CONTENTS

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 142). Committee stage.

On section 4. Mr. Chabot — 3925

Amendment to section 4. Mr. Wallace — 3929

Division on amendment to section 4 — 3933

On section 4. Mr. Bennett — 3934

Amendment to section 4. Mr. Bennett — 3934

Mr. Chairman rules out of order — 3934

On section 4. Mr. Smith — 3934

Division on section 4 — 3935

On section 5. Mr. Chabot — 3935

On section 6. Mr. Curtis — 3936

Amendments to section 7. Hon. Mr. Hall — 3936

On section 7 as amended. Mr. McClelland — 3937

Amendment to section 7 as amended. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3945

Mr. Chairman rules out of order — 3945

On a point of order. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3945

On section 7 as amended. Mr. L.A. Williams — 3946

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

Orders of the day.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Committee on Bill 142, Mr. Speaker.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 1975
(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 142; Mr. Dent in the chair.

On section 4 — continued.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr. Chairman, just a few comments and a few questions to the Minister of Public Works. It deals with a question that had been put to him prior to the dinner hour regarding subsection (b) in which the Minister finds himself in an embarrassing position tonight. He found himself in an obviously embarrassing position due to the fact that he's leased surplus offices throughout the province at the expense to the taxpayers of something in the neighborhood — that we're aware of, at least — of $350,000. It's an absolute disgrace.

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: There are Ministers of the Crown that have resigned for less wasteful measures than we've experienced under the Minister which we've been able to expose. And how many are there that we don't know about?

AN HON. MEMBER: The taxpayers' money.

MR. CHABOT: So we find ourselves with the Minister having rented a surplus of office space throughout the Province of British Columbia. It might even be $1 million worth. We've been able to locate $350,000 in wasted money. I'm wondering whether the reason for this amendment is an attempt to retreat from that embarrassing position in which he finds himself. Is there any intention on the part of the Minister of subleasing this space which he's presently tied into — in some instances for five years? I wonder if that is the reason. I wonder if the Minister will inform us whether the reason for this amendment is to remove him from his embarrassing position, having leased office space surplus to the requirements of the government.

Also, you know, I'm alarmed by certain subsections of this section, because it makes it possible for the Minister to now lease or sublease that hotel that the government bought here in Victoria some time ago at an extravagant price.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: What hotel? What hotel?

MR. CHABOT: Well, everybody knows the Glenshiel and the kind of political scandal surrounding the Glenshiel Hotel. Half a million dollars for an old, dilapidated, broken-down hotel. Half a million dollars! Does the government intend to remove itself from this embarrassing position having paid half a million dollars for an old, broken-down hotel in the City of Victoria?

Interjection.

AN HON. MEMBER: Rusty water taps.

MR. CHABOT: Do they intend to lease this hotel to some operator? It could be almost anyone. It could be a friend of the government. It could be a friend of the Minister, a niece, a nephew — you name it. It could be an uncle. Is there any intention on the part of the government to lease the hotel, to get out from this financial boondoggle they find themselves in in that respect?

Two simple questions, Mr. Chairman, that I put to the Minister and they're simple questions, and I'm sure that the Minister can answer them in his usual simple way.

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): I have the answer for my friend from Columbia River. Do we intend to lease space in the Glenshiel Hotel? The answer is yes.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Ohhh!

HON. MR. HARTLEY: When we purchased the building, the suites and the rooms therein were leased to senior citizens and persons wishing to live in the City of Victoria, and the Hon. Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) and myself met with them. They were afraid that when we purchased the building they'd be turned out in the street. We said no; that would have happened had a private developer taken over. But one of the reasons that we purchased was to protect those senior citizens. So we have continued the leases to those senior citizens, the long-time residents. The new residents come in on a 30-day notice. But the answer is yes. We are leasing

[ Page 3926 ]

space in the Glenshiel Hotel to senior citizens.

MR. CHABOT: A short supplementary, Mr. Chairman. There was one other question. I said I put two simple questions to the Minister. The other question which the Minister is unwilling... or maybe he has forgotten the other question. Maybe I'd better put it to him again. Does the Minister intend to remove himself from the embarrassing position of having surplus offices throughout the province? Does he intend subleasing these offices he has leased over all the province at tremendous expense to the taxpayers of the province and, if so, will they be leased at current market rates?

AN HON. MEMBER: A dollar a year.

MR. CHABOT: Will they be leased at a lease structure less than what the government finds itself committed to? Will the....

He talks about leasing space in the Glenshiel Hotel, that political boondoggle. Now, will they lease space there in that hotel? That scandalous purchase by the government, will it be subject to the Landlord and Tenant Act? Will there be a ceiling on the rental rates, because there's a ceiling almost everywhere else? Certainly there is no government.... I'm sure the Minister doesn't believe in double standards, that if they're going to tie lease rates in other hotels in the City of Vancouver, certainly the Glenshiel should be tied to the same kind of provisions that they're trying to impose on other hotels in the City of Vancouver.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Yes, as far as the Glenshiel Hotel, I'm surprised that my friend from Columbia River wasn't listening this afternoon when I went through the whole lease bit when it was raised by the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams), that this is merely trying to put the entire lease business from all departments to the Department of Public Works on a sounder business basis so that when any one department said that they had X number of additional personnel, then we would ask them: "Okay, have you in your budget sufficient dollars to cover the necessary lease space to provide the necessary office space for those increased persons in your department?" On that basis we lease from the Department of Public Works to any other department, or if necessary, to a society or to a Crown corporation. I went through that this afternoon.

As far as the Glenshiel Hotel — as property values go up in Victoria, we have got the Glenshiel Hotel, and with that, all the parking area and the right to close that lane where you see the beautiful Heritage Court built today.

The Department of Public Works had been after the previous administration for years and years and years to buy the Glenshiel Hotel, but the former administration failed to see the good business and value in doing that. Sure we had to pay more for it than they could have done 10 years previously, or two years previously, but we could certainly sell that building and that property at a fantastic capital gain. We paid very little more for that hotel and over an acre of land than what we did a few months ago, for the Esso service station that is needed for CRDC development on the waterfront. So the Glenshiel Hotel was good business; no one has been turned out — senior citizens or anyone are allowed to rent a suite there. The Glenshiel Hotel is making money on the investment, in addition to the fact that we have been able to set aside land to protect this precinct area. And this is something that the previous administration did nothing about.

Interjections.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: The previous administration was selling Hydro property, was selling Crown property; they were selling the people of this province down the river. Instead of acquiring land, they were giving it away and selling it to their friends. That, Mr. Chairman, is a shocking disgrace!

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, just a short question. The Minister foams at the mouth from time to time. He's foaming at the mouth now when he talks about the former government selling land to friends, et cetera. It's most disgraceful that a Minister of the Crown would make irresponsible and unfounded accusations such as this Minister of Public Works.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Who did they sell the Hydro property on Bay Street to?

MR. CHABOT: Just one moment — I have the floor. I have the floor.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Columbia River has the floor.

MR. CHABOT: He foams at the mouth. I asked him two simple questions, Mr. Chairman, and he's unwilling to answer. All he wants to do is get into a harangue — cheap politics, unfounded accusations. Mr. Chairman, there's no need for that. We're asking a few simple questions in relationship to this section and the omnibus bill we are debating. I asked the Minister very clearly: will the Glenshiel Hotel.... He indicated there was going to be leased space there, and I've asked him very simply: is the Glenshiel Hotel going to be subject to the Landlord and Tenant Act?

[ Page 3927 ]

There is one other question which I haven't put to him at any time. It's my understanding, and maybe I'm wrong, that there was intention at one time of the government making it a private club for NDP members. Is there any truth to that, that the Glenshiel Hotel was intended to be a private club for the NDP? You know, another kind of Union Club for the NDP. The Minister might be able to answer that.

Could the Minister also tell me whether...? I don't know how many times I have to put the question to him.

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: Someone says that the blueprints are all ready for a private club for the NDP. Well, I don't know. The Minister may be able to tell us whether he's thrown in the trash can any plans he might have had for a private club for the NDP in the Glenshiel Hotel.

Nevertheless, I want to know: what are you going to do with the surplus office space you have scattered all over this province for which the taxpayers are paying at least a minimum of $350,000 a year, of which we're aware?

You intend subleasing that space which is surplus to government requirements. It is that simple. If you are going to sublease it, are you going to sublease it at current rates, at comparable rates, or at higher rates than what you are committed to?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Mr. Chairman, as far as the Glenshiel Hotel is concerned, they will comply with all rules and regulations, including landlord and tenant. In the past 12 months, we haven't had increased rents there. The Glenshiel is making money for you as Members of the Legislature and taxpayers of this province.

MR. CHABOT: Are you going to file an annual report on it? What depreciation?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: If the Member for Columbia River would just close his mouth and open his ears, he might not be repeating questions that were asked this afternoon.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Don't get personal.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Mr. Chairman, just because he goes out and dines well and comes back with a red nose, he has a difficult time controlling himself.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I wish you would have that irresponsible Minister withdraw that irresponsible statement, please.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I don't know what.... The Chair is not aware of any statement. Would the Hon. Member state the remark that he would like withdrawn?

MR. CHABOT: You know what he said. You heard him, Mr. Chairman.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I really can't think of the remark that could be taken offensively. However, if the Hon. Member was offended by a remark, I would ask the Hon. Minister of Public Works to simply get up and say that he is sorry.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Mr. Chairman, I hope he dined well. Didn't he? He looks as though he dined well, doesn't he?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Carry on with your questions, and I'll answer them. But make them questions, not great political diatribes.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I have asked a very simple question, and the Minister is unwilling to answer it. What do you propose to do with the surplus space that you have rented throughout the province? It is a very simple question.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: This was explained during my estimates. At any time when you go through a period of expansion, and this new government has gone through a period of expansion — extending services....

Interjections.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: That's right. The people of this province were starved for many services. When we sat over there in the opposition, we got up and advocated ambulance services for the people of this province. When we moved over to this side of the House, we acted in that avenue and we provided ambulance services for the people of this province. That needed extra space to store those ambulances and to administer those services.

Mr. Chairman, when we sat on that side of the House, we stood up and advocated drug services, Pharmacare, for the people of this province. I can remember getting up and pleading and saying....

Interjections.

[ Page 3928 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Is there an Hon. Member wishing to make a point of order? If there is, I would ask him to stand in his place.

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Chairman, I would like you to show your usual fairness in calling Members to order when they don't speak to the bill, because it would be shame if you ruined your record this late in the session.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point is well taken in this respect, that I would ask the Hon. Minister to speak to section 4.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am merely responding to the question they asked about vacant space. I told them why we had to hire more space, why we had to rent more space, and why we needed more space.

MR. CHABOT: What are you going to do with it?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: We needed more space because we had to house the ambulances, the personnel, the administration people.

MR. CHABOT: On the 13th floor? (Laughter.)

Interjection.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: If you have questions, I will answer them.

Under Pharmacare, we used to stand up across the way and ask what point was there in the people of this province having Medicare then they go into the doctor's office, he takes his little card and he scribbles something that very few can read. That patient would go across the street to the drugstore and say: "Look, Mr. Pharmacist, what is it going to cost?" Then when the pharmacist says what it is going to cost, they have to look in their purse: "We will have to come back another day." What good is there in going to a doctor if you haven't the means to carry out the prescriptions that he has just prescribed? That is why we brought in Pharmacare. That is why we had to lease extra space.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): The Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) is laughing at you.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: He is laughing at you.

So you can take it right on down the line. So, Mr. Chairman, the people of this province had great need for people services. We have provided them. We had to rent a great deal of extra space. When you rent space, there is a time-lag between the time you rent that space, design it and renovate it to your exact needs. But there is no waste space as far as I am concerned.

Now if these people would close their mouths and open their ears, and if they have questions to ask, let's have them. I am happy to answer them.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Now we'll get some sensible questions.

MR. FRASER: They say that doctors can't write.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): He can't read his own notes. (Laughter.)

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Chairman, I'm glad we have clarified one point — that we're storing ambulances in the Glenshiel Hotel. (Laughter.)

MR. PHILLIPS: How much a night?

AN HON. MEMBER: What floor?

MR. WALLACE: I am not sure what connection Pharmacare has with one million square feet of space either. It's a hard act to follow, Mr. Chairman.

Before we had the supper break... (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: What break was that?

MR. WALLACE: ...which certainly wreaks havoc with the evening sitting and can well be defined as the happy hour, I'm sure, we were discussing, as I recall, the whole question of section 4 of this bill. One of the Members pointed out the very different wording which applies to the proposal to lease space to boards, authorities, commissions, Crown corporations or public services compared to the wording which applies to subsection (b) where the Minister leases it to any person. I hope we've restored a measure of order in this debate, because this is a very valid point that was raised.

There is discrimination in section 4 between the leasing of space "to any person" as compared to the leasing of space under subsections (1), (2), (3) and (4), which define "Crown corporations and other boards or authorities."

The wording is very significant because when you're leasing it to a Crown corporation the wording, Mr. Chairman reads, "for such consideration as the Minister considers appropriate." That's a little bit like the bill we had this afternoon from the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) about "purposes for the optimum benefit of the province" — flowing, vague, ill-defined statements which leave discretion in the hands of the

[ Page 3929 ]

Minister.

The Minister obviously misunderstood an interjection of mine this afternoon about subsidy. If you rent some space in an office at half the going price, it doesn't matter who's renting that space. That person or party or organization or Crown corporation is being subsidized. If I happen to be "any person" and I want to rent that space, if I pay twice what Hydro pays, then, Mr. Minister, you are subsidizing that particular authority. That is the point that's painfully plain to us on this side of the House: there's a double standard in section 4(b) where we're referring to the leasing of the property to "any person." There is this very significant phrase right after: "at current market rates." But the conditions that apply to the other kind of people, parties and associations that might rent space — the qualification in their particular instance reads, "for such consideration as the Minister considers appropriate."

I think, Mr. Chairman, that it should be only right, reasonable and consistent that if the government and this Minister have got themselves into a real box by leasing space for which, as yet, the government has no clear intention, it makes sense that that space should be put to some purpose and should bring in revenue for the government. I couldn't agree more on that. But it's got to be the same for everybody, whether it's John Q. Public or B.C. Hydro or B.C. Railway or ICBC or the Rent Review Commission or any other agency of government. The way this is written in subsections (1), (2), (3) and (4) of subsection (a), it's quite clear that there are two different standards being set. I think, having explained that very clearly to the Minister, I'm sure the Minister agrees that there should not be any kind of hidden subsidy or indirect benefit to agencies of government compared to any individual citizen who wants to lease this space.

Because of the obvious logic of that argument and the unmistakable sense that it bears in relation to government revenue being at market rates, I would like to move an amendment, Mr. Chairman, to section 4: that in line 5 we delete the words "for such consideration as he considers appropriate" and in line 7, after the word "Minister," insert "at current market rates." Then the meaning of the section is abundantly clear that no matter who leases this space, whether it be an individual or a corporation or a Crown corporation or an arm of government, the revenue accruing to the Crown in that way will, indeed, be at current market rates.

Then the government will no longer be in the unenviable position of appearing to subsidize one of its own agencies at rents or leases less than market value. It will also perhaps instil a measure of responsibility in some of these agencies that they can't go around getting cheap office space just because the Department of Public Works happens to have acquired more space than it needs.

So I think two very worthy goals would be satisfied: that space would not sit vacant, that it would bring in revenue to the government; and at the same time it would be quite clear that there could be no discrimination at the discretion of the Minister that perhaps the individual might pay the current market rate, but ICBC might get it at half price. I think that's an eminently reasonable argument, and I think that this kind of amendment would make the...

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: I beg your pardon, Mr. Minister?

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: The Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) says there's no intention of treating anybody differently. I remember you, Mr. Minister, standing in this House and saying there was no intention to subsidize ICBC. And within 12 months you did the very opposite. You broke your word to this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. WALLACE: So you're the last one who should be interjecting. Don't you give me that stuff!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. WALLACE: You're the last person who should make that kind of interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. PHILLIPS: Not one penny!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. WALLACE: Well, where's the $34 million coming from?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask the Hon. Member to speak to the section, please.

MR. WALLACE: I've asked for the answer...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. WALLACE:...many times in this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

Interjections.

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

[ Page 3930 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will the Hon. Member be seated for a moment? Order, please! Order, please! Now, I would ask the Hon. Member for Oak Bay to speak to the section, please. Order! I would ask the Hon. Member for Oak Bay to speak to section 4, please.

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

MR. WALLACE: That's what I was trying to do when he interrupted me.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I think the Hon. Member has to learn how to ignore the interruptions and speak to the section. I would ask the Hon. Minister of Transport and Communications and other Members not to interrupt a Member when he's speaking.

MR. WALLACE: Speaking to section 4 and speaking to the amendment, I would only say that in trying to correct what appears to be a different attitude in section 4 in leasing this property held by the Department of Public Works, the differing attitudes to the individual leasing the property as compared to the kind of organizations and arms of government listed under subsections 1, 2, 3 and 4; I'm suggesting that the amendment will provide a uniform and consistent attitude to no matter who or what particular body would rent the space.

It would seem to me that the way in which it is written clearly offers the opportunity for the government to play favourites in leasing the space, particularly to Crown corporations and other arms of government. I suggest that the amendment would very clearly establish that the same treatment would be afforded to any lessee under this section.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Could we have the amendment brought forward, please? Order, please! We'll just examine the amendment.

On the amendment.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Mr. Chairman, as far as the amendment is concerned, there's no need for it. The legislation is quite in order and quite consistent as I see it. As I mentioned this afternoon, the reason that we have these amendments to our legislation is simply so that each department, in their business relationships with the Department of Public Works in leasing space, can operate on a more sound and more businesslike basis than has been the case in the past.

We'll be able to charge back the cost of that leased space to each and every department. As for Crown corporations, up until this point of time during this administration's term of office we have leased no space to Crown corporations — certainly not to ICBC.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not yet.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: I see no need for this amendment, Mr. Chairman. I think this is straightforward. Each section relates with each of the amendments, and I see no need for this proposed amendment.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, the Minister hasn't offered much of a defence. This point was brought up this afternoon when it was pointed out clearly that the government could deal much more favourably with Crown corporations than they did in the leasing of their excess space which they have contracted for, and that they could favour them and in favouring them they would give them a subsidy.

It was also pointed out that this amendment completely changed the method of disposal of surplus government property from that contained within the Act as now stated. The Act now stated says: "any real property, when no longer required for the use of any public work, may be sold, leased or disposed of by tender or public auction."

The Minister was asked repeatedly if he was against tender and public auction as a means of fairly disposing of surplus leased property. Now it has been well recorded and well documented over the length of this Legislature, Mr. Chairman, that this Minister and his department have no administrative control over the excess space they have leased far in advance of expected use. There are hundreds of thousands of public dollars which have been wasted by this Minister, wasted already this year and last year.

Now this bill does not provide for the orderly disposal or release of this property. We have the mechanism now. Yet they bring in a bill which suggests, as was discussed this afternoon and as is pointed out in this amendment tonight, two standards for the disposal of the property. One is that if it is to a private individual, a private corporation or anyone in the private sector, it will be at market value. But if it is a Crown corporation they want to subsidize and make look good — and there are many of those that have lost millions of dollars, as the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) knows because he specializes in them — they could subsidize it by leasing them all of their real property and all of their space. Certainly it would be less noticeable than a subsidy from the gasoline tax that he keeps denying exists.

But we in British Columbia, I don't think, want special deals for Crown corporations. We want them to be above reproach. We don't want them to be suspect, as they are, that they get special deals. I think it is an amendment that should be supported.

[ Page 3931 ]

This afternoon I asked the Minister if he would initiate the amendment himself as a means of guaranteeing to the people of British Columbia that there was no double standard. Apparently, over the supper hour he wasn't able to come to a conclusion.

It must mean that he supports the principle with which he has brought in this amendment, that they are going to use the Department of Public Works, they are going to use the fact that they have already wasted millions of dollars on excess space, they are going to use it to subsidize associated companies and Crown corporations.

I believe this Legislature should support this amendment to indicate clearly that they are not going to allow this Minister to continue to make mistakes, and to compound the mistakes and waste that he has had in the past. Probably the most inefficient department of government, the most wasteful in the government that is known for waste.

Documented evidence has been presented at this session of space after space that still is not filled, much of it today, even after being made known to this Minister. No answers.

This afternoon the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) said that this Minister provided answers. I've gone carefully through Hansard, and he's provided very little in the way of answers to the very serious questions that were posed to him. Yet tonight he stands up and ineptly tries to defend a double-standard amendment that would go against the regular traditional rights we have to public tender or public auction for getting rid of surplus space. He refuses to consider an amendment that was suggested this afternoon and that has been initiated tonight, that the double standard not exist in his amendment and that full value, full current market value be obtained for any surplus space.

Now we in the opposition realize that we are caught; the government is caught. We have this surplus space; we must get rid of it. Certainly if they are not prepared to move by public tender, which would be preferable, certainly in this section they would at least condescend to deal equitably, fairly and above-board with all of the public, and that all property be leased at fair market value.

The Minister refused to acknowledge it this afternoon. He does himself no credit when he rejects it out of hand tonight. He does himself no credit when he refused to comment on whether he supported the traditional method of public auction or public tender. I would think that the Minister should get up again during this amendment and make clear to this Legislature where he stands on public tender, public auction, fair play, fair prices and equality.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The reason for the distinction the Minister has made simply doesn't hold up. If there is any reason that the government would like to have either a Crown corporation, a cooperative, or any other group or individual or society or corporation given a special break, then surely it should be done by the government giving a direct subsidy to make up the difference so that when the public accounts book comes out, when the estimates are considered, we in the opposition can see the actual subsidy paid, so that the true financial picture of the government, and of course of the society or corporation, would be obvious to all.

The difficulty you face here is that if you make sweetheart deals here on rent, B.C. Hydro then might make a special sweetheart deal to cut it down because it's a worthwhile institution, or they think it's worthwhile, and when all these things are added up, you could have a very, very substantial bill which far outweighs the advantages of that particular organization or corporation. Surely if you charge full market rates and then clearly make a subsidy available so that the rent can be subsidized by that method, you will be far better off in terms of proper accounting and in terms of the government being fair to all.

I think the Minister could easily accept this amendment without doing anything at all except enhancing his own reputation for open-mindedness and fairness towards opposition amendments. After all, it's not his department that's going to benefit from this; it's all those other ones that are ripping him off. So I think that he could clearly accept this amendment as a good indication of good business practice on his part.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the amendment pass?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think the noes have it.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Chairman, I think it becomes you to look around to see who's on their feet before you put the question on the amendment. It so happens that the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) was on his feet. It so happens he's still on his feet. He's not been recognized.

Interjections.

MR. SMITH: Oh, he sat down, but he....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The point is well taken. I think we should go on with the debate, I agree with the Hon. Member for North Peace River. I'm sorry I failed to notice the Member for Langley.

[ Page 3932 ]

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Chairman, I don't want to be very long. Yes, on the amendment, Mr. Chairman. I speak in support of the amendment.

I think it's quite clear that this section offers the possibility of a direct subsidy for government corporations that can't be tolerated in this province. I wish the Minister were still in the House. While the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) was proposing his amendment, the Minister — he's back — the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) got almost hysterical in his opposition to the comments of the Member for Oak Bay that there would be any possibility of subsidization of the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I've tried to be fair and I think that the Hon. Member should observe the rules and speak to this section.

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I'm dealing with this section which, as I said, has the opportunity for some incredible hidden subsidies for Crown corporations. There are parallels, and the Minister of Transport and Communications — and I hesitate to say went off his... no, I won't say that, no — was very hysterical in his opposition to the Member for Oak Bay, pointing and screaming: "There will never be one penny subsidy."

Yet, Mr. Chairman, I look at a speech that was made in Madison, Wisconsin, June 15, 1975. The Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources for British Columbia, Canada, the Hon. Robert Williams....

AN HON. MEMBER: Ferryboats, townsites.

MR. McCLELLAND: Ferryboats, townsites. Mr. Chairman, it's the first time that anyone's been honest about subsidies for ICBC. The Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources said in that speech.... Listen to what he said in that speech.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We are considering section 4 of this bill and I would ask the Hon. Member to speak directly to the section.

MR. McCLELLAND: No, I'm speaking to the amendment, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You've slipped off into a discussion of ICBC. Would the Hon. Member proceed, please?

MR. McCLELLAND: No, no, I'm speaking to the amendment, Mr. Chairman, not section 4. I'm speaking to the amendment on section 4, and I'm drawing a parallel to what could happen, because we've seen it happen in this province already. I just want to tell you what the Minister said.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Chairman wants to hear what the Minister said.

MR. McCLELLAND: Everybody wants to hear what the Minister said. The Minister said in Madison, Wisconsin, about ICBC: "We have...."

AN HON. MEMBER: Not in British Columbia!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would point out to the Hon. Member that there is nothing in the section here indicating in any way a subsidy to any Crown corporation. Therefore....

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, there is, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I think the Hon. Members are reading something into the section that is not here. I would ask the Hon. Member....

MR. McCLELLAND: Oh, is that for you to say, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. McCLELLAND: No, no, Mr. Chairman. No, no. We are speaking to the amendment, Mr. Chairman, and the reason for the amendment is because the opposition is most concerned about the opportunity of subsidies to Crown corporations with regard to the rental of Crown land. Now it is as simple as that, Mr. Chairman. I would like to draw this parallel and the people of this House want to hear what the red-faced Minister said.

MR. BENNETT: What did the Minister say?

MR. McCLELLAND: "While we have subsidized the system..."

SOME HON. MEMBER: Ohhhhhhhh!

MR. McCLELLAND: "...partly out of an increase in the gasoline tax...."

Interjections.

MR. McCLELLAND: He's the first Minister in this House to admit there has been a direct subsidy for ICBC. When I mentioned it earlier, Mr. Chairman, he said it was a typographical error. I didn't realize he had a portable typewriter which he took down with him, the same typewriter he used for his famous B.C. Hydro scandal.

[ Page 3933 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I think the Hon. Member for Langley....

MR. McCLELLAND: Briefly to conclude, Mr. Chairman, I speak in favour of this amendment, because there is a terrible opportunity for subsidy here, further subsidy for Crown lands and for a special opportunity for Crown corporations. I don't think that the people of British Columbia can stand any more of that on their tax bills. We must stop it now and that is why I say: let's vote in favour of this amendment.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say a few words on subsidies.

MR. McCLELLAND: Good.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: These people speak on subsidies. I would like to tell you how in the first 12 months of operation Can-Cel subsidized this little province with some $62 million of cold cash.

So when we are talking about subsidies, true proper Crown corporations that are set up by democratic socialists are there to support the entire economy. It is just those old, tired Social Credit Crown corporations that they milked into the ground to try to disgrace the good name of public administration; those have had to be subsidized — like the B.C. Rail. The Leader of the Opposition's daddy — no, he didn't subsidize, no. He said: "We own 100 per cent of the shares of B.C. Rail, so this year we will give them another $25 million; next year, another $25 million; the year after that, another $25 million; the year after that another $25 million; the year after that, $20 million."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Order!

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Total: $120 million subsidy to B.C. Rail.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Order!

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Shocking condemnation of that leader.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

The Hon. Leader of the Opposition. Before the Hon. Member proceeds, I would point out that both the Member for Langley and the Minister of Public Works were clearly out of order.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's too late. You didn't stop him. You let him go.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, Before the Hon. Leader of the Opposition proceeds....

MR. CHABOT: You have no control, Mr. Chairman. You've lost your control.

MR. PHILLIPS: You let him go.

AN HON. MEMBER: How about a vote of confidence?

MR. PHILLIPS: You were unfair to the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: Next!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Now before the Hon. Leader of the Opposition proceeds, I would like to ask him to speak on the amendment.

MR. PHILLIPS: You let that Minister go.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Both sides were clearly out of order. Both sides were called to order. From this point forward I am cautioning Hon. Members to speak to the amendment.

MR. CHABOT: You shouldn't be lecturing him before he has spoken.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will the Hon. Leader of the Opposition proceed with his speech, if he so wishes?

MR. BENNETT: Call the vote.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 13

NAYS — 26

[ Page 3934 ]

Mr. Wallace requests that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

MR. BENNETT: Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm disappointed that the House didn't pass that amendment. Very disappointed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would point out to the Hon. Leader of the Opposition....

MR. BENNETT: Very disappointed. But in speaking ...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. Order, please!

MR. BENNETT: ...to section 4, Mr....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Before the Hon. Member proceeds, I would point out that it is improper to reflect on a vote...

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: ...and I would ask the Hon. Leader of the Opposition to continue.

MR. PHILLIPS: You're not supposed to lecture the House.

MR. BENNETT: In speaking to section 4, Mr. Chairman, we are still faced with an amendment here that deals with a double standard, and it also gives this Minister, who every day reveals his lack of competence more and more — and even more so when he stands in this House and says that Can-Cel has subsidized the province by $86 million.... Nowhere in consolidated revenue did I see $86 million for services to people from Can-Cel.

I didn't see any subsidy coming into consolidated revenue, and I don't think anyone else did. It's the usual drivel from that Minister of empty office space who wishes to have this double standard in this section.

Within the framework of the Act itself there is provision for public tender and for option. Yet in this amendment the Minister wants to give preference and give himself the ability to give preference to the Crown corporations to bail out some of the weak Ministers who have recorded excessive losses. To prevent this happening and to stay with the standards of dealing fairly with the public, Mr. Chairman, I propose an amendment to add after subsection (3) as subsection (4), the following: (4) no real property shall be leased pursuant to subsection 3(a) or 3(b) other than by tender or public auction.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's out of order.

MR. BENNETT: No it's not. You're out of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I must regretfully rule the amendment out of order on the grounds that it is contrary to the intent of the proposed amendment in section (4).

MR. BENNETT: Anything that's fair would be contrary to the intent of that bill.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, could you just repeat why you ruled that amendment out or order?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The ruling of the Chair is that the amendment contravenes the intent of the section as proposed. The proper method of dealing with it would be to vote against the section as proposed.

MR. PHILLIPS: Is not your crushing majority going to ramrod it through the same as they do everything else?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Does the Hon. Member for North Peace River wish to proceed?

MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I'm not going to ask for a ruling on your decision, although I'm very tempted to do so. I'll speak on section 4 without the amendment.

It does seem to me that what we have tried to bring to the attention of the government this afternoon and this evening is an inequity that must have intentionally been included in this particular amendment. I don't think there's any question that section 4 is here before us this evening as part of this omnibus bill because of ...

AN HON. MEMBER: Would you repeat that?

MR. SMITH: Omnibus bill.... a situation which has been brought to the attention of the Minister not once but many times in the last few weeks of this session. It deals with the problem of the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley) exceeding the due care and attention that he should pay to the acquisition of space in relation to the space which is required at this particular time. Because of that, we have before us section 4 in this bill this evening.

It is a means of the government trying to retrieve, by whatever means available to them, some revenue and sublet leased space which the taxpayers of the Province of British Columbia are presently paying for. That in itself would be commendable. But the thing that is not commendable, Mr. Chairman, is the

[ Page 3935 ]

method and the treatment outlined in this bill when you compare subsection (a) with subsection (b) — that, intentionally, the government has set up a preferential treatment for selected Crown corporations or societies or associations with respect to the rent they will be charged, completely different from the treatment that they suggest they will use in subsection (b).

While the intent is commendable in that the taxpayers of the province are presently subsidizing, to a great degree, vacant office space in the province to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars, the section really confers a preferred benefit to Crown corporations which can then use this as a means and a device of hiding their actual expenses at taxpayers' expense. No one will know the difference because it is quite possible that space that the Department of Public Works has leased, at whatever rate they agreed to and for whatever time they have agreed to in their lease agreement, will be sublet back to agencies of the Crown at a substantial discount.

We can only speculate what that discount will be, but it will be and it could be substantial. It will be more substantial for any Crown agency which finds itself in trouble, any Crown agency who might experience a loss if they were not otherwise subsidized. That's unfair to the taxpayers of the Province of British Columbia.

There can be no reason for the split in this section into two subsections, other than a deliberate intent by the department to subsidize Crown corporations.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I think the Hon. Member should make a distinction between what is possible by a section and what he is imputing will be done.

MR. SMITH: In my opinion, Mr. Chairman, that is the intent of the two subsections, when you compare subsection (a) with subsection (b). It is unfortunate, because what it really does is set up a preferred treatment for Crown agencies or corporations or organizations that the Crown decides to give preferred treatment to at the expense of the taxpayers. Because of that, we have no other alternative than to vote against section 4 — regrettably, but there is no other alternative, Mr. Chairman.

Interjection.

MR. SMITH: Well, listen. There's the Minister of condominiums and islands for sale and ferries, and whatever else you have in the Province of British Columbia — "I've got it for sale if the price is right."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member keep his remarks relevant to the section, please?

MR. SMITH: If the government of today wishes to let in a little sunshine, as they have often talked about, and have everything above-board, then there is no reason for splitting the means and the method of handling subletting of accommodation or premises into two subsections in this bill. For that reason, because the public will never know the subsidy that will be involved, we'll vote against it.

Section 4 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 25

NAYS — 13

Mr. Bennett requests that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

On section 5.

MR. CHABOT: section 5, Mr. Chairman, deals with the Department of Recreation and Conservation filing an annual report, which is commendable. But in the language used — that there "shall be laid before the Legislative Assembly during the first session in the year following the end of the fiscal year for which the report is made" — I was wondering if I could get some information as to what the end of the fiscal year is for the Department of Recreation and Conservation. If it's March 31, then the annual report will be one year late, because at December 31st it will follow into the spring session.

HON. MR. HALL: The fiscal year for the department is the same as the fiscal year for the government. The Department of Recreation and Conservation has for many years made reports to the House. But there hasn't been within the statute the requirement to do so.

[ Page 3936 ]

Section 5 approved.

On section 6.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): I would just like to speak on section 6, Mr. Chairman, which adds a few lines to section 6 of the Department of Transport and Communications Act. It's an interesting clause here: "grant franchises and licences and enter into charter agreements to operate any ferry service and prescribe all rights and conditions relating to the granting of the franchises and licences and the terms and conditions of the charter agreements..." And then it would follow on with the balance of the statute as now drawn.

To the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall), Mr. Chairman, if that is his wish or to the Minister: what precisely is intended here? Are these charters out or charters in — if the Minister follows me?

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): Mr. Chairman, I listened with interest this afternoon earlier when the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) was talking about the awesome powers of B.C. Ferries and the far-reaching powers and the ability of the B.C. Ferries to do anything they wanted. As a matter of fact, there's a small water taxi that runs between Langdale, Keats and Gambier Island and we wanted to lease this to a private operator and we discovered we didn't have the legal right to do so. This amendment is precisely to allow us to lease that water taxi to a private operator to run between Langdale, Keats and Gambier Island.

MR. CURTIS: That's a very commendable reason for this clause. Would the Minister foresee any occasion when a larger vessel in the British Columbia ferry fleet could be chartered? We know that every ship that is in good condition and can carry passengers is pressed into service in the period May to September or October, but a number of them are not as hard pressed in the course of the fall and winter. Has he discussed with the ferry management the possibility of chartering out the Queen of Surrey or some other larger vessel? Don't restrict the answer just to the Queen of Surrey, but you know what I mean.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No such discussions have taken place with me at all. This is primarily and only there because of the legal situation....

AN HON. MEMBER: Primarily or only?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Only. I was quite surprised to find we didn't have the authority to....

MR. FRASER: Will this get the ferries running on time?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, that depends on the weather.

Section 6 approved.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): By leave, and I've circulated the proposals to the Members of the opposition, I would like to move amendments numbered 6(a) and 6(b) to this bill. (See appendix.) I've circulated this afternoon to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett), the leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. D.A. Anderson), the leader of the Conservative Party (Mr. Wallace) and the independent Members with sufficient copies for everybody else the following amendments.

Am I required to read them out, or has everybody got copies of them?

MR. CHAIRMAN: They're on the order paper.

HON. MR. HALL: Are they on the order paper now? That's rather good work by the Queen's Printer, isn't it? Let's hear it for the Queen's Printer.

The Income Tax Act amendment and the amendment in 6(b) to the Pacific Great Eastern Incorporation Act: I so move those amendments.

On the amendments.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): The amendments in question deal with retroactivity back to May 6, 1974, and the second amendment 6(b) deals with retroactivity back to November 1, 1973. I question retroactivity on any occasion, but certainly where you have such a substantial amount of retroactivity. I think there should be some explanation from the acting Attorney-General-cum-acting Minister of Finance-cum-acting Minister of Agriculture.

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Chairman, the retroactivity to May 6, 1974, was the date of the federal income tax legislation that disallowed the royalties as a deduction against income. So this particular 6(a)(2) has to be retroactive, as was the legislation previously dealt with in bill....

AN HON. MEMBER: Bill 101.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Bill 101 was the one where we had that same date. This is a change in that and it's retroactive to the same date.

As for subsection (2) of 6(b), retroactive to November 1, 1973, this has to do with the leverage leasing system that the BCR has for rail equipment.

[ Page 3937 ]

The date at which some of these leases were negotiated and the need to include this amendment wasn't apparent at this time. But to correct that situation, it's necessary that this be retroactive to that date.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Can I just ask who will be paying retroactively?

HON. MR. STUPICH: As far as 6(b)(2) is concerned, it's a BCR responsibility.

Amendment approved.

On section 7 as amended.

MR. McCLELLAND: This section is a total cop-out, in my opinion, to a group of people who need protection in areas in which they are not getting protection at this time. What it's going to do, of course, is dry up another source of housing for a group of people who can least afford to have that kind of housing dried up for them. It's commendable that the Minister, or whoever is responsible for this, has decided that people who are covered under social assistance or Mincome, or the Handicapped Persons' Income Assistance Act, or Workers' Compensation, or War Veterans' Allowance are going to be covered under some kind of controls in these.... I assume that this is basically for the Skid Road hotels that we're talking about, but it'll affect a lot more than just Skid Road hotels as well.

Here we have the opportunity again for landlords to say: "Okay, we just won't rent to those people any more." So you've dried up another source of housing — you've dried it up the same as this government did with the rent controls in the first place. You've dried it up. There are no rental accommodations being built in British Columbia today, especially in the lower mainland centres and Vancouver Island.

AN HON. MEMBER: And the rest of Canada.

MR. McCLELLAND: Oh, come on! The rest of Canada — that's nonsense. You can point to areas in other parts of North America where the rental vacancy is 12 per cent. People are flocking down there to build — flocking to build. But here we've dried up another source of housing for people who really are up against it.

I don't have anything against bringing these Skid Road hotels under some kind of control — that's fine. But damn it, what you've done is you've said to these people: "We won't give welfare recipients rooms anymore." So you're going to kick them out on the street and there's no place for them to go any longer. That's what is wrong with this kind of.... Why did you cop out? Why didn't you just make the whole thing subject to the rent review commission? Why didn't you make the whole thing subject to it instead of just this one group of people? If something is occupied for residential purposes, it's occupied for residential purposes. It doesn't matter whether the person who lives in it is being subsidized by the government or not.

Mr. Chairman, it would be difficult to vote against this section; in fact, I'm sure we couldn't vote against it. But it's a cop-out because what you've done and what you will do, if this lasts very long, is that you'll force....

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, you've got to vote for it; you can't do anything else. But what you've done is forced these people out of housing. You'll force them onto the street and they won't be able to find any more housing. That's going to be the result of this bill.

Mr. Chairman, reluctantly we will support this bill. But, Mr. Chairman, I hope that you would allow me to ask the Minister responsible to bring everyone who lives in these kinds of premises under the control of this bill, not just....

HON. MR. HALL: They are.

MR. McCLELLAND: They are not. Why don't you read the bill, Mr. Provincial Secretary? They are not. Bring everyone under the control of this bill — they you won't have landlords forcing Mincome recipients out on the street.

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver-Centre): Mr. Chairman....

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: It's time to go home, but I thought I'd get a little bit in before we left, and I hope that will be on time.

I'm quite pleased to see that we're taking some steps in the direction of bringing the hotels and motels under controls. I reluctantly must, at least in part, agree with the Hon. Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) because he is touching on something.... I think he's playing games though. He's involved in politics and naturally he's going to try and embarrass the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald). But he is touching on a point that only in part is correct. I don't think that housing for this particular category will be dried up, although there is every reason that it would be normally.

It just happens that those hotels and motels, which incidentally are not listed as being covered under this particular amendment, have in fact been exploiting a

[ Page 3938 ]

special category of people. This is perhaps why the Minister responsible has designated these people categorically for protection, and that is too bad. But I think the first thing was to protect those people who were suffering specifically due to the fact that they weren't covered. For that I think we should give credit where credit is due.

But this amendment only begins to touch the problem and I believe that the Minister will have to review this thing very carefully, because we've indicated, in principle at least, that the Landlord and Tenant Act does not do a comprehensive job of protecting all persons who are living in a rented accommodation on a regular long-term basis where that is their principal, primary place of residence.

We've excluded, of course, rooming houses and lodging houses. Also, boarding houses have been another problem because there's a factor involved around something other than the actual room. That, too, is an area at which we're going to have to take a look, because those same people categorically — those persons on social assistance, Mincome and various public assistance programmes — are affected as well — in fact even more so, because they require nursing care perhaps in some instances along with the rooming care and other special care. They are on fixed incomes and they're subject to the same kinds of arbitrary rent increases.

So the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) would be correct if there wasn't a good market for exploiting these people categorically. It just happens, for instance, that in some of those places, particularly in the downtown east side and in most areas in the metropolitan areas of any city of any size, you have hotels, motels, rooming houses, flophouses and what-not, that thrive on a particular category of clientele. Not all of these people are on social assistance or various welfare programmes. Some of them are transient workers, people who are on fixed incomes of one sort or the other who are really working for themselves; they're just low earners. They just don't make that much money, but they are really essential to the survival of these so-called "hotels."

They have very shrewdly achieved their status as hotels or motels through manipulation, perhaps, or manoeuvering, at the municipal level and they are not bona fide motels or hotels. They never have been and perhaps they were never intended to be, and that's why the contention made by the Hon. Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) is incorrect. These places would, in fact, go out of business if they didn't have these people.

Most of them have up to 90 per cent occupancy by the persons that are named in this amendment. Most of them have relied heavily on these categories. In fact, I'm sure the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) can point to certain hotels where they in fact encourage these people to utilize their accommodation to keep these people in a place to stay. If they didn't have it that way, they couldn't survive on a straight transience basis on a day-to-day basis. There just isn't the income.

They have a good thing going. They're not going to dry up because of what we're doing, although I think we're taking a backward step when, in our attempt to do justice to those people categorically that we've named, we have in fact left out a whole lot of other people. And inadvertently we have pinpointed a group of people who probably don't deserve that kind of distinction because they have to now be identified, and I don't like that. I think it's a form of discrimination, and I'm sure no one intended that, but that's what it amounts to. So for that reason I think that we have to be very careful about allowing that to last very long.

I think it's an interim measure and it should be no more than that, in that in the fall when we bring in our reports to the Law Reform Commission and so forth, we take a look at that, change it, bring these hotels, motels, boarding houses and so forth under the bill completely, put the onus on the operators, on those licensees or the managers holding the licences to demonstrate themselves what accommodation is for rental purposes on a long-term basis and which ones are not.

The onus should be on them, because what is happening now is that we are protecting them. This is the straight protection for them. We're saying that the Department of Human Resources will go in, on the recommendation of whoever in the community, to identify a room — not a building, a room. The Department of Human Resources will do this and report to the rentalsman, and the rentalsman will investigate.

Now the rentalsman will investigate only on the recommendation of the Ministry. Now that means that he will go in and investigate one room where there may be 90 per cent occupancy in a 150- or 200-room complex one by one. This isn't good enough.

We know for a fact that people have been living in these areas for not just six months or a year or two; some of them have been living there all their lives. I am thinking of the area in Vancouver Centre specifically, the downtown east side where most of my constituents are who are affected by this particular bill. There are some 6,000 people in the community. That may come as a surprise to you, Mr. Chairman, but they have been living not only in that section that was left after the Gastown development and other areas have been refurbished and reclaimed for commercial purposes, but many of these people have been displaced already and have been neglected. There is a community down there. They have been living there for a long time. They have not been

[ Page 3939 ]

paying any five per cent on their rent as far as the hotel tax and so forth are concerned. They haven't been doing that.

They have been paying, year after year, in the same place that is their residence and always has been. We know it; so does the management. They have a good thing going — they have got a locked up haven down there. I think it is about time we were honest and said: look, we don't care what category it is. If a person is living in a place that is his main place of residence, that is where he has been living — we don't care where it is. Whether it is in the Hotel Vancouver; the Harbour Towers down the street; the Glenshiel, one of our own places; or down at the Cobalt Hotel, it doesn't matter. If they are living there, then that place is operating outside its authority under the Innkeepers Act. It is operating in such a manner that it should be covered under the Landlord and Tenant Act.

I think that should be something there should be no question about. People should realize that. Let's clean the game up, because the people who are being hurt are not just the ones who are on social assistance. I feel that all of the citizens have a right to be protected. If we are going to be concerned about protection for tenants, then let us not allow any exceptions, period.

So this is a fine step. I am pleased. I certainly don't have any intention of voting against the bill, I think it is a good step forward, but I do not believe it in any way satisfies the serious problem that we have in most areas, particularly in the downtown east side of Vancouver Centre, the riding which I and the Hon. Second Member, Gary Lauk, represent.

MR. FRASER: The Hon. Minister.

MR. BARNES: Okay, the Hon. Minister of Economic Development.

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: There is one other point too. That is the question of the rentalsman. Once he has been summoned to investigate a room, he has the authority to subsequently fix a rate for that room. That again is a good feature in that it suggests a more equitable approach to resolving the problem of what the rate should be.

While we appreciate the need for an interim measure that we took steps to implement in bringing in the 8 per cent and then subsequently the 10.6 per cent rent freezes, it is obvious that many people are using this as an automatic rise. It isn't really the absolute answer. What we need is something similar to this where the rentalsman has the authority to adjudicate in the situation and make a determination based on the circumstances of that particular accommodation.

The question I want to ask is: what will be the process by which this will be arrived at? What will be the method by which the rentalsman will achieve this? Will it be representation on behalf of management? Will it be with the consultation of a professional economist — someone outside, neutral — along with representation by tenant groups? What kind of a body will make the decisions? I hope that it won't be an arbitrary decision by the rentalsman. This would be a bad precedent. I don't think that he should have that authority. I think it should be with the participation of representative persons in this process.

I wanted to elucidate a little bit further on section 2(b), which states that where a premise "is not intended to be occupied, or has not in the preceding six months been occupied, as residential accommodation for transients or travelers...." I think the purpose of that section is to suggest that there will be exceptions.

If it can be proved that there was no intention on the part of the management to use that specific room or accommodation for the purposes of transience or day-to-day accommodations, and that room would come under the rentalsman's authority and could be designated and therefore a rate could be set.

But the working in that, to me, is really meaningless and perhaps unenforceable because it just doesn't seem to me possible to go back six months and determine what their intentions were. I think the thing for this government to do.... Let's face it, we have a commitment to the people who have been victimized in the past by legislation that has been pro-exploitation, pro-ownership, pro-management, pro-landlord, pro-master versus those poor people who had to rely on them for their survival, and we gave them a licence to do this.

I think we have to require under that licence that they have a conscience and a responsibility to those people whom we have permitted them to serve and to extract certain benefits, certain excess revenues and gains. So the onus should not be on the rentalsman to provide anything; he's representing both sides.

But the thing is, they have a licence to do one or the other; they do not have a licence to do both. They do not have a licence to be a hotel and, at the same time, to be an apartment block. If they do, then I think we have to take a look at the loophole possibilities and say that under the licence.... And this isn't all the provincial government; this also can be handled at the municipal level. There is no reason why the City of Vancouver, for instance, couldn't impose upon those persons with licences to operate a clause or a section that requires them to operate specifically as a hotel or a lodging house or a motel, and let these things be defined, and that where there are to be exceptions, let them apply for the

[ Page 3940 ]

exception. If you are going to have 100 rooms in a motel, and you think that you can rent 10 of them as an apartment block, then you should request a 10 per cent exception, and these be specifically registered so that we know where we stand.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: Okay, so we've got a real problem because there are exceptions to everything; there is no hard and fast position. I'm talking about justice. If we have honesty on behalf of those people who operate them, then we have no problem.

But what we have are people who realize what a good deal they have by saying it's a hotel when it's not even operated as a hotel. I don't want to get diverted, but we know the game that is being played. It's the same thing as they may have a beer parlour downstairs, and it's not even a hotel in the first place, but they have a licence, so we get that whole bag. But they are not hotels; they don't intend to be hotels. They couldn't survive as hotels. They would go broke. And the conditions under which those people live, are deplorable. But that's another subject.

So I think that we have to face the fact that not everybody is going to be living in an apartment or a rented home or some other multiple-type dwelling. They are going to be living in these places that are set up, and people are going to play games with them. Many of these people don't know their rights. They don't understand the double-talk, and they need the protection. We have the responsibility to provide that protection. I think we have to provide the leadership in doing it, and I believe that this government has taken the first step.

Although I am mentioning some of the problems of the legislation, I don't think I am being negative; I think I am being constructive. I believe that the Minister responsible will appreciate the problem, because I have discussed this matter with him before and I know he is concerned. I also know that he is faced with the reality of limits on staff, limits on facilities and capacities to deal with the problems. Certainly if we bring the thing right down umbrella, as is suggested by a certain representative group, we'll be in a situation where it will be an untenable problem for the government, and we certainly wouldn't be able to deal with it.

I think we have to progressively, deliberately and intelligently work out ways and means of bringing all residential accommodation under the Landlord and Tenant Act where it belongs, and in doing so we'll get the co-operation of the management as well.

I don't think they can be blamed for taking advantage of what is weak legislation that allows them to operate. In a competitive society such as we have, we all know how to play the game. This is why we can respect, with some difference, the opposition who hasn't always been complimentary to this government, and certainly not even to themselves from time to time — as can be attested by our dear friends the Liberals who have their fun from time to time. But it is all love and fair play and war, and we all understand that that's the way it is. So I don't blame the government.

But I do think that we have a responsibility to give them some direction, and I think we have to give them that direction firmly and fairly and be determined that justice has to be done. I don't think it is being done in this case because I believe what is going to happen is that we aren't going to be able to get that rentalsman in enough of those one-room-at-a-time situations in time to provide the kind of protection that these people need. I think we are going to end up in court. I think we are going to have a lot of manoeuvering.

I am afraid that we've opened the door on a very large area. Now that the door is open, we'd better understand that the principle of the whole thing is that where people live on a long-term basis, which is their principal place of residence, they must be protected. That's a fundamental principle, and we don't care under what conditions.

Anyone who was operating in that capacity, was providing that kind of facility, is responsible to the Landlord and Tenant Act, and has to clear themselves. Furthermore, I believe that where there are contraventions to this principle, there should be a fine, because in my view, they are licensed to operate one way, and if they do anything else, they are in violation of their responsibilities as should be set out, although it isn't specifically, to those people, the people we are representing.

MR. WALLACE: While this well-intended piece of legislation is to protect certain people in so-called hotels, which, as the Member who has just spoken has pointed out, are not hotels at all, I'm just amazed that the legislation doesn't apply to the accommodation regardless of who's living in the accommodation. Why should it just be people on social assistance? The Member for Vancouver-Centre (Mr. Barnes) has pointed out that while 90 per cent of these people may be on social assistance, it brings us back once again to the point I raised during the estimates of the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) — it's discrimination against the working poor. The person who earns just a little bit of money, enough to stay off welfare, the 10 per cent living in these accommodation, is actually very seriously being penalized. The president of the Downtown East Side Association, I think, put it well. He said: "It's okay to sock it to the people who work, but not to people on social assistance." I just can't imagine why the legislation we are debating in this section of this bill should not apply to the actual property.

[ Page 3941 ]

After all is said and done, Mr. Chairman, the basic principle of the Landlord and Tenant Act is that the rent increase within a 12-month period applies to the property. If the tenant changes three times in a year because of other circumstances, the landlord can't put up the rent regardless of who the tenant is. So this section should not apply to the financial status of the person using the accommodation. Surely, it should apply to the accommodation, and that should not be difficult at all.

Coming from this government that always screams and dances when the opposition or anybody else mentions means test, this is essentially what this bill does. It creates a very blatant form of means test. It gives benefits and protection, which is needed, to the citizen on welfare living in one of these establishments. To the other 10 per cent who may, as I say, be working mothers or single mothers, or what-have-you — people who are in real difficulty but are earning a little bit of money, who have costs involved in going to and from work, providing uniforms, laundry and a lot of overhead costs — that person just gets no help at all in this bill.

I think this exemplifies another aspect of the whole principle of rent control, that once you get into a field that's so wide and so full of loopholes that are difficult to close, you build up this tremendous bureaucracy which I think many Members of the opposition feared and talked about when the Landlord and Tenant Act was amended. Again, of those very people who are most interested in getting this kind of protection, one of them stated that it would need an army of rentalsman to enforce this amendment.

First of all, the Department of Human Resources has to come to the conclusion that.... It says: "Where the Minister of Human Resources is of the opinion..." First of all, he has to be informed by someone in the system that such and such a building is not really being used as a hotel. Then, presumably, he has to follow that up through one of his staff to find out if the assertion is correct. Then having gone through that bit of bureaucratic red tape, he then informs the rentalsman, and the rentalsman in turn carries out an investigation, and his staff report back to him. I think, Mr. Chairman, when you realize that this just won't happen once or twice but many times, the observation that we're going to need an army of bureaucrats to investigate and enforce this particular amendment is really not an exaggeration.

So I believe that we'll certainly support the bill. It's a well-intended effort to protect certain people, but it has still not closed by any means the loophole which I'm sure the Minister was trying to close when he considered the wording in the amendment.

In closing, I should just say that the Member for Vancouver-Burrard seemed to be not clear about.... Vancouver-Centre, I'm sorry.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: How could I make such a.... That's pushing equality beyond the outer limits, to confuse the Centre Member with the Burrard Member.

I think that one point is quite clear, Mr. Chairman, that when such accommodation is designated to be residential, after an investigation, it's quite clear that the Rent Review Commission decides what the rent shall be. I don't think that there need by any unreasonable concern on anybody's part, provided that the Rent Review Commission functions well, promptly and in a fair manner, which surely the word "review" suggests.

Surely the word "review" suggests that all points of view will be considered and that both the tenant and the landlord will have equal opportunities to present their case to the Rent Review Commission.

I do feel that a further amendment would really be fully justified if it would relate the authority of the rentalsman to the specific accommodation and not to the particular tenant in that accommodation.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, this is really motherhood legislation. I have to agree in part with the words of the Member for Vancouver Centre, because I think he is trying honestly and sincerely to help those people in his riding who need help. Unfortunately, the reason for this amendment to the Landlord and Tenant Act is predicated by rent controls which that Member is very much in favour of. What has happened, Mr. Chairman, of course is exactly what we said in this Legislature would happen: that the amount of rental accommodation in the Vancouver area, and indeed all over the province, has dried up. What you have now is people competing for the better-class accommodation. It is not available, so you are forcing these tenants into this low-cost, deplorable accommodation.

The way to solve the problem of course is to provide or help provide the incentive to provide more accommodation. Unfortunately, through this amendment, the Member for Vancouver-Centre, who was really trying to help his constituents, is really condemning these people to a fiery death. What will happen — and it has happened in the higher-class accommodation and the medium-class accommodation — is that as soon as the rent controls go on, the type of accommodation deteriorates. Although some of the accommodation we are talking about tonight might be in deplorable condition, it might end up being in worse condition because the regulations will try to be bypassed by those so that they will still make the same amount of profit. If there is a ceiling on what they can charge, then indeed the accommodation will deteriorate. We will not only be looking at firetraps; we will be looking at

[ Page 3942 ]

unrepaired stairs, we will be looking at broken flushes, we will be looking at cracks in the ceiling, leaking roofs. Even though the accommodation is poor now, it will deteriorate to a worse condition.

So we are not really going to help these people. I hate to see this type of short-sighted legislation pass through this House. We have a situation and we are not going to solve it in the method that we are using to try to solve the situation we have now, really. We didn't do it with rent controls. In the short time rent controls have been in in the Province of British Columbia, there has been a greater shortage than before.

I brought in to the Legislature just recently a report from Canberra, Australia, that was just recently prepared. After a year in that city, they have recognized that rent controls are not working. There is no accommodation. So we are really not doing these people a favour. What we have to have if we are going to solve the situation is more availability.

What we are doing here is not helping the availability. We are going to make the present accommodation less livable and there is going to be less of it. As the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) said, these people will be sleeping on the streets because there will be nothing available.

It is time we in British Columbia accepted the fact that the lower mainland, as I have said in this Legislature before, is going to grow because people are attracted there because of the climate. A lot of these derelicts — pardon the expression — as it were, will move from the colder climates of Edmonton, Calgary, Toronto and Montreal to Vancouver where it is not so cold. The population is going to grow. What we are going to see is, as I say, that this Legislature and this Member are really condemning these people to a fiery death. It is sad to say that. But I think it is time that the government started really grasping the situation and started trying to wrestle with it.

You know, Mr. Chairman, we waste enough money in this province. This government has wasted enough money in the last two and a half years that they could have subsidized the rent, given incentives to these people to improve their accommodation, to build new accommodation, maybe not first-class, maybe smaller, but to do something about the situation. But instead of that we continue to waste money. Well, just this evening we discussed the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley) where he wasted $350,000 — nearly $400,000 — on empty office space.

Mr. Chairman, the government seems to have millions and millions of dollars to go out and buy back that other 5 per cent of the land they don't own in British Columbia. We have increased our civil service by 15,000 people. In this budget that we are still discussing there are hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars for books and publications and for advertising. This money could be employed constructively to help these people. But the government continues on in their wasteful, spendthrift ways.... .

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I think the Hon. Member is drifting from this section.

MR. PHILLIPS: ...bringing in short-sighted accommodation to try and relieve a situation which really they have created, Mr. Chairman. This is the sad part of all this. This is the sad part.

It is not the people who can afford accommodation in British Columbia who are being hurt. It's the very people you are trying to help that you are hurting by this short-sighted legislation — blinker legislation.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: It's not a laughing matter, Mr. Chairman. Within a year after this amendment is passed, the accommodation will be worse than it is today. There will be less of it and those people now who are at the bottom of the pile — who live in the worst accommodation — will at that time be sleeping on the street. They will be sleeping on the street.

Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) well knows this. He is intelligent enough to understand what has happened with rent control legislation. He knows what is happening. That is the sad and sorry part. It's stopgap. You can't really be against it because you don't want to see these people gouged and put out in the streets, but in the long run we are really doing them a disservice. In the immediate, yes — we may think we are saving them a few bucks, but in the long run we are doing them a disservice because the deterioration of the accommodation they have to live in is going to get worse. Safety standards will be bypassed, there will be dirt, there will be filth, there will be no night watchmen, there will be no night hotel clerks, there will be nobody supervising these people. The deaths that we've had in this type of accommodation will multiply again and again and again in the coming year just because of the short-sighted legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I think that it's time we took the situation we have, tried in a constructive manner to solve it and quit bringing in this short-sighted, short-term legislation to try to solve the problems that you have created. Take the broader view; realize that to upgrade accommodation and to get rid of these situations there must be a greater availability of it. It's the old case of the law of supply and demand.

I urge the Minister: if you have to bring this in now, don't be satisfied with it but go out and do something. Do something constructively to help these people, because you're certainly really not helping them in the long run by this type of legislation.

[ Page 3943 ]

MR. H. STEVES (Richmond): Mr. Chairman, I rise to support this amendment. I'm very pleased that the Minister of Human Resources is the Minister that is going to be responsible for carrying it out. This Minister has my complete confidence. In fact, I have a tremendous amount of confidence in this Minister. He has been well known over the years for support of the handicapped persons, the downtrodden minority groups, the poor, and so on. While on that topic, I'd like to comment on this afternoon and congratulate that Minister for forging that first with the Indian people of the province. I think this is the first time that I know of — the first time in 200 years — that the Indians have been able to sit down with the white people and carry on some negotiations in this province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member to speak to the section.

MR. STEVES: Anyway, speaking on minority groups, the people in these hotels that are really apartments are a minority in our society that do need protection. I'm pleased that this Minister is the one who will be responsible for it. The reason for the bill, of course, is that the rents to these people were increasing from 100 to 180 per cent over the last couple of months. The rents they had been paying were in the neighbourhood of $60 or $70 a month and were increased in one jump to $120, $150 and $180 a month — incredible rent increases.

MR. FRASER: Your government raised their taxes.

MR. STEVES: The Act states that the Minister, where he is of the opinion that a hotel or motel is occupied by persons on social assistance and so on may refer it to the rentalsman. The rentalsman would then look to see if that hotel is occupied for residential purposes by the same person on a continuous basis. I've discussed this particular clause — the way it's worded — with legal counsel. My interpretation of this and the lawyer that I have discussed it with is that once the hotel is investigated, it would apply to everyone in that hotel and not just the people on social assistance that meet the clause up above.

I'm hoping that the Minister in his interpretation and in his actions will take that interpretation of the bill and ensure that all persons in such hotels that he investigates are protected. I would hope that he investigates as many of these hotels as he can possibly carry out the investigations in. I think in that way he would probably cover most of the hotels that people here are objecting to.

I agree with the Member for Vancouver Centre in what he says when he suggested that all people at these hotels should be covered. I hope that Minister involved would be able to put that interpretation on the legislation.

I also would hope, where in clause 3(b) it mentions the date of effect as June 20 — the date that this legislation was tabled — that this would cover hotels where the rent increase notices were given prior to the bill coming in but have not yet received a rent increase. This isn't spelled out in the Act but the Act does say that these hotels come under the auspices of the Landlord and Tenant Act.

Under the Landlord and Tenant Act, three-month notice is required to be given for a rent increase, so it would seem to me that any rents that have not been effectively increased ... people who have not been paying more rent prior to June 20 should not receive an increase, even though they may have received notice of such an increase.

So I would hope that the Minister would consider the effective date of implementation covering rent increases that have not, in effect, occurred, but where notices may have been given, because there were one or two hotels where notices have been given and the rents are increased by 100 to 150 or 180 per cent.

I think that pretty well covers the comments I have to make on the bill. My hope is that, while there may be some question as to whether everyone is covered, in the actual implementation of the bill, indeed, everyone would be covered.

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Human Resources): Mr. Chairman, I rise to support my colleagues for Richmond (Mr. Steves) and Vancouver-Centre (Mr. Barnes), and also my colleagues across the way, the Members for Langley (Mr. McClelland) and South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) who are in support of this bill. The latter two don't offer any suggestions other than that perhaps they may think we are doing something that we shouldn't do.

From time to time a government has to move in order to protect a particular segment of the public where they are being put upon by another segment of the public. In this case it relates to people who live particularly in the downtown area of Vancouver, and there are other areas of the province, where rents have gone out of sight. They were not included under the Landlord and Tenant Act, and for quite some time the rents were reasonable and there was no need for this. But in the last two months, as the Member for Richmond has said, we have witnessed some really outrageous increases. We have witnessed incidents where people who have been renting on the basis of a week, two weeks, or a month, at $30 a week and $120 a month, have now been told that they were now going to $7 a day.

Now there were some very firm and good representations about this problem made by the Downtown and Eastside Residents Association. We

[ Page 3944 ]

did not meet all of the requirements that they wanted in terms of the legislation. But we have moved to protect people on fixed incomes.

In those hotels — and they are hotels — the majority of the people who live there are on fixed incomes, and they're the bread and butter of the people who run those hotels. If they weren't, if there were other clientele, then those people would not be there. But the reality is that more than 90 per cent of the people who live down there are their bread and butter. It is important that we move to be able to protect them. We are not looking to set up a large bureaucracy. We've already made arrangements in terms of how we might develop this, through the field staff, and through designating people in various areas, and it's not going to be a cumbersome thing.

But the other thing that I would like to point out is that there are no restrictions on the development of rental accommodation in this province. If somebody wants to build it, they can get an exemption from rent controls for five years, but nobody appears to want to build it. So, don't tell me it's going to dry up. If people are interested in that kind of rental accommodation, they would do so. They're not doing it here in British Columbia and they're not doing it in any of the provinces. That may relate to whether the fact that the profit margin is not good enough, or whether there's mortgage money available. But it simply isn't the case that we're going to somehow discourage people by this people of legislation.

The other thing is that in terms of the kinds of safety measures, if you look at the City of Vancouver, they perhaps have the most stringent regulations. We had two rather tragic incidents in Victoria recently. Had the authorities in this area followed the recommendations of the fire marshal or the fire chief some two years ago, it could be that the things might not have happened. So we cannot look, we cannot say that somehow we're going to develop more fire traps. That's just not the case; we are looking primarily at the areas. These people are not derelict. I think that's quite wrong on the part of the Members who have suggested that. These are people, many of whom are retired, who are living on old age pension or guaranteed income supplement or Mincome or veterans' pensions or worker's compensation awards, and in no way are they derelict.

The other thing that we have put in is the retroactivity, in terms of last Friday when we introduced the bill, in order to warn landlords who have been putting up rents in an unconscionable way. You may recall the incident about 10 days ago where one landlord put it up by 160 per cent, and then withdrew it.

But the important thing to remember about the intent of this bill is that it was not necessary until recently. But now that it's happened, from time to time governments have to move in to protect a particular group in the population. This is exactly what the intent of this Act is — to protect that group of people on fixed incomes.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I listened to the Minister with considerable interest and I really fail to understand how he could be applauded after totally omitting to consider the legitimate problems raised in the discussion of this legislation by the Member for Vancouver-Centre (Mr. Barnes) and the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace). The fact is that there is discrimination here, depending upon the source of income of the individual concerned. And not one word was said by the Minister about that. As far as recognizing the problem went — well, we had the Attorney-General, about three weeks ago when I first questioned him in the House on this, rolling his eyes and expressing a concern which, apparently, he didn't follow up with action, and this Minister had to.

We now have a Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson) responsible, allegedly, for housing. We have the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) responsible for landlords and tenants. Now to further confuse and muddy the waters in the whole housing area, we have a third Minister involved who is going to tip off the rentalsman who, in turn, will do an investigation. We are just creating a Heath-Robinson system in an area where a little bit of clarity and precision would be most helpful to all concerned. We are getting a third Minister involved unnecessarily. We all realize that there are problems with the Landlord and Tenant Act, which perhaps for personal reasons the Minister of Housing can't handle. But to have a third Minister involved is simply making a bad situation worse.

The Minister talked about the fire problem in Victoria, and there is no question that the hotel, which was visited by a number of aldermen after the accident, was one where there were certain things which were quite inadequate. But the Minister also knows that the bulk of fires of that nature take place in perfectly good accommodation where the standards are met and where somebody simply falls asleep with a cigarette. The accident occurs not just because of faulty accommodation, but occurs because this happens to be a problem in a city, in particular one such as Victoria with very many elderly people.

I don't think that had the recommendations been followed, the basics that he talked about, the recommendations of two years ago, the basic problem would in any way have been solved. Perhaps in the instance of this particular hotel, yes — perhaps - but the basic problem would still be there, and to suggest otherwise really was not completely responsible.

The Minister's quote is: "Nobody appears to want to build rental accommodation." Well, as I mentioned to the Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson) about

[ Page 3945 ]

a week ago, the latest figures to come out show that there is about a 12 per cent decline in building across Canada in the other nine provinces, and a 50 per cent one in this province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Why? Have you listened to any comments from this side of the House ever since you started cutting into rental accommodation, making it unattractive? Have you listened to any of the comments? You say "why." Well, my goodness, we try and talk to the Minister of Housing. He doesn't listen. Then the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) gets involved and he doesn't listen. Now we have a third Minister who comes up to bat on housing, and he says "why," as though we are all to go back to square one.

We, time after time after time, have described the problem facing the private investor in the housing area, with government restrictions, with uncertainty as to government attitude, and the Minister simply comes up and says "why." He doesn't know why nobody appears to want to build.

Well, that really is inadequate at this stage.

Interjections.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: There are all sorts of opportunities if the people had some indication of government intentions, but they don't. They simply don't.

Mr. Chairman, the Minister mentioned also the rents going from $30 a week up to $49 a week which, if that has happened already, would not be covered by the $160 provision here. Then it would be out of sight of the problem you are trying to rectify. Once again it is closing the door after many of the horses have left, and the Minister nods in agreement with me. It just seems wrong that once again you will penalize the more responsible landlord who has tried to keep things down, and the guy who went for the fast buck first gets off scot-free. That's essentially what you have done.

I couldn't continue, Mr. Chairman, without commenting upon the Member for Richmond's (Mr. Steve's) suggestion that even though it doesn't appear that this bill will cover those who are not on Mincome or those who are not on fixed incomes listed, he hopes the Minister somehow will bend the law to accommodate everybody. Look, if we can't write the law so people are included, we shouldn't bend it to include people. Surely the law should be clear. Surely the law should cover the maximum number of people who have this problem or are affected by this problem, and we shouldn't ask the Minister to try and cut the law or interpret it in a way in which it was not designed to be interpreted simply to deal with the NDP hang-up about having written bad legislation in the first instance.

Mr. Chairman, I'm going to move an amendment to this. I'm going to suggest we strike out the entire first section, 3A(l), and wipe out all reference to the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi). He's got enough problems on his plate and he shouldn't get involved in this area. Delete again the first three words of 3A(2) — the words: "Upon receiving a report under subsection. (1), the rentalsman shall investigate the hotel or motel, and, if he is of the opinion that any room in the hotel or motel" — delete that and substitute instead: "Where the rentalsman, after an investigation, is satisfied that any room in a hotel or motel...." Then (a) and (b) are as listed there. Wipe out all reference to the Minister of Human Resources, who should not be involved in this area. Put the thing directly in the hands of the rentalsman. Scrub the distinction between those on Mincome, those on war veterans' allowances, and those who were described by the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) as the working poor.

Let's get this legislation in its widest sense so that we are not simply discriminating against the people who try and earn a little more than they would be allowed on Mincome or on allowances otherwise, and try and extend it to all those people in the category of people affected by the very thing the Minister described, and not simply have legislation dealing with maybe 50 per cent of the people affected.

Get it out of the hands of a third Minister; put it in the hands of the rentalsman and straighten and tidy up the whole piece of legislation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. On the amendment, the Chair regretfully rules it out of order on the grounds that it destroys the intent of the amendment as contained in section 7.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: No, no. Surely the intent and principle of the amendment.... Mr. Chairman, you are going to have to be a little tolerant in this area, because when this bill first came up we talked about the need to deal with the principle in these things individually. It's an unprincipled bill because it deals with so many principles.

Now in this particular section 7, the principle is clear, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Is the Hon. Member speaking on a point of order?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes, as you wish. The principle is clear. The principle is to extend protection to people resident in residential hotels. The principle is not just to restrict it to certain people in certain income areas. We're going to have to accept the broad principle, in which case my amendment is

[ Page 3946 ]

certainly in order. It meets the intentions which the Minister talked about. It meets the intentions and principles the other Members on the government side talked about, and is certainly within the four corners of the principle of section 7 of this particular Act.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair is considering the matter.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): A point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member is speaking to a point of order.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I would like to rise to speak to this point of order and respectfully submit that you consider the explanatory notes which appear on the left-hand page. You will note that it says with regard to section 7 that: "This amendment will enable the Landlord and Tenant Act to be applied to those rooms in hotels and motels being used for residential purposes and not as transient accommodation."

What the amendment offered by the Second Member from Victoria does is to make it clear that it applies to rooms rather than to the individuals who might occupy those rooms. Therefore the amendment is strictly in order and makes the section 7 coincide directly with the notes supplied by the legislative counsel.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The explanatory note, first of all, is not part of the legislation or the proposed legislation. The Chair would repeat its ruling that the amendment effectively prevents the main intent of the section, which is to provide.... The main thrust of the section... it is contrary to the main thrust of the section.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I can't understand the main thrust if it's not to protect people living in rooming houses and residential hotels. If it is that, surely we should extend it to the broadest possible category and not the people who happen to be under the Social Assistance Act, under the Guaranteed Minimum Income Assistance Act, the Handicapped Persons Act, the Workers' Compensation Act or the War Veterans Allowance Act of Canada. We are extending it to the rooms and all those who live in those rooms, rather than certain categories of people.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair would further clarify its ruling in the respect that the intent of this section clearly is that this should be operated through the Minister of Human Resources and apply to certain classes of people. Therefore the Chair rules that it's out of order.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, surely the Minister of Human Resources may initiate action under this section but the operative paragraphs are: "upon receiving a report" — just a report — "under subsection (1), the rentalsman shall investigate the hotel or motel" and then as a result of the investigation, if he is of the opinion that any hotel or motel, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. It's the rentalsman who does the work. I am wiping out one redundant step. To say that the principle is embodied in a redundant step, namely the initiation by the Minister of Human Resources, would violate the principle of the section, surely....

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair would repeat again, in the judgment of the Chair, that the amendment would impair the intent of this particular section that's being proposed, and therefore regretfully rules it out of order.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I find it regretful that you have not accepted this amendment, because I think it would have clarified the situation for many of the Members on this side of the House, including the Members who spoke on behalf of the government party — the Member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) and the Member for Richmond (Mr. Steves). Therefore I must address myself with reference to this particular problem.

The problem arises, Mr. Chairman — I'm sorry you didn't consider this — from section 3(2) of the Landlord and Tenant Act, which exempts the application of that statute from the occupation of residential premises that in common law would be considered a licence to occupy land. It's because of the effect of the common law and the relationship between a licensor and a licensee that this problem has arisen in the first instance. I find it very unfortunate that the government, in attempting to overcome some of the difficulties that have arisen from the relationship between licensor and licensee...to bring in this amendment where typically this government has seen fit to divide and subdivide and re-subdivide the population of this province and to classify it in such a way that only certain individuals are to have the benefit of the law of the land.

It is typical of the NDP that they want to break down our community into class structures, and to single them out for benefits and for penalties as it may suit their political purpose. Here we have the Minister — I don't know which Minister; it is either the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) or the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) or the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) or somebody — attempting to make some political capital out of those people who are on social assistance, the guaranteed Minimum Assistance Act,

[ Page 3947 ]

handicapped persons' pension, Workers' Compensation recipients, or war veterans' allowances. They are the ones who are singled out for some benefits under this particular legislation, when really there is a much broader category that needs assistance. People who by choice or because there is no other accommodation available must seek accommodation in rooms which, by reason of their location, create a situation where a licence or a licensee relationship arises. It can be very simply solved if the Landlord and Tenant Act instead of outside of it. But no, this government, in its usual tunnel-vision way, sees fit to exclude people who should be included in the benefits of the legislation.

The government does something else in this particular amendment. They choose to make this new section 3(A) applicable only to accommodation which falls in the classification of hotel or motel. What about the other kinds of accommodation which result in having a licenced or a licensee category, and which does not fully qualify as a hotel or motel — that accommodation where people habitually reside on a continuous basis, a kind such as a rooming-house situation, where this kind of protection is required? But you exclude those people — just hotels and motels.

I thought it was quite significant, following the introduction of this legislation by the Hon. Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall), that when he went into the corridor to discuss with the press, the first thing he was asked was: is this a Gastown hotel amendment? Obviously, it had been quite clearly signalled by the government that they were going to bring in some specific legislation which was going to deal with a specific problem which was identified as the Gastown hotel problem. The problem is much greater than that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who said that?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: The press, in their statements to you. And you agreed with them, Mr. Hon. Provincial Secretary. The Gastown hotel situation — it has been blown up far out of all proportion, and your legislation makes it clear that you limit it only to people who happen to be residing in hotels and motels on a continuous basis.

AN HON. MEMBER: Well, move an amendment and we'll include the Empress.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: The Hon. Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) has already moved such an amendment, the Chairman ruled it out of order, and you sat silent in your seat when it would have improved your legislation. It would have included all of the hotels in British Columbia from the Empress, the Bayshore, Hyatt, all the way down — all those places where you stay when you go to the City of Vancouver. All of those places would have been included so long as they had been a person's place of permanent residence. That is the choice. No matter what you pay, no matter what kind of accommodation it is, if it is your principle residence, the place where you continuously reside, then under this legislation it should be included within the terms of the Landlord and Tenant Act.

But you, Mr. Minister of Human Resources, wouldn't stand up and accept that amendment which would have clarified this for all the people in the province. You saw fit to leave this legislation to be applicable only to a particular class of people in our community. You should be ashamed that you would take this position. The Hon. First Member for Vancouver-Centre (Mr. Barnes) pointed this out to you in the clearest possible terms, and yet you sat by and did nothing.

During the course of the remarks of the Hon. First Member for Vancouver-Centre he pointed out something else, and I am glad the Deputy Attorney-General happens to be in the chamber at the moment. He pointed out that there are hotels which have licences to run beer parlors, and which are not hotels at all. I challenge the government to take away those licences from those institutions which do not qualify because of the kind of accommodation that they offer to the public. If they are full-time residencies, then what business have they got having a beer parlour licence?

But the government is prepared to make this distinction as well because with the beer parlour licence, they are able to support themselves and to offer the kind of accommodation which has been so aptly described here this evening.

This legislation, Mr. Chairman, does not do the job. The government, the Minister of Human Resources in particular, should hang their heads in shame to allow this legislation to come forward at this time in this particular way.

Section 7 as amended approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports progress and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, the order of business tomorrow for the House is to continue with the Provincial Secretary's estimates and then the Minister of Public Works. We'll see how far that takes us, and then the Minister of Transport and Communications followed by the Minister of Recreation and Conservation, and then on to bills in

[ Page 3948 ]

the afternoon.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:07 p.m.

APPENDIX

142 The Hon. Ernest Hall to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 142) intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1975, to amend as follows:

Section 6A: Amend the Bill by adding the following sections after section 6:

"S.B.C. 1962, c. 27, s. 5c.

"6A. (1) section 5c of the Income Tax Act is amended.

"(a) in subsection (1) (b) (i) by inserting 'other than as that paragraph applies to an amount paid or payable under the Mining Tax Act or any other prescribed Act,' after 'paragraph 18 (1) (m),', and

"(b) in subsection (3) by inserting 'produced in British Columbia and' before 'not sold'."

(2) Subsection (1) shall be deemed to have come into force on May 6, 1974 and is retroactive to the extent necessary to give it full force and effect on and after that date.

"S.B.C. 1912, c. 36, s. 15.

"6B. (1) section 15 of the Pacific Great Eastern Incorporation Act is amended by striking out all the words following 'in whole or in part,' and substituting 'the payment of the principal, interest, or performance of the obligations of bonds, debentures, or other securities, debts, or obligations of any person.'"

(2) Subsection (1) shall be deemed to have come into force on November 1, 1973 and is retroactive to the extent necessary to give it full force and effect on and after that date.