[ Page 4287 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Constitution Amendment Act, 1984 (Bill 16). Hon. Mr. Chabot.

Introduction and first reading –– 4287

Oral Questions

Ministry of Forests scaling practices. Mr. Skelly –– 4287

Sealed washrooms on Gray Line buses. Ms. Sanford –– 4287

Mrs. Dailly

Informational forum on B.C. special-waste management program. Mrs. Wallace –– 4288

Bank charges to MHR clients. Mrs. Wallace –– 4288

Milk board quotas. Ms. Sanford –– 4289

Accommodation in Terraceview Lodge. Mr. Howard –– 4289

Duty-free zones. Mr. Lea –– 4289

Mount Klappan anthracite project. Mr. Howard –– 4289

Residential Tenancy Act (Bill 19). Second reading.

Mr. Blencoe –– 4290

Mr. Mitchell –– 4310

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. MOWAT: Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure, on behalf of my colleague the Hon. Grace McCarthy, Minister of Human Resources, to introduce to the House today the Vancouver–Little Mountain Social Credit executive. We're pleased that they made the crossing today in a very stormy sea, and we think they'll be staying for the evening. I'd ask the House to make welcome our president, Mr. George L. Andersen, of an old pioneer family; our treasurer, Mr. Tony Christie; our secretary, Mrs. Elma McLellan; and our directors, Mr. Jim Vernon, Mr. Dick Hussey, Mr. Walter Pruden, Mrs. Hope Wotherspoon, Mr. Gim Huey, Mr. Hector Wright, Mr. Jeff Moore and Mr. John Rose.

MR. PARKS: Mr. Speaker, this past weekend a group of school-age children from across the province gathered in a provincial championship for a new competition called Olympics of the Mind. It's certainly a fine example of the youth of today taking part in an imaginative new program that has been extremely successful.

Of the 52 final entry teams 13 were from Coquitlam: eight finished in first place, four finished second and one finished in third. There is one particular school and one particular team that I'd like to give special mention to. It's the team that won the Camelot contest, from Glenayre School. It was sponsored by Mrs. Linda Lewis. I'd like the House to join me in congratulating the team members: Chilwin Cheng, Lara Graham, Carolyn Kwan, Erin McLennan, Kimberley Pawelchak, Lia Shukin and one Shalan Parks.

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, I'd like the House to welcome the best executive members of the best executive in the province: the president of North Vancouver–Seymour, Roberta Kelly; secretary Betty Waters; treasurer Ernie Sarsfield; and member of the executive Mike Gill. While I'm at it I'd also like to welcome members from the board of school trustees on the North Shore, Marg Goodman and Ross Regan, and Steve McMinn, who is an alderman in North Vancouver.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the House to welcome the various organizations that met with the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs today about Bill 19: the B.C. Tenants' Rights Coalition, the Welfare Action Coalition, representatives of the First United Church, the Solidarity coalition, the Downtown Eastside Residents' Association, Women Against the Budget, the B.C. Old Age Pensioners' Organization and the Council of Senior Citizens' Organizations. I would like the House to welcome them.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speaker, some of the stalwarts of our community are here. They are the Fasts, the Schmidts and the Walls. Please make them welcome.

MR. MICHAEL: On behalf of the Minister of Finance, who is absent today on government business, I would like to introduce two of his guests: Mrs. Alice Howes, a constituent of his from Saanich and the Islands, and Mrs. Florence Wintemute, who is visiting Mrs. Howes from Calgary. Would the House please make them welcome.

Introduction of Bills

CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1984

Hon. Mr. Chabot presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Constitution Amendment Act, 1984.

Bill 16 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.

Oral Questions

MINISTRY OF FORESTS SCALING PRACTICES

MR. SKELLY: A question to the acting Minister of Forests. With reference to the minister's statement on April 5 that he will take action to issue supplementary stumpage billings to B.C. Forests Products at Shoal Island, does the minister also plan to supplementary bill the operators of the five other log-sorting operations where defective scaling practices were employed as well?

HON. MR. SMITH: I thank the member for his question, and take it on notice for the minister.

MR. SKELLY: I have a second question for the acting minister. Has the minister done an investigation to find out what the stumpage losses were at the other five sites mentioned by the Ombudsman?

HON. MR. SMITH: Same response, Mr. Speaker.

SEALED WASHROOMS ON GRAY LINE BUSES

MS. SANFORD: This is a question for the Minister of Human Resources, responsible for transportation and buses. Is the minister aware that since privatization it has been the policy of Gray Line of Victoria to lock and seal the washrooms on the buses operating on Vancouver Island?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: No.

MR. SEGARTY: Were you locked in?

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, these people can make light of this question, and I'm sure that they will continue to do so, but not everyone in this province flies on a government aircraft. A lot of them do have to rely on bus transportation — a lot of older people, a lot of single parents with children — and I resent the flippant manner with which these people are dealing with this.

Mr. Speaker, I'm informed that this policy of Gray Line of Victoria has already resulted in a number of unfortunate incidents, and is of considerable concern to passengers and drivers alike. I would like to ask the minister whether or not the agreement for sale of PCL to the companies involved permits them to lock these washrooms.

[ Page 4288 ]

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, the question is a little out of order, I would suggest, because I think the member well knows that when a business is sold, questions as to its operation should rightly be asked of that private entrepreneur — it really has no reference to the government at this point.

[2:15]

MS. SANFORD: Well, Mr. Speaker, we've been asking to have the agreement for sale tabled in this House, and have not been able to see what was provided. But we have been assured by the minister that service would be continued on that bus line. I'm wondering whether or not this kind of thing is allowed under that agreement for sale, which is a legitimate question to ask that minister responsible.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I have no trouble in providing the agreement for sale to the House when it is possible to do so. I have made that undertaking on two occasions, and I will certainly follow through and file those papers in the House at the earliest opportunity — that should be in the next few days.

MS. SANFORD: Could the minister inform the House whether the government has been paid in full for the sale of the buses and the equipment that were formerly the property of Pacific Coach Lines, including the buses and the equipment on that Fraser Valley route?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: That information, too, can come forward at the time of the finalization of all the moneys paid. There will be — and the member should know — equipment left over, which will be placed on sale. It is an ongoing transaction.

MS. SANFORD: Does the minister, then, inform the House that she will be filing all of the details with respect to the moneys exchanged to date?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I've already said that.

MRS. DAILLY: To the Minister of Health. My question is related to the question that was just asked. It was not answered to our satisfaction by the Minister of Human Resources, who was in charge of the sale. Do you have regulations which would apply in the case of a private bus company which does not provide proper sanitary facilities for its passengers? I don't think the government can evade their responsibilities here.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I'd be pleased to inquire.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, I hope that the Minister of Health realizes there is a certain amount of urgency to this matter.

INFORMATIONAL FORUM ON B.C.
SPECIAL-WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

MRS. WALLACE: Tomorrow — Tuesday, April 10 — there is to be a informational forum on the B.C. special-waste management program in Ashcroft. Has the minister decided to attend?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I decided quite some time ago that I would not attend that protest rally, and I have made that very plain. Yet some of the people are still persisting that I should, or trying to pressure me into it.

MRS. WALLACE: I wonder if the minister is talking about the same thing. He referred to a protest rally. My information is that this is an informational forum. In a letter from the mayor of Ashcroft to the minister, dated March 28, inviting him to attend an informational forum, the mayor states: "If you are not there, the community will take it as a firm indication your proposal is not environmentally sound but merely politically and economically expedient." Is the minister prepared to defend his proposal by attending the meeting or having a representative attend on his behalf?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Perhaps the member should realize that I have just spent Saturday night, all day Sunday and all of this morning at a special-waste information symposium, and answered any and all questions that I possibly could. No, I am not prepared to attend that meeting. That letter from the mayor came subsequently. I will have staff there.

MRS. WALLACE: In a front page story in the Ashcroft-Cache Creek Journal on April 3, Mr. Geoff Swannell, of the minister's information office in Cache Creek, stated that he "has access to a broad spectrum of speakers available on request." I wonder if the minister would tell me whether or not he is one of the speakers included in this broad spectrum. Is he not included in the broad spectrum of speakers available?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I have been there several times. I am certainly included as one of the speakers in this broad spectrum, but I have declined this particular meeting.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: It can be stated. I know that there's a lot of communication going on. There's also some effort to set me up to force me to go to something that I had declined some time ago. When an invitation arrives, I accept or I decline. In this case, some time ago I declined on this invitation. The proponents of this meeting persisted in putting my name on the announcement, despite the fact that they clearly knew that I was not able to be there; and that's what I call a setup.

BANK CHARGES TO MHR CLIENTS

MRS. WALLACE: I have another question, this time to the Minister of Human Resources. The Bank of Nova Scotia in Duncan has been charging $10 to MHR clients for a letter stating that there's no more credit available to them. I understand that it's general bank policy to charge for a letter relative to credit rating, but with a variable fee. Inasmuch as such a letter is now required by the Minister of Human Resources to qualify for hardship grants, is the minister prepared to have the Ministry of Human Resources refund the cost of this personal credit information?

[ Page 4289 ]

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I'm not aware of that, but I'll be very glad to look into it and bring the information back to the House.

MILK BOARD QUOTAS

MS. SANFORD: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Since the transfer of all milk quotas has been frozen by the Milk Board, a case of hardship has come to my attention, in which for medical reasons the farmer has been asked to sell his herd and get out of the dairy business. What steps has the minister taken to ensure that quota transfers take place in hardship cases?

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: I'd ask the hon. member to forward the particular case to me, and I'll carry it to the Milk Board personally.

MS. SANFORD: The person involved has already contacted the Milk Board and has been told very firmly that all quotas are frozen until the end of August. Does this mean that the minister is intending to set up his own appeal procedure — through him as minister?

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: What I have undertaken to do simply means that I'll look at the application and carry it personally to the board. If it's a hardship case, it may deserve special recognition.

MS. SANFORD: Could the minister advise the House whether or not he supports the actions of the Milk Board with respect to the five people who have opted out and are circumventing the system that's been established in British Columbia?

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: The Milk Board was established on the recommendations of the industry itself. The industry supports the board, and I support the board.

ACCOMMODATION IN TERRACEVIEW LODGE

MR. HOWARD: I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of Health. Has he received a report from the members of his department who went to Terrace last Wednesday or Thursday, with respect to their discussions with the Terraceview Society and others in Terrace about protecting the interests of a number of elderly citizens who are in Skeenaview and others who actually live in the community and need long-term care?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I haven't seen the report yet, Mr. Speaker, but it could very well be on its way, or it could be on my desk.

MR. HOWARD: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In view of the urgency of the situation, could I ask the minister if he would mind taking the extraordinary step of asking for that report to be presented to him as quickly as possible in order that the minister may, if the report is negative, carry out his commitment to this House to visit Terrace himself?

DUTY-FREE ZONES

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, keeping in mind and in line with the hon. member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Parks), and as this is a day to be thinking about Olympics of the mind, I'd like to ask the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications a question. The throne speech — and since that time mentioned by the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) — said that the government is interested in setting up duty-free zones, I'd like to ask the minister whether the government has any details on what a duty-free zone would be.

HON. MR. McGEER: I'd be very pleased to take that as notice for the Premier, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MOUNT KLAPPAN ANTHRACITE PROJECT

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. McClelland) in his capacity as the acting Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. Can the minister advise the House what the status is of the proposed anthracite coal project by Gulf Canada Resources Inc., identified as the Mount Klappan coal project?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I'll take that question as notice for the minister and have him report back to the House.

MR. SKELLY: I ask leave to make an introduction, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

MR. SKELLY: I'd like to introduce a person in the gallery who last year fell just short of performing one of the greatest services a person in this province could perform on behalf of the other citizens of British Columbia. I ask the House to welcome Jean Swanson, who is the NDP candidate in Vancouver–Little Mountain.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, could I also ask leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

MR. MITCHELL: Last year on April 9 I opened an office in Sooke and a young lady, who came in there for the first time — and it was the first time I had ever met her – stayed to be exploited by my political party. For the last year I have worked her to death in doing many valuable projects in my particular campaign and in my organization. I'd like the House to welcome Kathryn Clarke from Sooke, who is my constituency association secretary.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, prior to the next order of business I would remind all hon. members that reading telegrams, letters or extracts from newspapers, etc. as an opening to an oral question is an abuse of the rules of the House. I would commend that to all members, including the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace).

[ Page 4290 ]

[2:30]

Orders of the Day

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

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 19.

RESIDENTIAL TENANCY ACT
(continued)

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, on Friday in debate on this bill I was trying to explore with the minister or recommend to the minister that perhaps there were some areas in which he, in his position as minister responsible, could perhaps take a look at rewriting this particular piece of legislation. There are a number of areas of deep concern which I have expressed and which are being expressed now by many tenant organizations and other institutions in our province.

Basically what we're asking the minister and the government to consider is ensuring that there is equity and equality between two global parties in British Columbia: the tenants and the landlords. We feel that the office of the rentalsman for the last few years has done an excellent job of ensuring that fairness and equal treatment under the law were maintained. Our concern today, as it was on Friday and will be for some time is that if this bill becomes law, there will be one set of rules for the owners of property and another for those who have to rent.

Basically what we want the minister to do in fairness is to ensure that landlords and tenants are treated equally. This current bill does not do that. I recognize that the minister and the government retracted Bill 5 and did not bring it to this House. There were, indeed, some odious components of that piece of legislation. On the surface there have been some changes to that bill. However, the overriding concern with this current piece of legislation is that tenants will not have adequate protection. It's our position, as the New Democratic Party, that 380,000 tenants making up over 36 percent of all households in British Columbia are entitled to a better piece of legislation.

I would like to make a proposal to the minister. In light of the fact that perhaps we don't have access to all the wisdom and all the various intricacies of good legislation that might be brought before this House, I would like to propose to the minister that we put this bill aside for a little bit and put it into a committee of this House. It is unfortunate that we are debating this piece of legislation which we just saw a few days ago and are proceeding with very quickly. We are introducing and debating a piece of legislation that will have a dramatic impact upon thousands of lives of families in this province — not only the lives of the families of tenants but also those who own property. It's our contention that this bill is very cumbersome and difficult and will create all sorts of problems for both tenants and landlords, but particularly for tenants. It's our contention that the two-tiered kind of system that the minister has decided to introduce — the arbitration process with those arbitrators appointed by the minister himself, and the moneyed kind of disputes that will continue to arise going to the court system and the kind of concerns and problems and difficulties that will bring about — is not the best way to go. There are better alternatives, not only socially and efficiently but also that are cost-efficient.

Mr. Minister, I think it would be very useful today for both sides of the House, rather than to continue what is pretty much a fundamental philosophical battle — I touched upon that on Friday — between the rights of the people who don't own property but contribute to our community and the local taxes by their rent and are therefore entitled to protection under the law, and the owners of property.... It's a classic fight. I went back to Magna Carta and read into the record one of the the sections of Magna Carta where there was a form of rent control, some system whereby those who rent property do have equity under the law and their rights are protected. We have to find a mechanism that balances and protects the interests of both sides so that they feel they have equal access to ensure their rights are protected — in particular, that tenants are not going to be priced out of their homes.

Mr. Speaker, I suggest that this piece of legislation go to a committee of this House, that both sides of this House be represented and we take a look in a rational, intelligent, non-emotional and, as much as possible, a non-partisan manner. It's going to be difficult, I know that, because this is a philosophical discussion. Let's look at all the mechanisms that are available to ensure that all interests in this particular issue are protected and enhanced. Let's have a thorough investigation of the mechanisms that are open to us to ensure that we have a fair and just system for both landlords and tenants.

Let's take a look at other jurisdictions. The minister may have done this; I'm sure he has, because the minister does a good job. The minister does his best. Unfortunately, he has a cabinet that appears to be on a political mission: that is, to remove some of the basic rights and privileges of tenants in British Columbia. I think that member, if he can, should try to persuade his colleagues to take a step back and establish a process of this House in committee as it's done in other jurisdictions. We should look at all the avenues open to us to ensure that we have a piece of legislation and a rentalsman's office — or whatever you want to call it, Mr. Minister — so that both parties are going to feel they are being dealt with equally. For instance, let's take a look at the Conservative government of Saskatchewan. I ask again — the minister will become bored with this — why Grant Devine's Saskatchewan government has decided to introduce a new renter protection program. Why have they decided to limit rent increases to an average of 5 percent? Why has the minister said that the government must have an influence in the marketplace, that tenants must be protected from unreasonable increases? Why does Saskatchewan feel that they must have a fair residential tenancy act? Let's investigate why this government feels so uptight or so convinced that the existing rentalsman and the existing Residential Tenancy Act is not good enough for British Columbia.

Mr. Minister, today I am offering an olive branch, because I think we have to sort out the disagreements. The overall interests of all of us in this House are the concerns and the rights and the protection and ensuring that 380,000 tenants and their families in British Columbia have a fair system that they know will protect them in difficult times, that they won't be facing massive rent increases that will make it very difficult for them to hang onto their homes, particularly those who are on fixed incomes senior citizens, those on fixed pensions, the handicapped and those on a lower income:

[ Page 4291 ]

the poor, the unemployed and those on welfare. I'm offering an olive branch. Take it out of this arena today and let's have a thorough.... We could do that kind of discussion in a week.

We've got all sorts of organizations in British Columbia which are willing to participate. They recognize that there has to be some give and take on this particular issue. Let's try, for once, to have a process that recognizes moderation and compromise and that politics is the art of what is possible. But politics is also about ensuring as much as possible that all interests are protected and treated fairly under the law. I would like to suggest that process to the minister, because there is deep concern about many of the aspects of this particular legislation. I will go through those as we progress in this debate.

In the interests of proceeding and trying to develop a fair process, I'd like to reflect on some of the statements that have been made by Socred members over the years about this whole issue of rent controls, the rentalsman's office and rent review. I think it's useful to put them on the record and to ask what happened to some of those views. Why do we have a determined effort in this province not to ensure that tenants and their rights are protected and that their families have security of tenure?

In April 1977 the Premier of this province, Premier Bennett, announced tighter rent controls for British Columbia, cutting the allowable rent increase from 10.6 to 7 percent. That was, I would say, in a troubled time in terms of the housing market, but it certainly wasn't as troubled as what we have in terms of the recession and depression in the province today. Yet the Premier of that time — who is still the Premier today, for a short time — wisely, I think, decided to reduce the allowable rent increase. The announcement at the time ended speculation that the government was considering abolishing rent controls. I should add for Hansard that this is taken from the Colonist, April 2, 1977:

"The 10. 6 percent ceiling was brought in by the New Democratic Party in January 1975, and has been the target of many attacks by landlords who claim the allowable annual increase did not enable them to keep pace with inflation. Premier Bennett made no excuses for the 3.6 percent reduction in the allowable increases." And here's a very interesting quote from Premier Bennett.

" All Canadians must show some restraint to fight inflation. The 7 percent will cover most landlords' actual cost increases, and I'm sure that landlords recognize their duty to assist the government and all the people in the fight against inflation."

There's the Premier, in 1977, talking about, recommending and introducing a reduction in the allowable rent increase but making some fairly significant statements about the responsibilities of landlords and the owners of property to participate jointly in the struggle to end the recession. The landlords have a responsibility to participate in the recovery program, and the owners of property must partake of that process.

[2:45]

I made the case last Friday that many tenants are seeing their incomes frozen and wages either not increased or minimally increased — certainly not above the inflation rate. They are tenants, wage-earners, pensioners, etc., who are being told to tighten their belts and not expect any increases at all. In the province of British Columbia today, if this bill becomes law, we will have one rule, one set of instructions, for the average tenant and the average British Columbian — "Pull in your belt; don't expect any increase; show restraint" — and the owners of property, the landlords in the province, will have a wide-open spectrum in terms of what they can increase their rents by. There will be double standards and double jeopardy. I don't think any government member can accept that kind of double standard. In 1977 the Premier of the province recognized that particular aspect. Premier Bennett categorically said that the owners of property must participate in the recovery program and must show restraint, and he and the government of the day introduced a reduction in the annual allowable rent increase.

What's happened today? Today we are far worse off. The situation is ten times worse. Many of those tenants for whom we in the New Democratic Party are fighting in this House today are the unemployed, the poor, the welfare recipients, the pensioners, those on fixed incomes, those wage-earners who are being told to restrain and pull in their belts, yet this legislation says there will be no control at all on what a landlord can do to rents. There will be no rent review process, even if a tenant can document and fairly state that the rent increase which they're accepting cannot be justified in terms of the market in that particular area. If they want to complain about some of the aspects of what might happen in their tenancy agreements, they've either got to go before a friend of the minister, in terms of the arbitrator or....

HON. MR. HEWITT: Order!

MR. BLENCOE: We take that back. They have to go before an arbitrator that is appointed by the minister, or they have to go to the court system.

I call upon the government of British Columbia today to recognize that we are in the worst time since the Depression. We have 212,000-plus people unemployed, and thousands more are on welfare. We have far worse times than when the Premier made some of these, I think, quite dramatic statements in 1977. It's a time now for the Premier of the province of British Columbia to say that the owners of property have some responsibility to participate in sharing the load. Yet we don't have that. The pressures must be so intense on this government, in terms of those owners and those landlords, that the landlords are getting a bill that basically reflects landlords' interests and landlords' rights. I have no argument that those owners of property should have rights. If a tenant is bad and is destroying property or there is good reason to remove that tenant, fair enough. But I also believe that there must be a guarantee in any legislation that ensures that tenants have equal access to the law and that the legislation reflects their interests and rights as well.

In 1977 the Premier of the province of British Columbia felt that times were so bad that he said: "We will tighten up rent control. We will reduce the allowable...." And that happened. For some unknown reason there seems to be a feeling on the government side that things aren't bad enough today to ensure, at least during this depression or recession in British Columbia, that tenants have some safety net.

The Premier made some other statements which I think are fascinating. "Landlords facing genuine hardship at the lower rent level already have the option of applying to the Rent Review Commission for an increase greater than the basic amount. This provision has been in the legislation from the start, and some landlords have received this relief." We

[ Page 4292 ]

have no argument that if the minister in his wisdom, and the government in its collective wisdom, decided to keep the office of the rentalsman, and if the minister in his wisdom wishes to lean and clean it, if you will, fair enough. I may disagree with how it comes about and with what happens, but at least try and consider what the office as it exists now has done. It has served this province well, I have no argument that the office of the rentalsman can do the very thing that the Premier is saying here. It has been done over the years. If a landlord can document and justify and prove to an objective, non-government-appointed rentalsman or arbitrator that their particular building has special needs, special problems and special financial considerations, there can be — and are, currently — clauses or legislation that allow that landlord to go beyond the allowable amount. There's nothing wrong with that. We need that in this legislation, so that when the landlord makes a huge rent increase, there is some process of review. If a tenants' organization proves that that landlord's rent increase is totally unjustifiable and does not reflect market conditions or the particular problems the landlord is having with that building, why should the landlord get a 40, 50 or 60 percent increase just because the law now says that any increase is legal in the province of British Columbia? Fairness, equity. I call upon the government and the Premier of the province of British Columbia to reaffirm their bold statements of 1977.

On November 27, 1979, in the Daily Colonist, it said on page 37: "B.C. Rent Curbs to Stay." "There are no plans 'at this time' to end rent controls, but current high interest rates and their effect on landlords could mean individual punctures in the 7 percent ceiling, Consumer Affairs Minister James Nielsen confirmed Monday." I reiterate: if a landlord can document and utilize legislation that's fair and reasonable, and can justify that the rent increase has to go beyond the 7 or 10 percent level, fair enough. But let's ensure that a process does exist between landlord and tenant to review that kind of problem. At the moment we're not going to have that, because all the landlord will have to do once a year is increase the rent as much as he likes.

Let's go back to when Mr. Rafe Mair was in charge of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I'll read again from the Daily Colonist of August 30, 1977. The headline is: "New Reins on Rents?"

"Consumer and Corporate Affairs Minister Rafe Mair said Monday that 'post-control controls' would prevent landlords from demanding exorbitant increases once rent controls are lifted. 'We've taken care to design a section that will provide a tenant some rights of appeal, and hopefully force landlords and tenants alike to be reasonable about what is fair in the circumstance. In no way does a phasing-out of controls mean that we are abandoning the tenant to the vagaries of the marketplace and to the tender mercies of the landlord who might think that he can get away with anything.'

" 'In fact, tax changes coupled with rising inflation and other trends had a disastrous effect on vacancy rates, ' he said, adding that 'the logical political alternative' was rent control."

What has happened to these particular positions that were perhaps taken by more reasonable people? I don't know.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Fraser Institute.

MR. BLENCOE: It could be that this government has taken advice from those who are on the extreme right — the ultra-right-wing gurus of the wreckonomics institutes. I don't know, but I would ask the minister and his government to have a more balanced view of this particular issue, and to try to make up their own minds about what's fair and not always take the advice of some extreme wreckonomics crew like the Fraser Institute.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Remember, you are dealing with lives. You are dealing with close to 400,000 tenants and families in the province of British Columbia. You are dealing with homes and futures and what's going to happen to their living environment and their shelter. You're dealing with 36 percent of all the households in the province of British Columbia. That issue cannot be treated lightly. That population base is entitled to a piece of legislation that is second to none in Canada.

We have the opportunity, if the minister will accept my olive branch today, to meet and talk about legislation that is fair to all groups. We have a chance to establish the finest piece of residential tenancy legislation in this country. I believe the minister and I, those on this side and other members of the government, have the ability to look at this issue and separate our personal feelings, in order to look at not who is right but what is right. I have to say, Mr. Minister, that the legislation before us is not what is right in terms of ensuring that all interested parties have equal access to equal rights and legislation that is fair.

This from the August 30, 1977, Daily Colonist, headlined: "Poor Won't Lose Rent Controls." "Consumer and Corporate Affairs Minister Rafe Mair said Monday night he 'doubts if rent controls will be lifted in my lifetime for the economically disadvantaged.' " That's an amazing statement. Unfortunately Mr. Mair is no longer in this House.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Mair has a lot of respect in this province. He is considered to be a fair and reasonable person. Let's not get into personalities. I believe that Mr. Mair is highly regarded, and I think he's still highly regarded by many members on the government side. The member to my left here does not regard Mr. Mair in a favourable light, but I happen to. Here is Mr. Mair saying: "In my lifetime rent controls for the economically disadvantaged will not be lifted."

Mr. Speaker, if there's anything this government should do to modify its position, it has to be with respect to the impact of this legislation on the unemployed, the poor and the disadvantaged in our province — of which there are thousands at the moment. This legislation will directly impact on those least able to afford huge rent increases or user fees for an arbitrator. I really wish you would reconsider that user fee, Mr. Minister, particularly for those disadvantaged who often have to live in accommodation that is not the best. For example, can you see someone who wants their sink, bathtub or door repaired paying $30 to an arbitrator to ensure it's done? That's crazy. That's ludicrous. The minister has got to reconsider that $30 application on a universal basis. For many who are on a set income today — those on social assistance or unemployment — that $30 will come directly

[ Page 4293 ]

out of their food budget. You will be taking away from their food budget.

Mr. Minister, you are already going to spend $2 million on this new operation. I would suggest that if you analyze what you are going to do, in terms of the costs in the court, you could keep the existing office very well and save yourself money. That's the bottom line. In my estimation, this legislation in this particular direction is going to cost the taxpayers of British Columbia in excess of the costs of the current office. I have on occasion asked the minister, and I and others have asked the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith), if they can document the court costs. What are the cost implications to the taxpayer, in terms of the many items that are now going to go into the court system?

That's not even to separate the issue of whether tenants have to go to a court to get back what is rightfully theirs, such as a security deposit, when they can deal with it informally by the process which we now have in the rentalsman's office — the rentalsman, of course, not being appointed by the minister, but having a high degree of objectivity. Do we want to go back to the court system? I believe not, and I think the minister probably doesn't want to either; but unfortunately, for whatever reasons, he has been forced into this position.

[3:00]

The poor won't lose rent controls in his lifetime, says Rafe Mair. What's happened to this government since some of those reasonable people left — the Rafe Mairs? Particularly for the economically disadvantaged.... The implications of this bill are going to ride on the backs of the disadvantaged and poor, particularly those who will have to use the arbitration process or the court system. They are going to pay dearly for this piece of legislation. That must be reconsidered, Mr. Minister, and I hope you will take that more seriously. Rafe Mair made this statement outside the Legislature, after undergoing several hours of intense criticism from the opposition. I might add, to be fair about this, that during that attack Mair and his government had been accused of not reporting accurately to the people of the province of British Columbia on the rights of renters. But obviously Mr. Mair believed that there was a case to be made, particularly that there must be some protection for the economically disadvantaged in any difficult times. The attack came during debate of Bill 86, the Residential Tenancy Act.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Oh, we're not going to quit on this particular bill. It's a very important piece of legislation.

In another statement at that time Mr. Mair said: "I have said before, and I say again, that the economically disadvantaged among us are and will be protected." The minimal thing the minister and the Premier of British Columbia can do in this situation is ensure that the economically disadvantaged are protected in their legislation. It is our contention that they will not be. I hope the minister will hear that and take the advice, not just from the opposition, but from someone who over the years has worked with many tenant groups and organizations and with those who are dramatically affected by any kind of rent increase or change in tenancy rules.

When I closed on Friday I was talking about a theme that the minister and this government are always very interested in talking about: let the marketplace take care of problems; let the market work. The basic assumption, and one which I pointed out that I thought was false, is that rental housing is susceptible to the laws of supply and demand and that government will have no effect in the marketplace.... I gave some examples and some discussion which I think....

Although many members of the government tried to give the impression they weren't listening, they took up some of the things I did say. In a couple of statements I used the wrong figures inadvertently, and they immediately perked up; they said, "That's not what you said five minutes ago, " and they were quite correct. The government is listening on this issue, I contend, and the reason they're listening is because they can try very hard to convince those 380,000-plus tenants and that huge population base in the province of British Columbia that they're right about the marketplace, but when it comes to protecting your home and guaranteeing security, guaranteeing that you have a home you can pay for and not be forced out, that's an issue even this government cannot avoid. I know the government is listening. I believe the minister has heard from some of the tenant organizations in this province and I can assure him he'll be hearing from lots more. He'll be hearing particularly from senior citizen organizations, of which there are thousands in this province, particularly in my riding, which has the largest senior citizen population in this province.

Let's just complete that theme, Mr. Speaker, about the nature of the B.C. housing market in relation to the minister's "let the market work" approach. To go to some learned people in this particular area, I have some statements made by Jack Hayes of the Rental Housing Council, which represents about half of B.C.'s landlords, about why there is a shortage of rental accommodation in Vancouver, for example. The clipping is from January 7. 1984. Let's see what Mr. Hayes has to say about the shortage of rental accommodation in Vancouver, which is an issue. Any legislation that deals with the lives of a huge portion of the population of the province of British Columbia must take into consideration these ancillary considerations and concerns. "There is no land to build new apartments on in Vancouver, and there hasn't been for many years. Apartments are being built on reclaimed property, which means you have to tear something down to put something up." Supply of land therefore puts intense pressure on existing accommodation, which means, of course, that landlords will be able to charge whatever they want because of that intensity. It's an issue that must be looked at and discussed, and one that has to be resolved to some degree in any kind of legislation.

Jim Patterson, the current rentalsman, is responsible for this piece of legislation. Unfortunately, it's a piece of legislation that.... If he were permitted to write something that wasn't subject to intense political pressure, I think Mr. Patterson would be quite capable of writing a fairer piece of legislation. Mr. Patterson said that high cost is related to demand — meaning high cost of land, I believe. This is from the same Vancouver Sun story, January 7, 1984.

" 'Vancouver is a popular place to live, that's the problem. If we were to blow up the mountains and fill in the bays, the rents would go down.'

"The city's apartment occupancy rate was listed by the rentalsman at 1.7 percent in October, down from 3.2 percent the previous April. Patterson said the vacancy rate is continuing to decline. He expects it will drop to the near-zero level by 1986, unless the federal government expands its rental housing programs by the end of this year."

[ Page 4294 ]

Again something for the provincial government to consider: we do have a supply problem in terms of affordable housing in the province of British Columbia; and your legislation will continue to intensify the pressure on existing affordable accommodation. Of course, this means that as that intensity mounts, any increase being legal with this particular piece of legislation, rents will rise considerably — way beyond any level that is necessary to make that particular apartment block economically viable. Way beyond.

Jim Patterson, the rentalsman, is projecting that vacancy rates will fall to near-zero by 1986. At this point I would like to touch upon an issue that I think the minister is going to have to deal with in 1986 if Expo indeed goes ahead. It's an issue that happened in Knoxville, and I'll be giving that example. It will put undue pressure on many housing situations. Unless we have a bill to ensure that this can't happen, we will have an incredible situation with Expo. Landlords close to the site will evict tenants, because Vancouver has a chronic hotel shortage, and landlords will be able to make much more money from a series of short lettings than from letting to the existing tenants. Evictions will be secured by the landlord under section 29(4)(e), which specifically allows eviction for short-term conversions of residential premises.

This happened in Knoxville, Tennessee, last year when landlords discovered that for a short time they could make seven or eight times as much by short lettings than from their regular tenants. Then, after the world's fair in Knoxville was over, the premises were relet.

I bring this issue in now because this tenancy legislation will not deal with that issue, which is, I understand, already beginning to surface in Vancouver. There are already rumblings that owners of properties will be terminating regular tenancy agreements and, of course, evicting people so they can take advantage of Expo. That's an issue that this tenancy legislation has got to pay attention to, because at the moment the legislation would allow that kind of eviction to go ahead. It could create all sorts of problems in residential tenancy buildings in Vancouver.

I'll just give the minister some insights into what happened in Knoxville. I think the adage is: be prepared, plan for it, and try to avoid it. That's what we're trying to say here. Maybe in this bill we need to have some insurance that this kind of situation — which was an awful situation in Knoxville — cannot happen in our province. Let me just read from Newsweek of March 1, 1982, about what happened in Knoxville, Tennessee.

"When the eastern Tennessee city of Knoxville won the right to hold a world's fair this year, most of its residents were thrilled by the prospect of showcasing their city and attracting a needed infusion of cash from developers and tourists." Sounds very familiar — of course, Expo here will hopefully do the same sort of thing.

"Few realized the price many of them would pay for the privilege. With the Knoxville International Energy Exposition less than three months away, about 1,000 local residents, many of them students or elderly and poor, are being forced from their homes on short notice by landlords eager to collect higher rents from well-heeled visitors. 'All along we've have plenty of greed at the top, ' says University of Tennessee associate professor Joe Dodd, long a critic of the fair. 'Now it's sweeping across the city.' Landlords have created vacancies by implementing dramatic rent hikes of as much as 50 percent and restrictive new rules that, for example, ban pets."

I don't want to get into that.

"Apartments that rented for less than $300 a month will bring more than $100 a night during the fair's run. Landlords are also exploiting a condominium conversion law that permits long-term leases to be broken on short notice but does not require conversion until the fair has ended.

"Once ousted, tenants confront a dwindling rental market. 'We've been looking for two months, and we still haven't found a place, ' says David Bower, assistant manager at a local supermarket."

Not only is that a distinct possibility in Vancouver with Expo 86, but there are a number of other issues that are a problem too. One of the things the old Residential Tenancy Act allowed was that for a strata conversion you had to go to the local council for permission to end a building or unit being a rental unit. You had to get permission. Now that's not in here. What we could have is a mass movement by the owners of rental accommodation, particularly in Vancouver prior to Expo, to change their buildings from rental to strata and utilize them on a short-term basis for Expo 86. That rule was in that Residential Tenancy Act for a very good reason. What conceivably could happen, and did, I know, happen in Victoria, was that overnight long-term residents of apartment blocks — without knowing it, of course — were out on the street and mass strata-titling went ahead. I can see that happening in Vancouver, and I think there has to be some local say about that particular issue. I think, Mr. Minister, that you've got to put back into the legislation some control over that particular aspect, particularly with Expo 86 around the corner.

[3:15]

Again, related to Expo 86 and this kind of dramatic situation that may arise.... Hopefully it won't, but I think we should be prepared for it. One of the most serious loopholes in your piece of legislation is section 7(3). It will allow the landlords to require prospective tenants to sign written, fixed-term tenancy agreements with no right of renewal at the end of the term. Once the six months, the year or whatever is specified has run out, the tenant must move out unless the landlord agrees otherwise. I can see that happening leading up to Expo 86 and all sorts of tenants moving into a building being forced to sign these fixed-tenancy agreements, and after six months they're on the street because of the potential to make dramatic profits from Expo 86. I've got no problem with landlords' making money, but I think we have to be very careful and ask, is an apartment-owner in the business of renting to good tenants? Is he establishing some degree of security of tenure? Suddenly at a whim, because of something like Expo 86, all the rules are out the window and a fixed written tenancy forced upon them. Under section 7(3) they lose their apartment. It's a very serious loophole, Mr. Minister. I hope he will review that particular section. Of course we will go through these when we get to committee stage, but I wanted to tie that into the Expo 86 concerns I have. I know that it's already been discussed, and there are rumours flying around Vancouver.... I don't want to get into rumours, but it's around this particular issue. This bill does nothing to ensure that that aspect is taken care of.

Going on to the "let the market work" approach, I just gave an example. There's got to be a balance; you can't have

[ Page 4295 ]

extremes. We've got to find the middle road on this particular issue, and that's what I'm trying to do. At the moment we're at the far end of the spectrum in terms of this piece of legislation, and I think we've got to move back to the middle. If you let the jungle or the marketplace totally dictate what happens with your legislation or with your residential tenancy situation.... Government does exist to be concerned about the interests of citizens. When you've got the kind of situation where it is their home, you have to ensure you're in the middle ground, that you've got balance in your legislation. With respect — through you, Mr. Speaker, to the minister — I don't think you have achieved that in this legislation. What did Greg Richmond of the West End Tenants' Association have to say about the problems of average rents?

"Vancouver's high rents have been no secret to apartment dwellers looking for accommodation, West End Tenants' Association project director Greg Richmond said. He disputed Patterson's $423 Vancouver average rent. He said an informal survey by the association in the West End found rents about $50 below the rentalsman's statistics. His organization has a keen interest in low rent averages. If the averages are low, a landlord wanting to raise rents cannot claim his or her raise is only being done to bring the rent up to the average."

Interesting comments. I just put them in to give an aside to this particular issue.

Richard McAlary of the B.C. Central Credit Union on the high cost of housing: it's been one of the major reasons hightech industries are hard to attract here. Again, in trying to look at some ancillary, or tangents if you will, in this particular piece of legislation. It is very important legislation not only to tenants but its impact is felt like a fan — it goes out right across our communities. We have to ensure that we take these ancillary matters into consideration.

"Greater Vancouver's position didn't surprise Richard McAlary, chief economist of the B.C. Central Credit Union. Housing costs are one damper on the province's search for new industry, he said. 'Rental housing, combined with the high cost of housing, is one of the major factors for the province not being successful in attracting high-technology industry. When an industry is looking for a place to locate, the cost of shelter for its employees is of major importance. High costs means higher wages.' "

It's an ancillary matter, but one that the minister has got to recognize: in British Columbia we are going to have no restrictions on increases in rental accommodation. As that vacancy rate drops we know.... We've had the scenario before: a big fight, and the rents skyrocket. What Mr. McAlary is saying — and I think it's an excellent point — is that what you may be trying to do on one level may be counterproductive on another. Here he's saying...trying to attract new industry. If there is a perception by those talented people who want to come to this province for the high tech that rental accommodation is just too high, they're not going to come here. It's a damper on that particular growth industry. It's a point that I think is worth the minister perhaps taking into consideration.

In Victoria the vacancy rates are dropping quite dramatically, despite the record unemployment. The CMHC says that the average vacancy rate is 1.2 percent, down from 2.8 percent in 1983, and now the average annual vacancy rate is 2.9 percent. I touched upon this particular issue on Friday. It has to do with the concerns of manufactured-home owners — or mobile-home owners, to use the colloquial term. Manufactured-home owners are still under the Residential Tenancy Act, despite representations that they be covered by a separate act. The concerns expressed by, I think, a fairly articulate gentlemen, Mr. Vern Bennett, were stated in the Vancouver Sun on July 20, 1983. I would like the minister to consider this particular mobile-home owner problem. I did mention it last time, but I'm giving some specifics today. I am now reading from the Vancouver Sun story:

"Mr. Bennett. 62, who has lived for three years in the Bear Creek Glen Mobile Home Park on King George Highway, said he represents about 2,000 people in 23 Surrey mobile-home parks. He said these people own their homes but rent the land, and they want the provincial government to deal with them separately rather than lumping them together with apartment and housing tenants under the Residential Tenancy Act. He said they deserve a special classification because of the difficulty and costs involved in moving. 'We're hardly mobile, ' said Bennett, adding that it would cost him about $7,000 to move his double-wide trailer to another location."

I think it's a very important point. We tend to treat these people as if they're going to move and up and go on a daily basis, but it costs $7,000 for this person to move. Because they live in what's considered a manufactured kind of unit, to all intents and purposes they are permanent. I think we have to remove the perception that they are mobile. I think Mr. Bennett makes a good point.

Again, I don't think this act does deal with their particular concerns. I would hope the minister would take up.... Maybe the second member for Surrey (Mr. Reid) will want to get hold of Mr. Bennett, and perhaps meet with him on this particular issue.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: You have?

MR. REID: That's why the number has been established at $3,000 by the minister, which is fair.

MR. BLENCOE: I'll just finish off with Mr. Bennett. "'If they want to jack up my rent here, it's not as if I have a choice about paying it or moving.' Bennett said. 'There's nowhere else to go.' " I don't believe that the concerns expressed by Mr. Bennett have been addressed in Bill 19. Any rent is legal. As Mr. Bennett said. "'If they want to jack up my rent here, it's not as if I have a choice about paying it or moving. There's nowhere else to go.' " I hope the minister will take those words and concerns under advisement.

Mr. Speaker, I want to move on to a new theme. I think this is the critical point that I have alluded to and talked about, but now I want to be specific — that landlords and tenants, Mr. Minister, have access to a fair, impartial system of dispute resolution superior to the rentalsman; that this particular legislation is superior to the rentalsman. I don't believe it is. I think we are doing a disservice not only to tenants but also to landlords in the province of British Columbia by insisting that this piece of legislation will become law. I'm hoping that the minister will see that there are some, I think, good opportunities to review this particular bill. I have been a little disturbed that it's going through the House so quickly. There

[ Page 4296 ]

are many organizations that would like to meet with the minister, to ask him to reconsider. Today I have provided an olive branch, asking the minister if we can put this bill into some committee structure, and in maybe a week or two let's try to develop something that brings us back to the middle ground.

System of dispute resolution. Dealing with the government argument that landlords and tenants will have access to a fair and impartial system of dispute resolution superior to that of a rentalsman requires, I think, some elaboration. I've already indicated that there are problems of partiality, in terms of the kind of people the minister is considering as arbitrators. I think he got the message quite clearly, and I hope the minister will again take that under advisement. Maybe he will take a look at removing the current system of rentalsman's officers from the political arm and not have it subjected to possible political interference, which is a much better system. It certainly gives a public perception that there won't be any interference. I just happen to believe that many tenants will be suspect of this particular process, with the current arbitration process, yet they are in a catch-22 situation. They pay $30 to a ministry- appointed arbitrator who may hear the case, or they have to go to court and pay a lot more money. I don't think that's right. I think we've got the capability to have a better system, one which can be built upon the existing rentalsman's office. If the hangup is the term "office of the rentalsman, " then let's get another term. Let's not throw out the baby with the bath water and the bathtub, and all those people who have served the tenants of this province so well. Generally speaking, landlords and tenants have been pleased and I think the costs to the taxpayer have been minimal, compared to what the costs will now be in terms of the court processes that have to take place.

[3:30]

I've already indicated that there are problems of partiality in terms of the kind of people the minister is considering as arbitrators, and I sincerely feel that. I would like the minister to reconsider that. Why have that? There's really no reason, unless the minister does have an ulterior motive; but I don't think so. I don't think there is any need for the minister to be appointing the arbitrators. If you go through the public service, based on merit and ability, with some degree of separation from your office, landlords and tenants will know that there will be no attempts or opportunities for political interference. If a decision doesn't please the minister, the arbitrator may not have a job, having been appointed by the minister. We need impartial process and objectivity, unbiased and away from the political arm. Heaven forbid, we don't need any more political interference in processes in British Columbia, particularly in this issue.

I presume these arbitrators are all from business. I expect the minister will attempt to deal with this criticism by appointing a few tenant representatives, since I think their only mandate will be to interpret a slanted law. Landlords will probably stand that much. I don't think we should even be getting into who is going to be appointed — that person will be a so-and-so person, that person will be a landlord person, that will be a tenant person, that will be a Social Credit person or a New Democrat person. Any system that allows that kind of discussion to arise — and it is guaranteed that this system will allow it — is going to be counterproductive. Go through the public service merit hiring process, not subject to the minister appointing them, or us being involved. Someone suggested to me that the government and the opposition should put some names forward. We want nothing to do with that. In this very critical area we want the best person for the job, based on ability, not on political appointment. We want fair, impartial arbitrators.

The difficulties facing tenants and, to a lesser extent, landlords by the new system do not become apparent until you consider each of the major problem areas dealt with now by the rentalsman. Consider the following situations, Mr. Speaker, bearing in mind always that the system, after Bill 19, is supposed to be fairer and more impartial than the rentalsman system now in operation. Dealing with the minister's argument that landlords and tenants will have access to a fair, impartial system, and a dispute resolution superior to the rentalsman, let me give you this situation. What happens if a landlord changes the locks or denies entry? Under the rentalsman, an immediate investigation and a binding order made when required. What happens under Bill 19? Tenant and landlord may agree to an arbitrator on their own. Not likely. Changing locks is an offensive act by the landlord designed to pressure the tenant. Or the tenant applies to the registrar giving full particulars — and thirty bucks — asking him to designate an arbitrator. Delays in the mail and in the bureaucracy. The arbitrator may decide the complaint is not worth hearing. If the landlord has exercised his option under section 56, and decided that arbitration is not part of the tenancy agreement, the tenant may apply to supreme or county court. The application costs money; it costs money for a lawyer. Again we get delays in getting into court because they're clogged. It's an expense for the tenants. Welfare claimants are denied access. The bottom line, Mr. Speaker, is that the tenants get the short end and cannot get prompt relief from their predicament as they can now under the rentalsman. That's why the rentalsman's office was established — to avoid this clogging, delaying procedure. I reiterate that we're going back 10 to 20 years in landlord-tenant regulations in this province.

I think these are interesting scenarios for the minister, considering that they will all arise and he will, as minister, have to deal with them. I'm trying to tell him now that he's going to have to deal with problems that he doesn't want, and that if he takes care of them now in a bill that's fair, he will avoid them.

Situation two. What happens if a tenant pays no rent, seriously damages the suite, and refuses to move after legal termination notice takes effect? Today, under the rentalsman, a possession hearing is scheduled within 10 working days and a possession order is made. After Bill 19 becomes law, tenants and landlords may agree to an arbitrator on their own. Not likely. Refusing to pay rent or refusing to move after termination notice takes effect is designed to frustrate the landlord. Or, another option, the landlord applies to the registrar, giving full particulars and asking him to designate an arbitrator. Delays in the mail and in the bureaucracy again. Here's another option in this particular scenario. The tenant has exercised his option under section 56 and decided that arbitration is not part of the tenancy agreement. The landlord applies to the supreme or county court. Dollars needed for the applications — crazy. Dollars needed for a lawyer — ridiculous. And to get the nearest one to the premises for an order of possession.... Again there is delay in getting into court because they're clogged. It's expensive for the

[ Page 4297 ]

landlord — even if the application for possession is unopposed. There's inconvenience for the landlord if the landlord's office is in Vancouver and the premises, for instance, are in Prince George or Terrace.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

I don't believe that you've taken into consideration these particular situations. That's why I'm trying to get into the nuts and bolts of this particular legislation — to show to this government that they're asking for nothing but trouble with this piece of legislation. Pull it back, take another look, pick up the olive branch by trying to get into committee and finding some middle ground. I have said categorically and I'll say it again: this is a bad piece of legislation — of course, giving the reasons why it's bad and at the end voting against it. But we still have a piece of legislation that's not fair. It's partial. It does nothing to ensure security of tenure — security of tenure for many supporters of this government as well as this side of the House. I think that's what we would like to see happen.

Here's another scenario I think is interesting, What happens if a landlord seizes the tenant's furniture because he is late with the rent? With the rentalsman's office, the rentalsman immediately orders the landlord to release the furniture or face prosecution. The tenant is advised to pay the rent or face eviction. Quick, efficient — people know where they stand: tenant wrong, face eviction; landlord, etc., etc. It works well and I can't understand why the minister would want to eliminate that particular process. What happens under Bill 19? The tenant applies to the provincial county or supreme court for relief. Why go to the court system? The tenant pays dollars for the application, dollars for a lawyer, and faces delay because the courts are clogged. It is not likely that the tenant will be able to pay for court fees or lawyers if he cannot pay for the rent. That's the trouble with your section 21, I might add, in which you're saying that you don't want to have economic eviction. I would contend that not only is it going to be virtually impossible to prove intent under this particular clause, but if tenants can't afford a rent increase like 50 percent or 60 percent, or whatever, they certainly won't be able to afford to go to court. That's the double jeopardy kind of situation you're setting up under section 21, and it's not going to work. To prove intent is going to be very difficult, and if they can't afford the rent increase they certainly can't afford to go to court to beat it.

Tenants are going to give up, and of course what will happen is — under the minister's bottom line in this whole issue, which is why I have been very critical of him and still will be — the tenant can always move. That's the answer.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Well, if you'd been here, Madam Member, I have been trying to give some alternatives....

MRS. JOHNSTON: I've been listening to every word.

MR. BLENCOE: Oh, good. Glad to hear it, because I've been giving a little bit of an olive branch here.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Did you talk to any of your tenants? Did you offer them the Saskatchewan bill or the British Columbia bill? It would be interesting to see what the result would be in Surrey. There are many tenants in Surrey.

Tenants will give up under this legislation. They won't go to the court system, because they won't be able to afford it. They won't be able to take the risk, whereas with the rentalsman, as we have now, they at least know that they've got a chance to have justice done, fairness applied, and equality under the law be the rule.

Another situation. What happens if the premises are unsafe, unhealthy or in serious need of repair? Under the rentalsman, the rentalsman orders the landlord to bring the premises up to reasonable standards or collects the rent to make repairs. It's quick, efficient, fair, both sides are represented informally, and it's no big deal. They get it resolved. After Bill 19 tenants and landlords may agree on their own to an arbitrator appointed by the minister. The tenants are not likely going to accept that, since landlord-tenant relations have a habit of being strained when the tenant has rain coming through the roof. The tenant applies to the registrar, giving full particulars and his $30 and asking him to designate an arbitrator. There are delays in the mail and in the bureaucracy, and the arbitrator may decide that the complaint is not worth hearing. Or, if the landlord has exercised the section 56 option and decided that arbitration is not part of the tenancy agreement, the tenant applies to the court for an order. Tenants have to be careful to choose the right court; if they try in the provincial court, and the repairs cost more than the limits of small debts court, then the tenant loses because the provincial court cannot make orders over $2,000. So the poor tenant has to have a working knowledge of the cost of repairs, which most of them do not have. Again, you're putting an incredible load on the tenant. That's not their job. They want something repaired, which is fair, and they've got to go to court to get that. Mr. Minister, reconsider that. Two thousand dollars does not buy many repairs. So the tenants would be better to try the county or supreme court, if they can afford it. A simple leak in the roof could entail major structural renovation. For these reasons orders relating to repairs will, for reasons of practicality, tend to be dealt with in the county or supreme courts, despite the provisions of the act now before the House,

Why clog senior courts with such mundane issues? Why make a tenant go that route just to get some repairs done to a building? Maintain the office that you have today. Let's the discuss that office today. If you want to change the name because of the problems you have with it, okay, fair enough. But don't set up this cumbersome, complicated, costly kind of system — not only to the tenant but also to the landlord.

Lean and clean is what this government talks about. Well, let's have a clean bill and regulations that are fair and don't put incredible onus not only on landlord and tenants but also on the court systems. The courts have enough problems to deal with — serious crime — so let them get on with that. The Law Reform Commission, for very good reasons, recommended that these things get out of that court system. I contend that the taxpayers have saved millions of dollars in the last ten years because of that kind of legislation and that rentalsman's office. It has saved the taxpayers millions of dollars, and now we're going back to the old system.

[3:45]

Here's another situation. What happens if a tenant believes he's being evicted unfairly? Under the rentalsman, a tenant disputes the notice, and the rentalsman will make a

[ Page 4298 ]

decision after hearing both sides. Both sides are heard by an independent rentalsman's officer, who is highly regarded by both sides. He is objective and his decision is highly regarded and believed. Again, if you get a decision from an arbitrator who is appointed directly by the minister, it brings suspicion into the process.

What happens after Bill 19? The landlord and tenant may agree to an arbitrator on their own. That's hardly likely if the landlord is annoyed enough with a tenant to evict. Or the tenant applies to the registrar, giving full particulars and his or her $30, asking him to designate an arbitrator. If there are delays in the mail, bureaucracy could deny the tenant a hearing because of the very tight time-frames specified by the act during which appeals have to be lodged. There is another option: if the landlord has decided that arbitration is not part of the tenancy agreement, the tenant may apply to the county or supreme court. Here we go again! Dollars for the application, dollars for the lawyer; delays getting into court because they are clogged; an expense for the tenants, the possibility that seniors will just accept the eviction because they tend to get confused if they are subject to legal hassles. I can assure you of that, Mr. Speaker, it happens so often. Welfare recipients will not be able to afford the costs. Legal aid will not cover any of these kinds of costs. It means that the disadvantaged, the poor, the unemployed and those on welfare will not have the recourse to the law that they're supposed to have under the act. You're disenfranchising thousands of British Columbians from access to the courts. They won't be able to afford legal aid to go to the courts to protect their rights.

What kind of province are we living in? I thought this government had learned its lessons in the last session.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: With an accent like that, you should be happy and grateful to be in this great province and not back home in England. That's what I feet.

MR. BLENCOE: If that's their only argument, Mr. Speaker, for what I'm giving forth, they really are in trouble. Unfortunately, that was not uttered by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, who I know will give far more intelligent answers than the Municipal of Affairs often does.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I wouldn't go back. No way!

MR. BLENCOE: The issue is not whether I am going to stay or leave. The issue is whether 380,000 tenants and their families — 36 percent of the population of British Columbia — are going to have rights, privileges, entitlement to a fair hearing, and a proper piece of legislation that brings balance between both sides. That is the issue, and I will continue to talk about in this Legislature.

Welfare recipients, the poor and seniors won't get into legal hassles because they won't want to go to court. Students, of course, are in a similar position. The end result is that the power rests squarely with the landlord, and tenants will likely avoid courts to same money. So landlords will get all sorts of increases in their rents because tenants will not be able to afford to go back to get security deposits or anything like this. Why should a tenant have to go to court to get his or her money back? How can that be justified? If you've paid a security deposit, you can prove it. It's documented. It gains interest. When you leave you should be able to get your security deposit back without going to court. I hope the minister agrees that we're going to see a change in this legislation. It is ridiculous that tenants will have to go to court to get back their security deposit; it's money that is rightfully theirs. I hope this government will retract and reconsider this particular piece of legislation.

There's another situation that will arise because of this particular piece of legislation. What happens if the landlord or tenant wants to avoid an eviction notice by working out a problem? The rentalsman attempts to mediate every dispute; in over 80 percent of all their cases they are successful, and both parties are happy. It's a success story in the province of British Columbia, Mr. Speaker. Why, for whatever political reason or uptightness they have with the office of the rentalsman, upset that success story? The office of the rentalsman is a success story, and it should be maintained. Maybe some super ultra-right-wing members of your party are pulling strings these days, but I would hope that the sensible, rational and intelligent members of the Socred members — I know there are some — will see that this bill is not sensible, rational and intelligent.

Under Bill 19, if a tenant or landlord want to avoid an eviction notice, what would happen? Well, you'd have to have a lawyer — dollars again — contact his lawyer if you can't deal with it face to face. It's all going to cost money. The weakness of Bill 19 is that there is no provision for mediation. Arbitration and court proceedings are both confrontational in nature. In labour relations bargaining usually goes through several stages: face-to-face bargaining, mediation, arbitration. At any stage a settlement is possible in face-to-face bargaining, mediation, arbitration. I contend that the office of the rentalsman is doing that so well in the province of British Columbia that it's ludicrous, it's ridiculous, to remove the very successful process and go into Bill 19. It will set us back 30 years, or even further, in residential tenancy situations.

Bill 19 goes straight from face-to-face bargaining to arbitration or the courts. If the government says that the labour negotiations model is appropriate, they should take steps to make sure that the mediation processes built into the modern collective bargaining system are reflected in the process the government is imposing on landlords and tenants. I hope the minister is listening. We argue that the changes proposed by the government are unhealthy, preferring the present rentalsman structure. But if you must go this route, you should mitigate in some small degree the harm you are doing by injecting mediation services into the process. I hope the minister is listening, because we're trying....

As you know, Mr. Speaker, in this marvellous province that we have, it's often said in this House that we don't know when one gives constructive ideas of alternatives.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Who said that?

MR. BLENCOE: I don't know who says it, but it's an accusation.

Today I'm trying very hard to give this government some alternatives, some different ways of looking at things, which I think would be a far better system in terms of serving landlords, tenants and the taxpayers in the province of British Columbia. This bill is going to cost the taxpayers a lot more money than is currently spent on the residential kind of problems.

Here's another situation. What happens if the landlord unfairly holds the security deposit? Under the rentalsman, the tenant files a claim with the rentalsman. A hearing is

[ Page 4299 ]

convened within one to two months. After Bill 19 becomes law — and let's hope it doesn't become law — the tenant files a claim in small claims court, and a trial date is set for six months later. A landlord is unfairly holding a security deposit, and you've got to wait six months to get into small claims court to get back what is yours. You've got to say: "Why not use the office of the rentalsman that you have now that resolves those kinds of things on a daily basis without any big deal?"

Here's another situation. What happens if you don't know your rights or obligations as a tenant or landlord? Under the rentalsman, you drop in or telephone the rentalsman. Each year almost 62,000 people visit the rentalsman for information, according to the latest available ministry annual report for 1982. There were 373,000 inquiries received by phone, a large number of which were seeking information, although the report does not furnish a separate analysis. Under Bill 19, what happens if you don't know your rights or obligations as a tenant or as a landlord? You have to hire a lawyer, which costs everybody a lot of money, more court time and, of course, at more cost to the taxpayer. To resolve a simple dispute or mediate a simple problem, why should a tenant or a landlord have to go the long, convoluted, lawyer, court route? It doesn't make sense. I think many people on all sides are now saying that about this particular bill.

It's our contention that the role which the rentalsman enjoys today has a very broad public acceptance among landlords and tenants. I was particularly impressed by the number of landlords who spoke out for that office when Bill 5 was presented to the House last session. Within the limits set by the government, they have been successful in dispensing a unique blend of mediation and arbitration that met the toughest test of all: did it work effectively? That's the toughest test. If we're all honest with ourselves about this particular piece of legislation before us now, we'd ask: is it going to work effectively, from all sides and all interests? If we look at this legislation and at how the office of the rentalsman has worked over the last few years, we will know that it is not going to work effectively.

In answering the question of whether the office of the rentalsman worked effectively, I have to give an emphatic yes. I have already spoken about those dedicated public servants who have worked there for many years. I know many of them personally, and they are good friends. They have worked hard and have lived under heavy pressures, often with actual lives and home environments being in their hands. I know how seriously the staff have taken that role, and they are to be complimented for their work over the years. In my humble opinion the government has not treated them very fairly, in terms of what they have given the tenants and landlords of this province. They deserve better treatment. Many of them have worked way beyond the usual statutory hours and have taken work home or been available for advice. I believe the staff of the office of the rentalsman have been some of the finest public servants this province has ever seen. They have been a success story in the province of British Columbia. I think, the New Democratic Party thinks, and I think thousands of British Columbians think and believe that that success story should not be destroyed. Why destroy it? It has effectively resolved disputes on behalf of thousands of British Columbians over the years. To the question as to whether it works effectively, I give an emphatic yes.

[4:00]

[Mr. Passarell in the chair.]

I don't plan to dwell at length on the fact that it was a New Democratic Party innovation or on the arguments that were put forward by the members on the government side when they were in opposition. Sure, we established it when we were in government, as we established many other good things in this province.

I really would ask the government to try and separate your political direction and try and concentrate on how effective this particular office has been in this province of British Columbia.

Suffice to say, Mr. Speaker, that the concerns put forward by Social Credit proved unfounded. The rentalsman staff are professionals in their field and have developed respect in the community because they have been impartial to both sides. This particular piece of legislation will institutionalize partiality. The effective balance we have achieved between landlords and tenants will be eradicated and obliterated in this province. I think that has to be considered and dealt with.

On the occasion when fresh evidence came to hand, the rentalsman's officer could convene a hearing: an important and necessary process, and a safeguard, if you will, Mr. Speaker, which is not granted the arbitrators who will take the rentalsman's place, as currently proposed in this bill. There will be no appeal to the minister's appointments who will be the arbitrators. Not only will you have an arbitrator who is a friend of government, a friend of the minister, perhaps — who doesn't necessarily have to hear your case — but you can't even get an appeal to that decision. That's not a fair process; that's more like a court of Star Chamber, for those of you who are familiar with that ancient court. Even in Magna Carta time they ensured that there was some balance between landlords and tenants and some kind of control mechanism to ensure that renters were protected.

On the odd occasion when the rentalsman erred or made a mistake in law, an appeal lay to the courts — an essential safeguard against kangaroo court justice, or Star Chamber procedures, as I've already stated. This safeguard has not been put in place for the arbitrators. It creates the impression that the minister and this government are more concerned with disposing of complaints than they are with the niceties of fair play. That phrase "fair play" — I think most British Columbians react quite vehemently to any system, whether it be in government, in the private sector or in sports....They believe in fair play. They believe in referees being impartial.

Here's an analogy that perhaps the minister or the government may understand. You have a Stanley Cup hockey game. Everything's riding on it. Montreal versus the New York Islanders. Here's the scenario vis-à-vis the arbitrator process we have: the referee is hired by the Montreal Canadiens, and he will referee that game. The referee in that hockey game will not be impartial. He's been hired by the Montreal Canadiens to ensure that the hockey game's result favours the Montreal Canadiens. No hockey fan or sports fan in Canada or in the province of British Columbia would ever endorse such a referee system. They've never endorsed that. Can you imagine — a referee who's hired by one of the hockey teams playing in the Stanley Cup? There would be a riot, Mr. Speaker. There certainly would be a riot in New York, I can tell you.

Well, just use that analogy and apply it to the arbitration process. The referees will not be independent or impartial. I think all British Columbians believe in fair play, as they believe in fair play in hockey or basketball. They believe in an

[ Page 4300 ]

objective, neutral referee. Today I call upon the government to ensure there's a neutral referee in landlord-and-tenant issues in the province of British Columbia. This bill has a referee hired by the Montreal Canadiens, using the analogy of the hockey game, and it's not a fair result. You will have stacked results, and you will ensure that one side wins all the time. But that is not in the interests of British Columbians, and certainly would not be in the interests of Canadians. Canadians are fair-minded people. British Columbians are fair-minded people, and they believe in fair play in any mediation system. This bill does not introduce that.

Specifying, as the minister did on the CBC on Friday, that the arbitrators would be from the business and professional communities, ruled out many tenants. It's no accident that the business and professional communities form the bulk of small landlords in this town. Justice must also be seen to be done. The minister appears to have forgotten that in his attempts to satisfy some of the more extreme members of the government side, who hold that possession of property makes you a lord, in the literal sense, with rights of seigneurship over the vassals who pay you homage.

Mr. Speaker, I used the analogy of feudal times, because I think it's quite appropriate. This is a feudal bill, unless it's amended, unless the minister takes my olive branch, unless the minister recognizes the examples I've given today, unless the minister is prepared to be reasonable and call for fair play, as in a hockey, basketball or baseball game. That's all we ask: fair play. We believe in that in sports. We don't believe the Montreal Canadiens or any other team should hire the referee who's going to adjudicate the results of a game. Fair play is what Canadians believe in. It's a fundamental principle that this country was born out of — fair play, fair treatment, fair access to law, fair protection, equal protection. Canadians accept that as a fundamental part of living in Canada.

The analogy of the hockey game, in terms of the arbitrator, is very appropriate. You will have a referee hired by the government, with its attitudes towards tenants, who will be making decisions for which nine times out of ten you will know the result. I want to be proved wrong in that accusation. The only way I can be proved incorrect is for the minister to take away the political interference that may be brought about with the arbitration process. We don't want a stacked situation. We don't want a referee who reflects only one side; we want a referee who believes in fair play.

Mr. Speaker, I want to go through some of the concerns that some of the tenants' organizations have expressed about this piece of legislation. The Tenants' Rights Coalition, which represents thousands of tenants in British Columbia, has put together a very useful, I think, analysis of this piece of legislation, and I would like to discuss it now. It's the general contention that in many respects the tenant movement has won some concessions with this legislation — certainly compared with Bill 5. To be fair, we are going to keep some kind of referee process, but as in my analogy a minute ago the referee process will be stacked. But it is still my contention and the contention of the Tenants' Rights Coalition that Bill 19 is fundamentally a betrayal of British Columbian tenants. There are some things which if improved and changed around we could support. I already offered that olive branch to the minister. The government has abandoned the concept of eviction without cause; there's no question about that. However, the new bill is riddled with gigantic loopholes that turn security of tenure into a matter more of form than of substance.

One of the more serious aspects I've already mentioned to the minister is section 7(3), which will allow the landlords to require prospective tenants to sign written fixed tenancy agreements with no right of renewal at the end. That, I hope, is one of the areas the minister will review immediately.

Another glaring loophole for tenants is section 31, termination for reasonable cause. Here, to bend the phrase, equity is as long as the arbitrator's foot. No reasonable cause is laid out. Whatever a judge or arbitrator considers reasonable will be grounds for eviction. The arbitrator's decision is final and binding — section 44(2). I believe that part of the section has to be cleared up. That could be utilized as an eviction without-cause component of this bill. I know that the minister has heard the concerns about this particular section, and I hope that he's got it under advisement.

Bill 19 slashes the notice period for evictions for demolition or conversion to two months — section 29(4). The requirement for municipal approval of conversions to strata title, which I've already mentioned, was in the previous act but is now absent.

Another difficulty with the termination provisions is the very short limitation period for tenants to file disputes. It varies from 5 to 15 days.

[4:15]

I've only touched upon the rent increase problem, but suffice to say again — and obviously this is one of the Tenants' Rights Coalition's major considerations — that the sky will be the limit in rent increases in British Columbia. The only constraints are the once-a-year rule — although landlords can raise rents at will between tenants — and largely illusory protection against rent increases with intent to evict. I've already gone through the problems with section 21. In those cases, a tenant must prove that a landlord gave a rent increase with the expectation or intention that the tenant vacate the premises. The onus is on the tenant to show what was going on in the landlord's mind. If the landlord fails to re-rent at over 90 percent of the new rent, the tenant can claim moving expenses and other costs. But they're already out of there; they've already lost their apartment. And as I've already said, if they can't afford the rent increase, they're not going to fight it in court — but I'm trying to go through the thing, if indeed someone does try to take the course laid out in section 21. The rent increase will not be rolled back or the tenant reinstated, except for mobile-home tenants, under section 21. But even if the suite is not re-rented at 90 percent, all the landlord has to do is claim that he really didn't expect or intend that the tenant vacate, or that the landlord was a victim of market considerations. That's section 21(3). The section, in my opinion, is devious. It gives the impression of being fair but is really a very clever, devious section. It should be thrown out, or at least there should be a review process by an arbitrator — an impartial referee who can say, "Yes, that apartment does not justify that rent increase based on the market, " to use the minister's argument about market. If you're going to use the arguments about market, then you've got to play the other side. If a tenant can justify, in a review process or in an arbitration process that's fair, that a rent increase is way beyond the market for that apartment and therefore is a rent increase to get rid of that tenant, then let's have a review process for that, and not force people into a court situation.

There is no provision for a prescribed form of rent increase notice in this legislation and no forum for dispute as long as the one-year rule is followed, in most cases.

[ Page 4301 ]

I've gone through many of the other concerns that the tenants' coalition has, but basically the tenants' coalition is concerned, and quite rightfully so, that this piece of legislation will not ensure a fair and equitable system.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to deal with the government's argument that, under Bill 19, the interests of tenants and landlords are fairly balanced. I think this has to be tackled and discussed. An interesting analysis of last year's session, and Bill 5, was submitted by the West End Tenants' Association and the North Shore Tenants' Association to the Premier and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs on September 3, 1983.

I note that both Richmond and Blackburn have welcomed Bill 19 as marginally more reasonable than last session's Bill 5. That's very surprising, when it comes down to it. The government has made concessions on just two of the eight requests they put to the government. They got their first request — removal of the "no cause" provisions — though how wonderful the government's concession has been is a matter of judgment. Experts in the area have suggested to me that tenants would be better off heading for the hills after Bill 19, because while the new bill does not say "eviction without cause, " the eviction provisions are so broad that there is little practical difference.

They got dispute provisions put back in the bill, which was their second request. They were turned down when they asked for the office of the rentalsman to be retained, and after their eloquent plea about the relative importance of landlord tenant cases in the courts, I would have hoped that the government would have gone a little further. Certainly for the reasons outlined earlier in my speech, the opposition did not regard the arbitration system as an acceptable substitute, because it's not independent of the minister. There is no appeal from the decision of that partial arbitrator, and the arbitrators are to be amateurs from the business community with some basic interests as landlords. Again I refer to the fair-referee system that we think is absolutely necessary in this province.

They didn't get anywhere when they asked for no fixed phase-out of rent review. After the fulsome praise heaped on the rentalsman by the minister in his opening remarks.... It is interesting that the minister heaped praise on the rentalsman's head; that is, the current rentalsman, Mr. Patterson. It's a pity that the minister could not have included a form of rent review in his bill, because the rentalsman has been adamant that a form of rent review is essential if the balance is to be maintained. Will the minister please consider at least some form of rent review?

There is no standardized tenancy agreements or provincial standards-of-maintenance code, nor have we seen any provincial program of Crown-owned housing in the form of rent-to-own cooperatives. I'll move on to talk about those a little later on.

I want to quote from the West End Tenants' Association brief that they presented in September 1983 to the Premier and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I believe it is a very useful document, and I think it should be put in the record.

"For centuries landlords and tenants have had a mutually beneficial relationship, in that one party invests in an appreciating asset and the other pays for that asset's use.

"No reasonable, rational tenant expects their government to legislate or regulate their relationship to the point that they — the tenants — are guaranteed possession of property that they do not own, no matter what their conduct. But conversely, if a tenant has been honouring his portion of the contract, is it fair that he be put in a position that honour and good faith are not enough to preserve that contract? We suggest that it is not fair."

Those were the opening remarks from this particular brief. A Section in this brief talked about the courts and the rentalsman:

"Historical British parliamentary and judicial customs have recognized that highly trained judges and expensive court proceedings are best used to determine whether a young child should receive disputed life-supporting medical care or whether an accused child-killer is guilty or not, should go to jail or not. By comparison, lanlord-tenant disputes have to be considered to be trivial in nature when put in the jurisdiction of the high court. Our 'trivial, ' though descriptive, does not ignore the fact of the requirement of someone or something to apply a buffer between landlords and tenants in dispute."

We need that buffer, which is what we have in the office of the rentalsman today. "Tribunals," in the words of the West End Tenants' Association brief, "were invented to take the strain from the high court."

"Our point is to bring us to a position of how to best determine the method of restating your (our) Governmentos sensitivity to its historical role of being the repository of the wisdom that prevents one segment of our community from gaining an unfair advantage over another segment of our community. We obviously support the continuation of the office of the rentalsman as the best cost-effective tool of the government to play its role in a fair and democratic society."

Dealing with the government's argument that landlord tenant interests are reasonably balanced, Bill 19 is predicated on the notion that there should be bargaining between landlords and tenants on the labour relations model. As I've indicated, Mr. Speaker. landlords have an incentive to form cartels, while tenants' rights are very restricted. The government bill has a basic weakness. It has wiped out the mediation function currently performed by the rentalsman's office. You haven't replaced it with anything at all, and there is evidence that bargaining with landlords without mediation simply does not work. I again want to quote from the September 30, 1983, edition of the Vancouver Sun, which describes what happens when tenants try to bargain with their landlords. They get ignored, and they tend to get gouged.

"West End residents of apartments controlled by Zen and Aquilini companies have begun to receive new, smaller notices of rent increases, but the tenants' association says the reductions are so paltry it has given up on negotiation. 'The gloves are off, ' said Greg Richmond, project director of the West End Tenants' Association, in an interview Thursday. 'Obviously our previous attempts to negotiate were a waste of breath. I've only had confirmation from one of the eight buildings so far, and it looks like the original average increase of 92 percent is down to 76 percent. That's still a disaster area. It's far from being a good enough decrease. What was the point of our whole exercise? It means that an apartment with a

[ Page 4302 ]

monthly rent of $195 which was increased to $375 is now down to $345. That's still unacceptable!' "

The point I'm trying to make is that it is extremely difficult for tenants to get into negotiation with their landlord. There has to be an impartial mediator in these particular situations. Emotions run high; everyone believes they're right. You've got to have somebody in the middle who is not necessarily reflecting one position or the other. Again, the impression given by this bill is that the government must more and more rely on this kind of process whereby the landlord and the tenant are somehow going to be able to miraculously resolve their problems. Sure, that may happen on occasion, but generally speaking it's very difficult for those two, particularly when you're dealing with the very important aspects of tenure, rent increases and what their living environment is going to be like.

[4:30]

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Again dealing with the minister's argument that landlord tenant interests are fairly balanced in this bill, consider the case of Gordon McPherson and Richard Mitchell of 630 East Broadway in Vancouver. Mr. McPherson lives on the ground floor of the old house. He's just been informed that his rent is to be increased from $218 to $500, an increase of 130 percent. His neighbour upstairs rents the attic; his rent is going from $147 to $420, an increase of 186 percent. Mr. McPherson is an unemployed carpenter; he has to move. I think there are two important points in this story. First, is this a rent increase that the landlord has decided to charge in order to increase the revenue from his property, therefore causing hardship to the tenants, as a result of the free market system? Or is this rent increase designed to get the tenants out? Who's to tell? Under the current situation, it's going to be an impossible situation, unless you have some form of control mechanism when there are increases of 186 percent and 130 percent. There was a building permit filed at Vancouver city hall; that could be just coincidence, but who's to know? How could these tenants prove the intent of the landlord to evict them? In order to get relief from this legislation, they're going to have to do that under section 21, as it supposedly provides. The truth of the matter is that there is no way tenants can get relief. Section 21 is a veneer, a gloss. It tries to give the impression of fairness, but I believe it is a somewhat devious section of this legislation. It's trying to convince tenants that they will be protected from eviction because of huge rent increases; but they won't be, unless there is some form of rent review procedure with an independent arbitrator who can mediate between the two, in terms of what the tenant believes is a reasonable increase and what the landlord feels is a reasonable increase. All we're asking for is a fair mediation system; basically, that's the office of the rentalsman. I know the minister is going to be able to respond to this at some time. Section 21 does not do the job in terms of protecting tenants from eviction because of economics.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would remind the hon. member that specific debate dealing with a Section is best dealt with in committee.

MR. BLENCOE: I recognize that, Mr. Speaker. The reason I brought it up is because it's this kind of section that the minister emphasized in his discussions in the public forum as to why this bill is good. That's why I referred to this particular section. I think it's not a good section, and the minister should review it as quickly as possible.

I won't go into the press story about Gordon McPherson and the examples I gave. They are representative of what is happening to a lot of folk in British Columbia. I think this government has to pay attention: they cannot abandon the rights and privileges of 380,000 tenants. They have a responsibility to ensure that that 36 percent of all the households in British Columbia have a piece of legislation that's fair and just.

Continuing in this theme and dealing with the government's argument that the interests of landlords and tenants are fairly balanced by this bill, the Vancouver Sun on February 13, 1984, offered the government some advice about the rentalsman's office under the heading: "Name It Anything." I've already said that: name it anything you like, but don't get rid of the office of the rentalsman as is. Sure, let's talk about how we can change it; we can do that in a special committee of this House. The Vancouver Sun thought the government would substitute for the rentalsman a quasi-court for making peace between landlords and tenants. The Sun editorialized: "That move looks like a substantial retreat from the government's original intent to abolish a control office."

Had the government given us a mechanism for making peace between tenants, this side would have said: "Hurray! Well done. Congratulations. You've done something good." We would have given the minister credit for showing the wisdom of Solomon in this difficult situation. Unfortunately, we did not get a peace-making body. We got one that's going to create further difficulties and a cumbersome process. You are giving us a mechanism that is tied to the minister, not subject to rules of process or appeal, whose only function is to look after the minister's friends in the landlord fraternity. I've got a suggestion, Mr. Speaker, for the minister. Take the advice of the Vancouver Sun: name it a rental or a grievance board, if you will, but make sure that it is impartial, like the courts, rather than a haven for failed Socred candidates, for that is what could happen under this legislation. All we're asking is that you make sure that it is impartial like the courts. I don't think that's unreasonable. At stake here is our belief that the tenants of this province are entitled to a piece of legislation that represents their views as well as the landlords'. I don't think that's a lot to ask for, Mr. Minister.

MS. SANFORD: It's tunnel vision.

MR. BLENCOE: I think you're correct. It may indeed be tunnel vision, but I think that if the minister and this government were to give various groups and tenants' organizations the opportunity to review this bill in depth, then we could have a meaningful dialogue on what we need in terms of tenant legislation in British Columbia. I am convinced that we can come up with a model piece of legislation for this province.

Again I refer to the olive branch that I offered to the minister. This side of the House is quite prepared to participate in a special committee of this House to find a mechanism that brings us back to the middle ground on this issue, because that's what we need. We need a system that's fair and impartial and not the analogy I used of the hockey game. I don't think that is too much to ask for. We have the opportunity and the obligation to do that very thing. It's not good enough to say: "We are the government of the day. This is our particular philosophy on many things." You can get away

[ Page 4303 ]

with that. That's a reasonable excuse, I suppose. But when you're dealing with the lives, families and living situations of a huge portion of the population of British Columbia — 36 percent of all households — the political agenda is not acceptable. You've got to do what is right for those people, and you've got to achieve that balance that I think we all want, not only on this particular piece of legislation. The people of British Columbia want us to come back to a sense of balance, perspective and rationality in what we do in this House and this province.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Rationality? It's hard, I know, but I think that's what we're asking for — a rational approach to this particular kind of legislation. At the moment we don't have that. I have referred to it a number of times. Again, if the minister would perhaps withdraw this bill for a little while and take a look at what's happening in Saskatchewan, I think that would be a useful exercise. They have overcome, I suppose, their obvious political agenda, which would be to do exactly what this...maybe not exactly what this government is doing, because I don't think any government in the world does exactly what this government does. But they have overcome some of their political hang-ups. They have overcome some of their obvious biases and have been able to introduce a fair system of rent control, review and stabilization, and a residential tenancy act that I think could be something we all learn from. I made a statement today that we on this side of the House are quite prepared to take a serious look at the Conservative rent control and stabilization program in Saskatchewan. We think it's a good start, and should be a good start for this government. That government believes they should be involved in the marketplace to bring some balance; they should have a say in what is going to happen to tenants, That's all we're asking for in this particular piece of legislation.

One of the groups I introduced earlier was the Downtown Eastside Residents' Association, They represent about 10,000 people in that area and have done a lot of good work over the years. I would like to honour them for all the work they've done by putting into the record their feelings about this particular piece of legislation, and I think support their particular position.

Mr. Speaker, the Downtown Eastside Residents' Association has called for the immediate withdrawal of Bill 19; it has urged the minister, I believe in a telegram, to do just that. The residents' association states that not only does this bill adversely affect tenants throughout B.C.; it specifically excludes the thousands of tenant-residents in the downtown eastside. According to the president, Glenn Bullard, it

"...leaves downtown eastside residents with absolutely no rights as tenants. We have fought unsuccessfully for over ten years" — this is an important part that I want to develop a little bit with you, Mr. Minister — "to have tenant rights extended to permanent residents of hotels and rooming houses. The failure to include them in this new bill shows once again that the Socred government is more concerned with the interests of landlords than keeping a secure roof over people's heads. With developments such as B.C. Place and Expo 86, many residents will face displacement as buildings are converted to luxury accommodation for Expo clientele."

In the words of the Downtown Eastside Residents' Association: "Bill 19 is a straight giveaway to developers and landlords, who can evict long-time residents so that premises can be rented at high rates for the duration of the fair."

I want to go over this particular aspect. It's one I haven't discussed as yet but one that is conspicuous by its absence from the legislation. There are, particularly in the urban areas — I have many in this riding — many people who live permanently in hotels and rooming houses. They have no protection whatsoever. They are not even mentioned in this legislation. I think it's appropriate that we pay some attention to this particular aspect. I'm going to go through it a little bit now.

[4:45]

Currently' hotels and lodging, rooming and boarding houses are licensed under the innkeepers act rather than the Residential Tenancy Act. This means that residents are not classified as tenants and therefore can be evicted without notice. It's an incredible situation. For any reason, their rents can be increased by any amount without notice, whenever the landlord decides. They're excluded from the protection and mediation of the office of the rentalsman, and their belongings can be withheld by a landlord for non-payment of rent or for any damages he or she thinks they may have caused, regardless of whether or not they caused the damages. It's incredible that that kind of situation can still be in place in 1984 in British Columbia.

In June 1980 the B.C. Legislature passed a bill that would amend the Residential Tenancy Act to provide residents of hotels and rooming houses protections similar to those of tenants in other neighbourhoods throughout the province. The amendments would protect the residential character of the downtown east side — in particular, it is the downtown east side which, of course, they're concerned about — and, more importantly, protect the people whose home it is.

As I said, the Downtown Eastside Residents' Association has fought for many years to have tenants' rights extended to permanent residents of hotels and rooming houses, and since 1980 to have the Residential Tenancy Amendment Act proclaimed. They have met with the rentalsman and with the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. They haven't been successful. The Vancouver city council has taken similar actions in the past. Mayor Harcourt and various other people have come to Victoria to discuss this important issue. In my discussion of this particular legislation, there have been a number of things that I've said were important; this is on an equal footing.

There are thousands of British Columbians who live in these hotels and rooming houses. They have no protection at all now. At least in Bill 19 tenants are mentioned and have some gloss of protection. But these people........ Once again, many of them are poor, unemployed, people who have less income than most. They're the ones who often have to reside in such establishments. I urge the minister to please introduce something that includes the occupants of such accommodation. They are disadvantaged, many of them, and this bill will be on the backs of those disadvantaged people.

Over the years the ministers have cited a variety of reasons why they refused to proclaim the Residential Tenancy Amendment Act, 1980. However, there are no excuses. Where there's a will, there's a way. And this particular issue is very important. I don't know the exact number of people living in rooming houses and hotels, but I know that in my particular riding there are many, and they have no protection

[ Page 4304 ]

— absolutely nothing at all. It's not good enough. The minister should take that under advisement.

It's true that the majority of people residing in residential hotels and rooming houses, particularly in the downtown east side, are in receipt of income assistance. However, the Ministry of Human Resources has stated that they will pay the security deposit for individuals who are required to make such a deposit, as it does for other renters on GAIN. While it may be true that the vacancy rate for market accommodation is increasing — again, in the example I'm using this afternoon, the downtown east side, hotels and rooming houses are not included in the surveys now being done to determine vacancy rates — the vacancy rate for affordable low-income accommodation is not increasing.

People living in the downtown east side, the majority of whom are single unemployed men living on a fixed income, receive a maximum of $200 a month shelter allowance. Therefore monthly rent payments in excess of $200 would have to come from money allocated for food, clothing and other essentials. Our party seriously questions, as does the Downtown Eastside Residents' Association, whether or not the vacant units which exist in the Vancouver metropolitan area rent for $200 a month and therefore are available to the residents of the downtown east side. In fact, it was reported on a CBC radio documentary in July 1982 that the average monthly rent for a one-bedroom apartment in Vancouver was above $400. That was in 1982; it's way higher than that now.

Housing is the biggest problem affecting the thousands of people who are living in the downtown east side in Vancouver. With developments such as B.C. Place, Expo 86 and False Creek, this problem will only increase and intensify for those residents. Because of these developments, many hotels and rooming-houses in the community are being threatened with demolition or conversion to luxury accommodation with the result that thousands of long-term residents....

The average period of residence is 13 years, by the way, in the downtown east side. The community is the most stable in Vancouver. They will be displaced, and they've got nowhere to go.

The problem can be mitigated with the introduction of legislation, particularly in Bill 19, that will provide residents of hotels and rooming-houses with tenant rights, thereby easing their daily struggle to secure and maintain decent accommodation. It would be an appropriate gesture on the part of this government to support such an amendment to this legislation. It's absolutely necessary, and I can't overemphasize that particular point.

There are certain items that should be included in this legislation that will take care of this particular problem, and I'd like to list some of them. Number one: residents of hotels and rooming-houses must be deemed tenants under the Residential Tenancy Act, unless a landlord applies to the rentalsman otherwise — or to this new group, whatever it's going to be called, under the minister. This would be a change from the existing legislation, where a resident must apply individually to be designated a tenant. A residency requirement of two months should be set. Anyone living in a hotel or rooming-house who meets this requirement would automatically be considered a tenant.

Number two — and this is controversial, but I think absolutely essential — a rent freeze during 1986 should be imposed for all residential hotels and rooming-houses. This should be announced as soon as possible so as to protect developers who are considering upgrading for a new clientele. This may also serve to encourage owners to take advantage of residential rehabilitation assistance program subsidies for the purpose of upgrading for existing residents.

As stated earlier, the maximum monthly shelter allowance for income recipients is $200, The last time the Ministry of Human Resources increased the allowance was in May 1982, two years ago. It went up from $170 a month. At a time when the support component of welfare is being reduced, it is hard to predict when an increase in the shelter allowance might occur. In fact, the Ministry of Human Resources community relations department was unable to indicate any such increase in the near future. There's no increase in sight. So residents of rooming-houses and hotels, particularly in areas like the downtown cast side, will definitely be hard-pressed to pay anything more for rent than what the shelter allowance provides. It's difficult to imagine how any rent increase can be tolerated by people on fixed incomes.

Anti-eviction clauses should be included during 1985. This will ensure that residents are not indiscriminately evicted prior to 1986, when the rent freeze is implemented. Further with respect to evictions, residents must be given four months' notice of eviction when the premises are to be redeveloped, and provided up to $500 relocation costs. This is the provision which currently exists under the Residential Tenancy Act.

Mr. Speaker, I spent some time on that particular component. It's an area that for a number of years a number of people have addressed. However, nothing has been done about it. It's time that those occupants, those permanent tenants of rooming-houses and hotels, particularly in the more disadvantaged areas of our province, are given rights. They don't have anything. I would hope the minister will take that under advisement, and maybe, if we can get that committee that I have suggested today to study this particular problem, we can bring in some legislation that will be supported by both sides of this House. I believe that in landlord and tenant issues it would be a terrific move if we could have legislation rules and regulations that both sides could basically support. We have just too many people involved in this particular issue, and too many lives at stake.

Once again, I offer the olive branch to the minister. We are prepared to sit down with the government members and try to work out some consensus on these issues. We are at loggerheads on this issue, and we don't particularly want to be there. We would like to find some common resolution, and I offer that in all sincerity, Mr. Speaker. We happen to feel that 380,000 people are important and that this Legislature has a responsibility to find consensus on this issue. That's the challenge of all members of this House, and we on this side of the House are prepared to meet that challenge. We are not prepared to sit in the trenches and fire back and forth on this particular issue, as is normally done. We have to resolve this problem and find the common ground and moderate position. We have to ensure that both landlords and tenants in the province of British Columbia have equal access to law, a fair system of arbitration as we have now, and a referee who is not connected to government.

Continuing on the theme of the balance of interests that I have been trying to work out....

HON. MR. HEWITT: Go back to page 5 and start again. We've heard the same speech for four hours.

[ Page 4305 ]

MR. BLENCOE: I understand: you're getting the message.

Mr. Speaker, it is our contention that this bill will promote discrimination in housing. I'm going to give you some examples of how it is going to do that. It is our contention that poor people will once again be the victims of this government's legislation.

[5:00]

I want to consider the case of Greenbrier Holdings. Last August they decided it would be a wonderful idea to charge tenants a furniture deposit, despite the fact that this is illegal under the current act. It would have been illegal under Bill 5 and it will be legal under Bill 19. Furniture deposits were only charged the jobless. The jobless, people on UIC and welfare, make up 20 percent of all British Columbians, and the landlord said they had to charge extra because so many poverty-stricken tenants are fleecing his company with bad cheques. The rentalsman soon put a stop to the landlord's game. Under Bill 19 furniture deposits will become commonplace, as landlords discriminate against the poor and temporarily insolvent. Because the victim here does not have the $30 fee, Mr. Speaker, he won't rent the suite. As the minister has put it already: "If we made the service free, everyone would use it." Well, if people have a problem and they believe it can be justified, they should be able to use the system. It is the people's system, it belongs to them, and it concerns me when the minister backs up his legislation by saying: "If we made the service free, everyone would use it." That is an unfortunate statement, one I think the minister will live to regret.

I would suggest that the minister amend his arbitration scheme so that persons on UIC or GAIN can have the fee waived and still protect their rights. If the minister says it can't be done, I'd be happy to show him the food banks or the unemployment action centres where it is done every day.

I've got another case which is actually rather a sad case. The minister may know these cases, but I think it's useful to give them as background on why we think this bill should have major surgery applied to it. I'm not even sure surgery will help, but we're prepared to at least look at major surgery. This is the case of Margery Campbell, who went to court. Unfortunately Marger Campbell has since passed away. She was 76. Senior citizens, in our estimation, should not be put through the kind of aggravation that Margery Campbell was put through. Of course, when she passed away her case came to an end. However, the issues are still there to be resolved. I want to go over what the issues were. It's a very simple one, Mr. Speaker, but this woman was representative of what's happening to older people in our province. Margery Campbell lost the first round of her fight against a 60 percent rent hike.

HON. MR. HEWITT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This legislation has nothing to do with rent controls. The member is talking about an issue raised concerning a 60 percent rent increase. He's out of order. We've listened to him all afternoon. He's been repetitious and tedious, and I'd appreciate it if he would stick to the context of this bill — not rent controls, which were eliminated last July under the old legislation.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point of order is well taken. Debate in second reading must deal with the principle of the bill before us. As pointed out by the minister, the member is clearly straying into items that are not before this assembly at this point.

MS. SANFORD: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, this bill is in second reading at this point. My colleague, the second member for Victoria, is attempting to point out to the minister the problems that tenants face, and one of the problems is, of course, this matter of rents. When you eliminate the rentalsman's office and all rent controls — which, as he pointed out, was done last year — then I think you're dealing with tenant matters, and that is certainly part and parcel of second reading of this bill. I think the second member for Victoria has every justification in talking about the problems that tenants are facing today, including those of trying to come up with money for rent in these difficult times.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: If a matter is outside the principle of this bill, though, it would not be parliamentary to discuss it during second reading of this bill. I'm sure the bill, with its many principles and vast variety of legislative provisions, will give the member ample opportunity to speak to it — in order.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, again on a point of order. I believe that the regulations the minister referred to, about abolishing rent controls last year., are in line with the bill that died on the order paper. This bill we're discussing now is replacing the bill that died on the order paper, and as we are on the principle of the whole tenancy act and the act that it is replacing, the second member for Victoria is completely in order. I feel it was just a diversion by the minister to get up on a point of order, and I wish you would order him not to be diverting.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair will decide on points of order, hon. member. As I pointed out to the Legislative Assembly, the bill is most comprehensive. I'm sure there are many points that can be made when discussing the principle of this bill, because of its size and because of its complexity. But the Chair must undertake to listen to all points of order, including points of order which deal with previous legislation which is not before the House at this point.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, I hope you will reconsider your position. The point I'm trying to make is that we once considered a rent increase of more than 15 percent excessive, and that's currently in the rules and regulations of the province of British Columbia. When this bill goes through, there won't be any control at all — to 15 percent, review or anything. That is very pertinent to this piece of legislation. With the passage of Bill 19, there won't be any defined excess rent increase; it will all be legal. If talking about rent increases is not pertinent to this bill, then we've really got some problems. It is indeed pertinent to this bill. Currently the legislation ensures that there is protection over 15 percent. When this bill comes into effect, we will have no protection in the province of British Columbia. That's what I was trying to address when I gave the example of Margery Campbell, who went to court to fight that very thing — a 60 percent increase. Under this bill now there will be no controls at all. Any increase will be legal. I believe the minister was a little off base there when he said that rent increases are not pertinent to this bill. They are very much so, Mr. Minister.

[ Page 4306 ]

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Margery Campbell's case will be the norm. What will happen is that it will be very difficult for the Margery Campbells who face 60 percent rent increases who try to get anything done about it. It's going to be extremely difficult with this legislation. There will be no controls at all, no limits.

HON. MR. HEWITT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman opposite can talk about rent increases, etc., but when he refers to rent controls.... This legislation does not apply to rent controls. They were eliminated in July 1983. I wish he'd stay to the principle of this bill, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr. Minister. Perhaps the member will continue.

AN HON. MEMBER: There has to be somebody to fight for tenants around here.

MR. BLENCOE: That's right. Our party is going to stand up for 36 percent of the people of British Columbia. We're not going to abandon close to 400,000 people. No, sirree! We're going to be here, and we're going to debate this bill, and hopefully the minister will consider surgery — brain surgery.

AN HON. MEMBER: A transfusion.

MR. BLENCOE: Yes, because this bill has cancer in all sorts of its parts. If we do it right and do it quickly, I think there is an opportunity to apply therapy — whatever you want to call it — or a little bit of treatment, and we can get rid of the cancer in this bill. But at the moment, it's certainly a cancerous bill. Although it gives the impression of fairness, it is not fair. The referee is partial.

Now I am trying to put the position — and I think it's quite right — that with the passing of this bill, rent review will disappear in the province of British Columbia; I'm correct in that. That means that the 15 percent limit on apartments that are $500 or lower, which is currently in place, will disappear. It will have gone. The case I'm trying to make is that we are talking about controls. We are talking about increases in rent.

I've given the example of Margery Campbell, who, before she died, went to court to try to beat a 60 percent rent increase. I'm saying that these kinds of episodes for these older people will be the norm. We're going to have senior citizens having to go to the courts to defend their homes. That's not right in the province of British Columbia. There should be a system whereby they are protected, so that in their waning years they're not subjected to 60, 70 or 80 percent increases and to seeing their allowances totally disappear because we have a government that does not protect the basic rights of tenants in this province. That's what it's all about. We are talking about the rights of tenants and their entitlement to privileges. I'm citing Margery Campbell, who has died since this started. She was prepared to fight, but she shouldn't have had to fight in such a way. These issues have to be resolved. Margery Campbell was only one who faced a 60 percent increase and tried.

The court's decision is very interesting. Again, it reflects on this bill in terms of what an increase means. Is it an eviction notice by means of a rent increase? Let me give you the judgment of the court. "B.C. supreme Court Justice Bruce Macdonald ruled yesterday that if Victoria can impose rent controls, it can take them away. He said cabinet did not exceed its authority by lifting rent controls last July." So tenants are going to try to go to court and say: "Well, you know, I'm entitled to some protection from this eviction." The justice is going to say that the cabinet has the power to do whatever it wants. How are they going to prove intent? We're got a ruling already. The courts are saying it's difficult to prove that an increase really was an eviction without cause.

[5:15]

"West End resident Margery Campbell went to court, appealing a rentalsman decision allowing a rent increase to $310 from $194 on her one-bedroom apartment at 809 Denman Street.

"Macdonald's decision was only on the issue of cabinet's authority to lift the controls, said Greg Richmond. Campbell can either appeal the ruling or proceed on other issues, he said. 'Does the rentalsman now have the authority to approve excessive rent increases?' said Richmond. 'The regulations clearly state that a rent increase over 15 percent is excessive.' "

The court made a decision right there. We've still got rent review — 15 percent. Even with that rule in place the courts are already making decisions that they're not going to be able to defend tenants against "excessive rent increases." We're not going to have rent review in the province of British Columbia, and no rent increase will be considered excessive. It's an important issue and has to be resolved. The legislation is weak in this particular area. The government has, by Bill 19, left unprotected those people living on skid row and in the hotels, which I've already mentioned. They're not covered by this act. If there's one thing the minister can do it's to consider that particular component of the problem that we're talking about today.

I'm close to finishing my speech on this particular aspect, but before I do that I think it's important to go through, for the public and those interested in this debate, what really is happening and why this legislation is before us in the form that it is. I've already said that if this government could be reasonable and some of those people over there could think for themselves on this particular piece of legislation, I don't think they would proceed. Unfortunately, this government has been guided by such wreckonomic groups as the Fraser Institute. This legislation, like Bill 5, I think basically comes out of those convoluted minds at the Fraser Institute.

If the Social Credit legislation governing residential tenancy is based on advice or recommendations from the Fraser Institute, the following are examples of their approach. This is a quote from Michael Walker on this particular issue in Rent Control: Myths and Realities, published in 1981. It's interesting to take a look at what was written in '81 and what we're faced with today, and see that this government is not making up its own mind on this issue but is indeed being guided by this convoluted wreckonomic group in Vancouver. Chapter 2, Michael Walker: "Few houses are built as basic shelter. Most are built as basic shelter plus some level of convenience or extra amenities. A new coat of paint is considered decoration and one of the amenities." It should be noted that every chapter in this book is preceded by a picture of a

[ Page 4307 ]

bombed-out city in Europe, with the caption: "Bomb damage or rent control?" That's how Michael Walker portrays it.

Chapter 3 is by Richard Ault. He notes that:

"Most American cities have introduced rent controls at one time or another. The housing shortage is used to justify rent controls. Therefore the problem is not high rents but a lack of accommodation. It follows further, then, that rent controls are not a solution to a lack of housing.

"If it were the case that tenants always have lower incomes than their landlords, the immediate effect of rent control would be to transfer wealth from these 'rich' landlords to their poorer tenants whose rent payments have been reduced."

Well, well. If these people weren't being paid such high salaries I would believe that they could con a lot of people.

The rationale, of course, is quite ludicrous. Rent controls ensure that low-income people are not shut out of a housing market because they cannot afford to pay unreasonably high rents. "To the extent that rent controls hold down the price of housing, tenants have a larger portion of their income left over to spend on other things. In spending this income on other goods, they will drive up their prices." Amazing statements! Convoluted statements made by this institute. This suggests that it is tenants paying modest rents that cause inflation. The reality is that tenants spend the remainder of their incomes on such luxuries as food, transportation, hydro — some of those little essential things to keep the cold away from the door and starvation away from the home.

The other reality is that consumer spending is supposed to undermine our economic recovery. That's the implication of these wreckonomics utterings from the Fraser Institute. Shopkeepers, manufacturers, economists have indicated that in the absence of government action, it's a case of do-it-yourself, consumer-led recovery. Instead the government has decided to depress the purchasing power of 36 percent of our citizens — those who rent. That's what you're doing. By allowing the landlord to charge whatever he wants, whether it can be justified in terms of the marketplace — allowing them unfettered financial freedom — there will be less money for consumer recovery. The landlords will benefit by huge rent increases — unjustified rent increases — and the consumers will have less money in their pockets. The Fraser Institute, the minister and this government do not address that particular problem. That's what's going to happen: you're going to direct money directly out of the economy of 36 percent of our citizens who rent in this province.

In Chapter 4, Milton Friedman makes an analogy between rent controls now and those in the 1906 and 1946 American economies.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. I've refrained from getting to my feet on several occasions now when that member has referred to rent controls. I again bring to the attention of the Chair — and to that member — that this legislation does not deal with the issue of rent controls.

MR. BLENCOE: Well, I say it should.

HON. MR. HEWITT: It deals with the issue of rights of tenants and landlords. It deals with the issue of arbitration. It deals with the issue of courts. But it does not deal with the issue of rent controls. Please bring him to attention.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr. Minister. As it was before, the point is very well taken. This is entitled the Residential Tenancy Act. We're not dealing with rent controls, we're dealing with a tenancy act.

MR. BLENCOE: We certainly are — the lack of.

MR. MITCHELL: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think it's been made quite clear to the minister, and the minister is aware of it, that this bill replaces the tenancy act that was in effect which did have rent controls — and rent reviews — in the two sections of it that this bill is replacing. To be consistent with the principle of the bill, the second member for Victoria is 100 percent in order. We cannot have these interjections on behalf of the minister so my colleague can sit down and have a rest. That's all he's doing, and he knows that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Esquimal–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell), might think that the member is completely in order, but I don't think he is. We're dealing with the Residential Tenancy Act, which is concerned with the rights of tenants, etc., and we're not dealing with anything to do with rent controls. The minister rises on a point of order.

HON. MR. HEWITT: For the benefit of the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew, the existing Residential Tenancy Act had the rent controls lifted in July 1983. The existing legislation, by regulation, determined that there wasn't to be rent control. The issue, with regard to this bill, deals with residential tenancy matters, the system of arbitration, the system of courts, the rights of landlords and tenants. It does not address the issue of rent controls. That was eliminated in July under the old bill, by regulation. Therefore the legislation in existence does not have in it any rent control. I hope you understand that explanation.

MR. MITCHELL: The minister supported my argument 100 percent. The regulations that he's referring to were the regulations under the previous tenancy act, and this is what this bill is referring to. The regulations that the minister is referring to were regulations under the particular bill that we're replacing now. He substantiates my argument 1,000 percent.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I was up on this same point of order earlier when the minister got up. The minister points out that the words "rent controls" are not mentioned in the bill. But does that mean that it can't be mentioned as one of the problems that tenants face and will have to continue facing because of the kind of legislation that this government is bringing in?

Mr. Speaker, the minister doesn't want to hear any more from that member, because he doesn't want to hear any more about the Fraser Institute. They're so embarrassed by the advice that they've been taking from them and the failure of that program that he doesn't want to hear any more. That's what it's all about.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, it appears to the Chair that the point of order raised is developing into a debate in itself. I would suggest that that certainly isn't what we're here for. Perhaps we can continue to discuss the Residential

[ Page 4308 ]

Tenancy Act, taking full cognizance of the fact that there might be occasions during the debate when the term "rent control" might come into play. May I suggest that it probably has been very well worked over, and maybe we could get onto something else.

MR. BLENCOE: I would hope that in discussing any piece of legislation the minister would not want to stop us from suggesting things that should be included in the legislation — such as rent control. I'm suggesting that because it's omitted, maybe it's something the minister would consider. If we start saying that because a piece of legislation doesn't mention a certain term you can't talk about it, that would be controlling what this House is about, which is suggesting alternatives. I'm saying that, indeed, rent controls should be brought back immediately. There should be rent control, and we're saying that.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: With that argument you could even bring harness-racing into this thing.

[5:30]

MR. BLENCOE: Let's go!

For the edification of our side of the House and also for the general public, what we have in British Columbia in terms of the Residential Tenancy Act and regulations.... It's not coming from some of the saner members of the government. It's coming from that weird and wonderful group, the Fraser Institute. They are the ones who are directing the government these days. No, I'm saying that Milton Friedman, who is a major contributor to the thinking of the Fraser Institute, has drawn some analogies between rent and some controls on the American economy. His argument is irrelevant, as is his data. He states: "In a free market there is always some housing immediately available for rent at all rent levels." This is indeed true. There are always luxury homes for rent, and townhouses and apartments for rent that few of us can afford. There are always rooms to let in some condemned hotel somewhere. Then there is also the park bench. The reality is that the greatest proportion of available accommodation is in the upper rent bracket, with that available at the lower end on a minimal scale. These rentals are seldom vacant for long, as there are always people in need of affordable housing and ready to move in. Often, too, rental accommodation appears in the paper and looks quite reasonable, but is in reality little more than a slum when you go to visit the place. Those who can only afford minimal rents have no choices, and slum or not, if it's affordable, there'll be tenants willing to move in.

Mr. Friedman says on page 101 of this tremendous book put out by the Fraser Institute: "Now if ever people are able to pay for their housing...." Obviously Mr. Friedman isn't aware of the numbers of unemployed in British Columbia, because he believes that every British Columbian is capable of paying for his housing. Well, I gave statistics on Friday that indicated that a high proportion, according to the 1981 census, of British Columbians are paying in excess of 50 percent of their income on housing. That's totally unacceptable, and is something that has to be considered by this government.

What's this "housing shortages result from rent controls"? Again, I'm building up the case that I feel we need some kind of control in the province of British Columbia. CMHC reports the following housing starts for apartments, row houses and other multiple-family dwellings. This was supposedly during a time of rent controls when nothing was happening. In 1974 there were 4,421 multiple-dwelling mortgages approved by CMHC. In 1975, 8,723. In 1976, when the rentalsman and rent controls were fully in place, 11,092 mortgages for multiple dwellings; in 1977, 14,920; and so on. Rent controls haven't had an impact on construction. Basically what we have is a government that's going to use anything it can to ensure that there isn't an impartial system in place for landlords and tenants in the province of British Columbia.

The statistics don't prove that rent controls or some kind of review procedures hold down construction. The evidence is to the contrary. The minister can find these Canada Housing stats on page 46 and 47 of the 1982 report, and he can see exactly what the situation has been.

The imposition and the support for the concept of rent controls did not dry up the supply of rental accommodation, according to Vancouver land economist David Baxter. The factors that created today's rental market are dramatic democratic and social changes: for instance, the coming of age of the post-war population and the advent of two-income households. Between 1966 and 1975 rental units dropped from 8,000 to 2,000 a year, and it wasn't rent controls that did that. The examples are there. Rent controls have not done what this government or the Fraser Institute maintains they have done.

Friedman's conclusion: in practice, higher rents would put little direct inflationary pressure on other goods and services. The extra income received by landlords would be offset by the decrease in the funds available to tenants for the purchase of other goods and services. In other words, the landlords would have more disposable income to spend on various items, and the tenants of course would have less income to spend, so there wouldn't be inflation — just a redistribution of wealth so that those with more receive more and those with less receive less.

Mr. Speaker, going on to try to indicate where this government is taking direction from the Fraser Institute, really the direction does not stand up when you analyze it closely. Chapter 6, written by a fellow called Kristof, states: "The effect, if not the purpose, of rent control and rent stabilization is the subsidization of rents by owners." The minister has made this point a number of times. This kind of thinking suggests that tenants have considerable wealth, whereas landlords or the owners of apartment buildings, for example, are without this wealth. Rent controls, which prohibit landlords from raising rents to any level they choose, mean landlords are actually giving wealth to their tenants. That's an interesting thought, but one which is easily refuted. Consider the reality of any tenant paying more than 25 percent of his income for rent to someone who has sufficient assets to own an apartment building or a house which he doesn't require for himself.

Here's another statement from this well-known document that justifies no protection for tenants in the province of British Columbia, by this crazy institute in Vancouver: "There is no close correlation between rent.... Rent seldom rises above 4 percent of any income; frequently it is less than I percent." See page 190. "It is not then surprising that Parisians spend on entertainment every month far more than they pay for three months' rent." They'll go to any extremes and give any crazy analogy to justify removing tenants' rights in the province of British Columbia. There are obvious differences between Paris and British Columbia. Why would we be considering the situation described above

[ Page 4309 ]

in assessing our own needs? It seems that the Fraser Institute is influenced by irrelevant situations in developing an approach to rent controls and renters' rights and tenancy agreements in this province. This book is the "bible" that the government seems to follow in terms of what is going to happen with tenants' rights in the province of British Columbia.

Rent controls were introduced in Toronto in 1974, and there is a relatively significant quote in this book by the Fraser Institute: "Relatively significant rent increases occurred in years with low vacancy rates, while smaller ones accompanied surplus conditions" — referring to pre-rent control times. Obviously, one of the reasons for introducing and maintaining controls is simply because of those significant rises. When, for whatever reason, vacancy rates drop, landlords can charge top rates. Even with lower vacancy rates, rents can be out of the reach of many prospective tenants.

There's another interesting statement in this book being used, I surmise, by this government as the bible for what it's doing to the residential tenancy situation in B.C.

"Nearly a third of total household formations are currently undertaken by single, unattached individuals, and reflecting their less pressing need for separate households, it is this group that would probably be most responsive to a rise in rents. Similarly, single individuals who have not yet left the homes of their parents may be encouraged by a rise in rents to delay their leaving. This, too, would reduce the quantity of housing demanded."

What an incredible piece of junk, rubbish writing...that we've ever heard. This is what the government is following. In other words, when there is a shortage of affordable housing, you raise rents so that fewer people can afford the housing, which results in a higher vacancy rate, and, voila, a surplus of housing. I think this government better reassess its role and its connection to the Fraser Institute. When you take a look at statements like this, they're really not offering very sound advice. It boggles the mind. The bottom line is, by using Mr. Walker's formula, that the average rent increase in Vancouver required to arrive at a vacancy rate of 4 percent is 12.8 percent. Someone should advise the Zen and Aquilim landlords of the formula used by Mr. Walker.

Another quotation: "In the case of Vancouver, the most pessimistic estimates suggest that decontrol would be accompanied by a rise in rents of about 18 percent." Again I refer the minister and the House to the numerous cases brought to light, with the elimination of rent controls, of rent increases in excess of 18 percent. There are many, and I've brought them to this House. Unfortunately, they haven't been used to back up some serious piece of legislation that's going to protect tenants' rights in the province of British Columbia. I won't go through those. Suffice to say, there are lots of examples of those dramatic increases, which Mr. Walker and this government say don't exist.

It's quite clear that one of the main influences on the government's decision to implement this policy in what we have before us is the Fraser Institute, authors of the book that I've already quoted from. The book purports to give international evidence of the effects of rent control in six countries. It is, supposedly, very thorough in its efforts to show the dismal results of rent control — among other things, housing deterioration, racial discrimination, and, a worse thing, no improvement of the initial housing stock. It offers a solution for the well-being of low-income households in the form of a housing allowance to be paid directly to the recipient.

The book summarizes by stressing the need to resist rent control in the first place and, if stuck, recommends a gradual but specific decontrol program. Regardless of whether or not the view that rent control is a bad thing is agreed with, the fact remains that this kind of system of control mechanisms — rent review, which we don't have in this piece of legislation — does offer developed solutions for a government not favouring rent controls. Serious problems started for the Socreds when they did not follow the advised methods of decontrol offered in this book, but introduced Bill 5.

It's quite clear that this government has tried a mishmash. It's taken some sort of advice from the Fraser Institute, but some from we're not quite sure where. The bill we have before us today is really one that's going to create incredibly complicated systems. It will be very cumbersome and very expensive for a number of sides in this particular issue.

I would hope that this government will rethink taking the line of the Fraser Institute, which has basically said that we don't need protection for tenants in the province of British Columbia. What this government has to do is separate itself from such a philosophical position and consider all the interests of all British Columbians — and particularly, in this bill, the 380,000 tenants whose rights, if this bill comes into effect, will be thrown fight out the window, so that they will have absolutely no protection in this province.

[5:45]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

We on this side of the House are quite prepared, as I've said and will say again as I close today, to try to work on some common solutions to this important issue. It would be an advantage, I think, to all involved, if the legislation for so many people in the province of British Columbia was not developed in isolation from all of us in this House in terms of having to make decisions for our constituents. I think there's a good opportunity and that we have a mechanism at our disposal that could allow both sides of this House to take this legislation and try to agree on major surgery to remove some of the more offensive parts. I think there would be a consensus. It may be that the political pressures from whatever segments of the province would be too strong, but I think it's incumbent upon us to a find consensus — absolutely essential.

We've gone up and down on this issue for years in his province. Whoever is in government, well, we're going to see a major shift. What happens is that the thousands of tenants in the province never know where they're going to be. They never know whether they're going to have certain protections and procedures that are impartial and fair.

I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that there is great trepidation and apprehension out there in terms of this bill and this attitude towards tenants in the province. If there was ever a time for us to try to find some common ground, I believe this is it. That office has served this province so well. I cannot think of any reason why it has to go. It's cost-effective. Landlords and tenants have been served well, and it has resolved disputes fairly and equitably.

Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister, I think it's going to be extremely difficult in the long term to defend this piece of legislation as being fair to all parties.

[ Page 4310 ]

Before I close and before adjournment, I would once again like to ask the government to consider the following: withdraw the bill for a few weeks and consult the various tenants' groups. I might add, Mr. Speaker, that some of the tenants' groups are saying that they can live with certain sections. Consider the arbitration process and make it impartial. Consider reinstating a rent review procedure. Consider, if at all possible during this recessionary time, some sort of protection — at least for the most disadvantaged — of rent control or some rent review procedure that's fair. Don't go into the courts to resolve the many problems that tenants will face with this piece of legislation.

I would once again urge the government to seriously take a look at the new renter protection program that has only come down in Saskatchewan. It's an excellent program, and certainly could be the basis of what we do here in British Columbia. I ask this government to consult with Saskatchewan — a Conservative government — on that piece of legislation and consider introducing that kind of legislation in British Columbia. We have too many people who are going to be impacted by this legislation. There are too many to be totally subjected to one partisan view or another. This issue must be above partisan factions and views. It's incumbent upon the government once again to rethink this piece of legislation and consider reinstating the office of the rentalsman and keeping many of the aspects we currently have before us.

Mr. Blencoe moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion negatived.

MR. MITCHELL: I find it really shocking, and I waited a few minutes.... Here we have more people on the government side in this House than there have been all afternoon, and not one of them is going to get up and debate this piece of legislation that this government is attempting to force through this House — not one of them. The tradition in parliament is that the opposition speaks, the minister opens debate on the legislation, a member from the opposition adds a few words of wisdom, and then there is cross-debate from the government side to support the legislation or put down the debate that was presented by the opposition. There we have all the government members sitting there, and they are struck speechless. If we are going to continue with parliamentary debate, if we are going to continue with the traditions of parliament, then we must have participation from all sides of the House.

MR. MICHAEL: You're filibustering.

MR. MITCHELL: We are not filibustering.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Now you've gone too far. Hon. members, at this time we must continue the debate in second reading. While the member's admonition on the rules of the House and instruction on parliamentary debate may be interesting, they are not relevant to the debate at this time. I would ask the member to confine his remarks to Bill 19.

MR. MITCHELL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate your interjection there, and protection from the people who do not wish to participate in the debate here. I feel that what I had to say was relevant to parliament and what it's all about. I feel that it fits into the context of what this government is attempting to do. They bring in legislation one day, the minister tries to push it through, and then the government sits there and does nothing. I often find this.

Before I get into debate of the bill — and I want to stay in order — I'd like to bring to the minister's attention.... He kept getting up and interjecting earlier on in this debate. He said that this particular bill does not have anything to do with rent control. I would ask him — and I know his deputy sitting behind him is aware of it.... Section 18 of this bill that he has presented to the House deals with rent increases, and limits those rent increases to once a year. I know the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith), standing beside you there, will support me that the rent increase, which is limited to once a year, is a form of rent control. This minister got up and kept interrupting my colleague earlier on by saying it didn't involve rent control; it does have a part of rent control. I just wanted to bring this to the attention of the minister before he gets up and tells me that I'm out of order. If I recall, the budget did not mention unemployment, but Mr. Speaker allowed us to get up and debate unemployment. The word "unemployment" was not in the budget, nor is the word "control" in this bill, but the intent of rent increases is limited, and that is a form of control. I know the minister is aware of it and will not use that argument in interrupting my particular debate. As I say....

MR. MOWAT: Have you got anything to say?

MR. MITCHELL: Yes, I have a lot to say. I have all these notes, and I know that as I go through them I am going to be dealing with the mobile-home issue, and I hope you will allow me to be the designated speaker on mobile homes.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nice try.

MR. MITCHELL: Well, he didn't say no, so when I get to that section....

Mr. Speaker, we'll get on to the discussion of the bill. I think this is a very serious position we are entering into in dealing with the Tenancy Act. We have to seriously look at what I said earlier. We are trying to push this through, and that fact bothers me. It bothers me to the point that I think we're losing something in our tradition. We have forgotten that we must have the debate in here. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, and through you to the minister, that this is a bill that supports what my colleague said when he was saying that we should submit this bill after we have had sufficient discussion within the House.... I wouldn't want him to withdraw it, but I think we should send this bill to a House committee composed of whoever the government decides to put on that committee, and we should listen to some of the particular individuals who feel that this bill should have some amendments and some input.

Again I'd like to bring to the minister's attention some of the particular worries that we have. As I believe my colleague stated, 380,000 people are going to be affected by this bill — 380,000 who are wondering what is going to happen as we go through life. I would like to bring to your attention, as I said earlier on — and I hope you will give me the decency to come back to the.... One of the issues that really bothers me is

[ Page 4311 ]

the Section in this bill dealing with appeals going to arbitration. I know many people out there definitely are caught in that particular economic squeeze, where for an extra $30 so they can take to arbitration or take to an appeal the fact that their sink is not running.... If the landlord in this particular case is not maintaining the house and he wants to appeal that particular problem, he has to go out and pay $30 to take it to an arbitrator. This could be dragged on and on and on. If it is something that....

Interjections.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, due to the attitude of some of the other members, I would like to move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

[6:00]

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Schroeder moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:01 p.m.