering and charges and innuendoes of a bankrupt opposition. Have you nothing positive to propose to the people of this province? The little Social Credit Party. Oh, what a ball you've had. Really, I've watched the performance over this session. Your friend implies people are lying, Ministers are lying. Big deal! What does that contribute to the Province of B.C., that kind of innuendo?

MR. CHAIRMAN I remind you to stick to section 28.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mudslingers and hate-mongering. There has been too much of that in

[ Page 4124 ]

this session. Let's begin to build this province with positive programmes. Make some good suggestions that will help people. I don't mind whether they are landlords or tenants — let's help people. Let's get away from this innuendo and this mudslinging.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Chairman, I almost feel guilty at entering this little session of brickbat throwing back and forth between….

MR. CHAIRMAN: You're really supposed to be dealing with section 28.

MR. McGEER: Yes. The Attorney-General raised what I think is a valid point. I would like to have him describe a little more how he intends to see this point followed through under the legislation. He said it was appropriate that there be a fair return on capital investment for people who are landlords.

What is a fair return on invested capital? He says higher than mortgage interest rates. How much higher? If the rentalsman doesn't agree with the opinion of the Attorney-General and he is given sole authority under this Act — that's how I read section 28 (2) — what do we do in the event that the rentalsman happens to think a fair return is 6 per cent when mortgages are 10 per cent? What happens then? We don't know what the opinion of the rentalsman is going to be in these matters.

In my view, it is entirely irresponsible for a Legislature to grant to an appointed individual judgments of this nature. What on earth do we sit in the Legislature here to do? You pass on something which is as critical as this happens to be to someone not responsible to the people whom you appoint.

I don't care who that man is. He happens to be a personal friend of mine, but no man should have that kind of authority.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: He doesn't. Read the section.

MR. McGEER: I read the section.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I want to remind the Member that you're in the kind of debate that should have taken place in second reading. You're supposed to be dealing, in committee, with section 28. You're dealing with the bill in principle. I would ask you to stick to section 28 which is on the floor at this time.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, that is exactly what I am doing. The Attorney-General recommended to me that I read section 28 (2) which I did just before I got up and spoke. I suggest that he read it and that you read it.

It gives powers to a rentalsman which are irresponsible for a Legislature to give. It is that simple. That Attorney-General offered a judgment as to what is a fair return for a landlord, but it is still a judgment and it is still the Attorney-General's judgment. I agree with that judgment but we don't set as a condition of the appointment of a rentalsman that he agrees with the judgment. If his judgment happens to be bad, we will just introduce chaos, worse than we have now, into the housing industry.

What needs to happen, Mr. Chairman, is that this section be properly cleaned up. The Attorney-General and this Legislature should decide what an appropriate return is to keep the rental section of our economy operating at an appropriate level. We have laid the groundwork for its destruction, just as we have laid the groundwork for the destruction of so many aspects of our society during this session. I include the mining industry among them but there are others as well.

This government has to come to its senses, Mr. Chairman. You can't regulate every little thing. You can't appoint commissions, give them absolute authority and give it to some civil servant under the cabinet. When you do this kind of thing, you just tear the roots out of a society that at the present time is functioning well. It will not be if this kind of legislation continues to clutter our books.

MR. PHILLIPS: I would like to sort of speak on the same terms as the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer). It was the Attorney-General who just a moment ago stood in this Legislature and said he shall see that the renters get a fair return on their investment. How much over the first or second mortgage are you going to allow?

I think that you should tell this Legislature this afternoon, because you justified in this Legislature not very long ago when Bill 75 was passing through this Legislature, with opposition from all three parties, an 8 per cent increase — when you're increasing the cost of natural gas by 30 per cent, when you're increasing taxes in British Columbia in some cases on commercial property as much as 60 and 300 per cent.

Yet you're going to justify…. You and the Lieutenant-Governor are going to be the ones who are going to tell that segment of the business how much money they shall make. That's like you're going to tell the petroleum industry, like you're going to tell the construction industry, like you're going to tell the mining industry. It's all very relevant.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I want to bring to your attention that you are really discussing the principle of the bill. In this reading you are supposed to be dealing with section 28 in detail and in the manner in which it's being applied. All of these arguments you have advanced really have been advanced in the

[ Page 4125 ]

second reading in principle.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Chairman, I certainly accept your remarks. But what I'm trying to point out again is that this is a section, as there are sections in all of the other legislation that's been passed by the socialist government, where they want to control every segment of business in this province. This is exactly what they want to do here. They are doing it to the detriment of every individual who wants to rent premises in British Columbia — to the detriment of housing and to the detriment of tenants.

The very thing, Mr. Chairman that they are trying to….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Member, I want to point out to you, whether you voted for it or not, that the principle has been adopted in this House. You are now dealing with section 28, and that's what you should be dealing with — not a principle speech.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Chairman, I suggest that section 28(2) should be amended so that it goes before a board of businessmen, unbiased businessmen — maybe not businessmen in the rental business, but businessmen who know and can read a financial statement and will point out what is a fair return, and not the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. This is a very dangerous section of the bill. When this becomes law it will, to the detriment of all those people who need accommodation in British Columbia, curtail by the private sector any construction of new apartment buildings in British Columbia.

Section 28 as amended approved on the following division:

YEAS — 30

NAYS — 14

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I would ask, when the Chair reports to the Speaker, that you report the division in the committee and ask leave of the House to have the division recorded.

On section 29.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I move the amendment to section 29. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 29 as amended approved.

Sections 30 to 32 inclusive approved.

On section 33.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Could the Attorney-General indicate why the consent must be given at the time of entry? Surely, if the tenant consents to entry by the landlord, it could be for some future time. I'm thinking of the very practical situation where a landlord desires access to the premises in order to carry out certain repairs which may not be in the matter of emergency. He gets hold of the tenant and says: "Can I get into your premises one afternoon? The plumber's coming." The tenant says: "Fine, I'll give you my consent." Why does it have to be at the time of entry?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That should be treated a little loosely. "At the time" doesn't mean at the exact moment. But it also does not mean at the time you go to sign the lease, and the landlord says: "If you want to get into this place, you sign in the lease that I can come in at any time." We want to outlaw that. But we want to make it related to the incident in question. If it's a plumber thing, say, coming in this afternoon, before he goes to work in the morning he gives his consent; that's the end of it. That should be considered at the time.

Section 33 approved.

On section 34.

MR. WALLACE: Just a small point, Mr. Chairman. In 34(2)(b) can the Minister tell us whether the rentalsman has a specific power to order repairs? The reason I'm asking the question is: if he hasn't got that power, what's the point of the subsection? On the other hand, if he does have the power, who decides on just how much in the way of repairs and the expense involved, which might be more than the fraction he retains out of the rental payment?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr., Chairman, this

[ Page 4126 ]

section only deals with the amount of money retained by the rentalsman. He can direct that this money can only be used for repairs, but he can't actually order that those repairs take place.

MR. WALLACE: I'll just ask the question, then: what's the point of saying that the money be directed towards repairs? It still might mean that repairs aren't carried out.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: There could be a requirement under section 31 with respect to the condition of the premises, but not under this which just deals with disposition of the money.

Section 34 approved.

On section 35.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: In section 35 (4) it makes mention of a rent subsidy. Could the Attorney-General indicate to what that may refer? If you're in public housing and receiving a rent subsidy, you can't sign or sublet. What does that mean?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Of course the whole section is subject to regulations. It will describe that kind of thing. It's basically the public housing thing where the rent, say, is adjusted according to the income of the person who is the tenant.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I'd like the Attorney-General to assure me that in this particular section a person cannot re-lease an apartment at more than the prescribed rate of increase based on 28 (2).

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, the rent increases are tied to the premises. So there is no incentive for the landlord or for the tenant to clear out the apartment in order to change the rent. The rent stays for a year.

MR. PHILLIPS: That's not my question. Suppose I'm running an apartment, Mr. Chairman. I might go around the City of Vancouver and rent several apartments and then sublet them at 10 or 20 per cent more than what I'm paying.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: You can't do it.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, tell me where it says so in the Act then.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: section 28; I think it's 28. You know, changing the tenant doesn't change the rent. It can't change the rent.

MR. PHILLIPS: Just a moment now! The tenants can change if he is subletting.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, it doesn't say that in section 28.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: section 25.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, make up your mind.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: As amended.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, but that doesn't refer to subleases.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, the section as it's amended — section 25 that has already passed — makes it clear that your rent pertains to the premises, not to the person who might be occupying those premises. That rent can only be changed once a year. So whether or not there's a subleasing in the course of that year does not make any difference. The rent remains the same.

Sections 35 and 36 approved.

On section 37.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I feel that section 37, the way it is written, is really a detriment to the tenant. In about 90 per cent of the cases in rental there is no need for a security deposit to retain the rent. It's not happening. So what you're doing and what the Law Reform Commission recommended…. I'd like to read from the Law Reform Commission report. It says:

"The landlord be permitted to require at the commencement of a tenancy that a tenant pay to the rentalsman a statutory rent deposit of an amount less than or equal to the first month's rent or a statutory damage deposit of an amount less than or equal to one half of the first month's rent or both."

The people that I have been talking to in the rental business really don't require the first month's rent in advance. So you're penalizing people to put up a month's rent in advance, when the Law Reform Commission clearly recommends that a deposit of one-half a month's rent….

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, yes, you are. Well, all right, if I'm interpreting the section wrong, then I'd like the Attorney-General to inform me that I am.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The Law Reform Commission wanted to put a ceiling of a month and a half on security or damage deposits. This legislation has the ceiling at one month.

[ Page 4127 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Chairman, that is not the way I read or….

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I know; that sentence is unclear, I agree, but read the whole report.

MR. PHILLIPS: I've read the whole report and I interpret the Law Reform Commission to recommend "either or" — not both, but "either or." You can't have both. That isn't the intent of the Law Reform Commission report. But you've interpreted it wrong. Still, with one month's rent in advance….

HON. MR. MACDONALD: In one sentence they are very ambiguous, I agree. They were really saying a month and a half if you read the whole thing.

MR. PHILLIPS: A limit of a month and a half. But they also recommend that maybe a half month's rent for damage would have been sufficient. The industry itself does not in 90 per cent of the cases require a tenant to pay a month's rent in advance. I've rented here in the City of Victoria a fair amount in the last year and a half, and I have never been required to pay a month and a half rent in advance. But I have been required in some instances to give a damage deposit.

Really, you haven't protected the landlord for damage. He has to make out a claim and go to the rentalsman who will in his discretion either recommend that the claim be paid or not. Further on in the sections you haven't really delineated what he has to furnish for cleaning. So, really, in this section you're not doing the landlord any good, and you're working a hardship on the tenant, making him cough up a full month's rent in advance.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No, that's just a ceiling, Mr. Chairman; he doesn't have to cough it up. The existing practice is that there aren't a great many of these demands for security deposits anyway. We place merely a ceiling on them, which is half a month below what the Law Reform Commission recommended. Then the rent deposit has to be sent in to the rentalsman's office. So in that sense we have discouraged them too.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I interpret this section 37 as an invitation to irresponsible tenants to play fast and loose with the property of the landlord. People that otherwise would have been careful and restrained, because of a more or less equal relationship between landlord and tenant, are being given an invitation by this government and this legislation — and particularly section 37 — to say: "Ah, to heck with it!" They can be as careless as they like, knowing that an appropriate mechanism is lacking for collection of damages caused by a tenant.

I would like to ask the Attorney-General what protection a landlord has against someone who takes this particular act of licence to do what he wishes with property, and when he moves to a job in Toronto or Hong Kong or the United States or somewhere else, just to leave a wreck behind and leave the landlord holding the bag. What mechanisms do you have to protect the landlords of British Columbia against this kind of action? Is this particular section not an invitation to irresponsibility?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, it's similar to the old law in many respects, except under the old law that month could be increased, that ceiling, to more than one month by a municipality. It's very seldom done.

MR. McGEER: Yes, but isn't this the very protection that was needed, Mr. Chairman? Hasn't the Attorney-General with this Act taken out the one safeguard that was there? Shouldn't you have at least allowed that protection to remain in? What's your motivation for removing it?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It's still there. There's a ceiling of one month, but it's still there. That's the existing law, subject to this municipal thing.

Sections 37 and 38 approved.

On section 39.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, section 39 deals with what happens to the deposits once they have been made. The subsequent section, which we'll deal with in a moment, deals with uses of the deposit when the occasion arises; Maybe the Attorney-General can point out to me where I'm wrong, but there is no place in these sections — and it should be in 39 — where a tenant can get his security deposit back.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: There is an amendment there — section 43. We amend that. There is an amendment on the order paper.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Thank you.

Sections 39 and 40 approved.

On section 41.

MR. PHILLIPS: I think that this section 41, where nobody shall make a claim unless…. It seems to me that this is very ambiguous, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to have the Attorney-General's ear.

[ Page 4128 ]

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, okay.

MR. PHILLIPS: Suppose, for instance, a person spills a quart of paint on a floor or a rug. This could be entitled normal wear and tear.

MR. MR. MACDONALD: Or a pint of blood.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, all right, or a pint of blood. This in concert with some of the other sections of this deal could be considered just normal wear and tear. But if the landlord wants to replace the whole rug, then he has to claim. Who makes the decision as to what is "cleaning?"

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, obviously dropping a can of paint on the rug would not be normal wear and tear; it wouldn't be normal cleaning. The abuse we're correcting in this section is that too many landlords said "I've got a right to clean up the premises just after normal usage." And they withheld the security deposits for that reason. Now if it's normal usage by the tenant of the premises, clean and neat and in the normal sense, then the landlord should not be able to go against that security deposit. But if there's damage, like dropping a can of paint on the floor, of course that's a different proposition. That would be damage and the landlord could claim against the security deposit.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, you're putting the onus on the landlord, who must go to court to prove the cleaning is necessary.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Court or rentalsman.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, all right, the court or rentalsman. This is putting the onus on the landlord. Certainly many people do leave an apartment in not a normal dirty condition but an abnormal dirty condition. Now the renter has to go to court or the rentalsman to sort of prove if the oven, for instance, has been left uncleaned during the year period, and this happens. So the onus is on the renter. I think you should have a limit in there. In other words there should be a percentage over and above the rent that the abnormal cleaning bill could go to before you have to go to court.

Supposing there's just crayons on the wall. The renter could say that that's normal. But nowadays, with the minimum wage at the rate it is, it takes an extra three hours. This is all cost that is going to have to be passed on somewhere. So why don't you have a break-even area where, after it gets over and above that, the tenant has to go to court?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, obviously the landlord has to apply if he wants a piece of the tenant's money. The security deposit is the tenant's. That's his own money; he's entitled to the return of it. If the landlord says it isn't ordinary cleaning of the apartment which he's prepared to look after himself, but is damage, he's got to….

MR. PHILLIPS: He's got to go to court.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The onus is on him to go to the rentalsman if he wants the security money, or to go to court, because he's applying against the tenant's money.

Sections 41 and 42 approved.

On section 43.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I move the amendment, Mr. Chairman. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 43 as amended approved.

Section 44 approved.

On section 45.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I move the amendment. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 45 as amended approved.

Sections 46 to 50 inclusive approved.

On section 51.

MR. GARDOM: I remember that in his salad days, Mr. Chairman, there was a gentleman in this House who used to make great political points by saying that all tribunals should make their records and correspondence and decisions and awards open to inspection by interested people in reasonable times and places.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Name names. (Laughter.)

MR. GARDOM: We find within this bill an obvious lack of sunshine. We find within section 50, which we have just passed, the enormous amount of powers that a rentalsman has. He can set aside a notice of termination; he can set aside hidden rent increases; he can determine whether a person is permanently occupying residential premises; he can receive an application and determine whether a rent

[ Page 4129 ]

increase is justified; he can determine what are essential services; he can make orders to repair; he can make orders concerning security deposits. Furthermore, he has the power to act as an arbitrator for the purpose of settling any matter in dispute between a landlord and a tenant. Yet unfortunately, even though he takes these powers of arbitration — and they appear in the context of the Act to be powers that could be exercised arbitrarily, and we hope not — he's still not even bound by the Arbitration Act.

We also find under section 50 that no orders and decisions can be reviewed, questioned or restrained by injunction and so forth and so on, or by declaratory court order. So for all practical purposes the courts are emasculated, save and except the powers that are given under section 54.

Under section 54…this is applicable to the amendment I'm going to propose to section 51, Mr. Chairman, I'm not transgressing in the rule. Under section 54, where a landlord or a tenant alleges that the rentalsman made an error in a point or question of law or jurisdiction, or in the finding of fact, then a county court judge has the power to review the order, direction, decision or determination of the rentalsman. But there is nothing built in in this statute whatsoever to make it mandatory that the rentalsman has to give an order, direction or decision or make a determination in writing.

I would move, Mr. Chairman, an amendment (of which a copy has been handed to the Clerk) to section 51 by adding as subsection (4) these words: "At the request of any party to a dispute, the rentalsman shall make his decisions in proceedings under this Act available in writing."

I support the reasons for the amendment with the remarks that I've just made now and the remarks that I made earlier on. There's no question that this rentalsman will have an opportunity to make law. There's no question that this is going to be a new branch and a new field of law in the Province of British Columbia, and for certainty and for assistance to individuals in the province in order to determine the decisions that are being made by a rentalsman, I would strongly urge all Members to support this amendment.

On the amendment.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I don't know how the Member will make out with the other Members of this committee, but I'll vote for it. We'll see how she goes.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, could we have the amendment read again? If the Attorney-General is going to support it, there must be something wrong with it. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Now you're worried.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's a new subsection (4) that's added to section 51. "At the request of any party to a dispute, the rentalsman shall make his decisions in proceedings under this Act available in writing."

MR, GARDOM: Hear, hear!

Amendment approved.

On section 51 as amended.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, this is a most interesting section. If you look at the first subsection, you find that decisions are going to be made upon the real merits. It sounds like an American football expression — a real good play. I wonder if the Attorney-General could tell me what real merits are. Are you talking about facts as opposed to something else? Of course, we're also making our decisions based upon justice. That's something that I'm surprised we're forcing on anybody, least of all the rentalsman. If he could answer those two questions, then perhaps he could also advise me and the social democrats in the House how it could be that under subsection (3) it is possible for the rentalsman to make an interim, ex parte order authorizing, requiring or forbidding anything to be done that a rentalsman, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. I would like all of the social democrats in the House to recognize that an interim, ex parte order authorizing, requiring or forbidding something is an injunction. Imagine, an ex parte injunction has been brought into the landlord and tenant legislation.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Not from Alex Macdonald!

MR. L.A., WILLIAMS: As surely as I read this subsection (3) I was certain there was a mistake and maybe the Attorney-General can indicate…. How are we going to erase this out of this legislation, Mr. Chairman? Surely we're not going to allow this bill to go to third reading with such a dastardly thing in section 51 as an interim, ex parte injunction? I'm just astounded.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Subsection (1) requires the rentalsman to judge the case not on the technicalities and legalese but on the real, substantial justice of the case. (Laughter.)

In other words, there is no use getting a Philadelphia lawyer to go with you to the rentalsman because he's going to look to the case on the real justice of it and the rights of the parties.

In respect to the interim ex parte order, if a landlord, say, in the middle of the night, turned off the heat, then at 8 o'clock the next morning or whenever the office opened I would think the tenant

[ Page 4130 ]

could go down there on a winter's day and say, "I need an order right now that the heat be maintained at 65 or 70," or something of that kind. That has nothing to do with labour disputes which the Hon. Members tried to drag in; this is dealing with property. (Laughter.) It should be subservient to the rights of people. (Laughter.) And when you get into the labour field you're talking about people's rights and they shouldn't be adjudicated under any kind of an ex parte way. But when it's the rights of people as against property rights, what's wrong with an interim ex parte order?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I can see how the Attorney-General would attempt to support an interim ex parte injunction by saying it was a matter of property. But the section makes it quite clear that the rentalsman can make such an interim ex parte injunction in respect of any matters in which he's empowered under the Act to authorize, require or forbid.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: And this also applies to any matters that a landlord may raise against his tenants. So it isn't only property matters in which you can have interim ex parte injunction. You can have an interim ex parte injunction at the behest of the landlord against his tenant. That's the right of the individual that the Attorney-General has been trying to champion and to support.

AN HON. MEMBER: The back bench is pretty quiet.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Out, damn spot! (Laughter.) How are you ever going to explain 51(3)?

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I'm starting to get a little bit worried about section 51(l), not just about the section but about the whole matter of justice. I find it remarkable that the Attorney-General would suggest that he's going to break new ground and make it possible for the rentalsman to follow justice and not to do the kind of things that are done in the courts.

One can only conclude that following legal precedent is not to dispense justice.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: In some cases that's true.

MR. McGEER: The Attorney-General says in some cases that's true. I think that's a vicious attack on the bench. (Laughter.) I can tell you that liberal judges — and I can think of one in particular — who won't welcome that kind of abuse from the chief law enforcing officer of the province. I won't name names.

Mr. Chairman, we just passed subsection (4). I agree with the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey; I think it was an excellent subsection. But subsection (1) is now in conflict. What is the point of laying down reasons for judgment if it isn't to give people some idea of how the rentalsman is thinking by establishing precedents?

I'm no lawyer, but isn't the whole idea of legal precedent so that you can get some idea of what the law really means and you have some relief from people who just kind of make their minds up according to whether or not they enjoyed their cup of coffee that morning and the headlines in the newspaper? That's why you lay things down in writing, isn't it, Mr. Chairman? I'm not a lawyer, but I always understood that was what the reason for judgments was all about. People would begin to understand that the kind of justice that is dispensed isn't just the arbitrary actions of the beak.

I think that 51(l) ought to be deleted not only as offensive to the bench but as absolute nonsense in application. It could only have been drafted by someone who was inspired by the injustice of the law by having lost too many cases. Certainly the record of the Attorney-General in this province isn't an unblemished one.

I don't think we should pass section 51(l). I can tell you, as a non-lawyer, that I take offence to that section.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, the Hon. Member is terribly old-fashioned about the rule of stare decisis, always follow the precedent. To begin with, special circumstances come up when you should break the precedent.

AN HON. MEMBER: Inequities.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, that's right. Inequity does not follow precedent. In the United States Supreme Court they say as a conscious doctrine — and I'm inclined to think, reading some of the decisions of the present chief justice of Canada, that he agrees with this — that we should not be bound to follow precedent.

The reason is that in 1974 they might say to themselves that the decision we made in 1971 or 1871 was a bummer. We were wrong; we're not going to repeat that mistake just for the sake of stare decisis.

And that's liberal thinking in judicial realms, so don't worry about it. I don't have to repeat mistakes.

MR. WALLACE: Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm just like the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer). I'm not a lawyer either. But the real merits and

[ Page 4131 ]

justice of an application…. And he is not bound to follow legal precedent.

Every time we come in this House there is somebody over there justifying your legislation on the basis of precedent. We hear all about what should be going on in the lumber industry or about Bill 31 and a host of other things. But when it's convenient to the Attorney-General, we should disregard precedent.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. WALLACE: Now, let's have some consistency, Mr. Chairman. It seems to me, the more you read of this bill, including this section, that in fact the power to the rentalsman and the respect which is to be granted to him when he is not really acting in a legal capacity — or so we are being told by the Minister. He keeps repeating that he's not a Philadelphia lawyer. I don't think the man who is going to do the job is any kind of lawyer, with respect, any more than I am. But here we have this person, this rentalsperson or rentalsman, who will be making some very substantial discretionary decisions which because of the scope of power given to him in 51 and in other sections I think should be reconsidered.

Now we have the Minister standing up and saying that we mustn't be too concerned about precedent. I thought the whole evolving justice of the legal system and its fairness and its capacity to move with the times is so often based on precedent — the rights and freedoms of individuals down through the centuries. Apparently in this Act it is going to be all right to have some person with no legal training at all take some very far-reaching decisions with far-reaching ramifications as to the rights of an individual tenant or owner. That's okay.

I don't like that and I don't buy that. Certainly, the alternative would be that the rentalsman should be a lawyer.

If the Minister were to tell the House now that the rentalsman would be a lawyer, acquainted and knowledgeable in the precepts of law and legal procedures, then I would feel a lot happier about 51. But that subsection (1) in 51 — I agree entirely with the comments of the former Member. I wonder if the Minister wouldn't reconsider.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No way, Mr. Chairman. You mean to say if any body, including a court, makes a mistake, it is a rule that they've got to keep on making that mistake year after year because it's a precedent? No, you've got to break the precedent sometimes. Sometimes you break precedent; that's all we're saying here. It's the exceptional thing to break precedent. You follow it in the normal course, but there are times when you should not follow precedent. That should apply to courts too, in my opinion, Anything that is done here has to be legally done in terms of due process, Mr. Member, because under section 54 that kind of process is appealable to a county court judge.

MR. WALLACE: A final brief comment. I get more and more concerned. Every answer the Minister gives leaves me more and more concerned. Every time I read in the press or anywhere that a judge has given a decision, you get precedents as long as your arm. It's on the basis of precedents that the judge reaches his decision. I'm not that dumb about the law that I don't understand that. You could quote chapter and verse of cases from 1066 onwards.

Now we have an area of the law which intimately affects the rights and freedoms of individuals, but apparently in this case it is going to be all right for some person not trained in the law and not a judge to make decisions and not have to give any basic reason in history or any precedents that have been established by former decisions, by well-informed legal people. Apparently this rentalsman is going to be quite a guy. It looks to me as though he is really just going to set his own ground rules and make his own decisions. If anybody picks fault with it, he'll just quote section 51(l) and say, "Well, my friend, I'm not bound by any precedents."

I think that is an amazing freedom to give an individual. You would need to be Solomon to fill this role without running into some really serious problems. The Minister says: "Well, if that happens, the individual can always take the matter to court." I thought the whole point of this Landlord and Tenant Act was to strike a balance whereby there would be a much-reduced frequency of needing to go to court.

The more the debate goes on I wonder if I have the real thrust of this bill. When the Minister answers, as he has done in terms of precedent and minimizing the importance of precedent…. This really amazes me that the chief law enforcement officer would come up with this kind of answer. I thought any decision that is made in court had a prerequisite that the justice or the judge concerned outlined his reasons for his judgment. If that isn't based 99 times out of 100 on precedents I don't know what is. Why do we need a section to include that one-in-a-hundred situation?

The person who is going to decide whether it's that one-in-a-hundred case is the rentalsman. We just reject that amount of authority and power; it doesn't happen in any other legislation.

MR. McGEER: I think the only good part of this section is the amendment of the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom). The rest of it is all rubbish.

Subsection (2) said that the rentalsmen may

[ Page 4132 ]

accept evidence on oath, affidavit or otherwise.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That's right.

MR. McGEER: That means, I suppose, that anybody can come down and confabulate in front of the rentalsman. If he considers it appropriate to listen to it, well, so what?

Now, what kind of justice is that going to succeed in dispensing? Surely to goodness we've got to place some restraint on the kinds of stories that are put before the rentalsman. He might accept evidence from very prejudiced people who felt no necessity to give the facts. A court of law is to restrain individuals from straying from the truth and the facts. We are abandoning that in 51(2).

Mr. Chairman, 51(3) makes an ex parte injunction possible. We've certainly been through that debate many times in the House. Both sides should be aware of some action that someone with the authority of a court of law is undertaking.

Every rental unit and apartment has in it a manager. The easiest thing in the world to do, Mr. Chairman, if there is a necessity for some kind of injunction to be enforced, would be to notify the manager of the apartment unit. For the purposes of undertaking something quickly, the office of the manager in the unit in the apartment building that he occupies surely should be notified by the rentalsman before some unilateral action is undertaken.

What's wrong with that? I'm sure Ray Haynes would approve of it. I'm sure the B.C. Federation of Labour would approve of it. I'm sure that a convention of the New Democratic Party would approve of it. In the past they have been unalterably opposed to the unfairness of unilateral action being undertaken without notification of people when such notification could be very simply undertaken.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Maybe in an emergency.

MR. McGEER: But is he going to say that the apartment of the manager is going to be vacant in a large apartment building? Come on now, Mr. Chairman, that's stretching credibility.

That is another example of an Act that is completely one-sided. It was conceived as a one-sided Act; it is going to be enforced as a one-sided Act. The tragedy of it all is that it's going to work against the renter and not for him.

I would ask the Attorney-General to reconsider section 51 (1)(2)(3), but to keep (4) as it was passed.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm concerned simply by remarks that the Attorney-General has made whereby he said that the chief justice of Canada wants to go above and beyond precedent. But we're not talking about the chief justice of Canada who was schooled in legal matters and may want to change maybe once a year some precedent but who by and large goes by precedent and established law.

There again, Mr. Chairman, I'm not a lawyer but I think the Attorney-General is putting a fantastic load on the shoulders of this rentalsman by giving him this power not to pay attention to any precedents. This rentalsman is going to have to be a King Solomon. But we know that he's human and he's not a King Solomon. We also know that he hasn't had that much experience in the rental field. Maybe that's why he had to go out and hire six experts at $17,500 a year already before the legislation even passes this House.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Nobody is hired.

MR. PHILLIPS: Nobody is hired. Would the Attorney-General like to stand in this Legislature and tell me that the rentalsmen haven't been hired and that the rentalsmen haven't hired any experts?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That's right.

MR. PHILLIPS: This rentalsman, Mr. Attorney-General, is going to be subject to political pressures. You know it and I know it. That's one more reason why he should be forced to follow precedents. You're setting up a whole new standard; you're setting up a whole new system. You're putting on the shoulders of this rentalsman you're hiring pressures that he will not be able to sustain, particularly by not being bound to follow legal precedents.

As some of the previous speakers have said, this will work against the renter, not for the renter. I certainly think, particularly with no legal training, the decisions this rentalsman is going to have to make should be bound.

For instance, there is nothing in this Act that says the tenant has to supply his forwarding address to the landlord, where by strictly workable arrangements, it should be necessary and it should be in the Act that the tenant give his forwarding address. Otherwise, he could walk out under this Act, leave his premises damaged, and the onus is on the landlord to find his address as to where he goes. Now, tell me if in the Act this is covered? No, it isn't. No, it is not covered.

There is nothing in this Act, nor has there been in any previous Act, the definite time of vacancy. But if you follow legal procedures that pertain to, for instance, fire insurance and the dates of effectiveness of fire insurance, you will know that the date of vacancy is 12 noon. High noon. But according to this Act, the rentalsman doesn't have to follow that precedent which has been established in the industry, even though it's an unwritten law. He doesn't have to follow it. The landlord could lose two or three days

[ Page 4133 ]

cleaning up.

I'd like the Attorney-General to comment on these two items where, as I say, it has sort of been an unwritten law that the tenant does give his forwarding address and where the time of vacancy is 12 noon.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, forwarding addresses has nothing to do with this section. It's a matter of perhaps violation of civil rights to have to give your address? Police. Landlord. Change it. Have to do it again. I don't think we have to go down that route. There are lots of credit agencies around.

In terms of the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey's (Mr. McGeer) point about the rules of evidence, I would say this is the section under the Labour Relations Act — very much the same and bodies of this kind — that particularly individuals should not be bound by the technical rules of evidence.

Section 51 as amended approved.

Sections 52 and 53 approved.

On section 54.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I move the amendment. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

On section 54 as amended.

MR, GARDOM: I'm sorry, I can't put my fingertips to the amendment at the moment. The point I wish to raise is this, unless you've cured this by your amendment.

What you have here is an extremely — and I emphasize the word "extremely" — qualified right of appeal. This is really nothing more than a salve for the purposes of debate in this House, because the only right of appeal is upon application in accordance with the regulations. You can set up a regulation making it almost impossible for an application to be launched to the court for appeal.

I think that of all things you need here is to set forth the manner in which a landlord or a tenant who raises the allegation that a rentalsman has erred — this man you give total power to — you have got to make it abundantly clear to them and to this Legislature how they can get into court and on what basis. Where you say "upon application in accordance with the regulations" you're referring surely to more than just form there.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No, form, that's all.

MR. GARDOM: You're only referring to form? You give your undertaking to that effect?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: You couldn't block an appeal by….

MR. GARDOM: Unfortunately, the comments in a Legislature are not binding upon a court when they have to adjudicate upon the significance and meaning of a section. If your regulations come in with extremely restricted manners in which these people can come into the court, this is no right of appeal at all.

It is peculiar to me, Mr. Attorney-General, why, on a point as important as this, it is not laid before the Legislature. You should be telling us exactly how one can appeal under the provisions of this section.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, those words read by the Hon. Member, in accordance with the regulations, are really intended to expedite appeals. We might print a form or something of that kind on how you get before the courts. If some landlord or tenant says, "What do I do about this?" we might even print the form and put it in a regulation. The only restriction we are doing by way of regulations is that you must appeal within a 30-day period. That's the amendment.

MR. GARDOM: On the premise that this will only relate to form, that is one thing. But on the premise that the regulations will relate to more than form, that's another thing.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I don't think they could. It would be a derogation of the statute, you know, to give a right of appeal and then say that by regulation you could effectually block that appeal. We don't intend to do that and I don't think you could do it. I think a judge would knock it out.

MR. GARDOM: Yes, but also under your earlier section 50(5) it is pretty clear that the only mechanism of entry into the court is within 54. You've certainly put up the stone wall under section 50(5) for any access to the court.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The Law Reform Commission recommended no appeal to all.

MR. GARDOM: How did they do that?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: By two to one they did it. (Laughter.)

Section 54 as amended approved.

Sections 55 and 56 approved.

[ Page 4134 ]

On section 57.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Maybe the Attorney-General could indicate why the summary provisions dealing with the recovery of possession were omitted from this legislation. The marginal note would appear to deal with matters regarding the failure to deliver possession. But all it comes down to is that if the tenancy agreement is expired or if the tenant gives notice of termination and then doesn't leave, the landlord has the right to claim compensation.

While provisions are made in the Act for termination of tenancies in accordance with notice, appearances before the rentalsman to resolve whether that termination is appropriate or not, it still leaves the landlord in a position where he doesn't have any right under this legislation to actually recover possession. It seems to me that this is only going to result in an unnecessary number of court proceedings, including going back to the old common law action for possession — something we haven't had in this province for decades. Certainly it was included in the existing statute.

I wonder if the Attorney-General could indicate why there has been this change from the present law.

[Mr. G. H. Anderson in the chair.]

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, this section has nothing to do with recovery of possession. But if some tenant overholds — he is supposed to be out on such and such a date but stays for another 15 days — the landlord is entitled to be paid for those 15 days. It isn't rent, but it is compensation.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: How does the landlord recover possession?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Under a different section in the Act entirely.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Which one was it?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Section 23, I think, which says that your notice prevails unless it is within those exceptions in 23.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: It is one thing to have a notice that prevails, Mr. Chairman, as the Attorney-General should well know. You give notice to terminate a tenancy but the tenant refuses to move out — this happens under the present law. You can terminate a tenancy by notice. You give notice to quit. If the tenant doesn't get out on a notice to, quit, then you give him a demand for possession. If he doesn't answer to demand for possession, then there are certain other proceedings under the present statute. But they aren't here.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: They are in Part III, starting with section 14.

Section 57 approved.

On section 58.

MR. GARDOM: I assume I am correct in interpreting under section 58 that any person who knowingly or wilfully contravenes a provision of the statute save and except section 30, or who fails to comply with an order, direction or determination of the rentalsman, is guilty of an offence. That would mean an offence punishable under summary conviction within the provisions of the Summary Convictions Act.

This is the most dramatic departure of all. Heretofore rental-landlord situations were matters between the parties — between themselves. It was civil law. Unless there was a breach of the peace or unless there was an illegal Act contravening a provincial statute or the Criminal Code of Canada, Elizabeth Regina didn't come into the picture at all.

But today, if there happens to be an order for possession and it is not complied with and a tenant refuses to leave, notwithstanding the fact that the rentalsman has made an order — and the rentalsman may well have erred and the tenant may well be in the position of taking an appeal under the judicial review provisions of section 54, or in a situation where the rentalsman denies a rental increase by refusing to give the landlord a fair hearing, denying him the concepts of natural justice — under those circumstances these individuals can be charged with an offence, can be convicted and can follow the due process of the law.

What you've done here — and with the ex parte injunctions this is much rougher than Ray Haynes ever thought of…. At least in the ex parte injunction situation motions have to be made against individuals, if they were in default of the ex parte injunction, to move the court to exercise its own jurisdiction for contempt. Not so here. If one happens to violate the provisions of an ex parte order, that individual or group of individuals can find that they are charged with an offence under the Summary Convictions Act for this province.

You have brought criminal law right smack, 100 per cent into the relationship between landlord and tenants — the whole way. The whole way! "Every person who knowingly or willfully contravenes a provision of this Act" — save and except one section — "every person who knowingly or willfully" — whether those words continue to apply I am not sure — "fails to comply with an order, direction or determination of the rentalsman is guilty of an

[ Page 4135 ]

offence." You're going to be plugging the magistrates' court. This is not what was intended by your statute.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Section 62 of the old Act.

MR. GARDOM: What? Have you ever come in with something here! This is the biggest club that one has perhaps ever seen in this province. You have completely divorced the law of landlord and tenant from the civil side to the criminal side by virtue of section 58. You have.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It's substantially section 62 of the old Act.

Sections 58 to 62 inclusive approved.

On section 63.

MR. McGEER: What happens in this transitional period, Mr. Chairman, if the security deposit held by a landlord must be transferred to the rentalsman but the security deposit is not up to the amount allowed in this particular Act but where the landlord wishes, because the money is being transferred to the custody of the rentalsman, to have that amount increased? No provision is made for the landlord to increase the deposit in the event that he does have to transfer.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: You can't increase the security deposit during the term of the lease. If you haven't taken what you think is adequate at the beginning of that lease, that's all you can take.

MR. McGEER: But the point I'm making, Mr. Chairman, is that the ground rules have been changed. Either the rentalsman or a tenant can require that a security deposit, held by a landlord, be transferred to the rentalsman. Since the rules have been changed, why shouldn't the landlord now be allowed to collect the amount that he's permitted under this Act? For one thing it would discourage the extra bookwork that's involved in the transfer of the security deposits, just as a practical measure, quite apart from the justice of the whole thing.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I can't see how the landlord can collect the security deposit when the tenant is still there — the lease is going on.

MR. McGEER: Yes, but this is in transition. The whole point I'm making to the Attorney-General is that if there is going to be a requirement that part way through the tenancy agreement the money be transferred to the rentalsman, then at that time of that transfer why shouldn't the landlord be allowed to collect the full security deposit?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Because the law hasn't been changed that much. The ceiling of one month is roughly the same as what it is today. Why should the landlord have a second bite at the cherry? He says: "Oh, I've got to pay it to the rentalsman. The Legislature said that; therefore I'm going to ask more security deposit than I have before." I don't think we should permit that as a matter of public policy.

MR. McGEER: It's much harder for him to exercise his rights.

Sections 63 to 65 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker, in the chair.

Bill 105, Landlord and Tenant Act, reported complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The committee asks that a division which took place on section 28 be recorded.

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 119.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION
AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

The House in committee on Bill 119; Mr. G.H. Anderson in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): As we said on second reading, we are in favour of this bill. There are a lot of improvements to the Act here, but some other things have come to our attention and I would like to ask the Minister about them.

It seems to me that something is wrong in the administration of the board. I would like to know what the Minister has to say on that subject. Since June of 1973 when the present chairman assumed the position, there have been a lot of staff changes going on there. In the last eight months out of approximately 25 directors or assistant directors the following have resigned: the director of claims apparently has been forced to take early retirement; the assistant director of claims has been downgraded;

[ Page 4136 ]

the director of information services and safety education has resigned; the assistant director of information services has resigned.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, I don't think that this falls within section 1 of the Act, and would be more properly asked during question period in the House.

MR. FRASER: No, I don't think so. I think we are dealing with the administration and the change of administration under this Act. It's under section 1. It appears that there is turmoil in the board and I would like to hear from the Minister what he has to say about it. They are changing benefits here, but are they capable, under this administration, of carrying them out?

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Chairman, may I just observe that in the first instance there is no turmoil in the board. I think things are proceeding very well indeed. Most of the feedback I receive is very positive.

The question is whether or not the Members have the right to debate the administration of the board under section 1. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that the administration of the Workmen's Compensation Board does not come within the scope of the responsibility of this House. They are, in fact, independent.

We are dealing with legislation, and I submit that I certainly have no jurisdiction to answer for the administrative policy of the board.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): I find that the Minister has consistently stood in his place and tried to absolve himself from the function of the Workmen's Compensation Board. I find that rather peculiar because not only does he have a responsibility to the Workmen's Compensation Board in many respects — financial and the approval of orders-in-council for expenditures of funds….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Hon. Member, this is out of order in this section of this bill in committee. This would be more proper to be brought up under the Minister's estimates or during question period.

MR. CHABOT: The Minister said the same thing in his estimates, Mr. Chairman. Under what section then would it be more appropriate to discuss the Minister's responsibility relative to the changes being made to the Workmen's Compensation Amendment Act?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Member, the only thing that's appropriate now is the content of this section. I said the administration would be under the Minister's estimates or during question period.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, this legislation deals with the benefits to be allowed to the workmen of the province, and if we can't debate that here, I don't know where you're getting your direction from. I don't know what we can debate. Why should we even be bothered bringing in amendments to the Workmen's Compensation Board before this Legislature if we can't debate the administration and the benefits going to the workers of British Columbia? If we can't debate it under this section of the Act, where can we debate it?

MR. CHAIRMAN: You can debate section 1 and it must be strictly relevant to the subsections of section 1.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I would suggest to the Hon. Member that if there is any information he would like to have regarding the internal administration of the board, if he would ask me that question I'd certainly be pleased to ask the board to provide whatever information Members of this House request of the board.

The fact of the matter is, as the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) well knows, being a former Minister of Labour, that they are an independent agency and I have no authority to intervene in their administration. Now Members can either write directly to the board, or phone them, or if they wish direct questions to me and I'd be pleased to attempt to get information for them. There is an annual report….

Interjection.

HON. MR. KING: Well, yes, in a legislative way, but certainly not in a administrative way.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

MR. WALLACE: I wonder if the Minister has given any further consideration to the point I made in second reading about disease including any disablement resulting from exposure to contamination. I'm certainly not complaining about that. In my opinion this gives the medical people the widest possible scope, and I'm not trying to be perverse when I say that I never dreamed that we would get this lucky to see this kind of wide definition, because I can think of many cases I've battled for, patients of mine who I didn't think were getting fair play, and under this definition the phrase "any disablement resulting from exposure to contamination" is certainly a very, very wide

[ Page 4137 ]

definition, and I applaud it from the patient's point of view.

But I know that the employers have expressed some concern that this really opens the door so wide that they may have great difficulty or they in turn might be faced with ever-increasing costs, because there will be awards to people where because of a difference of opinion, where there is some doubt, the favour is given in the direction of the worker. I happen to think that in the past that has not been the case. I just think that with this definition maybe the pendulum is swinging. I just wondered whether the Minister had reconsidered that at all.

HON. MR. KING: Clause (d) of section 2 does indeed remove any doubt as to whether or not the disablement by exposure to contamination is a disease or not. We rely basically upon medical determinations of that question. It is my view that the medical profession should not be restricted in any way from making that kind of determination. I wouldn't think, in the light of medical science such as it is developed today, that employers should fear any undue victimization by this section.

On the other hand, I think it's a clear inducement to employers to take preventive care in terms of noxious gases, in terms of noise levels, in terms of a variety of contaminants on the job that are recognized as being dangerous, although they can't necessarily be classified as a disease. So I think it's a reasonable section.

MR. WALLACE: Just one last comment, Mr. Chairman. Do I take it, then, that in terms of contamination from asbestos causing disablement…? We keep running into this very difficult situation where, with all the good will in the world, medical men sometimes cannot diagnose asbestosis. We've been over this many times in the House. Unfortunately, the modern technical capacity of doctors to diagnose asbestosis is still somewhat limited. I've had patients who are quite obviously disabled because they've been breathing in asbestos fibres.

Now I'm just sick and tired of this legalistic definition of disability because you've got asbestosis. In other words, the person can have a very measurable disablement but, short of some dangerous investigative procedure, you cannot prove that they actually have asbestosis.

I read section 2 (d) to mean that in future any person suffering a respiratory disablement resulting from exposure to asbestos, for example, will certainly be given the benefit of the doubt, even though technically the ultimate diagnosis cannot be confirmed beyond all doubt. Now if that's what 2 (d) does, I really applaud the Minister's initiative because this is certainly long overdue.

Sections 2 to 8 inclusive approved.

On section 9.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I asked the Minister a few questions which he was kind enough to promise to answer at this stage. I asked him in particular the responsibility of workers for taking reasonable steps to prevent impairment of hearing and whether the legislation would be altered or amended to take into account the fact that there may be cases where people for one reason or another simply are not taking fair or reasonable measures to prevent loss of hearing. As I said, I gave him examples from my own experience, where I suffered as a result of the same sort of stupidity.

I wonder whether he could now indicate to us what changes he's going to bring in — in this section, I presume, new section 7 (a) or section 9 of this particular bill — which would indicate how this matter is going to be taken care of.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, the Act as it exists — not these amendments but the Workmen's Compensation Act as it exists — does empower the board to pass regulations and to enforce them both upon employers and workers in terms of safety devices such as ear muffs, such as safety shoes, hard hats and so on. This has been the case for many years. Obviously we'll be paying more attention to noise levels than has been the case in the past.

We've established that 68 decibels is the noise level factor which is the tolerance level. Certainly I would presume that within that area, even lower, where a danger is seen to exist, the board will be issuing certain administrative regulations to ensure that if the noise even nears that point, some preventive action be taken, either in terms of reducing the noise level or of wearing ear muffs or something of that nature.

I think the Member would appreciate that in some industries it's impossible to wear ear muffs because of communication problems.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I do want to compliment the Workmen's Compensation Board for drafting this section dealing with loss of hearing. It's a matter which the board has been looking at for some considerable time, possibly two or three years, and has finally put it down in legislative form. I want to thank the Minister for accepting it from the Workmen's Compensation Board and seeing that his colleagues in the cabinet have approved it and that it has found its way to the Legislature.

In this occupation as well there's that question of loss of hearing. I don't know if you've ever measured how many decibels some speakers emit in this House. Certainly I find, after the number of years I've been here, that my hearing isn't what it was when I first

[ Page 4138 ]

arrived.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's an occupational hazard.

MR. CHABOT: I'm wondering, if the noise continues at the same rate level that it has been going on…

AN HON MEMBER: You can get ear muffs. (Laughter.)

MR. CHABOT: …in recent years, whether there's a possibility we can control that amount of volume in this chamber. Or maybe there should be some provisions for coverage of some of the Members of the House who have suffered because of the noise rate in the chamber.

I'm wondering if the Minister also…. I hope that he'll carry out a study at some time, just for curiosity's sake, when certain Members are speaking in the House. When that Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) is on his feet, you know, he's quite noisy. We don't want to have too much noise in this assembly. It's quite difficult, you know, on the ears. (Laughter.)

I'm wondering as well — there's a subsection in section 9 dealing with the proclamation of that particular section, and it deals with its proclamation on an individual subsection.

AN HON. MEMBER: Eh, what was that?

MR. CHABOT: I'm wondering whether the Minister has any intention of proclaiming some of these subsections and which ones he will be proclaiming — forthwith or within a reasonable period of time. Or does the Minister intend proclaiming the entire section and its subsections so that we will know as to the progress of the implementation of these new and adventuresome and enlightened changes to the Workmen's Compensation Act?

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, the Member's point is well taken with respect to noise in this chamber. I would be quite prepared to ask the board, once they develop their capability and their expertise in measuring noise levels, to come and measure the decibels of the various speakers of the House and to ultimately subsequently submit a memo to the leaders of each of the parties so that we might gain some control over noise levels.

Now with respect to the other questions the Member asked, I can only say that…. (Laughter.)

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I thought I asked a very important question dealing with the various sections and subsections…. (Laughter.)

Section 9 approved.

On section 10.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, on section 10, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. (See appendix.) I want to congratulate the Member for Columbia River. I think that's the best debate we ever had. (Laughter.)

MR. CHABOT: Order! Withdraw!

Section 10 as amended approved.

On section 11.

HON. MR. KING: I move the amendment to section 11 standing in my name, Mr. Chairman. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 11 as amended approved.

On section 12.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: This section 12, Mr. Chairman, deals with the employer or worker of that employer having supervisory responsibilities who tries to prevent reporting. It seems to me that if there is such a situation where an employer tries to put pressure on an employee, or a supervisor tries to put pressure on an employee, it might well be a good thing to give the employee the defence that if he did give in to such pressure, he would himself be committing something which was against the Act.

There is no responsibility here in the last part of section 12 (2) which puts any burden on the employee who goes into such a deal to thwart the purposes of particular Act. There are sanctions against the employer, sanctions against the supervisor, but nothing against the employee. I wonder why this particular area was left out of the bill. Perhaps the Minister would comment on that.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, part of the problem we have encountered through the experience of the board over the years has been with respect to the kinds of forms that employees are required to file. In certain instances there are employees who cannot fill out the forms. They are required, however, to notify the employer. The forms that the employers have to file now also have been simplified.

The difference is that we have had serious cases of delay by employers in filing their forms once they are notified of the accident. In those cases, it brings great financial hardship on the claimant. I think under those terms the inducement is there for the employee to register his claim with the employer for his own

[ Page 4139 ]

self-protection.

With that and with the provision that is contained in the Act that he notify the employer, I think it is adequately covered.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: This one deals, Mr. Minister, with a combination. It is not a question of delaying in filing. Section 12, which amends section 13 of the original Act, deals with making threats, promises, inducements, persuasion, or any other means whatsoever which seek to discourage, impede or dissuade any worker or employee. The employees themselves should be discouraged from giving into such pressure. He should be able to look to the legislation and say that if he does that he is guilty of an offence, and is subject to penalty. The present situation is that the employee has no such ability to respond when faced with pressure which he might otherwise have. It is not just a question of late filing. I wonder why the employee was not put under some sort of penalty if he does indeed violate the Act by entering into such an agreement.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, the point is that if the employee does succumb to that kind of threat or intimidation he in fact faces the penalty of losing his coverage — a penalty which is not similarly faced by the employer. The fact that it is an offence gives him some ground to stand on in terms of ensuring that his own interests are protected by filing his claim and therefore ensuring that complications that arise in the future are in fact taken care of.

I think his self-preservation is a necessary inducement to the employee.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Let me phrase the question again. Say the employee accepts money from the supervisor or employer. He accepts this money and in return he does not put forward the report that he should. Surely he should be subject to some penalty for accepting money and thus failing to report. That is the point I was trying to make, Mr. Minister. The employee may well accept, quite corruptly, quite incorrectly, an offer of a few thousand dollars from the employer who doesn't want to have the board come in snooping around and thus the Act would be circumvented.

Say that happens. Surely the person who accepts that money should be guilty as well as the person who offers it. That is the only point I am trying to make here. The employee seems exempt from any sanction if he breaks the law but the employer is subject to very severe penalties. The employee may feel that it is well worth his while not to put in a claim or report on a relatively minor injury simply because the amount of money offered by the employer may be substantially greater. The employer, however, might be in a situation where he has been warned a number of times that unsafe practices exist, he has failed to take steps, he doesn't want the thing reported. It may be well worth his while to offer money.

The way it is now, you've just got sanctions going one way and not the other. I'm thinking specifically of the case where a man accepts a substantial amount of money for failing to report to the boards.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, again, the employee is the one who stands to lose or gain. If two parties want to contract to circumvent the law he has to understand that he is disqualifying himself from claim in the future. The question is there, of course: if there is a mutual agreement how do you uncover that situation in the first instance? It is pretty well impossible to uncover. The way it is now implies that one party through coercive action is attempting to intimidate the other to prevent him from receiving a benefit to which he is entitled. If they are both in agreement on an alternative to compensation coverage, then I just don't know how we can overcome that kind of a situation developing without some kind of detective work.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, the point has also been made that attempts by the supervisor even to discuss hazards with a victim of an accident under this section could be construed as the supervisor attempting to prevent reporting. It was suggested by the employers that we might consider amending subsection (2) to read after the word "inducements" "which has as its main purpose the dissuasion of a worker or the employer" or "the workers dependent from reporting to the board" — in other words, making it very clear that any attempts to dissuade them…but not preventing supervisory personnel from at least discussing the accident or how it happened or hoping to enlarge for both sides to the situation a knowledge and awareness of what happened and preventing it from happening again. But apparently the employers think that subsection (2) leaves the supervisory personnel open to the accusation that in discussing hazards or in discussing a specific accident they might be attempting to persuade the employee from not reporting the accident.

HON. MR. KING: That was certainly not the intent, Mr. Chairman. Beyond that I would point out that most employer-employee relationships provide for a safety committee at which accident occurrences during the current month are discussed and methods are found of trying to analyse why they occurred and take preventative action. I think that's adequately covered.

Section 12 approved.

[ Page 4140 ]

On section 13.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, very briefly, the point has been made that the board is making provision and expenditures for the training or retraining of a surviving dependent or spouse, regardless of the date of death. The point has been raised as to whether this is in the proper scope of the board. Should this not be the responsibility of Manpower or the B.C. Department of Labour, but once again not the responsibility of employers paying for the usual scope of responsibility within the understanding of the Workmen's Compensation Act?

I'm just talking about section 13, Mr. Minister, which says that the board may make provisions and expenditures for the training or retraining of surviving dependent spouse regardless of the date of death. Again, is this not social legislation the cost of which should not entirely be met by the employer?

HON. MR. KING: Well, Mr. Chairman, I really don't think so, in the sense that certainly the employer's responsibility to pay pension benefits is mitigated to some extent by whether or not the dependent widow is capable of being assimilated into the labour force. If she is not, it would seem to appear that adequate retraining would be a cheaper method for the employer to fulfil their obligations rather than going the pension route.

Section 13 approved.

On section 14.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 14 as amended approved.

On section 15.

HON. MR. KING: I move the amendment standing in my name, Mr. Chairman. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 15 as amended approved.

Sections 16 and 17 approved.

On section 18.

HON. MR. KING: I move the amendment standing in my name, Mr. Chairman. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 18 as amended approved.

Section 19 approved.

On section 20.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 20 as amended approved.

Section 21 approved.

On section 22.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name to section 22. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 22 as amended approved.

On section 23.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 23 as amended approved.

On section 24.

HON. MR. KING: I move the amendment standing in my name, Mr. Chairman. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 24 as amended approved.

Sections 25 and 26 approved.

On section 27.

HON. MR. KING: I move the amendment standing in my name, Mr. Chairman. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

On section 27 as amended.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, the intent of section 27 is to obviate the need for the reporting in writing. I'm all for simplifying bureaucracy, but it seems to me that there should be some kind of

[ Page 4141 ]

written acknowledgment by the workers, even to the degree of signing the first-aid report, or at least giving some written recognition by the workman as to what the accident was, and that he agrees that the description on the first-aid log, for example, is what happened.

I wonder if the Minister really doesn't feel that this can lead to confusion later on by having no written verification by the man most concerned, the injured workman.

HON. MR. KING: I think the intention is, Mr. Chairman, that wherever possible the forms will be filed — written notice. But it is certainly not possible in every situation to do that — in certain isolated incident, and where people are incapable of writing.

Section 27 approved.

On section 28.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment to section 28. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 28 as amended approved.

Sections 29 to 32 inclusive approved.

On section 33.

HON. MR. KING: I move the amendment to section 33. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 33 as amended approved.

Sections 34 to 36 inclusive approved.

On section 37.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: In this section in (5) (b) and (7) it seems to me that the Workmen's Compensation Board will be taking upon itself, or at least the officer will be taking upon himself, the right to determine which would be an appropriate union under the circumstances. I rather question whether that should be his role. It says here in (b):

"…where there is no union certified for that bargaining union, the union selected by the Officer of the Board " — et cetera, et cetera — "having regard to the union that appears to him to have the greatest number of members at the place of employment being inspected, and the union that appears to him to have members with the greatest exposure to hazard."

Now presumably this means that he will be deciding himself which is the appropriate union for the purposes of this section and this Act. I wonder whether that really is the right function for a Workmen's Compensation Board officer: to decide on competing unions as to which will be the one with whom he will deal — with which the employer will deal — and from which the worker representation will come. I wonder whether the Minister could say a few words on that.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, it would be a highly unique situation where that kind of thing would occur. Rather we're trying to get in a situation where it's unorganized, and yet the safety committee may well be in existence. There may be different unions within a given plant, and certainly they may have a variety of safety committees involved in the various branches of that plant. So it just gives that flexibility. I doubt whether it would ever occur.

Sections 37 and 38 approved.

On section 39.

HON. MR. KING: I move the amendment to section 39. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

On section 39 as amended.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Section 39 (2): This deals with payment if the factories close down, payment to the employees of three days of pay for the date of closure and for the next three working days — actually four days of pay for closing the factory down — as a result of an order under section 1 of this particular bill.

It seems to me that it's something that should be dealt with by way of collective bargaining — what would happen in a case of a plant being closed down. It's not up to the Workmen's Compensation Board to determine pay for closure under these circumstances. Surely it's the job of the board to deal with safety, to deal with compensation and things of that nature. But the penalty which this essentially is upon the employer could, I'm sure, be better dealt with by way of collective bargaining between the employer and the employee. I just wonder whether the Minister would indicate why this three-day provision has been put into this.

HON. MR. KING: I think the Member would recognize that we could have imposed the additional financial penalty for failure of companies to comply with board orders.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Right, that's the way it should be.

[ Page 4142 ]

HON. MR. KING: Well, you know, the feeling is that there are certain situations where companies can manipulate with respect to holidays and so on — particularly to save money by facing a shutdown, a board-ordered shutdown, and relieving themselves of certain fringe benefits of collective agreements. This imposes a penalty on them if they indulge in that kind of thing, a penalty which could have been assessed as straight penalty rather than this way. But it discourages that kind of activity.

Section 39 as amended approved.

Section 40 approved.

On section 41.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 41 as amended approved.

Sections 42 to 44 inclusive approved.

On section 45.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 45 as amended approved.

Sections 46 to 48 inclusive approved.

On section 49.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

On section 49 as amended.

MR. CHABOT: I was wondering if the Minister would tell me why it was necessary to have 17 amendments to this bill. It appears not too thoroughly thought out, either by the board or by the executive council or by the Minister.

Why has it been necessary to have 17 amendments to a bill? Don't they think these bills out before they drop them on the floor of the House?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, I don't think that is related to this section. Shall section 49 pass?

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, on section 49, before you rudely try to press on, under what section could I debate this goof-up of a bill?

Interjections.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I don't think that's a fair comment. The Member kindly at the beginning of his consideration of this bill gave great credit to the Workmen's Compensation Board, and now he's criticizing them for amendments to the legislation which he said they prepared. I don't think that's very kind.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think the point has been made.

MR. CHABOT: Seventeen goof-ups, Mr. Chairman, by that Minister and the executive council, just like all their legislation.

Section 49 as amended approved.

On schedule C.

HON. MR. KING: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Schedule C as amended approved.

Schedule D approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 119, Workmen's Compensation Amendment Act, 1974, reported complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'd like to move Bill 162 into committee from second reading. I call second reading.

Interjections.

AN HON. MEMBER: How can you do that? We'll

[ Page 4143 ]

just get in there and we'll go to supper.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 162.

Interjections.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: This is the alphabet soup bill and it is almost dinnertime. (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Is there any further debate?

Motion approved.

Bill 162, Statute Law Amendment Act, 1974, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:01 p.m.

APPENDIX

The following amendments are referred to on page 4111 et seq.:

105 The Hon. A. B. Macdonald to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 105) intituled Landlord and Tenant Act, to amend as follows:

Section 7, line 14: By adding, after line 14, the following words:

"(3) Every landlord shall post up and maintain posted, in such locations as the rentalsman may direct, a notice containing such information, respecting the residential premises and tenancy agreements relating to the residential premises, as the Lieutenant-Governor in Council may prescribe."

Section 8: By deleting section 8 and the marginal note, and substituting the following:

"Implied terms of agreement

"8. The statutory duties and prohibitions under sections 30 to 36 shall be deemed to be implied terms of every tenancy agreement."

Section 9, line 16: By deleting the number "(1)" in the first line of section 9 (7), and substituting the number "(6)".

Section 18, line 1: By deleting the word "three", and substituting the word "seven".

Section 20, lines I to 4: By deleting sections 20 (1) and the marginal note, and substituting the following:

"Demolition or conversion into strata lot, cooperative, or long term lease

"20. (1) Notwithstanding section 16, where a landlord requires residential premises for the purposes of

"(a) demolition; or

" (b) converting them into a strata lot under the Strata Titles Act; or

"(c) converting them into a unit in a cooperative corporation as defined in the Real Estate Act; or

"(d) entering into a tenancy agreement for a term exceeding three years, the landlord shall give not less than one hundred and twenty days notice of termination of the existing tenancy agreement."

Section 20, line 20: By adding after line 20 the following as section 20 (4):

"(4) No landlord shall enter into a tenancy agreement for a term exceeding three years,

unless he first obtains the approval of,

[ Page 4144 ]

APPENDIX

"(a) where the residential premises are situated in a municipality, the municipal council; or

"(b) where the residential premises are not situated in a municipality, the regional board of the regional district,

in which the residential. premises are situated."

Section 23, lines 23 to 25: By deleting all the words in lines 23 to 25, and substituting the following words:

"(f) the landlord intends to demolish the residential premises, convert them into a strata lot or unit in a cooperative corporation, or enter into a tenancy agreement for a term exceeding three years, and the landlord has complied with section 20 and has obtained the approval required under section 20 (4);".

Section 23, line 37: By deleting the word "are", and substituting the words "were not, at the time the tenancy agreement was entered into, ordinarily occupied by a person under the age of nineteen, and were, after that time,".

Section 23, line 45: By adding at the end the word "; or" and the following as clauses (m) and (n):

"(m) the tenant was an employee of an employer who provided the tenant with residential premises during his employment, and his employment has terminated; or

(n) the number of persons permanently occupying the residential premises is unreasonable."

Section 25, lines 1 to 8: By deleting section 25 (1), and substituting the following:

"25. (1) Notwithstanding a change of tenant or landlord, no increase in rent for residential premises shall be collected until twelve months have expired following the date, whether it is before or after the date this subsection comes into force, of the establishment or last increase of the rent."

Section 25, lines 10 and 11: By deleting the words "after the period of one year referred to in subsection (1) and".

Section 28, line 7: By deleting the Word "four", and substituting the word 'five' .

Section 28, line 8: By deleting the word "four", and substituting the word 'five' .

Section 29, line 14: By deleting all the words after the word "the", and substituting the words "rentalsman shall be deemed to be a reference to the municipal rent review bureau."

Section 43, line 12: By adding, after the word "rentalsman", the words ", upon application by the tenant, ".

Section 45, line 1: By deleting the words "gives tip possession of or"'.

Section 54, line 15: By adding after line 15 the following as section 54 (5):

"(5) No application order subsection (1) shall be made more than thirty days after the date of the order, direction, decision, or determination of the rentalsman."

The following amendments are referred to on page 4135 et seq.:

119 The Hon. W. S. King to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 119) intituled Workmen's Compensation Amendment Act, 1974, to amend as follows:

[Section numbers in italic refer to section numbers in Bill 119. section numbers not in italic refer to the present Act.]

1. Section 11 is struck out and the following substituted:

Section 10 (1) is amended

[ Page 4144A ]

APPENDIX

(a) by striking out the words "care, whether that duty be imposed by" in the second and third lines, and substituting the words "care or any other cause of action, whether that duty or cause of action is imposed by or arises by reason of";

(b) by inserting after the word "Part," in the sixth line the words "or against any worker, ";

(c) by inserting after the word "agent," in the ninth line the words "or the worker, ".

Section 10 (2) is amended by inserting, after the word "employer" in the second and third lines, the words "or worker".

Section 10 (7) is amended by inserting after the word "employers" in the fourth line, the words "or workers", and by inserting, after the word "employer" in the sixth line and again in the seventh line, the words "or worker".

2. After section 11, the following is inserted as section 11A:

11A. Section 11 is amended in the second line by striking out the words "against an employer".

3. Section 14 is amended as follows:

In section 17 (1 ) in the definition of "child", in the first line of clause (i), the word "sixteen" is struck out and the word "eighteen" is substituted.

In the definition of "Federal benefits", the words "or any other plan administered by the Government of Canada, or any department, board, commission, or branch thereof," and the words "but does not include benefits under the Old Age Security Act (Canada), or such benefits as the Board may determine ought to be excluded" are struck out.

In section 17 (8) in the first line, the words ", both being workers under this Part," are struck out.

4. Section 15 is amended as follows: In section 18 (1) in the first line following clause (c), the word "seventy" is struck out and the words "eighty-seven" are substituted.

5. Section 18 is amended by adding, after the word "hundred" in the second line, the words "and twenty-five".

6. After section 20, the following is added as section 20A:

20A. Section 27 (2) is amended by striking out the words thirty dollars and, and forty-seven cents" in the second line and substituting the words "seventy-five dollars".

7. Section 22 is amended as follows: In section 31 (5) in the third line, after the word "hundred", the words "and twenty-five" are added.

8. After section 23, the following is added as section 23A.

23A. Section 37 is amended by addling the following as subsection (9):

(9) Where special circumstances, including legislative change, result in claims being made or liabilities being imposed upon the Accident Fund in excess of what the Board considers should reasonably be funded by assessments levied during the current year, the Board shall raise sufficient funds by assessments due in that year to meet the estimated payments due within the year, but need not establish within the year reserves to meet future payments on such claims or liabilities, and the Board may establish such reserves by assessments levied over a period of years.

9. After section 24, the following is added as section 24A:

24A. The Act is further amended by inserting, alter section 40 the following as section 40A:

40A. The Board may, in such manner as it may determine, vary the rates of assessment as between different employers or levy supplementary assessments according to the estimated exposure of workers to industrial noise and it may do so whether or riot hearing protection is worn.

[ Page 4144B ]

10. Section 27 is amended as follows:

In section 50, subsection (3) is renumbered subsection (4) and the following is added as subsection (3):

(3) The worker shall, if be is fit to do so and upon request of the employer, provide to the employer particulars of the injury or industrial disease on a form prescribed by the Board and supplied to him by the employer.

11. Section 28 is amended as follows: In section 51 (4) (c), after the word "injury", the words "or alleged injury" are added.

12. After section 33, the following is added as section 33A:

33A. Section 55 (11) (b) is repealed.

13. Section 39 is amended as follows: In section 62 (2) in the first line, after the words "subsection (1)", the words "or under section 59 (1) (c)" are added.

14. Section 41 is amended as follows: In section 65 (1) in the first line after the word "under" the words "section 59 (2)," are added, and in the sixth line, after the word "section" the word "59 (2)," is added.

15. Section 45 is amended as follows: In section 78 (3) in the third line, the words "and records" are struck out.

16. Section 49 is amended by adding the following as subsection (3):

(3) The Board may, with regard to the levying of assessments or the adjustment of compensation benefits presently being paid or payable, apply any provision of this Act as from the beginning of the month during which such provision comes into force or from the beginning of the following month.

17. Schedule C is struck out and a revised Schedule C annexed hereto is substituted.

SCHEDULE C

[Section 17 (3) (e)]

A monthly payment of two hundred and ten dollars

plus

the following proportion of the difference between two hundred and ten dollars and the monthly payment that would be payable using the formula set out in section 17 (3) (c).