[ Page 4269 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Tabling Documents –– 4269

An Act To Amend The Builders Lien Act (Bill M205). Mr. Pelton.

Introduction and first reading –– 4269

Residential Tenancy Act (Bill 19). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 4269

Mr. Blencoe –– 4270

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. MOWAT: It's my pleasure to introduce to the House today two persons: Mr. George Siborne, who has recently retired from the Royal Bank and is well known in Vancouver and British Columbia as a basketball referee, director of the British Columbia Lions football team, past chairman of the B.C. Sports Hall of Fame and past president of the Vancouver Gyro Club; and his wife Marg, who was a Lord Byng girl. I'd ask the house to welcome both these people.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I would very much like to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. member. I have known Mr. Siborne for many years, and the only thing I've really not forgiven him for was calling "steps" on me in one game when I didn't have any steps.

Hon. Mr. Curtis tabled the official administrator's annual returns for the calendar year ending December 31, 1983, and Financial Administration Act reports, pursuant to sections 41(6) and 43(2), for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1984.

Introduction of Bills

AN ACT TO AMEND THE BUILDERS LIEN ACT

On a motion by Mr. Pelton, Bill M205, An Act to Amend the Builders Lien 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.

Hon. Mr. Richmond tabled answers to questions on the order paper.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Leave to proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 19, Mr. Speaker.

RESIDENTIAL TENANCY ACT

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I rise to move second reading of Bill 19, the Residential Tenancy Act. It replaces Bill 5, which members will recall was on the order paper in a previous session.

After much consultation with landlord and tenant groups alike, we decided that Bill 5 and the old Residential Tenancy Act could be improved. There are four main areas where Bill 19 differs from its predecessor. These areas are important and really identify the results of the consultation we had with the various groups. The first was the provision of a voluntary dispute-arbitration service for the benefit of landlord and tenant alike. The second was the elimination of a controversial clause called "Eviction Without Cause" in Bill 5. The third was the prohibition of the use of large rent increases as a means of eviction. Finally, it was the reflection of the unique status of renters of mobile-home pads, due to the fact that they have an asset of considerable value placed on the mobile-home pad which they rent.

Most significantly, the act gives landlords and tenants the choice of access to arbitrators empowered to settle time-urgent disputes over matters such as eviction, notice of termination or provision of repairs or services. All disputes relating to financial matters, such as security deposits, will now be heard in the courts and not by the arbitration system. Landlords and tenants will be given two months after the passage of this bill to decide whether they want future time urgent disputes resolved by arbitration or by the courts. But as I say, arbitration will not be used in matters relating to money.

To assist landlords and tenants in understanding this new legislation, my ministry will produce informational materials explaining the process by which they can make known their preference of the dispute resolution forum. After two months, any time-urgent disputes will automatically be heard by the arbitration system, unless either party has chosen the court system in that period. However, Mr. Speaker, both parties can agree in writing, at any time, to use the courts. We expect the majority of people will elect the arbitration process as it will be the quicker and less formal method. The legislation is therefore designed to make it easier for landlords and tenants, by doing nothing, to in effect choose the arbitration system. A tenant or landlord electing the arbitration service will pay a user fee of $30 per dispute, similar to that charged in county court. That fee will help offset the overall costs of the service.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

The unsuccessful party in the arbitration process may be ordered to reimburse the other party for the filing fee to discourage landlords and tenants from bringing forward disputes that are not initiated in good faith. Arbitrators will replace the office of the rentalsman, in conjunction with a small residential tenancy branch which will provide general information to landlords and tenants, and will schedule arbitration hearings as required. We expect that services to landlords and tenants will improve as a result of this new system.

Although the actual numbers of staff assigned to the branch — which we look to approximating 35, excluding arbitrators — will be significantly less than the office of the rentalsman's peak staffing levels. The new branch is expected to be able to provide more information services and speedier resolution of landlord and tenant disputes. For example, I expect arbitrators will be appointed in all sizeable communities in the province, an improvement over the old rentalsman structure under which there were officers in only six major centres. Arbitrators will be appointed on the basis of their ability to resolve contractual disputes and will be paid on a fee-for-service basis. For the information of members, about 70 percent of the cases are expected to be heard in Vancouver, and 20 percent in Victoria, due to the fact that that is where the majority of tenancies exist. The branch will have offices in both those cities, and landlords and tenants in other areas will contact the Vancouver office by phone or letter for information, or to arrange a hearing.

[ Page 4270 ]

[10:15]

The concept of arbitration is well established and accepted. The process has long been in use in contract disputes and in labour relations. It is currently employed by the Better Business Bureau in consumer business disputes, and was, of course, part and parcel of our rent review appeal procedure. It is less intimidating and formal than the court system for most people, and tenants and landlords are less likely to require legal assistance when they appear before the arbitrator. It is also much speedier than the courts, and so is best suited for urgent dispute resolution. For example, a case involving serious damage to rental accommodation on the part of the tenant, or the landlord's withdrawal of essential services to the tenant, would be heard within a few days at most.

On the subject of the clause in the old bill entitled "Eviction without cause," the new legislation still identifies — as did the old Residential Tenancy Act — those evictions which relate to specific cause, such as rent arrears, excessive damage, conversion or owner occupancy. While replacing the "without cause" clause, Bill 19 does allow for eviction for reasonable cause where the landlord-tenant relationship has broken down. Arbitrators will have the flexibility to consider whether or not an eviction for reasonable cause is warranted, and that gives the tenant the opportunity to take his case before the arbitrator if he feels that the cause is unreasonable.

Another important feature of the legislation is that landlords will be prohibited from using large rent increases as a device to force eviction. The courts will be empowered to award damages to tenants illegally evicted in this manner. Also, rent increases may be given to tenants only once a year with three months' notice, with the exception of mobile homes, which require six months' notice. That annual rent increase and the three months' notice is the same as in the previous legislation.

At the same time, landlords should be pleased that we have taken their rights into consideration as well. For example, during the consultative process the provision of an arbitration service was requested as often by landlords as it was by tenants. Also, the legislation continues to recognize landlords' fundamental right to take possession of their property, should they desire.

These changes to the Residential Tenancy Act also reflect the special concern of mobile-home park tenants. The act takes into consideration their status as tenants who rent the space on which their home — often quite an expensive asset — is located. Tenants of mobile-home parks must receive at least six months' notice prior to eviction for demolition or conversion purposes and will be entitled to reasonable moving expenses. In addition, they will be entitled to six months' notice of a rent increase. Also, they will have the right to assign their tenancy in order to facilitate a sale of their mobile home.

As I said earlier, this new bill addresses many of the concerns expressed over recent months by landlord and tenant groups. I want to compliment those associations and organizations that met with me and my staff in the past months, to give us their concerns and their suggestions in relation to the previous Bill 5. I also want to compliment my staff, and particularly Mr. Jim Patterson, the rentalsman, for the assistance and guidance and expertise he brought to the preparation of this piece of legislation. Other members of my staff, of course, contributed as well, but I think Mr. Patterson wanted to see, as we did, a fair and reasonable bill that addresses both landlords' and tenants' rights. I think this Residential Tenancy Act will be identified as one of the fairest and best pieces of residential tenancy legislation in this country.

I'm confident that the legislation will prove workable and acceptable to all parties while still reflecting the government's commitment to restraint that we talked about last year. Most importantly, in my opinion, it identifies the government's desire to have less involvement in the marketplace in this province and allow that marketplace to work. Evidence and studies have proven that if you have government intervention with regard to rental accommodation, in the long term the quality of that accommodation is reduced, there is evidence of disrepair, and landlords in many cases subsidize the tenant, in effect, and as a result the tenant's accommodation deteriorates, which certainly doesn't serve them well.

So I think that a lot of consideration has gone into this legislation by all the parties involved. As I said before, I think this will be one of the best and most acceptable pieces of residential tenancy legislation in this country. With those comments, I now move that Bill 19 be read a second time.

MR. BLENCOE: This morning I want to start by stating how important this side of the House views the whole question of landlord and tenant issues in the province to be. If there was ever a bill that had potential impact on a huge portion of the province of British Columbia and its people, it's this particular bill. Currently there are in British Columbia 390,000 tenants and their families, which is a high proportion of the population. Therefore it's extremely important that the government be very careful in drafting legislation and rules and regulations for those 380,000 tenants. It's very important that a piece of legislation be fair and equitable to all groups involved, both landlord and tenant.

The reason we had the office of the rentalsman.... I think it worked extremely well, and right now I would like to compliment the staff who worked there over the years, many times under a lot of pressure. I know a number of them who work in that office, and it was high pressure. I met many of them after a long week of a lot of hours of work, and they felt a lot of pressure. They felt a lot of responsibility. Many times they had in their hands the power to make a decision about a family's home — whether they would stay there, whether they would get it repaired, whether that rent would rise dramatically, or whether they would get evicted.

Tenants are sometimes seen as somewhat second-class citizens as compared with those who own their own properties. We all know that we all want to own our own properties, but thousands and thousands of tenants in the province of British Columbia view their apartment as their home. They don't see it any differently than those who do happen to own their little space: it's home; it's a roof; it's shelter; it protects them from some of the things that are going on in our communities; it's a place to escape to; it's a place for families to be brought up. Regulations that are set and put down for those 380,000 tenants and their families are very important.

I believe that over the years the rentalsman's staff have thought about those particular issues. They haven't just thought about the judicial issues they're involved in. They felt concern about both landlords and tenants and have tried to be fair and tried to do what's right, and that's very important. We see this bill introduced and we see the rentalsman's office disappear, which has served this province very well for a number of years, serving tenants and landlords fairly and

[ Page 4271 ]

equitably. As we see it disappear as a fair, objective, nonpolitical, at arm's length from the political process....These rentalsman's officers have worked many times long hours beyond the nine-to-five kind of duties they're expected to cover, advised out of hours, speaking, helping people who want to ensure that their home is protected and they have security of tenure in their home.

I believe that in the province of British Columbia today, Mr. Speaker, tenants' security of tenure is jeopardized. I'm not happy with this legislation, nor is our party. Basically we feel that the office of the rentalsman has served well: it's been cost-effective, it served a very important social function, and it should remain. I agree, you may have some problems with that office, and maybe the philosophical direction of the government is to reduce some of the expenditures on this very important office. But the basic premise of our party, Mr. Speaker, is that when you've got a good thing, something that's serving 380,000 people well, you don't throw it out; you don't destroy it. You keep it, you build on it, you enhance it, and you say to those people who have served in that office right across this province: "Well done! Look after the interests of landlords and tenants as you have over the years." What I see happening is because the government feels that the terms.... Maybe it's because we brought it in. I hope not. Maybe it's because we decided through the Law Reform Commission, and various other studies, that this was the best way to deal with landlord-and-tenant issues. It was the fairest way — and, Mr. Minister, the cheapest way. It's cost-effective. It saves taxpayers' money.

Now I see this office being thrown out. All that work, and all that equity and all those fundamental rights for landlords and tenants, are being changed in the province of British Columbia. There's no question it's in keeping with the philosophical direction of this government that we return to the jungle market where in a way, if you've got shelter from a landlord, you say thank you, but you don't rock the boat. Don't state that as a tenant, because you don't own that property, you don't have rights. The fundamental issue is that while they may not have the paper that says they own that property, through their rent they pay for that building, they pay for that land, they pay the taxes. Just based on financial considerations, they have a stake in those buildings, and therefore, having a stake, they have basic rights. They are entitled to some security of tenure. I don't see this in that particular bill.

Rent control is gone, which is interesting, given that Saskatchewan has just introduced improved rent control — a Tory government, as I stated yesterday in this House. They have introduced controls of 5 percent. The Tory government there has recognized that during difficult times you have to ensure there's equity between landlord and tenant –– I have no problem with landlords if they can document that they have special problems with their building and that there should be an increase beyond a reasonable amount. I don't think tenants disagree with that. But I don't think it should be wide open and that tenants shouldn't have some recourse to the government or the rentalsman's office, as it is now, to say: "Look, I can document that this rent is not justified, that this rent goes beyond the market." But the landlord has all the plums, has all the power, and the tenant has virtually nothing.

[10:30]

Tenants in British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, are a very important part of this province. They are entitled to the same rights and privileges as the owners of property. I know it's a basic philosophical discussion. It always has been and always will be. In doing my research for Bill 5 — and quick research for this bill, because it has come in rather fast, and we're debating it very quickly.... I'm going to talk about that in a little bit, Mr. Minister. Being a historian, not only as an academic or as a student, but also as a hobby, I discovered — if I can find it in all my notes here — that way back in 1215, in the Magna Carta, in those incredible feudal times — which may indeed be relevant to the way this government's philosophy in the province of British Columbia.... In 1215 the Magna Carta said — and I quote: "All counties and hundreds, trephings and wapentakes shall be at the ancient rent, without any increase, excepting in our demesne-manors." In 1215, Mr. Speaker — way back to those feudal, archaic, crazy times — they had some form of control over what could happen with rents for people who rented. But now in the province of British Columbia we've gone beyond even Magna Carta; we've gone beyond even the feudal times, because we are now saying to the people of British Columbia that any rent increase — any amount — is legal. That's what this government is saying. We don't feel that is fair. It's our opinion that there should be some reasonable control or review of rent. That's what the office of the rentalsman did, and now we won't have that in the province of British Columbia,

I'd like to say, before I get into the background of why we feel that some of this bill is not particularly good, that we are somewhat disturbed by a bill that is going to impact on close to 400,000 people in the province, coming in so quickly and being debated so quickly, without giving tenants' groups, tenants' organizations and tenants the opportunity to take a look at the impact of some of its sections. Some of the sections give the impression of fairness, but they are really quite devious in many respects. I would have hoped that the minister would have at least held back for a week to allow even those people he consulted.... I have had some words with some of those people, who are surprised at some of the clauses in here. It's something that should be discussed further. It's unfortunate that the minister, in his wisdom, has decided to push through this bill as quickly as possible. I can understand the political reasons for that, but I ask the minister to consider not the political reasons, but what is right. What is right when you're dealing with 380,000 people is to give them some opportunity to know the full implications of a piece of legislation. The full implications are slowly but surely coming out.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell us about the positive feedback.

MR. BLENCOE: Thus far I haven't had too much of that, Mr. Member.

We have promised that we will look at this bill very closely. We will be examining the bill as it affects a number of principles implicit in the bill. These principles, according to the bill and the minister, are.... The minister's approach is to let the market work, with the following assumptions. First, the rental housing market is susceptible to the laws of supply and demand, and by passing this bill the government will have no effect in the marketplace. The second important component of what's implicit in this bill is that landlords and tenants have access to a fair, impartial system of dispute resolution that is superior to the service offered by the present

[ Page 4272 ]

rentalsman's office. Third, they are trying to give the impression in the bill that the interests of landlords and tenants would be fairly balanced by this bill. Fourth, the bill will promote the orderly and harmonious working of the housing market. It's my intention, Mr. Speaker, to show that each of these assumptions is unfounded.

I will also be examining the involvement of that wreckonomics institute, the Fraser Institute — what it has done and how it has brought about the result of this kind of bill — and where they're getting their advice today. It's advice that really isn't based upon the total needs of British Columbians but upon a select few. That's what's sad about this particular bill.

We will offer some suggestions and some alternatives to the present bill that may indeed achieve some of the objectives that the minister claims for Bill 19. As I have already mentioned, why the rush? The minister claims that the bill was developed after extensive consultation with landlords and tenants. Virtually the next day after the bill is brought down, we are being asked to approve it. The minister should have at least given the groups a week or two to take a look at the bill. We keep hearing from the government that they want to consult, and that they wish to be reasonable in their legislation. The minister's haste suggests either that he thinks he's done very well in incorporating the needs of all groups into this bill or that someone is getting the short end of the stick, and the minister wants to get the bill on the books before they wake up and make representations from the various sections.

Let's consider some of the groups that might be involved in making those representations. First, judges will be pleased that their courts are not to be clogged with residential tenancy cases, and that non-money items will be diverted from the court system to the minister's appointed arbitrators. Second, the arbitrators to be appointed by the minister will know that there is a $2 million gravy train for them to get aboard as they line up for their arbitrator's appointments. Third, the landlords will be pleased that the problems caused by Bill 5, particularly delays caused by the original idea to put all the disputes into the courts.... They'll be very pleased by that. Fourth, the legal profession will be delighted that there is still going to be some work for them, and in particular they are going to be pleased that this minister has seen fit to create a whole new class of legal activity by allowing the parties to sue each other for compensation when it is alleged that either agreements or the act have been contravened in some way, resulting in monetary loss.

AN HON. MEMBER: ...the legal fraternity.

MR. BLENCOE: They always seem to benefit.

Fifth, the mobile home owners will be pleased there will be some channels to help them.

If the minister or his colleague the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing and Environment (Hon. Mr. Brummet) would just go the extra mile and take steps to ensure that anyone being evicted from a mobile-home park has a reasonable choice of places to move to, the minister could expect to receive considerably more praise from the mobile-home owners. Their problem, Mr. Speaker, is the supply of sites, and since the private sector has failed to take action, the government should seriously consider that problem.

The only major group that has not had its concerns addressed are the 380,000 tenant households, and I can fully understand that the minister wants to get his act through before they wake up and realize how similar this bill is to last year's Bill 5. I'll just give a list of some of those similarities. Bill 19 eliminates the rentalsman. By eliminating the office of the rentalsman Bill 19 ensures that it will no longer be possible to settle tenant and landlord disputes in a prompt, informal and inexpensive manner. Instead, differences will have to be settled in court, which procedure will be extremely costly in time and money, and disputes may take months to resolve, or they will be arbitrated by a ministry-appointed arbitrator, to which there is no appeal. I will talk about that later on.

The abolition of the rentalsman's office will hurt landlords too. It will no longer be a matter of informal hearing before the rentalsman to secure prompt eviction of an unreasonable or irresponsible tenant. Under Bill 19 an unreasonable tenant will be able to delay a decision of the court for months on some technicality or deviation in procedure. Houses or apartments therefore could be held hostage while unreasonable tenants use the lengthy court system to delay eviction.

Bill 19 eliminates security. It ensures that tenants no longer have security of tenure. Evictions by rent is feasible, despite section 21 — and I will go into that later on. You have to prove intent under section 21, and how you do that is beyond me. That Section is just to give the impression of fairness, but it is not fair at all. Under the present Residential Tenancy Act, just cause must be given for eviction. We now have this statement of "reasonable cause." What is reasonable? Breakdown in discussions will be reason for eviction. Just cause must be given for eviction under the old Residential Tenancy Act and the rentalsman — for example, when tenants violate the rights of other tenants, or when the landlord wishes to move into the premises for at least a year. The new act not only weakens the just cause provision, but makes it much easier for landlords to use the change in tenants as an opportunity to increase rents, and on both counts the tenants become victims.

Under Bill 19 rent review is eliminated. Rent control is totally eliminated. There is no ceiling on rent increases in the province of British Columbia. During this recession or depression, a time when we are trying to control so many other costs, restrain so many other services, and restrain wages, we are saying that rents can go up any amount. We need some balance there. If incomes or pensions are restrained or held back.... Pensions are a very important aspect, Mr. Speaker, because one of the major factors in this whole bill is the impact on our senior citizens. If the pensions are held back, income is deteriorating, prices are rising and rents are doubling, and there is no restriction of the landlord, who can do whatever he likes with his building in terms of profit or increase. That's an unbalanced system. During recession times in the province of British Columbia there should be constraints on those landlords too to play fair — to play ball. If ordinary people are being told that they have to show restraint, and are being curtailed in terms of pension and wage increases, so should the owners be. They should be part of that program. They have a responsibility to play fair as well; that's only reasonable. But no, we don't have that.

Other immediate changes being introduced by the Social Credit government in advance of Bill 19 eliminate rent controls and will eliminate rent review. The effects are already being felt, despite the relatively high vacancy rate. Despite what the minister said a few months ago, that increases are

[ Page 4273 ]

averaging 5 percent, they are averaging between 12 and 15 percent; his own office has documented that. It's way beyond the inflation rate and rate of wage increase, yet 380,000 tenants are being told: "While you can't have any increase in your living allowance, you sure as heck can have an increase in what you're going to pay for your shelter." That's not right or equitable. We have to pay attention to a just process and a just society in the province of British Columbia, and that is a very important issue, Mr. Minister.

Tenants are already being forced out of their homes by unreasonably high rent increases, and boy, that's going to continue now. Once this bill becomes law, it will be open season on rent increases and on tenants. When the vacancy rate declines, as it is bound to do again — it's already done so in Victoria and other areas; it's going down very fast — the absence of rent controls and rent review will be devastating, forcing tenants to bid against each other for accommodation. The jungle will prevail. The laws will reflect the rights and privileges of the owners; the rights and privileges of those who rent will virtually be gone in the province of British Columbia. It's a very serious issue, Mr. Speaker, and one that must be addressed in order to be fair and equitable.

[10:45]

Section 9 provisions in Bill 19, tenant's remedies. If the landlord does not fulfill his responsibilities, the tenant "may apply to a court for an order requiring the landlord to do so." At the time he makes such application, the tenant may pay into the court all or part of the rent due to the landlord. Section 9 of Bill 19 could be an arbitrator if section 56 is not exercised.

Section 26 of Bill 19, termination notice for failure to pay rent. "The landlord may, on any day following the day that the rent was due," serve a termination notice to be effective not earlier than ten clear days after service. Section 25 of Bill 19 — this was in Bill 5 — termination and end of employment. Where a person was provided with residential premises during the time he was employed, the tenancy of these premises may be terminated at the end of his employment. This also applies to persons occupying caretaker premises while employed as a caretaker, janitor, manager or building superintendent. The similarities to Bill 5 are definitely there. Although the minister has tried thus in his discussions to give a semblance of fairness, in our estimation this bill is still stacked against tenants in the province of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I want to give some background as to why the office of the rentalsman was established. I think it's very important to give that history. People have forgotten it. Going back to the old days is not going to be cost-effective and it's certainly not going to serve much of a social need. In order to discuss Bill 19, the abolishment of the office of the rentalsman and its social implications, it is necessary to discuss the historical relationships of both landlords and tenants, the creation of the Residential Tenancy Act and the role of the rentalsman.

Until the 1960s, rights and obligations evolved from mediaeval English law governed the landlord and tenant relationships in Canada. Statutes were noteworthy only because they were so out of touch with the contemporary scene. As landlord and tenant matters fall within the provincial sphere of the Canadian constitution, pressures were brought to bear on provincial governments by organizations within the private sector. These pressures, supported by comments from the judiciary, demanded change in the landlord-tenant legislation administered by the various provinces. In support of the demand for change, it was claimed there had been created and maintained serious inequities in the relationship sanctioned by law; that the common law, as it was applied, was inconsistent with the interests of the landlord and tenant of the day; and that instead of being in the position of contracting parties with common interests, they were in a position analogous to that of a feudal lord and his serf. That's an important issue. We have tried very hard in the provinces — and in this province, when we were in government — to remove that relationship based upon one of a feudal lord and a serf, and tried to have some equity between a landlord and a tenant. But we are going back to those days if this particular bill goes through as is.

As a result of the pressure and complaints from the judiciary, the Law Reform Commission was created, and at the end of 1973 submitted to the government of British Columbia its report on residential tenancies. This report had been prepared following research and after consultation with the public and interested parties through the media of hearings and written submissions. The Law Reform Commission made many recommendations, the effects of which were to cause, through the legislative process that took place in 1974, the enactment of a new landlord and tenant act that applied specifically to residential tenancies. In the new landlord and tenant act, applying as it did to residential tenancies, the British Columbia government implemented the majority of the Law Reform Commission's recommendations, among which was the creation of a rentalsman for British Columbia, an official given exclusive jurisdiction over certain matters related to the landlord and tenant relationship.

After reviewing the Law Reform Commission's report and relating the contents of that report to Bill 19, I am of the considered opinion that should this bill be implemented, we are indeed returning to the days of feudal lords and their serfs. Throughout my discussion of Bill 19, I shall refer many times to the findings of the Law Reform Commission's report. That report, and the setting up of the rentalsman's office in the province of British Columbia, was met as a hallmark in terms of establishing fairness and equity between landlord and tenant.

There's no question that in our society more and more people are having to rely on rental accommodation. As a consequence, we must have an impartial group — I emphasize, Mr. Minister, an impartial group — to arbitrate between landlord and tenant. Anything that is going to reflect the political will, going to be influenced by the politicians, will only set up further mistrust and create further problems. It must be impartial. That's why the Law Reform Commission and, as a result, the office of the rentalsman was set up.

The Law Reform Commission's initial research identified a number of aspects of the landlord and tenant relationship which were the subject of a special controversy. The five principal controversial issues are as follows.

Number one concerned which courts or bodies should have jurisdiction over disputes between landlords and tenants, and what their procedures should be. That's what we're back to discussing, Mr. Speaker. In my estimation, and in the estimation of our party, you must have an independent, impartial organization separate from the political arm that is not influenced by political desire, because — I will say it over and over again — you have so many people in British Columbia who rely on tenant accommodation, and they are entitled to have the same rights and privileges as landlords have. We cannot go back to the bad old days. They may have been the

[ Page 4274 ]

good old days for landlords and the owners, but certainly they were the bad old days for 380,000 British Columbians and their families.

The principal controversial issue is what courts or bodies should have jurisdiction over disputes between landlords and tenants and what their procedures should be. What we're getting into with this bill is a very cumbersome, complicated and unfair system. We will have a ministerially appointed arbitrator to deal with certain things, but, for so many things the poor tenants, particularly those who are of lower income, will be forced into the court system if they can afford it. That's one of the basic reasons the Law Reform Commission recommended the establishment of the office of the rentalsman. Keep things out of the courts. Keep things lean and clean. That should be the message: lean and clean, Mr. Minister. This bill and what you're establishing will not be lean and it won't be clean. It will be cumbersome, difficult and confusing. You're going to clog the court system, because not everything will be in small claims court at all. If you want to challenge a rent increase or challenge an eviction, you're going to have to go to a senior court. Certainly if you're going to challenge an economic rent increase, my point is that if you can't afford the rent increase based on section 21, you're not going to be able to afford to go to the court. Also, I ask the minister, what's going to be a reasonable amount of increase that you're going to invoke in section 21 –– 60 percent, 50 percent, 40 percent? It doesn't make sense. You're going to have evictions without cause based on economics. Section 21 just glosses over that particular issue.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

The second controversial issue that we're back to dealing with in the province of British Columbia is the availability of other facilities to assist in resolving such disputes and distributing information.

Third: how far should a landlord be required to justify an eviction or termination of a tenancy? I know in a certain section — I don't have the number right in my mind — there are causal evictions. The minister was pretty vague on it on the radio this morning. There is a component where a reasonable cause.... He stated, I think, breakdown of discussions. A landlord is going to be able to say that very quickly, Mr. Minister. It's very easy to suggest that there's a breakdown very quickly. What you're getting into is a whole arbitration process like with labour. I don't think you want to get into that kind of process. You don't want to get into that kind of interpretation. Who is going to interpret what a reasonable breakdown in the process is? It could very well be that within a matter of a few minutes of discussion the landlord says: "We've got a breakdown and that's a reasonable cause for eviction." Then what you've got is eviction without cause.

I'm serious about this matter. The government is getting into a whole ball of wax that they don't want to get into. It's going to give you all sorts of headaches. You're going to have interpretations: what's a reasonable breakdown; what kind of increase shows intent to evict based on a rent increase? The poor tenant is already out of his apartment and has to go to court to try to prove that. It's going to be virtually impossible to do that.

The fourth principal controversial issue is how far the collective bargaining process is appropriate in landlord and tenant matters.

The fifth is of course the security and damage deposit. Again, Mr. Speaker, with the rentalsman's office, the security and damage deposit kind of issue was resolved quickly and efficiently. Now we're going to have to put that kind of resolution into the court system. Why should tenants have to go to court to get back what is theirs, if they've given a security deposit or a damage deposit? Why should they have to go and pay in the court system to get back their own money? Why not go to the office of the rentalsman — to a fair arbitrator not appointed by the minister — who can look at all sides very quickly and say: "Yes, you're entitled to that back. Don't go into a court system that may take you two or three or four months to get your case up before the whatever to get back what is justifiably yours." There is very little sense in this particular aspect.

[11:00]

I'm looking for some common sense and some rationality in this particular bill. I suspect that what's happened is that because of the irrationality based upon why they should eliminate the office of the rentalsman and because of this mindset that the office of the rentalsman was a New Democrat or socialist plot, which has proved to be so effective that they've got to eliminate it.... Why can't we have in this House and in this province some agreement on something like this that basically is serving the people well and is cost-effective? It saves money, it protects landlord and tenant rights, and it doesn't clog up the very clogged-up court system we have now. That's what I'm looking for. If we can try in this debate to maybe have some resolution or amendments, and go back to what we've got now.... It's not who is right, whether it's the opposition, in the form of the critic, or the minister; the issue is what is right, what makes sense.

This morning I was talking on the radio with one of the more respected Social Credit — ex-Social Credit — members of the government, Mr. Rafe Mair. We had a good discussion. Mr. Rafe Mair said that he couldn't understand why the government wanted to bring in this particular kind of bill. He couldn't understand some of these things.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Are you sure you listened to him?

MR. BLENCOE: I always listen to Rafe Mair.

If for once we can try to just drop the attitude of two swords between us and that we've got to protect our interests and save face, and if we can try to think of the interests of tenants in terms of having a fair and reasonable process like the one we have now, we might get something achieved in the province of British Columbia. Some moderation in opposition.... We're quite prepared to take a look at some of the problems of the existing office of the rentalsman. But don't throw it all out, because it works.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps you could have a word with the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie). I'm trying hard here to give some serious discussion, unlike that minister, who very rarely answers any questions about his ministry. At least someone in this House is trying to have a reasonable discussion about a very important bill that is going to impact on 380,000 tenants. So maybe, Mr. Minister, you can for once listen and inwardly digest. If you want to talk about it, fair enough. But I would really ask that you respect the speaker and respect that fact that somebody over on this side is trying to say: "Look, you've got a few problems. Maybe

[ Page 4275 ]

you can look at them, and maybe together we can find some resolution."

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Well, it's obvious that that minister will never listen.

The general principle of the Law Reform Commission report was to make recommendations which would bring about an equitable legal balance between the legitimate rights, interests and expectations of landlords and tenants. Despite what our political views might be on a lot of other things, I think it is incumbent upon all members of this House to think about legitimate rights, interests, expectations, and equity and balance and equal justice under the law for both tenants and landlords. I know it's a fundamental philosophical discussion, but when we're talking about a huge proportion of the province of British Columbia, and about what's going to happen to their homes in the next few years, we have a responsibility to talk in those kinds of terms.

The general impression gained by the commission from both the written briefs and the oral presentations at the public hearings was that there are certain specific aspects of the landlord-and-tenant relationship which are the subject of frequently recurring disputes, and that it is a commonly held view that the small claims division is not the most appropriate forum for their resolution. I would say that the court system, which to many people is scary and which many people won't go to, is not the way to go when you've already got a system that is informal. You get together the two groups — two people or two organizations that can't agree — and through the objective, fair, non-politically appointed rentalsman's officer, you find a resolution outside the courts. There's a whole myth around the courts that they're very formal, that you've got to know what you're doing and you may have to get a lawyer. Over these kinds of disputes you shouldn't have to get a lawyer. You shouldn't have to get a lawyer to get back a security deposit. They'll take it all anyway. You shouldn't have to get a lawyer to get repairs done to your apartment. You shouldn't have to get a lawyer to protect the security of your tenure or for unreasonable eviction. You shouldn't have to do that, and you shouldn't have to go to court to do it. The rentalsman's office works. That's why it was set up. That's why the Law Reform Commission recommended it, and we as government set it up. I guess what I'm asking — the bottom line — is that they can separate and forget, once and for all, that it was the New Democratic Party that set up the new office of the rentalsman, and try and think how effective that particular office has been over the years.

In the simplest terms, Mr. Speaker, the commission was persuaded that the idea of establishing an alternative to small claims division in solving some landlord and tenant disputes was not inimical to the wishes of a majority of landlords and tenants, and that in setting up a new body, a better guarantee of speed and expertise would be offered. I believe that those dedicated public servants who have worked in the office of the rentalsman for many years did that. Sure, there were problems. Sure, sometimes landlords or tenants weren't pleased with the result. But, boy, they didn't have to wait two or three months for resolution, or hire a lawyer, or go to court, or have to go to a ministerially appointed arbitrator who may, by the way, hear the case if he or she so desires.

Tenants automatically are going to be suspicious of that kind of process, when the minister is going to appoint it, because when you have a ministerially appointed person, that will reflect, because his appointment is dependent upon keeping the minister pleased, if you will, then there's going to be a degree of suspicion. That's why the Ministry of Human Resources, for example, has set up a tribunal system, independent, fair and impartial. Mr. Speaker, the arbitration process the minister is going to set up will not be impartial, because their reappointment will be dependent on how they are keeping the minister pleased.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's how your party works, not ours.

MR. BLENCOE: Well, the evidence is there.

Why would you want and insist on having arbitrators appointed by you rather than setting up an independent hiring process and have those arbitrators separate from the minister's office? There's only one reason, You want to ensure that they reflect your philosophical direction in terms of ensuring that the owners of property remain on top.

MS. BROWN: You're going to make sure they're not independent.

MR. BLENCOE: That's right. They won't be independent. It won't be fair. It will be, in many respects, a kangaroo court. We don't need any more kangaroo courts in the province of British Columbia.

MRS. JOHNSTON: It's Friday. Can't you be nice.

MR. BLENCOE: Well, you know, you may not take this very seriously, Mr. Minister, but when we're dealing with lives and homes — 380,000 people and their families — it's incumbent upon all of us to think very seriously about what we're putting into place.

MR. LAUK: He doesn't get ulcers; he gives them.

MR. BLENCOE: Well, I hope I don't do that. But if I'm hitting a nerve and it creates an ulcer, well, maybe we're making the point.

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE: Oh, no. No, no. Gary doesn't get ulcers. No, he gives them too.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Let's continue on debate of Bill 19 and address the comments to the Chair. Mr. Minister, each member will have his chance to stand in his place and debate on this bill.

MR. BLENCOE: I go on, Mr. Speaker, in my presentation about why the Law Reform Commission originally set up and recommended the office of the rentalsman. The opinion that the areas of common dispute are comparatively limited and well defined is supported by the statistical studies which were available. The first report I shall quote shows the breakdown by subject matter of the landlord and tenant claims lodged in the Vancouver and Victoria small claims division in 1972.

First, in dealing with matters where the plaintiff was the landlord, the Vancouver small claims division heard 470

[ Page 4276 ]

cases for rent arrears, which sum represented 57 percent of the total claims initiated by landlords. In Victoria 32 cases were heard, which sum represented 40 percent of the total claims initiated by the landlords. In Vancouver, orders of possession: 122 cases, representing 17 percent; and in Victoria, 38 cases, representing 48 percent. Tenant repairs, clean premises: In Vancouver 106 cases, representing 15 percent; and in Victoria, five cases, representing 6 percent. Landlords to repay security deposit: in Vancouver 39 cases, representing 5 percent. Money for use and occupation: in Vancouver 41 cases, representing 5 percent. Other issues: four cases, representing 1 percent; and no cases in Victoria.

Where the tenant was the plaintiff: in the Vancouver small claims division 42 cases were heard for the return of security deposit, representing 50 percent of the total cases initiated by tenants; in Victoria three cases, representing 28 percent. Return of rent deposit: in Vancouver 25 cases, representing 30 percent; none in Victoria. Landlords repair premises: in Vancouver 6 percent. They go on, Mr. Speaker.

What was happening was that many of those courts were being taken up by such cases, and it was very difficult for tenants, of course, to present their cases.

The second statistical study I shall refer to is for the Vancouver Rental Accommodation Grievance Board for 1972.

Where the landlord was the applicant: five cases were heard concerning rent arrears, representing 20 percent of the total number of cases. Orders for possession: 14 cases, representing 58 percent. Tenants repair, clean premises: two cases. Where the tenant was the applicant, return of security deposit: 144 cases, representing 47 percent. Return of rent deposits: 58 cases, representing 19 percent. Mr. Speaker, it's my opinion that these percentages now indeed will rise dramatically, because so many of these cases will have to go into that court system.

The third statistical study I shall refer to deals with the percentage of landlord and tenant matters heard in relationship to the total number of small claims actions in 1972 by geographical regions.

In Nanaimo, 1,339 cases, of which 6 percent were landlord and tenant applications; in Nelson, 450 cases; in New Westminster, 2,782 cases; in Prince George, 1,774 cases; in Surrey, 2,260 cases; in Vancouver, 8,860 cases; in Victoria, 3,575 cases.

Mr. Speaker, going back into that system is not going to be cost-effective, and the minister certainly hasn't documented that it is going to be cost-effective. The Attorney-General certainly has not answered any questions about the court costs and whether he's going to be able to pay for these increased costs.

It's essential, Mr. Speaker, to note that substantial numbers of the population in the province of British Columbia now make their homes in rented premises. I've already made that point. The 1971 census of Canada shows that 36.7 percent of all dwellings in British Columbia were rented. This figure is up from 33.8 percent in 1966. In the lower mainland the figure rises to 41.6 percent, and in Vancouver city 53 percent of all dwellings are rented rather than owned. That's at the time, Mr. Speaker, when the rent review commission was making its recommendations. It has dramatically risen since then. At the time the Law Reform Commission made this report, substantial numbers of people in the province of British Columbia lived under a system where the continued occupation of their homes was dependent upon the good will of the landlord. In addition, I'm of the understanding that the number of people making their homes in rented premises is increasing yearly. I'll just go through some of the statistics that I have from the 1981 census. They're very important, because I believe, Mr. Speaker, that we're going back to the days when we thought there weren't many tenants in the province of British Columbia, in terms of the legislation we're introducing, and we're not ensuring that 380,000 British Columbians are dealt with fairly and justly and have a process that makes it easy to resolve problems, doesn't cost them an arm and a leg, and doesn't have an arbitrator that is dependent on the minister's good will.

Here are a number of rented dwellings that I have a record of. There are a number of others that I don't have statistics for. In Alberni there are 2,980 rented dwellings; in Victoria there are 24,560; in Vancouver Centre, 40,875. There are in the province of British Columbia huge areas that are predominantly rental accommodation in terms of their dwelling units, and it's incumbent upon the government to ensure that the legislation that's introduced ensures that they have a process that is fair and equitable. I'll have to get some more statistics. I don't have all the statistics that I wish for this part of the discussion.

As an interesting comparison, in 1975 the office of the rentalsman throughout British Columbia dealt with 15,304 cases, 240,275 phone inquiries, 12,587 office interviews with landlords and tenants. In 1976 the number of cases dealt with by the rentalsman was 15,717, with 241,064 phone inquiries and 9,805 interviews. In 1977 the number of cases dealt with by the rentalsman was 16,606, phone inquiries 241,016, office interviews 11,375. In 1978 the number of cases dealt with rose to 22,021, phone inquiries...149, office interviews 14,000. In 1979 it rose to 30,000, phone inquiries 300,000 and office interviews 16,634. In 1980 the number of cases dealt with by the rentalsman was 30,853.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: It is a big deal, and they dealt with them very quickly, and now the system you're going to have is cumbersome, and it's all over the map.

MR. MOWAT: How do you know that?

MR. BLENCOE: Just read the bill. Have you read the bill? You've got a lot of tenants in your riding, Mr. Member. I can tell you they're not going to be particularly happy with this piece of legislation. In 1981 the number of cases dealt with by the rentalsman was 49,149, phone inquiries rose to 368,000, office interviews 56,000. In 1982 the number of cases dealt with by the rentalsman was 50,347, phone inquiries 348,000. The point I'm making is that the office of the rentalsman dealt with these cases not in a difficult and cumbersome way, not through the court procedure not through an arbitration process set up by the minister, and therefore will not be an impartial, objective organization, and the tenant was dealt with quickly and effectively — at not great cost to that tenant or to the landlord, I might add.

In addition the office of the rentalsman at the time was dealing with rent review applications. I won't go into the cases. Suffice to say they were considerable. We don't have rent review, of course, in the province of British Columbia if this bill comes into effect.

[ Page 4277 ]

When you consider the number of cases the rentalsman and his staff had to deal with since 1974 — and his staff has only increased from 66 to less than 200; it was 200, but it's virtually non-existent now — it is a credit to the office of the rentalsman that in performing a most difficult task it has created an equitable, legal balance between the legitimate rights, interests and expectations of those landlords and tenants and has provided a forum for both parties to feel secure that any dispute will, if at all possible, be mediated fairly, equitably and impartially in an informal setting. Today we are going to have an arbitration process that is political, and we're going to have an incredible court system which will be scary and costly to the tenants of British Columbia. That doesn't make sense.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: The rentalsman is a political appointment, and he wants to move on.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame!

MR. BLENCOE: No shame there. The rentalsman is biased; he wants to make sure that he pleases his political masters. That's the way it is. He wrote the thing; he's bound to say it's okay. He wrote it for the minister and this government, who are on a vicious course in terms of tenant-landlord relations in the province of British Columbia. That's the reality, and don't try and say that because the rentalsman wrote it it's an okay thing.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: On a point of order, I think that this member should be brought back into line. He's supposedly debating Bill 19 and not making a personal attack on the rentalsman.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr. Minister, I think you know the rules. You can rise on a point of order in a responsible manner. That was not a responsible point of order.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, I did not insult the rentalsman. All I said was that he was a political appointment. He knows that he owes his job to his political masters. I don't blame him for writing a bill that reflects what the minister and the government want to do to tenants. That's the reality, and I don't think that's an attack on the rentalsman. If he wants to do well with this current government, he's bound to write a bill that reflects the wishes and the will of this government. No longer are we going to have an impartial forum to resolve or mediate differences between landlords and tenants in the province of British Columbia.

As the proportion of the public renting the roof over their heads grows each year, and as it is seen that in the near future the numbers of rented and owned homes will be equal, landlord and tenant interests will continue to be polarized into two separate groupings by virtue of their dissimilar orientations in consequence of the human element represented in the two diverse attitudes. I don't disagree that there is some diversity of attitude in that process. But finding a system that can work with those diverse attitudes and that can mediate informally, fairly and justly — and separate from the minister — is what we should be after. Without a referee — the rentalsman with his statutory rule book — the relationship between landlord and tenant will, as I have previously stated, revert back to the days of feudal lords and their serfs. That's where we're going; there's no question about it. The Landlord and Tenant Act of 1974 and the Residential Tenancy Act currently in use have, as is the case with all things devised by man, usage and experience, exposed defects that invite modification or amendment if the device is to continue. I have no difficulty with discussing this in this House, or with the minister in his office.

Let's look at how we can modify the existing legislation and the rentalsman's office. The basic concept of that rentalsman's office is a good one, and it should be maintained. It's just too bad that for political reasons, because of the political pressure from their friends, the owners and the landlords of this province, they have had to succumb and throw out a very effective office that resolved disputes.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Oh, I'm going to talk, Mr. Member, because there are 380,000 tenants in this province who are dependent on this kind of legislation. That's why it's a very important issue to debate.

In the years following its proclamation a number of changes became advisable. In the main they were not conceptual changes, but changes identified as solutions to administrative problems — changes to adjust minor imbalances, and the whole coming under that descriptive term "housekeeping changes." Let's do some housekeeping if you want. Mr. Minister, but don't throw the whole works out and set up a very biased kind of system and a court system. We're only going to have to go back again. In a few years we'll be back in this House trying to find some resolution to a very cumbersome, expensive kind of system that you are establishing in the province of British Columbia.

To sum up on this point, evolution in law is considered a reflection of social changes and needs. That's something you should remember. Mr. Minister. There are definite needs and rights of tenants; there are definite social changes. In the province of British Columbia we have a reality that a high proportion of our residents are tenants, and they are entitled to fair and equitable treatment under the law. They are not going to get it under this act, Mr. Speaker.

The Residential Tenancy Act, as it exists, can be described as an evolved species, whereas Bill 19 is a retrograde step to a dark and distant past, which I for one do not wish to return to. Our party categorically says that unless you make some basic changes to Bill 19 it will be a retrograde step in terms of the rights and privileges of tenants.

[11:30]

Reliance on the principles of a free market is not sufficient, in our estimation, to preclude serious consideration of the concept of security of tenure. We have thought it appropriate to consider the social implications of a system where tenants can be dislodged at will. While the landlord's interest in rented premises is generally a purely economic one, a tenant will usually regard the premises as a home, and he or she may have a special attachment to those premises. We cannot accept the basic principle that has been uttered by this minister that if you don't like the situation with the landlord, or you don't like the huge increase, you move on and go somewhere else. That's not right. Particularly in my riding, there are many people who have lived in their homes for 15 or

[ Page 4278 ]

20 years, and it is home. To move is a traumatic situation. To say that they can just move anywhere as a result of an imbalance in landlord and tenant relationships does not fit what we consider in 1984 to be a fair, equitable and progressive society. In 1984 we still have to uphold — despite the kind of government we have in British Columbia — fairness, equity, impartiality and the rights of tenants as well as the rights of landlords.

Many commentators have noted that a secure home is a fundamental need of all families and individuals. Where termination of a tenancy can take place within a short period of time and justification is not required, this need is not fulfilled. When you state that any reasonable cause is a way to evict, I would suggest that eviction without cause is definitely on the horizon in British Columbia. I want the minister to answer the whole question of what is considered a reasonable breakdown between landlord and tenant leading to eviction. That has not been answered and has got to be answered.

There are other unfortunate, practical manifestations which may arise from insecure tenancies. Tenants who have no certain right to remain in premises beyond the short-term period seem less likely to be interested in maintaining the premises in good repair. Here is an issue for landlords. If there is a feeling by the majority of tenants that their security is not sure, and that anything could happen to their rent, and that to protect certain basic rights they'll have to go to a Socred clone — because they would be appointed by the minister — or have to spend a lot of money to go to court, there is going to be no real feeling or respect for that apartment or dwelling. But if they know that the home is theirs and they have some security, that the rent is not going to go sky high, and that any rent increase is legal, they may feel secure and say: "Yes, this is going to be my home, and although I don't own it I will take care of it." You are going to create an attitude of not caring about rental accommodation, because people are going to say that it doesn't matter, because whatever they do, they won't have any rights anyway. "Whatever I do, next year my rent could go up any amount, and I'll have to move on." It's only human nature if they don't feel any attachment to that particular rental accommodation. Because they don't have any rights, they're not going to particularly take care of it.

Of course, there are thousands of tenants who, despite the landlords' charter that is coming down here today — and it is a landlords' charter; we're creating the landlordsman's office — will still struggle to ensure that they take care. But there's no incentive when you make away certain rights and privileges and take away the office of the rentalsman that has protected them and ensured they could get their issues resolved quickly. You've virtually taken away the incentive to ensure that tenants care about that rental accommodation. That's a very important issue, Mr. Minister, that you're not addressing.

Tenants will have less respect for their rental accommodation because of this landlord's charter in the province of British Columbia. I hope the minister will address that particular issue. I'm concerned for landlords in that particular aspect, because if a tenant knows that to get repairs or something done to their apartment they have go to a minister-appointed arbitrator, who may not wish to hear the case anyway.... That decision is not appealable, and that's a very important point, Mr. Speaker. The arbitrator, who is going to be totally partial, cannot have his decision appealed, so the tenant knows they're going to a Socred appointment for a decision. Even if that decision is not in their interest, it cannot be appealed anywhere. Tenants are going to feel that they're not being dealt with fairly and correctly in the province of British Columbia.

Lack of tenant security may also have severe practical consequences. For example, the need for secure homes is extenuated where school-age children are involved. We tend to think that only seniors and single people live in rental accommodation. There are thousands of British Columbian families with school-age children living in rental accommodation. We're going to undermine that stability when they know that at any minute they can get a huge rent increase; or if they want some non-monetary item arbitrated, they have to go to the minister's friend.

The situation may also be serious in practical terms when the tenancy of an elderly person is terminated. The cost of upheaval of the tenant, both economically and psychologically, may be substantial.

There are other unfortunate manifestations which may arise from insecure tenancies, and we are going to have insecure tenancies in the province when this bill comes into effect. Tenants who have no certain right to remain in premises beyond the short term period seem less likely to be interested in maintaining good repair. I'm going to mention that again later on. Tenants right now do take some interest and feeling toward their tenant accommodation.

Mr. Speaker, there is a special type of tenancy where security of tenure is perhaps most cherished, and that is in mobile homes. We haven't talked much about mobile homes lately, but I have been hearing a lot about this particular problem. Quoting from Consumer Reports of July 1973:

"Although relationships between landlords and tenants frequently are not all sweetness and light...landlord-tenant relationships in mobile-home parks can be bitter and dark indeed. There is often no such thing as a lease. The mobile-home owner usually is a 'tenant at will.' ....times he and his home can be thrown out at the landlord's whim. In a few (places) where that whim is supposedly bridled by law, he may still be thrown out for breaking the park's rules — no matter how arbitrary those rules may be. Such an eviction is not to be taken lightly, for the owner of a typical mobile home is hardly a footloose and fancy-free traveler."

Increasingly, Mr. Speaker, mobile homes are large and not really all that mobile. They usually cost several hundred dollars to haul from one spot to another.

The truth is that mobile homes are bought today chiefly because they provide low-cost housing, Mr. Speaker. Some 95 percent of homes sold for less than $15,000 last year came with wheels, and the people who bought them, according to some studies, move no more often than the population in general. I'm not going to dwell on it in great length here today, Mr. Speaker, but the whole issue of mobile home-ownership and rights and privileges is one that has to be addressed far more in the province of British Columbia. A person evicted from a mobile home is actually in worse shape than someone who loses an apartment, Mr. Speaker. Zoning laws may prevent him from putting his mobile home on his own land, even if he is fortunate enough to own some. Non-landowners must resort to mobile-home parks, and in many parts of this province space in those parks is extremely scarce. Often a park entrance fee of several hundred dollars is charged after that expense of moving the structure and the risk of damage to the home in transit, and you can see why

[ Page 4279 ]

mobile-home owners will prefer to stay put. We need more protection and better regulations included in landlord and tenant relationships for mobile-home owners, Mr. Speaker.

In considering security of tenure, rent review is something that I want to just dwell upon for a few minutes. Mr. Speaker, we can have a long discussion about the whole concept of rent controls, and we know that that issue is very controversial. However, in general fact, our party believes, there has to be some kind of control, particularly in these times.

The whole concept of rent review being eliminated.... The rent review procedure, Mr. Speaker, is generally reviewed by all sides as being a very fair process. In my estimation and the estimation of my party, the minimum kind of system you should have is a rent review process. If a tenant can prove in a rent-review procedure hearing, which we have now, that his apartment rent increase is beyond market, then that rent should be reduced. But when you don't have a rent review procedure — when a tenant has no recourse to have a look at a rent increase — all the rights and privileges once again lean toward the landlord. I urge the minister to at least reintroduce or reconsider the rent review procedure. It is fair and equitable.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Do you know what rent review is?

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Obviously you don't.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The first member for Vancouver South (Mr. R. Fraser) will have his chance to speak in his place in due course. In the meantime, would the second member for Victoria continue on and address his comments to the Chair.

[11:45]

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, the minister is leaving for a few minutes, but I would hope that the rent-review process can be reconsidered. There is no reason why a tenant should not be able to have a rent increase reviewed by an impartial decision-maker — if they can justify that that rent increase is beyond the market value, if they can justify that a 50 percent is not a fair increase. At the moment there is going to be no increase....

Interjection.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

MR. BLENCOE: The jungle will rule. If a tenant can prove that that rent increase is not justified, based on economics or the market, it doesn't matter; that increase will automatically go through. That's not right. I tell you, those 380,000 tenants in British Columbia are going to be so displeased with this government in terms of this legislation, because now they're going to know that any rent increase is legal in this province.

What are the particular elements of Bill 19 that we specifically object to? The bill contains several cosmetic changes from Bill 5, which was allowed to die at the end of last year's session. Eviction without cause has been taken out, but eviction by rent increase will be possible because the protections against it in section 21 are so flimsy. The onus is on the tenant to prove the landlord intended to evict by rent increase, and that's very difficult to prove in law. Both last year's Bill 5 and this year's Bill 19 eliminate the rentalsman, eliminate security for tenants, eliminate any form of rent control or rent review. Any rent increase is now legal. The bill substitutes the courts for the rentalsman in matters dealing with money; non-money items go before an arbitrator — for a user fee of $30 — who will be a personal appointee of the minister. Arbitrators will be paid $40 per case and will be expected to deal with at least four cases a day, which implies that the hearing and judgment have to be prepared in about two hours per case. Arbitrators will keep their jobs only as long as they make decisions satisfactory to the minister. Those arbitrators, Mr. Speaker, won't be impartial, and in my estimation the tenant will not get a fair hearing.

Arbitrators may refuse a hearing if they think the matter is frivolous, vexatious, trivial or has not been initiated in good faith. That particular Section is wide open to abuse, and the decision is not appealable. There is no appeal from the decision of the arbitrator, so if the arbitrator errs in law or denies the principles of natural justice, there is no recourse — that's section 44. At least under the present system the rentalsman or rentalsman's officer makes a decision, but if new evidence comes up to show they made a mistake, or if there are new circumstances, they can review that decision. They're flexible. This system is not flexible. It basically is a set-up to ensure that the rights and privileges of landlords are maintained, but tenants are not protected in the province of British Columbia. At least have an appeal procedure, Mr. Minister, for the decisions of your friends as arbitrators.

Landlords and tenants having agreements made before the act comes into force are offered an interesting choice in section 56. Either may advise the other by registered mail that they will not use the minister's arbitrators, in which case the only recourse will be through the courts. The minister's arbitrators, in my estimation, offer a very cheap form of kangaroo court justice for which there is no appeal procedure. It's a kangaroo court, Mr. Minister; there's no question about it. They will lack the independence of the courts and of the present rentalsman's officers. The courts offer a prohibitively expensive justice, which requires lawyers, but at least one that is independent. The choice in section 56 has to be exercised within two months of the act coming into force. Landlords and tenants will be able to sue each other for compensation when the other party contravenes the act — section 48(4). This creates an interesting opportunity for landlords to intimidate their tenants into leaving by following a policy of dragging them into court on trumped-up charges. Most tenants rent because they cannot afford to buy their own homes, and they will not have the financial resources to resist a determined campaign by a landlord.

The bill promotes discrimination in housing by allowing a landlord to set a much higher rent for tenants that the landlord may consider undesirable, i.e., welfare or UIC recipients — one-fifth of all British Columbians today, by the way — families with children, black people or anybody that a landlord doesn't like. They're going to be allowed to charge any amount they want. We have institutionalized discrimination in this bill. When you feel you are being dealt with improperly by your landlord, you have to go to a Socred clone who will arbitrate, and you may not hear the case and

[ Page 4280 ]

there's no appeal. But you also now have discrimination against those who cannot afford huge rental increases.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members.

MR. R. FRASER: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, if I recall the wording of standing order 43, it says that thou shall be relevant and not tediously repetitious. I suggest to you, sir, that this member might heed those words.

MR. SPEAKER: The member for Victoria continues, bearing in mind our standing orders.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, in my estimation and the estimation of our party, this is one of the most serious bills before this House. This is a serious piece of legislation, and it's most unfortunate that the majority of Socred members want to treat it lightly and laugh at it. I wonder how many tenants they have in their ridings. When they see this landlords' charter....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, the member for Victoria has the floor, and other members who persist in interrupting will be asked to leave the chamber.

MR. BLENCOE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's nice to have someone who is going to let the government know what the rules are.

I would suggest that those members who may not necessarily have taken a look at this particular piece of legislation and have a lot of tenants in their riding take it home this weekend and consult with some of those tenants' organizations to see what they think about no rent control, no rent review, an arbitrator who will be a Socred clone, no appeal procedure, and eviction based on economic rent.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Section 21 is so flimsy that it won't do any good at all.

See what they think about legislation that is going to ensure that any amount of increase is going to be legal in British Columbia, despite the fact that their Tory counterparts in Saskatchewan have reintroduced a very important kind of control on rents during this depression. Many of the voters for this government are tenants, and this bill is a landlord charter. It does nothing for tenants. It looks like it's fair, but it's very devious in intent. It is stacked in favour of the landlord. What you should do is retain the rentalsman as is.

I want to get onto another theme, which I think is an interesting one. The minister has argued, and the government argues in this particular situation: "Let the market work. Let's get back to that jungle kind of landlord-tenant mentality that we used to have." The minister makes two assumptions: (1) that the market works and the laws of supply and demand apply; (2) that by passing this bill the government will have taken a neutral position in the marketplace. There is no evidence to support either of these assumptions. There is considerable evidence the other way. Consider first: who are the consumers of rental housing? Some renters rent because it's convenient — say, workers who have had to take jobs in the next town, away from their families. Most renters rent because they cannot afford to buy. Renters spend prohibitive amounts on rent, certainly enough that they are unable to save for a deposit on a house. We all know that in the last budget the grant for first-time homeowners was taken away from young British Columbians, which was a really sad move in this province. They used to want to encourage people to own their home. They hurt them again that way. The 1981 census showed that there were 59,770 households paying out over half their gross incomes in rent in our province — nearly 60,000 households. That is something that even the Socred government can't fail to pay attention to. If you take it politically....

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Yes, and the taxpayer pays for it. Why should the taxpayer have to pay for the huge increases in rent? That's one of the reasons why the rentalsman's office and controls and review were introduced. Why should the taxpayer have to give his hard-earned money so the landlord can make a 50 or 60 percent increase in rent and therefore you have to give SAFER increases?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Why should the landlord subsidize the tenant?

MR. BLENCOE: I'm not saying they should, Mr. Minister. I'm saying we should have a discussion about what is a fair increase and what is a fair return on an apartment block. I can tell you, it's not what you're doing, which is allowing any amount of return or any amount of increase. You've gone to the extreme.

We are prepared to try to find the middle ground. There has to be some middle ground in this issue. We certainly don't have it with this legislation. An '81 census showed there were 60,000 households paying out half their gross incomes in rent in our province.

[12:00]

In Saskatchewan, as I've already mentioned, that good Tory government recognized that problem, and Saskatchewan's Consumer and Commercial Affairs minister has introduced a new program of renter protection in Saskatchewan. Under the rent stabilization program, all rental accommodation four years old or more is now governed by the same system for rent increases. Under the new system rent increases are limited to an average of 5 percent annually. That's a Tory government. What do you think about that? That's Grant Devine's Tory rent control program. The new program extends the rent review process. Here's a New Democratic government asking you, like the Tory government in Saskatchewan, to extend the rent review process. Mr. Speaker, we're being good conservatives. We want to maintain the status quo. I tell you who the radicals are who want to upset the status quo: they're the extreme Social Credit government in the province of British Columbia today who because of their radical extreme philosophy and mission, are going to jeopardize the homes and the futures of 380,000 tenants. That's a fact. That's truth. Those tenants know what's happening.

In making the announcement, Mrs. Duncan, the minister, noted that rent increases had been averaging 13 percent. Mr. Minister, that's the same thing that's happening in the

[ Page 4281 ]

province of British Columbia. Here we have a New Democratic government supporting a Tory government in Saskatchewan — some of you are good Tories, I think — saying: why don't you do the same thing? Do what your good counterparts, your good friends in Saskatchewan, are doing — introduce some semblance of order and protection for tenants. That's only fair. That's only right. Be good Tories.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: I know. I'm going to cover it again, too.

The minister stated, "It is my feeling that government...." I'm trying to read the quote from the Tory minister, Mr. Speaker. I think we should listen because I think it's a very important quote from a Tory government. Mr. Minister, you may want to listen to this. Here's the Tory minister. A right-wing government, which means, of course.... You guys are way out there in terms of right-wing extremism, but maybe you can come back to some semblance of balance. There may be hope for you yet.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Yes, and introduce it in another form, Mr. Minister. You know that. Don't kid.

Here's the quote, Mr. Speaker. This is a good, Tory right-winger.

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, I'm trying to talk over a number of conversations over here. It's very hard.

"It is my feeling that government must have influence in the marketplace." A Tory!

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: It's right here.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: I don't know. This is put out by her ministry.

"It is my feeling that government should have some influence in the marketplace. Tenants must be protected from unreasonable increases in the cost of this basic necessity. At the same time we must maintain an environment where enterprise and initiative can flourish." Now there's a reasonable Tory. There's a reasonable right-winger. They want some balance between the marketplace and the rights of the landlord and the tenant. They believe in some balance between enterprise, initiative and the rights of those who are renting. A reasonable approach to take.

Maybe over the weekend, Mr. Minister, with your good staff, you can think about reasonable balance and try to balance off enterprise and initiative with the rights of private citizens and tenants in the province of British Columbia. Here is a good, solid, right-wing Tory saying government must have influence in the marketplace. Tenants must be protected from unreasonable increases in the cost of this basic necessity, Mr. Speaker. I'll go on, because I think this should be on the record, because this is a Tory government. We just have an ultra-right Tory government in this province.

"Under the rent stabilization program landlords may increase rent with three-months' written notice to tenants. If renters are unable to agree with the landlord on the amount of a proposed rent increase, the renter must request a rent review" — a rent review, Mr. Minister — "within 30 days of receiving the notice."

Fairness, fairness, fairness. The right for a review is all we're asking: the right of a tenant who pays rent, and therefore pays taxes and therefore maintains that building and lives in it as a home. Fairness. A rent review. This is a good Tory.

"Tenants may request the review of a proposed rent increase, even if the proposed increase is less than 5 percent. If no rent review is requested by a tenant within 30 days, then the increase will take effect at the end of the notice period. Landlords and tenants are now able to reach their own agreements and deal directly with each other. No rent increases exceeding 5 percent a year will be approved when a review is requested, unless the landlord can show clear evidence of exceptional circumstances, such as major improvements to the building.

"There are no other changes in the rights and responsibilities of landlords and tenants under the Residential Tenancies Act. For example, a landlord cannot evict a tenant for requesting a rent review. A landlord must obtain an order from the office of the rentalsman, Saskatchewan, before taking possession of any premises.

Mr. Speaker, this is a Tory government with a rent stabilization program — with basic guarantees, rights and privileges protected under law: equity, fairness, protection, and no massive rent increases that can't be justified under law. This is what a Tory government is doing. Grant Devine's incredible statement is: "It is my feeling that government must have influence in the marketplace." A Tory government.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Here we are, a New Democratic government that is trying to be reasonable. A New Democratic government, boy! Give us a few years and we'll be there. A new Democratic opposition saying....

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE: And Socreds are zilch percent nationally, ladies and gentlemen. Where is your national identity, Socreds? You don't have any.

All this means in Saskatchewan, I suppose, is a reasonable right-wing administration that believes that there should be some rights and protections and reasonable increases in rent. We have a minister and a government here that is so extreme that it's going to throw out any protection — no controls, no rent review, a kangaroo court for arbitrators — and no appeal process.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Nobody is listening to you.

MR. BLENCOE: I'll tell you who is listening — 380,000 tenants in the province of British Columbia are listening, and that's who you are abandoning. When that member goes back to her riding, she should go back and tell her thousands of tenants that she has a landlords' charter and she doesn't

[ Page 4282 ]

believe they should have rights. You go back and tell them that, Madam Member. You don't care about tenants, Madam Member. You've got no care for the rights of tenants in the province of British Columbia. You are a ruthless, uncaring bunch of demagogues who don't care about tenants in the province of British Columbia.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Everything was going along so nicely, hon. members.

MR. BLENCOE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Madam Member for Surrey, which has thousands of tenants, why don't you get hold of Grant Devine? Mr. Member, get hold of Grant Devine, and he'll talk some sense into you. He has a reasonable right-wing government in Canada that's introducing some control, some rights, some privileges, an impartial rent review process. You don't want to admit that Grant Devine is a reasonable Tory.

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE: I've been corrected by some of my colleagues; there are no reasonable Tories. I would say that if a Tory government in Saskatchewan can introduce protections and rights and privileges and not huge increases for tenants.... That is the way to go. When those Socred members go back to their ridings this weekend, they should take that bill with them that's been introduced by this minister, and say: "Look, this is what you're going to have in the province of British Columbia: a charter for landlords, no controls, no review, arbitration kangaroo court. If you want to fight an eviction, you go to court. If you want to fight any monetary item, even to get your own money back, you have to pay money to go to court. You may have to get a lawyer. That's not right. Grant Devine knows that. That's a reasonable approach to landlord and tenant matters, and I would suggest that this government take a look at that particular process.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: To the bill.

MR. BLENCOE: I'm on the bill. I just stated a very important fact which the minister should take a look at in terms of this legislation: in the 1981 census 60,000 households paid over half their gross income in rent in our province. In 1981 the census also showed that the average income for renters in B.C. was just $18,552, compared to the average homeowner household income of $30,566. Yet we now have a piece of legislation that is going to have a dramatic impact on the income of those tenants, and they're going to have less money because they're going to have no protection.

It's very clear that renters, as a group, make up about 36 percent of all British Columbia households. We are today, on behalf of the New Democratic Party, talking on behalf of 36 percent of the population of British Columbia. They are entitled to more than this piece of rubbish as a landlord's charter, more than a kangaroo court to get their privileges protected. That 36 percent is very high, and included in the 36 percent are supporters of this government; but I can tell you that if you pass this piece of legislation, they will no longer support you. They will know when this bill comes into effect that any amount of increase is allowed: 50 percent, 60 percent, 70 percent. And you try and prove intent under section 21 — what rubbish! This bill is a sham, and they should go back this weekend and review it and bring in something that's decent and protects the rights and privileges of tenants. Some 36 percent of the population are going to be affected by this legislation, and they will no longer have rights and privileges as homeowners have.

[11:15]

An HON. MEMBER: They like the bill.

MR. BLENCOE: No, they don't like the bill. Even Rafe Mair doesn't like the bill.

Another important issue: that 36 percent of all households contains the vast majority of poor British Columbians, the unemployed and welfare claimants. Again we have a mass transfer of your political agenda onto the backs of those who can least afford it. Your political agenda in rental legislation is going to be on the backs of those who can least afford it, and 36 percent of all households in British Columbia are going to have no protection. They're going to be subjected to the political mission of this government to take away their rights: that they can live in an apartment and ensure that the increased rent is not beyond their means. Sixty thousand British Columbians already pay half of their gross income in rent. The average income for a renter, I say again, is virtually half of what it is for the homeowner. So you are declaring war on tenants. Bill 5 was bad, but this bill is just as bad. Thirty-six percent of British Columbia households will be dramatically affected by this legislation. A landlords' charter will come into effect. If you want something resolved — a non-monetary item — you will have to go to the minister's friends to get it dealt with.

AN HON. MEMBER: Garbage!

MR. BLENCOE: It's not garbage; it's right in the act, Mr. Member. Friends.

Mr. Minister, why won't you set up an impartial system, as we have now, separate from your arm?

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: You'll appoint British Columbians, but friends of yours, right?

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: And they have protection, don't they? If they make a decision that you don't like, they have protection. They know their decision can't be overturned necessarily by you saying you want it to be, or you can fire them, because they have a union that says they're protected. Now you're going to have exempt people arbitrating, people who depend on your largesse, your good will, to continue to arbitrate. Therefore it means that the majority of non-moneyed disputes will be resolved in a Socred kangaroo court. That's not good enough. Grant Devine says it's not good enough.

So over the weekend, Mr. Minister, I ask you to take a look at some of these stats I've just given you: 60,000 households, over 50 percent of their gross income; renters earn half, on average, of what homeowners earn; 36 percent of all....

[ Page 4283 ]

MR. MOWAT: That's irrelevant.

MR. BLENCOE: Oh, Mr. Member! It is not irrelevant. I hope members of your riding will read Hansard. You say that 36 percent of the people of the province of British Columbia are irrelevant?

Consider what happens....

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE: No, we haven't made a point, but they're sure getting angry over there, aren't they, Mr. Speaker? They know that in their ridings there are thousands and thousands of renters who are going to be subjected to a kangaroo court appointed by the minister.

Now let's consider what happens when the rent goes up. Tenants have essentially three choices. One, they can move in with somebody else. Doubling-up has become the solution for many people who have lost their job, according to staff of constituency offices. They can double up. That's an alternative. Maybe the minister will want to talk about that. Two, they can pay the increase and tighten their belts more and more and more. Life becomes more depressing. Three, they can move to cheaper accommodation. Those are the three alternatives. The last one seems to be the minister's answer to all the questions of.... You don't have any rent control. You don't protect a tenant from a huge rent increase when it can't be justified. "Well, they can always move." In my riding, Mr. Speaker, I have thousands of senior citizens who have lived in their accommodation for many years. It's their home. Now they have to be told that because of this new charter — this landlords' charter — any increase is legal. That's not right, particularly if that senior citizen or other British Columbian can prove that that increase cannot be justified in terms of what's happening in the marketplace.

Again I reiterate: good old Grant Devine has seen the writing on the wall. He knows that during these difficult times households need protection. I certainly know — our party knows — that 36 percent of all the households in British Columbia are entitled to some protection.

Mr. Speaker, I'm sure you've got many tenants in your riding. You're probably one of the more reasonable members on that side of the House.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Good point, Mr. Member. As an MLA, I'm sure you're going to hear from senior citizens and young people. Why would this government bring in a piece of legislation that offers virtually no protection for 36 percent of all the households in British Columbia?

MR. REYNOLDS: It's good legislation.

MR. BLENCOE: I don't think it's good enough to say it's good legislation.

MR. REYNOLDS: It's responsible.

MR. BLENCOE: It's not responsible. It really is not, because you're leaving out a lot of the population of British Columbia in terms of ensuring that they have some guarantees and some security of tenure, and that they're not priced out of their homes.

When you think about it, we still have an incredible system set up for homeowners. There's the homeowner grant. We're all concerned about real estate taxes, etc. — and I spoke for a long time on that particular problem last session — but tenants.... I don't know whether this government has recognized what proportion of the population they do make up, but it is a political reality that tenants not only are getting a landlord charter today but also have already had their tax credits cut off. Now they're going to have their rights cut off. What you're doing is saying to nearly 40 percent of the population of British Columbia that you don't care about them. I know you're a bunch of politicians; just on a political level, think of the implications of cutting off 36 percent of all households in the province of British Columbia.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: He's not worried because — I heard him say — he's got very few tenants. You see, that's the way it works. You should be concerned about all British Columbians, Mr. Member. We all should be concerned about all British Columbians, despite what's happening in our ridings. Our concern should be for all British Columbians, and not to make certain ones scapegoats for a political agenda. That's what you've done here. We all know that this is one of the biggest political payoffs to your landlord and developer friends. We all knew it was coming, and you had to succumb to their wishes in the end. We were hopeful — and British Columbia tenants were hopeful — that you would introduce a piece of legislation that basically ensured that their rights and privileges were protected and that there was some degree of review and control, and that you wouldn't introduce an arbitration process that is totally political.

I've said that there are three basic choices, and I've already given them. The third choice, which is to move to cheaper accommodation, is not really a viable choice. All the vacancies are at the top end of the market. Even if they are successful in finding somewhere, say, $50 a month cheaper, moving costs may be $200 or $300. So there would be a period of about six months before the tenant would show any cash saving at all. The other reason that option three is unrealistic is this: tenants tend not to have surplus cash lying about to hire a mover or a truck to trundle their belongings from place to place. It's a problem the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) is familiar with; it's called cash flow. You've got to take those sorts of things into consideration.

Option two is paying the increase. This will conceivably cause great hardship. There are many studies in the Legislative Library that show that poor British Columbians pay a higher proportion of their income on essentials like food and rent than middle- or high-income earners. That's the nature of poverty, and the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) illustrated this very well the other week when she ordered the food budget of welfare recipients reduced for the first months they are on claim. The Ministry of Human Resources staff will be able to support this argument — if the members would rather talk to someone than do some reading.

This bill legitimizes and exploits poverty. The landlord's rent increase is the tenant's food budget cut. That's simple and straightforward. And the fact that any increase now is going to be legal means you're going to eat into the basic essentials that are keeping people together in this province during this recession. We've got 212,000 people officially unemployed in the province, and many of them are tenants.

[ Page 4284 ]

We've got thousands more either on social assistance or who've given up, and they're trying to hang on to some kind of shelter. What you're doing in this bill is declaring further war on those people who cannot find work or are at the poverty line. For heaven's sake, have some compassion and understanding in these circumstances. Don't introduce a bill that throws out any protection, any control, any review and introduce massive rent increases by default and an arbitration process that is political, and if you don't go that way, you're into the courts and you have to cost yourself a lot of money to do it.

Mr. Speaker, to you, as an MLA, I'm sure if you and I had a little coffee somewhere, we'd have some agreement on this particular issue. We would. We all know it too.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: I'm afraid that what happens to many of you over there is that you get caught up in the politics, and you can't speak out. There are some members who speak up, by the way, and I respect them for that. But I bet if there were a free vote in this House on this particular issue, when they now know that 36 percent of all households in British Columbia are tenants and they know this bill is going to dramatically affect their lifestyle, I would say one-half to three-quarters of those members over there would vote with us.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Oh, yes they would, Mr. Speaker. When I tell them that good old Grant Devine, in his wisdom, has introduced exactly what we're calling for re-establishing in the province of British Columbia, it must rub salt in those Socred wounds over there.

This bill legitimizes and exploits poverty. The landlord's rent increase is the tenant's food budget cut. So that leaves the tenant with the option of moving in with another renter. That's what has been happening all over Victoria and all across the province, I can tell you that. It has an ironic effect, given that the minister is seeking to put this landlords' charter on the books. The effect is that less accommodation is being consumed than before. Think about that one. Here is a government that wants to see — and we want to see it too — the private sector get back on its feet in terms of construction. Consume more apartments. What you're doing in your legislation and your priorities is forcing more and more people to get together to share, and often in confined areas that really are not conducive to a healthy environment. There are fewer apartments required. That construction industry will continue to falter and those contractors that you say you support won't get the work. An important point, Mr. Speaker. I know it's happening in Victoria. Less accommodation is being consumed than before.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Sit down and I'll explain it.

MR. BLENCOE: I'll tell you, I've asked you a number of questions, Mr. Minister, in my short time here, and you've never answered anything properly yet. I haven't been able to get an answer to a question yet. You never understood the questions.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Would you identify the minister so it doesn't go in Hansard that you're talking to me?

[12:30]

MR. BLENCOE: I will identify the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing as the one I was saying had never answered correctly or hasn't been able to answer.

So, Mr. Speaker, what happens? The demand drops. I expect the minister to be on his feet saying that because of the slower demand, construction is down and that's just fine. That's the market in action. That's the marketplace that you call for. But is it, Mr. Minister, something you really want to happen? When this legislation goes through and we don't even have a rent review procedure, anything can happen in the rental accommodation area. I can tell you now that my community assistant will bring to this House documentation to show that more and more people are moving in and sharing, and leaving other accommodation; the consumption of apartments will drop. That's the market in action. Is that what you want? The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that the minister's argument is circular.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Some on the other side may complain that I'm taking the long way, but I think it's very important to look at the rationale behind this government's modus operandi. It doesn't stand up. We take them on.... The issue they tell the people of British Columbia that they know about, and the rationale for their legislation, is the marketplace, Mr. Speaker, which is going to be dramatically impacted by this legislation. So the minister's argument is circular: when we have rent controls there is no construction; and when we don't have rent controls there is no construction. Indeed, when we had rent controls in the province of British Columbia in the last few years, we had incredible booms in construction. Did I hear you saying: "Oh, my God, those rent controls. I don't know, but that construction went on somehow" — but you wouldn't answer that question. So according to the minister, when we have rent controls there is no construction, and when we don't have rent controls there is no construction. There is no logical answer, Mr. Minister; there is only philosophical direction from your government. Either way there is no construction, and the construction industry is largely shut down.

AN HON. MEMBER: Pennyfarthing would like to build that condominium development.

MR. BLENCOE: I will deal further with this later in my remarks. But it's an important point, and the minister has not really dealt with it.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're not going to go on any longer, are you? Let's go home.

MR. BLENCOE: Do you want to go home? I'll tell you what, Madam Member: take this bill home with you — all of you — and see if you can look your tenants in the eye and say: " It's a really fair and just bill." You won't be able to, Madam Member. Remember that 36 percent of all the households in British Columbia are tenants, are rented.

AN HON. MEMBER: You've told us that about 14 times.

[ Page 4285 ]

MR. BLENCOE: I'm going to tell you again. If that's the only thing that will move you on a political basis to change this landlords' charter, then I'm going to mention it over and over again. A lot of your voters are going to have their rights and privileges thrown out of the window with this landlords' charter and their arbitration process that will hire the minister's friends. If they don't do it the right way they won't be rehired, and the minister knows that.

The fact is that the rental housing market is not susceptible to the laws of supply and demand — going back to my theme, Mr. Speaker. The analogy is that of a cornered stock on the stock exchange. A cornered stock is one where there are not enough shares being traded to tell if the market value is a true value. It's not against the rules to corner a stock, but it is against the law to manipulate a stock. There has been some thought that Primont is a cornered stock. Recently it went from 55 cents to $11.50 a share almost overnight, before trading was halted. That's a 1,990 percent increase, Nobody got hurt by the Primont stock surge and arguably a few people got rich. Consider what would happen if Primont were landlords and the rents went up 1,999 percent because of the market manipulation. There would be great hardships to the tenants. I doubt seriously that there would be a 1,990 percent increase, but landlords as a group are now being given the opportunity to milk their tenants for as much as they can pay, with no thought for the social consequences of such a policy.

I used the extreme analogy of Primont in the marketplace, but the fact of the matter is that with this legislation and the lack of rules we're coming down with, the landlord will have the same kind of ability to corner a stock in the rental situation. They will be able to milk the tenant for whatever they want because there will be no way to control it. The sky is the ceiling. And you know, good old Grant Devine believes there should be some ceiling on that sky. Good Tory, he just reintroduced 5 percent....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I feel compelled to bring to your attention that there is still a rule in our book regarding repetition, and I've heard about this Devine gentleman five or six times.

MR. BLENCOE: I won't mention Mr. Devine's name again. Suffice to say that the Premier of Saskatchewan, in his wisdom, along with his cabinet, unanimously introduced a 5 percent level, maintained rent review....

HON. MR. HEWITT: How do you know it was unanimous? Have you got a pipeline to that place?

MR. BLENCOE: I've got a pipeline.

The new renter protection program in the province of Saskatchewan — a Tory government. For those members who are going home this weekend, take this bill and the Saskatchewan legislation and ask the tenants of the province of British Columbia what kind of procedure they would like in effect. Who would they like to be the Premier of the province of British Columbia? The Premier of Saskatchewan or this Premier, and the minister who backs him up with this bill? We all know what the answer will be. They don't want this particular landlords' charter.

Rental housing is not susceptible to the laws of supply and demand.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Sit down and I'll tell you about it.

MR. BLENCOE: How are your wolves?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Fine.

MR. BLENCOE: How many are you killing today?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Are you for it or against it?

MR. BLENCOE: Have you got your gun out for the weekend, Mr. Member? Are the helicopters all ready?

MRS. JOHNSTON: Stay on the subject.

MR. BLENCOE: Thank you, Madam Member.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: On Bill 19, please.

MR. BLENCOE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was just checking with that minister whether he had his gun ready for his wolves.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Are you against that program too? Stand up and say so.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: On Bill 19, please, hon. members.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Are you against that bill? Tell him where you stand.

MR. BLENCOE: I'm standing right here. I'm on Bill 19. Wait until that comes up. I will prove that your program doesn't make sense.

We're talking about rent controls, review and procedures.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Does the minister wish to make a point? No?

Mr. Speaker, I have used the example of the Primont stock surge — 1,990 percent increase — because there are no rules limiting how much profit you can make or how much increase you can make in the stock market. But now there are no rules or regulations to say how much a landlord can increase his rents in the province of British Columbia. The market will become self-inflating. A landlord will hike his rents to maximize his or her profits. There is nothing to prevent landlords coming together to form a cartel to manipulate rents to whatever level seems appropriate.

There is a labour relations model implicit in this bill. At several points the parties are told they may waive this or that. But the nature of our collective bargaining system — and it has often been criticized from the government side of the House — is that it is confrontational in nature and does not always work. Collective bargaining depends for its success on two parties with roughly equal power arriving at something they can live with to their mutual benefit.

Why does the minister think that a confrontational model is appropriate in the rental housing field? Because that's what we're going to have. Not only is it going to be a biased one,

[ Page 4286 ]

appointed by the minister with no appeal process, but it's going to be a confrontational model. Does the minister ever envisage having to introduce legislation to deal with breakdowns in bargaining? Or does he think that it's acceptable to leave the tenants there as a group to be exploited by their landlords? The arbitrators and courts can only interpret the law as it is. Sometimes the government thinks additional laws are required. And I'm not reflecting on a vote, but there was a case just recently.

The basic reason that this style of bill is inappropriate, Mr. Speaker, is that there is not a reasonable balance of power between the parties. Even in the province of British Columbia we can still — I hope — accept that two groups going into a situation should have the same kinds of resources and power, and that they are equitable going into a confrontational kind of situation. But that's not going to happen now, Mr. Minister. The power and the law are firmly with the landlord. We should be redressing this balance, rather than tilting it further and further in favour of the landlord.

Mr. Speaker, I challenge those members who say it's a good bill to take it to their ridings and tell the tenants that they're going to have no control over what's going to happen with their rents and that they're not going to be able to review a rent increase, that if they do have a non-money kind of problem they've got to go before the minister's arbitrators who, if they want to be reappointed, have to reflect the political will and philosophy of the day, and that there's no appeal to that arbitration. Or else they've got to go into a court system that is cumbersome, clogged and expensive. Tell your constituents that, and also tell them that the Premier of Saskatchewan has introduced a reasonable residential tenancy situation and has not introduced a landlord's charter.

Now let's consider the other assumption implicit in the government's let-the-market-do-its-thing philosophy. The assumption is that the government will have adopted a purely neutral stance in the marketplace. That's their view. That's safe. I submit that this bill, far from being neutral, is one of the most ideological bills to come before this House in some time. The Oxford English Dictionary defines "neutral" as "not assisting either of two parties." But the landlord is definitely assisted in this bill. As a matter of fact, this new bill took care of the concerns they had about the delay in selling their properties. But it has not taken care of the concerns of the tenants of British Columbia, 380,000, or 36 percent of all households in the province.

MR. CAMPBELL: You said 360,000 before.

MR. BLENCOE: No, 380,000.

MR. CAMPBELL: It's grown 20,000 in the last half hour.

MR. BLENCOE: I'll tell you something, Mr. Speaker: he's listening. You're listening, aren't you, Mr. Member. Because you know that when the next election rolls around you've got 36 percent of all households — which will be 40 percent by the time we get there — that will know what you introduced in Bill 19.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Is that all you worry about, the next election?

[12:45]

MR. BLENCOE: I know that's all you worry about. I'm worrying about fairness and equity to all British Columbians.

The landlord is assisted in this bill; there's no question about that. How are they assisted? By making it easy to get more and more money out of the tenants by manipulating the market. By having business people who will be from the same business group as landlords arbitrate complaints. By the age-old principle of the right of people to be tried by their peers.... Now they're going to be tried by a Socred clone in a kangaroo court. He doesn't have to necessarily hear your case anyway, and it's not appealable.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Repetition.

MR. BLENCOE: Read the act, Madam Member.

By having the minister personally control the appointment of the arbitrators, so we'll get, as the minister said on CBC, lawyers, retired people from the business community, bankers, local business people, the local government agent.... The picture is very clear. Why shouldn't the consumers have a chance to be the arbitrators in the province of British Columbia? They're the ones who are going to be directly affected by this legislation. Why should it be the minister's friends and the minister's arbitrators? The consumers should have some peers on that board. They're the ones who are going to be affected; they have rights and they're entitled to an impartial and fair hearing process. By denying, through economic means, access to the courts.... Tenants cannot afford to go traipsing off to the court for a maintenance order every time rain comes through the roof. That's what tenants will be forced to do if landlords decide arbitration is not for them. The government claims that this is neutrality. With neutrals like this, tenants don't need enemies.

It's very clear that for some time the government was worried about the impact of Bill 5, and didn't introduce it last time. They knew that there were thousands of British Columbians who believed, as tenants, that they should have a high degree of protection, and rights and privileges. We were hopeful that the minister and the government would get the message and do what the Premier of Saskatchewan has done. However, Mr. Speaker, it remains clear in this legislation that they have not been able to do that. Obviously they had to succumb to the landlords and bring in a landlords' charter, which will do absolutely nothing to ensure that tenants have some security in their homes and won't be priced out of the market or priced out of their homes. Mr. Speaker, it's unfortunate that 36 percent of all households in the province of British Columbia are going to be subjected to a bill that basically is grossly unfair and unjust.

Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that people wish to break a little early for the weekend, so I would move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:51 p.m.