[ Page 4349 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Skagit Environmental Enhancement Act (Bill 12). Hon. Mr. Brummet.

Introduction and first reading –– 4349

Oral Questions

Expo 86. Mr. Lauk –– 4349

Mr. Barrett

Tabling Documents –– 4351

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Health estimates. (Hon. Mr. Nielsen)

On vote 34: minister's office 4351

Mrs. Dailly

Mr. Passarell

On vote 38: institutional services –– 4355

Mrs. Dailly

Residential Tenancy Act (Bill 19). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Hewitt)

On section 2 4355

Mr. Blencoe

On section 3 –– 4358

Mr. Blencoe

On section 7 –– 4359

Mr. Blencoe

Division

On section 9 –– 4360

Mr. Blencoe

On section 16 –– 4360

Mr. Blencoe

On section 21 –– 4360

Mr. Blencoe

On section 29 –– 4363

Mr. Blencoe

On section 30 –– 4364

Mr. Blencoe

On section 31 –– 4365

Mr. Blencoe

On section 40 –– 4365

Mr. Blencoe

On section 42 –– 4366

Mr. Blencoe

On section 52 –– 4367

Mr. Blencoe

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

On Section 1 –– 4367

Mr. Hanson

On section 3 –– 4371

Mr. Hanson

Third reading –– 4372

Appendix –– 4372

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 11, 1984

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, visiting the House today, and in the gallery facing the Chair, are two prominent British Columbians who are unfortunately retiring and going to Ontario, perhaps the worst mistake of their lives. I ask the House to welcome Mr. Julius Martin and Mrs. Rose Martin from Prince George, and wish them well in their future.

MR. MOWAT: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery this afternoon is a friend of mine and a former teacher, Betsy MacDonald, who is now with Vancouver Community College. I would ask the House to please make Betsy welcome.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Speaker, in the members' gallery today are three guests from the Nishga, Rod Robinson, the chief councillor, Alfred Fraser, the health coordinator, and Perry McKay. I would ask the House to welcome them this afternoon.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, in the members' gallery today is the principal of the College of New Caledonia, Mr. Charles McCaffray, down from Prince George, and I would ask the House to give him a fond welcome.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today are the parents of my deputy minister, Mrs. Jill Bodkin. I would ask the House to welcome Ken and Marie Madsen from the beautiful community of Banff, Alberta, to Victoria, British Columbia.

Introduction of Bills

SKAGIT ENVIRONMENTAL ENHANCEMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Brummet presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Skagit Environmental Enhancement Act.

Bill 12 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

EXPO 86

MR. LAUK: I have a question to the Premier. This morning Mr. Pattison of Expo 86 indicated to the press that he could bring Expo 86 in on time, on budget and at union rates, and that the government's insistence that the site be openly competitive has forced him to recommend to the cabinet that Expo be cancelled. Has the government made a decision?

HON. MR. BENNETT: First of all, the preamble to the question is not correct. I think there are two fundamental principles in British Columbia when the public does business: firstly, when public money is being expended it should be open to all British Columbians, regardless of organization or affiliation; secondly, the principle of the best possible price through full competition. Those who would say that competition should not exist for one sector of society in the expenditure of public funds are selective in the way they choose to allow British Columbians to participate. The competitive factor in construction around this province today means savings of about 10 percent. High and low bids and what has happened to construction prices would indicate that very clearly. Therefore full competition must be allowed, and it's very difficult to deal selectively — picking one group of society and saying that true competition shouldn't exist.

The second part of the question was: has the government made a decision on Mr. Pattison's proposal? The answer is no.

MR. LAUK: I hope the Premier is not suggesting that Mr. Pattison is making an incorrect or inaccurate statement. In any event, he is widely quoted on tape as saying: "On time, on budget, at union rates." If that's correct, which I believe to be the case, and also Expo's boards report that it will bring close to $3 billion into the economy of British Columbia during the worst recession since the Depression, is the government actually considering cancelling Expo on this narrow doctrinal inflexibility of the Social Credit Party?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, clearly the question in itself is out of order.

MR. LAUK: Why is it out of order, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, a question must be a question, not an expression of an opinion, representation, argumentation or debate. If the question is rephrased, I'm sure the member can do so in such a way to make it fall within the ambit of....

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, is the Premier suggesting that the government would actually cancel Expo on the basis of its philosophical belief that there should be free and open competition on the site?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I guess the member is saying now that he, like other British Columbians, supports Expo. I want to say that this government gave birth to the concept of Expo and raised it over a lot of objections — much of it recorded in the Hansard of the House — that in the early days was expressed by the now-mayor of Vancouver, who embarrassed us by flying to Paris to plead against the IBE granting British Columbia the right to hold such an exposition. The fact that they have now been converted to Expo makes me feel glad because I do believe Expo would be, as the member now says, good for British Columbia. But it is not blind to deal with fair competition. Many of the debates of this Legislature have been over small amounts of money that members opposite feel are wasteful. I don't think they are suggesting now that they weren't sincere when they questioned expenditures of some of the smallest amounts and say that this government shouldn't maintain a policy of getting the best possible price for the people of this province. Budgets are just that. They're a proposal of expenditure, and they're a proposal of receipts. Budgets are there to be improved upon, and if the expenditure of Expo can be improved upon by fair and open competition, that is in the spirit of British Columbia and of Canada, as I understand it, without having to make some commitment to some groups that normal competition doesn't apply. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I

[ Page 4350 ]

would say that the traditional values of fair and open competition should always be there in British Columbia.

[2:15]

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, to the Premier. My understanding from Mr. Pattison is that the budget was provided by the cabinet; Mr. Pattison has fulfilled his terms within that budget. In any event, it's clear that the only way we can get an agreement from the construction trades for no strikes and no work stoppages is to have an equal rates agreement. If Mr. Pattison says we can bring it in on budget on that basis, why is the government playing chicken with the people, the trades and everything else in Expo 86?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Again, the member, as usual, is incorrect. The cabinet did not give Mr. Pattison the budget. The budget has been developed by the board of Expo and the professional management they've hired. The budget has developed as the size of the fair grew and as it gained support not only from doubters at home but from those internationally who feel that British Columbia can put on an outstanding fair.

The member suggests that the proposed budget is somehow something that could not be better. I'm sure that if they were cautious, the financial people in Expo would take into account the highest cost they could face in putting on the fair. I'm sure they would write those into their budget, because the last thing they would want is an unrealistic budget based on a wish list, rather than what they saw as being the top cost — that being, of course, that provided by those who have union agreements that all the work would be gotten by the few large unionized firms who would dominate the site, and, of course, have less competition. I'm sure that in all parts of their budget they are hopeful. Everyone understands that in preparing a budget, especially if you've had to run your own small business, you always try to improve it. You never try to delude yourself at the beginning by putting in figures that may be too low. Therefore I'm sure that the directors of Expo — at least the business side of Expo — would expect its competition to hopefully provide a better budget with lower costs to the people of British Columbia, and perhaps have some cushion against those things they can't control, which Mr. Pattison mentioned this morning as well. We are dealing with things now where people have some ability to give some security. These are things where people can agree not to disrupt the site, where people can agree that they will not create any disruption in the construction or implementation of Expo. That's not unreasonable to ask of any British Columbian. All Mr. Pattison has asked is: "Will you give us your assurances you will not disrupt the site and will not shut down construction to the point that the fair cannot meet its obligations?" I'm sure each British Columbian, individually would give their assurance. I'm surprised he hasn't got them. It would be nice if Expo could get some cushion against the things we can't control, and that's the weather. As you know, we have a domed stadium in Vancouver because it sometimes rains there, and any period of rain can affect the fair as well. I would hope that they could have that type of cushion. I hope the bids come in competitively. I hope they beat their budget.

I hope those who will not give their guarantee that they won't shut down the fair change their minds and end this difficult choice that we're faced with.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, the public knows full well that the construction trades have made an offer for no strikes and no work stoppages based on an equal-rate formula of some kind. The construction industry itself has stated publicly that no more than a small percentage of the work can be done by non-union companies in any event. Why does the Premier insist on this smokescreen? What is the real reason he wants to shut down Expo? What's the real reason?

HON. MR. BENNETT: It's never been my intent to oppose Expo. That member and some of them can look at their own record on this subject, well recorded in Hansard. Before I'm accused of making an error, I'll correct a statement I made earlier that the now mayor of Vancouver flew to Paris. He flew a telegram to Paris.

Mr. Speaker, I guess we have to look at what fair competition means and the ramification of what that member is suggesting. Throughout this province, in many communities, public and private works are going ahead with competitive bids. Some of those people are trade union members, some are not. How do you suggest to those working at competitive wages which are less than that because of the marketplace that there should be some selective area of the province where wages that are much higher than the marketplace today would be enforced? How do you talk to all those people out there who have responded to the market, as have most other British Columbians during this recession, and suggest that some may be immune?

MR. BARRETT: Tell us about timber.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Maybe you'd like to tell us who gave a $100,000 cheque to your party during the election that might relate to this.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the Premier has announced today that there is free and open competition at Expo and open sites. I ask the Premier: on the primary resource of the province of British Columbia, is the Premier announcing today that there will be free and open competition for access to tree-farm licences and timber purchases in British Columbia? Will there be free and open competition for union and non-union firms on tree-farm licences and timber in British Columbia?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, there will be the same type of bidding, with the conditions as laid out in regulations and legislation, as there are conditions for bidding on construction sites: that is, the qualification of proving that you can do the job; the financial ability to stay in business, which is in every construction bid; the ability to get a bond. Those things apply to the development of resources or construction — that is, the ability to carry out what you undertake. Those conditions always exist where sound management is applied.

MR. BARRETT: At the present time there is no free, open competition on the renewal of tree-farm licences. I welcome the Premier's statement today that for the first time under this government there will be free and open competitive bidding on tree-farm licences. So that there is no mistake, let that word go out to the forest industry today that that's the new position of Social Credit.

[ Page 4351 ]

HON. MR. BENNETT: In response to the speech that was allowed in here and that did not contain a question, I would ask the members that the Leader of the Opposition is now advising to read what I said and not his misinterpretation.

Mr. Speaker tabled the auditor-general's third special report to the Legislative Assembly on the expenditures of the Ministry of Tourism.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to tell you that in the House today are representatives from the Vancouver Community College, Mrs. Betsy MacDonald, Mr. Stusiak, Mr. Sandy, Mr. Lewindon, Mr. Ofield and Mr. O'Neill. Will the House please make them feel very welcome today.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, may I have leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

MR. BARRETT: In the gallery today is the retired Rev. R.B. Knipe and his wife. I'd ask the House to welcome them.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Might I also have leave for an introduction, Mr. Speaker?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I'm informed that a cultural delegation from Holland are visiting our province and our city of Victoria today. I'd like all members to give them a very warm and cordial welcome.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call Committee of Supply.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH

(continued)

On vote 34: minister's office, $199,325.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I just want to respond to some queries made by the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) yesterday. I believe there are about four areas of concern. One was with respect to ambulance calls in the Cowichan Valley. Perhaps by way of responding to the question I can just offer some information. The dispatch system in the Cowichan Valley has, until recently, been handled by the RCMP. Now professional ambulance dispatchers are being used to cover the Cowichan Valley. A private phone line has been installed in the Cowichan District Hospital emergency room, with an extension at the second-floor nursing station.

The hospital is notified of the patient's condition and estimated time of arrival. Communication between the crew and hospital is possible by relay through the dispatch centre. The system works very well in all other major areas of the province. To date we have not received any complaints from the Cowichan District Hospital.

The member spoke about the psychiatric wing of the hospital, I believe. The operating funds for psychiatric beds have been added to the hospital's funding base, A special note to this effect was included in a letter to the hospital sent April 1 this year, advising the hospital of their 1984-85 budget.

The staffing levels and effects on patient care: the Cowichan District Hospital has adjusted its staffing to the same standards as comparable facilities throughout the province, which are able to provide excellent care. I'm advised that we have every confidence the board and staff will also be able to maintain the level of care with similar staffing levels.

Was it the member for Cowichan who spoke about the patents on the drugs?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Okay. At the present time in this country, when a drug manufacturer develops a new drug they take out a patent on the drug for a period of 17 years. However, since 1969 another manufacturer can produce the same drug — the generic equivalent — after four years by receiving a compulsory licence, and they pay a 4 percent royalty to the company with the patent. The Pharmaceutical Manufacturers' Association of Canada — mainly international companies — has been lobbying the federal government to change the provisions of the Patent Act, which allows for this compulsory licensing. That organization argues that the costs of research and development of new drugs are borne by the originating company, and a four-year period of exclusive marketing is not sufficient to recover the costs and provide a return on their investment; and they have other arguments. A competing group, the Canadian Drug Manufacturers' Association, oppose the strengthening of the patent protection. The CDMA offers lower cost generic equivalents and stands to benefit if the current procedures are maintained, or if the patent protection is further reduced or eliminated.

A provincial and interministerial committee, chaired by Intergovernmental Relations and Industry and Small Business Development, including representation from Health, Human Resources and Consumer and Corporate Affairs, has examined the issue. The conclusion forwarded by Intergovernmental Relations to Consumer and Corporate Affairs Canada is that British Columbia supports the existing compulsory licensing provisions of the Patent Act. I think that is what the query was.

[2:30]

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, yesterday we were discussing the matter of areas where efficiencies could perhaps be made in the hospital system, and I just wanted to mention to the minister that in reaction to my suggestion that group health clinics might provide some savings in the overall delivery of health services, he answered that in his opinion they wouldn't necessarily. I simply want to say to the minister that I wish that at some period in time he could have his staff investigate and do a cost study on group health clinics. Perhaps then the minister may be able to come up with a

[ Page 4352 ]

positive endorsation of community health clinics. I hope that the minister will have his staff do some kind of an examination of this, because I don't think it is sufficient for him to say that he "believes" they do not. I would appreciate it if his staff could do that at some time.

In the area of discussing efficiencies, I want to make it quite clear that there are areas where I think that more money should be injected, and there are also areas where I think we could save. I want to deal with those two matters now. There is an area where I think there is no way that we have any right as legislators to approve cutbacks, and that is particularly in the care of elderly people who are confined to institutions where they are going to be spending their last days. I think it is incumbent upon any society to make those last days, months or years as pleasant and secure as possible, and I'm sure the minister would agree with me on that. I know he is most interested in children, and just like children need that security and warmth, I think that he would agree that it is equally important at the other end, when a person becomes somewhat helpless and dependent on governmental policy for their contentment and happiness.

I particularly want to bring to the minister's attention something which I'm sure he's aware of, but I'd like to ask him what he can do about it. This is only one area; there are others in the province. Out at the University of B.C. Health Science Centre — and we won't go into the details again or questions about whether that should have ever been built; it is there now — there are 300 elderly, ailing patients at the present time. I think the minister is aware that there was an article, and there have also been a number of letters presented to a number of us, on concerns for the manner in which the cutbacks — imposed by the government, through their policies of not being able to provide enough money to some of the hospitals — are actually seriously affecting the last days, months and years of elderly patients. I think the minister would agree with me that when patients who are confined to their wheelchairs can no longer get out of their wheelchairs to be taken for a swim because of cutbacks, that means a tremendous amount to them.

In many other places we have other areas where the general patient care and time that can be given by the nurses has been cut back. Some of these elderly patients have to spend far too long on their own, without the proper attention they should be getting. This is no reflection on staff; it is a reflection on policies of cutbacks. One of the most touching things that I have read about is the fact that as people are nearing the end of their life, they should have the comfort and security of knowing that someone from the staff is in attendance near them. To my knowledge, cutbacks are affecting something as serious as that.

What I'm trying to say is that we can stand here in this House and debate dollars and moneys and health policies, but when you get right down to it it's what's happening to patients in the hospital at the time they are confined — particularly the elderly in this situation — that I know must concern the minister as much as it does me. I want to ask the minister what he is planning to do in that area so we don't have these situations repeated across our province where elderly people are not getting the security and attention they should because the hospitals have had to cut back. I also want to say to the minister: if we're saying there is only so much money, that is one area where moneys should not be cut.

You may say: "What are you going to do about the money?" I would like to point out to the minister — and I know he must be well aware of this — that the physiotherapists in this province who can enable a patient to stay at home instead of in an institution, because of treatment, are in very short supply in British Columbia. There simply aren't enough of them to go around. In some areas of the province there aren't any available. UBC offers the only program to train them, but it doesn't train nearly enough to meet the demand. Because of enrolment limitations, which, again, are the responsibility of the provincial government's financial policies, there were 30 physiotherapists finishing their training in '83-84, and next year it is anticipated only 18 can go in. Doesn't that seem ridiculous, Mr. Chairman? Here we are cutting back on a vital service which could keep people in their homes instead of an institution. I say to the minister: is that not short-sighted policy on behalf of your government and your ministry in those areas where you could actually be saving the taxpayers' money by enabling these people to stay in their own homes because of proper services? May I say, this applies to homemakers, who have had their hours cut back, and many other facets. I particularly want to deal with the physiotherapists because I know that some of the other speakers have dealt with the homemaker situation.

Another area where the minister could look at costs.... I find it most interesting, and I simply want to get his reaction to this. I notice that under one of the votes the Medical Services Commission is increased by 1.6 percent. The interesting thing is that that 1.6 percent amounts to over $8 million. From what I can see in the estimate book, that money goes almost entirely for increases for fees-for-service for doctors. I know the minister was talking about meeting with doctors and discussing the matters of specialists and how perhaps he questioned some of the areas there. I understand he's meeting with the doctors on these very sensitive but very vital matters. So I say to the minister: if you budgeted for an increase of $8 million for fee-for-service, can you explain to us the rationale for that increase at a time when physiotherapists aren't being provided and when old people are not being given proper care? I'll leave those questions with him.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Chairman, as we're closing debate on the Health estimates I have a couple of questions and comments to make to the minister. Firstly I'd like to thank the minister for the cooperation that he's offered me this year, particularly with the issue that I'll be closing my debate with.

The first issue I'd like to discuss is one of the critic roles that I have, and that's the air ambulance. I'd like to say that that continues to be an excellent service. I see in the budget this year that it continues to receive an increase in funding, and I appreciate that. At times when we took at what this service provides, particularly when we're looking at a constituency such as Atlin, which is a very isolated and remote area.... The air ambulance comes in almost as an essential service when it comes to health care in this province. I think all residents in the far north appreciate the services that the air ambulance contributes, particularly when we look at the people who are behind the air ambulance service: the ground crews, the pilots and the doctors who fly on that service.

Another statement when it comes to constituency issues is some of the positive changes that have happened in the last two years. I look favourably at the minister's positive response to the community of Dease Lake, where at one time when people were hurt in that community they had to receive

[ Page 4353 ]

medical attention in a private house. Now there's an excellent facility in Dease Lake, and I think all residents in Dease Lake and particularly in the surrounding area appreciate the work that this ministry has done, as well as the work of the college of physicians, who staff the facility.

The third issue is the circumstance in the community I live in, the community of Atlin, where the Red Cross provides medical service. It's a Red Cross outpost where residents, if they are hurt, have to attend. Maybe the minister has these figures, but I doubt there are many communities in the province where the Red Cross is the only facility for health care. If there are more than Atlin, I think it's time we came into the twentieth century — and that's not faulting the dedicated work of the Red Cross. I think it's time that the 400 or 500 residents of Atlin, summer and winter — it deviates quite a bit — had some type of health care facility provided by the provincial government.

The last and probably the most important issue is the Nishga diagnostic centre. As the minister is aware, the Nass is an isolated area too — particularly when you look at where residents in the Nass have to receive medical attention through the programs provided by the federal government. There are problems of transportation in the area. Look at the road conditions that individuals in the Nass have to contend with if someone is, hurt. I congratulate the minister again. Every time I congratulate ministers when they've been helpful, my mother, who reads Hansard, wonders what is happening. Are we getting too cooperative in this Legislature? I appreciate the cooperation, and I know that as soon as these estimates close, which will be within the next few minutes, we'll have an ongoing meeting in regard to making a decision and showing something on the Nishga position and the facility they would like to have put into the Nass. It will benefit many residents in the Nass area. When we look at health, we have to work cooperatively with all levels of government, particularly when we look at the Nishga proposal, and work out some kind of formula for a quick resolution to the problem. I think that when we look at the terms.... People shouldn't have to ask for health care. It should be something that is provided, and it should be the best for everyone. Health is much too important to ever be labelled the result of a political motive on the part of government or of one political party or another. When we look at the proposal made by the Nishga, I think that once again we can show people across this province that we in this House, as lawmakers — even though the media like to look at it in terms of sensationalism — often work cooperatively in solving problems for the benefit of people. It would be the right step in finalizing the Nishga position on this, and I thank the minister.

[2:45]

HON. MR. NIELSEN: In response to one of the questions asked by the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly), it is our opinion that the UBC Health Sciences Centre Hospital has an adequate budget. It's also our opinion that the firm of Extendicare, which is a consulting firm which carried out a two-month study of the hospital.... I believe they identified certain areas of the hospital's management which could be modified to allow that hospital to stay within its budget allocation. There were many recommendations made by the firm of Extendicare, many of which have been acted upon by the hospital. People who are in the extended-care part of that hospital should be receiving the care they require. There could be individual complaints, and there could be others who are making comments for whatever their purposes might be, but we believe that the hospital is adequately funded. The hospital had a history of fiscal difficulties, including substantial deficits. The Extendicare people went in to examine it, carried out their examination, made recommendations, and many of the recommendations are now being followed by the hospital. I will have our long-term care people review UBC extended care, as they do others, to ensure that the people are receiving adequate care. It is our belief that there is adequate funding for hospital management, but in some cases we feel that it is not being allocated as it could be.

Physiotherapists. We've had discussions with UBC and others, including the physiotherapy consultants within institutional services. We're going to look at the Physiotherapists Act regulations and see if that has any effect; we're also speaking with UBC. The member mentioned that they have a very limited number of people in the courses, which is correct. If it were my decision I could make some suggestions as to what other courses could perhaps be dropped if we expand the physiotherapists course at our universities. Perhaps we will be making that suggestion. Yes, there are a number of what I guess we could call paramedical areas of training that don't seem to have adequate enrolment in our province, and the need is there; physiotherapists are one, audiologists perhaps another, and so on. We are talking with the university to see if we could make some changes to try to produce more of our own. I don't know what the university might say. They might say: "Well, simply send more money." Perhaps there are alternative propositions which could be considered; perhaps simply move it around a bit better.

The Medical Services Commission increase of 1.6 percent doesn't really reflect an increase in fees as much as it reflects an anticipated increase in utilization. There's a slight increase in population and in the aging of the population, thus a slight increase in utilization. We have not yet concluded an agreement with the British Columbia Medical Association for 1984-85. In fact, we're always concerned about publishing a budget before we conclude negotiations. Utilization is the one factor that all Ministers of Health in Canada, and the medical associations, have great difficulty coming to issue with, because it is very difficult to predict accurately. In fact, it's very difficult to prove what causes this increase in utilization. One side blames the medical profession, and frequently the other side blames the patients. It's probably a combination of both.

I appreciate many of the comments by the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell), particularly with respect to the air ambulance and the paramedics involved as staff on these. They have taken a very long time to train, some at their own expense for much of that time. They are particularly well qualified. We have expanded the programs, as the member may know, to increase their capability. They probably rank with any similar organization anywhere in the world. I think particular recognition should be given to the infant teams. This program has seen an incredible improvement in the statistics relating to premature births and other newly born children with certain medical difficulties who are taken from whatever remote area they may be in, down to the Children's Hospital or other suitable facilities. The statistics indicate that in a ten-year span from about 1971-81 — approximately that period of time — the survival rates of infants in that category increased from about 36 percent to about 80 percent. I think that would be directly related to the expansion of

[ Page 4354 ]

the program and the skill of the people associated with it. So I think they should be recognized for that. It's a first-class program.

MRS. DAILLY: I thank the minister for his answers. I have one final comment on long-term and extended care. I note that in the budget — and this has been brought up before — there is a $16 million decrease, in spite of the minister saying that perhaps efficiencies within hospitals.... I realize that that is a matter separate from the continuing care budget. It's a matter of philosophy, I suppose: that we on this side believe it would be better to increase continuing care rather than to decrease it. Perhaps the minister is able to correct the information that I have here. We read it as a $16 million decrease, minus 5 percent over last year's estimates. We consider that in the long run, that is not only doing great harm to the people who need continuing cared but is also rather foolish from the point of view of finances. We think you could perhaps even be saving the taxpayers money by increasing, not decreasing.

I have a couple more points before we close off the estimates. It is difficult to keep up momentum when you're on again, off again in these estimates.

In the matter of alternative health care, I pay credit — as I seldom do — to the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Reynolds), who brought in a motion which I know I can't discuss now. I would like the minister's opinion on the matter of alternative forms of health care, and whether he is willing to lend his support to perhaps making changes in the present act and regulations applicable in that area. I know there would have to be many safeguards, but I also appreciate the fact that there are many people out there who believe that at the present time there is a rigidity and an inflexibility in the responsibilities given to the College of Physicians in this area, and I don't blame the College of Physicians. After all, government makes the rules and regulations for them in this area.

Interjection.

MRS. DAILLY: I'm sure the Premier appreciates the fact of the need every day for vitamins and other forms of alternative health therapy, which many people out there believe in strongly, and think would save the Premier and others helpful....

HON. MR. BENNETT: If you eat wholesome, good food you don't need....

MRS. DAILLY: I am glad I have the Premier with me on this matter, but I'd like to hear from the Minister of Health what his reaction is to it.

I also want to make the final point, which has already been made, but I want to say it from my point of view. It is very foolish of the government to be cutting back in any areas of alcoholism and drug treatment at this time. Because of the recession I'm afraid more people are entering into the areas of alcoholism, drug addiction and so on. I can't understand why the government would cut back in that area. I leave those matters with the minister.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: With respect to alternative health care, I think there are two areas to consider. One is the history of the alternative methods and forms of health care in British Columbia. We are one of the few provinces who have made room within our Medical Services Plan for what I guess could be referred to as alternative health care professionals, paramedical — whatever they call them — such as chiropractors, podiatrists, optometrists, naturopaths and physiotherapists. Many provinces simply don't recognize those particular methods as legitimate — that's the wrong word; coming within the area of medical services. In B.C. we have, as you know, for many years.

We are under constant pressure from most organizations associated in some way with health or health care to be included within the Medical Services Plan. Most of them first wish to be recognized and then possibly included. We know that it would be a considerable additional cost. The proposition which has been put forward most recently is possibly permitting the practice of some of these people in their own area of expertise, but not including that within the Medical Services Plan as an insured benefit. That has been suggested by some. I'm very wary of that approach, because I think that once government recognizes a service, it is very difficult to argue why you are not then prepared to assist the people in obtaining that service.

There are a few that I'm very concerned about. I won't mention which they may be today. I think the College of Physicians and Surgeons is ultraconservative when it comes to those engaged in health matters, and possibly it's because they feel that in health matters it is best to be ultraconservative to safeguard against the possibility of damage to individuals. The college itself, I believe, requires some discussions with the ministry, and we intend to have those discussions very soon. I think sometimes authorities granted to organizations should be reviewed. I think governments have shown wisdom at some points in history where they recognized they themselves did not have the expertise and it was best to give that authority to those who did have the information and ability. But I'm not quite sure if it is still the same as it was when it was originally considered. We intend to speak to the College of Physicians and Surgeons about certain matters. We intend to speak to the other professional organizations who are in effect self-governing and can to some degree inflict a monopoly upon society. So we intend to speak to that. I think we'll always recognize their knowledge and call upon them to assist society to ensure that we are not embarking on any dangerous practice of health care.

There are a few areas that we are quite concerned with and, Mr. Chairman, I might make a final comment on that subject. Frequently we are somewhat restricted in explaining a situation clearly to the general public because much of the information which we could be offering is highly confidential, particularly when it is from a patient's own records or information that's been provided. It would be in violation of the concept of confidentiality of records, and it does create a bit of a problem in attempting to explain why you may not embrace or agree with somebody's statement. Sometimes there's information that's within the files of the physicians themselves.

I've been getting a lot of mail from that motion; it really surprises me that the average person in B.C. would actually be reading the motions on the order paper. I'm sure they managed to get that information in some other way.

Vote 34 approved.

[ Page 4355 ]

Vote 35: management operations, $65,735,518 — approved.

Vote 36: Medical Services Commission, $539,126,634 — approved.

[3:00]

Vote 37: preventive and community health care services, $187,672,739 — approved.

On vote 38: institutional services, $1,746,349,580.

MRS. DAILLY: I just have one question on institutional services. I wonder if the minister could tell us what the policy of his ministry is re employing health consultants. I'm referring particularly to Eagle Ridge Hospital. I'm doing this on behalf of the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose), who cannot be here today. He asked me if I would ask the minister about the employment of consultants instead of the actual personnel who were used before. Are you embarking on this, particularly in amalgamation, instead of having the usual personnel in the administrative areas?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Not as a general rule or as a permanent situation. There could be consultants hired during a transition or prior to amalgamation. I think the traditional model of an administrator, and others within administration, would continue, but there could be some period of transition where a consultant could be hired for some specific work. I think the administrators, in most cases, would be hired as full-time administrators to manage the facilities. Obviously there would be some consultants hired at some hospitals for certain purposes, but the basic model we've had for many years will continue, and it will continue in the Eagle Ridge Royal Columbian situation.

MRS. DAILLY: Thank you.

Vote 38 approved.

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

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Committee on Bill 19, Mr. Speaker.

RESIDENTIAL TENANCY ACT

The House in committee on Bill 19; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

MR. BLENCOE: This is the section, I believe, that deals with the application of the act. Mr. Chairman, I'm going to be fairly specific in my concerns with this bill, since this is the committee stage. The difficulty we have is that we would very much like to have seen some reasonableness in terms of the government's position on this bill. As the House knows, I suggested a process for that, but unfortunately that's not going to happen. I will try again today to show to the minister where I think there are some very distinct weaknesses in this bill, why I think the thing should be totally rewritten and why we should have a decent, respectable and fair residential tenancy bill in the province of British Columbia.

Before I get into specifics, Mr. Chairman, I want to make it quite clear that we feel a bill should be fair to both landlords and tenants. The minister has said that in our criticisms we are attacking landlords per se. What we're trying to say is that there has to be a piece of legislation that ensures there is equity between those two groups. Our concern is that there is not equity between the two groups. The other major concern is that in the application of this bill there are going to be great complications, and cumbersome kinds of approaches, through the courts, through arbitrators, through charges of $30, which may affect many people — and we'll get to that section later on. People won't be able to afford that kind of process. I hope the minister will take that into consideration.

Application. Under tnew prhe ovision of section 2(2)(d), this act does not apply to leases of over 20 years. According to the definition in section 1, a fixed-term tenancy agreement is "a tenancy agreement with a predetermined expiry date." Government policy is to allow tenancy agreements to last over 20 years. It's a radical departure, in our estimation, and a back-door way of recreating the problems that faced 99-year leaseholders until a few years ago. The minister is aware that I have also written to him about some existing and continuing problems of 99-year leaseholders. I'm hoping he will be reacting to that separately from this bill. The government, to their credit, acted to ban 99-year leases. The 99-year leaseholders found that they had practically no control over the terms of their tenancy or the standards of maintenance of their building.

Mr. Chairman, I have some concerns about the concept that's coming in here with this 20-year kind of approach and I have some specific questions for the minister on this topic. First, 99-year leaseholders are classified as homeowners for the purposes of a homeowner grant. Again, my predecessor, Mr. Barber, was instrumental in convincing the government that that was a right thing to do, and the government agreed. Is it now the policy of the government to classify 19-year leaseholders as homeowners? If not, why not?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, the member will know that the previous Residential Tenancy Act did not apply for a tenancy agreement term exceeding three years. Under the new legislation, section 2 of the tenancy agreement is for a term exceeding 20 years. So there's an improvement in that area.

MR. BLENCOE: I'm not particularly satisfied with that answer but also suspect that we're not going to get any particular change.

Let me ask another question. It is common practice for landlords to use printed lease forms when letting premises to tenants. Is it the policy of the government that the doctrine of contra proferentern — that's the formal title — should apply? That is that where there is an ambiguity in a document it shall be interpreted unfavourably to the party putting it forward.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I must admit I'm not sure what the member is asking in using Latin terminology, I guess it is. But with regard to the leasehold under 20 years, this legislation would apply. That may answer his question.

[ Page 4356 ]

MR. BLENCOE: In these printed lease forms that are going to be put together there is no guarantee that if there is an ambiguity in the document — and one of the difficulties in these lease forms is that there often is ambiguity — it shall be interpreted in favour of the party putting it forward. That's my concern. What happens is that the other side.... If we don't have some statement about ambiguity, the tenant or the leaseholder gets the short end of the stick. I am just trying to suggest to you, Mr. Minister, that there are all sorts of problems that are going to come forward in this particular area. Are you aware of that potential ambiguity, and will you consider trying to clarify that in terms of this doctrine that I have suggested?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, if we have two parties entering into a contract — i.e. a leasehold agreement — I am hopeful that both parties will recognize the value of the written word and how it is interpreted. However, where there is an issue of ambiguity or of anything else relating to that contract, I guess that would be a matter for the courts to decide.

MR. BLENCOE: You see, Mr. Chairman, that's the very point I've been trying to make in this whole debate about ambiguity. Going into the courts is a long, complicated, cumbersome process, whereas right now, if the rentalsman's office were maintained and improved, these kinds of things could be dealt with by the rentalsman, and we would not end up with lawyers getting fat fees and the courts being bogged down with these kinds of cases. I can assure the minister that we are going to get ambiguity. It should be decided in an informal way, as we have in the rentalsman's office now. That's my criticism, Mr. Minister. You say this is going to streamline the system. I suggest, and I think you know, that it's not going to streamline the system. If you don't ensure that you take care of ambiguity and have an informal process — by an objective person like a rentalsman officer, rather than the court system.... Why go to that extreme system when you have one in place now that can work out this kind of problem?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I must remind the committee now that we are really entering into debate which would be properly canvassed under second reading. We are in committee and we are discussing section 2 specifically, which deals with the application of the act, and further indicates how the act would not apply. If we can limit our debate to that specific clause before us, the committee will be well served.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, the application, of course, does apply to the concept of tenancy agreements, and I'm talking about ambiguity in tenancy agreements. The minister has just made a statement on ambiguity that I can't agree with. They are going into the court system, and the point I'm trying to make is: why go that route when you can use the office of the rentalsman as it is now — a far cheaper way? I'll leave it there, and go to the next question for the minister. I'm not going to stay long on these things, but I'm trying to suggest to the minister and to the public that this bill is full of so many problems that you are going to create havoc and great cost to the taxpayer.

My third question under the section 2 application is: what protection is there for a tenant whose prospective landlord uses a home-printed tenancy agreement that does not comply with the requirements of sections 5-8 and 10-17 of this bill?

HON. MR. HEWITT: First I want to clear up the previous comment that the member made. When I mentioned the courts considering the concern of both parties on a long-term lease, I assumed they might opt for the courts; but they could opt for the arbitration system, Mr. Member. I would point out to the member that the Residential Tenancy Act that is in existence at the present time doesn't prescribe written leases between parties.

Although I haven't had an opportunity to quickly swing to the other sections that the member referred to, my understanding is that such tenancy agreement would be unenforceable.

[3:15]

MR. BLENCOE: My fourth question to the minister is in an area which again, I think, revolves around this 20-year lease problem. By entering into a tenancy agreement of over 20 years, landlords will be able to evade the limited protections offered to tenants under this bill. For example, a fixed-term tenancy agreement, while the term of the agreement may be 20 years, may also contain a clause giving the landlord the right to terminate on certain notice, and that notice may be less than the amount set out in the act. Since this bill favours and is leaning toward the owners of property — and I think that in five hours I did manage to put some of those concerns over that all I want is fairness between the two groups, that landlords should have rights and tenants should have rights — what is there to stop all landlords insisting, on pain of eviction, that under section 29(4)(b) all tenancy agreements shall be fixed term, and such agreements subject to termination on, say, a week's notice?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, again, attempting to get an opportunity to investigate the question that the member's asking, I'm going to refer to his previous question and refer him to section 3(5) with regard to tenancy agreements that are in conflict with the act.

With regard to his last question concerning fixed-term agreements, where the landlord may insist on a shorter period of time with regard to the vacating of the property because it is a fixed-term agreement, I'd suggest to the member that the tenant, in understanding the terms of that agreement, would not enter into them. This would be prior to the tenant taking occupancy of the apartment, or whatever it might be. If the fixed-term agreement had conditions which the prospective tenant did not agree with, he wouldn't sign the agreement.

MR. BLENCOE: Where the tenancy agreement is for over 20 years — the minister can tell that I'm concerned about this 20-year section — why is there no requirement to register this agreement on the title deed at the land titles office?

HON. MR. HEWITT: If it's a leasehold, there is a requirement to file in the land registry office. If it's a tenancy agreement, there is not.

MR. BLENCOE: Would you not suggest that a 20-year tenancy agreement does give some indication of a fairly permanent situation and that there should be some requirement for registration or something so that at least the tenant

[ Page 4357 ]

knows that the deed or something is registered on that particular aspect? I think that's a point the minister should take up. I'm not going to get into an argument about it; I'm just again today pointing out what I consider to be some real problems with this bill.

In another area, I want to ask the minister if he has decided to bring forward amendments to the definition of the phrase "fixed-term tenancy agreement" to expand its meaning and deal with the shortcomings identified here. Or is it the policy of the government that all landlords should make all tenancy agreements fixed terms to avoid the Residential Tenancy Act?

HON. MR. HEWITT: I've attempted to answer all the questions with regard to fixed-term tenancy agreements and the fact that leases are dealt with one way and tenancy agreements another, and where the act applies and where it does not. The member opposite calls them shortcomings of the legislation. I don't agree. I think these tenancy agreements, whether leasehold or otherwise, give both parties the opportunity to understand the value of entering into that agreement.

With regard to a lease agreement and to registering it in the land titles office, it's possibly equally to the landlord's advantage to register a long-term document as it is to the tenant's advantage. So both parties, I think, are treated fairly in this regard, regarding the application of the act in section 2.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Fixed-term tenancy agreements are discussed in section 1, hon. members. We are on section 2.

MR. BLENCOE: Well, fixed-term tenancy agreements are also referred to in the application of the act in this section. The problem is that many of these sections do refer to all sorts of situations, and they repeat themselves in terms of terminology and parts of the act.

I have a supplementary question to that particular question I was asking. If it becomes clear, Mr. Minister, in this fixed terminancy kind of situation, that landlords are using it to avoid the Residential Tenancy Act, are you prepared to take some action on that particular consequence? As you know and I know, this 99-year-lease problem created all sorts of headaches, not only for the tenant but also for the government. I'm really concerned that we're going to have a repeat of the 99-year lease: no protection, and no act covering these leaseholders. If it becomes a problem — if they clearly are trying to get around the Residential Tenancy Act — are you prepared to take some action?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Basically, nothing has changed from the previous act with regard to this matter. Under the previous act, however, a landlord, in having a tenant sign an agreement prior to moving in, would then have him sign the eviction notice before he moved in as well, so that the landlord would have in his hand the tenancy agreement and the signed eviction notice which really said that the tenant had agreed to notice of eviction on a certain date.

MR. BLENCOE: I don't think that has clarified.... I still think I have brought up a good point, Mr. Chairman. I think it's going to become an issue, and the minister can't avoid it. Hopefully he won't continue to avoid some of the problems I've put to him about the 99-year leases still in place. Now we've got the 20-year lease situation. I suspect that these 20-year tenancy arrangements are going to be a way to avoid this Residential Tenancy Act. I was always surprised that people got into 99-year lease situations, but I suspect that 20-year lease arrangements are probably going to attract even more attention. I think you're going to have to apply some regulations in the Residential Tenancy Act to this kind of situation.

I believe subsection 2(2)(e) requires some clarification, Mr. Chairman. Reading this with subsection 7(2), the act would apply to summer cottages and winter chalets rented during the off-season, but not in season. Is this what the government intends? If so, can they not clarify the wording of this section?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, the member moves from one section to another. In section 2 the intent, as you can appreciate, is with regard to "summer cottages, winter chalets or other similar recreational premises rented on a seasonal basis. Motels are quite often rented on a month-to-month basis throughout the winter, but come May 24 it becomes the tourist season, and the owner of that motel might wish the opportunity to rent on a weekly or daily basis to the tourist trade. Going through to section 7, the member talks about the clearing up of that particular section. I'm not sure of the need to clean it up or to improve on it. It seems fairly clear to me that this allows for the landlord to rent seasonal premises as regular accommodation, but it also gives him the protection of being able to ask the person to vacate at the end of that term in order to to use the premises for what they were intended, i.e., tourist accommodation.

MR. BLENCOE: The minister does make a point.

Fair enough. Give him his due. I don't believe we should be totally...honourable.

I'm still on section 2, the terms of application. This is a major area of concern. The act does not apply to residents of rooming houses, which are treated under the Hotel Keepers Act. The government recognized that the residents of rooming houses were entitled to protection and passed the appropriate amendments to the Residential Tenancy Act. The amendments were never proclaimed, because the government received representations — it is my understanding — from motel and hotel operators outside of the lower mainland, where there were few, if any, long-term occupants of hotels and motels. Given that the government perceives this as a geographically limited problem, why has the government not provided that the act apply to inns within areas specified by regulation or by municipalities by motion? I think it's a point, Mr. Minister, that has come up consistently. We had some suggested amendments, but they are still unproclaimed. There are people who reside permanently in those hotels and motels, yet thus far they are not included. Why? Perhaps you could consider that. Maybe the minister would comment on that.

HON. MR. HEWITT: On the examples that the member gives with regard to hotels where people have taken up occupancy, they are considered a licence situation, where the hotel can rent the room for a week or a day; as a result, this act does not apply. This act is looking at apartment accommodation, not at facilities that can be rented on a daily or weekly basis. In effect, they are probably licensed as a hotel. If there

[ Page 4358 ]

was a change in that designation and they were identified as an apartment, then of course this act would apply.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

MR. BLENCOE: We still have a problem. Again, the minister and I are obviously not going to agree.

I'll give you a suggestion, Mr. Minister; maybe you would want to take it away and consider it. If municipalities were empowered — I'll give you a suggestion, Mr. Minister, and maybe you would like to take it away and consider it — to extend the protection of the Residential Tenancy Act to rooming houses, then the interests of tenants could be protected while preventing motel-owners from being locked into a policy that deals with a problem not prevalent in their area. I think that's an option that should be considered. When I was on local council, this rooming-house thing came up all the time, and unfortunately we weren't in any position to do anything about it because the Residential Tenancy Act did not do anything about it. But as a local council we would have liked to have had something to say about it, particularly in downtown areas where the occupants of such rooming houses often are those less fortunate with less income. Often they have a number of economic and social problems. I think it's most unfortunate that that kind of occupancy is not taken care of and these kinds of amendments that have been suggested have not been put forward. I leave that there just as a suggestion to the minister.

I know that if we were in government we would certainly — of course, if we were in government we wouldn't have introduced such a bill — introduce a bill that would protect rooming-house occupants.

[3:30]

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: We'll see in a few years. I'm not a betting person. I think the people of B.C. are getting the message slowly but surely about what should be a reasonable government.

There are thousands in hotels permanently, and they are entitled to protection. They are entitled to the same rights as ordinary tenants might have. Unfortunately, under this bill not even ordinary tenants have many rights.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, very briefly, we're talking rooming houses. The member knows they weren't covered under the previous legislation. He can also appreciate the difficulty in administering such things as the tenancy in rooming houses, where people rent a room and maybe also have board. It would be difficult, to say the least, to determine the residential tenancy in such an instance. It's the same with hotels, under common law. It's termed a licence. The person can take a room by a day or by a week. I'm sure the member recognizes that when they introduced the Residential Tenancy Act that has been in existence for a number of years, they also identified that same problem. Therefore in their legislation that dealt with the rentalsman's office, they did not include rooming houses and hotels. Mr. Chairman, it's very interesting to hear the member say that they would have done it or they will do it, hopefully, sometime in the future. But I suggest that they will never have the opportunity. I'm confident that the previous administration, when the NDP were in office, also recognized the difficulty and the problem with identifying those tenancies which were in hotels or rooming  houses.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

MR. BLENCOE: I won't take up too much time with this, Mr. Chairman, but I do have a couple of issues and concerns. I hope we get some response from the minister.

The present Residential Tenancy Act, Mr. Minister, provides that an offence is committed where a landlord fails to include a term or condition required to be included or includes a term or condition prohibited from being included. This new bill removes that offence clause. While we are always open to evidence that suggests this bill is really not a landlord's bill, we ask the minister what his reasons were for dropping that section.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, in drafting the new bill we consolidated the offences under section 52, which the member will be coming to later on.

MR. BLENCOE: That is not quite a satisfactory answer, Mr. Chairman, because I happen to feel that the existence of that clause was obviously successful in seicuring a hgh degree of compliance. The problem is not with the vast majority of landlords whom I certainly believe can be trusted, but with the very small minority that can't.

HON. MR. HEWITT: You've changed your tune since the other day.

MR. BLENCOE: Well, you can interpret what I say.

I believe there is a minority that consistently try to rip off their tenants. I think that clause was specific. There were indeed very few prosecutions, but the fact that it was there secured a high degree of compliance. The credit for the clause belongs to the government. While the original Landlord and Tenant Act introduced by our government in 1975 contained a general offence provision, Rafe Mair, to his credit, placed this obligation on landlords in 1977. What has changed since then? Are the landlords so insistent that they want that specific compliance removed? We then get into ambiguity, in terms of section 52. It could very well be that the pressure is so intense that this is the sort of thing that is going to be removed. I happen to feel that we had very few prosecutions because it was clear. Rafe Mair saw it was clear. We had that section in there, and I believe it should still be there. The minister agrees?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, either I'm not with the member, or he is rambling. I want him to identify the section in the existing act tat he is referring to. I am having great difficulty in following him.

MR. BLENCOE: I don't have the exact clause of the act before me, Mr. Chairman, but there was indeed a section in there which I have been referring to. It was section 7 of the existing Residential Tenancy Act.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, in attempting to respond to the member, relating section 7 of the existing act to section 3 of the act we are debating, we have the statutory

[ Page 4359 ]

terms under section 3 which cover most, if not all, those which were in before. However, if the member can now look at section 3 and identify the one that is not in there but was in the old legislation, I may be able to respond to him regarding what the change is.

MR. BLENCOE: As I stated, Mr. Chairman, the present Residential Tenancy Act provides that an offence is committed where a landlord fails to include a term or condition required to be included or includes a term or condition prohibited from being included. This new bill removes that offence clause. The minister said it was included in section 52, or that they've just amalgamated certain things. I happen to believe that that kind of offence clause was indeed a useful one, and we don't have it today. I agree we have so many clauses.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, if a landlord does not follow the statutory terms set out in subsection 3, he commits an offence. All the offences are identified in section 52. These are statutory terms under subsection 3, and they are comparable to the old section 7, which was entitled "Covenants of All Tenancy Agreements."

Sections 3 to 6 inclusive approved.

On section 7.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, this is a fairly important one. I don't know if the minister has received the brief — which I think is an excellent one — from the Vancouver Community Legal Assistance Society. Have you received it? It may be in your mail somewhere.

HON. MR. HEWITT: What is the date?

MR. BLENCOE: April 10. It was sent special delivery to the Hon. James J. Hewitt, Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, from Allan MacLean. It lays out some of the problems that some very talented solicitors have with this bill. It is quite a long brief, because these lawyers feel there are indeed a lot of problems with this bill. I'm not going to go into all the various concerns they have, but section 7 is one they basically have a number of things to talk about. I want to explore it a little, not to get into a long tack back and forth, but just to point out that there are some ambiguities and problems with this particular section. This society advises in their brief that there is a large potential loophole contained in section 7(3): "A landlord and tenant may agree, in writing, at the time they enter into a fixed-term tenancy agreement that, notwithstanding subsection (1), the tenancy agreement is terminated on the predetermined expiry date." This should be changed in some way, Mr. Minister, to include only fixed terms of over six months, at least. The provision ought not to be left to regulation by the Lieutenant-Governor-inn-Coucil. We agree with the thrust of the comment made by.... I wish the minister had read this document, because I can't go into all of it — it's too long. But we think that the terms should be 12 months. Otherwise the intent of the act to have rent increases once a year will be circumvented.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I haven't had the opportunity to read the brief. As the member can appreciate, I have been reasonably busy. He's had the opportunity to read it. I will read it and consider its content. I'd refer him to section 7(6), which he himself has referred to in the bill, where the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may make regulations. After reviewing their brief, I may consider some of the items that they raise at the time we develop the regulations under the act.

MR. BLENCOE: Well, I hope the minister will look at this. It really is a major potential loophole. I hope the minister will post-haste introduce some changes, or as quickly as possible. The legal assistance society that I refer to has written you an excellent brief. I have to comment that that's one of the problems with what's happening here at the moment. This bill has come down very fast — it has been pushed through.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Nonsense.

MR. BLENCOE: It is being pushed through, Mr. Minister. The Sun and the Province are down. "Let's get a piece of legislation through as quickly as possible so those 400,000 tenants don't know what's going on." That's part of the game; that's politics.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Let's continue discussing section 7.

MR. BLENCOE: Section 7 is an important aspect.... What I'm trying to say is that I have indicated that a very respected legal assistance society has done a very detailed brief. It's unfortunate that the minister in his haste.... He's being overworked. He really should back off a little bit and take a look at some of these learned opinions that are coming in. Mr. Minister, I think it's going to help you. If you go ahead with this bill as is, you're going to have headache after headache.

I would like to move that this particular section be deleted.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Hon. member, if you want to delete this, all you have to do is vote against it when we call section 7.

MR. BLENCOE: You don't move motions of deletion?

HON. MR. HEWITT: No, you just vote against it. And we outnumber you.

[3:45]

Section 7 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 30

NAYS — 13

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

Section 8 approved.

[ Page 4360 ]

On section 9.

MR. BLENCOE: Section 9 provides for the application to the courts or to the arbitrator for orders dealing with repairs. "An order under this section may contain terms respecting costs, expenses, remuneration and any other necessary matters." Does this give arbitrators the discretion to award costs?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Section 9(4) relates to terms respecting costs regarding the repairs involved.

MR. BLENCOE: Maybe the minister can clear this up, because it seems to me that this particular section appears to conflict with section 49(5).

HON. MR. HEWITT: Jesus, we're onto 49(5) now?

MR. BLENCOE: Well, it's a long bill, Mr. Minister.

Section 49(5) says: "Subsection (4) does not affect the rights or liabilities of persons between whom, at common law, there is this privity of contract or privity of estate." This 49(5) appears to limit the costs to the amount of the filing fee. Does this mean that costs may be awarded only under repair and service orders under section 9?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Section 9(4) relates to the cost involved with regard to the repair. It may well relate to the expenses incurred, the costs of the repair, the remuneration, if there were moneys expended by the tenant, and any other necessary matters. That section does not relate to "damages," or that type of cost.

Sections 9 to 15 inclusive approved.

On section 16.

MR. BLENCOE: This section deals with a refund of damage deposits.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Security deposits.

MR. BLENCOE: Security deposits. Actually, before I get into that, in the brief that I mentioned before they make a good case for totally doing away with security deposits. But I won't get into that today.

HON. MR. HEWITT: The landlords don't.

MR. BLENCOE: I know. But if you feel you have a case in terms of damage to your building.... You're using the argument that you can go to court for so many other things; why can't you sue in court a tenant who damages your building? Get rid of the security deposit. I would suggest that the answer you give to me on court proceedings for so many other things could be used for security deposits too.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: I'll deal with it, Mr. Member. I just thought it was a point that was worth making.

Subsection (3) says: "After the termination of a tenancy agreement, the landlord and tenant may agree to waive the requirements of subsection (2)." I don't like "waiving" clauses. My question to the minister: what constitutes waiving? The act is silent on this point. A tenant, for example, could find themselves faced with a landlord who alleges that the tenant waived their rights to a written statement, or even to repayment of the deposit. The act is silent on this point. What constitutes waiving, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, the matter of waiving would have to be mutual consent of both parties.

MR. BLENCOE: I have another question. What protection is there for a tenant whose landlord insists that a waiver of the repayment provisions be included in the tenancy agreement? There isn't any. At the very least, the rights waiver should be in writing. That's our feeling.

HON. MR. HEWITT: With regard to a condition in the tenancy agreement, the member must recognize that that would be before the tenant-moves into the accommodation. If he was not satisfied with that, of course he wouldn't have to move in, and he would look elsewhere. But with regard to the matter of waiving, subsection (4) says: "After the termination of a tenancy agreement, the landlord and tenant may agree to waive the requirements of subsection (2)," which deals with the accounting for security deposits 30 days after termination of the tenancy agreement. If the tenancy agreement was to carry on, then there would be no need to give the accounting. If both parties determine that after termination they wish to waive it, they have that right — the two of them. What the member fails to understand, Mr. Chairman, is that there are two parties to this contract. Prior to any conclusion being reached, both parties must have discussions and be in agreement. If the tenant feels that the landlord has done something devious and never discussed it, of course he has the ability to go via the arbitration procedure that we've put in place.

MR. BLENCOE: I know there are two parties, and the case I'm trying to make is that if there are two parties, there should be rules that deal fairly with both.

Sections 16 through 20 inclusive approved.

On section 21.

[4:00]

MR. BLENCOE: This is the "Rent increase with intent to evict" clause, which is one that I think is going to be controversial and will create some problems. I said in my speech that proving intent is going to be extremely difficult, and of course you have to go to court to do it. The point I make is that if you can't afford the rent increase, you're not going to be able to afford to go to court.

Mobile-home owners have the right to apply to the courts to set aside a rent increase and thus forestall eviction. We believe this right should also be extended to tenants. The right to apply for compensation afterwards is a hollow remedy, in my estimation. To prove beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law that the landlord had an expectation or intention that the tenant would move is an oppressive burden, in my estimation, to place on the tenant. Intention is a notoriously elusive concept. A landlord who is able to re-rent the premises at a rent of 90 percent or more to a new tenant has an absolute defence against an action by the previous tenant. All a landlord has to do is rent to a relative, make the

[ Page 4361 ]

transaction purely on paper, and there is absolutely nothing the previous tenant can do. Mr. Minister, to deal with these objections, we would like to see some changes to this section. I think you're going to have to make these changes, and I'm going to suggest them to you, for the record. Maybe in six months or a year from now, if not before, we'll see it before this House.

The first would give the same right to all tenants as mobile-home owners have to appeal to the courts. The second would impose a threshold increase of 15 percent, above which the onus shifts to the landlord to justify the increase. Third, delete the references to intent or expectation on the part of the landlord that the tenant would move on if the landlord handed down an increase. The fourth would remove the requirement that a tenant vacate before beginning action. I think the last one is really the most ridiculous component in this section. You're out of your premises before you can start an action; then you've got to get a lawyer and go to court and prove intent; it could be months down the road. I conclude, Mr. Minister, that this section is really window-dressing, to give the impression to the public that you are concerned about economic eviction. But you're not prepared to put any teeth into that section. I think section 21 is one of the areas that is going to create all sorts of hardships, and it is an area that I don't think you are dealing with properly.

I want to go through and state this learned brief, which the minister has not yet read — I wish he had. It's the Vancouver Community Legal Assistance Society brief on this bill.

MR. REID: Have you got extra copies?

MR. BLENCOE: The minister has a copy. It was addressed to him. I've read it even before he has.

MR. REID: We'd like to be able to follow you.

MR. BLENCOE: The onus is on the minister. He is the minister of the Crown. He's bringing in this act. He is responsible, I believe, for taking account of learned journals like this.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. Section 21.

MR. BLENCOE: The member for Surrey is a little anxious these days.

Economic eviction. I'm going to quote directly from the brief:

"Section 21 provides that a tenant evicted after and as a result of a rent increase may apply to the court for compensation. Mobile-home owners, however, may apply to set aside the rent increase and thus forestall eviction: section 21(4)."

All tenants should have this right, according to this learned brief. A right to apply for compensation afterwards is no remedy at all, as I have already said and the brief has said.

"We believe also that section 21 should stipulate a threshold rent increase, say 15 percent, beyond which the onus for justification shifts to the landlord. Section 2(4)(h) requires that a court or arbitrator be convinced that a landlord gives the increase with the expectation or intention of forcing eviction. This may well prove an unjustifiably high burden. Intention is a notoriously elusive concept. If the government is truly interested in preventing the use of rent increases as eviction tools, it will be necessary to require land lords to justify unusually high rent increases where questioned by the tenant."

Mr. Minister, I believe we have a situation now under rent review, which you are going to remove by this act.... We no longer have rent review in the province of British Columbia. I believe that nearly everybody supported the concept of rent review. This kind of economic eviction clause could basically be taken care of if you had a system of rent review. If a tenant can prove that that rent is unjustified in terms of the marketplace, or whatever criteria they can use, then you have a rentalsman's officer or what you call an arbitrator able to deal with that kind of huge rent increase and make a decision. If you're out of your apartment and you go to court, you have to go through this incredible problem of proving intent.

I say, Mr. Minister, and I sincerely mean it: this particular clause does not take care of economic eviction, as you purport to state to the public. It's window-dressing; it gives the impression of fairness, but I think that over the next year or so thousands of tenants in British Columbia are going to face economic eviction but will not be able to prove intent. Not only will they not be able to prove intent, but they won't be able to afford lawyers. Mr. Minister, if you're going to make tenants go to court, at least try to convince the Attorney-General to give those who can't afford lawyers legal aid. Do you recognize that under your bill, you're forcing tenants into the courts? Those thousands of British Columbians who won't be able to afford courts or lawyers have no way of on, paying for the court system that you say is their right. What are you doing to tenants? Your section 21 is just a glossy piece of work, in my estimation, to try to give the impression of fairness. The thousands of people who can't afford lawyers — those on social assistance or those who are unemployed — can't even get legal aid to go to court to defend their rights or to try to even prove intent. It's economic eviction, Mr. Minister.

I ask you to have the guts to stand up to whoever is convincing you that you should declare that tenants, who cannot afford it, should not be able to protect themselves in court. I don't know who is putting the pressure on you, but at least have a system whereby a tenant could apply to what we used to have as a review process, rather than going to a court system and not being able to afford it.

The process in a civilized society is that if a person feels he has been impacted upon, or the law has been broken, he has the right to be represented in court by someone who is qualified to do that. There are going to be thousands of British Columbians who will be able to go to court and prove that their tenant or their landlord is breaking all sorts of regulations and rules, but there is no support mechanism for thousands of British Columbians who don't have the money to go to court. They are being denied their legal rights. I think, Mr. Minister, that much of this bill will not stand up constitutionally. Section 21 will not stand up to a constitutional challenge, because you are denying British Columbians the right to legal representation. Currently under the legal aid system you cannot get legal aid to go to court for this kind of matter. You are institutionalizing the denial of justice and the protection of law to thousands of British Columbians. Section 21 should be immediately withdrawn and rewritten to ensure that tenants are not evicted on economic grounds.

[ Page 4362 ]

I know that this minister hears this, but, unfortunately, credible intense pressure from landlords, owners and corporations or properties with vested interests are pressuring this minister to pass this piece of legislation, particularly section 21. Economic eviction will become law in British Columbia. It will be institutionalized in British Columbia. I contend that this section, and much else of this bill, is unconstitutional. It violates basic freedoms and rights of British Columbians and Canadians and should be immediately challenged in the highest court of this land. The minister should be taken to the highest court of this land for daring to bring down this kind of legislation and this particular section. You are denying thousands of British Columbians their legal rights to protect their homes, their families and their financial status.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I'm not going to say any more; I think it's been said. Suffice to say that we do feel most strongly about this section, as we feel about other sections. I would ask the minister to have some guts and determination and do the honourable thing: go to his cabinet and say, "Yes, section 21 is denying the constitutional rights of thousands of British Columbians." They won't be able to prove intent; they won't be able to buy a lawyer, because they won't be able to get the finances to do it. If you're going to use the courts to protect rights, you've got to ensure that British Columbians can afford those courts. That's Canadian. We've fought long and hard in this country over the years so that if somebody feels their rights are being denied, that someone is breaking the law against them.... You're insisting that they have to go to court to protect their rights under your legislation, Mr. Minister. If tenants are going to have to go to court to prove eviction through economics, then give them the ability to go to court to defend their homes. You'd better have a word with the Attorney-General as quickly as possible. In my estimation, this section is unconstitutional, and it should be immediately removed.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I don't know how to answer that member. He carries on in such a way that.... He must think that every landlord in the province of British Columbia is crooked and unscrupulous, and has nothing better to do than to figure out devious ways in which to evict tenants. The tenant does have the legal right that the member is so concerned about. It happens to be in section 21, which does give him the availability of the courts, should he wish to go to court. If that member stopped to think for a minute, in this democratic country, that the public of British Columbia and of Canada supply millions of dollars to provide a court system so that every citizen has the right to go to court....

Not only does that member now wish to have that system maintained, but he also now is demanding of the taxpayers of the province that they should pay the person's way into court. Mr. Chairman, there is a limit on what the taxpayer of a province or a country can do and can afford to do. It's time that the New Democratic Party recognized that money doesn't grow on trees and that there is value in determining whether the dispute is serious enough to justify either the court or, in the case of the mobile-home owner, arbitration or the court.

[4:15]

I want to deal first of all with the mobile-home owner. The mobile-home owner has a valuable asset — his mobile home; his home — on a rented piece of property. Where, in his opinion, it is a case where the landlord, the mobile-home park operator, wishes to evict by a massive rent increase — 200 percent or 300 percent; from $200 a month to $600 a month — knowing that the tenant can't pay it.... With regard to the mobile-home owner, he has the right, of course, to go to arbitration or to court prior to eviction, because of the value of the asset in which he lives. That's fair, and I was very concerned about the mobile-home owners.

With regard to tenants, where a massive rent increase takes place, if the tenant makes that determination that he can't afford to pay that massive rent increase, section 21 gives him recourse in regard to when that accommodation was rented out, and at what value. In subsection (2) it says: "On the written request of the former tenant...the landlord shall disclose in writing to that tenant (a) whether or not the residential premises formerly occupied by the tenant have been re-rented within two months...and (b) the amount of rent...being paid...." So there's nothing that the landlord can do. He must comply with the act, and if he is asked in writing for that information, he must give it. If it is proven that he used the massive rent increase to evict the tenant, then that landlord must recognize his obligation and the penalty he will pay, which is that he will have to pay to the former tenant the actual and reasonable costs of moving to his new accommodation and he must also "compensate the tenant for additional expenses incurred or which may be incurred by the tenant including, for a period up to 12 months, any increased rent or portion of it that the tenant was obliged or may be obliged to pay."

So what we've really put in this, recognizing that without the rent control system the tenant may be faced with an instance of an unscrupulous landlord — not all landlords are crooked, Mr. Member, which you'd like to lead this House to believe — is the opportunity for the tenant to get justice and to get compensated for his move and for the additional rent that he would have to pay. I'd also advise the member that it's not necessary to have that "high-priced lawyer" in court with you. You don't have to have that lawyer with you in the county court system. You're not obliged to have him.

The one thing we must recognize, I guess — and which in most cases is recognized by both parties, because we have many instances where tenants are given a proper eviction notice, and they leave that premise — is that it's usually because the relationship between the landlord and the tenant has broken down. I guess if you have the instance where you have that relationship breaking down, both parties would like to part. What we find in the debate in this House, and from many of the groups or individuals who have exercised themselves over the past few months by coming to see me and having discussions, is that we're dealing with those, you might say, exceptions to the normal process of landlord and tenant relationships when one wishes to vacate or the other wishes to have an eviction. But section 21 does address the question of the rent increase that is put into place to evict the tenant.

I advise the member that I will review the brief dated April 10, to which he refers; but, as he can appreciate, I haven't had the opportunity to read it as yet. If there are areas in there where we feel there should be changes made, we can, of course, deal with those at a future date, either under regulations, or, if necessary — because nothing is etched in stone in legislation — with an amendment.

[ Page 4363 ]

MR. BLENCOE: I am going to finish on this, but the minister's argument has got a huge hole in it that you can drive a truck through, in terms of the courts. He has accused me of wanting to spend taxpayers' money to defend people in the court system. With respect, Mr. Minister, you are the one who is writing into this legislation that tenants have got to go to court. If tenants have got to go to court, don't you agree...?

HON. MR. HEWITT: On monetary issues.

MR. BLENCOE: So what? They've got to go to court. If they have to go to court, shouldn't they be properly represented? Don't they have the right to ensure that they have someone who understands? You and I know that trying to interpret this legislation does take a lawyer, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. HEWITT: That's not on this bill, Mr. Member; you know that.

MR. BLENCOE: If you are forcing people into the court system to defend their rights, then you have an obligation to ensure that they can go to that court system. It's not me that's going to cost the taxpayer of British Columbia, it's you, because right now we have a system in this province — the rentalsman's office — that is cost-effective and doesn't use the court system, as you are going to. We have a rentalsman's office that is unbiased and objective, and can resolve these kinds of problems without going to the court system. If you are going to use the courts, and you are going to throw tenants into the courts to protect their rights or their rents, or whatever, then you have an obligation to ensure that they can protect themselves in that court system, that they can afford to go to court. I am saying that there are thousands of British Columbians who won't be able to afford a lawyer and court time. You know what it costs these days. You haven't resolved that issue. If the only way they can get recourse and defend themselves by your act is to go into the courts, then you have some responsibility to ensure that tenants can go into the courts. But many of them won't be able to. They won't have the funds to do it, Mr. Minister. You are forcing that.

If you consider this particular course of action, there may be such an outcry that people may have to insist on having some aid to defend their rights, and you are going to force the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) to look at the whole funding program for legal aid and put up huge costs again. I prefer to have non-lawyers dealing with this in an informal situation, rather than pay the exorbitant lawyers' fees that are going to be needed for people to go to the court system. Mr. Minister, we have an efficient system now that will resolve these kinds of problems, rather than give more and more money to the legal profession. Use that system and don't throw it out.

The bottom line, Mr. Minister, is that as a minister of the Crown responsible for administering the law and for ensuring that every citizen has equal access to the law, and as a minister who is saying that they now have to go to court to protect their rights — it says it right in here that for money items you have got to go to court — you have a responsibility to ensure that every British Columbian and every tenant who wants to go to court is going to be able to. You are forcing them into that position. I contend, Mr. Minister, that by this act — which you say is so good — you are cutting off thousands of British Columbians from their so-called legal rights, because they won't be able to do it. Section 21 is not worth the paper it was written on. I'll leave it there. But, Mr. Minister, you are going to have to deal with that problem.

Sections 21 and 22 approved.

On section 23.

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

Amendment approved.

Section 23 as amended approved.

Sections 24 to 28 inclusive approved.

On section 29.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, this is an important section that I want to speak to a little bit and get the minister to comment upon. "Notice of termination; landlord use of property." I'll have to get my eyes checked; it's getting difficult to read this stuff. Passage of this section as it stands, in my estimation, Mr. Chairman, will seriously erode municipal control over redevelopment, demolition and conversion to long-term lease. As the minister is aware, conversions, strata-titling, etc., under existing legislation require municipal permission be granted. I know I was involved in this numerous times when I was on Victoria city council. Basically, it is to ensure that there is a good supply of rental accommodation and that overnight we don't have a great displacement of tenants for massive strata conversion kinds of situations.

The Real Estate Act and the Condominium Act will continue to require municipal consent, but section 29 of this act does not require consent before tenants are evicted. Section 29(5), requiring notice of application for conversion, is useless as a protection for tenants, in my estimation. Landlords will evict first, and the approving authorities will be faced with the application to convert empty buildings. Again, Mr. Chairman, we prefer the existing statute which your government placed on the books, and we feel you should not be taking that away. Municipal control of this situation has been well utilized. It also allows, when you have that municipal kind of control, that both sides in the case are heard. I heard many times tenants and those who wanted to convert — and I have to say that sometimes we went in favour of tenants because there weren't mitigating circumstances benefiting the landlord, and sometimes we favoured the landlord who wanted to convert. It was a fair system. I guess we were the arbitrators. But you're removing that process from municipal government. I think this is going to be another issue you're going to be facing, and I don't think you should take away that local component — that local access — to this particular kind of conversion, redevelopment or demolition kind of situation.

The minister may wish to comment.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I'm sure the member is aware that section 29(5) indicates that the landlord, before making application to convert or before converting

[ Page 4364 ]

premises into a strata-title or residential premises described in section 2, must give notice of his application or intention to the tenant occupying or the prospective tenant of the premises.

MR. BLENCOE: So what?

HON. MR. HEWITT: It gives the tenant an opportunity to have notice prior to the event taking place. I guess if it's a case of rezoning or a case of having an opportunity to discuss with the man who owns the property what the future of that property is, possibly bringing to his attention the benefits of leaving it in the present state — that's an opportunity for the tenant. But at least the tenant is aware of what's going to happen and proper notice has to be given to vacate after it happens. That, I think, does assist the tenant in dealing with that type of issue.

MR. BLENCOE: It still doesn't deal with the fact that local council has had some say in these areas. I think it's worked well. Again, what we're doing is taking away the checks and balances that gave tenants some degree of security in the existing piece of legislation. Once again we're taking one of those checks and balances away.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I'd just like to respond. You recognize, of course, that if it's a conversion to a strata-title, the Condominium Act applies. Of course, the municipality must approve a strata-title arrangement under the Condominium Act.

MR. BLENCOE: Yes.

HON. MR. HEWITT: If it is a cooperative, they require approval under the Cooperative Act with regard to cooperative housing.

MR. BLENCOE: But you know and I know that any existing rental accommodation.... Currently if a person wishes to change it from rental to a strata kind of situation, the local council has some input into that particular situation. They can say no.

HON. MR. HEWITT: They do under the Condominium Act — that's what I'm saying.

[4:30]

MR. BLENCOE: Under the Condominium Act? I don't recall any coming forward under the Condominium Act. They always came forward under this residential tenancy situation.

MR. REE: ...rezoning.

MR. BLENCOE: No, no, not rezoning. This is not a rezoning. This is changing rental accommodation to strata. It was clearly stated in the Residential Tenancy Act — and the minister knows this — that prior to that, municipal approval had to be granted. When I was there, it always came to us under that act. I think it was a useful kind of stipulation.

Just a question for the minister: if in the next few months or the next year or so we do get a massive kind of conversion to strata of existing rental accommodation, thereby displacing tenants, is that something that the minister is prepared to take some action on? I suspect it's going to happen, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I think the member could get an answer to his concern with regard to the approvals under section 9 of the Condominium Act.

MR. BLENCOE: What does it say?

HON. MR. HEWITT: I wish you hadn't asked. I just closed the book. I will request that you read it yourself, but I'll oblige.

Section 9 says: "On conversion into strata-title lots of a previously occupied building by an owner developer, the approving authority may approve the strata plan, refuse to approve the strata plan or refuse to approve the strata plan until terms and conditions imposed by the approving authority are met. The decision is final."

MR. BLENCOE: I contend that that does not apply to existing rental accommodation with conversion to strata. Municipal councils have always had to deal with these conversions under the Residential Tenancy Act, and I think you can find that we will not have any clout in that act in terms of "existing." I believe this is a major loophole. Removing municipal control of conversions is not a good move, and I hope the minister will be prepared to take some action if he sees major changes coming in apartments being converted. We will watch that very carefully. I know I will be.

Section 29 approved.

On section 30.

MR. BLENCOE: Section 30 is compensation respecting section 29 notices. This is a clause that we had as a component in the existing Residential Tenancy Act, and it was one that sometimes did raise problems. I became involved with a number of tenants who felt it was being utilized unfairly. The current act specifies that the landlord "Shall pay the tenant without delay where the agreement is terminated so the landlord can use the property." The new act specifies the tenants have to go to court. My points of about ten minutes ago are still valid. Many won't be able to afford to go to court. We think the landlord should pay, without the necessity of going to small claims court. I'll give you an example in my riding. We have a woman who used to be in a suite on Yates Street. She rented it for $187. She was evicted so that the premises could be demolished and was forced to re-rent at over $300 on Rockland. She was paid for moving, together with Hydro and phone hookup, automatically. The law required Mrs. Mitchell to be treated sympathetically. Under the new bill, the law requires that she sue to recover moving expenses. That is ridiculous. Given the delay in small claims court, it would be over six months before she even got a hearing. We respectfully suggest, Mr. Minister, that seniors — and she is a senior who deserves better treatment — should not be required to absorb large moving expenses for that length of time. We believe and I believe that the existing law was good in this area. It required payment upon submission of a bill. Mr. Minister, we hope you will reconsider this particular section — going to court on this particular issue. Here is a case where I have a constituent in a situation where

[ Page 4365 ]

the existing legislation was good, and now you've got to go to court.

HON. MR. HEWITT: We really are dealing with the same issue that the member addressed in the previous section. He feels strongly that we should either deal with these issues under the arbitration system or be prepared to pay the costs of the person going to court.

Mr. Chairman, when I dealt with the changes to this legislation, I tried to address it from the point of view that where you were dealing with quiet enjoyment of accommodation, and where there were disputes, there should be an arbitration system to deal with those disputes. When we dealt with things other than that, i.e., monetary issues, after the fact, when the tenant was no longer in the premises, or with security deposits, we felt that those were contractual matters between the former tenant and the landlord. Section 30 deals with compensation relating to section 29 notices where the landlord or the owner determines that he wants to use the property for another use and he gives proper notice. He says to the tenant, "We're going to convert this into a strata lot" or "We're going to demolish it" or "We're going to do something else with it," and in good faith the tenant accepts that and moves out. Then he finds out at a later date that the landlord didn't live up to section 29. As a result, we have section 30 to deal with compensation concerning the fact that the landlord did not live up to that. There is an opportunity there for the former tenant to seek recourse through the court system. What the member is arguing is that the tenant shouldn't have to go that route. I just don't accept that. I feel that the court system can accommodate people who have those types of issues, and I address the question of a speedy, low-cost approach to resolving tenant disputes where the tenant is occupying the premises. So maybe with those comments I've given the member — although he won't agree with me; I notice he's shaking his head — some insight as to my feeling when I had the act drafted.

MR. BLENCOE: I know the minister is trying to convince the public that this act is going to streamline and make things effective and people will be able to get things done quickly. I've just given you a situation where a person is evicted. Currently they're entitled to some quick action. Under your new law they're going to have to wait six months; they're going to have to sue for it. What's quick about that? You've got a senior citizen who's on a fixed income who has been forced to move. I don't think I have to say any more. You're finding it difficult to defend this act; I know that. It's being forced upon you by outside interests — vested interests — and it's most unfortunate. Senior citizens, like the person I commented on here, are being thrown to the wolves by this piece of legislation. Unfortunately this government's political agenda, and whatever friends, is pushing this legislation through.... Senior citizens are going to be thrown to the wolves; no question about it. And he's not prepared to change that course of action. I'll say no more.

HON. MR. HEWITT: My staff have brought to my attention section 35, which may address some concern that the member has. Where the notice of termination is given, and the tenant wishes to dispute it before he goes out, he can dispute that notice with the arbitration system if he feels it is not in good faith.

Section 30 approved.

On section 31.

MR. BLENCOE: Section 31(1) provides that a landlord can terminate a tenancy "where a tenant has given reasonable cause." This is in addition to the "for cause" reasons listed in section 27, and the "change of use" reasons listed in section 29.

Mr. Chairman, we object to this provision for the following reasons. (1) It removes any certainty in landlord-tenant relationships. (2) It is impossible to tell tenants what "reasonable cause" means, except that we know it does not mean any of the tenant-fault grounds set out in section 27. (3) It will allow the discrimination in housing that Bill 11 professes to prohibit. (4) In no other sector do we protect people from personality differences. This section will impose burdens resulting from a deteriorating relationship exclusively on one party to the relationship. The tenant will have to move. (5) This section creates a huge loophole in the concept of security of tenure. In our estimation, it's effectively eviction without cause.

We believe this section should indeed be removed. It is totally unacceptable. It purports to take care of the so-called eviction without cause, but we believe the statement "for reasonable cause" is going to be so widely interpreted that it's going to be very difficult. We're going to have all sorts of evictions based on that particular section. Again, Mr. Minister, we object to this section. It should be thrown out, redrafted or something.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, this is one of the most important sections in the change from the original Bill 5, which said a landlord could evict a tenant without cause. In that bill we were attempting to identify the right of a landlord to do what he wished with his property. After discussion with both tenants and landlord groups.... When I met with the landlords' associations, they said: "Basically, Mr. Minister, we don't need that. We feel we can come up with reasonable cause. We're in the business of providing accommodation."

[4:45]

After meeting with the various groups, we amended the old Bill 5 and put in notice of determination related to reasonable cause. If the landlord gives the tenant notice and gives his cause under this section, the tenant has the right under section 35 to dispute that notice of eviction. If the member looks at section 35, it says that the tenant may appeal to a court. I would also refer him to section 13, which would indicate that that particular section 35 is included where the court or the court system could be the arbitrator. So the arbitrator is available to the tenant, without involving a lawyer. There's the opportunity for the tenant, when he gets the notice, to first discuss it, I hope, with his landlord; and second, if he feels that the cause is unreasonable, to go to the arbitrator, have both parties appear there to give their arguments, and for the arbitrator to rule on the matter of whether t's reasonable cause. It's really not much different from the rentalsman's role under the previous legislation.

Sections 30 to 39 inclusive approved.

On section 40.

[ Page 4366 ]

MR. BLENCOE: I won't prolong the debate on this particular section. I think enough has been said about the independence of arbitrators. Suffice to say that we don't agree with the process you're going to put in place. We have no argument that there should be an arbitration process. We would like to see the arbitration process extended, of course, to moneyed items, but we'd also like to see the arbitrators be independent of you. It's no reflection on you, Mr. Minister, but I think it should be separate from the political process, for fairness and for public perception. I think the current officers — I've talked about them, and I know many of them — have done a good job. They haven't been appointed by the minister; they've been appointed through the usual channels. I don't think this is the best way to appoint people who are going to arbitrate, quite frankly. I think it should be done independently of you. Find a system that's independent — the public service is fine — and let's base it on merit, not necessarily on the public perception that because they're hired directly by you they're going to reflect government policy towards this whole concept.

I think it would be in your interest too, Mr. Minister, to be seen as lean and clean of this kind of accusation — clean-cut, polished. It's highly undesirable that this matter could be seen to be politically motivated. I really wish you would consider the rentalsman's office, the kind of concept we have in place now, and utilize that system. I think there are going to be accusations and suspicion. One of the things about this kind of legal process or arbitration is that when you're dealing with such important issues as what's going to happen to a person's home or to the price of their home — or whether they're going to get their sink repaired or whether their place is going to be decent to live in — those making the decision should be above suspicion in terms of political influence. I'm not saying they'll necessarily be subject to political influence; I just think you should have a system in place that that accusation cannot be made about — lean and clean.

Let's have a rentalsman's office, the kind of concept we have in place. We really oppose the selection process; we don't oppose the concept of arbitrators, although I would prefer to see the rentalsman's office. Let's have the kind of style we have now. We would much prefer, Mr. Minister, to separate it from you. That's all I have to say.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I would make the member aware — and he may already be aware — that judges are appointed by order-in-council. The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. McClelland) from time to time appoints arbitrators in management-labour disputes. I'm sure the member would recognize that an arbitrator is bound to obey the law and, of course, could be at risk if it was found that he didn't. I believe that the member is attempting to paint a picture of the arbitrators who are appointed being biased in their thinking. I can only assure the member that this is no different than other pieces of legislation dealing with appointments by government, and that I, as minister responsible — and I'm sure if that member had this responsibility in another government, he would say the same thing — and as an hon. member, will do everything to ensure that the people appointed will bring to that arbitration table an unbiased point of view and a point of view that is one of assistance to both parties in coming to a reasonable resolution of the dispute.

MR. BLENCOE: Why will you allow no appeal of the arbitrator's decision?

HON. MR. HEWITT: There is an appeal, a judicial review, with regard to arbitration. However, going back to the parties involved who opt for the arbitrator and who will use the arbitration system, again I advise the member that the arbitrator's role is to assist both parties, to hear the evidence, and to give an impartial and unbiased decision, which both parties, I'm sure, would be prepared to accept prior to going before him, knowing that they would have a good hearing and recognizing that they would get a speedy resolution to their dispute, and one that was not costly.

MR. BLENCOE: Is the minister aware that under the existing Residential Tenancy Act, the rentalsman's office...? If it can be shown that the officer erred in law or didn't look at a piece of evidence, that decision can be reviewed and the rentalsman officer can reverse that decision. There is no process at the moment for a very quick and cheap reversal. That's a major flaw, I believe, in your piece of legislation.

Sections 40 and 41 approved.

On section 42.

MR. BLENCOE: I have a very simple, but I think very important, point on section 42. Section 42(l)(d) requires arbitrators to make decisions in writing, but there is no requirement that reasons be given for the decision. Most commentators on administrative law now regard requirement for reasons for decisions to be essential to elementary fairness. I believe, Mr. Minister, you should include that; there should be reasons for a decision. It's not a radical request.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Would you just repeat it briefly?

MR. BLENCOE: In subsection 42 (l) (d) it says: "shall, at the request of the party...make his decision...." By the way, just a point: in this bill there is reference all the way through to "his"; you may want to put in "his or her" next time you rewrite your bill, Mr. Minister. You've got "his" and "her" behind you, but according to this bill you're not going to have any "her"s. Under that section you require arbitrators to make a decision in writing, but there's no requirement that reasons be given for the decision.

It's my understanding that most commentators or those who write about administrative law now say that a requirement for reasons for a decision is essential to elementary fairness, and I think there should be reasons for the decision. At the moment all we've got in section 42(l)(d) is that the decision shall be made available — that is, why decide that you shan't win — but there are no reasons. I think that you should insist in your legislation that the reasons for the decision be given. I don't think that's such an unfair request.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I think it's fairly common, if not done in all cases, where a decision given by a judge in a court.... The judge provides the arguments, then the reasons for his decision and then the decision. When he is requested to give the decision in writing by a party to the arbitration, he would present the argument, the reasons and then the decision.

MR. BLENCOE: You know and I know that you cannot in law suppose or assume. That's very weak, Mr. Minister.

[ Page 4367 ]

You'd better include in there that the reasons for the decision have to be given in writing.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Not necessary.

MR. BLENCOE: Oh, we have the learned judge over here who knows all about it, do we?

Put it in writing; put it in your law; otherwise, again it's ambiguous. Tenants or landlords won't have to be given the reasons for the decision, and I think they're entitled to it. It's just a point, and I'll leave it there,

Sections 42 to 51 inclusive approved.

On section 52.

MR. BLENCOE: The minister, about an hour or half an hour ago, made some references to section 3 and referred to section 52 as an answer to me. It's the statutory terms specifying offences. Section 52, Mr. Minister, says: "a person who contravenes any of sections 6, 10, 11(1)....is liable, on conviction...." You said section 3 was included in section 52. You actually have misled the House, Mr. Minister, because that section is not included under the offences. It is a weakness that I was trying to point out to you, and I just noticed it as we went along here. Section 3 is not included in offences, the whole point I was making.

HON. MR. HEWITT: It doesn't have to be, because those are the statutory requirements. It's a descriptive section.

MR. BLENCOE: Again, Mr. Minister, I don't like leaving things to ifs and buts. You've made a statement that section 52 had taken care of that. It's not written down that section 3 offences are included in section 52, and I believe that it should be. The terms of the tenancy agreement, the offences and the breaking of those tenancy agreements, Mr. Minister, should be laid down in section 52: "A person who contravenes section 3 shall be liable on conviction to a fine of not more than $2,000." You said it was, and it isn't.

[5:00]

HON. MR. HEWITT: Just to clarify, if I indicated that that section was under 52, what the member was dealing with in section 3 — I appreciate that we've already passed it — is the statutory terms of this legislation. Statutory in itself indicates that they must be met by the parties involved. Section 3 is primarily a descriptive section. Section 52 deals with contraventions of the various sections in the act and what the penalty is.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, I'm not going to take any more time of the House. I will....

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Just doing my job, Mr. Member — 380,000 tenants are at stake in this legislation, 36 percent of the population of British Columbia. We are talking about a lot of people.

I'll use this section to conclude. I hope the minister will read the learned briefs. If he had given himself the opportunity, rather than jamming this thing through the House in a few days and trying to get it into law before people knew what was happening, I think he would have had the opportunity to recognize that this bill is nothing but one big headache. It denies all sorts of rights. It denies access to courts, because people won't be able to afford it. It sets up a process that will not be above suspicion. I happen to believe that British Columbian tenants — and landlords — deserve something better, something that is clearer, and taxpayers deserve something that is not going to be as costly as this bill is going to be. I think the existing office of the rentalsman did the job. Change the name, Mr. Minister, if you don't like it because we brought it in.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Section 52, Mr. Chairman.

MR. BLENCOE: I know. I'm nearly finished. Change the name, but keep it.

Section 52 approved.

MR. CHAIRMAN: In the interest of expediency perhaps, Mr. Second Member for Victoria, have you anything else you'd like to comment on?

MR. BLENCOE: I have no further comment.

Sections 53 to 62 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

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

Bill 19, Residential Tenancy Act, reported complete with amendment to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Committee on Bill 16, Mr. Speaker.

CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1984

The House in committee on Bill 16; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this section. The alteration of the schedule and substituting the schedule of this bill has the following impact in terms of the electoral process in British Columbia. Let me give you some figures here to substantiate my claim that by passing this bill and this section I we will give Social Credit an unfair electoral advantage.

HON. MR. CHABOT: How?

[ Page 4368 ]

MR. HANSON: Let me just tell that minister. In the May 5, 1983, election, when you take the number of seats elected by Social Credit and you divide that into their total vote, which was 821,284 votes, it took 23,465 votes to elect a Social Credit member. The total vote cast for the New Democratic Party in the last election was 741,680. When you divide that by the number of seats, you find that it took 33,713 votes to elect an NDP member. It took 10,300 more votes to elect an NDP member than a Socred. With section 1 of Bill 16, to take the same vote of the May 5 election, Social Credit would have elected 44 and the NDP 23. The votes required to elect a Social Credit member would be 18,666, and the votes required to elect a New Democrat would be 32,247. It's a structural inequity that is built into the Eckardt boundaries. It will be perpetuated forever and a day by the passing of this bill, because it freezes those boundaries and then triggers in a growth formula to perpetuate that inequity and make it more difficult to elect a fair representation in this House.

We have to oppose this bill, Mr. Chairman. We have to oppose this section, because I'm sure that the logic of these statistics will be crystal clear for you. The boundary lines as they are presently drawn — and this bill doesn't allow boundary changes — are inequitable, because at present it takes an additional 10,300 votes, on average, to elect a New Democrat than it does a Socred. With this new bill it will take almost 14,000 more votes for a New Democrat member to be elected than a Socred. So clearly, by reverse analysis, the boundaries are wrong. They are not truly representation by population.

Our argument, Mr. Chairman, has been that schedule 1 should not be altered, because what we should have is the fine commission that's been established — the Clerk of the House, the chief electoral officer and the provincial court judge — empowered to review boundary changes as well as strictly locking in, freezing and perpetuating the Eckardt injustices in the present boundary redistribution. We should have that committee go out to the public. We've got three years until the next provincial election.

Why is the government trying to force this through when there are no major newspapers in the affected areas of this province? The Vancouver Sun is the paper of record in this province, and it is not available. This is an important matter: the public is not given the opportunity to read about the various views on this matter. As I said in second reading, Mr. Chairman, we have a situation where the most important bill affecting the lives of the people of this province is being rammed through this House without any opportunity for a full debate by public hearings, for committee hearings of this commission to be held around the province.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to have that minister respond to a specific question. I would like him to tell me how he justifies an amendment to the Constitution Act which will require, on average, 32,247 votes cast for an NDP to be elected, while for a Social Credit member to be elected, it'll require, on average, 18,666 votes.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I've never heard such a nonsensical argument put forward by a member of this House before as that member for Victoria is putting forward now. He's suggesting that because the Vancouver Sun is on strike, the Legislature should close down, that legislation should not be introduced. How stupid! How foolish can you be? How stupid can you be? What kind of nonsense is that? Is the Vancouver Sun running this province? I thought the Legislature was. What kind of asinine stupidity is that? I've never heard of it before in this House — put forward by that member for Victoria.

Mr. Chairman, this member again perpetuates a feeble argument, one that has been rejected time and time again in this province. He talks about rep by pop. Is that what your party stands for? That's what you've advocated, Mr. Member. You are suggesting that the people of rural British Columbia should not have the right of representation in this chamber. You're saying that those seats that presently exist should be done away with or enlarged very dramatically. Those few members that you have in the interior will reject the argument you've put forward, because they recognize that there is an historical right of representation in British Columbia; that is something that the Social Credit government will continue to preserve in this province. Your rep by pop argument will not hold water, not only with the people of British Columbia but with members on your side of the House. You talk about the necessity of 32,000 people voting for an NDPer, versus 28,000 or thereabouts for a Social Credit member.

Interjections.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: What about Atlin?

HON. MR. CHABOT: That's right! You're saying that the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell) shouldn't be here. What about the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) ? Are you suggesting that he shouldn't be here? What about the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) ?

I guess the only reason there is a disparity in the figures that you quote is because your party is not well respected in the interior of British Columbia. That's your problem, Mr. Member. That is why you, as an urban member, are suggesting that there should be rep by pop. It's an argument that I don't accept, one that many members of your party do not accept, and one that the people of British Columbia do not accept either.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, why does that minister not have the guts and the courage to allow this commission to travel this province and hold hearings on the boundaries, and get away from the partisan Eckardt situation that we've inherited? We had a political put-up job in 1976-77....

Interjections.

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

[5:15]

MR. HANSON: We have inherited a crime against democracy in this province, and it is called the Eckardt report. We tried to show the government the error of their ways when they tried to bring in the Warren commission, trying to conclude Eckardt's arguments. The public furor on that injustice stopped them dead in their tracks, Mr. Chairman. They didn't have the guts to proceed with their devious plan, and now they've come back because the newspapers are on strike....

HON. MR. CHABOT: You're absolutely ridiculous.

MR. HANSON: But I support democracy.

[ Page 4369 ]

I'd say let the people know. Let the people have a say. They were denied that say in the Eckardt commission. They were denied that say with the Warren report. Here you have a situation where you're trying to finagle the next election by devious means. You haven't got the courage — you and that little Premier from Kelowna, that little man there, who shouldn't even be in this House.... You shouldn't be sitting here. If your name was Jack Jones, you wouldn't even be here.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon members, please. The Chair can understand that on this particular subject some are inclined to get a little bit excited, to put it mildly. Could I just suggest to all hon. members that temperance is the order of the day, and we should carry out our debate in that way. We have got very close — just on the edge, I would think — to using unparliamentary language on a couple of occasions. Let's calm down and proceed with what you have to say.

MR. HANSON: Our suggestion is a reasonable one; it is a fair one; it is a logical one. Because of past injustices and inequities with the Eckardt report and the Warren commission, now you have an opportunity to put your trust in the Clerk of this House, a provincial court judge and the electoral commissioner of this province to go openly to the people of this province and ask them whether the boundaries presently in place make sense, whether they are fair, whether they make sense in terms of the geographic and cultural integrity of their area. Let them have a say; they were denied that before. It was a partisan report. We had all the grotesque and devious plans to gerrymander, which are well known all over this country and this province — Gracie's Finger and the injustices of the abolition of seats and so on.

Mr. Chairman, a government has to entrust in the people the recognition that they're perfectly able to make a decision of their own, based on their perception.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, the interjections are completely uncalled for. I would ask that you withhold your remarks. If you want to speak on this, it's quite possible for you to stand and take your place.

MR. HANSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I can understand the uneasy laughter and heckling, because they're feeling guilty. They don't have the confidence that they can win the next election on the merit of their performance and the management of economy and a general support of the public. They have to manipulate, as they did in the Eckardt report, to try to take that advantage based on political science and analysis of polls to redraw boundaries to give them an unfair advantage. My question to the minister was a fair one. Why will it take 32,247 individual voters to elect a New Democrat and 18,666 for a Social Credit? Would that not be a problem that could be put forward to that commission? Could they not go out and talk to the people of this province so that everyone, no matter whether they are in a rural or urban area, is entitled to fair representation based on all factors on an objective basis?

What we have is frozen in time — an injustice. If we have to win the next election based on that injustice, then so be it; we'll do it. Why not have the courage of your convictions and give to this commission the mandate to go out and study all aspects of the redistribution? Why do you have to try and stack the deck for yourselves? Why do you have to try and move the goalposts every time you feel that the people are getting the goods on you in terms of where you are really at as a government? Why do you have to do it? Other jurisdictions have independent commissions — independent bodies — not beholden to government at all. But what you've done — and I think it is a damn embarrassment, Mr. Chairman.... I think it is an embarrassment to ask good people to sit on a commission — good people whose integrity is unquestioned — when you have a preordained, predetermined formula that is going to stack the deck in your favour.

Interjections.

MR. HANSON: All we're asking for is a free and independent commission to go and do the people's business in a fair way, because you're attacking the fundamentals of democracy in this province. You take away rights of appeal. You take away avenues of redress. You take away mediation and conciliation processes. You make people angry and frustrated, and feel that there's no hope, and then you take away their only avenue, when they're given an opportunity once every five years, when the people are asked what they think. You take a situation like this and stack the deck in your favour. That is unfair. It is grossly unjust. There should be avenues of appeal beyond this Legislature for this kind of bill, for this kind of behaviour.

You are showing contempt for the people of this province. You feel you have a preordained right to rule. You have contempt for the people of this province. In the last election, to elect a Social Credit member, it took 23,465 votes. To elect a New Democrat it took 33,713. You want to up the ante because the performance upon which the assessment would he made — this bill — has been so poor, so cruel and so brutal that they don't feel they could win on the basis of the last boundary definitions and results.

So they will go merrily on and pass this bill, because we don't have the numbers. The government has the voting strength, and this will be passed. But this is going to be remembered as the day that froze the Eckardt injustices in time and distorted the political will of British Columbia. We have a government that hasn't the courage to go out with a first-class blue-chip commission and give them the authority to go to the public and ask them what they think of the finger. I dare that minister to have the courage to go and hold public hearings with this commission in the finger — right in downtown Vancouver — and see what the people of that area think of that political distortion.

MR. SKELLY: It was a wasted dirty trick.

MR. HANSON: My colleague said it was a wasted dirty trick.

There's something very fundamental before us that cuts to the heart of this House. We are going to inherit an increase in cynicism, in the sense that this government acts unjustly and that it doesn't care about the very basic accountability. Gordon Gibson, Sr., once said that what we have in our province is not really democracy but five-year dictatorships. You are certainly living testament to that description. You have no sense. The committees of this House don't function.

[ Page 4370 ]

There's a Labour and Justice Committee in this House; what a joke. First of all, what do they have in common? That particular committee has never sat. In all the time I've been in this Legislature, that particular Committee on Labour and Justice has not sat once.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Section 1, please.

HON. A. FRASER: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. Talking about labour and justice and committees of this House has nothing to do with this bill at all, and I think he should be brought to order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Minister. The Chair reminded the member of that just before you rose to your feet. Did the Provincial Secretary want...?

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, I gave the floor for the point of order.

The point of my remarks is that it is well documented over the last few years that there has been a stripping away of democratic process in this province. This bill and this section is a further stripping away, but on a massive scale. They are disfranchising the people of this province. In many jurisdictions there is a rule and a well established precedent that a government will not go to the people on electoral boundary changes that have happened within its term of office. It is reserved for a subsequent term — the following term — so they don't stack the deck in their own favour. But in this instance we have a government that is trying to take a second kick at the cat — another run at the Warren commission, realizing all the aspirations of Larry Eckardt in the Warren report. There was so much controversy surrounding those boundaries in the Eckardt redistribution that the public mind never believed that it was a fair and just redistribution. Ridings were abolished, boundaries changed, decks stacked, goal-posts — it was unfair. It was not done in an impartial way. It was even investigated by the ombudsman, Mr. Chairman, as you well know. Then we had the Warren commission come along with the veneer of respectability of a former leader of the Conservative Party, and before he knew it, he was up to his eyeballs in controversy and scandal over that particular bill. That bill was stopped by public opposition.

Now we're having the second kick at the cat in Bill 16, trying to take advantage of a situation rather than going in an open a mutual way to the people of this province — in a way that would instil some confidence and some sense of fairness. What we have instead is an increase in imbalance. In certain areas of the province they are going to have an injustice frozen in time in Bill 16. It is going to be studied in history books. It is the start of the demise. It is the end.

This government has such contempt for the people they won't even allow the press access to their elected members so that they can fulfil their obligations in a free society. The government is stripping away all sorts of avenues that were available to the public to redress injustices. The most fundamental injustice is now occurring, where the government is stripping away the full accountability and role the public should be playing in this redistribution. It is testament to the ultimate contempt that this government has for the people of this province. We would be neglecting our duty, Mr. Chairman, if we were not speaking out strongly on this issue, because this is one that is not going to be fully understood for some months to come, and then the public is going to ask why the government proceeded with the creation of new seats without ever involving them in any kind of dialogue. Were they that afraid of their own performance? That is the question the public will ask.

[5:30]

We speak against section 1, and against all sections of this bill. It is unfortunate, because we believe that the established commission is beyond reproach, but what we are clearly objecting to is the frozen injustice that the government is undertaking. It is a most unfortunate and regrettable move, because what they are saying is that the people no longer count, and that every time it looks like the government's performance is wanting they are going to take electoral steps through regulation, through pocket calculators, and move the people further and further away from the process so that cynicism, frustration and discredit to the whole democratic process build and this House is further in disrepute, as it is becoming at this moment. It is almost by design. It is a callous approach that is undermining our democratic institutions, and this is a further step, Mr. Chairman. I would like this minister to tell me why it takes so many people to vote in this way and why he does not have the courage to send that commission out to travel and talk to the people of this province.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I'm not going to repeat the arguments that I put forward to that member. Apparently he wasn't listening, or he's being thick-skulled; it's one of the two.

I told him that he's advocating a representation by population concept, which is one that we're not prepared to endorse and that members of your party across the way are not prepared to endorse, and the people of British Columbia are not prepared to endorse. We recognize the historical right of representation. We believe that rural ridings have the right of representation in this House, and it's something that you're not prepared to accept. It's something that I think we have a responsibility to tell the people of British Columbia. You are the spokesman for your party over there, and you say that your party is opposed to this legislation, even though you didn't vote against it yesterday. You're saying that you're opposed to it. As an example, you're opposed to the right of people in Columbia River having fair representation in this chamber. It's a riding that has existed almost since the turn of the century.

MR. HANSON: Let that commission be free.

HON. MR. CHABOT: You're saying that this riding doesn't have the historical right of representation. You're advocating rep by pop when you consistently use those figures about numbers. Just because your party is not in favour in rural British Columbia, in the interior of British Columbia, you're not prepared to accept the historical right of representation. You're saying that it must go strictly by population because of the fact that the NDP get their votes only in the urban part of British Columbia — with few exceptions. That's why you as a spokesman for your party are saying that today, for political expediency, for the short term, you believe in rep by pop. I want to tell you once again that members of your party reject that; this party and its members reject that; the people of British Columbia reject that, and I reject it too!

[ Page 4371 ]

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the Provincial Secretary has been levelling an attack at the Chair. He's been addressing you, sir, when perhaps he was intending to address some other member of the House. I would ask that the Provincial Secretary be directed to address the Chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Through the Chair.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I hadn't concluded. I was interfered with on a frivolous point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please proceed.

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a very frivolous point of order, I might say.

Interjections.

HON. MR. CHABOT: There are members behind me saying "fraudulent." I wouldn't use that harsh a term, because I think he did it in jest. I know that little member from the West Kootenays, not the East Kootenays.

The first member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) is a little confused. He doesn't trust the intelligent electorate here in British Columbia. He believes, because people elect Social Crediters in certain ridings, that we own those voters. We don't own any voters. Every voter has the right to exercise his democratic vote from time to time in British Columbia. He's not owned. You don't own the seat of Victoria. You don't own the voters here in Victoria, just like I don't own the voters in Columbia River. All we're saying in this legislation is that because of the disparities in population that have developed in British Columbia, those areas that have had rapid growth have the right to representation in this House, as well as preservation of their historical right of representation from ridings such as Atlin. That is recognized. Atlin is given a unique position in this legislation. It's the only riding in British Columbia that has been given that unique position.

I want you to remember, Mr. Member, that because the people in Surrey — as an example — voted Social Credit in the last election, those voters are not owned by Social Credit. They are free agents from election to election. They make their own determination of how they will vote. That's something you must accept. It's something you must recognize as well. All this bill does is recognize the growth of certain areas, and recognize their right to have adequate representation in this chamber.

I just want to make one more brief statement. I think that if we had asked the commission to examine the boundaries that exist today, and with the flexibility of making certain adjustments, the first statement we would have heard from you is that we're attempting to gerrymander. And your so-called friend, your democratic friend, the Vancouver Sun.... You have hoped they'd be here to help you with your argument. You must have some friends who work for the Vancouver Sun.

I want to make one more brief statement. I get a little fed up when I hear that member for Victoria smearing by innuendo respectable people who have made a tremendous contribution here in British Columbia.

MR. SKELLY: Who?

HON. MR. CHABOT: I'm talking about former Judge Eckardt. I want to say that Judge Eckardt is a respectable man whom the NDP have attempted to smear, over the years. I think that's absolutely disgraceful. I want to say to that young member for Victoria that Judge Eckardt has made a substantial and greater contribution to the well-being and to the people of this province than that member has ever made.

MR. HANSON: I want to ask the minister....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, the Chair has recognized the first member for Victoria.

MR. HANSON: I want to ask the minister a question. Why will he not let the commission established in this bill travel the province, hold hearings on the boundaries, and come back with a recommendation to this House?

HON. MR. CHABOT: I've given you my answer. I'm not going to repeat it.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, this is our opportunity to question the minister about a very important bill. I just want to ask him why, with the commission, which has the support of this House, established, that commission is not empowered to travel the province and hold full and open public hearings on all matters with respect to redistribution. Mr. Chairman, it is a very important question because it cuts to the nub of the bill.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. I don't know if the member hasn't read the bill, or what, but he's on the wrong section.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We're dealing with section 1.

MR. HANSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am in order. Section 1 deals with the schedule that perpetuates....

HON. MR. CHABOT: No, section 2 deals with the duties of the commission.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, they are one and the same. The schedule refers to the ridings and how they will be increased in representation and so on. I'm asking, on behalf of all the people of the province; why is this commission not empowered to travel the province and hold full and open hearings on all matters with respect to redistribution?

HON. MR. CHABOT: The member must be preoccupied with what he's going to say next. He doesn't appear to be hearing what I'm saying. So what I would suggest to him is that he read the Blues when they come out or read Hansard whenever it's printed to see what answer I gave him before.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

On section 3.

MR. HANSON: I want to make it abundantly clear that we support the commission in its composition. We find no

[ Page 4372 ]

fault with appointing the Clerk of the House, a provincial court judge and the chief electoral officer. Our objection, as has been amply stated, is to predetermining through a formula and perpetuating the injustices already in place through the Eckardt commission. We have no quarrel at all with the composition of the commission.

Sections 3 and 4 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Bill 16, Constitution Amendment Act, 1984, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:44 p.m.

Appendix

AMENDMENTS TO BILLS

19 The Hon. J.J. Hewitt to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 19) intituled Residential Tenancy Act to amend as follows:

SECTION 23 (2) (a), by deleting "subsection (1) (f)" and substituting "subsection (1) (g)".