[ Page 5099 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Public Schools Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 85) Hon. MR. McGeer

Introduction and first reading –– 5099

Residential Tenancy Act (Bill 86) Committee stage.

On section 7. On section 32.

Mr. Barnes –– 5103 Ms. Brown –– 5111

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 5103 Hon. Mr. Mair –– 5111

On section 18. Mr. Barnes –– 5111

Ms. Brown –– 5104 On section 45 as amended.

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 5104 Mr. Wallace –– 5111

Mr. Barnes –– 5104 Hon. Mr. Mair –– 5112

On section 2 1. Mr. Barnes –– 5113

Ms. Brown –– 5104 Mr. Levi –– 5113

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 5104 On section 51 as amended.

Mr. Levi –– 5105 Mr. Wallace –– 5113

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 5105 On section 56,

Mr. Barnes –– 5106 Ms. Brown –– 5113

On section 22 as amended Hon. Mr. Mair., –– 5114

Mr. Wallace –– 5106 On section 59.

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 5107 Mr. Barnes –– 5114

On section 24. Hon. Mr. Mair –– 5114

Mr. Barnes –– 5107 On section 64.

Mr. Lloyd –– 5108 Mr. Barnes –– 5114

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 5108 Ms. Brown –– 5114

Mr. Wallace –– 5109 Hon. Mr. Mair –– 5115

On section 24 amendment ' On section 65.

Mr. Wallace –– 5109 MR. Wallace –– 5115

Mr. Levi –– 5110 Hon. Mr. Mair –– 5115

Hon, Mr. Mair –– 5110 MR. Levi –– 5115

Mr. Barnes –– 5110 Ms. Sanford –– 5116

On section 29. Mr. Barnes –– 5116

Mr. Barnes –– 5110 Hon. Mr. Mair –– 5117

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 5110 Division on third reading –– 5119

Pesticide Control Act (Bill 46) Committee stage.

On section 4 amendment. Mr. Skelly –– 5121

Mr. Skelly –– 5119 On section 12 as amended.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 5120 Mr. Skelly –– 5121

Mr. Wallace –– 5120 Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 5121

On section 11. Mr. Wallace –– 5122

Mr. Skelly –– 5120 On section 21 amendment.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 5120 Mr. Skelly –– 5122

On section 12 amendment. Report and third reading –– 5123

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 5121

Appendix –– 5123

The House met at 8:15 p.m.

Introduction of bills.

PUBLIC SCHOOLS AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

Hon. Mr. McGeer presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor; a bill intituled Public Schools Amendment Act, 1977.

Bill 85 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, before we proceed further this evening, I wish to comment on a matter that was brought before the House this afternoon, with respect to the withdrawal of certain phrases by the hon. member for Nelson-Creston. I asked, following the exchange which took place this afternoon, that copies of the Blues be supplied to the hon. member for Nelson-Creston, as well as a copy for myself and a copy to the hon. Premier of the province.

I've looked at the copies of the Blues, and in view of the words which were used by the hon. member for Nelson-Creston, I am not at all satisfied with the qualified withdrawal which took place. I would ask the hon. member, who has also had an opportunity to review the Blues, to now offer to the House an unconditional withdrawal of the offending words.

Mr. L. Nicolson (Nelson-Creston): Mr. Speaker, I withdraw any imputation of wrongdoing on behalf of the hon. member.

Some Hon. Members: Not good enough.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member is trying to withdraw in the same manner that is presently recorded in the Blues. He's withdrawing on the basis of a suggestion on his part that he withdraws any imputation of wrongdoing. The words which were offered, not in debate, hon. member, but as an aside from your seat this afternoon, are completely and irrevocably unparliamentary, and they must be unconditionally withdrawn. I suggest that the member has had ample opportunity to consider the matter during the afternoon and the early evening. Now I would ask him, as an hon. member, to unconditionally withdraw the offending phrases.

Mr. Nicolson: Mr. Speaker, I have taken the occasion to review some of your own rulings. In fact, two were made fairly recently. If you would refer to one of the incidents dealing with actions taking place, when a person is not an hon. member and certainly during an election. There are no members

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. This is not a time for debate.

Mr. Nicolson; I'm not debating. I'm trying to refer you to some of your own rulings on imputing proper motives. They can be found in the index, March 17 and June 30,1976, page 177, rulings of your own on imputing improper motive.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please!

Hon. R.H. McClelland (Minister of Health): Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: One moment, please.

An Hon. Member: How many points of order have you got?

Mr. Speaker: It's not a point of order, as I understood it. It was a matter of the hon. member for Nelson-Creston, who is on his feet, replying to my suggestion that he unconditionally withdraw his statements.

Hon. Mr. McClelland: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. The question before the House has nothing' to do with an accusation of any kind of wrongdoing on this House. That member this afternoon clearly used the words "lie" and "liar." Those two words are offensive to this House and must be withdrawn unconditionally.

Mr. D. Barrett (Leader of the Opposition): I want to express my appreciation for the manner in which you're handling this prior to the member completing it. However, I think it would be courtesy if the same Blues delivered to the leader were delivered to the Leader of the Opposition as well. Perhaps we would see that; then I will discuss it with him then.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. member, I delivered copies of the Blues....

Mr. Barrett: Well, I asked for a copy.

Mr. Speaker: One moment, please. Order!

Hon. Mr. McClelland: Tell him to withdraw.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, please restrain yourselves. I delivered copies of the Blues to the two hon. members who were involved in the exchange this afternoon. If you desire that I state for the record the

[ Page 5100 ]

offending phrases, I am certainly prepared to do it.

Mr. Nicolson: I was on my feet citing, Mr. Speaker, when the member got up. I was on what I would think is a point of order, referring to previous rulings. The member got up. It's never been the procedure of this House to allow one point of order to interrupt another, but so be it. I don't intend to be niggling on this.

But I am referring you, Mr. Speaker, to situations which were discussed on pages 854, 1,090, 1,091 and 1,093. There is also a reference to 3,806, but there's no such page in Hansard, These dealt with accusations in one case involving remarks made by the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) while she was president of the Social Credit Party but not an hon. member, These, I think, relate to remarks which were made concerning....

Mr. Speaker: If you have a specific point of order, hon. member, would you please state it?

Mr. Nicolson: ... made when the Premier was, during an election campaign....

Mr. Speaker: Would you please state your specific point of order?

Mr. Nicolson: The main point in this, Mr. Speaker, is that you have consistently tried, I think, to perhaps cool things down, to keep things on a level keel.

Mr. Speaker: I'm asking you to state your point of order.

Mr. Nicolson: ... but that consistently you have allowed persons to say that they do not impute any wrongdoing. You in fact used the words and suggested them to members when similar circumstances have arisen. Today you accepted that. Then, because the Premier gets up and questions your ruling, you then take the rest of the day, come in and reverse the ruling which you quite clearly gave on the spot. Mr. Speaker is to maintain order and decorum at all times. He is to give rulings and he is also to give his citations when he makes those rulings.

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, in order for it to be abundantly clear to the hon. members of this House, including the member for Nelson-Creston, why I require an unconditional withdrawal, and why I wanted to check the Blues.... As you will recall, as an hon. member, I did not hear the offending phrases myself. I wanted to see if, in fact, what had been attributed to you was said by yourself. If you read the Blues, hon. Leader of the Opposition, you’ll see that the phrases are – and I'll repeat them for the hon. member. . . . The hon. member for Nelson-Creston said: "He lies. He lied to people about removal of rent controls and he's trying to lie his way out of this." This is the type of phrase that I cannot accept a qualified withdrawal on, hon. member. Or in order to reduce the situation to something that it was not, to suggest that if the members are offended by the phrase, you will withdraw any offending phrase.... You must give an unconditional withdrawal of those words, because they are completely unparliamentary in any jurisdiction that you wish to mention.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

Mr. Barrett: On a point of order, could you explain to this House why the practice of asking for withdrawals was not followed through at that time? At no time do I recall a precedent of looking through the Blues. The question is to take one hon. member's word against another, and the matter is to be resolved immediately, In this case we've got a six-hour delay. Someone has obviously interfered, in my opinion, and this interruption is highly unparliamentary.

Mr. Speaker: Unfortunately, hon. member, you were not present this afternoon and you did not hear the exchange which took place.

Mr. Barrett: Well, you were here. You run the House.

Mr. Speaker: That's right.

Hon. P.L. McGeer (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, the member for Nelson-Creston, prior to adjournment at 6 o'clock, implied to the House that he uttered certain statements in the heat of the moment. Mr. Speaker, I've been in the House for 15 years, and I've never heard in that time as offensive statements as were made by the member for Nelson-Creston.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order!

Hon. Mr. McGeer: Not just to the Premier of the province, but to yourself, Mr. Speaker. The member stated afterwards – and you didn't draw this to the attention of the House – that after you asked him to withdraw, he repeated it, not in a moment of heat, but in a calculated fashion, "No, Mr. Speaker, " said the member for Nelson-Creston, "he lied to the voters prior to December 12,1975." Mr. Speaker, I think if the member is not prepared to unqualifiedly

[ Page 5101 ]

withdraw, he deserves a censure from this House as no member has received for many years.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please! Hon. member, before I recognize the hon. member for Nelson-Creston on this particular matter, there is a suggestion why it should have taken six hours to determine whether a breach had occurred or not. I suggest to the hon. members that I asked Hansard for a copy of the Blues, which I received. I was quite prepared to deliver those copies of the Blues to the hon. member for Nelson-Creston and to the hon. Premier. This was done late this afternoon after they'd been received in my office.

As you will recall, hon. members, at the time of exchange this afternoon I then said that I would very carefully check the Blues to determine if, in fact, the proper withdrawal had occurred or not. That is exactly what I've done. I've given the hon. member ample opportunity to peruse the same information that I have before me. As a matter of fact, the hon. member just at the hour of adjournment, in order, I suppose, to fortify his own case, brought to my attention a quotation from May. In this particular instance it is not applicable to the situation that we're dealing with right now, hon. member, although it might be at some other time, in some other situation.

I now have to say to you that the words that you used and the manner in which you withdrew this afternoon are not acceptable, and that the only thing that you can do that the House can accept is to make an unconditional withdrawal.

Mr. Nicolson: Mr. Speaker, I think it's very important that we get a couple of things straight. Are you taking objection to the reference that was just cited by the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) that I said that he [illegible] to the people prior to December 12? That has been clearly established as not being unparliamentary as the member was not an hon. member of the House at that time. That has been thoroughly established, Mr. Speaker, in the case of the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) and others.

Mr. Speaker, I want to be treated equally like any other member of this House. I ask no special favour, but I don't want any special censure either. Mr. Speaker, time and time again, when things are said in heat both the Chairman and Mr. Speaker, I would think, in order to try to keep a level of debate that's desirable to the Chair, have suggested to the members: "Were you imputing any wrong motive on behalf of that hon. member?" The person gets up and says: "No, Mr. Speaker, I am imputing no wrong motive on behalf of the hon. member." You have accepted that consistently. What I want to see in this House, Mr. Speaker, is consistency.

An Hon. Member: Hear, hear!

Mr. Nicolson: If people on that side of the House can get up and say that somebody over here had and got away with that kind of a withdrawal, then why not me, Mr. Speaker? I'm not trying to get away with anything either, but I want to see some consistency, and certainly these things. . . .

Mr. Speaker: Hon. member, order, please! That is exactly what we're trying to arrive at, hon. member.

Hon. Mr. McGeer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, in this business of the House I don't think we should be wheedling the member for Nelson-Creston. Either he's prepared to obey the rules of the House or he should be dismissed from the House. Mr. Speaker, this is the only member who has ever thrown a book at the Chair, or accused another member of lying and refused to withdraw.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please! I must ask the hon. member for Nelson-Creston to withdraw unconditionally the unparliamentary words that were used this afternoon.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please!

Mr. Nicolson: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw any imputation of wrongdoing by the Premier.

Mr. Speaker: The withdrawal must be an unconditional withdrawal in view of the words that were used this afternoon, hon. member. It's not acceptable to withdraw in the same terms as we now see registered in the Blues. The withdrawal must be unconditional, hon. member.

Interjections.

Mr. Nicolson: Mr. Speaker, that's as unconditional as a sentence can be. It's been used in this House and that is, I think, the honourable way in which to withdraw such a remark.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Hon. member for Nelson-Creston, I appreciate the fact that words are exchanged sometimes in heat. But I must remind you that this afternoon the unparliamentary words were an aside from your seat. They were not initially heard by the Speaker, but drawn to the Speaker's attention. They are recorded in Hansard and they are completely unparliamentary. May I suggest to you

[ Page 5102 ]

that the proper phrase would be to withdraw the words that were unparliamentary?

Mr. A.B. Macdonald (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: I'm dealing with the member for Nelson-Creston at the moment, hon. member.

Mr. Macdonald: This is on the same point.

Mr. Speaker: I haven't recognized the hon. first member for Vancouver East.

Mr. Macdonald: Well, it's hard not to. I want to speak on this point as to whether it's possible to censure the member at this stage.

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. member would....

Mr. Macdonald: I'll be brief and to the point on this point, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, after hearing the withdrawal of the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) , you said: "Hon. members, I believe it is my opinion that on the final time the hon. member for Nelson-Creston got to his feet he did make a proper withdrawal."

Now you can't hold that kind of offence in limbo that's alleged against the member. That was the time when the member who said he was offended had to object and that was the time Mr. Speaker had to rule. You cannot, when we are debating other matters before the House, come back and revive the offence. Now that's the end of it. To bring it up at this stage and try to name or censure that member would be highly improper, and I suggest it's never been done in any parliament. That's the point, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the hon. member who has just taken his place would not mind if the Speaker referred to the rest of the statement. I am prepared to examine Hansard carefully, and if it is found that a withdrawal was qualified or in any way was not as forthright as it should have been, I will certainly bring it to the member's attention, as the record in Hansard will show.

This is the transcript, hon. members, and it is matter....

Mr. Macdonald: You brought it to his attention. If there were to be any censuring of the member it had to be done at that time.

Mr. Speaker: The question still must be resolved, hon. members. A withdrawal on the basis of the words that were used – as I have read them in Hansard – is not in keeping with the parliamentary traditions. That's all I'm trying to point out to the members tonight. The member would have been well advised to look at the words that were used and indeed are there, and not try to make a qualified withdrawal. It's one of those things, hon. member. If it's an unqualified withdrawal and the member is prepared to do that, I'm quite prepared to accept it.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Do I understand the withdrawal, as I implied, is an unqualified one?

Mr. Nicolson: Mr. Speaker, I'm not annoyed; I'm not amused; I'm a little bit confused. I don't know what can be more unqualified than to say that I impugned no wrongdoing on behalf of that hon. member.

Interjections.

Hon. K.R. Mair (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Withdraw! Withdraw the words.

Mr. Nicolson: If that isn't unqualified, I don't know what is. Do you want a dictionary to know what "impugn" means? Or what- "withdraw" means?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. It's a matter of the type of words that are used in withdrawal. Occasionally, when an hon. member gets up and says that there is no improper motive impugned, it is a correct type of withdrawal, but not, hon. member, in a case where you have used the words that you used when you threw a remark across the floor this afternoon. That's why I have tried to explain to you the withdrawal must be unqualified. It's a tradition of the House, hon. member, that I must uphold.

Mr. Nicolson: Mr. Speaker, if I say that I apologize for having said that the Premier lied this afternoon, will that meet with the satisfaction of the Premier? He isn't even here. I don't know that he doesn't expect me to come over there and kneel at his feet and say this, or apologize. . . .

Mr. Speaker: Really, it's not that. It's a matter of whether the words are parliamentary or not. This is all I'm trying to point out to the hon. member. The withdrawal must be unqualified, and when that happens it's certainly the position that should be taken by the hon. member.

In order to uphold the traditions of the House, an unqualified withdrawal is in order, hon. member. Now I have listened to everything that's been said. Do I understand that in your opinion you've given an unqualified withdrawal of the phrases that were used this afternoon?

[ Page 5103 ]

Mr. Nicolson. In my opinion, yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I'll accept that from an hon. member.

Hon. Mr. McClelland: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think that this is probably the first time in the history of this House that a person has been allowed to call another member in this House a liar without withdrawing unconditionally.

Some Hon. Members. Order!

Hon. Mr. McClelland: There is no order left in this House.

Mr. Speaker: I have accepted the hon. member's withdrawal.

Orders of the day.

Hon. G.B. Gardom (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 86.

The House in committee on Bill 86; Mr. Veitch in the chair.

RESIDENTIAL TENANCY ACT

(continued)

Section 6 approved.

On section 7.

Mr. E.O. Barnes (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Chairman, the posting of the name and address of the landlord in a conspicuous place for tenants to see is one step, but why don't you also include the amount of rent being charged for the premises or various accommodations that are available and the anniversary date of rent increases? The reason I'm suggesting the idea is that should a tenant leave during the middle of an anniversary period, what's to stop the landlord from jacking up the rent? As long as the tenant is there, the tenant is obviously looking after his best interests and would protect himself, but if the tenant moves and another one moves in, what protection does the new tenant have that the rent will remain the same?

Hon. Mr. Mair: Mr. Chairman, in answer to the member's question, first of all, we wrestled with this problem and really came down in favour of privacy and an absence of invasion of privacy. But let me also say that the rent can be determined from the rent commission by any prospective tenant, so it isn't a secret from the whole world. We thought that that's the better way to go rather than post something that is really nobody's business except the next tenant, the landlord and the outgoing tenant.

Mr. Barnes: So, Mr. Chairman, what the minister is saying is that rents are registered with the Rent Review Commission and any tenant can at any time....

Hon. Mr. Mair: They will be under this Act.

Mr. Barnes: And there will be no opportunity for the landlord to circumvent that section.

Hon. Mr. Mair: Once the Act is passed, the answer is no. There will be no opportunity. Of course, I suppose as long as there are Brinks robberies and all sorts of things like that, Mr. Member, there'll always be some people who get away with things. But we hope that this Act will cure that situation.

Mr. Barnes. Could the minister also explain what the mechanics will be for getting this information? If there are some 200,000 or 300,000 rental units in the province, does this mean that the Rent Review Commission will have on file each and every single rental suite and unit in the province?

Hon. Mr. Mair: A copy of every rent increase goes to the Rent Review Commission, which already has over 100,000 rents on its computer.

Mr. Barnes: But that's only 100,000. There are some 300,000 units. What about the ones that haven't applied? You have to be quite comprehensive in a scheme such as this because it's the person who doesn't know his or her rights that I'm concerned about – who moves in not knowing these things. We want to protect them as well.

Hon. Mr. Mair: Well, the short answer, Mr. Chairman, is that the old Act didn't require all of these registrations. This bill does, and the facilities are sufficient to handle the influx of new rents which will come into the Rent Review Commission. They will be able to handle it and they will be recorded.

Sections 7 to 13 inclusive approved.

On section 14.

Mr. Barnes: I have just one brief question. Could the minister explain the need to impose tighter controls on tenants who are now being required to pay their rent much faster?

Hon. Mr. Mair: I don't think this is the correct section. I'll answer that when we get to the section.

[ Page 5104 ]

Sections 14 and 15 approved.

On section 16.

Hon. Mr. Mair: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 16 as amended approved.

Section 17 approved.

On section 18.

Ms. R. Brown (Vancouver-Burrard): This is 18 (l) (g) . At present, the way the bill reads is if the landlord wants to evict a tenant because he says the place needs renovation, the tenant has the right to say, "I'm satisfied with my suite the way it is, " and refuse the offer of renovation. Therefore the tenant is not subject to being evicted. Now why has the minister changed this so that whether the tenant wants the place renovated or not, at the discretion of the rentalsman the tenant can be evicted on the grounds that the place needs to be renovated?

Hon. Mr. Mair: The intention of this section, Mr. Chairman, is only in the case of extensive renovations that the rentalsman, deems to be necessary under the circumstances. It's always, of course, going to be a judgment call, but I can say to the member that that's the intention of this section. It will only be in the case where it is obvious to the rentalsman that it is necessary and it is extensive to the point that it can't be done conveniently with the tenant still in possession.

Ms. Brown: Now is this going to be explained in more detail in the regulations? It doesn't say anything here about extensive renovation. Will the regulations spell that out more clearly?

Hon. Mr. Mair: It is in the judgment of the rentalsman. I don't think there's any contemplation of putting it in regulations, Madam Member, but once again, I certainly will take your remarks under advisement and if it appears this is causing a problem for the reasons that you intimate, and those are the only reasons it will cause a problem, then we'll do something about amending the words, either by regulation or by coming back to the House.

Mr. Barnes: Mr. Chairman, could the minister indicate the philosophical purpose respecting this section? I was concerned this afternoon when I indicated that tenants should have some guarantee of tenure, some guarantee of residency. The landlord has a licence which he should feel somewhat committed to and not have situations come up where there is a need to demolish a residential premise on short notice, or to convert to strata title, or to any other option that might be open to him, simply because he is the landlord and owns the property. By virtue of his making available a rental property, there should be some obligation to the tenant in that a tenant moving into such accommodation should have some guarantee that the very minimum of time would be one year, and perhaps even longer. In lieu of tenants being able to stay, let's introduce the idea of paying moving costs and certain kinds of compensation. That still gives the landlord the right to go ahead by virtue of some monetary means, but I'm talking about the inconvenience to the tenant and also the right to some residential tenure.

Hon. Mr. Mair: Mr. Chairman, I'm. sure the member understands and realizes that many times, these renovations are made necessary for reasons beyond the landlord's control. The fire marshal or any number of people may require renovations to be done. I'm sure the member has noted – that 120 days' notice – that's four months – must be given. In addition to that, moving expenses or $300 – whichever is the lesser of these two sums – must be paid. So I think that, along with the rentalsman's discretion, is sufficient to ensure that the tenants' interest in the extraordinary circumstances will be protected.

Sections 18 to 20 inclusive approved.

On section 21.

Ms. Brown: This is 2 1 (1) , Mr. Chairman. This is if the tenants fail to pay their rent – if their rent is a day late. I mean, there isn't any bill on earth which you can't be a day late on. Now, maybe the minister would like to explain to us why. He said that if the rent is one day – one day, 24 hours – late, for any reason at all, notice of termination can be given. I mean, not even the income tax department ... there isn't anybody else ... department stores. Not even B.C. Hydro, the ogre of all ogres, will cut off your power if you're one day late with your payment. One day now that is really unreasonable, isn't it, Mr. Minister?

Hon. Mr. Mair: Mr. Chairman, it isn't quite so simple as one day, because the tenant in two circumstances can extend that an additional five days. Of course, the effective date is not until 12 days after the notice of termination is given. In essence, the tenant can; if he wishes, prolong the initial stage by five days before he even gets into the balance of time.

[ Page 5105 ]

I might say, Mr. Chairman, if I may that this is one area where we have had no complaint from the tenants' organizations – certainly not directly to us in writing or, indeed, orally.

Ms. Brown: That, then, should disabuse the minister of any idea that I am speaking solely on behalf of tenants' organizations. I am speaking on behalf of all tenants. The Act very clearly states: "On any day following the day the rent was due, the landlord can give a tenant a notice of termination." Sure it can be stretched out for five days or 12 days, but it really is unreasonable. Most people have to pay their bills within 21 days, I think. You're a lawyer. That seems to be the usual – 21 days after the given date – and I think that this is very unreasonable.

Hon. Mr. Mair: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make two points. First of all, rent is payable in advance, unlike other bills that one receives after services. Secondly, if the tenant takes one of the two steps which are open to him, the notice self-destructs, so it is no longer in effect. All things considered, and bearing in mind the length of time that it does take for the termination of the tenancy to de facto take place, I think that this is reasonable.

Ms. Brown: It says, "when the rent is due." I know that the rent is due in advance, but it says, "any day following the day that the rent is due." So we are still talking about one day after the rent is due, and the landlord can give notice of termination. That is not reasonable – one day after the rent is due. I know that the rent is paid in advance.

Hon. Mr. Mair: The point is, Mr. Chairman, after that notice is given, presuming it is given on the first day after the....

Ms. Brown: It can be!

Hon. Mr. Mair: It can be, Madam Member, I agree. But assuming that it is, the tenant then has five days to eliminate that notice entirely by doing one of two things: either paying the rent or disputing it, in which case notice is no longer effective.

Ms. Brown: Let me give you an example, Mr. Chairman. Let's use the MLAs. There are some MLAs who obtain accommodation in Victoria. Say, for example, the member for Kamloops has an apartment in Victoria and he forgets to pay his rent the day it's due, because he is in Kamloops at the time. The House is not in session. If you keep your apartment all year round the way some MLAs do, it's very easy, and this is a ridiculous example I am drawing to your attention. You have five days after that rent is due. While you are in Kamloops or wherever, there is nothing you can do about your termination notice then, despite the registered letter and everything else that can be sent out about it. The time stricture on this one, Mr. Chairman, is too tight. That is all I'm saying. It is not reasonable. A 12-day period is not reasonable. Most places which you have an account with are payable within 21 days. Now that is reasonable and it has worked for everyone else. Why can't it work for the landlords?

Hon, Mr. Mair: Well, Mr. Chairman, I suppose all I can say is that the member and I join issue on the reasonableness of this proposition. I think that it is reasonable. I think that it will not work any hardship to 99 per cent, if not more, of the tenants. Those who have been careless will, I'm sure, take steps to give post-dated cheques or something of that nature. If I were renting an apartment, I'm sure that I would do that. In all events, I don't know what more I can say, because I don't want to argue with the hon. member. It seems senseless. She takes one view and I take another. We just join issue and disagree, I suppose.

Mr. N. Levi (Vancouver-Burrard): That's the nature of debate, Mr. Chairman. We know you disagree, and you're not about to accept an amendment. But this is a kind of an incendiary section. Ninety-nine per cent of people pay their rent and don't have any problems. A lot of the problems that the rentalsman deals with are kind of hard cases, whether they're hard cases because they're low-income and they have trouble making the payments, or they're people who are, kind of hard to get along with. I can't understand why it is that you've reduced the 30 days that were originally there down to 15 days. Is there some indication that in some way the 30-day period – this is only a 15-day period... ? It seems to me that if you're going to have a 15-day period and somebody decides that they are not going to leave on the 15th day, then the landlord's going to have to go to court and get an order of possession or something similar to an eviction order. Then by the time that comes through, it'll be 30 days anyway. I don't quite understand the reason for reducing the amount of leeway in terms of this particular process, because in terms of the people you will probably deal with under this, this could be a highly explosive situation. Perhaps the minister would tell us why they've cut this period in half.

Hon. Mr. Mair: I think I should point out that one of the reasons that we have reduced it.... Actually, I should also point out before I get into that that the recommendation came from the rentalsman and the rentalsman's office. So it's not as if he's not aware of whatever problems this will create for him. But one of the basic reasons, of course, is

[ Page 5106 ]

that the amount of security deposit that the landlord can retain is only one-half a month. It has been prevalent that many apartments would remain vacant for a month or more than a month and the landlord simply could not get possession of the premises in order to re-let them. That is an additional cost to the landlord, which you know, Mr. Member, is passed on one way or another, as all these costs are, to the ultimate consumer. I don't know what more I can say. This seems to us to be a reasonable answer to a problem that has been causing problems in the landlord-tenant relationship in that marketplace.

Mr. Levi: If you thought you had trouble with the old process, you're going to have horrendous trouble with the process that exists now, because you're going to have people who will simply refuse to move. You're going to have to get eviction orders or certificates of possession, and you're going to have one heck of a lot of trouble. Then there's the whole issue of collecting the other half-month's rent. This is a highly inflammable situation, and nothing that the minister has said has really justified the kind of problems that are going to flow from this, and there are going to be lots of them.

Mr. Barnes: Mr. Chairman, this section is quite flagrant, as far as I can determine, respecting the rights of tenants. It's placing a tremendous burden on the shoulders of the rentalsman. You may as well call him the czar of tenant affairs. Some of the reasons for justifying the eviction of a tenant are:

" (c) the conduct of a tenant or a person permitted in or on the residential property or residential premises by him is such that the enjoyment of other occupants in the residential property is unreasonably disturbed."

That's a decision that has to be made by the rentalsman.

" (d) occupancy by the tenant has resulted in the residential property or residential premises being damaged to an extent that exceeds reasonable wear and tear."

Again, the rentalsman is required to make a judgment.

" (e) the landlord bona fide requires a residential premises for the purpose of occupation for himself, his spouse, or a child or parent."

Interjection.

Mr. Barnes: No, this is section 24.

Mr. Chairman: It's section 21. We missed a few sections there.

Mr. Barnes: If you let me go this far, Mr.

Chairman, maybe you and I both were asleep.

Mr. Chairman: Perhaps I was, hon. member. We are on section 21.

Mr. Barnes: Should I continue?

Mr. Chairman: On section 21.

Mr. Barnes: Okay, on section 21. The same problem applies, but it's just a little bit ahead of itself. I spoke on section 21, didn't I, Mr. Minister?

Hon. Mr. Mair: I just wanted to say, Mr. Member, if you want to move on to section 22, perhaps we'd better get the amendments in first.

Mr. Chairman: You are on section 21, hon. member.

Mr. Barnes: I spoke on section 21.

Mr. Chairman: You are speaking on section 21 now, are you?

Mr. Barnes: I think I'll wait, because he has some amendments. We'll get caught up.

Section 21 approved.

On section 22.

Hon. Mr. Mair: I move the first amendment standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Hon. Mr. Mair: I move the second. amendment standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

On section 22 as amended.

Mr.Wallace (Oak Bay): This is, again, one of the areas where there is very substantial amount of power given to the rentalsman, depending on the interpretation of words like "unreasonably interfered with the enjoyment or safety of occupants, so that it would be inequitable to those other occupants . . ." et cetera, et cetera. In other words, there is a great deal of authority extended to the rentalsman in this section.

I wonder if the minister would care to comment on what the mechanism of appeal is if the rentalsman decides that a tenant has, in fact, unreasonably

[ Page 5107 ]

interfered with the enjoyment or safety of occupants. It seems to me that that language is capable of pretty wide interpretation as I'm sure the minister knows, being a lawyer himself by profession.

I haven't been able to determine under what subsequent section of the Act a tenant could appeal this kind of decision by the rentalsman. I wonder if the minister would care to give us some kind of outline of the examples that might come under this section. I suppose that we're dealing with people with noise and drunkenness and violence and so on, where the individuals in the same premises might be subject to danger or where their safety might be impaired. But I wonder, even in those cases where the rentalsman believes that he is doing the right thing, what, if any, appeal does the tenant have?

Hon. Mr. Mair: Any appeal from a decision of this nature by the rentalsman is to the courts on a question of jurisdiction or on a point of law. There is no appeal, as I understand it, from an exercise of his discretion.

But let me say this, if I may, Mr. Member, that discretion is the name of the game when you have security of tenure in a residential tenancy situation, as we have had since 1973. The alternative, of course, is to go back to the old days where the landlord simply could say: "Out with you; nobody has the right to exercise any discretion as long as I follow points a, b, c, d and e of the law." This has its dangers, to be true. But I think that I can say, Mr. Member, that it has worked out extremely well. The mediation that takes place accounts for perhaps 90 per cent or better of the potential disputes or the actual disputes. The amount of times that it actually gets down to the rentalsman having to make a decision that materially affects the rights of either of the two parties is very minimal indeed. Sure, it's true, he exercises a discretion and that's the end of the matter. But, I think, Mr. Member, the percentages are such that we have to accept that.

Mr. Wallace: I appreciate the minister's comment. But, for example, the amendment deletes the phrase "other than reasonable wear and tear" and, I gather, just finishes up with where the tenant has caused damage to the property. There again, who decides what is damage and damage enough to demand that the tenant be evicted or where the tenancy agreement can be brought to an end by the decision of the rentalsman?

The first member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) referred earlier on this afternoon to the fact that some landlords will seek any particular phrase or section of this bill to justify getting rid of a tenant. I'm just wondering if the minister is quite confident that there isn't too much authority for the rentalsman in this section.

Hon. Mr. Mair: Mr. Member, you perhaps have not noticed that the word "extraordinary" has been added by the same amendment between the words "caused" and "damage." So the section will now read: "The tenant has caused extraordinary damage to the residential premises or the residential property." Instead of just having to find "damage" as in the past, it is now "extraordinary damage." So I think that the tenant's position has, in fact, been strengthened and the onus upon the rentalsman is all the greater.

Section 22 as amended approved.

Section 23 approved.

On section 24.

Mr. Barnes: Back to where I left off. I should start again for the record.

The reasons given for tenant. . . . I'm not reading them all; I just picked a few out that bother me. There are many, many more. Under subsection (2):

" ... the conduct of the tenant or a person permitted in or on the residential property or residential premises by him is such that the enjoyment of other tenants in the residential property is unreasonably disturbed, or occupancy by the tenant has resulted in the residential property or residential premises being damaged to an extent that exceeds reasonable wear and tear, or the landlord bona fide requires the residential premises for the purpose of occupation by himself, his spouse or child or parent of his or his spouse, and the notice of termination was given in accordance with section 17, or the tenant has knowingly misrepresented the residential property or residential premises to a prospective tenant or purchaser of the residential property or residential premises, or is, in respect of residential premises in a hotel, motel or other similar transient or recreational premises, and clearly specifies the term of the tenancy agreement and the date on which it expires, or the number of persons permanently occupying the residential premises is unreasonable, or the merits do not justify or warrant such a setting aside of a particular order."

I read about a third of them and these seem to be stacked up in such a way, as the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) was pointing out, that a landlord shouldn't have any trouble at all finding something in this situation.

What it means virtually is that the tenant has no security. That's what this section is doing. This section 24 is the one that removes a tenant's security

[ Page 5108 ]

of residency. It's just not fair, because there's no way you're going to tell me that.... Landlords have found loopholes in much tighter legislation than this. This is really open ended. They can find it one way or the other. What they're going to do, Mr. Chairman, is that those who happen to be lucky enough to avoid being designated when this bill becomes law are going to jack up their rents anyway, just to make sure that in case the minister decides to refreeze them they'll be at least above $500, or they'll set it high enough so that if you do peg it, they'll be at the figure they want. Really, you know, it's going to be a war.

I think the rentalsman, who has been given the power to adjudicate – he's a somewhat quasi-judicial body now – has tremendous power, but he's going to be entirely overwhelmed himself. I'm sure he doesn't like the situation he's in. I don't think he's jumping for joy right now, because he's going to face an impossible situation. There will be grievance after grievance after grievance. There will be judgmental things about what is unreasonable friends coming over, and how many is too many not to mention the problems of not knowing what the definition of a "tenant" is.

As the first member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) pointed out this afternoon, you haven't clarified what the age limit is on a tenant. Is a tenant a tenant when he's of legal, adult age – 18 and over in this province – or is a tenant a person who is able to go up and put the money on the line, or sign a contract? When you get into the question of unreasonable numbers of people occupying, does this include children? How do you deal with a situation where they say adults only? What about the civil rights of all people to be able to rent premises?

There are many things that are not said that bother me about this section. It deals with ways by which a tenant can be evicted. The tenant is now not only having the problem of staying in the premises. He has always had the problem of getting in in the first place because, as you know, many landlords would prefer to have dogs to children. I would hazard a guess that at least 20 per cent of all classified ads for rentals have a specification in of some description or another. I question whether that is not a violation of people's rights. They say: "adults only, " "children only, " "40 years of age only, " "no pets, " "children accepted." It's a big deal when you see an ad where someone says children permitted. It's a real good deal. There is a real nice landlord who is going to allow children in, but it's an exception.

It seems to be that the landlord can dictate the conditions all the way down the line. I'm just wondering, Mr. Chairman, if we have not placed a great deal in the hands of the rentalsman. There is no mechanism whereby a person could appeal to an impartial body – people who are familiar with the particular circumstances – and have a proper adjudication. In this instance, I think you would be helping the rentalsman. He probably needs some options in the situation. I think that with the burden on his shoulders he's going to have to become very dictatorial, and I don't think he's going to be liked. He has his problems now, as you know, with some groups, and this certainly isn't going to ease the situation.

Mr. H.J. Lloyd (Fort George): Mr. Chairman, I’d like to speak in favour of this section 24, particularly section 2 (c) . One of the problems I've had with the old rentalsman Act – at least, some of my constituents have had – is not really in an apartment situation, but where they're renting out a unit in their own particular home, in the basement or in a duplex unit. These people rent, of course, to an unknown person and these people do bring an undesirable element into the home. They practically scare the people who own the home out of their own home. Under the old Act, there wasn't really a provision where the rentalsman could use his discretion in this particular aspect. This would build up to such an emotional crisis for some of these people that they would practically consider mayhem to take care of it.

I think this is a very fitting section of the Act and certainly I would speak in favour of it. I think probably the biggest point in favour of the rentalsman – and I'm not particularly in favour of him to start with; if there were a surplus of units on the market, we probably wouldn't even have to have him – is in some of the lower-income and other areas where they need him. I'd say subsection (c) is a very necessary part of the Act.

Ms. Brown: Very briefly, Mr. Chairman, this is the section of the Act that I think could use an amendment, if the minister is interested. This is a section that should include that termination would be set aside if the family had a child. This is where it would fit in.

There have been. a number of instances where two people – a married couple – are living in an apartment unit, in two bedrooms or whatever, with ample room. But as soon as the child is born, that is considered grounds for termination of the tenancy agreement. This would be the section that should have an amendment saying that would not be allowed. Would you consider that?

Hon. Mr. Mair: I think we have already done that.

Ms. Brown: Where?

Hon. Mr. Mair: Perhaps I could answer the questions raised to this point by the members

[ Page 5109 ]

opposite, and then we can go further into the section if we need to. The first member for Vancouver-Burrard: her last point, I think, is taken care of by the repeal of subsection (j) of the old Act. That was the subsection which seemed to give rise to a termination of tenancy when someone under the age of 19 became a tenant. That's been repealed. Now, Mr. Chairman, I might say to the members opposite that in this particular section; it's been changed five material ways. One is the deletion of the old subsection (j) , which I have indicated. The other four are: first of all, the failure to obey the order of the rentalsman, which I don't think anybody can quarrel with; the frustration subsection, which is section (p) , and this of course, is as much in favour, if not more, of the tenant than of the landlord; the closure order of (q) , which is really a type of frustration; and the question of merits, which is subsection (r) , and this is an equity section.

Mr. Chairman, I think we must remember that this, of all the statutes, is a working statute. This is a day-by-day type of situation, where the rentalsman must make decisions that are always a question of discretion. Now if it doesn't work, if the rentalsman doesn't do his job and if the situation deteriorates, then this Legislature is going to have to deal with the situation or I, as minister, will have to deal with it.

But we are now going on about four years' experience. Judging from the compliments given to the rentalsman by all sides of the House yesterday, I assume he is doing a pretty good job. I think it is a logical extension to now give him – and the only marked departure is subsection (r) – the power to do equity. In other words, in those weird situations that you can't contemplate when you're drawing statutes or regulations, give the rentalsman power to say: "Look, the equitable, meritorious result of this particular dispute is thus and so, and so I decide." That is the only real change.

Mr. Wallace: Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm one of the people on this side of the House who does indeed recognize the tremendous job the rentalsman has done. One of the reasons I'm criticizing this section is that the rentalsman is human; he's going to make mistakes. The more you put in the bill to give the rentalsman a greater scope for discretion, the more difficult you make his job, even if he's the closest human being to perfection you can find. I think that the role of the opposition is to try and say to the minister: are you not in fact asking too much of the rentalsman by giving him this scope of discretion? While I would agree with some of the comments dealing with subsection (2) , I'm really concerned about only the last one, (r) , which is absolutely wide-open phraseology and which leaves the rentalsman free to make pretty well any decision he chooses. Subsection (2) (r) reads: "The merits do not justify or warrant such a setting-aside." The merits – the whole thrust of the subsection is defined in one single word: "merits". I just feel I can go along with a great deal of this bill – as I said on second reading – which expands the scope of the rentalsman and the discretion of the cabinet. I am willing to support that general direction.

But I really do think that subsection (2) (r) is stretching the credibility of the opposition just a little when you say that the merits do not justify or warrant such a setting-aside. In one single word, this means the rentalsman is given more or less complete and total discretion to decide any single aspect of the tenant's behaviour and method of meeting his requirements as a tenant under the tenancy agreement. I would suggest that it would not damage this section or the general thrust of the bill one little bit if subsection (2) (r) were deleted. I would move such an amendment: that subsection (2) (r) be deleted.

Mr. Chairman: One moment please, while we consider the amendment.

The amendment appears to be in order.

On the amendment.

Mr. Wallace: Just to speak very briefly, Mr. Chairman, I see the general purpose of section 24, with all the numerous subsections to subsection (2) from letters (a) to (r) . I just think that there's such a tremendous range of discretion given to the rentalsman in (2) (a) , (b) , (c) , (d) , (e) , right through to (q) . To end up with a sort of an all-encompassing subsection (r) , which says the merits do not justify or warrant such a setting-aside, just about encompasses all that you've already said in subsections (a) to (q) .

I'm thinking not only of the wisdom of this subsection and sentence in section 2 (r) , but of how much you are beginning to ask the rentalsman to exercise, in his particular wisdom, on the merits of a situation. I can't think of one word that more widely defines anything and everything to do with conditions which might be taken into consideration, when one decides the justification, or otherwise, for giving a tenant notice to leave the premises. It seems to me that the authority in all these subsections from (a) to (q) just about covers the waterfront, and then in subsection (r) you go that final step and say that the rentalsman will decide the merits as to whether the tenancy agreement should be set aside. I think that firstly it is an excessive amount of discretion, and, secondly, sooner or later the rentalsman is going to make a mistake exercising that discretion, as all human beings finally do. I think you're asking too much of the rentalsman and you're just headed for trouble.

[ Page 5110 ]

Mr. Levi: The minister is a victim of draftsmanship here. I don't know why it is, but this caught my eye so I asked somebody to do some research, on it, and they reminded me that this particular section (r) appears in one of the original Acts dealing with rent control and tenant matters which originated in England during the second world war. This section is the kind of thing that you might expect to see during wartime where all sorts of rather peculiar situations prevail, but it certainly doesn't have any place here. I think that it was just thrown in, and then you've covered everything. I'm given to understand that the origin of this particular section was the English Act during the war.

Hon. Mr. Mair: Mr. Bumble said: "The law is an ass." This is the problem that the rentalsman has on a day to day basis, and it comes up about perhaps once in a thousand times that the law being an ass creates a situation that only the exercise of equity can overcome. Now the landlord and tenant relationship, with notable exceptions, is much like a marriage contract. You simply cannot put down in black and white all of the innuendos and nuances that go on in that relationship. Of the relationships, 99 per cent are relatively happy ones, but as the members opposite know, when it becomes unhappy, it becomes really unhappy. In times like that the courts have been called upon over the centuries to decide cases on the real merits – not necessarily on precedence or the written word that's in front of them, but the merits as they appear to the judge of the situation at that time.

This is something that I think is essential to anyone who is exercising his discretion on a day-to-day basis, and I'm afraid that I cannot accept the amendment. I think that the subsection is a very real aid to keeping the peace in the landlord-tenant relationship where the situation has deteriorated.

Mr. Levi: I think his analogy with the Marriage Act is rather unfortunate, because it is tantamount to having a Marriage Act where you are building in the fact that, if you are going to get married, you've got to have a marriage counsellor. I don't think that it is an analogy at all. We're talking about an overwhelming, massive power; you can't think of all the things, so in case something comes up, you use that. You don't make those kinds of pre-arrangements in a marriage contract. That's not a valid comparison at all.

Mr. Barnes: I don't want to take this any further. Just to add my voice of support for the amendment, I think that the rentalsman should not have the final voice. I know that there are appeals, perhaps to the cabinet or to the courts. But let's face it; that isn't going to happen. What's going to happen is that the rentalsman will make a decision and most landlords and tenants simply will have no other recourse. Or they will not feel they want to buck the system, and it will just be too bad. This is the tragedy of it, and I think that there will be considerable injustices in it. The member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) has a point when he says that the rentalsman is only human and that he is subject to error even though his intentions may be good. It seems to me that when it comes to a question of something as nebulous as merit, as the minister himself says, it is a very rare time when we go to the courts on a mutual and even basis. Everybody goes to court, not just the situation where the onus is on the tenant to find some other course of action after he has had a judgment placed against him, which 99.99 per cent of them will just forget.

Section 24 approved.

Sections 25 to 28 inclusive approved.

On section 29.

Mr. Barnes:

"No landlord shall enter residential premises that a tenant has a right to occupy under a valid and subsisting tenancy agreement unless an emergency exists ... unless the landlord has given written notice of entry for a reasonable purpose not more than 72 hours and not less than 24 hours before the time of entry."

That is not the problem. The first one is: what is an emergency situation?

Hon. Mr. Mair: I think we have to rely upon the common law definition of "emergency" for that, Mr. Member. The cases over the years have developed a definition of emergency. I can tell you what emergencies are: I can't tell you what they are not. I think we all know what they are, and I think that they are pretty well settled in law.

Mr. Barnes: I appreciate that, but I was wondering if that would also be left up to the interpretation of the rentalsman or the interpretation of the landlord. The landlord, for instance, could interpret that to mean that if the tenant doesn't pay his rent within one day, that is an emergency because he has to pay his notes, and therefore he is going to move in.

Hon. Mr. Mair: Mr. Member, subsection (3) says, of course, that the rentalsman, where there is a dispute, may determine what is reasonable. This section is unchanged, I might say, in that particular respect.

[ Page 5111 ]

Sections 29 through 31 inclusive approved.

On section 32.

Ms. Brown: Mr. Chairman, this section gives – the rentalsman the discretion to order an unlimited security deposit now. Why would the minister give the rentalsman that kind of authority? It is half a month or more, if that is what he wants to do. "The rentalsman orders that it is proper ... that a greater amount be paid."

Hon. Mr. Mair: I think that perhaps a classic example of where the rentalsman may make such an order, Madam Member, is where he is renting premises that have antique furniture or valuables of that sort in there. Obviously he is not going to make such an order unless it is proper, and those circumstances would have to be a marked departure from the ordinary.

Ms. Brown: Okay.

Mr. Barnes: This is a curious section. The minister could probably explain it, being a lawyer. I really don't understand it, but here we are legislating the eradication of money or saying that somebody can have some money that they haven't legally earned. Legally, are you saying that it should be rounded off to the nearest dollar or 50 cents, up or down? I am just wondering whether they worked out by a cost accounting system the actual value on the rent....

Hon. Mr. Mair. What section are you on, Mr. Member?

Mr. Barnes: Pardon me. Again, I must be ahead of myself, but you know which one I am talking about.

Hon. Mr. Mair: Yes, I just can't find the section.

Mr. Barnes: It's the 50 cents thing, but we will get to that one.

Section 32 approved.

On section 33.

Hon. Mr. Mair: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 33 as amended approved.

Sections 34 to 39 inclusive approved.

On section 40.

Hon. MR. MAIR: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 40 as amended approved.

Sections 41 to 44 inclusive approved.

On section 45.

Hon. Mr. Mair: Mr. Chairman, I move the first amendment standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Hon. Mr. Mair: Mr. Chairman, I move the second amendment standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

On section 45 as amended.

Mr. Wallace: Mr. Chairman, I am really concerned about section 45 (3) (d) in regard to the rentalsman. That reads as follows that: "The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may suspend the rentalsman where he has engaged in dishonourable personal conduct." I'm really fascinated to know who is going to really decide about dishonourable personal conduct. That, to me, is an incredible assumption regarding human rights. Here we have a man or woman who has been given this incredible range of discretion and authority as a rentalsman, and we have already discussed that.

Hon. Mr. Mair: That's the reason.

Mr. Wallace: Yet the cabinet would apparently have the right to suspend this person on the basis of their judgment of dishonourable personal conduct. I can see the others such as (a) , (b) , (c) , (d) , (e): "physically or mentally unable"; "convicted of a criminal offence"; neglected to perform these duties, and so on. But this subsection (d) – "engaged in dishonourable personal conduct" – really fascinates me in the particular age in which we're living where morality, as we've discovered in the area of pornography, and what is obscene, – or what is pornographic, or what is acceptable to mores of our present society are extremely difficult to define.

[ Page 5112 ]

Here we have a man or a woman fulfilling an extremely important role in society with an immense amount of discretion and authority who is liable to lose his or her job because the cabinet considers that person is engaged in dishonourable personal conduct. I would like to know what the minister envisages as the kind of dishonourable conduct that would be so undesirable or unsuitable that the cabinet would suspend the rentalsman.

HON. MR. MAIR: This particular clause, if not a direct steal, is almost a direct steal from the Provincial Court Act. I think that the qualifications for rentalsman, as enunciated by the member for Oak Bay, are ample evidence as to why we have to have a man who is above reproach. When I say "above reproach, " without meaning any disrespect, I am sure we have provincial court judges whose personal lives are not perhaps what the vicar would have liked or what some people would think is a "proper" personal life. There have been divorces and things of that nature. Nobody would suggest for one moment that that would be dishonourable conduct.

But when you're dealing with a man who is, as the members have pointed out, involved in the lives of 500,000 tenants and however many landlords there are, there must be a standard at least as high as that of a provincial court judge. We are imposing upon him the same as imposed in section 17 of the Provincial Court Act, which says: "The following matters may be considered whether or not a judge or justice should be removed from office: (d) dishonourable personal conduct by him." So we're trying to impose upon the rentalsman, Mr. Member, the same standard of conduct we impose upon a provincial court judge.

Mr. Wallace: I'm not a lawyer, and I just would like to know who decides that a judge has failed to meet the standard. What cases do we have for the enlightenment of the opposition as to judges who have lost their office as a result of dishonourable personal conduct, and what were these examples?

I'm not trying to be awkward. I thought this thing over very carefully and I can't think of too many situations where it would be at all easy or agreeable to a majority of people to suspend a man in this particular role in public life under this definition. How many judges have ever been suspended for dishonourable personal conduct, and what was the dishonourable personal conduct?

Hon. Mr. Mair: I can't answer the question as to how many judges have been suspended from their positions. I do know of supreme court judges. It's a very difficult thing. It's a joint resolution of both Houses of parliament, as I understand it, and only one ever came close.

But as I understand the Provincial Court Act, it's a judicial council which makes the decision, which I think is a somewhat less responsive body to the people of British Columbia in terms of being subject to their whim than the cabinet of the government. I might say, Mr. Member, that there are scores, if not hundreds, of precedents as to what amounts to dishonourable or improper conduct on behalf of a judicial official. I would think it would be very difficult for any cabinet to suspend a rentalsman for other than very, very good cause, particularly in a House such as this where the rights of individuals are very jealously guarded by its members. Quite frankly, Mr. Member, I would not want to face you or any other members opposite if the cabinet had not exercised this particular power vested in it very wisely indeed. I don't think that when one really looks at it, it can cause much concern. The rentalsman has to be a man above reproach. I think he has to be a man at least equivalent to a provincial court judge. He's called upon to perform equivalent duties and he ought to be dealt with by equivalent standards.

Mr. Wallace: I just wanted to move on to subsection (9) dealing with the renovation of the delegation which is not subject to the Public Services Labour Relations Act. I would like to know, since this is quite a dramatic and unique situation where it would appear that the rentalsman can fire his staff, who then do not have any grievance procedure as a consequence of subsection (9) , if I'm reading it correctly. First of all, perhaps, I should ask the minister if I'm correct in that interpretation of subsection (9) – that the rentalsman can fire anybody under him, and that person will not have any access to a grievance procedure under the Public Service Labour Relations Act. Is that a fact or am I exaggerating the interpretation of subsection (9) ?

Hon. Mr. Mair: My understanding is that they do not lose their job under those circumstances, but they cannot act as a rentalsman or a deputy rentalsman under those circumstances.

Mr. Wallace: Could I just ask. what the actual situation is regarding such a person, in relation to the salary, the fringe benefits and the whole works? Presumably they would be reallocated to some other job within the rentalsman's office or within the public service.

Hon. Mr. Mair: They would retain all of those benefits and they would be given equivalent employment either in the rentalsman's office or elsewhere.

Mr. Chairman: I recognize the second member for Vancouver Centre.

[ Page 5113 ]

Mr. Levi: Could the minister tell us. . . ?

Mr. Chairman: I'm sorry. I recognize the second member for Vancouver Centre.

Mr. Levi: I'm the second member for Vancouver Centre. Can't you tell the difference? (Laughter.)

Hon. Mr. Mair: You're wearing a blue suit. I can tell.

Mr. Chairman: No, you're the second member for Vancouver-Burrard, hon. member. You're in a different pew.

Mr. Barnes: I'm only going to be a second, hon. member.

Further to what the member for Oak Bay was discussing, I would like to ask about the problems that the rentalsman obviously has in dealing with this contentious question of demoting someone, yet they are not being completely fired, but, for whatever reasons, having to make an assessment of their work, their effectiveness, or whatever, in carrying out the judgmental role they have as delegates under his office. Is this not more reason why the rentalsman's office should be subject to review by the Legislature as a whole rather than by appointment, as it presently is, and that he should be pretty much the same as the ombudsman?

Hon. Mr. Mair: Mr. Chairman, I don't think it would be appropriate for me to debate that last point at this stage of the proceedings. Let me point out to the member that we're not talking about a demotion at all; we're talking about the removal of a delegated power which of course is, as we have mentioned tonight on. many, many occasions, a discretionary power. I think that that's the distinction.

Mr. Barnes: Nonetheless, a person is hired as a prospective delegate to the rentalsman. He's not hired in any other capacity. He comes in at that position and, be it for more or less money, it's the prestige of the position that attracts him. They do come in as delegates to the rentalsman but they could be put someplace else, which is a demotion of sorts.

Hon. Mr. Mair: Well, I certainly don't want to split hairs, Mr. Chairman, on words and terminology, but by no means are the only jobs in the rentalsman's office rentalsmen. There are 60-some-odd senior employees within that office, some of whom receive delegated powers from time to time. I don't think it could be called a demotion, but I won't argue with the member that a person who was a deputy rentalsman and now isn't may feel somewhat chagrined. But I think the member would also agree that in this very delicate area of landlord-tenant relations we must be sure that we have people who to both sides of the dispute appear to be aboveboard, unbiased, and so on. We must therefore, when we're handing our discretion, be able to withdraw that discretion.

Mr. Levi: Mr. Chairman, we've identified a very unique person here. He has to be above reproach; he has to be almost equal to a provincial court judge; he has to be able to walk on hot coals. Now doing all of this incredible work that they do, how much do you pay them? What is the range of pay for a deputy rentalsman – the bottom range and the top range?

Hon. Mr. Mair: I can only give an approximation on such short notice, Mr. Member, but I'm instructed that the range is a broad one with a low of around $22,000 and a high of about $35,000.

Section 45 as amended approved.

Sections 46 to 50 inclusive approved.

On section 51.

Hon. Mr. Mair: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendments standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendments approved.

On section 51 as amended.

Mr. Wallace: I just wanted to say briefly, Mr. Chairman, that this is a section which sums up my personal reservations and concerns. Without going through the whole section, there are subsections 2 (a) to . . . well, we've run out of letters actually. There's (s) , (t) , (u) , (v) , (w) , (y) , (z) , and then (aa) , (bb) , and so on. It just emphasizes in this section the tremendous authority, responsibility and demand which this new bill is placing on the rentalsman. All I can say to the rentalsman is: the very best of British luck.

Section 51 as amended approved.

Sections 52 to 55 inclusive approved.

On section 56.

Ms. Brown: Section 56 (6) , Mr. Chairman, is the statute of limitation section. The notice for application has been cut from 30 days to 15. The time for dispute has been reduced at a time when with every other group in society we are extending the statute of limitation. The statute of limitation for doctors, for example, goes something like two

[ Page 5114 ]

generations, you know. My husband has been served notice not to destroy any records for 40 years after he's dead. We have to keep his papers around.

Interjection.

Ms. Brown: No, it's been extended. His lawyers have said: "For 40 years after you die, you better not destroy any papers."

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Please address the Chair.

An Hon. Member: Don't exaggerate, Rosemary. It's 10 years.

Ms. Brown: It's 20 years. But in any event, while that is happening to a once deprived and depressed segment of the population, Mr. Chairman, we find this being reduced from 30 to 15 days. Now what is that? Really, it should be extended, not reduced.

Hon. Mr. Mair: I think, Mr. Chairman, the best answer I can give to this is that in a number of cases, albeit isolated, but, after all, all cases under sections like this are isolated, there have been abuses. Apartments have remained without rent having been paid for them for extended periods of time by reason of the fact of the 30-day notice. Fifteen days is ample time, in the view of the government, for people who are in a dispute and know that they are in a dispute about something that is on a month-to-month basis, to come to sufficient grips with the problem to file an appeal with the rentalsman in the event of an unfavourable decision.

It's only a question of opinion, But I can only express the opinion, as I say, that 15 days ought to be ample for two people who are locked in some sort of a combat over a place where a person lives to come to grips with the problem of appeal.

Ms. Brown: That's really a strange statement, Mr. Chairman, coming from someone with expertise in the law. Fifteen days is enough? In fact, what has happened to this piece of legislation is that there is no uniformity. One day for this, five days for something else, 15 days for something else, 30 days for something else. It's a very ragged bill.

For goodness' sake, make it 30 days for everything – 30 days if you are late with your rent, 30 days if you want to file against a dispute, 30 days' notice for termination. Let's use 30 days for everything. There is no justification for cutting this thing in half.

The minister said he wanted to have some kind of balance in terms of the rights of the landlords and the rights of the tenants. I think he's gone overboard on this and it's frivolous. Thirty days is an accepted number of days for filing all kinds of complaints. Now he has not been able to justify why he decided to cut it in half.

Sections 56 to 58 inclusive approved.

On section 59.

Mr. Barnes: I take it that the reason for a quorum of one is because the commission consists of only two, is that correct?

Hon. Mr. Mair: I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you.

Mr. Barnes: What's the reason for a quorum of one under section 59? Talk about dictatorships! We've got a high-handed rentalsman. I notice in section 59 (3) that "a quorum shall be one." I like that. Could you comment on that?

Hon. Mr. Mair: There only are two members, so I think that 50 per cent is a pretty fair quorum under those circumstances. It would be hard to make it any more without making it 100 per cent.

Sections 59 to 63 inclusive approved.

On section 64.

Mr. Barnes: In section 64 (l) (b) , landlords and tenants should have the right to hear relevant comments from the other party. I'm wondering if the minister would like to comment on that section.

Hon. Mr. Mair: I think that 64 (2) covers the concerns that you have expressed.

Ms. Brown: Why did you use "may" instead of "shall"?

Mr. Barnes: What section did you say covers it?

Ms. Brown: Section 64 (2) , but he said "may" instead of "shall."

Mr. Barnes; Maybe we should read this. This is "evidence, hearings and powers." It says: "In a matter before the commission, the commission may confer with the landlord, tenant or any other person, together or separately."

Ms. Brown: It should be "shall."

Mr. Barnes: Does that mean that it's his decision or is it something that he's committed to do? Or is that a requirement? In other words, saying "may" isn’t really a commitment.

[ Page 5115 ]

Hon. Mr. Mair: I think that this has to be permissive rather than mandatory because, after all, there may be nothing for the commission to concern itself with. It has to be "may." How could it be anything else?

Section 64 approved.

On section 65.

Mr. Wallace: Mr. Chairman, this is the "prescribed" section where everything's prescribed by the cabinet. The word "prescribed, " I think, is used no less than nine times in this section. This is the section, I think, that we should all be most concerned about, because although we accept the minister's appeal for flexibility and the capacity to respond to changing circumstances promptly, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, the authority and discretion extended to this section 65 is really total. I don't want to take a lot of the time of the House to quote chapter and verse.

To ask one or two specific questions, I notice that subsection (2) in particular, I suppose – and I'm assuming and would appreciate the minister's verification – deals with the other bill before this House which will not now be proceeded with. Could I ask therefore whether or not the government still intends to prescribe 7 per cent as the maximum? In other words, while we will not deal with the other bill specifically, subsection (2) states that:

"... no landlord on or after May 1,1977, demand, collect, or attempt to collect . . . an amount ... more than a prescribed amount, greater than the amount charged for an equivalent rental payment period ... on the date the last increase in rent became effective." So can I confirm that it will be 7 per cent?

Secondly, I'm very interested to know what procedure the minister will be recommending to tenants such as one of my staff, who was charged a 10.6 per cent increase a couple of months ago and has been paying it. Presumably, she's entitled to a rebate. I'm just interested to know how the individual tenant will be informed, if at all, by the government after this bill has passed as to the most appropriate way to get their money back. Do they just deduct the appropriate amount from next month's rent and try to straighten out the situation in the next payment subsequent to the passing of this bill? Is there any provision for interest to the tenant who has been paying a 10.6 per cent increase in the last two or three months and, in fact, should not have been paying that particular increase?

I don't know whether you want to cover that first. There are other questions later on in the section that I'd be interested to....

Hon. Mr. Mair: I'll deal with those now, if you like, and then we'll carry on. Perhaps I can just deal very quickly with those points. The answer is yes. It will be 7 per cent as of May 1, as announced before. The provisions in subsection (6) set out the rights of the tenant to reduce subsequent rents by the amount of the overpayment. We will be going into an advertising programme, Mr. Member, to bring these provisions to the attention of tenants.

There is no provision for interest. I suppose that technically a very strong argument could be made for it. However, it would be a very minor amount of money. I would think that from both the tenant's point of view and the landlord's point of view it might be more of a nuisance than a benefit, although, with typical Caledonian parsimony, I agree that it properly ought to be that way. Your forebears and my forebears would have fought wars over lesser things. But the answer is no, it's not there.

Mr. Levi: Section 65 (8) (g) – that's the big one; that's the decontrolling one. That's the one that prescribes "residential premises or ... classes of residential premises within a prescribed area." This is the one which he referred to regarding decontrolling of rents when he introduced second reading. We've expressed very specifically that we're opposed to the bill. This is basically the reason, because this is the decontrolling section.

Now how is the minister going to do this? What kind of criteria are they going to use to designate an area as one that will not come under the controls? I'd be interested in that process, and then I'll perhaps ask some more questions.

Hon. Mr. Mair: Perhaps, Mr. Member, the best answer I can give is the same way that porcupines make love – very carefully and very slowly.

Mr. Levi: Well, you ain't going to get away with that one. We're not interested in how porcupines make love. If a couple of porcupines were to read this section, they'd give it up for life.

I'm somewhat skeptical about this section. The minister tells us that they're going to go at it very carefully. They must have thought something about this section. You don't just take a look at a map, put a pin in it and say: "This is where we're going to take off the rent controls in the area."

I presume that the department or the minister has thought very seriously about that, if, for instance, you decide to decontrol a particular area of the province. First of all, I would think that that's some kind of a red signal to the developers, who might say: "My gosh, we should go look in there and see if there are any apartment blocks for sale!" I'm not talking

[ Page 5116 ]

about building, because in the building aspect they've always been excluded. There's a five-year period. You don't have to have rent controls on new buildings,

But aren't you going to create an incredible amount of...? For instance, you could get flights of capital from one area where it's needed. But you know, if it's only in an area down the coast, where they're going to rush up into an area to try and take advantage of the decontrolled rents, then you might be within that area. I presume you'll have to think about this – that you could very well be looking forward to some kind of development. Therefore, you're going to bring in people who are going to work there. You may need trained people, and one of the biggest disincentives to going into an area that's decontrolled is the fact that rents will shoot up. We've seen what's happened, for instance, in areas in Alaska where they've had new towns. Now surely the minister's got to give us some idea about how they're going to go about this kind of thing.

It's my opinion that you're probably not going to do this at all, that you are simply indicating to the landlords and all of those people who supported you, that we said, sotto voce, that we're going to get rid of all this stuff and have this free-enterprise stuff. The minister's not in favour of rent controls anyway. But how are you going to do it? You're going to create an incredible amount of chaos in this province if you decide that you're going to go to one particular area and decontrol. Now you may have a formula, but I don't understand it. I think your agenda is simply to indicate that at some particular time – maybe just before an election – you're going to dump the whole shooting match, not just the decontrolled.... So you must have some kind of formula which you're thinking about. If not, then I would suggest that it's a wholly political decision.

Ms. K.E. Sanford (Comox): Mr. Chairman, I would like to pose a similar question to the minister, with respect to the 7 per cent that he has assured will be applied as of May 1. Now it seems to me that because the minister is able to take rent controls off wherever he sees fit, I hope he will explain how this is going to be done. Those are very valid questions asked by my colleague, the second member for Burrard.

It seems to me that he's able to say that this area doesn't need any rent controls at all; this area will be covered by a 7 per cent control; but there's an area in between that's almost ready to have controls taken off, in the minister's view. Will he then say that rent controls in that area will be 3.5 per cent until sometime in the future, when they can come off? Because there's nothing I can see in this bill that would say if you're going to have rent controls apply, they shall be at 7 per cent throughout the entire province.

I have visions, Mr. Chairman, of a small community like Comox having 7 per cent applied; Courtenay, 6 per cent; Cumberland, 8 per cent or 3.5 per cent or whatever other figure. Now what guarantee is there in this legislation that the minister, who now has the authority to set the rent and to take it off if he likes ... to say, well, there is an in-between section and that he could apply various rent controls throughout the province. I would like some clarification on that as well.

Mr. Barnes: Mr. Chairman, we're probably not setting the province afire with this debate, but I think it's nonetheless pretty vital. This is a section which I have been most concerned about, and I must reflect on the many times I've inquired of this minister, in the hope that he would reconsider the wisdom in which he sets May 1 as the effective date, particularly for the 7 per cent. Now I'm not that concerned about the rest of it, But as you know, Mr. Chairman, the Residential Premises Interim Rent Stabilization Act, introduced by the previous administration, was January, 1974. In January of the following year, we changed the allowable amount to, I think, 10.6 per cent which also....

We had intended on January 1,1976, to reduce this again, to 8 per cent. The logical sequence was every 12 months. The minister, in his wisdom, has chosen May 1. Now May 1, he says, was based on his experience. I'll just read a very short letter he wrote to a correspondent on April 26, in which he stated:

"Dear Miss:

"Thank you for your letter of April 4,1976, which the Premier has forwarded to me, as the research of potential changes in rent controls as well as administration comes within my jurisdiction.

"Although the 10.6 per cent was effective on the first of the calendar year this date was an arbitrary choice. The best information we have available has shown that operating costs for apartment owners have only recently been curtailed. Therefore to reflect this date and to avoid the problems of retroactive legislation, we have chosen May 1,1976, as the effective date for the 7 per cent limit."

That's interesting, because first of all he is suggesting that he wants to avoid retroactivity. He's indicating that one of his concerns is that of the operating costs for apartment owners. I suggest that the Minister, whether he intended it or not when he wrote to this correspondent April 26, is now in a retroactive situation. It's strange that on April 26 he was thinking that he would have the legislation through by May 1, in order to avoid retroactive

[ Page 5117 ]

legislation. If his rationale for May I was trying to avoid retroactivity, then what is his argument in not going all the way back in January 1, which is a just proper and only date, to avoid the mess he's going to create for the Rent Review Commission and the rentalsman, once this Act is enacted? Believe me, those people who had established their anniversary date for paying rent on January I of each calendar year are going to find themselves deprived of the benefits of this legislation if they didn't receive notice by the end of January or February 1 to get it in under the 90 day notice to qualify for this May 1 date that you have chosen, and that's unfair.

Those people who have been so bypassed will not only have been stuck with that rent increase of 10.6 for that year 1975-76, but will be caught with it in '76-'77 and will have it again in '77-'78, right around until the anniversary date, whenever it may come. That could be as much as 13 to 20 months at 10.6, instead of 12 months, and that's not fair. I am asking the minister why he does not go all the way back to January 1. You're in a retroactive situation; the argument is already quashed as far as you’re saying that you're trying to avoid a retroactive situation. That's over now. The rentalsman and the Rent Review Commission will have plenty of problems trying to deal with the situation as it is, not to mention those persons who have a legal right to a refund, as well as landlords who may have some rights as well in settling their tenancy agreements. You're talking about maybe 300,000 arguments across this province. It is potentially an incredible situation that you have. I think that there needs to be some indication of how you intend to resolve this matter and what kind of machinery will be set up. Will there be a system whereby people can expedite their questions, their disputes? Will you promote? Will there be ads in the paper telling people of the coming into effect of this Act to ensure that they are protected? I think that the responsibility is on the minister to take the initiative on behalf of those people, both tenants and landlords. You made the announcement. You had the headlines, and now you've benefited from the headlines and got everybody excited. They got nothing. Are they going to get it late, and will you be fair?

Hon. Mr. Mair: Mr. Chairman, dealing with the questions raised by the second member for Vancouver-Burrard. Mr. Chairman, I'm sure that the House doesn't want me to get into the question of the principle of the bill or these sections again. The technical aspects of rent decontrol are, to be perfectly candid with you, Mr. Member, not completely solved at this point. We do intend, to start with, to spend upwards of $100,000 to get better statistical information from various areas. The new forms, and information which the Rent Review Commission will be getting after the passage of this Act, will give us a great deal more information upon which to make decisions. I would urge the members not just to read the sections in isolation, but particularly to read subsections (b) and (g) together, because you really art looking at two different things. You're looking at perhaps even more than that; there are types of residence, the rent for residence, and areas in which those residences are found. I concede that the job is not an easy one, but it's a job that we are committed to do and, in answer to the last member's comment, we will indeed do fairly. To answer the member for Comox, we don't intend to impose partial controls or different percentages here or there. There will either be rent controls in certain areas or there won't be.

The second member for Vancouver Centre has raised the question as to the May 1 date. I'm prepared to eat humble pie whenever it's necessary and say: "Sure, there are going to be some problems." I wish we'd passed legislation before May 1 to take care of that situation. Fortunately, I don't think those problems are going to be all that great. I think most tenants will be able to recover the excess by either diminution of rent paid hereafter or because the landlord is honourable and is going to pay it back or some other thing. There may be areas where it doesn't happen, and for that I am truly sorry.

But I think that you must remember, Mr. Member, that there is a great distinction between retroactive rent control and retroactive notification. The notification was given in April in advance of the change date so that landlords and tenants knew that as of May 1 there was going to be a change from 10.6 to 7 per cent. If we had at that time said that it will go back to January 1, we would have changed the situation that had already existed for a matter of five months. I think you will agree, if you think about it, that there's quite a distinction between those two situations.

But if you wish me to wear sackcloth and ashes, I will do so. I'm sorry we didn't get it passed beforehand. I'm sorry that the House leaders and the Whips and everybody didn't decide that that legislation should have come forward before May 1. But it didn't, and we are committed to the announcement we made, and we will pass that order-in-council.

Mr. Barnes: You think you're sorry. The tenants are the ones who are going to be sorry, because it's going to cost them a lot of money. I certainly don't agree with your argument that if you had made the announcement earlier, it would have altered the situation in any way. You are the

[ Page 5118 ]

one who decides by whatever method justice will be done. All your legal interpretations of the situation and excuses are not going to change the fact that there will be about 25 per cent not benefiting from this legislation when it goes into effect. I know that you're not going to change your mind, because we've been through this before.

Could you tell the House as well, while I'm asking you, what the prospects are for an immediate increase of rents across the board when you decontrol certain communities? Do you think it'll go up 20 per cent, or 150 per cent, or 200 per cent? Do you anticipate any immediate skyrocketing cost to tenants?

The final question, Mr. Chairman. . . . As I was saying earlier on the wrong section, the 50 per cent rounding-off. . . . Is that an unusual way to deal with that problem? It seems to me that that gets into the question of value received. It may be for the convenience of the computer, but it seems to me that you're getting into legislation respecting how much rent should be charged. You are actually saying how much the rent should be, even though it's only with a maximum of 50 cents. But you are dealing in the cost one way or another to the extent of 50 cents.

Hon. Mr. Mair: Perhaps I can kind of work in reverse at this hour of the night and answer the last first.

Mr. Chairman, through you to the member, the question of the rounding off is one of great convenience to all, not just the rentalsman. I think you must understand that any error, even one cent, required a very costly process to be undergone by the Rent Review Commission. One cent could cost ... not hundreds, but I would say many, many dollars before the whole thing was sorted out. This way, there will be no problems such as your rent being $199.98. It will be $200 or reduced down accordingly. I think that all common sense indicates that we can't tolerate a situation in this day and age where we have our high-priced help – sure, they're high-priced help by most standards – occupied with 5-cent, 10-cent and 15-cent matters.

Skyrocketing costs in areas where we propose to decontrol – that's the very opposite of the idea, Mr. Member. We want to decontrol in areas where the vacancy rate is such that it warrants it. In fact, there is already a decontrol situation. There are many areas in this province right now.... Areas of Victoria are a very good example – I've used them before – where landlords have offered no-increase contracts, and memberships in clubs, and that sort of thing: "We'll pay your expense to move from your present premises to our premises." I know this doesn't exist in Vancouver East and it doesn't exist in Vancouver Centre, but it does exist in some areas. Those are the areas that we're looking at to decontrol.

Dealing with the May 1 date, you can go right back to the very beginning of' rent control and start finding inequities that have to get into a system by picking an arbitrary date.

Mr. Barnes: That's right. When it started, there were inequities, but then it levelled off. Now you're creating new ones.

Hon. Mr. Mair: There are bound to be inequities no matter when you effect any change. There are going to be inequities for some as opposed to another.

Mr. Barnes: Only once; that was a one-shot deal.

Hon. Mr. Mair: If you did it on January 1, there would be inequities, Mr. Member. It's an arbitrary date that you simply have to pick, and I can do no more. We can shout it back and forth across the House, you saying January 1 and me saying May 1, but that's the date we picked.

Mr. Barnes: It was picked. You created a new one.

Hon. Mr. Mair: We would have no matter what date we picked, Mr. Member. We can argue about that all night.

Mr. Barnes: January 1 would have been right on.

Hon. Mr. Mair: I can say no more than that, Mr. Chairman. May 1 is the date. Sure, it's arbitrary, but that's the only way you can do it.

Mr. Barnes: I just want to say one thing, Mr. Chairman. We've now reached a. point where 50 cents is correct; you're right. It's not worth a penny, and next year maybe you'll round it off to $5. What I'm suggesting is that to you, a penny may cost the government a lot of money to assess and deal with. But in terms of people's income, the implications of what you're suggesting are that we can't afford to deal in details that small. This has been the whole way this bill has been created – not dealing in small details to expedite a system that will be efficient. You've left a lot undone.

Sections 65 to 69 inclusive approved.

On section 70.

Hon. Mr. Mair: Mr. Chairman, I move the

[ Page 5119 ]

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

Amendment approved.

Hon. Mr. Mair: Mr. Chairman, I move the second amendment standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 70 as amended approved.

Sections 71 to 77 inclusive approved.

On section 78.

Hon. Mr. Mair: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 78 as amended approved.

Sections 79 to 83 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. Mr. Mair: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 86, Residential Tenancy Act, reported complete with amendments.

Mr. Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time?

Hon. Mr. Mair: With leave of the House, now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 86, Residential Tenancy Act, read a third time and passed on the following division:

YEAS – 25

NAYS – 11

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Hon. Mr. Mair: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to discharge the order for second reading of Bill 51, the Landlord and Tenant Amendment Act, 1977.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mr. Gardom: Committee on Bill 46, Mr. Speaker.

PESTICIDE CONTROL ACT

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 46; Mr. Rogers in the chair.

On the amendments to section 4.

Hon. J.A. Nielsen (Minister of the Environment): Mr. Chairman, I ask leave to withdraw the first amendment to section 4 standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Leave granted.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, I move the second amendment standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

On the amendment.

Mr. R.E. Skelly (Alberni): I would like to thank the minister for accepting the amendment substantially as I reworded it, and also the amendments to several other sections in this bill which were reworded after more careful consideration by the minister. I'm concerned, though, that a bill so poorly drafted should come to the floor of the House. I'm wondering if the minister would care to explain the process which the bill went through in order to get to the floor of this House in the state that it was in.

Mr. Chairman: Hon. member, it's not

[ Page 5120 ]

relevant under this section.

Mr. Skelly: Well, specifically with this section, Mr. Chairman, the minister admitted that the section didn't do what he had intended it to do. In fact, some of the things which the minister intended the section to do weren't even included in the section, and that's the reason why it had to be rewritten.

Mr. Chairman: How the bill was drafted is not a concern at this time.

Interjection.

Mr. Skelly: Yes, almost everybody in the province spotted it. When it was drawn to the attention of the government, with the exception of the member who was away in Norway, they immediately saw the problem and corrected it on the suggested wording from the opposition. I'm wondering if the minister would care to explain how a bill so sloppily drafted makes it to the floor of the House and makes it through the minister's office and through the minister's hands to the floor of the House.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, it remains the opinion of our legal counsel that the section as originally drafted indeed said what it said from a legal point of view. In consideration of the comments brought before this House by members of the opposition with specific regard to the wording of the original section 4, it became very clear that indeed many persons could have some difficulty in understanding what was meant by the wording. I don't consider it a major event that you can make a section of a bill a bit more clearly understood by people. I don't consider that an implication of mismanagement or poorly drafted legislation. I think it perhaps is significant that a government will listen to reasonable opposition and reasonable arguments. If the wording of an Act has upset a member of a party or a group of people....

Mr. Chairman: Order, please! Hon. minister, I called the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) to order because his debate was irrelevant; so is yours on this point. We are speaking to the amendment to section 4, and debate must be strictly relevant to the amendment.

Mr. Wallace: Mr. Chairman, I just want to support this amendment and I disagree with the minister. I think there is a major event involved here. It's the first time in eight years that I've ever known a minister to ask movers of an amendment to come to his office and discuss the amendment and I think the minister....

Mr. Chairman: Hon. member....

An Hon. Member: You're out of order too!

Mr. Wallace: Oh, let's not be so picky, for goodness' sake! We're always throwing dirt at the government for being unfair. Here is a situation where the minister took an initiative that brought in a better bill, for goodness' sake!

Amendment approved.

Section 4 as amended approved.

Sections 5 to 10 inclusive approved.

On section 11.

Mr. Skelly: Mr. Chairman, I'm wondering if the minister would care to explain why he didn't accept the recommendations of the royal commission into pesticides and set up a full pesticide control appeal and advisory board. This was a recommendation of the royal commission and it's also included in the Ontario legislation.

The pesticide advisory board, Mr. Chairman, advises the minister and the government on the progress of the Act, what sections of the Act should be changed and how the Act should be administered. Apparently that legislation is succeeding very well in Ontario and I'm wondering why the minister did not incorporate an advisory board as recommended by the royal commission.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen: The manner in which the bill was drafted and is being offered to this House is a manner which we feel is quite reasonable for this first attempt at bringing in pesticide control legislation in the province. It may be noted that in previous sections dealt with by this House, we'll indeed have a committee, made up of persons who are, in many different ways, very familiar with pesticides and the concerns about pesticides. We believe that committee may certainly – in fact, we certainly expect them to – offer opinions in an advisory capacity. I don't believe the possibility of an advisory committee is precluded by the legislation. Regulations will be brought in and that possibility may be there if we, through experience – perhaps in a year’s time or even less – discover that we require additional information. I feel that it's within our control to do this. We certainly will be seeking advice. We will be seeking intelligent information from persons who are familiar with pesticides and pesticide controls. I would say to the member that this does not necessarily preclude the

[ Page 5121 ]

possibility of establishing advisory committees.

Mr. Skelly: I wonder if the minister would care to explain, Mr. Chairman, just who will compose the pesticide control appeal board. Will it be people presently working for the government? For example, will this duty be assigned to the Pollution Control Board? Or will it be citizen professionals who will not only act as an appeal board, as they do in Ontario, but also as an advisory committee to the government? Will they be citizen professionals, or are they already employed by the government?

Hon. Mr. Nielsen: No members of the pesticide control appeal board have yet been appointed, nor have we decided on the specific personnel for that. I would believe that the pesticide control appeal board will be structured somewhat similarly to the Pollution Control Board, which does bring in outside people. In the Pollution Control Board, we do have people of different professions and different interests, and citizens, if you wish to call them that. All of them are citizens. But yes, there is no restriction on the members who may comprise the pesticide control appeal board, and we will be seeking a representative cross-section of our society, including those persons who do have expertise in this area.

Section 11 approved.

On section 12.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen: I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.) Mr. Chairman, I'd like to draw to your attention that the amendment on the order paper contains a mis-spelled word. The last word on the amendment is f-i-y-e-d. The word should be f-i-l-e-d.

Mr. Skelly: When we were discussing this section in the minister's office, one of the problems with the appeal procedure.... I did present an amendment or a proposed amendment which is on the order paper outlining an appeal procedure. The minister said that the department would take the procedure into consideration when drafting the regulations, and I can accept that.

But the one point of dispute between the minister's staff and the opposition was in subsection (5) – that an appeal does not act as a stay unless the board directs otherwise. The position of the opposition is that the citizens should always have the benefit of the doubt in the case of an appeal. When a citizen lodges an appeal and is accepted by the board, the appeal should act as a stay unless the board decides otherwise. So it simply reverses the procedure. It compels the board to meet and decide whether the appeal has any validity at all, or whether there should be a hearing on the question of a stay. It's extremely important, especially in the handling of pesticides and problems where the environment or the health of individuals may be damaged as a result of the application of pesticides.

The spruce budworm spraying programme in the Fraser Canyon is a good example, or the use of the pesticide which was recently drawn to the attention of the United States government. It caused sterility among the people handling it and cancer in animals that come into contact with it. Somebody could appeal to the board and by very active appealing have the very application of that pesticide stopped until the board was able to conduct a hearing and decide whether the pesticide should be used or not.

I think that the minister should consider an amendment to this section, and I would move the following amendment: "that section 12 (5) be deleted and the following substituted: 'An appeal acts as a stay unless the board directs otherwise.' "

Mr. Chairman. Hon. member, your amendment is an amendment to section 12 (5) but the minister's amendment is to subsection (1) . If we can pass the minister's amendment first, then we can deal with yours.

Mr. Skelly: Oh, I thought we had passed that and were on the section as amended.

Amendment approved.

On section 12 as amended.

Mr. Skelly: As I said before, Mr. Chairman, the reason for this amendment is so an appeal will act as a stay. It gives the appellant the benefit of the doubt and it also gives the government or the appeal board time to re-think a particular pesticide application where human health and environmental damage is involved. I would appreciate hearing the minister's response. It's a simple amendment but, again, it does provide the citizen the right to stop an application until a hearing has been held into that application.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, two quick comments with reference to that amendment. It can work both ways. An appeal does not act as a stay or an appeal does act as a stay – it depends on what you're attempting to do under this Act.

The member suggested that if someone wished to prevent spraying of a certain pesticide, an appeal would act as a stay. Similarly, if the administrator or some other person named in the Act chose to eliminate what they considered to be a hazardous

[ Page 5122 ]

situation, the proponent of that spray could appeal, and therefore the administrator's action or that of some other persons named would be stayed. So it balances off.

But I think perhaps the most important part of that particular line is "unless the board directs otherwise." I would suggest that we hopefully would have adequate trust in the board that, in the event that a situation is occurring and it appears that it would be adverse to health or dangerous, as the member suggested, the board would indeed direct otherwise. The appeal, as it says, does not act as a stay unless the board directs otherwise.

I would suggest that indeed the board would direct otherwise. But the main part of that thought – it can work both ways – depends really on where your emphasis is. I believe that the section as is is quite adequate and I cannot support that amendment.

Mr. Skelly: That's unfortunate, Mr. Chairman. It doesn't operate equally both ways. One of the problems is that in an emergency situation.... Again, this is where there is a problem between this Act, which basically approves in administrative fiat.... Things which are already existing now, this Act pretty well legalizes. The Ontario statute does provide for the administrator to act in an emergency, and his action immediately acts as a stay. Then it may subsequently be appealed. In this case, if there is an emergency situation, and if there is the problem of some harm coming to individuals or to the environment, that harm can continue until the board is able to meet and make a decision. Really, in this case, the appeal should act as the stay rather than the decision of the board.

If there is some problem where an emergency exists – and unfortunately this isn't covered by the administrator's powers under the Act as it is under the Ontario Act – this is going to have to be dealt with by the board. I suppose they could all get on the phone to each other and say that whatever is taking place can proceed until the appeal is heard. But I feel that to really protect the environment of the province and to protect the health of citizens of this province, an appeal against a particular application should constitute a stay, and it should compel the board to meet and to hold a hearing to decide whether the stay should continue.

Mr. Wallace: I just want to very briefly support the amendment, because I don't think that the minister's explanation about it working both ways is quite accurate, since it does not, in fact, apply equally both ways. The whole thrust of the bill, I think, should recognize that pesticides are a danger if we don't know all about them.

It's quite obvious as time goes by how often out knowledge is incomplete, and we find out later on about the dangers of this or that ingredient which is being used in society. It would seem to me that the onus should be in favour of protecting people. If it worked out that 75 per cent of the time the appeal was justified and 25 per cent of the time it was proved to have been unnecessary, then at least in these other cases you have immediately brought to a halt the use of a herbicide or pesticide or some practice that holds potential for real damage either to the environment or to the health of people. It would seem to me that it is not really much of an administrative inconvenience to implement the amendment that the member for Alberni has put forward, It seems to me that it just adds a reasonable measure of safety.

Amendment negatived.

Section 12 as amended approved.

Sections 13 to 19 inclusive approved.

On section 20.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 20 as amended approved.

On section 21.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

On the amendment.

Mr. Skelly: Again there was some disagreement between the opposition and the minister on this section of the Act. What this does is virtually legalize every application of pesticides that the minister feels should be exempted from the Act. An example is the spruce budworm spraying programme in the Fraser Canyon. The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council can now declare that an emergency exists. There's no public input at all. The amendment which I presented requires advice from the pesticide advisory committee, and also makes an emergency decision subject to appeal, so that it would limit the power of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to decline emergencies; throughout the province on a wholesale basis. There is that possibility that where a minister

[ Page 5123 ]

gets a bee in his bonnet that a certain area of the province should be sprayed, whether or not there is opposition to it throughout the province, and valid scientific evidence opposing the programme, or demonstrating that it may or may not proceed, or that it's a very questionable venture, the cabinet can simply decide that the programme goes ahead regardless and calls it an emergency. That eliminates any requirement for advice from the advisory committee or any justification before an appeal board. We feel that this should be included in an amendment.

Amendment approved.

Section 21 as amended approved.

Sections 22 to 26 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 46, Pesticide Control Act, reported complete with amendments.

Mr. Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time?

Hon. Mr. Nielsen: With leave of the House, now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 46, Pesticide Control Act, read a third time and passed.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:07 p.m.

APPENDIX

46 The Hon. J. A. Nielsen to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 46) intituled Pesticide Control Act, to amend as follows:

Section 4 to be deleted and the following substituted:

"Where, because of the size, location or nature of the land or body of water, to which a pesticide is to be applied, an unreasonable adverse effect could be caused by such application, no person shall, unless be holds a valid and subsisting permit authorizing him to do so, apply a pesticide to such area of land or body of water."

Section 4: By repealing section 4 and substituting the following:

"4. Subject to the regulations, no person shall apply a pesticide to a body of water or an area of land unless

(a) he has applied for a permit from the administrator to do so and the administrator, on being satisfied that the application of the pesticide will not cause an unreasonable adverse effect, has granted the permit, and

(b) he applied the pesticide in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in the permit".

Section 12 (1) , line 1: Add, "by any person" after the word "fiyed".

Section 20 (2): By adding the following after paragraph (h):

"(i) exempting a person, class of persons, body of water, or area of land from the application of this Act where the application of this Act may be unnecessarily restrictive."

Section 21: To be deleted and the following substituted:

"21. Where the Lieutenant-Governor in Council declares that an emergency exists, he may exempt or limit, for such time as he decides, the application of the Act."

[ Page 5124 ]

86 The Hon. K. R. Mair to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 86) intituled Residential Tenancy Act, to amend as follows:

Section 16 (1) , line 2: By deleting "except".

Section 22 (b) , line 1: By adding "extraordinary" after "has caused".

Section 22 (b) , line 2: By deleting ", other than reasonable wear and tear".

Section 33 (1) , line 12: By adding "or the rentalsman, as the case may be" after "to the tenant".

Section 40 (2) , line 2: By adding "or the rentalsman, as the case may be" after "to a tenant".

Section 45 (7): By adding "and" at the end of paragraph (a) , by deleting "and" at the end of paragraph (b) , and by deleting paragraph (c) .

Section 45 (12) , lines 3 and 4: By deleting "subsection (1) " and substituting "subsections (1) and (2) ".

Section 51 (2): By deleting paragraph (h) and substituting the following:

"(h) permitting a corporation to give a notice of termination under section 17 (4) ."

Section 51 (2) (m): By deleting "section 24 (5) " and substituting "section 25”

Section 51 (2): By deleting paragraphs (n) and (o) , by relettering paragraphs (p) to (z) as paragraphs (n) to (x) , by relettering paragraphs (aa) and (bb) as paragraphs (y) and (z) , and by relettering paragraphs (cc) to (gg) as paragraphs (aa) to (ee) .

Section 70 (3): By adding "or" at the end of paragraph (c) and by adding the following as paragraph (d):

"(d) where a method of reviewing and establishing rent increases has been prescribed under subsection (4) , establish a rent increase in accordance with that method."

Section 70 (4) , lines I and 2: By deleting "additional procedures for reviewing" and substituting "methods of reviewing and establishing".

Section 78 (1): By deleting "8 (4) , ", by deleting "9 (1) or (13) " and substituting "9 (1) or (11) ", by deleting "14 (1) " and substituting "14 (2) ", by deleting "18 (3) " and substituting "18 (4) ", and by inserting "44 (3) , " after "42 (2) or (6) ".