[ Page 3987 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Hewitt)

On vote 13: minister's office –– 3987

Mr. D'Arcy

Mr. Reynolds

Mr. Blencoe

Mr. Michael

Mr. Cocke

Mrs. Wallace

Mr. Rose

Mrs. Dailly

THURSDAY, MARCH 22, 1984

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. MOWAT: Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure to introduce to the House today two persons in the gallery: Mr. Don Shivery, from West Vancouver, and Mr. Ron Crimeni from Langley. Mr. Shivery is a former major league baseball scout. He is flying the Canadian flag in Liberia by taking a number of medical supplies, wheelchairs and other related equipment to that country at no charge. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

MR. R. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to introduce Mr. Ron Watkins, who is the vice-president of the Home Oil Co. of Calgary. Would the House please make him welcome.

MR. PELTON: Mr. Speaker, in the members' gallery today is a beautiful young lady who, although she has been in this House before and has been introduced, I would like to introduce again. She's Pam Clarke-Saari, and I would like to ask the House to make her welcome.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS
(continued)

On vote 13: minister's office, $200,449.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Chairman, rather than take a great deal of the committee's time simply recycling material which happened last October 19, and which not only by and large but virtually in total has not been dealt with by the minister, even though in numerous cases he indicated he was going to deal with a number of things in the near future, to use his own words.... I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman — "the not too distant future," he said. Obviously the not too distant future is a greater amount of time than the five months between October 19 and March 22. I'm simply going to go over a few items.

We talked about the need for some small margin of control and regulation in trading in the commodities market in British Columbia. The regular investment community have, by their own policing, applied rules to themselves. International rules — I think they're usually referred to as the Chicago rules — which they have applied to themselves are nonetheless not applied by what are usually called, in British Columbia, boiler-room operations, sharks and quickie operators. If we look at the King Lung situation, that's exactly what we were concerned about on this side of the House back in October. It is precisely what the minister replied to. I quote from Hansard, where he said: "The commodity act is under study, Mr. Member, and I appreciate your comments. It's one of the areas I hope to address in the not too distant future." What happened in the not too distant future was that some fast operators seemed legitimate, serious investors of their investment money in this province and took the first plane to Hong Kong when they got caught. That's what happened because the minister did not put a modicum of regulatory control on in this area. We on this side of the House are not asking for the kind of control and regulation, which we have seen too much of in this country, that in effect acts to prevent small legitimate businesses from entering a security or financial market — for instance, the kind of protection which has protected those regulated monopolies known in this country as chartered banks. We're not asking for that sort of thing, to prevent people from getting into the business. We are simply asking for regulation, in a limited way, to protect people's savings, investments and — most importantly — the reputation of British Columbia, which all of us in this House hope to see built: that B.C. is a good place to invest; B.C. is a safe place to invest. The kind of thing that happened with the commodity scandal in King Lung is not the sort of thing that any of us in this House want to see B.C. have a reputation for.

I want to emphasize, Mr. Chairman, that the legitimate investment houses in British Columbia, even though they're not required to meet any standards, still meet international standards, because they know darn well where their bread is buttered in their honest operations. They want to protect their investment reputation. I hope the not too distant future is perhaps tomorrow, the next day or the next week, because we badly need this in British Columbia. We cannot afford to have British Columbian investment dollars ripped off and taken out of the country.

Last fall we dealt briefly with the problem of personal and corporate bankruptcies in British Columbia during this time of a Social Credit-led recession. I don't expect that minister alone to be able to reverse that trend. But one of the things which has concerned me — and I'm going to repeat this, Mr. Chairman — is that when we have a large number of personal bankruptcies in this province, it's really the small businessman and the consumer that carry the can. The major retailers are largely protected from personal bankruptcy problems as a percentage of their total volume, although that does happen to them, by the fact that they can afford to do strong credit checks. They can afford to deal in either their own credit cards or major credit cards. It's the small businessman who is likely to give the credit on a risky basis, because he does not have the resources to do major credit checks. As a percentage of their total volume, small businessmen in this province, or anywhere else, carry more of the burden of losses due to personal bankruptcy or people simply skipping town and not paying their bills. That's why we on this side of the House felt that debt counsellors were very important, and not just to the consumer who, whether through his own fault or not, couldn't meet his obligations. They were very important to the small business community, in the sense that if they can help people reorganize their finances, the small businessman is more likely to get his money. Indeed, that was what was found in this province and in other jurisdictions. If the small businessman, and even the large retailer, is more likely to get his money, that means fewer costs which have to be passed on in the form of higher prices to other consumers.

After, I believe, something like 17 months we still haven't seen the Goldberg report on beer pricing. I haven't seen the Goldberg report on beer pricing. I don't know what the minister's afraid of. The industry hasn't said that they're afraid of anything. The beer prices were deregulated months and months ago. Predictably the industry has suffered a loss of its market share, due to the fact that they raised their prices too much, and thank goodness there's a free market. The

[ Page 3988 ]

public has resisted; people are drinking more wine, and maybe that's good. They are certainly not drinking more spirits.

Why can't the minister release the Goldberg report? There were some items made public from it which did not appear to be embarrassing to anybody. My goodness, Mr. Chairman, it was last March when we asked the minister's office when he was going to release the report, and his aide said: "When he has finished reading it." So perhaps we could ask the minister to tell the committee if 12 months is sufficient for him to read the Goldberg report.

[10:15]

Again, it is old ground, but there is no doubt that we do need a new securities act in this province. It needs to be updated. Our Securities Act was adequate when it was brought in, but times do change, needs do arise and recommendations are made by the brokerage community that we agree with on this side of the House; I think the members opposite agree with them. I see no reason for further delay. During Mr. Hyndman's tenure as Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs a proposed bill — a White Paper — was passed on in this House, and we quite frankly had no objection to material in there. We had some questions we wanted to ask, but it was really an updating — a modernization — which everyone agreed was seriously needed in this province. The investment community agreed, and nothing has happened since that time. I believe it was 1982. Even if some things have changed since then, we do need a new securities act in this province, and I don't believe it would have a problem with passage through this chamber as far as the things that have been requested to be in the act by the brokerage community.

We have some questions regarding the proposed privatization of the superintendent of brokers' office. First of all, it's out of step with practice in North America and Europe. There have been some questions raised by the private sector as to how the superintendent's office is presumed to handle the question of volume and the need to have an adequate look at prospectuses; after all, volume would result in the only revenue that the private operation of the brokers' office would have. It would seem to me — and many brokers have agreed — that there could possibly be a conflict of interest there, and whoever runs the brokers' office are required by the act and by the public interest to have a good look at all applications for a listing on the Vancouver exchange. At the same time, there is a desire to get those applications approved and on the board before the company says, "To heck with you, I'm going to Toronto because they deal with these things faster," and to make sure they get the benefit of the effort they're putting into analyzing and reviewing these prospectuses.

There has been no action by the ministry to go after the high-tech option as far as expertise in the superintendent of brokers' office is concerned. Here we are in this House all hoping that we in this province will attract those kinds of companies to be listed on our own exchange in Vancouver, and yet there is not a single person on the staff of the exchange with that kind of background and expertise. They have a lot of other kinds of backgrounds and expertise in examining other types of companies, but not the high-tech area, in spite of the sanctimonious and pious speeches given in this House by members on the government side about the need for that kind of industry in this province.

Mr. Chairman, I hope you don't declare me out of order; I'm not going to go too far on this, but it is a consumer item.

There has been some discussion regarding federal funding for.... I raise this because I had a problem getting to the chamber yesterday. I'm not asking for any sympathy on that point, but....

AN HON. MEMBER: You got a parking ticket.

MR. D'ARCY: That's right. Calgary was wonderful.

There has been some discussion of the federal government installing Canadian-developed technology, a microwave landing system, at Whistler — in Pemberton. I would agree with that, but if that had been in place in the Castlegar airport, there would have been no problem yesterday. You know, sir — I speak to the minister through you, Mr. Chairman — that occasionally you have problems getting in and out of Penticton airport. Kamloops is another problem area, and Terrace, and occasionally even Kelowna. If there is taxpayers' money — it's not through your ministry, but I hope the government is lobbying in this way — for this sort of thing, I hope that those airports which have residents who need to get in and out of them get priority in lobbying the federal government for this kind of money before tourist-oriented airports.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There is a....

MR. D'ARCY: Thank you. You've been very indulgent.

MR. CHAIRMAN: ...Minister of Transportation in our chamber, but unfortunately these aren't his estimates.

MR. D'ARCY: That's right. But air travel is a consumer item, Mr. Chairman.

I want to give the minister a chance to address some of these points. Perhaps he can tell us what he's doing, especially....

I think the most urgent thing to address is the need for a commodities act. Not because the regular investment community need one; they don't need one. They police themselves well, and have done so for years in this regard. It is because of the fly-by-night operators, the boiler-room operations; that's where the regulation is needed. The courts and the police need to be empowered to act in these regards. The investment public both within and outside of the province needs to be protected, as does the reputation of this province as a safe place to invest. I would hope the minister has not just some vague promise about doing something in the near future, such as he gave us last fall, because in some regard the horse has already left and we need to deal with that.

That's all for now, Mr. Chairman. I will perhaps have some more to say later.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, I won't take much time, but I wanted to commend the minister for allowing the operators in Whistler to open their facilities on Sunday during the World Cup. I know the people of Whistler wouldn't forgive me if I didn't get up in this chamber during the minister's estimates and thank him for that privilege. I also wouldn't be doing my job as an MLA if I didn't get up and say that it was no different than any other day in Whistler when those bars were allowed to stay open an extra few hours to serve the people who were here from all over the world for that great World Cup event, which was seen by literally tens of millions of people around the world. After that very

[ Page 3989 ]

successful situation, I would hope the minister would consider allowing those people in Whistler, which we call a world-class resort, to have their facilities stay open on Sundays in the future. It is very frustrating if you are there as a tourist over a long weekend, and Sunday night is the only night, if you're there for a two-week vacation, that you can't go out and enjoy yourself in the village.

I would also like to ask the minister to consider doing something with the government liquor store in the village of Whistler. I think it is one of the greatest examples of how socialism doesn't work. You've got one of the greatest ski resorts in the world, and this great village with all these expensive condominiums to serve people from around the world who want to come to ski at Whistler and Blackcomb. You arrive on a Saturday at five to six and check into your hotel room; you go down to the grocery stores, which are still open. All the stores are open, but the liquor store closes at 6 o'clock on Saturday night — and Monday's a holiday. If it's a case of a tourist coming in from Aspen, Colorado, or Los Angeles or somewhere in Europe who wants to ski in our great resort.... They might even be visiting from Surrey. They arrive on Saturday at five to six, and if they haven't stopped off to buy themselves a bottle of wine or something else they may like to enjoy in their condominium over the weekend, they're in deep trouble; they just can't get a bottle of the fine spirits that they might like to take to their room.

Of course the whole idea of the Whistler Village.... I know there are people who aren't in favour of drinking. The Mothers Against Drunk Drivers, whom I support 100 percent, would say that you're encouraging drinking. The whole idea of Whistler is that it's a village: you park your car underground when you get there on your vacation, and it's looked after without your ever getting back in your car. When I was there for the World Cup I arrived there on Thursday morning and never saw my car again until Sunday night when I left to go home. That's the advantage of it.

I would hope the minister would look at the situation there in two ways: either the liquor store starts staying open for extended hours on weekends, even for a short period on Sundays — it is a village; it is a ski resort — or privatize the liquor store. Close down the government liquor store. I even see somebody in the gallery applauding. I think it's a popular idea right around the province. I would think there's no better area, Mr. Minister, in which to start privatization than in a resort area. It's just a shame to me that we have to have the government liquor store in Whistler. I think it should be privatized. Give it to the guys in the grocery store and let them handle it. You can be assured that they'll stay open as long as there are people in the village to buy the product.

Those are the main areas of my concern with the ministry. Again, I thank him for that Sunday opening. The Whistler World Cup was a fantastic event. I would hope he would consider allowing the merchants there — who have a hard enough time; it's a new and growing area, and they have a great investment in their businesses — to stay open on Sundays year-round.

MR. BLENCOE: I just have a few questions and comments about the office of the rentalsman, which comes under my purview as critic for that particular aspect of the minister's portfolio. I know the office of the rentalsman is somewhat in limbo. We are fully expecting some kind of legislation in this session. I know it's very difficult to get into some of those areas because of pending legislation. However, it is still on the books and is included in the estimates for this year, so I think we can investigate a few little things that perhaps the minister will share with this House and with the people of British Columbia.

I have some general questions to the minister. One of the concerns I have, which I think a number of people have — we certainly do on this side of the House — is the potential cost that may arise through the possible elimination of the office of the rentalsman. I don't think there's any question that we have heard that that seems to be the direction of the government. I'm not going to go into the pros and cons.

AN HON. MEMBER: Guesswork.

MR. BLENCOE: I don't think it's guesswork. We saw Bill 5 last session, but it never saw the light of day on this floor. Now there is a bit of hypothesis in terms of what's going to happen, but the minister has made some statements about what may happen with that office.

I would like to do a little investigation. Suffice it to say that we obviously have some concerns about tinkering with the office of the rentalsman in terms of the rights and privileges of tenants in this province. But we'll get into those particular aspects, Mr. Chairman, when we do indeed see a new bill before this House.

However, there are some pertinent questions I would like to ask the minister in terms of the office of the rentalsman. I'm wondering, through you, Mr. Chairman, in light of the fact that the office of the rentalsman may be eliminated or have its role curtailed dramatically, has the minister made any study of the costs of resolving landlord-tenant disputes through the courts as opposed to the rentalsman's office? It is clear from information we have and information the minister has shared with this House or with the people of British Columbia that there is definitely going to be some resolution going into the court system. Has the minister taken a look at the costs of such disputes going to the courts?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, maybe I could just quickly address some of the questions the member for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy) asked about the commodities market and the need for legislation. That matter is still under review. Discussion and negotiation with people in the investment community and in the legal and accounting community is ongoing. I am looking forward to dealing with that at some point in the not too distant future.

You can acquire a copy of the Goldberg report through the university library. It hasn't been released. It's somewhat dated now, as you can appreciate, but it is available to you. Dr. Goldberg has placed it in the library of the university. We're not privatizing the office of the superintendent of brokers. We're only looking at putting the licensing in the hands of those associations and councils that would deal with their members, and would be able to evaluate their expertise and provide them with licensing. I want to assure you that the superintendent's office doesn't lose any of its power of regulation or enforcement, and that's of course what you're concerned about.

To the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Reynolds), I am pleased that the ability to stay open to serve the people visiting the World Cup at Whistler worked well. I had no complaints. I think it was well received. I'm interested in your comments about other things we could do with regard to providing service to those people who visit Whistler. I

[ Page 3990 ]

assure you, Mr. Member, that I'll be looking at those areas as well.

In regard to the rentalsman's office, should that office close.... It's still operational, as you know. You talk about the cost of sending disputes through the courts. I can't give you dollar figures, but yes, we have taken into consideration the possible cost of either going via an office, a system other than the courts, or going via the courts to settle disputes.

[10:30]

MR. BLENCOE: I'm glad to hear that. Perhaps we can explore some of the details. I wonder if the minister would share with this House who was responsible for conducting the studies and what the results were. Does he have any information on those particular items?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I don't want to encroach on legislation — you'll have to give me some guidance — but to respond in general terms, in our review of the office of the rentalsman and what alternatives are available to us, we evaluated the cost of those alternatives. You ask who; it was my ministry staff, in dealing with the preparation of discussion papers which could at some point lead to legislation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Guidance has been asked for, so I will offer guidance. Clearly, in Committee of Supply and on this particular item we can discuss the administration of the Residential Tenancy Act as it now exists, and the relationship between landlords and tenants as it is administered by the minister's office, but we cannot discuss the necessity for legislation or amendments to legislation.

MR. BLENCOE: I would like to share with you some studies that I and staff have done here and have been working on in terms of the potential cost of eliminating the rentalsman's office, or of curtailing it dramatically and seeing a number of things go to the court system. Perhaps the minister could indicate whether they're right or wrong; maybe the minister can prove me wrong. I think it's a useful discussion, because we're talking about dollars and cents, and that supposedly is a lot of the basis of the rationale for eliminating this office. When the bill comes forward, I'll get into some of the other things that I think are poor rationale.

We tried to get information from the Attorney-General's office about court costs, and of course they were somewhat reluctant to provide me with specific...to reveal figures, but they have advised that one hour of small claims court in Victoria would cost the taxpayers a minimum of $150. An hour of county court or B.C. court of appeal would be even more costly. In 1982 the office of the rentalsman dealt with 50,347 cases, of which approximately 43,741 could have sought solutions to disputes in the courts had there been no rentalsman service. At a cost of $150 per hour, the bill to the taxpayers would have been $6,501,662. That's twice as much as the 1983-84 budget for the office of the rentalsman, which was around $3.5 million. These figures are based on 1982 figures of, as I said, 50,347 cases. If I exclude 4,401 client inquiries, 188 abandonments, 1,977 miscellaneous and information — a total of 6,000 cases — it leaves 43,000 disputes, all of which, if we see a partial or total elimination of the rentalsman, could end up in the court system.

I put those figures forward because I would like the minister to refute or disagree with them. If he can't disagree with them, what I'm saying to this House and to the people of the province is that eliminating the office of the rentalsman will double the costs of this particular function to the taxpayer. I'm trying to appeal to this government on what is supposedly.... I don't agree in terms of what's under the guise of restraint, but let's tackle this thing in a dollar-for-dollar situation. My figures, Mr. Minister, indicate that if you do indeed put many of the current disputes into the court system you will double the costs for the taxpayer — $3.5 million as opposed to $6.5 million. Are you in any way capable of refuting my figures?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I'll deal with the administration of the present legislation. As the member knows, last July we eliminated rent control by order-in-council and set up an interim procedure of rent review. Other than that, all the disputes are handled by the rentalsman's office, which still continues to operate. Anything that may happen in the future should be dealt with at that time.

MR. BLENCOE: I recognize it is difficult for the minister, and perhaps he is slightly hiding behind the fact that we have pending legislation — just an inkling of hiding behind possible legislation. I recognize that the minister, as a good politician, is bound to do that, but it is too bad that he can't talk about it, because I think there are some incredible financial implications of eliminating the office of the rentalsman. Before we get the legislation in front of us, and before we get into the heat of debate....

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: It's a very good one because we're talking about dollars and cents here. It's a very important issue.

Before we get into the heat of debate about whether we should have an office, I think it is useful for the minister to at least let the House know that there is indeed a potential increase in cost to the taxpayers of British Columbia through eliminating or dramatically reducing the office of the rentalsman. I have put forward some figures which, if I may add, Mr. Chairman, I think are quite conservative. There are a number of other kinds of situations if the rentalsman is eliminated or if we have a mock rentalsman — or whatever you want to call it — with minimal staff and minimal power. We're going to end up with a lot more cases in the courts at a greater cost to the taxpayers. The minister should be prepared to talk about that before the legislation comes forward, because we get the legislation in the House and we get.... I know, Mr. Chairman, but it's a matter of dollars, and if we can have a discussion around the issue of dollars and cents before we get into the heat of the bill, we might be able to say on both sides of the House that perhaps the office of the rentalsman is good value for money.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we have to have an issue before we can discuss it. We currently don't have an issue; we have the estimates.

MR. BLENCOE: With respect, and begging your indulgence, Mr. Chairman, I think we do have an issue. It is quite clear that in the province of British Columbia the government

[ Page 3991 ]

has indicated its attitude toward the office of the rentalsman, and that is the issue. The point I am making, and which I am asking the minister to refute, is that we're going to double the cost to the taxpayer if we eliminate or dramatically curtail the office of the rentalsman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, one more time, I have explained to the committee that we can discuss the current administration of the Residential Tenancy Act, and that's what the minister is responsible for in terms of this committee. We cannot anticipate or discuss the necessity for legislation or amendments. Please, to the administration of the current act and the minister.

MR. BLENCOE: Well, Mr. Chairman, you can see the problem I obviously have as the critic in this particular area. As I've said before, any kind of issue can be subject to pending legislation. I am just trying to do a little exploration before we get into legislation....

AN HON. MEMBER: On the estimates.

MR. BLENCOE: Yes, this is on the estimates. We're talking about the office of the rentalsman. We're talking about the fact that the government indicated that it wishes to curtail or close down the rentalsman's office. We have a minor amount of money given to the office of the rentalsman in the estimates this year. All I'm trying to do is to get the minister to discuss the fact that curtailing or eliminating the office of the rentalsman is going to cost the taxpayers a lot of money. That is the issue, and it is quite clear that the minister is not going to respond to that.

The second question, dealing with the estimates, is that the salary allocation in the estimates has been cut by 77 percent. Has the minister decided to maintain the existing rentalsman's office as a shadow of its former self, or has he decided to wipe it out by July or August of this year?

MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to rise to support some of the other comments in this Legislature during this debate regarding neighbourhood pubs. I think that the half-mile rule regarding the establishment of pubs in neighbourhoods and in hamlets in the interior of British Columbia is somewhat of an unfair guideline, in view of the fact that most hamlets that are ideally suited for the establishment of neighbourhood pubs are all within a few hundred yards of the main arterial highways. As an example, in my home area within my constituency, there are two applications currently, one is Ranchero and the other in Grindrod, which, I understand, are under appeal, having both been turned down because of their location on the main highway — Highway 97. I think that anyone viewing those two areas would see that to qualify for the half-mile rule, the neighbourhood pub would have to be located outside of the residential area and outside of the walking distance that are the logical criteria for the neighbourhood pubs. In looking at these two in particular, I see a couple of private entrepreneurs wanting to set up an establishment and perhaps spend in excess of $200,000 and create employment for two or three people. I would ask the minister, Mr. Chairman, to have a very serious look at the application and enforcement of this half-mile rule. I really feel that it is a deterrent to the establishment of these types of facilities in many smaller areas in the interior of British Columbia.

1 might also say that these two applications are not in competition with any current establishments, as they are both located several miles.... I believe the Grindrod one is somewhere in the neighbourhood of 10 to 12 miles from any other hotel or establishment; the one in Ranchero is probably in the neighbourhood of seven or eight miles from any establishment. I would describe them as hamlets. Ranchero is a growing community in an area that is becoming a hamlet in itself. It's a very small area with a population in the neighbourhood of 600 or 700 people. Grindrod is a very longstanding community with a few commercial outlets at the present time. I think that a neighbourhood pub for these two small communities would be beneficial to the community and perhaps a gathering place for the local residents to have a tot of beer in the evening.

I would ask the minister to have a very serious look at this half-mile rule and perhaps ease up on the enforcement in these outlying areas somewhat.

[10:45]

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Chairman, before we get back to some of the things we were talking about before, I just want to comment on what the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. Michael) was saying. As a member from the interior, I agree with the philosophy of what he is saying, but not his terminology. The member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), who is not in the chamber this morning, raised the same question in estimates last fall. I made the point that what the member is asking for is not a neighbourhood pub. A neighbourhood pub is something in a neighbourhood. What he is really asking for is a roadhouse licence on a highway, or a tavern licence if it's in a community. I personally have no problem with that. I think the government should look at that. But let's not call them "neighbourhood pubs"; they're not neighbourhood pubs. He wants roadhouses and taverns, so let's call a spade a spade. Quite frankly, I think the philosophy of them is no different than the philosophy of retailing alcohol in small communities which.... I don't know whether it was started by my friend from Vancouver East or when Rafe Mair was in charge of liquor, but, as the minister knows, we have literally dozens of private general stores and small businesses in various communities throughout the interior and on the remoter areas of coastal B.C. that retail booze. There's nothing wrong with that. It's a good policy, and I commend whoever started it, whether it was somebody on my side or somebody on the Social Credit side. What the member for Shuswap is asking is that the same philosophy be applied to the licensing sector. I agree. Of course it has to be managed well, and rules have to be laid down, but let's not call them neighbourhood pubs — that's an urban phenomenon. The member is talking about something entirely different.

I want to go back to the superintendent of brokers' office. I want to assure the minister that in no way are we concerned with putting bureaucratic hindrances on anybody applying for the approval of a prospectus through the superintendent of brokers' office, because that is what the minister implied. What we're simply asking the minister to do is to give the superintendent the tools to do the job. We want to speed up the approval process, and at the same time protect the public interest, investment interests and the reputation of British Columbia. That is particularly valid when it comes to areas of listings that all of us in this House, the business community in B.C. and all citizens of B.C. wish — I use the high-tech area as an example where there has not been the kind of expertise

[ Page 3992 ]

provided by the minister to the superintendent of brokers to quickly approve these kinds of applications before the company that looks for the listing tears its hair out and goes to Toronto or some other area — not necessarily to invest but simply for the listing. What we need is the brokerage business in the province of B.C. That's what we're talking about here.

The second area that I want to raise with the minister again is this. There is absolutely no reason why the minister and his treasury bench colleagues and the various trusteed funds in this province, whether they be pension funds or the ICBC investment portfolio or the Compensation Board or any other trusteed funds, cannot channel the investment of their funds through B.C. brokerage houses and B.C. exchanges. I'm not suggesting that the minister go out and buy Consolidated Moose Pasture. I'm suggesting that the minister, in whatever investment decisions are made, rather than buy those securities and stocks through out-of-province agencies — and, in many cases, out-of-country agencies — get business people in B.C. to handle the business for him. At the very least, the brokerage community in the province would get the commissions, instead of the commissions going somewhere else.

The long-term advantage — in fact, the long term in this case wouldn't be very long — is that where there are large amounts of public sector money being channelled, the private sector is soon to follow. That's what we really want in this province. We want to see larger investments of private sector money using B.C. brokerage agencies. I think that's something that the minister and his colleagues should look at and should take advantage of.

At one time I thought we couldn't do this. I really thought we couldn't do this in the province. I examined other jurisdictions to the south of us, such as Washington state — also Alberta and Ontario — and I found that the governments in those jurisdictions did do just that. They began channelling their own investment portfolios through businesses in their own provinces a few years ago. They didn't change their investment decisions; they simply began using the agencies within their own jurisdictions.

Once again we ask of the minister and his colleagues, and all of the agencies and Crown corporations that have trusteed funds, that they use B.C. businesses to channel those funds. As I say, I'm not asking that they buy penny stocks. Make the same investment decisions you otherwise would make, but demand and get those services from the B.C. brokerage community. As I say, the experience elsewhere has been that where large amounts of public money are channelled, private money is soon to follow. That's what we all hope and desire for the province of B.C. as far as activity on our various commodity exchanges in British Columbia is concerned.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, to briefly respond to the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. Michael) and his concern about specific applications, I've talked to my deputy and have asked that we review those applications. In regard to the general policy, as members know, we're carrying out a survey and a study, looking at our current regulations to see whether or not we can improve them. Some of your comments are well made, Mr. Member, regarding the difference between a quarter- or a half-mile limit in an urban area and a half-mile limit in a small community. I appreciate your comments, and they'll certainly be taken into consideration in our review.

To the member for Rossland-Trail, we are increasing our staff on the corporate side in the superintendent of brokers' office. Because of the activity in the investment community, we've had a number of complaints of delay in processing prospectuses, and we're working to correct that. As you may or may not know, statements of material fact are now being vetted through the stock exchange. That has speeded up the process. We have maintained an auditing function as a check or a balance to that system, but we recognize the need for speedy response to the investment community when they provide their prospectuses and/or their statements of material facts. We're gearing up on our corporate side to accommodate them as best we can. We're prepared to increase staff. As a matter of fact, we're in the process of increasing staff at the present time.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I just have a few more words to say about ICBC. But before that, it strikes me that the regulations governing the neighbourhood pub situation have a tendency to be very difficult to manage. I listened very carefully to the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) yesterday talking about the Burns Lake problem and I thought, as I was listening to him, about a situation in New Westminster. We have a number of churches and we also have a number of beer parlours. Why I use that analogy mystifies even me. But in any event it has a number of institutions.

AN HON. MEMBER: Take your hands out of your pockets.

MR. COCKE: I like my hands in my pockets. It keeps them comfortable and warm, and then I don't point at you.

In any event, Mr. Chairman, I was quite surprised. Over the years I've noticed a number of applications for pubs. For instance, I noticed one out in Sapperton; there's not a beer parlour or liquor outlet of that nature in the whole area, but each application has been turned down. Yet there was one right in the centre of town called the Moonrakers. It's about four blocks from the Royal Towers and about four and a half blocks from the Sportsman, etc. Within a mile of that particular pub there must be at least five or six beer parlours. It always has mystified me that sometimes it works, but other times it doesn't. The case that the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) made for Burns Lake is certainly one that I would suggest should be reviewed.

I think there should be some loosening up, because a lot of people would prefer the conviviality, the atmosphere and the environment of a pub vis-à-vis those warehouses that merchandise booze as fast as they possibly can. Maybe it's my age, but I just don't go into beer parlours any longer. Even though I enjoy a glass of draft from time to time, it's an atmosphere that I don't like. It's noisy, and it seems to me they're are pushing beer as fast as they can and ignoring the socialization side of things — in other words, where you go to have a friendly chat with a neighbour. I think the whole question should be looked at.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Can I get back to a Goldfarb public opinion survey that occurred in January? I have gone over this a little bit with the minister, but there are two questions on that survey to deal with ICBC. I will quote the questions precisely; I gather these are done either by phone or in person. The first one:

[ Page 3993 ]

"Think for a moment about ICBC. Overall, how satisfied are you with the way ICBC is being run? Would you say you are (a) very satisfied, (b) somewhat satisfied, (c) a little satisfied, or (d) not satisfied at all?" That's a fair enough question. From time to time we need to take a look at ourselves to see how we are running things and see how the people see us in those terms. The second one does worry me, however. "As you know, currently ICBC is government owned and operated. Would you be in favour of or opposed to the government selling ICBC? That is, turning over all" — not some, as the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) was talking about yesterday, but all — "operations to private insurance companies as before: (a) in favour, (b) opposed." Black and white.

I asked the minister some time ago if he would give us the results of both of these questions. We haven't heard the result, and I gather that the public who paid for the Goldfarb survey haven't the right to find out what the public are saying. But knowing the minister's propensity to privatize — that's his direction; he told us that very coherently yesterday — it worries me.

I want to bring to the attention of the minister one or two particular areas of great concern. Yesterday when he was dealing with general insurance — I'll deal with car insurance in a moment — he indicated that ICBC have "only" 7 percent of the market. Only, he said. There are a lot of casualty companies that would be only too delighted to have that "only" 7 percent of the market. There are a lot of general insurance companies on this continent, and quite a few overseas. I can't imagine any privately held general insurance company that could be assured of 7 percent of the market in British Columbia not moving in here like lightning. They would come in in a flash. I just want to review this very quickly. As far as general insurance is concerned, when we said okay, we'll just compete in the marketplace, we ensured that the general companies then have to compete with ICBC not just in the nice urban areas — fire-controlled areas — but across the province. There was a time in this province when you could not buy fire insurance outside of a fire-controlled area. That all changed with ICBC. The minister says: "We will ensure that that does not occur again, if in fact we go out of the business." I don't know how you could regulate that. I don't know how a government could sit and say that you must go against your underwriting policies and write business elsewhere. I just don't see how government regulations could do it. The reason it's happening now is that we have this modicum of the business, this 7 percent. ICBC have been an absolute tribute to the whole insurance industry in British Columbia, having been the vanguard of providing coverage for those people who couldn't otherwise get it.

[11:00]

I ask the minister to review and review and review and review before taking what could be a calamitous step. It is important that we do have this window on the industry. We don't have to wonder; we know what the actuarial tables are in all these areas of the province. We've built a tremendous amount of data that has afforded us the opportunity to provide that insurance that would otherwise not be provided. So the 7 percent of the market is nonsense. I think the 7 percent of the market is a tribute to ICBC, particularly because they've been able to maintain that and do it, as the minister pointed out yesterday, in a relatively profitable way. It's not a loser. It's good for the province. Don't forget: going beyond that, those dollars paid in premiums are invested here, not at the whim of somebody in Hartford, Connecticut or somebody in London, England. One of the things I have noted, having had some experience in this area, is that the life insurance companies have been good corporate citizens. In each of their jurisdictions where they write insurance they have invested a proportionate amount of those premiums in those areas. British Columbia hasn't got a beef as far as the life companies are concerned. They say: "Look, here we go; 10 percent of our premiums come from B.C., therefore 10 percent of our investment will go into your province." That's fair game. But that has never occurred — and I doubt if it ever will — in the casualty or in the general business. It just doesn't happen. As for the coverage, it's giving broader and better coverage. It's assuring that B.C. has a window on the industry.

However, this questionnaire asks whether or not you want us to dump the whole thing. In the first place, there are jobs in this province as a result of our having ICBC. Do we want to send all those jobs back to Hartford? I'm talking now about the automobile insurance and the whole works. Do we want them to send those jobs back to Hartford, the head office of a number of casualty companies and life insurance companies? Do we want them to send those jobs to New York, Toronto or London, England? You're talking here about at least 1,800 jobs. When you talk about claim centres and the head office, I imagine it's around 1,800. I haven't checked the numbers lately, but let's call it a round figure of 1,800 jobs. They're very important jobs, good jobs — non-polluting, commercial enterprise that's good for British Columbia. That's the jobs.

Secondly, the fact is that there are over $600 million of premiums paid to ICBC, and those dollars are invested under the — I was going to say "control" — influence of the minister and a group of British Columbians who serve on that board. It makes our economic future richer by virtue of the fact that we're seeing to it that our own citizens are assured their premiums are invested here. There are multimillions of dollars sitting waiting to be paid out in future in claims that are to be settled, or have been settled but the amounts are paid out over a long period of time. Those moneys also are very important to our economy and should be under our control.

To just divest ourselves of ICBC says that we're going to go back the way we were. I suggest that the casualty companies and the general companies were totally irresponsible in their treatment of our province. Some time ago we did an estimate of the money the B.C. people paid in premiums and its proportion invested here, and there was a higher proportion of the B.C. premiums invested in Ontario than there was in our own province. Do we want to go back to those dark days? It would be ridiculous.

So I say that what we should do with ICBC is accept wherever the criticism might be — and any large institution like that is naturally vulnerable to criticism — try our best to improve it as much as we can, but keep it viable, because it does a first-class job for the citizens of this province. And it does do a job in terms of keeping some of our own investment money in this province. That's important.

So, Mr. Chairman, I do hope that the minister will at least be influenced by others over there who I'm sure share my opinion. I'm not sure they all do, but I'm sure there are some over there who share my opinion, and I do hope they prevail with respect to ICBC. I think it's making an important contribution to our province, and I think it'll go on making an important contribution. Let's not be fooled by the past.

One of the problems we have is that any insurance company becomes unpopular — general insurance companies

[ Page 3994 ]

too. Everybody — or most people — feels they're not being handled as equitably as they would like. But I'll tell you that with this corporation we don't have that stupid old system from the old days where we had assigned risk. The younger generation now don't even remember what it was like prior to 1974, when kids — that is, anybody from 16 to 25 — had a terrible time getting insurance, and when they finally did, it was at an outlandish, outrageous price. The insurance companies of the day used to cream the market. Safeco, Allstate and some of those bigger outfits used to accept just the cream of the crop, and not accept anything they saw as a potential bad risk. It was a dog's breakfast. So finally the government had to move in and suggest they go into this assigned-risk basis. They did, and then they had to take their share of the "bad risks," but the price was utterly exorbitant. I think that ICBC has done a first-class job of bringing equity to that particular marketplace.

There is one other thing I'd like to say with respect to this whole question of privatization. Don't forget that in this province there is a law — not a suggestion, but an absolute, ironclad law — that says that you, Mr. Chairman, the House Leader or anybody else may not drive their car unless it's insured. Once we make it mandatory for people to buy insurance, I would suggest that we also give them the opportunity of getting it at the best quality and the best price, and take public responsibility for the whole thing.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Chairman, very quickly on the question of liquor store hours, because I see the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Reynolds) is back.

We on this side of the House, and certainly myself, do believe that liquor store hours in any community or in any given liquor store should, as much as possible, conform to the general standard of retail business hours within that community. If the community of Whistler would like to have liquor stores open at 11 o'clock at night, or if they'd like to have them open on Sunday, I certainly think the minister should be flexible enough, in consultation with his liquor administration branch, to allow that. I think that same standard of assessment that we're talking about applying in the community of Whistler should apply in every other community of the province. For example, in my own riding, if in Rossland the retail sector predominantly stays open until 9 o'clock on a Thursday or Friday night, then I think the liquor stores should be open until 9 o'clock. If they close down at six, then fine, close down the liquor store at six. Let's remember that liquor stores in any given community have a monopoly, so they should conform to what the private sector is doing and what the community standard is. I hope the minister would apply that to Whistler and to every other community. Whether there are communities other than Whistler that would find it appropriate to have liquor outlets open on Sunday is again something that the minister would have to decide in consultation with those communities and with his licensing people. We would hope that the minister and his people would be flexible enough to recognize the differing needs in the diverse communities that make up British Columbia.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, in most cases liquor store opening hours relate to the municipal bylaw for retail stores. We have to consider the cost of staffing for late hours, but in some communities where there is more than one store there is usually one that is identified as staying open later to relate to the regular business hours of the retail community. We have taken some steps regarding Sundays in conjunction with the tourist industry, to a great extent, and our domestic wineries. The wine-shops in our estate and commercial wineries are open on Sundays for tasting and purchase of wine. That was put into place about six or seven months ago on a trial basis and has worked very well with a very good response, and there are no complaints that I'm aware of.

We are modernizing, albeit slowly and carefully, because there is the possibility of backlash, if you will, from people who feel that we shouldn't be doing that, whether it be the churches or Mothers Against Drunk Drivers. By showing through experience that it doesn't cause a major social problem, I think we'll receive acceptability and will be able to move to more modern regulation. I'm repeating myself, but we are now conducting a survey and study to get a feeling for other changes we think we could make to modernize our liquor laws in this province.

[11:15]

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of questions for the minister relative to distribution of liquor. We have discussed previously the Mill Bay outlet, which has been requested for some time. I am raising it again because in his remarks yesterday afternoon the minister indicated that he was looking at some different guidelines or criteria for deciding. When we were discussing his estimates a few months ago, the minister told me that the first applicant was not necessarily the one considered, and that they looked at other things as well. I am wondering whether or not he has decided if that is a high priority on the list and if he will allow some form of outlet in the Mill Bay area; also whether it will be an agency or an actual liquor distribution branch operated by the government. I would like to know what his thoughts are for that particular area. I understand there have been several applications from that area.

The other question I have relates to pricing. Can the minister assure us that the price of the purchased material will be the same if it is an agency as opposed to a liquor distribution branch? Or is there an opportunity for markup or markdown, according to the whims of the operator of the agency?

I am sorry I wasn't able to follow all of the debate this morning, so this may have been covered, but I'm wondering about the specialty wine-shops that were talked about earlier. I know we have them in conjunction with the wineries, but there was some talk of allowing specialty wine-shops where an operator would be able to sell wines only. There were actually some applications taken for that at one time — probably under the auspices of a previous minister. Then it all seemed to disappear, and I'm wondering whether that is still being considered. If so, what stage is it at?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, those things are being considered. I must advise that I want to get some input from the survey before making any major changes.

MRS. WALLACE: By "those things," do you mean the wine-shops?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Yes.

With regard to pricing, you have two alternatives. Under our present agency system, in which we have agency stores in remote areas of the province, their product sells for the same

[ Page 3995 ]

price as you would buy it for in the government liquor store. Looking to the future, whether or not you would look to an open pricing system in which the private store or the agency store.... We may give the flexibility-of-pricing advantage to the consumer in some cases, if they specified certain products, or an increase.... It has not been determined. The present policy is the same price. Those are all the types of things that have been raised here this morning. The amount of difference of opinion — as to whether you should or you shouldn't, whether it should be regulated or wide open, whether you should have Sunday openings, unlimited hours, etc. — gives you an indication of how involved the matter of liquor regulation is in this province. Again, that shows the need for doing reviews from time to time. The last one was done, I believe, in 1980 by the previous minister. Some changes were made, and I would hope that we'll go back again, get input and be able to look at changes where we feel changes are needed and are indicated.

No decision has been made as to whether it will be an agency store or a government store at Mill Bay. But it is one active application, and we've had a number of queries on it. Our concern, of course, is whether it would be a viable government liquor store. I leave that decision up to the manager of the liquor distribution branch — to determine the marketability, the size of his market and the cost of operating a store in that area.

MRS. WALLACE: I thank the minister for his reply.

One other thing. Perhaps he could elaborate on what the criteria are. What is the size of the market? What's the breaking point for agency versus distribution branch? What are the criteria for issuing this? The reason I'm concerned is that we were talking about this in his last estimates, and he did indicate to me at that time that the fact that the person had applied for some time, or even that he had a facility, might not be the thing that would weigh it. They would look at other things. I'm wondering what those other things are that they look at, and where the line is at which they change from agency to government-operated outlet.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, some of the criteria for a government agency store are, of course, the size of the market, the cost of operation of that liquor store, the volume it would put through and whether it would be a viable operation under the liquor distribution branch. It's no different than Safeway, Eaton's or anybody else determining whether they put a store.... That arm of my ministry, the liquor distribution branch, is a retailing operation. They have to make those determinations based on what they feel is required. The consumer may feel that going 14 miles down the road is too far, but that doesn't mean that we should be putting a liquor store on every corner just because of that concern.

MRS. WALLACE: What are the criteria for an agency?

HON. MR. HEWITT: The criteria for an agency store is a request from the area, the distance they would have to travel to another store, the impact of that agency store on the volumes in the store that we already operate — and others, I'm sure. But those are some of them. Basically we look at whether it would provide service to the community, and wouldn't be, you might say, a loss centre as opposed to a profit centre.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, I have a few more comments vis-à-vis the rentalsman situation.

Before I do that, I notice that the whole question of neighbourhood pubs has been on the floor this morning. I have a suggestion for the minister vis-à-vis the urban kind of neighbourhood pubs. I would like to share with you some of the problems that have come up. Basically this comes from my years at the local level and experiencing the problems sometimes of getting those kinds of establishments accepted.

One of the problems I detected was the fact that a single application came before council and created a bit of an uproar in a particular neighbourhood. They felt there would be a mass move to that neighbourhood — I'm talking about urban areas — and that would create all sorts of traffic problems and social problems, etc. That was when you dealt with one licence at a time, every year or so. It seems to me that what you might wish to consider is that if we do support the concept of neighbourhood pubs in urban areas, rather than deal with these applications singly and going to a municipality individually, say in the city of Victoria, you would collect maybe five or six applications located in various parts of the city and put them forward as a group and have the council take a look at them. If you opened five or six at once, you would avoid that kind of inundation that one local pub might have. I think it would alleviate the concern where a particular neighbourhood feels half the population of Victoria, for example, would travel to one pub opening. I think it's something you may wish to consider. There's no question that the neighbourhood pub is a good idea in terms of some of the antiquated or traditional ways of socializing and having a drink in this province, particularly in urban areas.

Perhaps the minister would like to comment upon that concept: collect applications, open five or six at once and eliminate the uniqueness or the attention paid to one particular pub opening.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Very briefly, Mr. Chairman, the applications for neighbourhood pubs, of course, are driven by those people who wish to open one or to operate one. You may wait one, two or five years for four or five applications to come in to locate in the city of Victoria or any other city. I think we have to expeditiously deal with an application that comes before us. To gather them may mean a considerable length of time. Interestingly enough — I'm not sure if the member knows — I don't think there's a neighbourhood pub located within the boundaries of the city of Victoria. If there is, there's only one — I'm not sure.

MR. BLENCOE: There's one to open up in Vic West.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I'm not sure if it was a policy when you were on council that you....

MR. BLENCOE: Yes, we allowed it.

HON. MR. HEWITT: We didn't identify with that.

The other thing, Mr. Chairman, very briefly, is that interestingly enough we talk about the old-style beer parlour, and I recognize there are a lot of hotels that still have that, but many of the hotels now have moved to what they call the hotel pub and have reduced the numbers in the pub to 125 from a 250- or 300-seat pub, improved the decor and have made it a very enjoyable place to go and to socialize. They've done that in

[ Page 3996 ]

response to the attractiveness of the neighbourhood pub concept. So in the years since neighbourhood pubs started, the hotels have identified that they have to have more attractive facilities, and many of them, to their credit, have done just that and have really excellent facilities to compete with the neighbourhood pubs.

MR. BLENCOE: Your point is well taken, Mr. Minister, about having to try to expedite applications, but I know in my time on city council we dealt with maybe four or five applications over a period of two or three years, and unfortunately only one has ever gone through. Basically the problem was that the neighbourhood came out and said: "Look, you're opening up and everyone is going to come here." It may be a way around this problem. It's a good point you make, that you don't want to hold back people who make an application for two or three years till there may be others making application, but maybe you could let it be known that you're going to consider a policy, in the city of Victoria or anywhere, that if there are people interested in opening a neighbourhood pub they should make application because the idea is that you are going to consider half a dozen opening at once in certain areas of the city to avoid that kind of syndrome of one opening and everyone travelling to it. I think that would avoid the problem that I'm talking about and also allow for the concern you have about expediting these applications. You could let it be known that it's a written or an unwritten policy that you are going to consider half a dozen applications in the city of Victoria at once.

For instance, in my neighbourhood, Fernwood, there is what's called the Fernwood Inn, and it's about to make application for a neighbourhood pub. I know that people living around there are going to be concerned about it. It's going to be the only one opening up, and the neighbours are going to be concerned that half the town is going to travel to that neighbourhood pub. Maybe you should be saying that you're considering Fernwood.... We have one in Victoria West, but in Victoria there are four or five other natural geographic areas. Let is be know that if there is anybody interested in a neighbourhood pub in north Victoria, James Bay, Fairfield, the Jubilee area.... I think there'll be a number of applications. You were saying: "We want a policy of doing four or five at once to avoid that influx into one particular pub." I think that would work in Victoria, anyway. I think Victorians are basically in agreement with the local neighbourhood pub. But people are a little leery of having the only one in town and everyone driving there, etc. I hope you could consider that. I think it may be a way of bringing about this unique concept and a way of improving some of our antiquated ways of consuming alcohol. I'll leave that.

[11:30]

There's just one other issue that I wish to touch on vis-à-vis the minister. The Ministry of Human Resources has introduced what they call hardship assistance guidelines, which have as their objective providing an income assistance benefit in circumstances which, if unresolved, will affect dramatically the health, life or safety of the applicant or dependent. In other words, it's to do with people renting, if they have a hardship case. It is my understanding that these new guidelines will come into effect April 1. I'm wondering if the Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs had any input into the development of these hardship assistance guidelines vis-a-vis tenants. Are you aware of these guidelines, Mr. Minister? Did you have any input into these guidelines?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I'm not aware of the specific guidelines that the member talks about. I can't say whether or not the Ministry of Human Resources has been in touch with my staff to deal with the matter of hardship cases. I think that question should really be addressed to the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy).

MR. BLENCOE: It does revolve around tenant issues and shelter. If I may, I'll just go into some of my concerns, and you may wish to discuss it with your colleague. The Ministry of Human Resources guidelines say that shelter assistance may only be paid when an applicant has no place to live or when the landlord has made application to a court registry for a writ of possession as outlined in the Residential Tenancy Act. My question to the minister is: can the Consumer and Corporate Affairs minister, who is responsible for administering the Residential Tenancy Act, advise — or perhaps advise in the future — this House how tenants will find out that the landlord has applied to a court registry for a writ of possession? I think that's an important issue. You may not be able to answer today, but it might be something you'd wish to look at and perhaps bring back some kind of response about.

We're advised that the procedure will be that the rentalsman makes an order, the tenant — if he fails to dispute the order and there's no judicial review — fails to obey the order, the landlord takes the order to the court and obtains a writ of possession. The writ is taken to a sheriff, and the sheriff executes the order. My concern is that under the policy proposed by the Ministry of Human Resources, if they grant assistance to the applicant for the rent, the court would already have made an order which will still be enforceable. Certain landlords — maybe one or two unscrupulous landlords — could just pocket the emergency aid from Human Resources and still evict the tenant. There is a strong financial incentive for the landlord to do that. It will have cost the landlord court costs and $500 for a bond to serve the writ. I think it does involve your ministry in some way because the Residential Tenancy Act is involved, and I share that concern with you. You may not be able to answer it today, but it's something you may wish to discuss with the Minister of Human Resources. It's something that I discovered and certainly have some concern about. You may wish to comment in general about the problem, but I recognize that you may not know the details.

HON. MR. HEWITT: My deputy advises that representatives of my ministry sit on a committee with the representatives of the Human Resources ministry to deal with such matters as shelter assistance, and I think the liaison is good between the two ministries. I'm sure the Ministry of Human Resources will look at some of the comments the member has made.

MR. BLENCOE: That's good.

To conclude my portion of this part of the estimates, about an hour ago I gave the minister some facts and figures about court costs if the rentalsman were eliminated or dramatically curtailed. I gave some figures that I think are fairly accurate, but I asked the minister to indicate whether he thinks they're incorrect. They were based on the number of

[ Page 3997 ]

cases the rentalsman handled in 1982, and I indicated that if the rentalsman were eliminated or dramatically curtailed, the cost to the taxpayer of going to the court system would virtually double. The minister didn't refute my figures and didn't really answer the question. Since that was about an hour ago, I'm just wondering if his deputy has had the opportunity to consider. Does he have a response to those figures I gave? I would be interested to know whether he is in a position to refute the doubling of costs to the taxpayer if the rentalsman is eliminated or curtailed.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I haven't got the figures to enable me to comment on the accuracy of the member's figures or dispute them. I think the member also realizes that the decontrol of rents and the rent review system has resulted in a reduction in activity and in the costs of the rentalsman's office. We are administering the present legislation, Mr. Chairman, and not what future costs might be should other legislation be considered.

MR. D'ARCY: Just a couple of additional notes on liquor licensing. Certainly I don't wish to suggest standards for Victoria, as I don't represent the area. But if the member for Victoria was suggesting that there be a proposal call for neighbourhood pub licences, like they used to have for housing, I'm not sure that's where we want to go. The private sector.... In any event, that's something for the minister to decide in consultation with elected representatives from Victoria — or any other community and its business leaders.

The minister mentioned, in terms of the neighbourhood pub licences, that it is his opinion that the establishment of neighbourhood pubs has improved the decorum of the hotel beer parlours. I suspect that improvement would have happened anyway in a free market system. I do agree with him, though, that the neighbourhood pub, and the standards which the entrepreneurs who have neighbourhood pubs set up, did accelerate the trend. Many of us who have lived in B.C. and in other parts of Canada have been jealous of the fact that across the line in the States the average bar is a lot classier than the average bar in British Columbia. They have some taverns that are pretty low dives, but they also have some outstanding liquor outlets that are run with pizzazz, and a lot of imagination and jazz went into the decoration of those bars.

I am sure the minister has observed in Victoria, and in many other communities in the province of B.C., that the most pleasant cocktail lounges you can go into aren't licensed as cocktail lounges. They are holding lounges for restaurants. I would like the minister to consider a change in the regulations. As far as I'm concerned, if those holding lounges were legally operated as cocktail lounges — and I think they should be — we would find that the cocktail lounge in the hotel would smarten up and improve itself in a major way. Around Victoria and even in my own riding there are some delightful holding lounges; you can't go and order a drink unless you have a bowl of soup on the side. I think the minister should recognize what the community and the public is saying. They're saying: "When we go out for a drink we like to go to a nice place. We like to have nice furniture, nice decor and maybe even some live music." I don't think the fact that it's a holding lounge for a restaurant should be allowed to discourage that trend, even in Invermere.

MR. COCKE: By happy circumstance I just got some evidence to absolutely, conclusively make the argument that I made before. It just came to me today. Fireman's Fund Insurance Co. of Canada.

HON. MR. HEWITT: In a brown envelope?

MR. COCKE: Not in a brown envelope; this is to the agent. Listen to this, Mr. Minister, and compare it to ICBC.

"Automobile Program — 1984. In 1984 we plan to increase our automobile volume moderately and retain the excellent underwriting results received in 1983. Our program for 1984 remains much the same as last year, with some modifications to simplify the rating procedure and avoid some duplication of effort in our processing.

"The 1984 program features.... Our rates in 1984 correspond to the rates in the ICBC manual in each class, territory, driving record and claims-rating scale. The only exceptions are for drivers with less than ten years' driving experience but more than five years — our class 09 — and less than five years' driving experience — our class 08. These drivers are surcharged 50 percent and 100 percent respectively over the ICBC rate."

That's exactly what they did before and worse. That is absolutely conclusive of what they'll do in the future, if they're given their tether in this province.

This is another rule: "Our new business will not insure cars built prior to 1975 — 1970 in Victoria — we will honour renewals of existing vehicles exceeding those dates, providing the vehicle is in good condition. We have identified the older vehicles on the February and March renewal list and ask your discretion in renewing them."

AN HON. MEMBER: Well!

MR. COCKE: Yes, well! They're creaming right now, before they're even back. Give them the scope that they want and they'll cream it to death.

So there you are. That's their new handbook for this year.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Yes, you'll have a copy immediately, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Chairman, having said that I will go rushing off, make a copy for the minister and bring it back.

MR. ROSE: I suggest that he should also do a press release on that as well.

It is an old rule in politics that you never ask a question unless you know the answer, but I'm about to depart from that; I don't know the answer to this question. I want to know whether or not the minister has received any recent representations from the Neighbourhood Pub Association about the limit on seats in certain establishments and under certain licensing conditions, and if he has, what his reaction was.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

HON. MR. HEWITT: Yes, I have received representations — as a matter of fact, on a fairly regular basis.

[ Page 3998 ]

MR. ROSE: I wonder if the minister would be kind enough to amplify and elucidate on the nature of the representations in terms of capacity or number of seats, and what his attitude is at this point toward those representations.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, the present size of a neighbourhood pub is 65 seats. That was determined from the social aspect of it and the fact that it is a "neighbourhood" pub. Looking back, maybe it was at the time the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) was minister. It was a brilliant decision on his part, and has been in existence for some time. The concern expressed by representatives of the Neighbourhood Pub Association is that in some cases — not all, but some — they would like to see the size increased. I have made no decision on increasing the number of seats in neighbourhood pubs. The present policy is 65.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Chairman, I have no particular views on the subject one way or the other. However, representations have been made to me to the effect that the difficulty with the 65 limit is that you can't look after peak periods. People are turned away from a particular watering hole at peak periods, and because they can't expand to the 100.... There may be social implications, traffic implications and all kinds of things to consider, and I recognize that, but I know of one business that has reported to me that while it's doing pretty good business, it's losing about $1,500 a month. That can't last very long or that business will be going under. It's not that it's not popular or that it's doing well. It's just that when times are busy, like Friday and Saturday night, it can't hold enough people to make up for the slack times at other times. So I think the association is concerned about that.

[11:45]

There may be a lot of people who feel exactly the opposite way because they live near one, or something of that nature. As I say, there are other implications. But the information I get is that unless you can expand during your peak periods, you can't cover your slack periods, so some of them may go out of business.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Briefly, the member is quite correct about the economic concern that some of them have. However, he's also aware, I'm sure, that the people who made that decision to go into a 65-seat pub, knew the hours of operation, the size of the pub and the financing that may have had to be done and make that business decision. Do we change what is a reasonably working system to allow them to double or triple their size because they may not be good operators? There are many at 65 who are doing a good job.

The major concern, of course — to give you some history — is that we did have 125 when the neighbourhood pubs first came into being. I think at that time the ministers responsible for liquor licensing recognized that in some cases you were looking at a miniature beer parlour with the 125 seats as opposed to a small community neighbourhood social facility.

MR. ROSE: I think the request to the minister is for 100. It was not 125.

HON. MR. HEWITT: It was originally.

MR. ROSE: It might have been. Certainly you ruin the intimacy, and you might change the neighbourhood and that sort of thing, but conditions change as well. So what might have been a sound business decision in one instance at one time because of spiralling costs or transportation problems could change. Conditions do change. It's something that perhaps needs to be looked at from an economic point of view. It's hardly reasonable to me, if most of them were doing well at 65, that there would be requests to increase to 100.

MR. D'ARCY: Whether or not I'm disagreeing with my friend from Coquitlam-Moody, I do think the upper limit on licensing for neighbourhood pubs should be increased from 65. I would personally recommend that it go to nearer 100, and I'll tell you why. One of the things unfortunately — or perhaps fortunately — tied together in British Columbia and elsewhere is live music, giving an opportunity to some of the excellent musicians, as well as providing good live entertainment to the general public. The fact is that a pub operation with 65 people simply doesn't have the volume to warrant other than a volunteer operation to hire live people. I think a good example of how successful this sort of thing can be is The Trollers in Horseshoe Bay, where they make their own beer. They advertise very high quality live entertainment that's an honour to British Columbia. It would be successful anywhere in the world.

I think that margin needs to be increased. I realize there may be some other problems around it, but I would sincerely hope the minister would have a good look at that. As I said, I agree with the downsizing from 125. I think that was a bit large; that was the original size. In making the correction, the government went a bit too far. I think the upper limit should be somewhere in the neighbourhood of 100, to provide the profit margin and the volume to allow the operators of localized operations to provide good quality entertainment to the general public and at the same time provide opportunity for the excellent musicians and performing artists that we have in British Columbia, as well as providing an added attraction to the tourist industry.

MRS. DAILLY: I have a couple of brief questions for the minister. It's to do with the advertising and sale of liquor. In the minister's opening remarks yesterday he said he was very pleased that the advertisers were doing their best to put on educational programs. If I recall, when it was agreed to allow the extension of advertising for liquor and tobacco, a certain percentage was stated that must be used by the companies to educate on the opposite effects of drinking — the evils of drinking. If they are truly meaning that percentage....

You spoke very generally that you were happy, but I'd like to know what kind of watchdog you keep on whether they are meeting their obligations. I think we are all aware that there is more and more drinking taking place. Drinking in moderation, I suppose, is all right, but we find so many other problems resulting from alcoholism today, and the government has a great responsibility to the people of B.C. to ensure that proper education and assistance is given to people who are problem drinkers. You do take in a tremendous amount of profit from it, and I am concerned that you are meeting the other end of your responsibility. I would like an answer to that question.

Is there a suggestion now that outlets be open on Sundays, etc? I am not one who feels that with more accessibility you are obviously going to have everyone drinking, but I do think that if the government is going to increase the outlets for drinking and perhaps have it on Sunday too, you will also

[ Page 3999 ]

have to tell us how you are going to counter what might be increased drinking in our province.

HON. MR. HEWITT: The current policy prevails; in other words, store hours and drinking establishment regulations will be the same until such time as a policy decision is made to make any amendments to the liquor regulations in this province. There are many points of view as to whether or not you should expand the number of hours, open seven days a week, etc. You can have ten people in a room and almost split it down the middle, five expressing concern one way and five expressing a desire. The public can make their own choice whether or not they use a facility on a Sunday or after 11 o'clock at night or whatever.

Dealing with the advertising, they committed themselves that 15 percent of their time and budget would be related to education information and advertisements with regard to problems with alcohol abuse. We approve all their ads as to content, and they file a report with our liquor licensing branch on an annual basis, I believe, possibly a semi-annual basis, giving us the statistics, the dollar figures, as to how much time has been related to education information. I can advise the member that they have lived up to their commitment. That's what I mentioned yesterday in general terms. I'm very pleased with their effort to inform the public about the downside of alcohol. I think it has worked well, and I've had very few complaints about it.

MRS. DAILLY: A final question on this matter of drinking. I wonder if the minister could tell us if his officials have at any time taken up the matter — this won't make me at all popular with young people, because again there is a split opinion on this — of raising the drinking age. At the moment it is 19. In many other jurisdictions it is still 21 years. I am not sure in my own mind, frankly, what difference it would make, but many people in this province believe that the lower it is, the more access, and the more problems with teenage drinking. I would hope that the government would at least be doing a reasoned study on this, and perhaps would look at other jurisdictions and compare the effects of teenage drinking to see if there is more or less, depending on the age at which they have access.

As I say, I'm a lay person on this, and I don't know; but I do know that teenage drinking is on the increase. There are far more problems today than we've ever had with teenagers drinking. I'm concerned about that as a member of the Legislature, and I know that you must be also, Mr. Minister. I intend to bring this up again with the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen). I'm sure the two of you are concerned with this matter. Have you done a study on that?

HON. MR. HEWITT: There is only one year at which teenage drinking is legal — 19. Teenage drinking is done illegally between the ages of — I'm not sure how young you want to go — 13, 14 and all the way up to 18. Raising the age to 21 will not solve that problem, because they're doing it illegally right now. So if you solve that problem by moving it up by one or two years.... It's hard to say whether they will do it illegally or legally.

We've done a number of things: education is one; stiffer laws with regard to drinking drivers is another. It's a question that is addressed from time to time. I know that other jurisdictions and some states in the United States have raised their age to 21 again. We range anywhere from 18 to 21 years of age to be eligible to purchase alcohol. I can tell you that that's one of the questions I'm going to be asking in the survey we're doing, to see just what the public feels as to whether government should be looking at the age.

Vote 13 approved.

Vote 14: ministry operations, $18,833,909 — approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:57 a.m.