[ Page 2781 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Vancouver Island Energy Authority Act (Bill M210). Mr. Skelly.

Introduction and first reading –– 2781

Oral Questions.

Ocean Falls Corporation contracts. Mr. Barrett –– 2782

Water pollution. Mr. Gabelmann –– 2782

Northern transmission studies. Mr. Passarell –– 2783

Policing costs. Mr. Macdonald –– 2783

Student housing. Mrs. Dailly –– 2783

Recreation Association insurance coverage. Mr. Barnes –– 2784

Residential Tenancy Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 21). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 2784

Mr. Levi –– 2786

Mr. Gabelmann –– 2789

Mr. Barber –– 2790

Mr. Cocke –– 2795

Ms. Brown –– 2797

Mr. Mitchell –– 2798

Mrs. Dailly –– 2800

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 2800

College and Institute Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 15). Committee stage.

On section 4.

Mr. Lauk –– 2801

On the amendment to section 4.

Mr. Leggatt –– 2802

Mr. Nicolson –– 2802

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 2803

Mrs. Dailly –– 2803

Mr. Lauk –– 2804

Division on the amendment –– 2804

Division on section 4 –– 2804

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 4, 1980

The House met at 2 p.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I ask the House to join me in welcoming a very distinguished group of young Canadian and British Columbian citizens to our chamber today. In the gallery are the students from Eric Hamber school, who are the winners of this year's "Reach for the Top" program, which is a program shown on the CBC that allows students to show and develop their skills and exhibit the knowledge they've learned. As such they become to other students in their school a mark of excellence that they might well emulate. These students then become worthy....

I'm having difficulty with the word, Mr. Speaker. Obviously, I never won on "Reach for the Top." They become worthy examples not only to their classmates, but to parents and families in British Columbia. Let me introduce them and their coach individually. The students are Ethan Menovitz, David Freedman, Neil Chisholm and George Panagopoulos, and their coach is Veronica Deans. Would the House please join me in welcoming them and recognizing their achievement.

MRS. WALLACE: For every contest where there are winners there must also be losers, Mr. Chairman. I am delighted to have two groups of young people from the Cowichan Senior Secondary School here today who also competed in the "Reach for the Top" program. I would like the House to join me in welcoming the two grade 11 classes who are in the gallery, one at 2 o'clock and the other at 3, along with their teacher Mr. Wagg.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I would like to take the opportunity to introduce and ask the House to make welcome a former room-mate of the Leader of the Opposition: Jimmy Rhodes, a former member of this Legislative Assembly.

MR. BARRETT: When making an introduction, I don't often find myself indebted to the member for Langley. Jimmy was my room-mate and he was the one responsible for bringing a crow into the corridors at the time when we offered it up to the former Premier when he nationalized the B.C. Electric Company. Along with Mr. Rhodes is a prominent British Columbian, Mr. John Southworth.

HON. MR. CURTIS: All of us in this House are aware of the hard work and effort advanced on a day in, day out basis by locally elected representatives. From time to time we have mayors and aldermen from British Columbia's municipalities in the gallery and we welcome them warmly. Today it is my pleasure to introduce and ask the House to recognize a relatively newly elected member of a municipal council. I refer to Alderman Jay Rangel of the municipality of North Saanich.

MR. SKELLY: I would ask the House to welcome Doug Stewart, a former constituent of mine, and also ask the House to join me in congratulating him on his recent graduation from the University of Victoria law school.

HON. MR. MAIR: I would like to join in welcoming the students from Eric Hamber. I d like to take this opportunity of saying that wherever there is a winner there is also a runner-up, and this year's runner-up — and next year's champion — is Westsyde Secondary School in Kamloops.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: We have in the gallery today two constituents of mine from Sergeant Bay near Pender Harbour, Mr. and Mrs. Art Angell, and I ask the House to join me in welcoming them.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Two of the "Reach for the Top" contestants and winners are from Vancouver South, so there is a special welcome to them.

The caucus of the Social Credit Party had a delegation visiting today from the United Fishermen and Allied Workers' Union, and I would ask the House to welcome the members who were visiting with us earlier: Mr. Jack Nichol, Bill Procopation, George Hewison, Frank Cox, and Jeff Meggs.

MR. BARNES: With us this afternoon are two constituents of mine. Ken and Adrianne Hawse were recently married in New York, and I would like to ask the House to join me in welcoming them, and congratulating them as well.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Although there has been a lot of comment regarding the "Reach for the Top" program, I'd like to introduce three gentlemen who probably couldn't compete very well with the students. [Laughter.] However, their organization, the B.C. Dairy Council, does co-sponsor the "Reach for the Top" program. I'd like to introduce to the House and have it welcome Mr. Peter Friesen, from the Fraser Valley Milk Producers Association, Mr. John Pendray of the Vancouver Island milk producers, and Mr. Bill 1nglis from the B.C. Dairy Council.

MR. KING: I just wanted to briefly welcome back to the Legislature a prominent British Columbian who was conspicuous by his absence yesterday, the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips).

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, there are two people in the gallery today who were missed. I would like to have them welcomed by the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, with us in the gallery today is the ombudsman for British Columbia, Dr. Karl Friedmann. I now present and table his first annual statutory report. At the same time I would ask the House to welcome him.

Introduction of Bills

VANCOUVER ISLAND
ENERGY AUTHORITY ACT

On a motion by Mr. Skelly, Bill M210, Vancouver Island Energy Authority Act, 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.

[ Page 2782 ]

Oral Questions

OCEAN FALLS CORPORATION CONTRACTS

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, after a 24-hour delay, I would like to address a question to the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development. Can the minister tell the House when he was first notified that Ocean Falls Corporation would not be able to fill its contract with the Los Angeles Times?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I want to thank the member for the first question this session and advise him that due to the fact that it is a specific question, I don't have the date right at my fingertips. I would be most pleased indeed to take the question as notice and bring him back the information when I have an opportunity.

MR. BARRETT: Could the minister inform the House when he had an idea that there might be a problem with the contract — not the specific date, not the specific time, but in general terms?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition knows full well that I don't talk in generalities, that I always talk in specifics. He should know better than to ask me that question.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, now that we know the minister doesn't talk in generalities, can he tell us his full name within five minutes?

My second question to the minister is: was the minister consulted at the time the contract was signed between Ocean Falls and the Los Angeles Times in 1978?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, that is a very interesting question, knowing as I do the history of Ocean Falls. I remember when I was in opposition asking the leader of the government of the day questions about Ocean Falls and a contract that we were interested in. He didn't know anything about what was going on at Ocean Falls. I will certainly try to get the answer to that question for him; but he knows full well that we have people running Ocean Falls. The minister, because of his many and varied duties, is not privy to all of the day-to-day decisions that go on in every Crown corporation for which he is responsible. The Leader of the Opposition knows that. He knows it is just a trick question. I remember asking him questions when I was in opposition about the operation of Ocean Falls. Even Bob Williams, who was running it at the time, didn't know.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you very much for the trick answer.

The third question I have is very simple and plain — almost plain enough for everybody to understand. Is the minister prepared to table the contract signed between Ocean Falls and the Los Angeles Times?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, that is a very interesting question as well. I remember trying to get copies of a secret contract which somebody in New York was using as a go-between selling paper for Ocean Falls, when they were responsible for Ocean Falls. I want to tell the House and the public that the Leader of the Opposition, through trying to make politics out of a difficult situation and a very necessary decision on behalf of this government, is hampering the directors and the manager of Ocean Falls in what could be negotiations on a ticklish matter — no doubt about it. That Leader of the Opposition is still up to his old tricks. He's not interested in the province of British Columbia. He's not interested in the taxpayers of British Columbia. He's playing cheap politics.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the bending of the rules and a response from the minister. The minister, in his rhetoric, forgot the question. Is the minister prepared to table with this House the contract between Ocean Falls and the Los Angeles Times?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: As I said before, I'm quite willing to follow the precedents set in this House by the Leader of the Opposition when he was in government.

MR. BARRETT: Now that the minister is committed to tabling the contract, I would like to ask him if, to his knowledge, there are any other contracts that have now been terminated by the closure of Ocean Falls.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: There could very well be other contracts. Maybe the Leader of the Opposition would like to enter into negotiations that we're having with the other contractors so that he can make cheap politics out of what I say is a very difficult decision for this government to make, but one that had to be made because of the mess that outfit left us when they were government.

MR. BARRETT: I appreciate the answer of the minister. If he's inviting me to participate in the negotiations to clean up his mess, I would require the government to resign first, and that would be a fortuitous thing.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I didn't hear the last question.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: There was no question, hon. member.

WATER POLLUTION

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Environment. Residents of Campbell River are concerned that the pollution in Buttle Lake, which is already toxic to aquatic life, will find its way into their water systems. The first question is: can the minister inform the House as to the immediate action he has taken to safeguard the water supply of the Campbell River area?

HON. MR. ROGERS: No action whatsoever, Mr. Speaker.

MR. GABELMANN: The second question is: has the minister decided to advance the deadline that was set to end the obvious poisoning of that lake? Some time ago there was a deadline set — I believe 1983 — to have that lake cleaned up. In view of the obvious and urgent problem in the Campbell River area now, has the minister decided to advance that deadline?

HON. MR. ROGERS: I don't believe that the matter has

[ Page 2783 ]

been stressed with the urgency which the member has indicated. Some reports have come to me in the last couple of days which I'll be looking at, but so far I haven't made a decision.

MR. GABELMANN: Before I ask some other questions, I hope the decision is soon.

On another matter, to the same minister, Port Hardy's rainwater has traditionally been among the purest in Canada. The federal atmospheric environment service advises that rain samples collected there indicate increasing levels of acidity — acid rain, as it is more commonly referred to. First, can the minister advise the House what steps he has taken to investigate the cause of the increased acidity; and further, what action has he taken to eliminate the cause of the pollution at its source?

HON. MR. ROGERS: The first thing is to determine the source of the acid rain and the acidity. Until such time as that is determined it is not possible to make a decision.

I might tell you that in view of the question you asked me earlier on in the week and inquiries I made with the air management branch of the ministry, there are people on site now. The problem is quite a lot more complex than it would appear on first notice, and that's why I've taken your original question as notice. I hope to have a detailed answer to table in the House later on this week.

MR. GABELMANN: Has the minister decided to set up a monitoring program in the Port Alice area and in the surrounding lakes to determine the level of acid rain created by the excessive sulphur dioxide emissions from the Port Alice pulpmill? It is a bit more specific question than the minister was answering before.

HON. MR. ROGERS: I have asked members of the staff to go to Port Alice and monitor the situation and determine what the problem is, but I haven't made a decision as to whether there will be additional, permanent monitoring stations in the Port Alice area.

NORTHERN TRANSMISSION STUDIES

MR. PASSARELL: I have a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. Following my questions last week, can the minister advise whether he has checked with B.C. Hydro to determine whether any of the northern transmission studies were conducted without consulting various groups of people who will be directly affected by the project?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I took that question as notice, and I will be reporting in due course.

MR. PASSARELL: I have a new question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister advise the House if he has decided that any group which is not brought into the consultation process by B.C. Hydro will be adequately funded to conduct its own studies into the socio-economic impact prior to the public hearings?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you could ask that member if he could ask that question in English. I didn't understand it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: We have a request for rewording the question, hon. member.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Speaker, I'll speak a little bit slower for the older member. Can the minister advise the House if he has decided that any group not brought into the consultation process by B.C. Hydro will be adequately funded to conduct its own studies into socio-economic impact prior to public hearings?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, the question assumes that there is an answer to the first question that the member asked, and I've taken that question as notice.

I might just say at this point that wonder if we could get a ruling from the Speaker on questions taken as notice. It's really difficult to answer subsequent questions when a question has been taken on notice, until the time comes when the minister brings back the answer. I've given the undertaking that I will bring back the answer to the original question, and I will do so at the first opportunity, Mr. Speaker.

POLICING COSTS

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Attorney-General. The B.C. Police Commission made recommendations with respect to policing costs in municipalities. Has the Attorney-General decided to implement any of those recommendations to relieve the burden of costs on the local taxpayers?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the member is mistaken with regard to recommendations from the B.C. Police Commission with respect to such financing. The government has before it, as I have said publicly on a number of occasions, the results of an intergovernmental study into the question of financing police costs in this province, and that matter is under current and active review in association not only with those municipalities who have their own police forces but with respect to the policing of other areas in the province as well.

MR. MACDONALD: I think the Attorney-General is right that the thing was broader than the B.C. Police Commission, but how many things has he got under review at the present time? He's got more reviews than on the Great White Way on Broadway.

STUDENT HOUSING

MRS. DAILLY: A question to the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing. I think we're all aware that every September severe housing problems are faced by the students in our B.C. universities and colleges. Simon Fraser University projects a need of 400 units this coming September, and naturally they have on hand only 50 listings, most of which are in the high-rental category. My question to the minister is: what steps has the minister in charge of housing for this province taken to alleviate this chronic housing shortage faced by our students?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I'll take the question as notice.

[ Page 2784 ]

MRS. DAILLY: When the minister takes that as notice, I wonder if he would also be prepared to consult with his colleague, the minister in charge of universities and colleges (Hon. Mr. McGeer). We'll await very eagerly their reply, because I don't think the students can afford to wait too long.

RECREATION ASSOCIATION
INSURANCE COVERAGE

MR. BARNES: A question to the Provincial Secretary. I wonder if the Provincial Secretary is aware of a study recently conducted by the B.C. Recreation Association on the availability of liability insurance to the recreation commissions and associations. It was found that of some 84 respondents about 25 percent had no insurance whatsoever, and of those who did have, another 25 percent were underinsured.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for this question. I have some knowledge of such a report. I don't have any information arising from it, but I'd be glad to take the question as notice and report back.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to answer a question put on the order paper by the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) addressed to the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers). I regret the 24-hour delay, because of change of jurisdiction, in responding to Question 39.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call second reading of Bill 21, Residential Tenancy Amendment Act, 1980.

RESIDENTIAL TENANCY
AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Earlier this session I tabled the bill entitled Residential Tenancy Amendment Act, 1980. For the information of members in the House, the bill extends protection to those tenants who have had insufficient remedies against what have been considered as abuses in the present rental market, while simultaneously increasing the acceptability of landlord-and-tenant regulations to the investment community in British Columbia. Most of the changes reflect numerous meetings with tenants and landlords, individually and with their associations.

Over the past two years the rentalsman's office has conducted an in-depth analysis of landlord-and-tenant relations and the legislation which we have available for that purpose within the present market conditions. I appreciate that this is a controversial area of legislation and that no combination of amendments can possibly satisfy everyone. However, we in the ministry and in the rentalsman's office have attempted to remove the inequities which were identified facing both landlords and tenants and in most instances to simplify procedures for all concerned.

Before presenting the substance of the amendments I would like to summarize some of the issues that have been generated as need for changes.

The office of the rentalsman was set up towards the end of 1974 primarily to assist in the resolution of landlord-tenant problems within British Columbia. We strongly believe the best method of dispute resolution is where the two parties can simply agree on a resolution and work out their own problems, but there are so many situations and market conditions in which tenants do not have adequate bargaining power to reach a satisfactory resolution of a dispute on their own. Thus it falls upon the people working in the rentalsman's office to assist.

The rental housing market in our province has changed significantly in the past number of months. Our province, owing to its excellent economic growth relative to other provinces and owing to the appealing weather in the metropolitan areas, has attracted large numbers of people from other provinces. We have the distinction of perhaps the largest in-migration numbers in Canada. Concurrent with this influx of people, the federal government has seen fit to discontinue a number of tax incentives for rental housing projects, and mortgage rates, as we all know, have risen to record highs. This has left our province in the position of experiencing increased demand for rental accommodation and relatively decreasing supply. The lack of action by the federal government has resulted in its being unaffordable, in most instances, to construct rental housing to meet the demands in the marketplace.

As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, we now have one of the lowest vacancy rates in history. As a direct result, many problems between landlords and tenants have increased. Landlords are frustrated with the regulations and red tape that prevent them from making what they consider a reasonable return. Often tenants would rather fight than move, for a very good reason: there is very little, if any, opportunity to relocate. Some of the tenants without rent increase protection are experiencing serious hardships, and there have been some examples of this which have caused the ministry to respond by way of legislation change.

This environment has resulted in dramatic increases in workload for the office of the rentalsman. In Vancouver the workload has more than doubled in the past year. The rentalsman and his staff have been working very hard in attempting to cope with the workload, but it has increased significantly. The rentalsman has implemented administrative improvements that have resulted in an overall office productivity improvement of approximately 80 percent, but in spite of this the effectiveness of the rentalsman's office is to be increased, both in technical matters and by eliminating a great deal of unnecessary procedures and certainly unproductive procedures.

The first major change contained in this legislation is a retroactive extension of rent review. The government firmly believes that a free market ultimately functions best, and while we wish to move towards a market in which rent controls would be redundant, we recognize that at this time such controls are required in reflecting the realities of today's market. Unfortunately some owners — mainly large, corporate owners — appear to have acted very aggressively in today's market, and would appear to have taken advantage of the rental shortages. That action leaves the government with no alternative but to provide some protection for those people who are in the unfortunate position of receiving notices of extraordinarily high increase and yet are with very little protection. Most problems are occurring in buildings which were on the market after January 1, 1974. Therefore we propose to provide individual appeals to any tenant in these buildings who received an excessive rent increase on or after January 1, 1980.

That particular amendment is not intended as an extension of rent control, but rather as an extension of rent review.

[ Page 2785 ]

The rentalsman will recognize that rent adjustments are required in the early years of a building's life. Excessive rent increases probably will be reduced, such as where the rent clearly exceeds the market rent or an economic eviction is attempted. I say "probably will be reduced" because such decisions are the role of the Rent Review Commission. Certainly it is the intent of the legislation to provide him with those tools.

The second major amendment is the extension of the protection of the Residential Tenancy Act to occupants in hotels, motels and lodging houses where the occupant has lived or intends to live in the room either for a two-month period or on a permanent basis. These residents will be automatically covered by the act. Again, the shortages of rental housing have caused hardships for many of these people. Residents will be able to enforce maintenance, health and safety standards without fear of eviction.

It is a particularly difficult area to administer because of the traditions of this type of accommodation and, very often, the nature of the people who have such accommodation, many of whom are transients. Sometimes it is very difficult to accommo date the needs of such people in our society, but every attempt is being made within this new amendment. Excessive rent increases in such circumstances will be reviewable. We also recognize that we are changing some of the rules on the operators of these buildings, and therefore have included provisions by which security deposits can be collected, and most existing house rules, such as restriction of problem guests by desk clerks, can be enforced. Both residents and operators will obtain increased security under the proposed amendments.

The third major change is to give the rentalsman the ability to function similarly to a small claims court. Both landlords and tenants have complained that after the rentalsman has investigated a problem and reviewed all the evidence, he does not have the authority to resolve a claim by a tenant other than about excessive rent increases, nor can he resolve a claim by a landlord for more than the amount of a security deposit. Both parties also have complained about cumbersome procedures. Therefore we are proposing that either landlords or tenants, during or within six months after termination of a tenancy, may file a claim with the rentalsman for any amount that could be heard by a small claims court — currently this is $2,000. The party making a claim for other than the security deposit will have the option of filing with either the rentalsman's office or the small claims court. To discourage frivolous disputes that waste public funds by way of public time, there will be a $10 filing fee, as with the small claims court. Twenty-five percent of the claims currently reviewed by the rentalsman's office are for less than $25. A successful claimant will have the fee returned at the expense of the respondent. There will be no prescribed forms, and landlords and tenants will be encouraged to resolve matters on their own. Tenants will have some bargaining power if a landlord unlawfully retains a security deposit and a tenant subsequently files a claim. The landlord must respond, and would also be liable for the additional cost. We expect that both landlords and tenants will view this change as a much-needed improvement.

We have also made changes to reflect the current rate of inflation and current interest rates. While I appreciate that these changes could be made at a time when the Legislature is not in session, I believe these changes are a part of the overall package of proposed improvements. These changes reflect the country's real economy. We intend to relate the annual rent increase limit to the national rate of inflation. As you know, Mr. Speaker, it is a matter of regulation, and should, I think, reflect the actual costs incurred. In the past average rents have been increasing at less than the rate of inflation and less than the rate of wage increases. This has caused a great deal of frustration and difficulty for owners in meeting cost increases that had artificially made renting less expensive in real terms — that is, purchasing power had increased faster than rents, which has resulted in an increased consumption per person of rental housing. It seems fair that rents be allowed to rise consistent with other costs.

We've increased the incentive for landlords to make improvements to rental property by increasing the additional rent increase for renovations from 12 percent of the cost of the improvements to 18 percent of the cost of the improvements. Again, that was to reflect the rising interest rates and general rising inflationary effect on improvements. It's not feasible for a landlord to finance a major improvement project with a rent increase that would not even pay the interest on such costs.

Consistent with reflecting the current economy, the interest paid to a tenant on a security deposit was increased as well from 8 percent to 12 percent. Again, that's in response to the rates.

If we're to expect investors to build and meet our future housing requirements, we must have regulations that are acceptable to a reasonable person. Therefore in addition to increasing the acceptability of the rent control legislation, we've attempted to remove many of the technical and bureaucratic restrictions facing owners of rental property.

None of the changes have taken away the rights of a responsible tenant. Present tenants are not adversely affected by procedural simplifications, and future tenants will benefit from any moves that result in an improved environment in which rental housing can be constructed.

We're also proposing numerous miscellaneous amend ments to rectify injustices against tenants or landlords. Major simplification in amendments and in equity adjustment amendments include: merging the functions of the rentals man and the Rent Review Commission to improve the service to the public; increasing the flexibility, form and method of service of notices; the ability to correct technical errors in filling out forms or notices to avoid technical disqualifications; adding the ability for the rentalsman to not evict tenants who commit but quickly repair or rectify damage or breach the tenancy agreement; increasing the flexibility with respect to the date by which landlords must serve rent arrears notices; waiving the notice requirements for rent increase upon change of tenancy in a decontrolled unit; making it an offence for mobile-home parks to unreasonably restrict tenants from selling their mobile homes within the park; adding provisions to permit rent increases for mortgage re financing during the month the refinancing occurs; adding provisions by which the rentalsman can reimburse a tenant directly for making repairs that were the responsibility of the landlord; allowing owners to provide for liquidated damage claims when tenants move earlier than the date agreed upon; providing landlords with the option of dealing with abandoned goods, according to either the act or common law; allowing a new purchaser of a unit to coincide the possession date with the termination of the tenancy; reducing the time delays before giving notices for redevelopment or conversion of properties; allowing for earlier replacement of caretakers

[ Page 2786 ]

where employment is discontinued; increasing the rentalsman's ability to permit landlords entry into suites of irresponsible tenants; providing additional funds to the rentalsman to improve the level of service during a period of rental shortage.

There are also numerous other amendments of a housekeeping nature. We recognize that we can't possibly please everyone at all times in this rental market. I appreciate that it's not within the scope of these amendments to resolve either housing production problems or specific income problems. However, I believe the combined effect of these changes will both eliminate the abuse being experienced by unprotected tenants and improve the investment climate for new rental housing.

When the bill was first introduced in the House, it was reported that this was a response to resolve the rental housing problem in B.C. I would like to advise the House that it was never claimed by my ministry that indeed this would resolve the rental housing problem. The actions of governments at various levels will be required if we are to seriously attempt to resolve the housing problem, particularly in the rental field.

The amendments to this bill address the real difficulties which have been experienced. They have been identified by those two main groups who are affected, the landlords and the tenants. It is our belief that the amendments which we place before you will go a long way to resolving some of the very real difficulties experienced in this segment of the industry.

With those comments, Mr. Speaker, I move the bill be now read a second time.

MR. LEVI: Just off the top I will inform the minister we will be supporting the bill on second reading, but we have a number of amendments that we are going to offer later on.

There was one omission the minister made. I would have preferred to have heard him discuss to some extent a little bit of the philosophy of the government in respect to rent controls in general. We know that over the years the policy of the government has shifted from one of categorical support of controls, which was indicated during the 1975 election, and then some gradual removal of controls in 1978. We are looking to see where the government is specifically going in terms of rent controls.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

There is a great debate going on in the community in respect to rents — the problems of people on fixed incomes. And we also have, in that debate, what I feel are rather astounding remarks being made by so-called responsible people. I'd like to read an editorial that was in the Colonist on May 6, 1980, and then make some comments about it. The editorial is headed: "Rent Controls and Shortages."

My God, the Liberals are the only ones in the House. One, two, three, four, five, six. They're all Liberals, and one Socred. My God!

Anyway, to go to the editorial.... I'm sorry, eight! My God, I missed the Speaker.

HON. MR. GARDOM: He wants equal time.

MR. LEVI: He wants equal time? Okay.

Let me just read part of the editorial, and then I'd like to make some comments about it.

"There is a critical shortage of rental housing in both Victoria and Vancouver — and few new units being built.

"Against this background, consumer affairs minister Jim Nielsen said last week that while he favours the elimination of rent controls, that can only be achieved in a competitive housing market."

But it is the next paragraph that I want to make some comments about:

"Dr. Walter Block, senior economist with the Fraser Institute, said last month that rent controls are largely responsible for the shortage of rental housing. "

Now that represents a very significant opinion by some people — most of whom, I think, dwell about 14 blocks to the right of Genghis Khan. This is the argument that was offered as long ago as 1973, when rent controls came in, that somehow rent controls would act as a disincentive to those people who invested in housing. They do now, although they didn't at that time, talk about the fact that there were a number of incentives from the federal government in terms of the tax system — capital cost allowance, and the introduction of MURB — and that people were given the incentive to build. I would like Dr. Block to be able to demonstrate that somehow rent controls have been responsible for the shortage of housing. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the reason there is such a shortage of housing is that it is simply not profitable for people who normally build houses to build them. Then they have to examine very closely the nature of the economy and the fiscal policies that exist in this province that create mortgage rates which make it impossible for people to get into business. But to suggest, as Dr. Block suggests, that what we should do is remove rent controls....

Now the minister hasn't done that. He's tinkered a bit with the system, and brought in some very interesting amendments. Particularly the one relating to the small claims court is a very interesting move on his part; the rentalsman is going to have some opportunity to make some decisions about those items up to $2,000, and save the taxpayer an enormous amount of money — something that the former Attorney-General should have done a long time ago, but didn't. He didn't understand that kind of thing.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Are you talking about the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald)?

MR. LEVI: No, no, I'm talking about that fellow.

In respect to what would happen if there were no rent controls, it is probably one of the most horrifying things that one has to look at. If you completely removed rent controls, what would happen to tenants? I'm told that as a result of the increase from 7 percent to 10 percent — that is 3 percentage points, about a 40 percent increase in the allowable increase in rent — some $30 million will be transferred from the tenants' pockets to the landlords' pockets. Now if you were to remove all of the controls that exist, then no doubt we would be looking at a transfer of several hundreds of millions of dollars.

The difficulty in dealing with a bill like this, Mr. Speaker, is that it should really be accompanied — either by the minister who introduced the bill, or by the government as a general matter of policy — with something on how they are

[ Page 2787 ]

going to do something about the very serious problem of housing shortages. If you are going to do something in terms of creating an increase in rents.... Some people say it's very high, some people say it's not; it depends on which income bracket you're in. I don't think there is any doubt that in our province about 30 percent of the people who rent residences are on some kind of relatively fixed income or low income — people who are not covered by union contracts, people who are on pension, people who are on welfare. Of course, when you go from 7 percent to 10 percent, that's a very significant amount of money for them. People in those brackets usually have no discretionary funding at all. They have to pay their rent, their food and there's very little left over.

I would suggest that the majority of people.... I'm talking now outside of public housing. There's been virtually a complete stop over the last three or four years in the construction of public housing. Outside of that, most people are spending between 25 percent and 35 percent of their income on rent. The people who are going to be subject to that increase are going to feel the pinch. The only way that you can, in the long run, make it easier is by having in complement with this bill a general program by the government as to what it's going to do to improve the housing situation.

I'd like to pay a compliment to the rentalsman, Mr. Patterson. I've found him to be a very open and forthright man who has made a number of comments over the past several months, particularly in relation to the landlords that have decided that gouging is in their best interest. I'd like to remind the House that back in 1972 when we first discussed the possibility of bringing in rent controls, it was as a result of a large number of complaints that we got from people — particularly old people — after we introduced what was then the Mincome program. The extra money they got was being spent on increased rents. That was one of the things that was forcing us into the situation of rent control.

We now have a situation, and I think perhaps that's one of the shortcomings of the bill, where we are looking at very excessive rent gouging, particularly in the category of housing that was built after January 1, 1974, and is not covered by rent control, but will, under this bill, be covered in terms of the people being able to go and have discussions about the rents. It would seem to me that it would have been reasonable to put this segment of housing under some form of rent control. After all, of that amount of housing, the majority of it — I understand some 35,000 units — has been in the marketplace for five or six years and has been able to find some kind of rental level. Mind you, the top has gone up over the last several months and will probably continue to go up.

That particular segment, the area that is not controlled by rent control at all, is probably the one we should look at if we want to think about what horrors would be put on the public if we were to take off rent controls completely. All MLAs — I'm sure on both sides of the House — have had scores of letters from people who have been subjected to increases in rent anywhere from $25 to $250 more than they were paying at the time when they got their notices. That's in an area that was not controlled at all.

It's generally accepted that you can't continue to control rents and somehow make it easier for landlords to get a better return on their money. Nobody disputes the fact that they have to have that if they're going to continue in business. But that is not, in any way, going to offer an incentive because of what's in the rent control legislation — that somehow the housing market is going to boom because people will say: "Well, they're not going to put too much to us in terms of the legislation." What there needs to be from the government is a very specific program on how they're going to discourage the idea of having to constantly worry about rent controls and look into the business of creating some more housing.

Mr. Patterson, the rentalsman, made a suggestion. He said the government should provide subsidies of $90 million a year for the next eight years to encourage construction of rental units. All right, what was he talking about? Presumably he was talking about the federal or provincial governments putting a program into place. If you're dealing with a capital cost allowance, then presumably that $90 million would be shared with the federal government. There would be a provision of some 10,000 units. It's really only by that very massive infusion of money into the market, which has to be a government program.... There is no program coming from the federal government; it has to come from the provincial government.

Without commenting on the legislation that we've dealt with, Mr. Speaker, we did indicate earlier that if there are surpluses in the government it would do the government well to come in with surpluses relating.... One suggestion was made that we spend $160 million on housing for seniors instead of the $1 million that was looked at. If there is in fact a surplus, then there should be, as Mr. Patterson suggests, a massive infusion of money in terms of subsidies. Or as my colleague for Victoria said last week, whether it's a subsidy or it's welfare, it's public money going to do some kind of good. After all, welfare payments go directly into the economy; they don't go into the bank. In terms of the suggestion that there be subsidies, fine. There was a suggestion on his part that there be this kind of subsidy to start generating the kind of construction that needs to be generated. And everybody knows there are spinoffs. They know the jobs it would create in the construction industry and what a boon it would be in terms of the forest industry.

We saw at the beginning of the year the beginning of a program and the beginning of the government putting its foot as a public body into the private sector to do something about creating incentives in respect to mortgages — something that they long fought against and didn't want to do. They did not in any way want to interfere with the free market system. Because their solution was then — and I think is still now — very much the solution that Dr. Block has, to just let the market have its forces operating and everything will be okay. Of course he does not say "except for those people who simply aren't going to be able to afford the rents in the places where they're living." So there should be a companion bill or policy here, not just the bill that deals with some amendments. And some are good amendments; some of them do remove some of that horrendous bureaucracy. It's taken four or five years of operation of the rentalsman's office to reach the stage that it's come to in terms of its ability to adjudicate. And that's what it's doing, in fact. It's making these adjudications on the kinds of disputes which all of us know about, particularly MLAs, because we are constantly getting complaints from our constituents about what goes on with these kinds of complaints. Now it's become a very essential part of the operation of government and of the operation in terms of making communities function, because you have a rentalsman's office in these disputes. It can be resolved and this bill seeks to make the thing easier as well.

[ Page 2788 ]

Again, I return to Mr. Patterson's proposal, because you can't talk about this bill without talking about the other solutions that have to go toward improving the housing situation. The minister did say that this bill in no way was going to make it easier for the creation of housing construction, and that's quite true. But the idea of the subsidies in order to create the spinoff in terms of employment, in terms of what goes on in the forest industry, and all of the spinoff that goes into secondary industry for all the supplies that are necessary, can only improve the economy. The government is not noted for that involvement, except when it started in January to look at the mortgage market and it created a program of some $200 million, which is a very valuable contribution to the economy.

But despite all of this, Mr. Speaker, we still have the lowest vacancy rate in Canada, and this just didn't creep up on us. We went through this experience eight or nine years ago when we had a low vacancy rate — at that time because the government had removed the capital cost allowance. But the government of the day, the NDP government, had to get into the business of building houses. Somebody had to do it. Somebody had to create that kind of situation. There were incentives there, because I can recall at the end of 1975-76 we still had 3,500 or almost 4,000 condominiums that were not rented; that's not the situation now. We will fall 8,000 units short this year at least, and if, as the minister suggests, because of our wonderful weather and nice climate the people will continue to come to this province, it's going to be even more difficult. There has to be a plan.

It's very nice for us to be able to say that people come to this province because it's so lovely to live in, but every person that comes here has the potential to displace some person or family here, in terms of their ability to pay a higher rent than the family that lives here already and simply can't tolerate the higher rent. That becomes a difficult situation. The only solution to that is that there's got to be a creation of a larger housing construction industry. It's not happening, because the free market forces are not working, contrary to what Dr. Block says. The kinds of things that he talks about would create absolute chaos if we were to allow that kind of removal. The government hasn't done that, because it's got its ear to the ground listening and it knows that the whole issue of landlords and tenants and housing is a very sensitive one. People are becoming more outspoken about it now than they've ever been, because there are zero vacancy rates. There is nowhere to go; you are locked in. You will use money which you've classified as "discretionary money" to pay even bigger rents, because that's what's happening.

There are some improvements in the bill, I think, in respect to mobile homes. That is a segment of our population that has often been overlooked, and it's an important one. The move in terms of those that live in hotels — that's always a tough one, but they've attempted to come to grips with it. It's to their credit that they've done that, and we hope that it will work. I can recall that at one time, four or five years ago, we as a government thought that we could get that kind of responsibility without really legislating, by saying to people, as I recall saying to a group of hotel people in Vancouver: "You're in receipt of $300,000 a month in rent as a result of people on Mincome and people on welfare who live in your hotels and constitute some of the bread and butter of your hotels. Be more reasonable with these people. But it didn't happen. They've now found some remedy to this in terms of the amendment in the bill — something worthwhile.

Then we look at some of the deficiencies. I think I've covered particularly the one which relates to that segment of housing that is decontrolled: housing built after January 1, 1974. This is really creating incredible hardships for a lot of people. When you're suddenly faced with up to 50 percent increases — and that does happen — then you begin to wonder whether it's not time to find a mechanism where you've got to put this in some kind of control situation.

The minister has suggested that now they'll be brought into the whole business of discussion about whether the rent is adequate enough or not. Okay, we'll see what happens. We wish the rentalsman well and we hope that he'll have sufficient staff in order to do this, because it's an added burden. It's going to become something that he's going to have to deal with in a much bigger way.

Recently we had a case of a very large gouging corporation — I think that's all we could call them — who were taken to court. They were convicted, but in my opinion if you want to make the salutary example, which is always necessary, I think, in these kinds of cases, I would have looked to have seen a much more substantial fine than the one that was brought down. After all, they started out with more than 119 charges, but they dropped 119 charges. It would have served — and I hope it is serving — as a warning to people who are going to go out and gouge that out there is the rentalsman, who has the powers to seize their books and look at what they're doing, and if they are doing something wrong, as this corporation did, take them to court, and if they're convicted, see that they're punished.

Frankly, I don't find that fining somebody $2,000 in respect to an enormous kind of gouging and ripoff that took place in those particular cases was an adequate kind of sentence. I would hope that the Crown will review that, if it's possible, and appeal it. Nevertheless, I suppose it's a warning to other people. Some people have suggested to me that although the fine wasn't very high, the publicity probably has cost them a lot of money. But it was a good effort on the part of the rentalsman in respect to taking on one of these gougers. That's good. They got them into court and the facts came out. There are others out there that haven't been caught yet. The tragedy in our society is, I suppose, that even some of the big people who operate in the market system somehow don't seem to respond to the necessity that corporations should have social responsibility, and even more social responsibility when times are particularly tough. I have in mind the housing market, when people will take the opportunity to gouge every cent they can from people when they know that people can't go anywhere. So that example of how they can be protected, in terms of the rentalsman's office, was a very worthwhile exercise in something that presumably will have to continue if we're going to stop these people who continue to do this.

From time to time in this House we often say that we've got to have less regulation and less laws controlling our society, but when the economic times are very tough and we see the classical example of irresponsible people.... When the business community is doing what they do.... Well, they were brought to the bar, charged and convicted, and I hope that that will have some impact on the other people who are thinking of doing it. Of course, we're suggesting that the obvious way to avoid that particular problem is to look at bringing in some kind of rent control in that area. It's very important.

Mr. Speaker, the bill in itself does not represent any

[ Page 2789 ]

departure by the government in terms of where it stands on the issue of rent controls. I know that two years ago, when it was amended, the minister of the day — the predecessor to the present minister — indicated that the housing market was looking better. In fact, we even heard from, the present Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), when he was the Minister of Municipal Affairs and was responsible for the housing corporation, that things were going so well that they wouldn't even need the housing corporation any more. Well, they were told then. They didn't produce the information for us. We asked at that time: "You're amending the act and you're decontrolling certain aspects of the housing market. On what do you base this?" Well, there was nothing forthcoming in terms of that. We don't need too many reports today to know. Everybody knows somebody who is looking for accommodation. We don't need a great study. But in those days, two years ago, there was a great deal of optimism from the government that there would be no problem about housing. The situation hadn't changed very much over the past two years. They failed to do anything about improving the housing market. Now we are brought to the situation where we are simply looking at the protection of tenants.

There will be some disagreements and we will offer some amendments with respect to some of the small items that are in the bill. There are some tenants who are not going to be happy with the bill as it is. The people who are not going to be happy are obviously the people on fixed incomes; the 40 percent increase in their rent is a tough proposition for them. But I suppose, in looking at the whole spectrum of people who rent, on balance there are some worthwhile features in the bill. We would hope to make our contribution by adding some amendments to round out the bill.

Before closing I just want to enlarge a little bit. I am sure the minister is aware of Mr. Patterson's remarks. When he outlined his program, when he talked about the need for the government to provide a subsidy, he really outlined a three point program to eliminate rent control. He was looking down the road at when we would not need to have legislation like we have today. The three-point program really called for production of a subsidy of $200 a month for each new rental unit, declining by $25 a month each year and to be written off over eight years. That is a significant investment in the future, but all of it will come back into the economy. He added that rents would be allowed to increase with the rate of inflation, and that subsidies for pensioners and other lowincome renters would be reviewed. A point the minister made was that the rent increase from 7 percent to 10 percent is not even in keeping with inflation, which is a factor which obviously is something that has to be considered.

He also talks about developers not profitably constructing new rental units unless revenue exceeds $600 a month. Without production subsidies, rent required for new apartments would be between $600 and $800 a month. That is a pretty horrendous thing to envision — $600 to $800 per month, when the take-home pay of most people in this province is anywhere from $900 to about $1,300 per month. With $600 to $800 per month in rent, we could see what kind of problem we would soon be having. Food prices are not any better. Remember, Mr. Speaker, that we said long ago in this country that if you pay more than 70 percent of your income on housing and food you are living on the poverty line. With those kinds of rents envisioned, that is where a significant number of our people would be. That is something we have to think about and avoid, and not simply sit by and somehow hope that only the federal government is going to bail us out. We've heard from the government that they have large surpluses, which could very adequately be put into the development of a large housing creation so that we could get away from the Pharaoh-like dreams of the government — a tunnel that runs across to the Island and a large B.C. Place, which really do not make the contribution that housing makes to our society.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Exactly, Mr. Member. My colleague said it — tunnel vision. They want a tunnel. That is what they are in favour of. What we want is to take some of the surplus....

The greatest tragedy in this province will be at the end of this fiscal year when that government over there is going to have a billion dollars in the bank. It will be a terrible tragedy for all the people, particularly the young people who are looking for housing. This government constantly looks to the federal government to bail them out. We have a number of western separatists over there and they are looking to the federal government to bail them out.

MR. MACDONALD: When are you going to put a leash on Dr. Science?

MR. LEVI: Well, we'd have to put something around his ears first.

Just in closing, we will be offering some amendments to the bill. We will also continue to talk about the complementary program that should go with the bill, and that is a program of the government being involved in doing what it has to do in terms of the development of more housing.

Mr. Patterson — who probably knows more about the issue of rent control and the need for the provision of housing than anybody in the province, because this is where he is every day, meeting the tenants and owners, and he is aware of what goes on — tells us that we have to have a minimum of 8,000 new units in this province or we'll be in very serious trouble, That is somebody who has spent more than five years actively in the field, knowing exactly what goes on. He has to be listened to. What he said — as I understand conversations I've had with him and with other people — is that he well understands what's going on. His indications are that the infusion of government subsidy is essential, and it has to be part and parcel of the legislation that we are dealing with today.

MR. GABELMANN: I have a few very brief comments on Bill 21 this afternoon. The first thing I would like to say is that I think it is time that amendments were brought into the legislation at hand. Most of the amendments are clearly needed. I suspect they are on the basis of recommendations from the rentalsman and, as I say, I welcome most of those amendments. It's what the bill doesn't do that I'm more concerned about. It's what the government doesn't do that I am particularly concerned about.

Let me first say that I have been impressed by the office of the rentalsman, both by the way in which the office has been run under its new administration and by the rentalsman himself — in terms of his public statements. I think the appointment was a good one, and I think that the work he has done has been good. I just want to get that on the record.

[ Page 2790 ]

There have been discussions in the press and in the Legislature about the theory of rent control — whether or not there should be any — and I'm sure the government would very much like to get out of the business of rent control. I think some of us on this side would say: "Sure, let's get out of it if the free enterprise system can serve the housing market properly." But it hasn't for many years; it hasn't in most cities in North America for many decades. It certainly does not serve housing in this province at this time under any circumstances. Excess capital that is available for housing has not gone, does not go and is not likely in the future to go into housing. Excess capital goes elsewhere. If that investment capital were going into housing in a proper proportion, then I think we could seriously consider the abandonment of rent controls. But it doesn't, and we can't. Although it's not directly in the legislation, it flows from the legislation when you have a 7 or a 10 percent rent increase.

I believe — and I argued this some years ago when the first bill was in front of the House — that rent increases should have to be justified in all cases. A blanket 10 percent rent increase means, in fact, that rents go up 10 percent. In many cases the original financing for the building involved has been repaid, and the building is continually remortgaged to provide capital for the owners. Tenants are providing that capital at rates that are not required to meet expenses to maintain the building — taxes and heat, and all the things that go into maintaining a building. Those massive 10 percent increases are not needed to meet those increased costs. That money goes into the pockets of the owners so they can reinvest — not in housing, but in other areas that might give them a greater return on their investment these days.

Maybe we should say that if landlords are allowed to increase their rents, even though their initial capital has been repaid, that excess capital that is created must be ploughed back into housing and cannot be allowed to go into other projects. Then I think there might be some justification for across-the-board allowable rental increases. But under present circumstances, that money is not going back into housing. It is not justifiable on any economic or moral grounds to allow 10 percent rent increases in buildings that have already paid for themselves — sometimes many times over.

I want to say one other thing, Mr. Speaker. In my constituency, most of the communities have built rental accommodation since 1974. As a result of that, there is very little rent control in communities in my riding. Most of the buildings are new, most of them are outside controls, and because the housing market is so tight, the rents can be set at an astronomically high level in the first place — far higher than an amount needed to recoup the investment. On top of that, we are now allowing unlimited rent increases — except that this bill proposes that those increases can be reviewed by the Rent Review Commission should it come to their attention. That's not good enough. Those rent controls should exist on those properties, and the justification should be made by the owners at the time they wish to (a) set their rent, and (b) raise their rent. Those are the only points I would like to make.

MR. BARBER: This bill has a number of very good features. This bill proposes to do a number of things to allow greater authority to the rentalsman, in order that he may settle disputes and thereby diminish the necessity for the continuing awkwardness, shall we say, between landlords and tenants, which often proceeds far too long with far more complexity than it should, and which could be cut short were the rentalsman initially understood to have the necessary and greater authority in order to deal with those problems.

I congratulate the government on a number of sections in this bill. The feature which allows persons in hotels which are basically residential apartments, after a period of, I gather, 60 days, to become entitled to many of the protections and privileges of the Landlord and Tenant Act, is also welcome, certainly overdue and something which the official opposition is pleased to support.

The office of the rentalsman itself has clearly had a major hand in determining these amendments. I'd like to say — and join with my colleague in doing so, and with other colleagues who will say the same in a few moments' time — that we think the staff and the leadership of the office of the rentalsman is really just excellent. The only problem they have is that there are not enough of them. The minister is well aware, and I'm sure the Speaker is aware, that the burden of inquiries and the caseload of problems and matters to be handled in the office of the rentalsman is simply too great for the number of staff they have.

As the Speaker will know, my colleague from Victoria and I run a community office downtown. We see about 300 people a month. Many of those people come to us with landlord-and-tenant disputes. Some of those persons would have been able to have had those disputes resolved more directly and more efficaciously had they been able to get through to the rentalsman in the first place. But the problem is that the phone is always busy; the lineups are too long; the delays are too great. It is not because of inefficiency in the office; to the contrary, it is because of the overload on office facilities and office staff.

So while we congratulate the government for this bill and many sections of it, and while we acknowledge the excellent service provided by the rentalsman and his staff, we urge the government when granting these new powers to the rentalsman himself to grant him as well a sufficient level of staffing that the commendable objectives of this amending bill may be realized. If in fact additional staff are not provided, regardless of the good intentions of this act it will be impossible to meet them. Why is that? It's because the phone will always be busy and the lineups always too long and the letters not answered for 64 days — as in one spectacular case that I had come to my attention recently.

Nonetheless, this is a bill which in principle I find quite easy to support, except in one particular feature, and I'll refer to that in a moment. I believe now and I have believed for a long time that credit should be given where it's due. Credit is due the minister who brings this bill forward; credit is due the rentalsman, Mr. Patterson; credit is due to the government side for many of the commendable features of it.

There is one issue, though, in which I think legitimate philosophic debate should take place. It was raised as well by my colleague for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann); it's certainly implicit in this bill; it's something that, regardless of the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair), should be debated on the floor. It is the issue of rent controls and their appropriateness; it is the issue of rent controls and their suitability; it is the issue of rent controls and whether or not they're here to stay.

I for one strongly believe that rent controls are only an instrument of social policy. They're not an imbedded feature of legislation — or should not be. They're not an imbedded feature of the public interest — or should not be. Rent

[ Page 2791 ]

controls are only from time to time an apparently necessary instrument to deal with a problem that has been created for reasons about which the Legislature often has little or nothing to say. I myself hope that rent controls will not be needed and should not be required as a permanent feature of the economic landscape of British Columbia. They are a significant intrusion in the marketplace. They tend to dislocate important aspects of the marketplace in regard to the ability of corporate enterprise to provide housing. They also raise questions about the requirement thereafter of public enterprise to meet the need for housing. I certainly agree that if corporate enterprise cannot meet the requirement, then public enterprise has to step in.

One way or the other, the people of British Columbia have a right to be housed decently and affordably. One way or another, the people of this province have a right to call on this government to provide either such conditions for corporate enterprise or such programs of public enterprise that good and affordable housing is made available. Unfortunately that's not the situation that prevails today. Rather, as the minister said in his introductory remarks, we are faced with virtually a zero vacancy rate in rental accommodation in the two largest metropolitan areas of this province. Even in the worst days of the mid-seventies, when there was a tremendous economic boom in this province and a tremendous in-migration of citizens, and when there was, to say the least, a tremendously poor response from the national government in regard to what tax conditions should prevail so as to encourage housing.... Even in those dark days we were not faced with a crisis the level of which we have now reached.

The problem is that the government has chosen a narrow remedy which, in my opinion anyway, does not deal maturely with the whole of the issue. That issue, of course, is an economic one. How is corporate enterprise encouraged to provide housing? How is it made unnecessary to engage in rent controls? How is it made not a prerequisite of public policy to introduce rent controls in order to protect tenants? Otherwise, of course, the landlords have the upper hand.

Our party stands for equity, fairness, and a balance of responsibility and obligation between landlord and tenant. That is why we introduced the original Landlord and Tenant Act. It was a significant improvement over previous legislation. That is why this government has introduced this bill today, which is, I think, an improvement over current legislation. But neither act and neither statute in fact deals with the material economic questions that any government — Social Credit or New Democratic — has to face.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

I personally have no philosophic commitment to rent controls as a permanent feature of the marketplace. They are only, at best, a temporary instrument of public policy which seeks to protect the interests of tenants who otherwise would be horrendously exploited by a few landlords who, in a time of housing shortage, will rip-off tenants in a totally unjustifiable way.

Prior to the introduction of rent controls senior citizens in my riding were the victims of unscrupulous landlords who proposed, when they knew there was a virtually zero vacancy rate, to increase the rent by anywhere from 20 to 40 and in one case 46 percent. A few unscrupulous landlords gave the whole lot of them a bad name. That's not fair, because a few tenants can give all the tenants a bad name as well. Therefore it is necessary to introduce features and fairness of law. That is why the Landlord and Tenant Act, that is why the rentalsman — and that is why, by the way, that worked. By and large most landlords and most tenants understood the necessity of public policy that saw the introduction of a rentalsman and rent controls at the time.

Rent controls are relatively easy to introduce. They are terribly difficult to get rid of. Once they have entered the marketplace, it is extremely difficult to withdraw them. Therefore it is necessary, I think, for a government to produce not simply an act like this today, which has many commendable features, but as well, as part and parcel of it, a larger social and economic strategy which reflects in a competent way on the need of corporate enterprise to have created the conditions that allow it to do business, and on the needs of tenants to find affordable and decent housing wherever they choose to live in the province of British Columbia. It is a problem of social and economic strategy. It is not just a problem of how you amend the Residential Tenancy Act in order to make things a little less miserable for people caught up in a time of zero rental accommodation.

This government, I think, made a strategic error two years ago when it decided to shut down the Housing Corporation of British Columbia. We are now, to the best of my knowledge, the only jurisdiction in Canada that does not have a social housing corporation. That being the case, as a reflection of this government's right-wing ideology, you have to ask what other steps they are then prepared to take in order to encourage corporate enterprise to build housing. You see, Mr. Speaker, they refuse to do it themselves. That is fair enough. If they were elected on a platform that says, "We will abandon social housing and we will rely on the private sector," that is fair by me if the private sector holds up its end of the bargain. But that hasn't happened either, so the public has lost both ways. First of all, we lost the Housing Corporation of British Columbia; secondly, we lost the private sector; thirdly, tenants are in trouble. When that prevails and when that case is maintained, as indisputably it is, then you have to examine the wisdom of an act like this in one special aspect.

Let me restate. If the government is unprepared and unwilling to spend social capital to create housing, and if they prefer instead to rely on private capital, why then do we find no means, no mechanism and no instrument for the proper and correct deployment of private capital to meet the residential and tenant housing needs of the people of British Columbia? It is hard to tell, because the government hasn't said. It is hard to know, because they won't say why. Rather, we are simply left with the situation where there is no significant social capital being spent, where government abandoned the Housing Corporation of British Columbia in a supremely foolish move, and where, as well, the private sector has not responded to the clear need.

Why do they not respond? I don't want to put words in their mouth, but as best as I can, let me tell you what they told me. I've met with HUDAC and with the Greater Victoria Apartment Owners' Association, and as municipal affairs critic for the official opposition I have received an enormous volume of correspondence from apartment builders and apartment owners around British Columbia. As fairly as I can put it, their case is simply this: "What's in it for us? Why should we build here when we can make more money by putting our capital in the bank? Why should we build tenant

[ Page 2792 ]

accommodation when we can make more money buying B.C. Tel shares? Why on earth should we go to all the trouble, accept all the risk and suffer all the headaches of being involved as private entrepreneurs in the construction of housing when there is no financial return?"

Paradoxical as it may sound coming from a New Democrat, I have a lot of sympathy with the point of view of any small businessman who says: "I am prepared to put up 14 units, but I'm not prepared to lose my shirt. I have a right to a return on my investment." I agree with him. As long as we rely on the private sector for housing, his argument stands. I sympathize, I have respect, I honour that argument. Some of these guys have opened up their books to me as their MLA, and have demonstrated that they make a return of less than 3 percent on their capital. It is absurd, therefore, to expect any such person to invest in housing, when they make less than 3 percent as a return, when they have to endanger the capital in the first place — because it is, to some extent, risk capital — when they have to work the crazy hours they work in order to build anything at all and when, further, they are fully aware — as should every member of this Legislature be — that simply by walking down the street to the credit union they could get 12 percent. So why should they go to all that trouble to get 3 percent when they can walk to the credit union and get 12 percent? It doesn't make sense for private business to enter the rental housing market at this time under the current conditions.

Let me restate, at least on my own behalf and, I suspect, on behalf of many of my colleagues here and opposite, that we have tremendous respect for the arguments put forward by persons in the apartment construction industry, and landlords later on, who tell us: "Why should we bother building rental accommodation? It isn't worth it, Mr. MLA. There's no return. I get more letting the money sit in a bank." Therefore, when debating this bill it's important as well to examine the social strategy which it represents. When debating this act it's necessary to inquire into the economic strategy that has to be developed both through this act and others, which would allow the broadest public interest to be served. No member opposite and no member on this side would, I think, disagree with the premise of such a strategy. That premise is that we want affordable and decent housing for all the people of British Columbia wherever they choose to live. It's as simple as that. That's what we want; that's what everyone wants; that's what a correct economic and social strategy could obtain.

What we have is a situation very different. What we have is a situation in which, currently, landlords can hold tenants to ransom, basically because the tenants have nowhere else to go. It's a closed shop. The tenants have nowhere else they can rent unless they want to leave town altogether and live in a tent in Goldstream Park. That's not very practical; it's not very decent. When, as well, the government deliberately abandons the only instrument that previously existed for the major deployment of social capital to build housing — the Housing Corporation of British Columbia — then what else can you look toward? Apparently all we can look toward is more of the same.

Let me refer again to the question of rent controls for a moment before making a few positive proposals to the government which this act inspires. Let it never be said that the NDP doesn't have ideas and doesn't make positive proposals. We have lots of ideas and we put forward lots of proposals. We'll be making some today. When one looks at rent controls and when one recognizes that they are only a temporary instrument of social policy designed to protect the interests of one sector of our society, then you have to ask the legitimate question: how shall an increase in controlled rent be justified? Surely you don't do it simply by guessing. Surely you don't do it simply by making up a figure. Surely you don't, in such a delicate aspect of public interest, simply and arbitrarily decree that the rent will go up 40 percent.

[Ms. Sanford in the chair.]

The problem with rent controls is that if you don't justify rent increases, they become unfair. In our own opinion, as long as any increase — in the case of this increase of 40 percent or from 7 percent to 10 percent — is unjustified by government and landlord alike, then the inevitable consequence of that is to create further and unnecessary hostility between landlord and tenant. The consequence of that is to create further business for the rentalsman. The consequence of that is more busy signals on the phone and longer lineups at the door. It's a very vicious circle; it's got to be broken somewhere. How do you break it? In part you break it by creating the correct attitude and atmosphere for public confidence.

If it is justifiable to increase the allowable level of rent increase — from 7 percent to 10 percent — let those justifications be made public today. Let them be made public today by the landlords that advise the government. Let them be made public today by the public servants who advise the government. Let them be disclosed in their entirety, documented and proven by the minister today. I make that as an absolutely positive proposal because I charge the government with this: if you cannot justify a rent increase that moves the allowable ceiling from 7 percent to 10 percent, you will create for yourselves tens of thousands of angry tenants who wonder what the justification is, if any, and who will blame you, as well as the landlord, for the apparent injustice of the situation. There's no need to do that.

You may in fact have a case, I don't know. The government may have a case for raising the ceiling from 7 percent to 10 percent, but we don't know because the government hasn't said. They have not tabled the figures. They have not demonstrated in a documented and scientific way what the justification is. At the moment it looks simply and needlessly arbitrary. I predict — and any person can predict it; it's no secret — that if you create an atmosphere in which the tenants feel they have been arbitrarily and unjustifiably hurt by an unjustifiable and arbitrary rent increase, you will cause more problems in the long run for landlords as well as for tenants. Why is that? It is because landlords will have to deal with more angry tenants who will proceed more vigorously with more abuses of the landlord — real or imaginary — that they care to present at the rentalsman's office. Because tenants, like landlords, are human beings and if they feel aggrieved, they will find some way to make themselves feel better. If they feel aggrieved by an arbitrary rent increase that cannot be justified by any public document, then they'll take it out on the landlord. Needless to say, they'll also take it out on the government at the next election, but that's another issue.

So I urge the minister today to make public all the figures, all the documents and all the scientific evidence which persuaded him to increase the allowable rent ceiling from 7.2 percent to 10 percent. I make that as an absolutely positive proposal and as a serious initiative from the official opposi-

[ Page 2793 ]

tion, and many of my colleagues will continue to make it. We want to know on what scientific basis this was increased. If it cannot be justified, scientifically supported, or if there is no evidentiary basis for this rent increase, then tenants across the province will wonder if it wasn't simply done as a favour to landlords. If there is no other reply to be made — and so far none has been heard — then that's the inevitable suspicion that tenants will have.

Let me repeat: as long as rent controls are in place, rent increases must be justified. The claim we make is as simple as that. Justify the increases on the basis of hard evidence. Justify them and you might persuade the public. If you fail to do that, you will persuade no one of the need for such an increase and you will thereby unnecessarily hurt your own cause, which in the rest of this legislation is pretty darned good. If you fail to justify a 40 percent rent increase — which is what the order-in-council allows — then you will diminish the otherwise beneficial impact of the many admirable sections elsewhere in this bill. I think it is in the government's own interest and favour to publish such documents and to make available such scientific evidence as justifies this rent increase.

There are a few other proposals that I'd like to put forward. One is that you reconsider and recreate the Housing Corporation of British Columbia. You know, Mr. Speaker, just because the NDP created it is no good reason for the government to reject it. They kept the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, the Agricultural Land Commission and the Petroleum Corporation — and they kept the Marguerite for a while. On other occasions, the government, I think, wisely forgot some of the foolish things they said when in opposition and, when back in government, retracted the positions they took about throwing away all these excellent things the NDP did.

One of the best things the NDP did was to create for the first time in the history of British Columbia a department of housing. It was a single department created with its own minister, and very rapidly, with a very major budget. It was recognition at that time by a progressive administration of the need to involve public as well as private capital in the provision of housing. Two years ago, Mr. Curtis, then the minister responsible, decided, I think, very naively and with very little foresight that such an instrument of public policy was no longer required, Therefore he shut down the Housing Corporation of British Columbia and proceeded to sell off its assets.

I urge the government to reconsider. I particularly urge this minister to take up the case in cabinet, on behalf of landlords and tenants both, that landlords and tenants both need the support of social capital as well as of private capital to make housing available in British Columbia.

If there were no need for social capital now, there would be no need for a rent increase. Why is that? Well, because, you see, we'd have a surplus of rental accommodation. Why is that? Because private enterprise would have built it. Why is that? Because there was money to be made. For those three reasons there would be no need to debate any aspect of this kind of bill. But the problem is that there is no money to be made, so they're not going to build. When there's no building, there's no surplus; and when there's no surplus, you create a condition in which tenants are unfairly held to ransom, because they've nowhere else to go. You create thereby a failure of public policy which is not justified.

I'm persuaded that public and private capital can together do the job and that private capital wants to do the job. The hours I've spent with the members of HUDAC and the apartment owners' association, with builders in my own riding, convince me that they're absolutely sincere when they say they want to do the job and are absolutely earnest when they say they want to get on with it. That's the trade they know, the only business they have; that's the expertise they offer, and that's the career they choose to follow; they want to build housing. In my own opinion, let them get on with it. The only exception I'd make, of course, is that they can't build wherever they want. Specifically, they may not build on farmland. That's madness.

Apart from the appropriateness of preserving farmland, the single issue clearly remains that private enterprise should be permitted to get on with the job. So should public enterprise. There's an important need for that. It's not just in seniors' housing or co-op housing that public capital has a role, although it most certainly does there too. It is also in the field of opening up land, creating the economic conditions that allow public and private capital together to do the job of providing housing for the people of British Columbia.

Let me repeat, Madam Speaker, that this government made a foolish error in judgment when they abandoned the Housing Corporation of British Columbia. You will recall that at the time they said: "There is no longer a rental shortage in British Columbia. There is no housing problem. Therefore we don't need the Housing Corporation." Well, I recall an equally foolish statement made by the once, and now again, Prime Minister of Canada who told us in 1976, wasn’t it, that he had wrestled inflation to the ground and that inflation was a problem no more. Well, that was an equally dumb statement; of course it proved not to be true. Of course the statement of the then Minister of Municipal Affairs proved not to be true, because he didn't know what he was talking about. We now have the worst vacancy rate in urban British Columbia that we have ever suffered. We now have a government that refuses to reanimate the Housing Corporation of British Columbia, which they never should have killed in the first place. We now have a situation in which tenants who have no place else to go, and are thus held to ransom, also have no choice but to pay a 40 percent rent increase. Whose purposes does that serve, Madam Speaker? Who wins benefit from that? Well, no one at all, least of all the government; they simply become more and more unpopular. They're already unpopular enough.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair, ]

When they refuse to allocate public capital and when private capital will not be spent, how do you build housing? Well, in the rental market apparently you don't build it at all, because at least in my own riding, Mr. Speaker, not much is being built. There is another remedy. So far I've named two, and I make them as positive proposals to this government. Let me restate them briefly. First of all, justify in a scientific and public way, a documented way, the 40 percent rent increase from 7 percent to 10 percent; justify that.

AN HON. MEMBER: A 40 percent rent increase?

MR. BARBER: From 7 percent to 10 percent — that's an increase of 40 percent in the allowable rental increase; the minister knows that.

Secondly, reanimate the Housing Corporation of British

[ Page 2794 ]

Columbia and thereby redeploy the public capital that must be invested in land, in the servicing of land and the construction of housing upon it for private and public purposes. The Housing Corporation of British Columbia succeeded magnificently in the mid-seventies. It did a darned good job for the people of this province. It was well run by guys who came in from private business to run it on behalf of the people of British Columbia. Congratulations to them. It's now been shut down, but it can be reanimated. As one member of the opposition, I give my word that if the government introduces a bill tomorrow to recreate or teammate the Housing Corporation of British Columbia, I personally would be content to let it go through really quickly — no problems, no delay, only a few questions and much support. Why is that? Because it was a good idea when the NDP brought it in, and it would be a good thing if it were revived. If it's a good thing it deserves support — that's all.

The third proposal is that the government be prepared to use the legislative instrument called the Savings and Trust Corporation of British Columbia, which has the opportunity in a novel way, through the credit union movement, to make capital available, which is otherwise untapped, for the purposes of constructing residential accommodation in this province. That act, which was passed by this House but not enacted by the government — which could be enacted tomorrow by this administration — would provide for the creation of a unique British Columbian enterprise. This enterprise could tap the imagination, the capital and the energy of the private and public sectors both, through the device of the credit union movement, to build housing in British Columbia.

I wish that the government would be prepared to forget its ancient traditional and pointless ideological objections to a good idea. You know, the Old Man was prepared to swallow his ideological objections and he created B.C. Hydro. He did a good thing. God bless his soul; he did a good thing, a good public enterprise achievement. The old Socreds were prepared to take a second look; I ask the new Socreds and Liberals and Tories to take a second look at their decision to shut down the Housing Corporation of British Columbia. I ask them to reconsider and to recreate, to revive and to reanimate it and to make it a real and important force in the economic strategy that the people of British Columbia want to have served. I ask them to justify the rent increases. If they can be justified, tenants and landlords alike will agree that in a time of inflation and recession, they might be necessary. However, because they have not been justified, I can't support them, because I find no evidence to support them at all. Who can say yes? How can any member of this Legislature, in conscience, say yes to an increase of from 7 to 10 percent, when there is no scientific basis that argues in favour of it?

Mr. Speaker, what would happen if we discovered that the scientific evidence persuaded us there should be a decrease? Well, if in fact the allowable rent increase should be lowered from 7.2 percent to, say, 6.4 percent — a figure that the Speaker will recognize from a note that we got ourselves from the Speaker a couple of weeks ago — how then would the government react? Would they publish that information? Well, I think they might, because they would perceive that that was popular — to lower the rents was a popular thing. If it can be justified scientifically in these times of both inflation and recession, fine, lower the rents. But there is no justification yet presented. I don't hear a single interjection from a member opposite. Not one.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Nobody is listening.

MR. BARBER: They say nobody is listening, but they're certainly quick to reply. Well, I think they are listening, through their third ear, provided by the good doctor of science and satellites. I think they're listening. I also think they're receiving correspondence from tenants who wonder how the increase can be justified. They certainly are receiving correspondence from people who have the public interest uppermost, and who ask why it is that you shut down the Housing Corporation when you falsely predicted the housing shortage was over. The government was wrong when they did that. Why don't they admit their mistake? Why don't they admit they were wrong when they said that more than two years ago? Admit that they miscalculated, and be prepared to recreate a good thing, which is what the NDP established. The Housing Corporation of British Columbia was a good idea then, and it is, I think, a good idea now.

Those are three perfectly positive, perfectly earnest proposals that I have put forward to the government. If they were prepared to adopt those or any of them, they would receive a heck of a lot more public support for this bill than they currently have. They would receive, I think, a lot of public recognition of their willingness to take a second look, to reconsider, and to give credit where it was due — in this case, to the previous administration that had the foresight to create a full-fledged Ministry of Housing, and that had the guts to create a Housing Corporation of British Columbia.

There isn't a single member of the New Democratic caucus who feels private enterprise does not have a role in providing housing. Every one of us recognizes that the private sector has a darned important role here. But the only thing that's been done to allow the private sector to get on with their part of the job is to allow them an increase of from 7.2 to 10 percent. That's it. Well, with all respect, Mr. Speaker, that's still not enough, they tell me. With all respect, this will have no impact whatever on creating new housing. With all respect to the government, the allowable rent increase will, I predict, build not one new unit of housing, not a single one, because they can still get more money at the bank just by letting it sit there and gather interest-free dust. They can still make more money putting it in a sock marked "Bank of British Columbia." So not only is this rent increase apparently unjustified, as far as tenants go; it does nothing for landlords either to assist them to do their job as members of the private economy who want to build housing on a private capital basis.

Let me restate, Mr. Speaker, that I personally have no objection at all to private enterprise building housing. I think it's great. Let them do it. Let them build it where it's wanted. Let them build it where it's safe. Let them build it when it's needed. The point is that the government seems not to recognize that it's needed and wanted now. If they recognized that, this bill would have a number of other features; it would have a number of other components; it would say a number of other things. It would not simply say, give the landlords 10 percent and they'll be content. This bill would not simply say what it does in the other sections: clean up the problems with the rentalsman's office regarding his authority in law, clean up the problems of residential hotels, and other perfectly admirable, creditable and supportable stuff.

What this bill betrays, I guess, more than anything else is the unwillingness of this government to create, and in every

[ Page 2795 ]

appropriate statute enunciate, a social and economic strategy that will build housing. This statute could say and do many of those things. It could certainly not say and do all of them. A great deal of other work is required in other ministries. I freely concede that, and if that's part of the minister's defence he needn't bother making it; I agree with him. This bill can't do all those things. But it could do some of them, and so could the minister. Leadership from that minister respecting the need to create a partnership of private and public capital to build housing could be found in this act, if the leadership could be found in the cabinet. But it isn't, and it isn't.

Section by section, specific features of this act are well worth supporting. I'll be voting for them, and I'm pleased to do so. I do so in part because I've seen at my own community office dozens and dozens of landlords and tenants — chiefly tenants but occasionally landlords — who've presented these problems and who may find remedy of them here. I am pleased to support that.

What I would like to end with, though, is the request that you allow us to be even more pleased with your government, first of all by justifying this rent increase, secondly by recreating the Housing Corporation of British Columbia, and thirdly by establishing the B.C. Savings and Trust, which would create a unique partnership of public and private capital to help this Legislature and every citizen in the province to do what we all want, which is to obtain, as quickly as possible, affordable and decent housing for human beings that need it. It is as simple as that, and on that basis I would be proud to support the whole bill.

MR. COCKE: I rise with a certain amount of humour in my veins. I must say that I'm not quite as accepting nor as optimistic as my young colleague who sits behind me. That is refreshing, but I've been here 11 years and he's not been here quite so long. I know those people across the way relatively well. One of the reasons I have to smile today is the fact that I was here when they voted against any aspect of the Landlord and Tenant Act. I smile now when they come in with amendments to what was at the time, and is still, a necessary aspect. I do agree with my young colleague that it is not always a desirable situation to be in, having a Landlord and Tenant Act. Having said that, I say it is absolutely essential in a situation where you have zero vacancy rate, and we have zero vacancy rate in much of this province, particularly in the lower mainland and particularly in the Vancouver area of the lower mainland.

There are some admirable aspects of this bill which will assist in strengthening, to some extent, the old Landlord and Tenant Act, now called the Residential Tenancy Act. I guess that the problem with this whole question of setting rates and setting limits is that it is very difficult to deal with Landlord A and Landlord B. Let me describe who they are.

Landlord A is greedy, tough and doesn't really care what he does to make a situation suit his particular pocketbook. Landlord B is a relatively conscientious soul and would like to stay within the limits and would also like to be thoughtful with his tenants. It is very difficult to have an act look after both of those situations because the tough, greedy guy I've seen. That was one of my problems with the original Landlord and Tenant Act. My problem now is that some people manage to create enough fear within their buildings that they can get away with a lot more than they should. Sometimes it is very difficult to catch up with them.

There is another aspect too, in terms of how you set the rates. I was pleased that my young colleague brought up the question of how you decide to go from 7.2 to a 10 percent increase when we know perfectly well that, had I bought a building in the west end of Vancouver 20 or even 10 years ago and paid on those low-interest rate mortgages, possibly even getting close to having it paid up, my expenditure in terms of that aspect would be relatively low compared to a person who buys from me now the very same building and pays the high interest rate and the high property and building cost. The apartment building that might have sold for a quarter of a million dollars, if we want to get into that category, would very easily be selling for $1 million now. The mortgage on the $1 million is going to be substantially more than the mortgage on the quarter of a million dollars and the interest rate on the $1 million will be substantially higher than the interest rate was on the quarter of a million dollars. That is the major problem that we have here.

It strikes me that somehow or another we're going to have to find ways of rate justification, so that we can feed a lot of this material in. In any event, I sure would like to know where the figures came from. I don't really think that the government has a handle on it. Probably some more explanation would be desirable,

I want to talk about two areas that I'm really concerned about. One of them is selective tenancy and what the Residential Tenancy Act does to remedy that situation. One way or another, landlords are getting around any rules or any objectives that are set out in terms of providing housing for specific groups. In a tough time like this, families with children are in an absolute bind. To the landlord the most desirable tenants are the limited families — one or two people — as opposed to a family with two or three children running around. Also, I have seen evidence of race and other means of judging people as being part of the criteria for accepting tenants. I would sure like to see a situation where we can remedy that. Now it cannot be remedied altogether, but it certainly is being ignored, in my opinion, in any of the rule-making that's going on.

The second thing is that I think what we need here is what this government has been talking about for a long, long time in order to assuage or in any way modify the problem we've got out there with housing. One of the main reasons why we have such a limited supply of housing is the fact that the government didn't keep a promise they made when they first came into power in 1975. One of the promises which that group made was that they would make Crown land available. Now if anybody wants to follow the way they make Crown land available, it's like hide-and-seek. I can't believe it, Mr. Speaker. Very little ads; once in a while they're in a local newspaper, with a limited time before the auction, and then they make three or four lots available. It's absolutely shocking that this government, with their particular direction, haven't made available, haven't serviced and haven't really done anything with the Crown land in the lower mainland. It's just incredible.

MR. BRUMMET: Agricultural land.

MR. COCKE: Agricultural, my foot! That's the very kind of land that you people make available. That's the problem with you. You have absolutely no conscience whatsoever. You have absolutely no way of foreseeing the future. You're just about as stunned as you said you were the other day in the House.

[ Page 2796 ]

Mr. Speaker, let me tell you about some of the land on Burke Mountain, one of the big cancellations.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: "Oh, no, no," the minister says.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: What's this got to do with this act?

MR. COCKE: It's got this to do with this act. One of the reasons we are in this bind is that we haven't been doing things in this province. You've got a zero tenancy rate in Vancouver because we haven't been doing things to back up our housing situation.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: What section of the act are you dealing with?

MR. COCKE: It was your own incredible ignorance, Mr. Minister, that cancelled the housing act in this province.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: What section of the act are you talking to?

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I'm talking about this act in principle.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Oh, are you?

MR. COCKE: A minister without principle wouldn't understand that.

The fact is, there are underlying consequences of the moves that you have made.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: On a point of order, I would ask that ridiculous member for New Westminster to identify which minister he speaks of as "without principle."

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I identified that minister, the minister in charge of the bill, and I withdraw.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Perhaps at the same time I could ask the minister to withdraw a remark that I found unparliamentary towards the member for New Westminster. Would the minister withdraw?

MR. COCKE: I don't require that, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair found it unparliamentary.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: In that he was ridiculous — is that what you're referring to?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's the unparliamentary remark, hon. member.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Certainly I would withdraw that if it's incorrect.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: At the same time, I will remind all members that although debate in second reading allows an awful lot of latitude and it discusses in very general principle the bill before us, it's very hard for the Chair to accept debate that pertains to a minister other than the minister who has presented the bill.

MR. COCKE: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I agree that without much imagination one could not identify the relationship of the availability of land for housing and the availability of housing through our own Housing Corporation — to place us in a position where we don't have this very tight vacancy situation. One of the reasons we have to harden up on this sort of thing, this kind of legislation, is that very fact. That is our problem. The first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) identified our displeasure — and we certainly identified it at the time — with the cancellation of that Housing Act.

One of the reasons that we now have to be very highly concerned about fair play for tenants is that they cannot demand fair play by competition. There is no competition in housing anymore. If I want to get an apartment in Vancouver, I've got to grab the first newspaper off the hot press in the morning and trust in God and luck and so on, and I might just get in there in time to get it. Nine chances out of ten I'm too late. It's when tenants are in that kind of situation that they need all the protection that government can provide.

I want to see our people properly housed. I want to see our people able to go out and acquire property, build a house or even a co-op — or whatever they want.

MR. BRUMMET: Your people?

MR. COCKE: I am talking about our people, the people in this province.

MR. BRUMMET: They're our people too.

MR. COCKE: Yes, of course. When I say "ours, " I'm talking collectively — in this House. You don't understand that, do you? There is a division in your mind. In any event, I believe that should be the right and opportunity of the people in this province — if that makes the member more comfortable.

After the war, Great Britain had been bombed off the face of the earth. Aneurin Bevan, who also introduced the first medicare act in our part of the world, had one other responsibility. That was to provide housing — with very little help from the United States, as many of you remember. What a monumental task! Yet, at the same time, so much of it was done. It was done because there was direction from a housing ministry or housing corporation.

I'm telling you, you're not going to need this nearly as much. The first member for Surrey and Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) knows that as well as I do. Our big problem is that we don't have competition at the other end. He realizes that and that is one of the reasons why we have to get into this sort of thing.

It is very difficult in an act like this, as I said before, to deal with this whole question of return of capital, because it all depends on when the capital went in. If it went in 20 years ago, then the person who made that investment has an entirely different outlook than the guy making it today. One of the areas where I don't quite agree with my colleague from Victoria is where HUDAC indicated to him that a 3 percent return on this kind of investment is inadequate. What they are talking about is the 3 percent return vis-à-vis the expenses,

[ Page 2797 ]

etc. One thing that most landlords always ignore is the rapid increase in the value of their block or the value of their property; that is another factor.

I don't want to cry too many bitter tears until I see something provided in this House whereby the minister can tell us the reason for going from 7 to 10 percent. In some cases it may be right, in some cases it may be wrong; but I wish the minister would deal with that when he closes debate on this.

I would also like to compliment the government on including the mobile-home situation here. We have all seen the mishandling that has occurred in the whole mobile-home situation — people denied access to their rights over and over again. I do hope that these amendments are going to provide them with some protection, both in terms of the rate of their rent and also in terms of protecting their homesite. Of course, I am also pleased with the fact that people living in hotels — that is, the long-term situations — are also going to have their rights protected.

Having said that, I just want to say one more word, and that would be that we are going to vote for this. But we do have some expectation from that minister, and our expectation is to have him answer a few questions in terms of how he arrives at his rate setting, and whether or not there could be some way of managing that in terms of different situations. With that.... We'll see what happens when he sums up. Failing that, I guess we can have more to say when we get to the committee stage.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell) defers to the member for Burnaby-Edmonds on Bill 21.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, in speaking to the principle of this bill, I just want to deal with a couple of areas where it affects the constituency of Burnaby-Edmonds. One of the problems that we're having has to do with rental agencies — those agencies that advertise in the newspaper that they have apartments and various accommodation for rent and charge a fee. If you go to their offices and pay your fee, usually you are told that they will be able to find you accommodation at a rent which you can afford, which is the type of accommodation that you are looking for and in the location that you want to be situated. After paying the fee, usually that is the end of the situation.

Two of these agencies in particular, Rentex and Homelocators, operated for a period of time in the Vancouver area. The municipality of Vancouver was able to amend its charter — because it operates under the Vancouver Charter — in such a way as to make it unprofitable for those agencies to continue to operate there. So they moved out of Vancouver and now they've moved into Burnaby. A number of people have appeared before the Burnaby city council asking that a similar kind of amendment happen in Burnaby. What the amendment would ask is that the rental agencies either deliver in terms of their promises of finding the required accommodation or be forced to refund the $35 or $45 fee, as the case may be.

Apparently this is not possible because Burnaby operates under a different act than the Vancouver Charter. I had hoped that this particular bill, which is supposed to protect the renters and tenants in the province, would have included in it some kind of protection from these kinds of rental agencies. If one looks in The Columbian newspaper under "accommodation for rent," one finds that most of the suites, apartments and houses advertised are advertised either by Rentex or Homelocators. One also knows when one speaks to the consumers who use these services that they're behaving exactly the same way in Burnaby as they used to behave in Vancouver. Apparently the municipality is finding that it is having some difficulty in dealing with that.

The reason I thought that the bill would have included that is because the rentalsman himself, in an interview in the Vancouver Sun on May 22 of this year, spoke about the fact that these rental agencies were a snare. He spoke about the fact that because the vacancy rate is so low — in fact, in Burnaby it is 0.2 — and accommodation is so hard to find, these agencies are able to prey on people. As my colleague from New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) mentioned, even if one goes down to the offices of the newspaper and picks up the newspaper hot off the press and phones immediately, the chances are that any accommodation advertised in the paper either would have been gone or there is a waiting list, because now landlords are deciding that they do not take the first person who applies for the accommodation; they like to go through the list of people who would like their suite and decide for themselves who they would like to have. So I'm wondering whether the minister would consider introducing an amendment to this piece of legislation that would make it possible for municipalities outside the Vancouver area to control the activities of these rental agencies. Specifically, I'm talking about those rental agencies that charge a fee but give no guarantee in terms of being able to deliver the services that they have promised. I know the minister knows about Rentex and Homelocators, because they have a very long history and they have come to his attention a number of times.

The other issue that I wanted to raise, Mr. Speaker, deals specifically.... . I'm going to speak about one particular housing unit, but I'm just using it as an example, because it certainly applies to a number of various areas. There is a unit in the Burnaby area which is known as Silvan Gardens. It has 150 suites in it. I first brought it to the minister's attention through a question on the floor when the managers of that apartment block refused to rent to a woman who was a single-parent mother on welfare. The explanation given at that time was that the owners had decided they did not want to rent to welfare recipients. The housing situation was sufficiently tight that they were having no difficulty in getting tenants, and since they could choose what tenants they had, they decided that they did not want to rent to welfare recipients.

That particular building actually is managed by a trust company, an insurance company. We tried to have a meeting between the manager and the welfare office in the Burnaby area. The supervisor of welfare agreed to meet with the manager, but the manager declined the invitation. At the time I asked the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich), who is responsible for the Human Rights Code, whether it would be possible to build into human rights legislation protection for this and other groups from discrimination in terms of housing accommodation. I was told by that minister that really that was an issue which really should be covered by the minister responsible for the Residential Tenancy Act.

I put the question to the minister of consumer services and asked that in terms of amending the Residential Tenancy Act he find some way to build into the amendment some protection against discrimination for people who are on well-

[ Page 2798 ]

fare and also for families with small children. Again I want to stress that the housing situation in Burnaby is extremely critical; the vacancy rate is as low as it is in the greater Vancouver area. In fact, there are not even enough units on the drawing board to begin to meet the needs of the people moving into that area. The exact figure we have for it is that the rate is at 0.2 percent, and, in fact, in terms of planned building for the future, it's not going to come anywhere near the accommodation that's needed.

Not long afterwards, a number of tenants in that particular building met with me in my office with other complaints. Now, as I mentioned earlier, this complex has 150 suites in it. Of those 86 had complaints which were drawn to the attention of the rentalsman, and the rentalsman promised to investigate. We discovered, Mr. Speaker, to our dismay, that there is only one inspector attached to the rentalsman's office. In fact, even though the fire marshal had contacted this life insurance company in 1978 and sent a carbon copy of that letter to the rentalsman, even though these tenants themselves had contacted the rentalsman in September 1979 and listed the 86 suites that needed work done on them.... And I'm talking about serious things like wiring that wasn't working, the stove when you turned it on that was sending out sparks, the floor rotted around the bathroom and water running from one suite downstairs into the other suite and into the suite below that. Although there was documented evidence for these 86 complaints — 86 suites out of a total 150 — because there was only one inspector, nothing actually could happen until after those suites were inspected.

A letter was sent to the insurance company which manages this building. A carbon copy was sent to the rentalsman asking whether it would be possible for these tenants to meet with the managers of the building in the presence of the rentalsman to see whether there would be any way that one could accelerate the repairs that were necessary. Because some of it was actually quite dangerous. There were no outside lights, for example. There were no lights on the exits. One of the reasons the fire marshal condemned it was because of the lack of outside lighting. Well, again, the whole process was slowed down because there is only one inspector.

Finally the inspection was completed; the report was turned in by the rentalsman. And still nothing is happening. I was speaking to some members of the tenants' organization this afternoon, and a couple of patchwork things have been done, and that is it. And until that one inspector has an opportunity to go and inspect again to find out whether the repairs have been carried out satisfactorily, we can anticipate that the life insurance company involved is not going to be doing very much about it.

I'm raising this issue, Mr. Speaker, because surely to goodness it's possible for the minister to see that one inspector is just not enough to deal with all the complaints that come into the rentalsman's office from the Vancouver and greater Vancouver area. This piece of legislation, of course, even gives them additional work. I certainly hope that the minister has taken this into account and that there is going to be additional staff added to that particular office. If not it's just not going to be possible in any meaningful kind of way to protect tenants even though the legislation is there which says that they should be protected. Specifically, Mr. Speaker, those are the two areas that I wanted to raise: the rental agencies and amendments to deal with that. I don't think we need an amendment to deal with additional staff. I think the minister just has to take into account the need for additional staff and have the money available to hire.

Again, I want to join my voice to the voices of my colleagues who talk about the housing shortage and how important it is for the government to get into the business of developing reasonably priced housing for people in need. We have a situation in Burnaby now where people are asking the municipality to relax its zoning restrictions against illegal suites. The vacancy situation is so bad and so tight that it's not possible for us to recognize anything as an illegal suite. Any kind of accommodation that's accommodation should be accepted and used. This is the way the situation is going to be until the government becomes more actively involved in the creation of reasonably priced housing, certainly for people on a fixed income, limited income or average income. I certainly hope the minister will take that into account, share that kind of concern with his colleagues and give us some indication of some amendments to this legislation when he closes the debate.

MR. MITCHELL: I'd like to join in this debate. Just in case you are thinking that I'm going to stray a little in opening the debate.... I think I am covered under sections 17 and 29 of the act, which are amended under this bill.

I would like to discuss the problem that is affecting the mobile-home tenants in my riding and throughout the province of British Columbia. As a renter of space, they come under this bill. I think it's only fair that we review the position of a mobile-home owner compared to a renter in general. The mobile home industry and the facility that produces that is part of the housing of our economy. When a family has invested in a mobile home — they've invested under the present rates today at $40,000 — by the time that home is set up on a pad, skirted, with porches and patios built, shrubs, various ornaments and lighting added and all the things that go into setting up a home in a park today, it puts them in a different category than the average renter who moves his furniture, his TV and his food into a suite or home. At the present time the only protection that a mobile-home owner has is this act. He is considered in the same category as an average renter.

I've had two situations that to a lot of people in my riding have been a catastrophe. We have had two mobile-home parks containing families on low income, senior citizens and working people. In both cases families have moved in and they have purchased a mobile home. The value of that home was because of its location. It was set up on a site; it was serviced; it was in a location that was desirable. Because of its location and its setup, it had, in fact, a value that a person went out into the marketplace and purchased. But then, because the owner of the particular property felt that he could invest or he could change the zoning of that particular property the park was shut down. This is the part where I feel you can't just consider a mobile-home owner in the same category as the average everyday renter. When you go to a person who has got anywhere from $10,000, $15,000, $40,000, or $50,000 invested in a location, and you can say to them you have 120 days to get off the property....

In the case of one of the parks in my riding, it was stated in the eviction notice that the park was going to be demolished. It was demolished and a large, low-cost housing development was constructed on that property. In the case of the second park, the owner stated in the eviction notice that he wanted to allow the land to lie fallow. What a mobile park

[ Page 2799 ]

is when it lies fallow, I have yet to figure out. Under the farming definition, land lies fallow to improve it, to build up the nutrients and the water content.

When people have gone out and invested their money in providing a home, to allow a park to give to those people a notice of 120 days, to me, is destroying the initiative that we need as Canadians to provide homes for our families. Mobile homes are a part of the economy and of the housing structure of the province of British Columbia. I feel that there must be a section in the rentalsman act that would protect — and I plead with the minister — those who have invested large sums of money, those who have gone out into the economy to provide homes for their families. They also provide construction work for those who are building mobile homes and business for the nurseries which supply the shrubs and trees to go around the parks.

To come along and give them a notice of 120 days to vacate.... The value of a mobile home set up on a pad in a park may be $40,000; but when it is dragged out onto the street, when it is lying on the side of the highway, that value is no longer there. You can't classify them the same. When you have given 120 days' notice and the furniture is moved away from the home or apartment the value is still there; but the value of a mobile home is in its location and the way it's set up.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

The 120 days' notice in this bill is not enough. I have had two parks where the owners of these mobile homes had the catastrophe of having to move out in 120 days. There is such a shortage of pads in the Victoria area that they have nowhere to go. This bill amends the 120 days, which is not enough, to 119 days. I plead with the minister for serious consideration to be brought in from his ministry, in conjunction with his seatmate the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot), to provide some sincere protection for those who are living in mobile homes; those who have invested, in many cases, their life's savings.

I had one gentleman, aged 84, and his wife, aged 83, who purchased a mobile home for $14,000. They paid one month's rent. They went to pay their second month's rent and were served notice of 120 days to get out. At age 84 that is a catastrophe. I feel the government must give some leadership in the protection of a segment of our economy that has chosen mobile-home living.

This section was amended to bring in mobile homes when section 29(2)(b) of the rentalsman act was amended. You allowed a person to purchase a home; you specified in the act that the owner of a mobile-home park cannot hold an unreasonable objection to that sale. I agree with that being made an offence; but it is of no value at all to the purchaser — or the renter or seller — that once he has sold his home, is settled in there with his furniture and feels that he has some security, he is subject to an unnecessary 120-day eviction notice.

I ask again that the minister review this bill and bring in some amendments so that the mobile-home owners have far greater protection for their investment and so that the owners of the parks have a responsibility that when they have rented a pad and the person has lived up to being a good renter, when he has improved his lot, he has some protection for his investment. That investment should be appreciated by the community and the owner of that park should have a responsibility to that community and to that person who set up the park. I know that if they allowed it to be very structured, if you moved in and left your trailer sitting on a pad and made no improvements, in the case that you had 120-day notice you could just pull it off.

If the act is going to force the owners of mobile homes to leave the park bare and uninteresting, I think that this province will lose a lot. I feel that people should be encouraged to make a better home, to develop a better place to live, to develop the surroundings so that the place their families live or the place they go to retire is somewhere that each one of us would be happy to move into. Again, I feel that there has to be an amendment, and to cut it from 120 days to 119 days is absolutely ridiculous. It has no, value. I just can't see it. I think there should be a section in there and I think the minister, in conjunction with the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot), can start looking to providing a better alternative to encourage either the private sector or through the co-ops or through senior citizens to provide facilities for the mobile-home parks.

There is a third section to which I feel consideration should be given. That is in section 26 of the act. This is where a person moves into a mobile-home park because he is being given a certain sales pitch where they are guaranteed water, garbage collection and cablevision. This is starting to affect the mobile-home parks but is also going to hit apartment buildings and condominiums where they have built-in bulk rates on the cablevision system, where they can come along and give the mobile-home owner a notice that, as of the end of the month, the TV service will no longer be part of the service and that he will then have to pay it himself.

I know we have conducted a couple of appeals that are still going through the courts, but I feel that when an agreement is set up it shouldn't be up to the people living in the parks to have to fight to enforce this act. If the act specifies, as it does in there. that once you are guaranteed certain facilities and services.... When these services have been cut off , the responsibility, I feel, of enforcing that should be partially borne by the rentalsman, by this government, by the ministry. I am happy with the minister, who is also in the Consumer Affairs department, that he can look after that from both sections. A service he was being granted is being cut off. It is just like anything else — if you buy a fridge and that fridge is supposed to last a year and it doesn't, the Consumer Affairs backs up that guarantee. I feel it is the same thing in a rental agreement. If you have a rental agreement and have negotiated in good faith and have been paying, over the years, for that service, and each year when the rental increase comes in and they give you 7 percent, you are paying that 7 percent on a service — 10 percent next year. You are paying it and all of a sudden the owner can say: "We are no longer providing the service." For years that 7 and 10 percent is being compounded on a service you were getting. You cannot say it is not part of the rent that that person has been paying.

In closing, I ask the minister to give serious consideration to the three things I've brought up. I ask that he give serious consideration to bringing in a proper time limit for those living in mobile homes. In itself, 120 days is ridiculous, and to cut it down to 119 days is stupid. There should be a different section with a minimum of at least one year, so that a person who has invested this large sum in a mobile home will have some protection, so that when a person has purchased a lot. he will know that if that lot is going to be phased out — like one of the lots I had in my riding.... The

[ Page 2800 ]

people who were selling the mobile homes in that lot and the owner and the manager of that lot knew that the lot was being phased out. To allow people to come in and purchase a mobile home that has a life expectancy of literally months is wrong. I feel that once you have purchased a mobile home, there should be some protection under the act — or under some legislation — to guarantee some security on that purchase.

Again, and third, people should have protection on services that have been guaranteed and aren't maintained, such as TV. That maintenance should be enforced by the rentalsman.

MRS. DAILLY: I intend to be very brief, because I think my fellow members over here have outlined very clearly how we feel about this bill. I would feel remiss, though, as a member who represents a large urban riding, if I did not comment very briefly on this bill, which basically just brings in changes in rent controls and regulations under the rentals act.

The area I represent, Burnaby North...I think one of the biggest problems I face in my constituency office is listening to people who are simply finding it almost impossible to find rental accommodation at a reasonable price, which they can manage with their present income and with the cost of living generally — to find a decent place to live. There are many people in my riding, Mr. Speaker, who.... I notice that as I'm speaking the lights have gone on and everything has brightened up. I've brought a bit of light into the House. I've noticed that the problem is that there are actually people in my riding who can no longer even afford to live in what we consider average accommodation because of the increase in rents. I know the government has made an attempt here to try to counter some of the problems that the rentalsman has been faced with.

HON. MR. CHABOT: They should try living in Point Grey.

MRS. DAILLY: I will just ignore the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing for the time being.

The basic problem I see, of course, with this bill is that it is really superficial. There's nothing in it that can give any real hope to the people of B.C. This government has not come to grips with the problems we face today with rental accommodation and prices. I know the minister responsible cannot alone create immense new accommodation for housing in this province, but I'm pleased to see that he sits beside the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing, and I hope that the two of them together really fight in cabinet and try to impress on their Premier — who has just returned to the House, and who obviously holds the purse strings — that perhaps we could do with fewer stadiums, B.C. Places, monuments to the Social Credit government and its ministers, and maybe even fewer bridges, and that perhaps we should look very seriously at a massive injection of funds into the creation of housing for the people of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I know the hour is getting late and we are going to have time in the estimates of the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing to really go into detail about our concerns over the housing shortage in British Columbia, so I do not want to carry on any longer and get too far away from the principle of the bill. One final thing is — I don't know if it's been done already; it probably has been — I would like to pay personal tribute to the rentalsman of B.C., who, I think, has handled a very difficult situation in the last year or so very well. He should be given great credit. I hope that the government will continue to back him up and ensure that he has enough staff to do his work well.

Interjection.

MRS. DAILLY: Okay, Mr. Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing. We'll be looking forward to some very positive comments from that minister later on.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much some of the remarks made by some members in the House today, and I also appreciate that that which has been discussed has gone well beyond the purposes of the amendments which have been introduced in the House. Many of the subjects raised are particularly the responsibility of other legislation and other ministries.

I appreciate that the problems are associated. The Residential Tenancy Amendment Act, as I mentioned in opening debate, is to respond to a number of very real problems which have been identified in the past year or so by the rentalsman's office and by other ministries, relating to the landlord-tenant relationships and the problems of effectively administering the act. A great deal of what is before you in the bill is technical; a great deal of it will reduce some of the workload on the people who are working there. There are 35,000 to 40,000 telephone calls a month now being answered, and a great amount of that is because of the language which was contained in the previous bills and some of the inflexible positions that must be taken by the people working for the rentalsman's office. Much of that will be resolved, hopefully,

It was interesting to hear remarks from the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) with reference to the need for rent controls. He had a wide-ranging debate on that issue. I would concur with him that rent controls are something that should not be considered a permanent feature in any society, but appear to have a requirement under certain conditions. Certainly we're under those conditions today.

I appreciate as well the remarks made by some members about the lack of involvement of the federal government, whether through capital cost allowance or MURB or any of the other programs. I can assure you that we have not given up on trying to encourage the federal government to once again enter that field. I appreciate that if they choose not to enter, then perhaps provincial governments will have to attempt to resolve the problem by some alternative actions.

One of the real problems we've identified over the past year with respect to existing rental housing and particularly the requirements and needs to upgrade and improve is answered to a large degree by the amendments. As I said earlier — the member for Victoria was not here during my original remarks — this amendment act will not provide new rental accommodation. It does not provide the stimulus required for that type of investment. One thing it can do very positively is to assist some of the present stock to remain in the market, because there is some which is being withdrawn. We'd like to avoid that whenever possible, obviously.

The questions that were mentioned and statements made about the rentalsman's office and the lack of staff.... The member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) referred to the difficulties of a specific apartment building, the remedies to

[ Page 2801 ]

all of which probably are contained under the act already. The rentalsman's office at the present time is inundated with a tremendous amount of complaints and is limited in their staff. We should indeed have more than one inspector. But the remedy is already in the act; it's a matter of allocating the staff.

The same member mentioned these rental agencies. I would suggest that the rental agency situation in the metropolitan areas is of interest to our ministry. I don't really think it need be handled under this bill. I think it would be more appropriately handled under the Trade Practices Act. The member may be interested to know that in speaking to the Assistant Deputy Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, he advised me that we have not received any complaints about any of these rental agencies. We've had a couple of newspaper stories, but we have not received any complaints. There has been a fair amount of discussion about what those problems may be.

I want to just offer a counter-statement about the permissible rent increase in B.C. The member for Victoria suggested we would not be permitting a 40 percent rent increase, and that's not correct. We're allowing a 40 percent rent increase — yes, a 40 percent difference from 7 to 10 percent — but that does not calculate to be a 40 percent rent increase.

Mr. Speaker, in closing I would like to stress once again that we feel the flexibility identified by some of the members opposite today to be required in this particular industry probably can best be achieved through the rent review process rather than the rent control process. Some of the members were putting forward the suggestion that depending on when buildings were financed or what the capitalization was, it's very, very difficult to arbitrarily set a percentage increase that adequately reflects on all. The Rent Review Commission and the rent review process, however, can look at the individual situations surrounding the investments, and probably can respond to that in a more flexible way than an arbitrary percentage.

On behalf of Jim Patterson and his staff, I would like to acknowledge the compliments received from most members in the House. I think they have done quite a commendable job, considering the tremendous workload that has been placed upon them. Generally the number of complaints about the rentalsman's office is fairly limited when you consider the volume. So I would accept from you, and I will pass on to him, your comments.

With those remarks, Mr. Speaker, I move the bill be now read a second time.

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I saw the Minister of Energy (Hon. Mr. McClelland) standing in his place when the Speaker called for the "no" votes.

Interjections.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: My head was uncovered.

MR. LAUK: It's a serious point of order: you were standing in your place. Were you voting against it or not? Either stay in here and do it properly or get out.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. A point of order has been raised that must be addressed. It's a very serious point of order. I must ask if there was anyone standing at the "no" vote.

AN HON. MEMBER: The answer is no.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: There were no people standing, hon. members. The point is well made.

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

Bill 21, Residential Tenancy Amendment Act, 1980, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 15, Mr. Speaker.

COLLEGE AND INSTITUTE
AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

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

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Chairman, I wish to ask leave of the House to make an introduction, if I may.

Leave granted.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's a rare opportunity for me to introduce students from Bella Bella. Once about every second year we do have people in from there. It gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce 12 grade 11 and 12 students from that small community, with their teacher. I ask the House to join me in welcoming them.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

On section 4.

MR. LAUK: Since the debate in second reading, Mr. Chairman, I have looked in vain at the order paper to see if the minister would amend this section. Surely by now the minister has come to his senses.

The minister has stated that he believes in local and regional control and input into education; he has made many statements to that effect. He has indicated, for example, in the schools area that he wants a local curriculum to be developed. We have many quotations from the minister. But section 4 is a move towards centralization. As I said in second reading, the only move this minister has made by way of action has been to centralize control within the ministry. All the rest is just talk.

I was hoping that in the interim since second reading the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith) would have placed on the order paper an amendment that, rather than giving government control over the appointment of the majority of members on a college board, would expand the local and regional appointments and election of board members. It would be in that way that he could honestly say that he is in favour of decentralization and more regional and local control.

[ Page 2802 ]

The college faculties are against it. The colleges themselves are not happy. Certainly school districts in which colleges are located are very displeased with the minister. They claim, Mr. Chairman, that it's an act of bad faith. It's an act of a minister who does not trust or feel confident in the responsibility of local boards in municipalities. It's an act of arrogance on the part of the government to centralize power in this way. It was compounded when the minister stated that while we pay 100 percent of the bill for colleges why shouldn't we have 100 percent of the control? He's forgotten the most important fundamental rule of all democratically elected representatives: governments don't have money; it's the people's money. Where have I heard that before?

MR. LEA: Bill, when he was in the opposition. When you were in the opposition you used to say that, Bill.

HON. MR. BENNETT: No, in government.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, no, never in government.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, the Premier says he's said that before. Well, why don't you swing around in your chair, stop signing those form letters...?

HON. MR. BENNETT: They're not form letters.

MR. LAUK: They're all form letters. You have never written an original letter in your life.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Section 4, hon. member.

MR. LAUK: Section 4, form letters.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, thank you for calling the first minister to order. He has nothing better to do than sign form letters. What he might do is swing around in his chair...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, Bill 15, section 4.

MR. LAUK: ...and speak to the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith) on section 4, and tell him what the Premier of this province and what all of us have said for years: governments don't have their own money. It's the height of arrogance to say to people: "We pay the bills, and you have no say in it." I'll tell you who pays the bills: the people that live in the regional areas supporting Selkirk College and Okanagan College, and in Prince George and Nanaimo. Those are the people that pay provincial taxes, and they're the ones that elect local boards and councils.

It's just arrogant to say: "I pay 100 percent of it." You pay nothing. It's not out of your pocket. You've got to have trust and confidence in the local taxpayer and voter — they know the regional needs — instead of an elitist attitude, father knows best, that paternalistic attitude that characterized the minister's predecessor and seems to be carried on by him now. Actions speak louder than words. The things that he does speak so loudly that I can't hear the things that he says. The one thing that he's done is he has centralized it by making the appointment of members to regional college boards by the cabinet, by the minister. That is an act of bad faith by the government and I would hope that the minister will reconsider now and demonstrate his confidence in people in regional areas who are elected to local boards and who, I have found personally, are sincere and devoted people.

HON. MR. MAIR: You were doing fine until then.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: Are you saying that the people elected to school boards are not sincere people devoted to education in their regions? Well, I will certainly take that message to Kamloops. I'm sure they'd like to hear your views on their efforts. People sacrifice time with their families and their jobs to serve on school boards and the Minister of Health says a thing like that. He's demonstrating that he has no confidence in people elected to local school boards. He said I was doing fine until I reached there, meaning that he didn't believe what I was saying. That's shocking! I know the minister doesn't accept that point of view and I know he's going to accept an amendment to this section by deleting the change in section 4(a) and perhaps even expanding local appointment to a regional board.

On the amendment.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask the minister to direct his attention to section 4 again and provide a rationale for it to the House. I haven't yet heard the minister give us a rationale for this change being necessary. If the only rationale is the one that is suggested by the member for Vancouver Centre, that is that since we're paying the shot, we have to have a majority on the board.... I would still suggest, Mr. Chairman, we have yet to hear the minister's rationale for the change. Is he now saying that as a general principle this government demands a majority on every elected board in the province of British Columbia where they pay 100 percent of the cost? If he's saying that, let him say it now and be straight with the House, so we know what we're voting on. The principle is that those people pay those taxes to the provincial government and those taxes support those particular institutions and they should have a right to hold the majority position on that board. That's what local responsibility is really all about.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, first of all I would urge the minister to take full advantage of the rules of debate in committee, which allow the minister to respond to members as they bring up points. I would like to say that from my point of view the actual numerical change is going to be small, in terms of comparing it with the magnitude of the very negative reaction which it is creating. Mr. Minister, I must say that you were charged with a task in this one section with which you have put yourself in jeopardy.

It is no stretch of the imagination and it doesn't have to come from a politician for people to believe — and I'm sure that everyone in this House believes it — that you were given the task of cleaning up your government's image in terms of its perceived attitude towards education as evidenced through your predecessor. It doesn't take a politician to say that. I have had several board members of the three school boards in my riding express optimism in your appointment.

[ Page 2803 ]

When questioned about the division of the ministry — not leaving it together — and whether they really thought it logical that colleges should be in one area and universities in another, they said: "That's okay; we're rid of his predecessor."

Frankly, you do have the responsibility of getting people interested in education, educators and board trustees.... To bring it right back to this section, you have the responsibility of setting the highest level of confidence in an area which was damaged and in an area in which you are on probation in the eyes of the school trustees of this province.

By this act you should consider what you are gaining. I am not so certain that every board is now going to hew the government line. I don't think you've accomplished that by virtue of having one more government, political appointee on all of these boards. What have you lost? We note that there have been resolutions at the BCSTA on this subject and it has become an area of weakness in your credibility. So if we are really going to put education above politics in this province, you have nothing to gain by this change, I don't think that you're going to get any greater measure of control. It is going to be so minuscule in comparison to the magnitude of what you have lost. It is the first thing of any consequence, I know, whereby your ministry, to this point, can be challenged. So this is a symbolic act and an act, I think, of contempt for those local people who need a lot more pats on the back and a lot fewer slaps in the face. This is a slap in the face.

I would say that the minister could have done well to withdraw the offending section. He could even do it today. He could, if he wished, even get up and move that the committee rise and report resolutions, in order that he could carefully reconsider and draft the appropriate amendments. If you do that, you shoot ahead. You'll get a lot more credit than the opposition ever got for opposing this, even at this point in time. So the choice is yours. I am not going to move that the committee rise.

The choice is yours, Mr. Minister, but whether you are going to continue to enjoy the level of confidence which is necessary to the fulfilment of the objectives of your ministry, or whether you're going to leave yourself vulnerable to attack on something that just is not worth it.... It's dumb politics. As one who might have made a few mistakes in the past, I'll tell you that if I were doing this, it would be just dumb politics, and you do a disservice to yourself.

So this one time we're warning the minister that for whatever reason, for whatever rationale, the risk just does not balance with the very small gain, and what is lost is out of all proportion to this very small change. It isn't going to change too many board decisions. Maybe one vote is going to make a big difference, but on most things boards talk things out; they try to get to a consensus; they support subcommittee decisions. I really cannot stress the degree to which I feel that this change just does not justify the kind of criticism that I have heard from people who are on school boards — and they are not members of the NDP; I don't know if they're members of any political party. But it certainly was good for openers when I would meet with various school board people, and these are the people who are really, I think, offended by this bill. Whether or not you can rationalize that you have nothing to fear and nothing is intended, that is the way it is perceived, and the way that things are perceived is the reality in this business. So I would urge the minister to just take a second look. There is still time before we pass this section.

HON. MR. SMITH: Well, I thank the member for Nelson-Creston for his gentle criticism. I might say that I've had really very little criticism of this section. There was a resolution passed at the B.C. school trustees' convention, and I was questioned at that convention on this proposed amendment. I gave my answer and rationale, just as I did in this House, and I got a very good applause and reception after that. They disagreed with me and passed a resolution. I accept that, but I've had letters from some of the college boards approving of it.

No college board has sent me a communication disapproving of it. The intention of this section isn't to allow the minister to pack college boards or to get a ministerial viewpoint that is going to dominate college boards. Some of these boards need increases in membership, in any event. In some cases it is difficult to get quorums for committee meetings. Also, it is important that a college board have an overview of a region and that it is not just the sum of the school district parts, and that that board can remember that it has a mandate to provide post-secondary education for a whole region and not just for a core city. If you're just going to treat a regional college as simply the sum of the total of school districts in it, I don't think that's what was ever intended. It really is a fallacious argument, too, to say that because they are appointed by the minister this is an erosion of the local nature of these boards. Goodness knows what could have more autonomy in this province than the universities, and the boards of the universities are dominantly appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. Also, the other provincial institutes like BCIT and PVI have never been accused of being dominated by or subservient to the government because the government appoints all their members. I really don't think it is a good argument. Every school district in a college region will have the right, still, to appoint one trustee to the board and that will provide local flavour and local decision-making from each of those regions.

But allowing the minister and government to appoint one more is not going to destroy but it is going to strengthen the regional character. I firmly believe that. A person, because he is appointed to a regional college by a minister, doesn't then become an advocate of the government any more than a school trustee, if he is acting and carrying out his duties on a regional college board, simply fulfils the mandate of his school district. I don't know of examples in the affairs of the colleges in the short time I have been minister where there have been divisions — trustee appointments on one side, ministerial appointments on the other. It just does not happen. But I do know of cases where some of the colleges have had difficulties in getting quorums, particularly difficulties in getting quorums for a number of their committees. This is true where they have to serve very, very wide geographical regions.

I think this will strengthen and not weaken the regional colleges. There is no intention of weakening their regional character. I do thank the members for their concern and for their remarks.

MRS. DAILLY: I'm glad that the minister has very clearly put across his case for us, because we have been specifically wondering why this clause was put in here in this manner. As far as I'm concerned, it has not changed the minds of my colleagues over here to listen to his rationale for it.

The minister made the suggestion that perhaps there was

[ Page 2804 ]

too much parochialism in the fact that school trustees could be in the majority. He also made the point that often they couldn't get a quorum. That was the implication in the statement made. I think if the minister looks back through the history of the community colleges in British Columbia, it's been to the credit of the school boards of this province that they have not been parochial. They are basically the ones who have created what I consider a very, very fine community college system in this province. The very fact that the minister is now taking it upon himself to suggest that having a majority of government members may alleviate parochialism and create better attendance I consider somewhat of a slap in the face to the many fine trustees of this province who have served. My recollection is that government appointees can often be the ones who are absent from meetings.

I'm particularly concerned, too, about the appointment of government members because I wish to bring this up later in the minister's estimates; I give notice now. I cannot hold him entirely responsible for all the appointments that have been made to date to the college or university boards. The latter are no longer under his.... They were through the former minister anyway. Appointments made by and large by the former minister in charge of colleges — who is now the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) — were predominantly male appointments and predominantly came from the business world. Mr. Chairman, when I find that the government wishes to increase their numbers on these boards and when we look at the past history of the appointments, I get very concerned that we can end up right throughout our whole college system with the majority perhaps being male members and coming from a certain sector of our society. If anything, there should be an opportunity to select from the trustees and not from the heavy-handed side of government. So I simply want to say that I do not find the rationale given by the minister acceptable to this side of the House. I know that our critic in education feels so strongly about it that he has a proposal to make at this time.

MR. LAUK: The member for Burnaby North has stated it quite clearly. When I was watching the minister respond in committee just now, I realized that he really doesn't understand what we're saying and he doesn't understand the problem. The world didn't start when the minister was appointed to his present portfolio. The history of what has gone on in the Ministry of Education since January 1976 should be available to him. The library is just down the corner to your right.

Mr. Chairman, the appointments to college boards and other government appointments to various boards in and around this province have been a reflection of this government's narrow philosophy and view. It has not represented the community at large or people from minority groups, and it has not been a reflection of the kind of people that have been ordinarily interested over the years in education at the college level or even at the local school level. That's consistent. If you want to trot all of those facts out for the minister, do so. We're not just raising this objection because we feel a little piqued or irritated this afternoon; it's a legitimate objection because the past history of this government is objectionable with respect to appointments to these boards. It has been arbitrary, politically biased and very narrow-minded indeed.

I therefore propose the following amendment to section 4, paragraph (a), line 2, deleting the phrase "plus one position" and substituting therefore "less two positions."

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 21

NAYS 27

Mr. Lauk requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall section 5 pass?

The first member for Vancouver Centre on a point of order.

MR. LAUK: You're putting section 5, then?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, shall section 4 pass?

MR. LAUK: That's out of order. You can't do that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We just dealt with the amendment, hon. members. Now we're back on section 4 per se. Shall section 4 pass?

Section 4 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 27

NAYS — 21

[ Page 2805 ]

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I note that when division is called, the Chairman sitting in the chair says, "those voting aye," and motions towards the government, and "those voting nay" and motions toward the opposition. Mr. Chairman, we just voted aye a minute ago. It's a bit intimidating; I find that I'm forced to vote as the Chairman wants me to vote, and I just thought I would draw that to your attention.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. As the hon. member is aware, there are members who do come in late. It's purely as a matter of convenience to the members and some reflex, hon. member. I thank you for bringing it to my attention.

Sections 5 to 22 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. SMITH: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

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

Bill 15, College and Institute Amendment Act, 1980, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:02 p.m.