[ Page 1859 ]
Routine Proceedings
Adoption Amendment Act, 1987 (Bill 26). Hon. Mr. Richmond
Introduction and first reading –– 1859
Oral Questions
South Moresby national park reserve. Mr. Miller –– 1859
Effects of free trade on wine industry. Mr. Rose –– 1860
Hospital board elections. Mrs. Boone –– 1860
Privatization. Mr. Lovick –– 1860
Premier's former association with electoral boundaries commissioner. Mr. Sihota –– 1861
Proposed banning of 2, 4-D. Hon. Mr. Strachan replies –– 1861
South Moresby national park reserve. Hon. Mr. Strachan replies –– 1862
Presenting Petitions –– 1863
Committee of Supply: Ministry of Labour estimates. (Hon. L. Hanson)
On vote 46: minister's office –– 1863
Mr. Gabelmann
Mr. Cashore
Mr. Lovick
Mr. Blencoe
Mr. Barnes
Mr. Sihota
Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 1987 (Bill 36). Hon. Mr. Michael
Introduction and first reading –– 1882
Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 1), 1987 (Bill 31). Hon. B.R. Smith
Introduction and first reading –– 1883
The House met at 2:07 p.m.
HON. MR. ROGERS: We are honoured today to have in the members' gallery Mr. Keijo Seppala, consul-general of Finland. Accompanying him is Mr. Aarne Hilden, who is the trade commissioner for Finland. Would the members please make our Finnish guests welcome.
HON. MR. SAVAGE: It is indeed a pleasure to rise in the House today to introduce two guests from Ontario, Harold and Dorothy Hooper, who are staying with my sister and brother-in-law, Ken and Sharon Black. Would the Legislature please make them welcome.
MR. LONG: Today in the House I have two newspaper people from the Powell River News who are here doing an article. I would like the House to welcome Paul Galinski and Kathy Northrup.
HON. MR. BRUMMET: It's my pleasure this afternoon to introduce my wife Lois, who is visiting the House for the next little while with a very good friend of hers, Cynthia Tansley. I would like the House to make them welcome.
HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: As a follow-up to the Premier's meeting on decentralization, we have in the precincts today Director Dan Cumming of the UBCM, with table officers Mayor Jackie Drysdale of Rossland, Mayor Bill Whalley of Mackenzie and Mayor Gil Blair of Richmond. I would ask the House to please make them welcome.
MR. BLENCOE: Along with the Minister of Municipal Affairs, I would like to welcome the officials from the Union of British Columbia Municipalities. I am also participating in the discussions, at the invitation of the minister. We're having some interesting dialogue on the whole concept of decentralization. On behalf of our side of the House, Mr. Speaker, we welcome the members from the UBCM.
MR. LOENEN: Up in the members' gallery there are two dear, long-time friends of ours from Abbotsford. It's a very special day for them. It's their twenty-second wedding anniversary, and I'd just like you to join me in congratulating them and bidding them a fond welcome to the House. Please make them feel welcome — it's Henk and Alice Roos.
HON. MR. RICHMOND: In the gallery today are approximately 36 grade 7 students from the Dallas Elementary School in the great constituency of Kamloops. They are accompanied by Mr. Blackwell and six chaperons. On behalf of the second member for Kamloops (Mr. S.D. Smith), I would ask the House to please make them most welcome.
MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, in terms of introductions, I notice that today all the introductions have been on the government side of the House, indicating that perhaps our party has no friends at all. I'd just like to tell the House that our friends will be here tomorrow. [Laughter.]
Introduction of Bills
ADOPTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1987
Hon. Mr. Richmond presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Adoption Amendment Act, 1987.
HON. MR. RICHMOND: I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now.
Mr. Speaker, there is considerable public interest in British Columbia for an adoption disclosure registry, but the present Adoption Act prevents the sharing of confidential information. The amendment being introduced in section 13 of the Adoption Act allows an adult, adopted as a child, and the birth parent or parents to register a mutual interest in contacting each other.
My ministry received over a thousand submissions from a variety of individuals and groups last fall and earlier this year, and the public response strongly favoured the development of an adoption disclosure registry. I am pleased to introduce this bill at the present time.
Bill 26 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
SOUTH MORESBY NATIONAL PARK RESERVE
MR. MILLER: My question is to the Premier. Mr. Premier, we all want the best deal possible with regard to South Moresby, including the 28 MPs from B.C. who unanimously endorse that concept. Given the elasticity of some of the numbers that have been booted around with regard to the forest valuation — the $31 million, the $40 million and yesterday the $50 million — will the Premier table today in the House the B.C. position paper with regard to South Moresby along with supporting documentation so that we can clear up this confusion regarding that question of valuation?
HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I will refer that question to the minister responsible.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: I am quite prepared to discuss all the elements of our proposition to the federal government. It will take some time, so I advise the House now I will take the question as notice and give a full disclosure following question period.
MR. GUNO: A supplementary to the Premier. The Premier made reference to his concern for the 70-some loggers in South Moresby. Will he reconsider and negotiate the position of the 2,000 Haidas who live there and have legitimate and historic rights to their ancestral lands, and who favour a national park reserve as the best solution for all Canadians?
[2:15]
HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: That question will undoubtedly need to be dealt with by the federal government.
[ Page 1860 ]
EFFECTS OF FREE TRADE ON WINE INDUSTRY
MR. ROSE: Before I start my question to the Premier, I'd like to congratulate the Socred caucus for moving from the puzzle palace in Richmond to some other venue for their meeting this weekend. I guess it was cheaper to move than to dig the moat; but whatever, I think it was a rather wise, judicious, sagacious move.
I wonder if I could ask a question to the Premier about the staggering announcement by his Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) that in the bilateral negotiations on free trade Canada's wine industry was high on their hit list. The Americans, the American wine industry, want to penetrate our markets. Can the Premier tell the House what steps he is taking to ensure that our wine industry is not up for grabs?
HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, first of all, with respect to the first part of the question regarding the moving of time and place for the meeting of caucus, let me assure the hon. member that we both agree that whether it is the NDP or the Social Credit caucus, they should be able to choose whatever the place or time for their caucus meetings anywhere in this province.
Secondly, let me assure the hon. member as well that when asked whether in fact I believe the NDP was in any way involved in what appeared to be a situation less than desirable — people coming out there that obviously could create a situation we would all regret — I assured the media no, not at all. I didn't believe that for a moment. So I think we owe each other the courtesy from time to time to recognize that in our society we do have that opportunity to choose place and time for our own activities.
Furthermore, with respect to the free trade agreement, yes, we will hopefully reasonably soon receive at least a copy of the draft agreement. There was a meeting originally scheduled for Ottawa next week. This has apparently been postponed, although no confirmation of that in writing has been given as yet and we are still awaiting further word. But we have said — and I think I can speak for all of those I have met with over the past many months — that the agreement will be carefully looked at by all provincial governments, and certainly our government and every ministry will have an opportunity to view the document. If there is something in the document which is of extreme concern to us as it reflects on a particular industry, that will be appropriately addressed.
MR. ROSE: I am glad the Premier has put this matter about the NDP and its involvement to rest. I thank him for slaying all those mythical dragons.
In a weak attempt this week to calm the storm the economic development minister created in the wine industry, she suggested she needed their help and would a 15-year phase-in period be helpful? This was her question to the wine industry. I want to ask the Premier, does the Premier expect that B.C. land prices, labour costs and economies of scale or even the climate in the Okanagan will change much over the next 15 years?
No? Well, Mr. Speaker, it's like whether or not you want to be shot immediately or hanged over a long period. What I am really trying to find out is, what difference does a 15-year period make? If it — will make any difference, why is the government under the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Savage), in an announcement of June 16, pumping $60,000 more into the Okanagan wine industry in Osoyoos?
HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I apologize, Mr. Speaker, to the hon. member for not getting up, but I thought this was a time for serious questions, so I simply sat back waiting.
Again let me assure the member that until we see what the draft agreement contains, particularly as it applies to agriculture, nothing will be done. It will be carefully viewed by the government before anything is signed or agreed to.
HOSPITAL BOARD ELECTIONS
MRS. BOONE: A question to the Minister of Health. Today is the day for hospital board elections in Kamloops. It is our understanding that there have been no changes to the voting procedures in that area. As of today, a person — as long as they're registered — living in Vancouver can travel to Kamloops with their five-year-old child and both would be allowed to vote in the Kamloops hospital board elections. What measures has the minister taken to ensure that hospital board elections are democratic elections, that minors are not allowed to vote, and that they represent the area in which they operate?
HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member knows full well that you cannot change bylaws other than at special meetings or at the annual meeting. Therefore, if they have not done so at this point, it will probably come up at their annual meeting.
MRS. BOONE: I think the minister also knows he could probably change those things by order- in-council or some other means.
Interjections.
MRS. BOONE: The same problem has erupted in Vernon. Is the minister taking any steps to ensure that this will not occur in Vernon? This same problem has now occurred in Vernon. They have minors voting; they are allowed to vote with no restrictions on the area that they operate in; and they have membership fees. What is the minister doing to ensure that democratic procedures exist in the elections of all hospital boards throughout the province?
HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, there was so much enthusiasm on our side I didn't hear the question.
Interjections.
PRIVATIZATION
MR. LOVICK: I sincerely hope, Mr. Speaker, that I don't have to yell in order to be heard. My question is to the minister of governmental affairs, a.k.a. the minister of privatization. It's a quick question. Will he undertake to table before this chamber the list of the 17 companies we understand are now being actively considered by the task force on privatization?
HON. MR. ROGERS: It's public information, Mr. Speaker. The list of Crown corporations in the province of British Columbia is public information.
[ Page 1861 ]
PREMIER'S FORMER ASSOCIATION WITH
ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES COMMISSIONER
MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Premier. Will the Premier confirm, now that he has had an opportunity to consider the questions I asked yesterday, that his relationship with Judge Fisher or his firm has extended over 20 years and into the seventies?
HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I can't get an exact date, but I believe that the last time Judge Fisher, as a lawyer, did some work for me was 25 years ago. I know Judge Fisher, however, to be a man of completely unquestionable integrity. Certainly all of those who've known Judge Fisher at any time would agree that he's a man of unquestionable integrity. Prior to the time that Judge Fisher was appointed a judge of the County Court of Westminster in 1977, his standing as a lawyer was such that he was elected by his fellow lawyers to be a bencher of the Law Society. He continued as a bencher for seven years. In fact, Judge Fisher held the senior leadership position as treasurer of the Law Society. To my knowledge, he has never been a political supporter of mine, nor a political supporter of the party.
MR. SIHOTA: A supplementary to the Premier. There are two counsel advising Judge Fisher on his work: one is Mr. McDonell. Mr. McDonell represented the government with respect to its "seditious" writ application in court. Does the Premier not think that there ought to be an arm's-length relationship between people who have represented the government and the commission? Sorry — between the government and the commission?
HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Oh, I should have added, further to my comments on the appointment of Judge Fisher, incidentally, that the request to Judge Fisher was made by the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Veitch). The question that's been asked now I will defer until the Provincial Secretary is present.
MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, it's a question of government policy. The other lawyer that is advising the commissioner on this matter is Mr. Mitchell, who was appointed by the Minister of Economic Development to serve on the board of BCDC. Mr. Mitchell also works for the same firm that had been engaged by the Attorney-General to take forward the application on behalf of the government with respect to that same seditious writ. In other words, there are several people that have had affiliations with this government, or with the Premier, who are now on this committee.
Does the Premier not agree that it would be appropriate that there be an arm's-length relationship between the individuals who are on this commission and the government, as a matter of policy?
HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: With respect to the work performed by the other people mentioned by the member for Esquimalt, I'll defer that question to the Attorney-General.
HON. B.R. SMITH: It is inevitable, Mr. Speaker, that you're going to have large law firms where somebody does some work for the government and somebody does some work for a commissioner, but the gentleman mentioned, Mr. McDonell, is not currently doing work for the government that I know of. As for Mr. Mitchell, he was a member of the Expo Corporation, and he stayed in place, along with about four others, to form part of the B.C. Enterprise Corporation board. Mr. Mitchell is not of this political party, and he is well thought of in this province — and is known to the Leader of the Opposition and is a friend of his. So I don't know why he would object to Mr. Mitchell.
MR. SIHOTA: It's nice to see counsel....
Interjections.
MR. SIHOTA: It's a matter of linkages a la Eckardt.
A question again, then, to the Premier. There are approximately 215 judges in this province, some of whom the Premier would have some affiliation with; many of whom the Premier would not have affiliation with. Is the Premier assuring this House that his association with Judge Fisher did not have any influence at all on his decision to appoint him as the commissioner in this situation?
HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I repeat that I did not appoint Judge Fisher; I did not request Judge Fisher. This was done by the Provincial Secretary, the minister responsible. I knew him to be an honest man of great integrity, so I certainly would have no opposition to that — but let me add quickly that I feel that way about all of our judges.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, as indicated earlier, I wish to respond to questions taken on notice. I have two of them, and I'll deal with the South Moresby question next, hon. members. We'll do this chronologically.
PROPOSED BANNING OF 2, 4-D
Mr. Speaker, on June 11, the member for Surrey Guildford-Whalley (Ms. Smallwood) posed a question which I took on notice regarding Agriculture Canada and 2, 4-D. She indicated in her question that Ontario and New Brunswick had banned 2, 4-D pending federal studies, and what was the position of the province of British Columbia? I can advise the House now that while there has been a single study on laboratory animals indicating that 2, 4-D may induce an increase in the number of cancerous tumours, there are many other long-term funding studies on laboratory animals indicating that 2, 4-D does not induce cancerous tumours. Used for at least 40 years, there is no clear evidence that 2, 4D may be a human carcinogen.
[2:30]
Currently there is no banning of 2, 4-D in any other province. Ontario recently lifted its moratorium against allowing new products containing 2, 4-D on the market, and New Brunswick has lifted its suspension on the sale and use of 2, 4-D as restricted in commercial products. Agriculture Canada advises that they have issued an interim position on the status of 2, 4-D. They are doing studies; other studies are underway and under review. No change in regulatory status is contemplated at this time. We go on to say: "Users of 2, 4-D are urged to follow label directions, particularly in the use of protective clothing, including rubber gloves, rubber boots and coveralls. If dermal exposure can be prevented, most significant health risks can be avoided."
[ Page 1862 ]
SOUTH MORESBY NATIONAL PARK RESERVE
The other question taken on notice was the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Miller) asking exactly what B.C.'s position is towards the federal government with respect to a national park on South Moresby. At the outset, I must say I find it curious that the member would ask that question when the Leader of the Opposition has seen that document. You will recall that some weeks ago we met privately in my office and he reviewed the document. However, given that he has difficulty from time to time in understanding what the meaning is, particularly when reading judgments, I guess the question is current.
Interjection.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, it was a private meeting.
In any event, there were four elements to the proposal to Mr. McMillan. This last proposal went from my office by FAX on May 15 this year. Number one: the boundaries of the national park would be everything south of Tangil. There would also be a consideration for a marine park. Number two: British Columbia asked that a $100 million trust fund, to be settled in payments of $10 million per year for ten years, be put in place for silviculture purposes. This trust would benefit mostly the Queen Charlotte Islands where the park was not established, but also other silviculture purposes on the west coast. The fund would be jointly administered by British Columbia and the government of Canada, but we would take a majority position on that trust, or we would prefer to.
Number three: we asked for a $20 million investment of infrastructure by the federal government. This would include airports, docking facilities, coast guard stations and whatever would be required for the benefit of that park, for the good maintenance of that park and for the tourism infrastructure. Number four: we asked that Canada hire an independent accounting firm of national prominence who would conduct an independent determination of the economic loss to Frank Beban and his employees, first of all, and to Western Forest Products, and consider the loss of a TFL and also a smaller timber harvest to MacMillan Bloedel.
The province of British Columbia agreed to immediately contribute to this independent accounting firm the sum of $8 million. We asked Canada to contribute $23 million, for a total of $31 million for the first part of the fund, so the accounting firm, when they began the determination of the displacement of people, homes, lost jobs and lost opportunity, could pay out this money immediately. Because the members will appreciate that if we go to a national park, Frank Beban's crew would have to leave. We insisted that that be put in place.
So those are the four elements. Let me just say one more thing. This is the first time in recent history that I have had Jack Munro on my side, and I welcome his support. Clearly he has the same concern I do: that the NDP apparently are selling out the workers by not insisting on this fund.
MR. MILLER: On a point of order, I assume that what we are getting is supposed to be a response to a question that was asked, not a political diatribe casting aspersions on the members on this side of the House. I would ask that you ask the member to withdraw the statement he just made that we are "selling out the workers."
MR. SPEAKER: That's not a point of order.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: There was no reference to any other party in the House.
MR. ROSE: On the same point of order, it's clearly an abuse of questions on notice to use this forum and this platform to take wild cracks at the opposition or members within it, when they have little or no responsibility or occasion to respond — like the allegation just a moment ago, that somehow the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Miller) should have known what had been told in confidence to the Leader of the Opposition in your office. If it is in confidence, then how could he know?
MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege, I would like to have this cleared up by the hon. minister. He suggested — and I was speaking to our House Leader — that I should have informed the member for Prince Rupert about some documents or information that he gave to me in confidence that I agreed I would not release. That was three weeks ago, and I have not done so. I would like the minister to clarify his remarks.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: And apologize.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I will apologize. You're correct, Mr. Member, that I did give that information in confidence. So I withdraw the prefatory remarks I made in answering the question. I recognize that the Leader of the Opposition did take our meeting in confidence. I respect that, and I thank him for it.
MR. MILLER: On a point of order, I just want to clear up some confusion. I asked a question in question period, and I asked for documents to be tabled, Am I to assume that this is the response of the government? Perhaps the government House Leader could clarify that point. Is this the extent of the kind of response that we're trying to get? We want to clear up this confusion; we don't want to create more.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I hadn't finished all my comments on the question taken on notice. What I will do is advise members that, following our cabinet meeting next Wednesday, when we discuss the province's reaction on how we're going to proceed with South Moresby, I will be more than happy to table those documents in the House. But I could not undertake to do that until such time as we have had our cabinet meeting next Wednesday.
MR. MILLER: It would have been a better answer to start off with.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: The member asked for all the elements of the B.C. position, Mr. Speaker, and that's what I was explaining to him.
MS. EDWARDS: I'm not sure if it's a point of order, but I want to present a petition, and I believe it's the time to present a petition.
Leave granted.
[ Page 1863 ]
Presenting Petitions
MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from 111 members of the B.C. Federation of Labour who live in Kimberley, which is in Columbia River riding. The petition says: "Bills 19 and 20 are going to devastate the economy and the education system, and will not create jobs or bring us industrial peace. Your petitioners respectfully request that the hon. House withdraw these two bills."
Orders of the Day
The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Pelton in the chair.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF LABOUR
AND CONSUMER SERVICES
(continued)
On vote 46: minister's office, $236,168.
MR. GABELMANN: I want to make a few brief additional points in respect of the Workers' Compensation Board. The first is that it has been suggested to me that the area offices around this province are hampered by the fact that the area managers are not in a position to review adjudicators' decisions. What happens is that an adjudicator who works in one of the regional offices will make a decision. If there is some problem or appeal to that particular decision, the process of review of that decision isn't available to the area manager but rather must be referred to WCB headquarters at Richmond. As a result, there is an additional delay process built into the handling of compensation claims. Quite often these are simple matters, where the manager could say, "Oh, wait a minute. Clearly this could be solved in a simple way in the following manner," and he could ask the adjudicator just to review the particular file.
That process apparently is not available at the present time. The line of authority is from the adjudicator to somebody at headquarters in Richmond. In many cases — not all of them, clearly — where there aren't major policy questions involved, it would be simple to give the area manager additional power to expedite a lot of these problems before they become bigger problems. The festering alone sometimes creates the additional problem.
I would ask the minister to see whether or not this is a reasonable proposal and whether some expedition of claims could be achieved by creating more decision-making authority in the regional offices. I also would wish the minister to review the policy of the Workers' Compensation Board with respect to overturning board of review decisions. It seems that far too many board of review decisions are being overturned under section 90, or whatever it is, of the Workers Compensation Act.
I understand why that section of the legislation is in place. It was in place when we were government as well. It's a problem in respect of appeals, because you think you've won your appeal and then you find out that there is an administrative review of it and the appeal is overturned. It leads to a situation where you don't have a true appeal process. That really needs to be dealt with, and I think the current way of dealing with the need for the board to maintain its policy — and I understand that point — doesn't work given the current structure.
I just hope that the minister will have a look at that whole process with a view to finding a way in which the needs of the board to maintain policy can be merged with the need of the independence of a review board process. It's a complicated one, and I think it demands some attention.
In continuing discussion and review of board practices, I hope that the question of determining a workers' compensation pension on the previous year's earnings be looked at. The problem with that, particularly in times of high unemployment, is you may have only worked for a month or two in the previous year. Your pension is therefore based on a small portion of what your annual income really is. There are many cases that one could bring to the minister's attention. I have decided not to go through chapter and verse on that but rather to flag the issue and hopefully resolve it. If not, next year we'll have a longer debate in estimates about this particular principle. It's a difficult one, but there needs to be some kind of averaging provision so that people can have their pension based on a closer reality to their actual earnings, rather than on what might have happened to them in the previous year.
Two more points on WCB: one is an issue that I have exchanged correspondence with the minister about. We have in our correspondence agreed to disagree, but I still feel that not enough attention is being given to this issue: that is, the question of members of the Sikh community and the kirpan. Members of that community who are in WCB offices for interviews are told that they cannot wear the kirpan, which is a religious symbol. It seems to me inappropriate to have board officials demand that people not wear their religious symbol. I appreciate that it may seem to be intimidating — because a lot of us who aren't of that particular religion don't understand it and don't perhaps feel comfortable with some of that community's religious beliefs and practices — and therefore there seems to be a need to have a policy which says that this particular religious symbol cannot be won by members of that religious community while in interviews with WCB personnel. We have exchanged correspondence on this matter, and the minister has indicated to me that he just doesn't agree with me. I would hope that further review with the commissioners of the WCB would take place on that particular issue, inasmuch as it really is quite offensive to members of that religious community.
Finally, on WCB, my memory is that we have a statement from the Minister — I think, in question period — but I just want to get it again if we do have it, and get it for the first time if we don't. That's the question of surveillance of board employees. The minister remembers the particular case. I just think that the practice of the WCB of hiring private investigators to follow board employees is so inappropriate and so wrong that I hope we can have a further statement from the minister in respect of his policies on that issue.
[2:45]
Those are the issues that I wanted to deal with on WCB. It might be easier if we get them off the table now, and I'll come back to the human rights issues in a moment.
HON. L. HANSON: I've made careful note of many of your concerns.
I was not aware of the practice that it was not allowed for the review of an adjudicator's decision at the regional level; I certainly will review that with the chairman. We will over the next few months be reviewing the performance of the appeal system in general, and I'm sure there will be a number of things that will come to our attention.
[ Page 1864 ]
As a matter of interest, as it relates to the Sikh community and the kirpan symbol, there now is a case before the human rights council and the WCB, and we await the results of that with interest. Naturally, it wouldn't be appropriate to comment too much.
I think the last point you raised was the one of hiring a private investigator. I agree with you: that is a despicable, terrible practice. The chairman of the board has issued very direct and concrete orders to his staff that that practice not be continued.
MR. GABELMANN: I'd like to thank the minister for his answers. The minister didn't deal with the question of basing pensions on the previous year's income.
HON. L. HANSON: All I can say to that, Mr. Chairman, is that I will review that practice and see how practical and wide the philosophy of it is. There's no question that it could present some anomalies that are probably not in the best sense of fairness. There could be a situation where a person was unemployed for the total year or at least very sparsely employed for that previous term, I will give my undertaking that that will be one of the things reviewed with the board.
MR. GABELMANN: I agree that it's not a simple issue and there aren't any magic solutions to it. But I appreciate the minister's intention to review that.
I want to move on to human fights concerns. At the beginning, I want to raise a concern that we've raised since the introduction of the Human Rights Act a couple of years ago in the House: that is, the use of industrial relations officers as investigative officers for the human rights branch. We had the debate with previous ministers. I think, with all the respect in the world for the industrial relations officers.... Everything I say now is not a criticism of these people. They do good work. They have not been trained to be human fights investigative officers; their training is in industrial relations. It seems to me that it's time to move on to doing what we should have done in the beginning, which is to have a group of employees of the Human Rights Council whose job it is to receive complaints and do investigations on human rights matters; people who are trained in the theory and philosophy of human fights; people who don't have conflicting employment responsibilities; people who can devote their attention to the question of human rights. To try to merge these two very different functions, I think, is inappropriate and just doesn't work to the satisfaction of either industrial relations purposes or human rights purposes. That's the first point.
The second point, because I feel it's important to acknowledge good things as well as criticize bad things.... I just want to take a moment to say that when the Human Rights Council was first established, I, among many, were very critical — not of them, but of the legislation that they had to work with. We were concerned they would not be able to do a reasonable job for human rights in this province. Then we had the first case of any consequence occur. A horrendous decision was made by the Human Rights Council which was appealed through judicial review to the Supreme Court and referred back to the council. Subsequently a better decision was made.
At that time, we were — me included; me perhaps most loudly in this House — very critical of the behaviour and the decision-making done by the Human Rights Council. I have to say that since that time, the Human Rights Council has made some excellent decisions, given the legislation that they work with, legislation that I don't agree with and I don't like. But given the legislation they have to work with, they have made some outstanding decisions. Having criticized Mr. Edgett and the others when I felt criticism was due, I think it's appropriate that I now say that some praise is due for some very good decisions; in particular, some very good decisions in respect of sexual discrimination, discrimination against women in the workplace. Some of the awards, particularly one just the other day, go beyond what I thought they would ever do. They are appropriate, from the facts as I know them, in terms of the issues involved. Truly, there's much better decision-making.
That needs to be said. That's not to say that every decision is perfect, by any means, but they sure have gone a long way past expectations that many of us had. I think the compliment should be paid to them for administering what I think is poor legislation in a very effective way.
Without transgressing on the rules of the House about calling for legislation, because I recognize that we can't do that in estimates, I want to raise the whole question of people with AIDS and their protection under human rights legislation. The Vancouver medical health officer has called for some protection. The city of Vancouver council has passed a motion asking for protection under human rights legislation, I think it's long overdue that this issue was addressed in some way or other, because clearly there is discrimination. Clearly it's discrimination of a human rights kind that is going on, and I think the government should look seriously at finding a way to do whatever is required to make sure that one cannot discriminate in this society against a person simply because they have a particular disease.
I want to ask the minister, in his continuing review of his ministry operations.... Now that we have both a new minister and a new deputy, I think it's a good time to have a look at the mandate of the Human Rights Council in respect of human rights education. They technically do not have the right or the responsibility for developing educational programs in respect of human rights in this province. That was a point we made quite strongly a few years ago. I recognize that they do in a limited way provide some educational material. They have provided brochures and pamphlets that advise employers of their responsibilities, and that's part of the overall education job that they should be doing; but much more could be done. Much of that work could be done by community agencies as well — Immigrant Services Society or Mosaic or Success or any of these other groups — and I would hope that the government would encourage their activity by helping those groups. The best way of doing that, I think, is by integrating a lot of the activity that those community groups do with the activity of the Human Rights Council. They should be allowed to be much more involved in education about human rights. It's a little-understood issue in our society, and I think that much more could be done.
I want to suggest one final thing. It's a long list, but it's a final sort of issue. There are, by my count, at least 14 kinds of areas in human rights — 14 that I want to identify anyway. No doubt there are many more that I have not thought of or that haven't occurred to me, but there are at least these 14 issues in the whole field of human rights that seem to me to require further public discussion, with a view to developing public policy, government policy.
[ Page 1865 ]
What I want to suggest is that.... I'm going to read this list of issues — or not read it; I'll just cite the list of issues — and while I do it I'd like the minister to think about the possibility of referring these kinds of issues perhaps to a parliamentary committee. It seems to me an appropriate task for the labour and justice committee, for example, of this Legislature, to take on as a bit of work. Many of us have talked in this House formally and informally about trying to make the committee system work more effectively, and I just want to propose that in the human rights area there may well be lots of room for some productive committee work. So with that in mind as my proposal, I just want to suggest what some of these areas of study could include, more for reference for future activity, more for having them on the record so they're in Hansard, so that if the committee does work, this is one of the lists they could look at for a start in thinking about this project.
The first is the whole question of protection for people with AIDS. I've mentioned that in another context. The second is the whole question of equal pay for work of equal value, or pay equity, or all of the issues around paying women in our society what men earn. We need to discuss further the issue of protection for pregnant women, at the workplace in particular but beyond that. We need to discuss the whole question of sexual orientation in respect of human rights laws. It's now not protected in British Columbia. It's increasingly becoming a feature of protection in other jurisdictions. The ones I can think of off the top of my head are the Yukon and Ontario and Manitoba, where people can now be protected because of their.... They cannot be discriminated against because of their sexual orientation.
[3:00]
The fifth issue is the whole question of age discrimination. I recognize that some of those questions are going to end up being dealt with in the courts as a result of the Charter, but I think that there are other questions involved, both at the younger end of the spectrum as well as at the older end of the spectrum. The legislation we have talks about ages 45 to 65. We really need to deal with some questions relating to age discrimination. There are a variety of questions and I won't take the time now to get into them all, but it's a subject that needs airing. The next....
I understand, Mr. Chairman, that the member would like to make an introduction, and I'll stop for that.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. The second member for Cariboo asks leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
MR. VANT: I'm very pleased to have some visitors from Dog Creek in the southwest comer of the great Cariboo constituency. In the west public gallery are 16 grade 7 children and their teachers, Ms. Hancock and Mr. Davidson. I know the House will join me in giving them a very hearty welcome.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Nanaimo also seeks leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
MR. LOVICK: Mr. Chairman, I too will take advantage of this hiatus in the proceedings to ask the House to join me in welcoming a very dear friend of this side of the House, Mr. John Weir, who is sitting in the gallery.
As well, can I take this opportunity to ask the rest of the House to join me in welcoming this whole new batch of visitors in the gallery, all of whom have arrived in the last 15 minutes, roughly?
MR. GABELMANN: Seventh on this list of issues that such a committee could consider is the question of discrimination on the basis of income. For example, you can now be denied rental accommodation because you are in receipt of social assistance. That seems to me an inappropriate thing in a modern society. Nevertheless, it is a fact, and it's something that perhaps could be considered by such a committee. On the whole question of harassment — sexual, racial and other harassment — the law at the present time in this province is implicit but not explicit. There needs to be, I think, some review of how it is applied in that area.
The eighth issue relates to the whole concept that we debated a few years ago in the House about putting reasonableness back into the question of discrimination. No one should be able to exclude or deny service or to discriminate without reasonable cause. This is an area that I think would be useful for some committee work. I recognize that I'm coming close to the edge of the rules here. but I'm not going to do much of it, nor for very long. So I think it is important that we have this discussion about this.
The ninth issue is discrimination on the basis of citizenship. We have restrictions against permanent residents who are not Canadian citizens, unless.... The whole question of what restrictions should be in place: does it matter whether or not you're a citizen if you're a landed immigrant and a permanent resident. If you choose not to take out citizenship, should there be different kinds of rights and responsibilities and obligations? Should certain kinds of discrimination be allowed if you don't take out citizenship? And on and on — there's a whole variety of issues in that area.
The issue of job applicants being required, in filling out an application form, to provide information about race, colour, religion, ancestry, place of origin, political belief, marital status, family composition, sex, age: all of those things are still showing up on employment application forms. Some of them probably show up illegally, some of them still show up legally. But it's the whole question of those kinds of personal questions which really have nothing to do with the ability of the person to do the job or not. We might have some discussion about that.
Eleventh on this list is onus, the whole question of unintentional discrimination. Is it discrimination if you didn't intend it? There's a really big area of difficulty in determining whether or not you're involved in discrimination if it is unintentional. In relation to that is the whole question of onus. Who should have to prove that it was or was not discrimination? Is it the person discriminated against or the alleged discriminator? Who has onus in that situation?
Twelfth is the question of attempts to achieve equality in our society. Here we talk about accommodations that people have to make to help other people climb the ladder in terms of getting some kind of equality: the question of the impact on businesses and other people's lives of having to make accommodations to deal with groups who may be underprivileged. That ties in with my final item, which is the.... Incidentally, that issue is a complex one and not one that I understand
[ Page 1866 ]
very well; nor is it one that I know how to design solutions to in law.
Manitoba, Ontario and the federal government have all. In various ways, commissioned studies on this whole question of reasonable expectations for people providing a service or running a business, in terms of allowing other people to have special favours, as it were — some kind of affirmative action to allow them to gain equality in our society. This whole issue, of course, the question of affirmative action by itself, relates to government as well. When you start having affirmative action, you inevitably have a kind of reverse discrimination. If you are promoting one group of people in order to help them gain equality, then you have to at the same time do something that is unfair to another group of people. The classic situation is the California school board case. They had an affirmative action program which said that a certain proportion of black people should be allowed to get into the school. Well, a case was launched by a white person who said there was discrimination against, I think, him in that particular case.
It's a complicated area of law. We on this side of the House have accepted that you have to do some kind of discrimination against some people in order to reverse decades and centuries of discrimination against other people. But it's a complicated question, and I think that on these kinds of issues, which are difficult and complicated, it's more useful in our society if we have constructive debate about the issues rather than a shouting back and forth of the two different, black and white positions.
That's the list. There's much more, no doubt, that I haven't thought about. I think it illustrates that there are a whole variety of issues which could easily be referred to some agency, some committee, for public discussion in a constructive way, so that we could develop law that would serve the needs of this province and deal with these issues — or not deal with them, if that's the decision reached. What I suggested at the outset was that this is a good topic for the Labour and Justice Committee of this House to embark upon over the course of maybe the next year or so, to see if we can't actually do more for human rights in this province than we've already done.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I think I have exhausted both my notes and myself.
HON. L. HANSON: Human rights is certainly an evolving area; there's no doubt at all in my mind. There will always be new issues and new problems that we will be obliged to look at. There's no doubt that we will be exploring a number of those problems. It's certainly the Premier's hope and desire that the committee system become more active and so on. I appreciate those items that you have raised, and I'll be paying attention to them as I go over the Hansard of this time.
Just a little bit on industrial relations officers being used for investigations into human rights. There is in fact a training program; we do give them a training course. We've also taken the initiative of hiring a supervisor who is solely responsible for the investigative officers who handle those matters. There is something about it that provides benefits there might not be under another system. One is that industrial relations officers are circulated all over the province, and there is a coverage aspect there that does have some merit. They do receive some training, but I suppose there is always a question of whether that training is adequate or not, or how far it should go. It is certainly recognized that some education or training is required in the area of investigation of human rights complaints.
We spend a fair amount of time and money on the education process. We have developed a grade 11 program. It's not mandatory. We're now looking at some programs for the primary levels. You're quite right, they do provide brochures and other information. Again you are quite right that it isn't embodied in legislation as a requirement, but certainly it's an initiative that we in the ministry have supported, and it has been, in my opinion, fairly successful — maybe not to the total degree, but certainly fairly successful.
I am sure that the members of the Human Rights Council would appreciate your kind words as to their performance and so on, because 1, too, agree that the council has performed a very good job. I am very pleased with it. I think you made the suggestion that you don't always agree with every decision. I suppose that would be true of almost any type of tribunal, going to the highest degree, I guess, in our country. I think that they will appreciate it, and I certainly agree that it is a well-functioning tribunal.
The issue of AIDS, which I think you raised, is a subject that has been considered. Certainly members of my ministry and my deputy and my assistant deputy, the ombudsman and the chairman of the Human Rights Council, have been considering the desirability of legislation, but it's now under review. I might just point out that the Human Rights Council, like a number of other jurisdictions in Canada, has accepted complaints of discrimination as a result of that. As a matter of fact, I believe there is one pending a hearing at the moment, so it isn't totally left out there. The Human Rights Council, although I don't suppose it is defined in the act specifically, I think have recognized that there is a discrimination as a result of a perceived disability.
In closing my remarks, I will certainly take into consideration the number of suggestions that you have raised. I am sure that we may not always be exactly agreeable on every one of those issues, but I do assure you that I will look at them and I will look at them in all seriousness.
[3:15]
MR. CASHORE: I want to make a few comments with regard to a human rights issue, and it has to do with compulsory retirement. I think there are two issues — here: one is that the issue of compulsory retirement at age 65 is an issue in itself, but I think there is an added dimension to it that makes it a women's issue.
I want to refer briefly to a letter from a constituent. It's a letter that was written to the Premier on October 15, 1986. I think she makes some of the points rather well that could be added to this discussion at this time. Also, I would want to say in making these comments that I realize this is an emerging area of change within our society. Therefore it's one of those areas that I think can benefit from a consultative rather than from an adversarial approach.
I read from the Public Service Act. This woman outlines from the Public Service Act the regulation that affects her, and it's section 49(l): "Unless otherwise provided by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, retirement is compulsory for all employees who attain the age of 65 years, and the effective date of retirement shall be the first day of the month next following that in which the anniversary date of birth occurs."
Section 49 (2): "Where, by reason of experience and fitness, it is in the public interest to defer the retirement of an
[ Page 1867 ]
employee, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may defer the effective date of retirement for a period not to exceed five years."
Now this woman says in her letter to the Premier: "Who is to say that at age 65 a person suddenly deteriorates overnight and, even though productive and able to carry on is put on the shelf, so to speak." She goes on to say:
"For instance, in my case I have had extensive experience over the years in general office work. My record has been responsible and steady: 30 years in the private sector and going on seven years in the public service. There were 16 years with one company, eight and a half with another, and yet another three years. I am fit for my age — in the last two and a half years the only time off was for vacations."
She told me that her response from the Premier was a letter that stated that the Premier wished a healthy and happy retirement but didn't really deal with the issue that she was raising.
She went on to raise the issue with regard to the Charter of Rights. The section on equality rights in the Charter of Rights states: "Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin...." It goes on to include age. She points out in her letter that the Charter of Rights was agreed to by the provinces of Canada, including the province of British Columbia, and that our Premier at the time was signatory to it. She asks why her concern is not dealt with.
She says:
"I wish to appeal this on the rights of seniors as according to the Charter of Rights, particularly when other provinces have done away with the mandatory retirement age. Basically, I would prefer to stay on for a while, with, say, six-month assessments as to my competency.
"The government of Canada signed the Charter of Rights on April 17, 1982, and all the provinces, including B.C., agreed and signed section 15.... The B.C. government could have opted out of signing but did not. Therefore, isn't this policy...illegal?"
I would like to ask the minister to address this tremendously important issue. It is also a women's issue, because, as we all know, statistically it can be demonstrated that the vast majority of women in our society do not have the work history that men have, and therefore have not accumulated the kinds of assets and pensions to benefit them during times of retirement. Sometimes a woman seeks the option of being able to continue in her employment so that she can deal with her problematic financial situation. This is an issue that would be most worthwhile to review with regard to this part of his responsibility.
I also refer the minister to Hansard of June 8, 1985. At that time the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) was calling for tough new human rights laws. There is some wording there that I think would deal with this situation and with these circumstances. I would appreciate it if you would take that under advisement.
HON. L. HANSON: Certainly it's a very, very complex issue. The various jurisdictions across Canada have approached it in a variety of manners. I believe Alberta is similar to ours; and Manitoba does have some legislation.
But it is a very complex problem. I certainly will give the member my assurance that it will be a subject of study within my ministry, as time permits.
MR. CASHORE: There is just one other point that I wanted to mention. I think it's unfortunate that when it comes to matters in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, there's too often a pattern of waiting for the issue to be brought before the courts. I think we have that situation right now with regard to age discrimination in terms of income assistance. The Minister of Social Services (Hon. Mr. Richmond) is not able to answer questions, because it's before the courts.
I think that a government that is providing leadership would find that it behooves them to seek to enact appropriate law and regulations in keeping with the Charter, prior to having to go through the costly process of dealing with it in court. That kind of leadership is called for in our province at this time. Certainly with regard to this issue we've been discussing, I would hope that something would be forthcoming before we have to deal with it as a result of a court challenge.
MR. LOVICK: Before we make the leap into the other piece of the ministry, consumer affairs, I would like to pose one short question, if I could, regarding the Labour part of the ministry's activities. My question is very simple and direct. It refers specifically to the increase in appropriation for the budget as projected for estimates for 1987-88. The increase amounts to some $963,529, which amounts to an increase over last year of some 4.53 percent. I am on vote 47, ministry operations — the total amount. Are we together? My concern is whether that increase of 4.53 percent will be in any way sufficient to accommodate all those changes that have been introduced by way of Bill 19: section 62 particularly, with the creation of a new mechanism for industrial relations dispute resolution: new council; new provisions for mediation commissioners. and so forth. I guess my direct question to the minister is whether the estimates as presented here do indeed accommodate what Bill 19 has created.
HON. L. HANSON: The answer is no. I believe the first section of discussion today in Bill 19 was that there was an appropriation number 67 for the purposes of this act. The answer to your question is quite simply no. There is a requirement for more, and this section of the act deals with it.
MR. LOVICK: I thank the minister. Did he wish to add something to that? I see he is conferring with advisers. Otherwise, what I am going to do now is ask the minister to put on the hat for the other part his responsibility, namely Consumer Services.
Let me begin my remarks by making just a couple of points. Just as my colleague for North Island did, I am going to begin by saying I do not think this is going to be an unduly drawn-out session, for a few reasons. I want to say for the record that it has nothing to do with trying to show extra consideration for the minister, who. after all, has been in this House for lo, so many hours in the past few weeks. I would like to take credit for humanitarian concerns, but that is not my reason for why this will be a shorter session.
Rather, it's because there are a number of things that have obviously shifted. We have a new ministry; we have a new minister; we have a new critic. We have also a number of
[ Page 1868 ]
things under review. Certainly two of the major concerns that I would normally be dealing with, and that I shall have occasion to refer to in my remarks today and in my questions, are both under review. One is the liquor policy review and the other is the funeral home task force. Both items are under review, so obviously we can't spend a great deal of time on those matters today. I am saying all of this now because I suppose I want to emphasize that perhaps next time a discussion of the estimates of the Ministry of Consumer Services will be a rather more lengthy process than it is this time.
I want to begin my comments about those estimates by saying that there are a couple of themes I want to couch my remarks within. The first theme, I suppose, is how much there is to be done despite the fact that we have already made significant progress. I will be the first to acknowledge that under the heading consumer services, this government and this minister have done good work. I think there are a number of initiatives for which the ministry is to be commended, and I certainly am not reluctant at all to offer those observations as and when they are merited.
[3:30]
But I want to suggest that what we ought to do when we talk about consumer services, just as we did when we were discussing human rights legislation not very long ago, is to set up as a kind of guiding principle.... I was again delighted to see the minister endorse the statement made by my colleague that there is indeed work to be done and we ought to be thinking about regularly trying to find ways in which we can improve and make things better. I want to suggest a number of things in the course of my remarks by way of just that theme — how we can indeed improve upon things, how we can make things better — and I'm sure the minister will agree with me that that is indeed a philosophy that ought to guide us.
The second theme I want to introduce in general terms right now, one again that I suspect I'll have occasion to refer to more than once, is the use of committees. There are, I think, a number of things in process or a number of things that ought to be introduced that would very properly, I think, be assigned to the Select Standing Committee on Labour, Justice and Intergovernmental Relations. Again I shall be more specific as I proceed. So those two areas, as I say — or those two themes — I would like to begin.
For the sake, then, of clarity and to make things proceed as smoothly as we're able to make them, let me list the broad general areas I propose to cover in the course of my remarks and questions to the minister. I will deal with these as individual items, and at the end of each perhaps invite the minister to comment, if he so wishes, and also in certain cases allow my colleagues to add some comments of their own too.
Broadly, then, there are seven areas that I want to touch on briefly under the heading. The first is the whole area of the cost of credit, the issue of cost of credit. The second area I want to refer to is the Consumer Protection Act, specifically to do with section 12, disclosure and the proclamation of. The third area I want to touch on is the Trade Practice Act, again by means of discovering whether in fact everything is being done that should be done under the auspices of that legislation. I next want to look at the Motor Dealer Act, specifically with regard to examining whether we in British Columbia ought to have what I understand is in place in other jurisdictions — what is usually called a "lemon" law; and I think the minister is probably familiar with that terminology.
Next I want to touch briefly on the area of the funeral services task force. Following that I want to look at the business of consumers' education, and broaden the parameters of that somewhat to say not only education but also access and advocacy; and as a subheading under consumers' education, simply because I didn't have anywhere else to put it, to be quite honest, Mr. Minister, I want to look at the whole business of debtor assistance. And finally, I want to end with some reference to the liquor policy review process. So those are the areas I propose to cover in the course of my remarks.
Having said that, having, if you like, outlined a kind of approach to the problem, let me begin by deviating ever so slightly and posing two very specific questions. The first question I would like to pose is simply: what percentage of the administration and support services, as listed in vote 47 of the estimates, is accounted for by consumer services within the ministry? Is that an easy question, the answer to which is readily apparent? I can leave it for the time being, if you want.
HON. L. HANSON: All together.
MR. LOVICK: Okay. That's the first direct question.
The second question, and also a direct one, though I must confess it probably has a little more of a rhetorical dimension to it, concerns the increases to the budget. The overall budget increase, as I mentioned earlier, in terms of the total vote amounts to some 4.53 percent. As one looks at the various classifications, you discover quite predictably and understandably that most of the increases fall within that same range. That percentage figure, by the way, I base strictly on the difference between the projected estimates for '87-88 as compared to the earlier ones of '85-86. I'm simply looking at the increase in money over the base figure and therefore getting the percentage increase. As I say, what one discovers there very clearly is that all of those estimates under each of those classifications in vote 47 tend to be roughly within that 4.5 percent — somewhere between 6 and 2 percent, broadly considered, which makes sense mathematically. There are, however, two significant aberrations to or departures from that, and I'm wondering if the minister would care to respond to them.
First of all, there is one figure that stands out outrageously because it is so very different from the others — namely, the item of liquor control and licensing, where we see a percentage increase from one fiscal year to the next of 14.89 percent. The original sum of $1,898,130 is increased by the sum of $282,618, and that equals a 14.89 percent increase. That by itself wouldn't necessarily be any cause for concern except that juxtaposed with that is the other aberration, on the opposite end of the scale. That increase is the one for the residential tenancy branch, equally startling because it is so different from all the others. It comes out to an increase, on a base figure of $832,467, of the princely sum of $905, i.e. 0.11 percent.
A question comes to mind, and clearly one might be a little jaded in posing the question; I hope I'm not. It seems to me inevitably the question will be posed: why that incredible discrepancy between the liquor control and licensing branch within the ministry and the residential tenancy program, where one has almost a 15 percent increase in budget, and the other has approximately one-tenth of 1 percent? As I began by suggesting this is perhaps a rhetorical question, the conclusion I'm sure that some people will draw is that those two
[ Page 1869 ]
figures make a statement about the priorities. I'm wondering if the minister might like to respond to that question before I go any further to look at specifics.
HON. L. HANSON: First of all, I don't have here a breakdown in the administrative and support services as it relates to Consumer Services, but I certainly will get it. My deputy minister will ensure that it comes to you.
As it relates to liquor licensing and control, I believe your question was dedicated to why that increase would be so much out of the norm. I think it's understandable and justifiable and certainly doesn't have any relationship to what we consider to be the most important part of Consumer Affairs. It simply relates to an ongoing review of the operations of the various councils and other responsibilities we have to make sure that we are doing the job that we see as being the norm that we should be providing. In our liquor control and licensing branch, we have provided for an additional five full-time employees, who are dedicated to inspection and enforcement of the rules as they relate to liquor licensing.
[Mrs. Gran in the chair.]
Your concern was the rentalsman's office, which received an increase that relates to nothing. During all of our reviews we have looked at the various operations, and there isn't a requirement at this point. It's handling its responsibilities very well with the staff that it does have and the expenses that it is facing, and we didn't see a requirement to spend money unless there is a real need.
MR. LOVICK: Can I just make sure that I have this clear in my own mind and ask the minister whether it is safe to conclude from his remarks, in response to that increase for the liquor control and licensing branch, that none of that increase is directly attributable to the liquor policy review. Is that correct? Is that a fair conclusion to derive from that?
HON. L. HANSON: Yes, that is correct. As you know, we have done a liquor policy, or are in the process. Liquor control and licensing is simply a reflection of more licences, of a number of situations where we feel there is a requirement to provide a service which we have looked at and have felt to be less than the level we would like to see it at. So we have recognized that in increased funding.
MR. LOVICK: The other answer was with regard to the residential tenancy branch. The claim made, if I can paraphrase the minister, is essentially that the status quo is acceptable. The branch is doing its job satisfactorily and there was therefore no perceived or felt need to increase its budget allotment by any significant factor. Is that a fair assessment?
HON. L. HANSON: Yes.
MR. LOVICK: Okay. I guess that here, Mr. Minister, is probably where the answer or the response to your response is going to shake down depending very much on who one is speaking to. I think it's safe to say that a number of different individuals with whom I am in contact — and I suspect I am not in that sense alone — would argue that the status quo is woefully inadequate, and that there is indeed much room for movement and manoeuvre within the residential tenancy branch.
On that note, Mr. Minister, I would like to allow my colleague the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam to perhaps offer a few observations about that area, given that he has somewhat more expertise than I.
MR. CASHORE: The first comment I would like to make is that given what shows up in the budget, as has been pointed out by my colleague, with inflation, services to tenants under the Residential Tenancy Act are actually cut back. That is certainly a deplorable circumstance, given some of the information that I believe will come forward in the next few moments.
[3:45]
It's my understanding that the residential tenancy branch now deals with only about one-half of the items that were handled by the rentalsman prior to 1984. A little later on, when the minister is responding, he might wish to correct me on that. I would be delighted if I could be corrected on that. It's my understanding that before 1984, there were six regional offices, 35 rentalsman offices and 150 full-time staff to serve tenants in this province. Now there are four or five arbitrators and a staff of less than 30 people, and no regional offices except in Victoria and Vancouver. I understand that the people from these offices do not travel throughout the province to make services available to tenants who are outside of the lower mainland and Vancouver. I would like to ask you if that is the case. I also understand that the residential tenancy branch does not conduct out-of-town hearings, and I would be interested in knowing if that is the case. I understand that people who do not live in the lower mainland and Victoria — people who live in Prince George, the Peace River country, the Kootenays or the Prince Rupert area — don't have access to a toll-free line that would enable them to deal with the branch with regard to their tenancy problems. They have no one to call for their information.
I understand that the minister will respond by saying that all of these services are now provided by the government agents' offices throughout the province. I will pause now and just get your reflection on some of those statements that I've made.
HON. L. HANSON: I am not exactly certain what was here in 1984, but I would imagine that the member is referring to the fact that rent controls as such were phased out and are no longer in place. The people we have within the rentalsman's office, within the scope of the legislation in place, are certainly handling all of the complaints they receive on a very timely basis; there is no backlog. We had about 100,000 telephone calls last year, and we dealt with about 4,000 arbitration cases. The arbitrators travel the province for hearings, but the legislation also provides them with the ability to deal by phone with some of the cases, if that is appropriate. While there are areas that may not have a telephone resource, anyone can phone the local government agent, who, through the provincial telephone system, contacts the rentalsman's office, the call is returned and communication is made in that way.
MR. CASHORE: With regard to the comment about the government agent's office, I think it's very apparent that the government agent is simply not equipped or trained or prepared to handle tenancy situations with any sophistication at all. I don't think that's the government agent's mandate. As I understand it, the main service that the government agent
[ Page 1870 ]
provides with regard to these issues is giving out eviction forms and arbitration application forms.
I don't think that the minister has really responded to the question about there being no toll-free line available. I don't believe there is. I would like to ask the minister: are these services, as you account for them, advertised? Is there some sort of process for making this information available to tenants so that these services are available to them, including the services allegedly available through the government agent's office?
I would also like to specifically ask the minister how many hearings have been held outside the lower mainland and Victoria during the past year — for instance, in places such as Prince George.
HON. L. HANSON: I don't think you understood my answer. First of all, I should say that I think some government agents might argue with you on their ability to respond. But that's neither here nor there.
My answer to you was that the government agents, when they receive a call from a person who has a rental problem, go through a process of transferring that call.... No, that's not quite right. They call the rentalsman's office, and then the rentalsman's office returns the call to the individual who has complained. The communication is made that way. The government agent is not expected to handle the rentalsman arbitration process, and I didn't think I gave that impression.
As to the number of cases outside the lower mainland, I don't have that information, but I would suspect that it would be in the area of 100 or so. I will certainly get you that information. The response by the rentalsman's office to out of-town cases is as needed, and certainly as needed they will be responded to out of town. They will travel to that point. I think anyone would agree, because the majority of the concerns that the rentalsman must deal with are going to be generated by the lower mainland and Vancouver Island. I think everybody would accept that, because that's the majority of our population.
MR. CASHORE: Madam Chairman, I would just like to clear up a little matter with the minister. I don't think you mean to use the term "rentalsman." You've used that term a number of times.
HON. L. HANSON: You're right.
MR. CASHORE: What term should you be using?
HON. L. HANSON: Residential tenancy branch.
MR. CASHORE: I think that what we have found here in the last few moments is a very convoluted process: somebody having to phone the government agent, and then the government agent having to call a government office so that that office can contact the person who is making the call. That certainly is a very inconvenient process, which could be improved greatly by having a toll-free line.
Also, with regard to the number of hearings that have been held outside of the lower mainland and Victoria, my information, given by David Lane of the Tenants' Rights Action Centre, is that as far as he knows — and I think he's one of the most knowledgeable people in British Columbia on this issue — there haven't been any: goose egg. Even if that is not the case, even if it is the handful that you mentioned — less than 100 — I would think that the minister would really want to review that and ask how this process serves the people of this vast province, when the kinds of services that are available in the lower mainland and Victoria are not available in other major centres. I would certainly hope that the minister would consider, as a start, a toll-free line.
While it's possible that government agents might argue with what I had to say, I would submit that if government agents felt free to do so, they would want to argue with the minister as well. I have the greatest respect for government agents and for the work they process through their offices. I have met with the government agent in New Westminster, and found the agent to be a marvelous source of information. I really want to commend the resourcefulness and the helpfulness of the government agents' offices, but I do not believe that government agents or staff in government agents' offices have job descriptions that require them to be experts in the area of residential tenancy matters. I think the minister will agree with me that this is a very highly specialized field in our society at this time.
I understand, for instance, that monetary disputes are not being handled, and therefore small claims courts are not being utilized with regard to disputes. I understand that there is no information available to tenants as to how to go about achieving their legal rights with regard to small claims matters. Also, I understand that there's no assistance to tenants available through the legal services system, because the legal services system lacks the funds. I also understand that the consumer education offices don't exist anymore, to help tenants understand what their rights are and how they might go about dealing with their circumstances.
The thing is that over the years there have been huge cutbacks in service, and we can see that in this budget we also have a cutback, in effect, because of the very minimal increase, which doesn't keep up with inflation. According to the Tenants' Rights Action Centre, there are two times as many tenants not getting security deposits back as there were prior to 1984.
I'd like to stop before I go on with my comments, and see if the minister would like to comment on anything that I've said.
HON. L. HANSON: Madam Chairman, first of all, the new act does not allow the branch to handle money matters. I think the member is well aware of that. In 1984 that was taken out. There's been a new brochure published, and it deals with all the rights of the various tenants under the tenancy act. Certainly information about small debts court is available from the Attorney-General ministry.
Going back to those hearings, I certainly will get the exact figures, but I think the bottom line of the thing is that if there is a hearing required, that hearing will held; and if it's required to be held in Prince George, it will be held there. If there's no demand, then I don't think we would be going to Prince George to hold a hearing. I'd also remind you again that there is an ability to have a hearing over the telephone, if the difference is conducive to that sort of....
[4:00]
The numbers of problems that I have perceived, or at least concerns that I have been given, as it relates to the availability — because the branch is here in the lower mainland.... I've never received one from the public, quite frankly. I've
[ Page 1871 ]
received a number of concerns, that in people's opinion rental increases had been too much and so on, but I haven't as yet received one that I know of — in my short term, I will admit — where there was a problem with the availability, the contact, and the difficult process that there was to make the contact.
If the member is suggesting that the legislation should be changed and we go back to the days of the rentalsman, that is another subject. But under the act as it is now and the service that we are providing, I believe it is working well, and working very well; access to that service is quite acceptable. The political argument about whether there should be rent controls, and so on, is of course another argument. But under the statute as it is now, the service is being provided, and I think quite well.
MR. CASHORE: I would point out to the minister that I have not commented on rent controls. It's interesting that the minister would raise that. It certainly is a matter for debate and discussion. I was not proposing to raise it at this time during these estimates, because as the second member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick) has pointed out, I think we will be able to raise some of these issues in the coming months.
To say that the present act is serving the people well I really believe is begging the question. I didn't hear the minister respond to my comment that there are two times as many tenants who are not getting their security deposit back. As the father of a daughter who went out into the great world and lived on her own in apartments, I can vouch for the fact that the first three apartments she lived in, she didn't get her security deposit back.
I don't think we're talking here about something that is not a problem. I think that in terms of consumer protection, the issue of security deposits is really a serious problem and needs to be looked at. Maybe we need to be looking at the system in Ontario, which is quite different, but I really think that needs to be looked at. A lot of the people who are not speaking up for themselves are people who, sadly, are kind of beaten down under the present circumstances. I don't think that's a reason for simply going along with the case — the fact that perhaps these people haven't phoned the minister personally.
David Lane of the Tenants' Rights Action Centre stated to me this morning — and I hope the minister is listening — that there are many specific cases of corporate landlords denying, as a matter of policy, the return of security deposits. If the minister is not aware of that situation, I would encourage him to call David Lane at the Tenants' Rights Action Centre to get the data they have and to investigate it. If there are corporately owned apartment situations where as a matter of policy security deposits are not returned, then we find ourselves in a situation where the tenant — often the unsophisticated tenant — is left with no other means than to go to small claim court. We've already outlined how unavailable that is.
I certainly would not expect that it was the intention of the minister, under the present circumstances under the present act, which has replaced the rentalsman's act, to see any circumstances where security deposits were not returned as a matter of policy. The situation we have is the lack of teeth in the present law to deal with illegal acts that tenants are experiencing in many cases on the part of landlords. I'm not suggesting in any way that landlords are not a fair group of people, but just as the original rentalsman act came into place to deal with those landlords who were not being fair, that need still exists. A lot of people are seen as fair game under the present circumstances — for example, landlords locking people out illegally, seizing goods illegally and causing evictions illegally. Previously the staff at the rentalsman's office was able to deal with these situations, but now the staff — a very fine staff, in my opinion — are greatly overworked, and are not able to deal with the kind of detail that is needed in order to support the tenants of British Columbia. I would like to ask the minister how many landlords were prosecuted in the past year for violations of the act.
HON. L. HANSON: Madam Chairman, first of all, I have received a brief from Mr. Lane accompanied by a request to have a meeting, but due to some other recent commitments I haven't had that opportunity yet. I assure the member opposite that that meeting will happen as soon as the opportunity is there.
As to the number of cases that have been prosecuted, I can't really answer that. I certainly will get that information for the member opposite. I know that in a number of attempts to prosecute there has been a piece of evidence lacking, and they've been dismissed. Certainly I'll get the numbers of how many have been prosecuted for the member, and my assistant deputy will bring that to you.
MR. CASHORE: Madam Chairman. I haven't had an opportunity to research this piece of information, so it may not be correct, but the information I have from David Lane is that there were no prosecutions in the last year If it turns out there were half a dozen or a dozen, I think that will add some credibility to the situation. I would like to have the answer, and I know that Mr. Lane doesn't have the facilities to conduct the kind of research that is available to the minister. I would like the minister to take it on notice and inform the House just how many prosecutions there were.
My understanding is that the Crown prosecutor is simply not taking such cases. I put that to you — that the Crown prosecutor under the present legislation that deals with tenants and landlords is simply not taking such cases. Yes, I agree the residential tenancy branch is doing the best it can with the staff it has, given the cutbacks. They have a very difficult job, and they don't have the time to intervene adequately in the situation.
I would like to say that there are 10,000 people in British Columbia who are residential tenants and who do not have the protection of any law whatsoever. There are 10,000 people who are the residents of hotels and some rooming houses. A number of years ago this House passed a bill that would declare that those people come under the umbrella of the tenancy act of the day and, of course, that was never proclaimed into law.
I would like to point out to the minister that Ontario has now passed second reading in amending their tenancy law to make sure that those people who are residents of hotels and rooming houses would be covered and protected as other Ontario citizens are.
I would therefore like to ask the minister if he has plans to amend the legislation to provide, in fairness, protection for these 10,000 British Columbians, many of whom, as you know, received most unjust treatment during the time that Expo was on. That's my last question.
HON. L. HANSON: No, I will not tell the member that I have plans to revise the legislation as in Ontario. I will assure
[ Page 1872 ]
the member that we are reviewing the act and we are reviewing what is happening in other jurisdictions, but I can't promise at this point how I'm going to react to that review.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: I would just like to inform the hon. members that legislation, pending or otherwise, is not discussed in Committee of Supply. Would the second member for Nanaimo care to speak?
MR. LOVICK: Could I ask for clarification of that, Madam Chairman? It seems to me that legislation is indeed discussed — the current legislation, but not pending legislation. Is that not true?
MADAM CHAIRMAN: I will read you the section. "The administrative action of a department is open to debate, but the necessity for legislation and matters involving legislation cannot be discussed in Committee of Supply."
MR. LOVICK: Our understanding of that, Madam Chairman, is that the focus of that has been necessity for new legislation. What we're talking about is the existing legislation and whether, in fact, the policy is satisfying the objective.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: No. It says "matters involving legislation," so legislation is not up for discussion. Would the member please continue.
MR. LOVICK: I'm trying, Madam Chairman, but I think there is an important point here, because theoretically, of course, everything we discuss in this chamber is legislation, so I think that is too rigorous and literal a translation of the rule.
MADAM CHAIRMAN: The administration of legislation can be discussed, but not the need for new legislation or even existing legislation — just the administrative part of it.
MR. LOVICK: Thanks, Madam Chairman.
It's interesting; after I listen to my colleague the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam speak about what he perceives — and, I think, with justification — as an abominable situation in terms of rental housing in the province, I can't help but recall that he was in another life a United Church minister. I remember another United Church minister's comments apropos of this. A United church minister, as Tommy Douglas used to tell the story, was declaiming about the problems with the status quo. He said again and again: "The problem we have here, friends, is the status quo." He kept saying that, and at the end of the sermon one of the parishioners came up to the minister and said: "Minister, tell me what you mean by that 'status quo' stuff." The answer was: "'Status quo' means the hell of a mess we're in."
It seems to me that the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam made that point rather well. We are concerned that yes, indeed, the status quo vis-à-vis residential tenancy is less than desirable. I have two of my colleagues on this side of the House who also want to speak from particular and personal experience about precisely that area of the ministry, and I therefore will defer to them.
[4:15]
MR. R. FRASER: Madam Chairman, I seek leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
MR. R. FRASER: I thank the members for their gracious hospitality. I would particularly like to welcome, and have you welcome with me, some students from Sexsmith Community School in the riding of Vancouver South, who are here with their teacher Mr. Spruston. Would the House kindly make them welcome.
MR. BLENCOE: I would like to talk very briefly about the residential tenancy issue and refer to what I think are some of the problems with the current legislation and with the office of the residential tenancy branch.
Over the years I have come to know this area of government very well. I was the critic at the time the rentalsman's office was abandoned and rent controls and rent review were abandoned. In our estimation, tenants were to a large degree abandoned in British Columbia. Indeed, I think we have today many problems with the residential tenancy branch and the legislation. Given that the majority of living units in the province are residential tenancies, I think it's appropriate that we discuss some of the issues at hand. That may have already been discussed by some of my colleagues, but unfortunately I have been meeting with the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mrs. Johnston) and UBCM people, so I haven't been able to hear all of the debate.
It's my belief that the residential tenancy branch is virtually unknown to the people of British Columbia. People have found, I think, through that office and through the arbitration process, that there certainly isn't the feeling of equity and fairness that we used to have with the office of the rentalsman. For one, the rentalsman was appointed by the public service. The arbitrators are not appointed by the public service but by the minister responsible; they are directly responsible to the minister. There is a feeling that the residential tenancy branch is not as objective as it could be in terms of its dealings with tenants. As a matter of fact, the former minister, now the Provincial Secretary, appointed a lawyer here in Victoria — and the person has acknowledged it — a former member of the Social Credit executive in Oak Bay and a close friend of the Attorney-General of British Columbia, to a critical position in arbitrating landlord and tenant issues. I raised that issue with the former minister, and the response in terms of being a member of the Social Credit Party was: "Well, she has the smarts to join the Social Credit Party." The underlying message there was that if you join the Social Credit Party, you can get these kinds of positions.
That kind of appointment — clear, blatant patronage — to a critical job arbitrating landlord and tenant issues puts in question that whole arbitration process of the residential tenancy branch. The former minister laughs. But you know, Madam Chairman, when it comes down to dealing with residential tenancy issues and when people go before an arbitrator, they really have the right to know that they are dealing with somebody who isn't closely connected to the minister or a friend of the government and who is as objective as possible in making decisions, and not a phone call away from a cabinet minister.
In the rentalsman's office we used to have that objectivity. Fair decisions were made. All sides were heard. But now the residential tenancy branch is quite tainted by this blatant
[ Page 1873 ]
political system that is in place for deciding disputes in residential matters in the province of British Columbia.
I think it is in the interests of the government — and if I am reflecting on former legislation, Madam Chairman, so be it — and in the interests of all tenants to remove the political atmosphere that surrounds the residential tenancy branch and once again return to the rentalsman-style officers appointed by the Public Service Commission based on merit, based on competition and based on their ability to do the job rather than their connections.
We have in the city of Victoria a blatant case where the current arbitrator in the residential tenancy branch is a close friend of the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) and a former executive member of the Social Credit Party in Oak Bay. That same arbitrator has never, prior to her appointment in Victoria, practised law in the province of British Columbia. She has been put in a quasi-legal position of arbitrating critical issues pertaining to people's homes and their standing in their homes, and issues that are very important to their accommodation and their situation and their tenancies.
Interjection.
MR. BLENCOE: A member across the way makes fun of this particular issue, but I would remind that member that the majority of people in the province of British Columbia live in tenancies and do have disputes with their landlords, and there comes a time when they want a fair arbitrator without having to spend thousands of dollars to go to the courts. They want a fair arbitrator to hear their case. What have they got in the city of Victoria? A close friend of the Attorney-General, an inside appointment to a very critical position in an area where you are trying to arbitrate fairly about who is right and who is wrong. The former arbitrator here in Victoria, Mr. Lugosi, was removed from that position quite clearly because he started to make decisions that weren't how the government viewed their interests in residential tenancy matters. He was removed from his job, Madam Chairman.
So in terms of residential tenancy, this is a critical issue. This government said when it abandoned the rentalsman, rent review and rent control that it was going to set up a fair system: the tenants would be protected; the tenants would be heard in a quasi-legal situation, objectively by arbitrators. The system, quite frankly, is laughable, but it is also very sad, because we have got thousands and thousands of tenants who are going to have their cases heard. Those cases are going to be heard by people who are well connected to the minister, either the minister responsible or a minister involved in cabinet. That is not acceptable when you are dealing with people's lives.
I've got people in Victoria who have lived in their apartments for 15 or 20 years and get into a dispute and want to know that they are going to be dealt with fairly by the residential tenancy branch. Now I am not saying that the person who is currently in Victoria is not hearing those cases as laid out by the residential tenancy branch today. But when you are dealing with such important matters, when you are dealing with people's homes and their apartments and the fact that they want to get something cleared up with their landlord, they want to know that the person can make a decision that could potentially be clouded by its connection to government.
The former arbitrator, appointed in the same way, started to make some decisions, particularly to family composition in apartments, which I think were very important, as a matter of fact, and was arbitrarily and swiftly removed from that position. I want to ask the minister whether he's aware of the situation, whether he has any comments, and whether he has any plans to bring back fairness and equity and impartial arbitrators to the residential tenancy branch in British Columbia.
HON. L. HANSON: Madam Chairman, I didn't know that to be a friend of the Attorney-General (Hon. B.R. Smith) made you an unfair and unacceptable person. My personal outlook is that it doesn't matter who your friends are; it's the individual we're appointing. I might suggest that the member for Victoria might have a friend I might consider to be completely unbiased, and it wouldn't matter if that person was a friend of the member for Victoria.
I do have some difficulty in understanding the remarks. The arbitrator who is here in Victoria now is a lawyer — a member of the bar — appointed some two months ago by contract. Is the member aware of that? I think you suggested that she was not a lawyer?
MR. BLENCOE: We have a new arbitrator in the city of Victoria? The former arbitrator has left the position?
HON. L. HANSON: Catherine Scambler is the individual's name, and she was appointed two months ago.
MR. BLENCOE: There was a change in the city of Victoria, then, because the former.... I would like to ask the minister how that arbitrator was put in place. Was that through advertising? Was it competition? Was it public service?
HON. L. HANSON: Madam Chairman, no it wasn't an advertised program. There is a list of candidates with a perceived ability, and from that list this individual appeared to be the most suited and was offered a contract. I might just add that I don't have any knowledge of her politics or her friends.
MR. BLENCOE: Madam Chairman, the point I'm trying to make is exactly the same thing. The position once again has been filled and the former arbitrator was indeed the person I was talking about. It was done the same way that the current arbitrator was done. It was done quietly, behind the scenes, with the minister or whomever taking a look. It was not subject to a competition or a merit system, or based upon qualifications, as far as you know, in residential tenancy.
Mr. Minister, I brought this to the attention of the former minister in terms of the former arbitrator's appointment. It clearly was exactly as I said, because the former arbitrator did not dismiss or disagree with what I was saying in terms of her appointment. Now we have a new arbitrator who has clearly been appointed in the same way.
My question still stands: when you are dealing with such important issues as residential tenancy and making decisions on people's homes and the circumstances in which they live, should you not ensure that that person is totally objective and their job isn't dependent on a direct minister's hiring — as we had with the former arbitrator, a well-known friend of the Attorney-General of the province? Should that system not be
[ Page 1874 ]
cleaned up, and should we not go back to rentalsman’s officers who are hired on merit by the public service at arm's length from the minister's office?
[4:30]
I happen to think you're not just hiring somebody to give you political advice when you hire directly out of the public service. I don't think anyone disagrees with that — hiring your own personal staff. We're not talking about personal staff in this issue; we're talking about a number of arbitrators in the province who are deciding what's going to happen in those people's homes and in their apartments and the circumstances and the relationships between their landlords and themselves. There's no more basic kind of discussion at times than someone's home and what's going to happen. I'm just wondering if the minister would agree that perhaps that system should be looked at, and I don't want to get into.... The minister says I may appoint a friend to work for me. I'm not talking about those circumstances. We're talking about somebody in a quasi-legal position making decisions about very important issues to those tenants. Can the minister respond?
HON. L. HANSON: Madam Chairman, it's sort of an interesting discussion. I'm not sure what the political affiliation of an individual chosen to make an arbitrary decision has to do with the decision. I hope that the decision, no matter what their political affiliation is, is a fair and reasonable one. I have great respect for people who take on those sorts of jobs, quite frankly.
It's interesting to hear this discussion. In this particular case, it was on the recommendation of my former deputy minister, Mr. Leslie, and my now assistant deputy minister that this be the appointment, as a result of recommendations from the residential tenancy branch. Quite frankly, what political party she supports or belongs to is not of great interest to me, as long as the decisions she's making are fair and reasonable, with the responsibility that she has.
MR. BLENCOE: The minister is missing the total point I'm making. This is, and always has been, a controversial area in the province of British Columbia — landlord-and tenant issues. It's very controversial. We have a perspective that is somewhat different from the government's perspective.
The former minister, who removed the rentalsman, rent review and all those various things.... His bottom line — and he's not here today — when I asked all these questions about rights of tenants, was: "Well, they can always move." Our view is that that is not the situation. When tenants live in accommodation or in a unit, that is their home. They are entitled to some basic rights, some protection, and laws that treat landlords and tenants equally.
[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]
This is a very important issue. It's not one where the minister can just say: "I happen to think that person can do a good job." We're dealing with a very important issue. In our estimation, when somebody goes before an arbitrator to be heard on an important item that may affect their home and living situation, they want to know that they're being dealt with fairly. They also want to know that if the arbitrator makes a decision that you don't particularly approve of, that arbitrator has absolutely no protection; you remove them.
Maybe the minister can see what I'm getting at. They want to know, because this area is so controversial, in terms of tenants' rights or private owners' rights — we all know from this afternoon that we have some differences — that that arbitrator is going to be totally free to make a decision that may disagree with the philosophy of the government of the day but will be based on fairness and equity to that tenant. That's what I'm trying to get at. When you have a political appointment system to critical positions like this, Mr. Chairman, you can get yourself in really serious trouble, and those tenants feel they're not going to be adequately protected.
Does the minister understand now that I'm not just talking about appointing somebody to some cursory kind of position? Arbitrators are often called upon to make important decisions that may not be viewed, if they make the wrong decision, very well by the government of the day. In my estimation, Mr. Lugosi, when he was the arbitrator some years ago in the city of Victoria, started to make some decisions that the government did not like, and he was removed — gone. What kind of atmosphere does that create for tenants? Most people who live in British Columbia today are tenants, Mr. Minister. So what do they think? They go there to have their case heard. They know they're not dealing with somebody who has public service protection to make a free decision without interference or being subject to change or influence by the government of the day on critical landlord tenant issues. In our estimation, that's very important. Maybe the minister can respond now that I've given a little more depth to the question.
MR. BARNES: I just want to ask the minister if he is aware of the living conditions of tenants in commercial premises — the hotels, for instance, of the downtown east side. I raise that because every time we get into debate on tenants and their options, the means by which they can settle disputes with landlords — and vice versa; landlords being able to protect their properties — and have a venue where this can take place, one that is easily accessible to all parties....
Those people who live in hotels should be.... There is quite a distinction between that class of tenant and those who are in apartment buildings, who may even be in an illegal suite in someone's home. But it's a long-standing problem. It's one that goes all the way back.... I know that when I was first elected we were trying to address this problem, particularly with the people in the downtown east side who were living in hotels basically covered under the Innkeepers Act. In effect, those hotels deal with a transient clientele who are coming and going. That's their right under that legislation, just as it is the right of any hotel to rent to a day-to-day, itinerant clientele that's coming and going. One day, one week, is generally about the extent of a client.
There is an anomaly here with respect to those hotels in the downtown east side, that area having been the one sort of designated for the least in the way of public assistance and amenities, in terms of the kind of support programs and infrastructure needed to really make it a functioning community as we normally think of one — schools, parks, social services and the usual outlets available to people living in communities, shopping, etc. The downtown east side has four or five thousand people living in facilities that are not owned by them but, by and large, by absentee landlords — hotels that are providing a residential service. This is the thing that I hope the minister becomes familiar with, because it's probably unique. These hotels are licensed as hotels, and
[ Page 1875 ]
many of them have liquor licences to serve a clientele in the pubs, etc. They are also providing a major facility as far as long-term residential accommodation is concerned. Their clients are deemed to be going to a hotel in the normal sense. They are without protection as residents, yet in many instances they have been residents in those facilities for anywhere up to 20 years. Certainly it's common to find people who have been living in a particular hotel for a number of years.
Our problem has always been: how do you address that issue without changing the nature of that hotel? We appreciate the problem. What we did between 1972 and 1975 was designate certain of those rooms, which is a patchwork approach to the problem. Nonetheless, it recognized that there is a problem. When we found a person living in a hotel for, say, six months or longer, we designated that particular unit of the hotel to be permanent, and it was excluded from the normal operations of the hotel, allowing that person some protection as it came under the protection of the rentalsman and residential tenancy laws, etc. That was one way of dealing with the problem — not adequate but at least as long as that particular tenant stayed in that particular room or unit, the person had some protection. If that person moved and someone else moved in, of course it became in the conventional sense just a hotel room and that person had no protection. So it required a lot of monitoring, a lot of attention paid to it, especially policing. But it was better than nothing.
Of course, you know, Consumer Affairs ministers prior to yourself eventually wiped out the whole concept of the rentalsman's office and the whole approach to residential tenancy legislation. So today we have some pretty horrific stories to tell about what is happening to people who are living in these hotels, because they are not protected at all, whatsoever. They are considered to be just temporary residents, even though historically we know for a fact that they are long-term tenants. Many of them are people without adequate incomes, war veterans, old-age pensioners, people who have worked in the bush. I remember one famous case we used to talk about of a guy by the name of Mativovich, I believe was his name — I believe it was Frank Mativovich — who was a logger who was living down there, and we used to talk a lot about his personal situation.
I'm sure there are many tragic stories of old-timers who are without families, without means of contact in a normal, social intercourse way, who are finding themselves virtually at the mercy of hotel owners who can kick them out without notice. They have no recourse, no defence, and it just seems a tragedy in this day and age. We know for a fact that they are providing a service to those people in that they are providing a home. We know there are very few places you can go, for instance, and get a self-contained suite.
[4:45]
You know, we have to look at this thing. If we break it right down, what they're doing is living in hotel rooms that quite often have nothing more than a sink on the wall and maybe a cot, and usually everything else is communal. If they have to take a bath, they have to go down the hall; if they're going to use the toilet, they have to go down the hall. This is quite common in these old hotels. They're usually paying the maximum amount of shelter cost, whatever the government is providing in the way of shelter. If it's $200 a month out of the $350 or $400 that the person may be getting on welfare, then that's what the hotel room is. The rule of thumb is: whatever the government is paying, that's what we're charging. So there is a problem with that in terms of the quality of the accommodation that they are receiving.
I would like the minister — particularly this minister, Mr. Chairman, because he obviously is a man who approaches his work seriously and conscientiously, and I believe he likes to know the facts; and provided the Premier doesn't interfere in any way with his efforts, I think he will do a good job.
Putting ideologies aside, I think all members of this House should be concerned when clearly there is a category of individuals in the province who have simply been neglected, who have not received their just due, and are just not being given fair representation. That is this group of people who are living in these hotels, which by virtue of conditions for hotels generally are in fact residential hotels which are relying on the income they get from the government for those people who are living in those hotels on a long-term basis, but yet don't have to pay the consequences of being a responsible landlord. They can kick these people out when they are ready. In fact, many of them are prisoners in those hotels. They don't even have visitors' rights. You know, at 8 or 9 o'clock at night they put a chain on the door and lock the place up. If they had a fire, they'd have to get permission to get out of some of those places. The doors are locked. You go down there and try to get into some of those hotels after hours — they call it after hours. They have no protection; they are prisoners in their own home, so to speak. The accommodation is dismal.
It's just that I don't think we've really stopped to understand the tragedy of what happens to those people in the so-called downtown east side, who are the down-and-outers in the skid road area, decent people trying to manage where there are just no resources to help them.
I know this issue has been raised many times. I remember the former Consumer Affairs minister, Rafe Mair, whom I also respected very highly for his concerns for the community — in many respects. But when it came to dealing with the issue of protecting tenants and their right to due process, the parting of the ways seemed inevitably to come. We didn't agree that tenants had those rights, or that they should be able to have their day in court. There was this old philosophy that the owner is the boss; the person who owns the property should have the last word.
Interjections.
MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, I believe I'm getting some static in here.
Interjections.
MR. BARNES: You say it's great, eh? Well, I wonder about that. I want you guys to be quiet. I'm trying to make some very serious points here. Believe me, I mean what I'm saying.
I can't stress firmly enough that there is a large group of people living in those hotels who are getting short shrift, who are not getting their fair share of representation. I don't think it's deliberate as much as it is due to ignorance or lack of a hands-on approach by government, or the lack of really understanding what is going on. I can assure you that if you, Mr. Minister — especially this minister — took a tour in the downtown east side to some of those hotels and saw some of the living conditions.... In some instances you would even find defecation in the halls and on some of the beds that
[ Page 1876 ]
these people have to sleep in. There are some mental patients down there who at one time were in Tranquille or in some of the other institutions that the government has decentralized. They're down there too, without help, without support.
It's a tragedy, because we say that those hotels are in a different category. We can argue all we want to about rent controls and the rentalsman, and the rights of people to have their day in court when it comes to apartment buildings, etc. The normal person has other options. They have reasonable incomes and can shop around. But there is a group of people on welfare who have no choice. In fact, those people, if they were to try to live anywhere else in the city of Vancouver, for instance, would find it impossible when it came to renting a place for $200 or less, which is the maximum that many of them can afford to pay for their rent. I'd say 99, times out of 100 you will not find accommodation anywhere except in the general downtown east side area. So much for your freedom of movement in this democratic society. They do not have that option.
The point that must be made is that these hotels have got to be seen for what they are. They are residences and always have been residences. In fact, they rely on the residents to help them meet their costs. They are budgeting on the basis of moneys they are getting from the provincial government to pay those costs. But those people have no protection. That's the point that I want to make today. The main thing is that there is a distinction between those tenants and other tenants. It's not a new issue. It's an issue that has been raised in this House time and time again.
Last year we had those people committing suicide. There was one case of a man falling out a window in the Patricia Hotel because he had been given notice. He had been living in that hotel how many years? Some of you may remember. I forget, but it was in the multitudes of years; maybe 20 years or so. There were others. There were several people who, simply out of desperation, took their lives. It was a real tragedy.
The landlords were speculating that they could make a bundle by renovating their hotels, upgrading them, in order to exploit those millions of people who were going to be coming from all over the world to the lower mainland to visit our government fair, Expo 86. Of course, we all know that it didn't really pan out that way, and that many of those speculators found that they had to backtrack and try to reclaim some of those old tenants. Again, that is a story that this House should understand quite well. It shows you that the so-called right of the landlord to do his own thing.... Sometimes the landlord needs some protection. All we need to do is give some leadership and say: "First of all you have a duty to those people." I know there are a few cases of where some landlords did resist the temptation to kick out their long-time tenants because of this short six-month affair.
Is my time up? Perhaps I could get an intervener so that I could wind things up. Or should I wind it up now?
MR. BLENCOE: I would like the member to continue to wind up.
MR. BARNES: I appreciate that. This is one small aspect of a major issue with respect to tenants. I would just like to conclude by saying that we should not allow in future a repeat of what happened in 1986 with respect to tenants who were thrust from their homes by landlords who were, with impunity, able to do so because there was no law against it. That is the whole point. I am not condemning the landlords for doing what they could do legally.
But clearly, if it is legal to kick somebody out of their home after 20 or 30 years without any responsibility whatsoever, then I think as legislators we are not acting responsibly. We are hiding behind a loophole in the system that allows these landlords to do that, because they are quite. different in other parts of the city where a landlord knows his hotel is dealing with itinerant types of clients. That is not the case in the downtown east side and perhaps in some of the more remote communities where people rely on the hotels for their main place of residence. I think we should recognize that, Mr. Chairman.
MR. BLENCOE: I just want to touch on one last issue, and I think there are others who wish to, unless I continue the debate.
Firstly, I recognize that the minister has probably been preoccupied with labour issues and perhaps he may not be as familiar with the consumer issues of the past in terms of how the rentalsman's office used to work and the point that I was making about arbitrators. So to conclude that discussion, Mr. Chairman, I would just recommend to the minister to take a look at how it is done today and how it could create an impression — and does — of a lack of fairness in the system.
I want to touch on one last issue. As we all know, we have no rent review or rent control or rentalsman in the province. That whole issue once again came home very clear in the last month in Victoria. I was asked to represent — and I brought it to the attention of the minister in question period — two highrises in James Bay with close to 300 people, mostly senior citizens. The frustration set in because those rent increases were between 12 percent and 18 percent, some even higher. There was no opportunity in law to even review with the landlord the rationale for such a major increase, absolutely none. Of course, now the landlord has announced there is probably going to be another increase of the same amount next year.
I don't even want to get into the debate about rent control. We would be here as long as Bill 19 probably. It seems to us that it would be very reasonable to have some mechanism of review whereby tenants, when they get a rent increase, could indicate through a rent review process — after they have information from the landlord, which the old rent review process used to require — the financial arrangements so the landlord had to justify that rent increase. The tenants could say: "Yes, okay, that's fair." But in this frustration I have just had — and it is going to continue, I think, because things are tightening up — we had no way of knowing if that 18 percent was justified.
The frustration was that all the tenants said: "Look, Mr. Blencoe, if we could ask that landlord in law to show us why he wants to raise it 18 percent, we will accept that. That's fair enough, but we have no mechanism whereby we can review and counteract in a fair, balanced way." The justification again goes back to that whole question which we have some disagreement on philosophically. Does the landlord as the owner of private property have all the rights and privileges to do as he wishes totally with the private property and the tenant just sits back and accepts? There has to be a level playing-field. I am making a case in asking you in the next six months or a year to take a look at rent review. Those senior citizens, all on fixed incomes, all being hit by budget, Pharmacare and those things, are going to face fairly substantial
[ Page 1877 ]
rent increases and cannot, in law at least, have a review of that rent increase to see if it is justified. There's nothing to protect them, and they have to face it.
Can the minister perhaps respond? That's particularly for seniors, so my riding obviously faces some serious problems.
[5:00]
MR. SIHOTA: The member for Victoria made a series of comments about senior citizens living on fixed incomes, and he talked about senior citizens who live in apartment units. I want to change it a bit and talk about senior citizens and others who live in manufactured or mobile homes — whatever you want to call them. In my riding I have a substantial community of individuals who live in manufactured or mobile homes, and I prefer, as they do, to use the term manufactured homes.
Residents of manufactured homes are covered by the provisions of the Residential Tenancy Act. If you begin to think about it, there is little in common between apartment owners and the situation faced by those living in manufactured homes. For example, people in apartments, if faced with an exorbitant rent increase — whether it's 8, 10, 12, 15, 25 percent — at least have the option of looking for space elsewhere, of looking at other apartment units that may be out in the marketplace. In the case of manufactured homes, there is a limited and often insufficient supply — and in communities like the riding I live in, there is no supply at all — of additional mobile home pads. So they don't have the ability to move. At the same time, they're frustrated by rent increases that are exorbitant — as high as 63 percent in cases that I've seen — but are unable under the Residential Tenancy Act to take issue with those rent increases because of the absence of the rent review mechanisms that the member for Victoria has already talked about.
Their situation is totally different from an apartment owner's. They have made an equity investment in their manufactured home. That is their security, and that security is jeopardized every time a landlord takes certain actions against them. One of those potential actions is rent increases, but there are others. For example, people are often asked — in fact, I just met on Friday with a number of people in my riding who have these types of terms incorporated into their agreements — to do all sorts of things which in my view are unenforceable. There's a provision in the Residential Tenancy Act which says that if something is unreasonable, it is unenforceable. The fact is, tenants often don't know if a term is unreasonable. They're required, for example, to tend the area around their homes, to maintain the common roadways, to pay for the fixture of lights and other provisions within the mobile home facility. The landlord extracts the labour from the tenants, in addition to the income, to enforce terms which I think are basically unenforceable.
Despite this, many tenancy agreements imposed by landlords as a condition of placing manufactured homes on a rented pad contain clauses which are prima facie unreasonable. They're clauses that tenants have some difficulty fighting. They know that if they fight them they may win on that issue, but afterwards they're given a six-months eviction notice; then they don't know where to go because no other space is available for them. There has to be a totally different set of protections in legislation for mobile home owners — a bill of rights for mobile home owners.
A mobile home owner rents facilities on land in a particular area, and the landlord makes an application to rezone or to strata-title. The mobile home owner then has to decide to purchase that strata-owned lot. They may not have the income to do that, but they're forced to do that. Or zoning changes result in being evicted, which once again creates the problem that they don't know where they can go. There are situations when those in manufactured homes are told that before they can move in they must put up a security deposit. When you think about what a security deposit is used for in an apartment — to protect the infrastructure of the apartment — that's obviously not necessary when you're renting people a piece of land upon which they can rest their manufactured home. They're often charged entrance fees for the "privilege" of living within a particular manufactured home park site. They are often told that in their case they have to pay additional fees and taxes to make up what the landlord has said.
Often in agreements the landlord will say, "Any term that I impose upon you is a term that you will accept," and that's a legal agreement. We've had difficulty in the past breaking those types of agreements in front of the residential tenancy board.
The manufactured home owners' association has submitted a brief, which I'm sure the minister has seen by now, which calls for a totally new way of looking at manufactured homes and a new bill of rights for manufactured homes. My predecessor, Frank Mitchell, fought incessantly. I notice that the former Minister of Consumer Affairs is in the House now as well, and he'll know full well that there was quite a fight put up to bring about new legislation to protect the interests of manufactured home owners.
I have one question for the minister — and that's all — and I'd like to see it answered now. That question is this: is the minister, in principle, agreeable to legislation specifically to look at the interests of and the problems faced by residents of manufactured homes?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I must caution you that you could probably word your question in another way, but when you word it in the sense that you're asking for legislation, that is certainly against the rules of order.
MR. SIHOTA: I understand that, Mr. Chairman. I see the minister is on his feet, and I think he and I both appreciate that I can word the question differently. It's a question of principle, and I would like to know where the government's headed in that regard.
HON. L. HANSON: Yes, you are quite right. I have had a number of briefs from the manufactured homes society, or whatever their organization is called. I've also had a number of letters from individuals. I do understand the problem. I do understand what you're talking about. It is part of the review process, and it's a serious review that we are doing. I can't tell you now what we are going to do, but I am reviewing it, and I do understand the problem very clearly.
MR. SIHOTA: Would the minister be averse either to setting up some type of legislative committee or referring this type of matter to a legislative committee, to look at the whole issue and make recommendations to the Legislature?
[ Page 1878 ]
HON. L. HANSON: That's a possibility. As I said, I will not commit myself, for two reasons. I've committed myself to meet with the association and a couple of other groups in July to talk about the situation. So at this point I'm not prepared to commit myself to anything. But I don't, off the top of my head, have any objection to that idea, once I've got some more information and have had those meetings with those people.
MR. SIHOTA: I want to thank the minister for his response, and I look forward to legislation in the fall session.
MR. LOVICK: I hope, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services has noted what has happened here. Two things: one, the area that I deliberately did not refer to as one of my seven points is indeed charged with that kind of importance and significance; and my colleagues were more than prepared to talk about the residential tenancy branch and the issues arising therefrom for as long as I would let them, before I said: "Wait a minute; I have some other things to get through."
The point to draw from that — and I'm sure the minister appreciates this, as do his staff — is that this is an incredibly important and significant area. If we've done nothing else, I hope we have demonstrated pretty clearly to the minister that we do recoil — with justification — when we hear any suggestion that the status quo is satisfactory. I think we've had evidence from the last four of my colleagues that the status quo is not satisfactory. So I would end on that point.
I want now to turn — and I'm afraid I will have to be fairly brief — to a number of other areas that I wanted to get on the record today. The first one is consumer credit. Let me start — perhaps I can save us all considerable time and energy — by just posing a question. I understand that there was a federal-provincial conference on the whole area of consumer credit and credit disclosure. I believe it was held in May of this year. I understand that there was representation from your ministry at that conference. I guess my question would be whether the minister presently contemplates any actions regarding the high cost of credit, which that conference in Ottawa would certainly seem to have been called to address. Would the minister care to respond to that question, perhaps as a first step?
HON. L. HANSON: I believe the conference the member is referring to was in Charlottetown. I naturally couldn't go for very obvious reasons. I haven't yet seen the minutes from that meeting, but the issues that were dealt with there are of federal jurisdiction as opposed to provincial jurisdiction, although the purpose was to get provincial input. I'd be pleased to provide the member with a copy of that agenda when I receive it.
MR. LOVlCK: I thank the minister for that answer and I look forward to receiving that information. It seems to me, however, that we ought not to fall into the trap of saying that it's strictly a federal matter and therefore our hands are tied. It seems to me that we do have some room for manoeuvre, and I'm not about to elucidate and delineate all the points of that. Instead I simply make the point that yes, indeed, we have room to manoeuvre, and also to draw attention to the fact that in B.C. we are perhaps contributing to that problem of debt.
If nothing else, we understand, for example, that some . The figure I have is that more than half of the caseload for provincial debtor assistance counsellors is student aid related, and I am happy to see that apparently the Ministry of Advanced Education and Job Training is now, I hope, addressing that problem and will do something to offset that incredible debt bomb that seems to be ticking away for students throughout our province.
The problem I'm referring to is one that, as the minister knows, the federal government has also referred to — indeed it has a task force — and it deals essentially with the incredible discrepancy between the prime rate and what credit card companies essentially are charging. As the minister quite rightly points out, for the most part this is a federal responsibility, but I'm wondering whether, given the complexity of the consumer credit predicament or situation, the minister would look at all favourably on a review of debt policies in B.C. and would entertain the notion that this might be another area for a select standing committee to do good work on.
Certainly we on this side of the House accept the notion — and as I suggested earlier, this would be a theme in my remarks — that there is considerable work for those select standing committees, and this, too, is another area. I think I could probably demonstrate to the minister that there is a crying need for a review of debt policies and credit policies within this province. I would ask, then, whether the minister would take that under advisement and at least consider whether we can do something about that.
I'm going to turn now to another of my files, another area. I want to refer to the Consumer Protection Act specifically, and I want to start with congratulations. The amalgamation, if I can use that terminology, of the 1967 and 1978-79 Consumer Protection Acts is long overdue and desirable, and the ministry is to be commended for proclaiming some new sections and getting rid of some others that are redundant.
I have a couple of questions about just what the impact of those changes has been. One of them, and again a direct question, I suppose, is simply: what is the status? Let me put it this way: what is the status of section 12 regarding disclosure? Is that an amendment that hasn't yet been proclaimed, or is that in the offing or what? I have difficulty figuring that out from my notes of the statutes in front of me. I have a green sheet that tells me about amendments not in force and so forth, and I have not yet been able to figure out exactly what the status is. Could the minister tell us if section 12 is in force? Okay. I see the minister making some notes on that.
[5:15]
The section 1 am referring to specifically is called rights of disclosure, and we're talking about whether they're called executory contracts. Sellers or lenders who enter into those sorts of contracts that are performed over a period of time, such as financing a consumer purchase or applying for a credit card, by this particular section of the act must disclose relevant information, this information to include such things as the name and address of the buyer, or the seller, the price and description of the goods at issue, terms of repayment, rate of interest and so forth. The real question, I guess, if we haven't proclaimed that yet, if we haven't made that into law, is: why? In fact, I don't really understand why the delay might have been. My reading of it makes it appear a very straightforward provision, and I'm wondering what the difficulty might be.
Because my areas of questioning tend to be in quite different and discrete categories, I'm wondering if I might
[ Page 1879 ]
get a response from the minister directly to that one before I press on to another.
HON. L. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, section 12 has been proclaimed. There are sections — for example, 20, 19, 17 — that are not proclaimed. Right now I'm considering reviewing them as to their need to be proclaimed or not. Again, as with a number of other things, we're consulting with various groups and organizations as to their requirement.... The Consumers' Association of Canada is one that we've had meetings with. But again, it just hasn't come up in the process as yet.
MR. LOVICK: It's under review.
HON. L. HANSON: That's right.
I just wanted to take a minute, Mr. Chairman, to respond to the previous speaker. Yes, I am aware of the difficulty of some of the residents who live in hotels. I've had a number of letters to the effect that there were real problems with that. Among other things, it's another subject for review. But I do recognize the problem: there is a status, even though the place is a hotel and is classified as one.... There is quite a difference in the way some of them are utilized. I do understand, although I must say to the member that from what I have gained to this point, there is rental accommodation difficulty with respect to reasonable rules or whatever, but there is also quite a social problem involved with a number of those situations. It's a combination of a number of things, but it is one of the reviews in process at this moment.
MR. LOVICK: Mr. Chairman, the next area I want to refer to, as promised, is the Trade Practice Act. I'm sure all of us know that the Consumer Protection Acts are very specific and targeted, whereas the Trade Practice Act tends to be somewhat more general and, dare I say, vague in its application. I understand that it applies to anything which qualifies as a "consumer transaction." The predicament again, my information is, is that there are at least two transactions that are apparently exempt from the Trade Practice Act. Those two transactions, however, would seem to be what most, I'm sure, would regard as the most important transactions the majority of persons are ever likely to make or to be involved in.
The purchase of real property and a loan secured by a charge on real property are specifically excluded from the definition of "consumer transaction" under the requirements of the Trade Practice Act. The question obviously is: why is that the case? Why is it that those two areas are indeed so conspicuous by their absence? Is there in fact any plan in the wind or in the offing in terms of remedying that predicament?
HON. L. HANSON: Essentially, that's correct. I have no argument with your statement. There are other protections which seem to work quite well and quite adequately, and I really haven't been advised of any great difficulty in that exemption. Can the member suggest why there is a great difficulty?
MR. LOVICK: I think the suggestion is simply that, given all of the kinds of transactions that people are likely to be involved in, those in which the stakes are highest are those two items I referred to. The obvious question is: why is the law mute on those two subjects, which appear to be the most perilous, the most filled with danger and having the greatest significance?
I guess what the minister is suggesting to me is that unless there are a lot of specific concerns and complaints registered, action is not contemplated. Is that the case?
HON. L. HANSON: No, I'm not suggesting that. I'm suggesting there is ample protection under a number of other acts for those sorts of things. It has never been indicated to me that there has been a great difficulty with those other protections. I'm not suggesting that because there hasn't been a complaint you don't do something about it, but I don't perceive there to be a problem. There haven't been losses and great problems as it relates to the real property exemption. I'm not suggesting that we don't react, or that I would react only if there is a problem, but I don't see a problem.
MR. LOVICK: I thank the minister for that answer. What I see as my sovereign duty to do then, in the course of the next while, is to try to demonstrate clearly that there may be a case there. Obviously I'm not prepared to do that now, nor is this the right venue for doing so. But I shall certainly endeavour to provide just that information on that kind of case.
[Mrs. Gran in the chair.]
I have another set of questions surrounding another area that came to my attention some months ago and that I've had a number of requests about. I understand it has plagued consumers and is a continuing problem for consumer service agencies. It has to do with what we'll call — for want of a better term — kickbacks.
What I'm referring to specifically are the stories one hears and the phone calls and the letters one receives — and I'm sure the ministry is familiar with these as well — from individuals who say that in trying to sell your products, to get your products on the shelves in grocery stores or department stores, the only way to do that is to make some arrangement with the retailer; in other words, the retailer is getting something extra. Usually that is done with a view to getting some special discount price. The studies I am familiar with, and the main stories I have encountered, make pretty clear that the consumers are ill-served: they do not get the benefit of the so-called discount price. Rather, what tends to happen is that it is a straight kickback to the retailing agent. Again, the predicament — as I'm sure the minister is aware — is that individuals will talk about this, they will even write letters, but they have difficulty presenting hard evidence. Nor is it likely that they will testify, standing up and saying it happens, simply for fear of losing their place in the marketplace.
I understand that there was a royal commission in Ontario some years ago to investigate this entire matter. I understand there is also legislation in place in various jurisdictions south of the 49th parallel. I'm wondering whether any thought has been given to taking action of this sort under the auspices of Consumer Services. It would seem to me that we would be doing a service to consumers in the province if we made some effort to deal with that problem; again, a problem that sadly seems to be one of those that everybody knows about, everybody acknowledges, but we can't document and substantiate. I wonder if the minister has given any thought to that and has any plans in mind.
[ Page 1880 ]
HON. L. HANSON: It's part of an overall review that we're doing within the Consumer Services area. I have heard — as the member has suggested — rumours of this practice going on, but I've never had any evidence of that, because it's been a rumour. It's a subject of review, as it should be.
MR. LOVICK: The minister has now made reference to the ongoing review on two or three occasions, and I am very familiar with specific areas under review. What seems to be referred to here is a larger review that sounds like an overall examination of all consumer services policy and legislation happening in the province, or some such thing. Would the minister share with us a little bit more specifically what the dimensions of that are and what is involved in that process? I don't know much about that, despite the fact that I think I've read most of the literature emanating from ministry offices.
HON. L. HANSON: I think that the member would probably accept and acknowledge that anyone who comes new to the ministry starts a review process. I don't think there's anything within my ministry that isn't under review, for three reasons: to see if it's working well; to see if it needs any adjustments; and to make sure that there is a good understanding of what's there. There isn't anything within the ministry that isn't under review, and I would suspect that as the years go by.... It's a process that should be continued as issues are raised. All of the issues you have raised today have been raised with me before, and they're put in as part of: "Yes, someone has raised this issue. Let's look at it and see if there is a need to do it." We may disagree whether there is a need to do it or not at some point, but that's the sort of review process that's going on.
MR. LOVICK: In short, we're not talking about a specific, discrete review process. We're talking, rather, about an ongoing treatment of a department and of the functions within it, largely attributable to the fact that we have a new transfer of responsibility, a new minister, a new deputy and so forth. Is that correct?
Interjection.
MR. LOVICK: I think we'll have to suggest that Hansard learn to record shrugs and hand movements and so forth.
HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: It's called a fresh start.
MR. LOVICK: Only the Minister of Municipal Affairs could see mute acquiescence as a fresh start, but that's another story.
I want to turn now to the other area that I outlined in the beginning; namely, the Motor Dealer Act — that particular aspect of consumer services legislation. The issue I want to talk about is what, as I say, has been referred to by others as a "lemon law." I understand that what a lemon law is all about is dealing with the situation in which a consumer purchases a new automobile — or perhaps even a used one — and gets that automobile, which will be covered by a particular guarantee from a dealer, covered by a warrantee or some such thing from the manufacturer, and then discovers that her or his misfortune is to have a lemon. What happens thereupon, of course, is that the individual dutifully takes the car back to the dealer and says, "Fix the whatsit." The whatsit gets fixed, and the individual drives the car off the parking lot but probably doesn't get very far off the parking lot before the "framitz" goes. I'm deliberately not using car technology. It seems to me we need a little levity here, so I'm making up words as I go, all right? I do know a little of the terminology.
[5:30]
The story is, of course, that the pattern repeats itself again and again. There are lots of cases precisely such as that. I have one that has come across my desk from a person in B.C., but because I have not yet had an opportunity to investigate, I'm not about to read it into the record and name the dealer or anything like that.
The issue, I understand, is that in other jurisdictions in Canada — perhaps everywhere else in Canada — we have protections built into consumer legislation for precisely that kind of problem. I have two questions then. The first is whether indeed it is the case that that kind of protection is available in other jurisdictions, which I am sure the minister or his advisers will know; and secondly, whether any thought has been given to that specific kind of consumer protection legislation.
HON. L. HANSON: I know this is getting to be a repetitious answer. Firstly, I recognize — and I think it has been recognized by the ministry — that the present system of bonding is not adequate. Not only is the amount not adequate, it doesn't recognize today's market conditions and difficulties. I have had one initial meeting with the Motor Dealers' Association to discuss this very fact.
As to whether there is a lemon act as such in the rest of Canada, I can't tell you. I know there are various forms of protection for the buyer in various parts of Canada, and in some places they have less than we have in British Columbia, if you will. But that again is, as I say, a repetitious answer. I am in the process of looking at protection to the public as it relates to the automobile dealer and the bonding process and so on. There may even be some suggestion that there is an ability through some sort of legislative requirement for the association to police itself and provide that protection. I will be looking at the other acts in the rest of Canada in that review process.
There is a certain amount of protection under the Trade Practice Act, but again I am doing a review process which I just haven't had time to complete. I would also say that the definition of a lemon, as the member opposite put it, becomes a determination of at what point there are too many breakdowns. It becomes a value decision at some point, and that is sort of difficult to put into legislation. But we are looking at that. I recognize that the $5,000 bond in place now is not adequate, but I don't think just simply raising that is the right answer either.
MR. LOVlCK: Once again the minister says that his answers are repetitious. So, I am sure, are my responses to that, because what I say is: thank you very much; I am delighted to find out that these matters are under review. I suppose in my own defence I would simply say that we will probably have a great deal more to talk about the next time we have estimates from Consumer Services, when some of these matters are no longer under review and we have seen some concrete evidence of what has indeed happened.
Having said that, I come to my next one, which I already know the answer to but nevertheless want to ask for a little clarification about; namely, the business of the funeral home task force. That too is in process. However, I understand that
[ Page 1881 ]
it too is a separate and distinct task force comprising representatives of the industry as well as representatives of a consumers' association. I understand that what happened is that the task force was well and truly in motion prior to the change of ministry and ministerial responsibilities, and the change of deputies, but that the current minister indeed met with the groups involved, on January 15 according to my note, and said the process was ongoing, and that's where it sits at the moment. I'm wondering if we could have an update on how that process is evolving.
HON. L. HANSON: You're quite right. There was a task force comprising a representative of the consumers' association, a representative of senior citizens' associations, a representative of the funeral directors, and cemetery owners, and it was chaired by my assistant deputy here.
It was an interesting thing, because the consumers and the senior group — no solicitation. The cemetery owners — complete solicitation. The funeral directors didn't care which, but if there was going to be solicitation, they should also be able to. So it was very difficult to reach a consensus.
I expect to receive a final report on that situation fairly shortly, and it may be another one that would be well considered to submit to a standing committee of the House.
MR. LOVICK: I must give away my intentions or something, or else the minister has become psychic, because my next question was just that. It does seem to me that, given that it is a value-charged, emotionally laden issue, it is a natural one to send to a standing committee. I'm absolutely delighted to hear the minister respond as he did.
Can I also ask...? I assure the minister that I'm not being facetious in this. Given that the committee would seem to be trifurcated, is there any possibility of consensus among those three groups? Perhaps I made up that word; I'm not entirely sure.
That's a rhetorical question. I'll let that pass.
I now want to turn to the area of consumer education, and here I also want to begin my remarks by praising the minister.
MR. ROSE: Praising him?
MR. LOVICK: Praising the minister, and I think this is well-deserved praise.
I wrote a letter to the minister on February 17 in which I drew his attention to the fact that I was most impressed with the consumer education kits published by the ministry and suggested that it would be a good idea if those kits had somewhat wider distribution. To the minister's credit, and to the credit of his staff as well, the suggestion was responded to by saying, "Yes, indeed. That's a good idea," and they took appropriate action. I think that speaks very well of the ministry. I think it speaks very well of the minister. I just want him to know that I appreciate that.
Having said that, I now want to suggest that if in fact we can respond to those good ideas, and if we can do those good things in the name of consumer education, let's start thinking about taking the next step. I think consumer education, notwithstanding the heroic efforts of the small staff, is essentially restricted to the formal education system, to what is happening in the classroom. That's essentially the case, I'm afraid. The problem with that, as I am suggesting, is that the target group we're dealing with is simply too small.
When we talked about the residential tenancy branch, a number of my colleagues made reference to the fact that when you are dealing with individuals most affected by rent increases or other disputes with landlords, you are often, almost as a matter of course, dealing with individuals who tend not to be assertive, aggressive, articulate — somehow not capable of looking out for their own interests as effectively as one might hope. These are individuals who, in a word, tend to be ignorant of the protections of the law that are available to them. What I would like to see happen, what I think would be the ideal situation for the Ministry of Consumer Services, is a return to the concept of the storefront, the advocacy role that I think consumer services at one time had.
It seems to me that by bureaucratizing things — to be sure, providing information, but only providing it on the end of a telephone, unless you happen to live in the population centres that have an office available.... And heaven help us, there aren't enough of those. Unless you're in that fortunate situation where you can have access, the process of asking for help and asking for information as a consumer is intimidating and has the effect of discouraging people from searching for the service that they ought to be receiving. It's the old paradox, Mr. Minister. one that we all know well: those who most deserve the treatment, those we are most trying to help, are frequently the ones who are least likely to receive our help. That's the nature, I think, of any system and any organization.
The job of government thus becomes, I think, fairly understood as trying to break down those barriers, trying to take the service provided by the ministry to the individuals. We have made a small step forward in terms of the Workers' Compensation Board — we discussed that earlier — with having the toll-free direct line. I would hope that at least we could do that, in terms of, say, residential tenancy under Consumer Services. But even if we could do that for all the dimensions of consumer service, I think it's only a small step. I think we can take a larger one.
In every reasonably large population centre, we could have a presence within the community. I think that is probably not a frivolous expenditure of money. I think that's probably a good expenditure of money, because what it does, of course, is teach people not to get into the kinds of predicaments that end up costing them — and indirectly, of course, the government or society — large amounts of money. So I would hope that under the heading of the "review" — the evaluation and analysis of where Consumer Services ought to be going in this province — we would not be bound by the current requirements or the current situation, and we might think in terms of being somewhat more bold and aggressive and, dare I say, innovative, with the view to taking the Consumer Services offices to the people in the communities. So I hope that point might be made.
In addition to consumer education, I also want to refer briefly to that other area; namely, debtor assistance. It's probably appropriate to start by saying that the individuals working in this field do very good work indeed. Again, the ministry staff deserves commendation. There is no question of that. My colleague the member for Vancouver Centre says: "They helped me." That was a good thing. I know half a dozen of my own constituents in Nanaimo whose cases I have referred to the debtor assistance branch, and they have done good work — no question.
[5:45]
[ Page 1882 ]
The issue, though, is whether we can look beyond the horizons and talk about doing more and doing better than we are. I think I am at a point now where I really have to just pose a few questions, and if I want to try to end my remarks by six, I am not going to get to cover quite as much terrain as I thought before. The kinds of questions to pose: whether we are in fact doing enough by way of enforcement. For example, under the auspices of restraint and other kinds of cutbacks, the enforcement services were probably, it would seem, cut into. I wonder if we are doing enough in terms of staffing. Do we have enough people out there in the field? I am not about to suggest that all of the action is in the bureaucracy or something. I don't know that, and I wouldn't suggest it unless I did. But I wonder how broad the debtor assistance service is in the province? How many centres do we have? What are the criteria we use? I hope that that too will become part of the review. Is there, for example, a particular population base that we use to determine that yes, indeed, that community will have an office? Or do we have some other criteria, such as whether an area is impoverished or some such thing? I hope the minister and his officials would share that kind of information with us.
I also want to ask a question about a rather frightening dimension of debtor problems. Again I am speaking in a relatively new area for me, but I think I am correct in what I am saying. I would ask the minister and his officials to acknowledge if that is so. It is apparently the case that we still have large numbers of people in jail for failure to pay fines. I understand that that is still the case. We are wondering if this isn't where a more aggressive, active and interventionist debtor assistance program and service might be provided. If indeed it is the case that persons can go to jail for nonpayment of fines, and are not as a matter of course given the kind of direction and recommendation and possibility of a way to solve their problem by a repayment schedule or some such thing, then I think we're in desperate straits. Again, I pose the question; I hope I'm wrong.
Again, I think there is room for consumer legislation intervention. I believe we still have a system in place whereby lending institutions, to collect a debt in the event that the individual debtor does not have the wherewithal to repay it, can take away from those individuals — workers, for example — the tools they require to earn a living. I believe that is still the case. If so, I would suggest again that a much more civilized and probably cost-efficient approach would be a somewhat expanded or — I'm looking for another verb that will make the point — otherwise improved.... Strengthened? Strengthened will do. A strengthened debtor service branch would help. I suggest that's another area for Consumer Services.
Interjection.
MR. LOVICK: The hon. House Leader opposite and I are engaging in some small word games. I should warn him that if he tries to give me too many past participles, I'll throw him an adjective or three, which will really settle his hash, as it were.
I want now to touch on the last of the areas that I have referred to thus far; namely, the whole area of liquor licensing — specifically, of course, the liquor policy review. I know that it is my misfortune, Madam Chairman, to have to respond to these estimates some two weeks before the report is due. I understand it is still due on June 30. What I would like to do, however, is to simply state here that my colleagues and I, I want the minister to know, are very much concerned about what might be coming from that review. Given that the recommendations are bound to be contentious and divisive and that, moreover, they will have a significant impact on social and economic policy in this province, I would like to suggest that here, too, is an area where a select standing committee might be used. It seems to me that we can do a great deal of good work for the people of this province by taking advantage of that avenue. I'm delighted that the minister, on a number of occasions this afternoon, has said that he agrees with the proposition that select standing committees are an avenue.
I will conclude my remarks by saying that I think the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services can take some pride in the work done under the auspices of that ministry. I am impressed by a number of things I see. A point I would conclude with, though, is a motto that I like to think of as a kind of personal credo, but I think it's a good one for all ministries and all governments. That's the one from Goethe, who said: "How little the distance we have traveled seems when we look forward and see how far we have yet to go." I hope the minister in his review will be looking forward to see how far we have yet to go.
Vote 46 approved.
Vote 47: ministry operations, $22,227,574 — approved.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND
PARKS
On vote 29: minister's office, $224,378.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: Madam Chairman, I move the committee rise, report resolution, and ask leave to sit again.
The House resumed; Mr. Pelton in the chair.
The committee, having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.
MOTOR VEHICLE AMENDMENT ACT, 1987
Hon. Mr. Michael presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 1987.
HON. MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, the amendments proposed are of three basic types. The first one has to do with the reduction of red tape. As an example, in the fleet-licensing procedure right now, if a carrier has 57 trucks he's required to put in for 57 applications and 57 separate pieces of paper. We will be reducing that to one, under this bill.
As a matter of interest, there are 114 firms in the province of British Columbia, with 11,580 vehicles currently requiring 11,580 licences. Under the new bill we will only require 114, which will greatly relieve the staff, and present them with the opportunity of doing much more interesting things in life than filing pieces of paper.
The second thing the bill will do is to allow for a greater emphasis to be placed on ensuring compliance with the Motor Carrier Act and regulations. We'll get into that more deeply later.
[ Page 1883 ]
The third thing is to empower the minister to give policy direction to the Motor Carrier Commission, so that the government's policy can be explicitly stated when necessary. Again, Mr. Speaker, we will be getting into that more deeply later in the bill.
Bill 36 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.
MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 1), 1987
Hon. B.R. Smith presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 1), 1987.
HON. B.R. SMITH: This is grab-bag act number 1. It is very far-reaching in content. I will highlight just a few of the amendments, which involve family law, commercial and consumer law, the courts, government administration and finance. I will deal with those in second reading, but in the field of the courts, we are trying to improve their efficiency. That is a very high legislative task, as you know. Make it easier for us. We hope to educate some of your colleagues to have more respect for them too. But I'm not going to get into a debate. There are some important family law amendments here relating to adoption, marriage, divorce and guardianship which will greatly update the law in that area. I think the members will find this legislation highly progressive if occasionally piecemeal — or progressively piecemeal, I should say.
I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.
Bill 31 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
HON. MR. STRACHAN: Before moving adjournment, Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I didn't acknowledge — noting a report of resolution today on the Minister of Labour's (Hon. L. Hanson's) estimates — the protracted, difficult but nevertheless first-class debate that has gone on with the Minister of Labour, the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann), the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Miller) and the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Clark). It has been difficult, but it has been good. It is the best I have seen, really; I have to acknowledge that.
Hon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 5:59 p.m.