[ Page 4003 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Social assistance benefits for employable single mothers. Mr. Barnes –– 4003

Bank of Canada interest rate. Mr. Davidson –– 4003

Free trade. Mr. Rose –– 4004

Mr. Stupich

GATT ruling and fisheries. Mr. Guno –– 4004

Pesticides. Mr. Miller –– 4005

Private Members' Statements

Right to vote. Mr. Barnes –– 4005

Hon. Mr. Brummet

Young entrepreneurs and small business. Mr. Bruce –– 4007

Ms. Marzari

Fisheries and the economy. Mr. Guno –– 4009

Hon. Mr. Savage

Seniors - contributions and health care costs. Mr. Serwa –– 4010

Mr. Rose

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Labour and Consumer Services estimates. (Hon. L. Hanson)

On vote 48: minister's office –– 4012

Mr. Blencoe

Mr. Barnes

Mr. S.D. Smith

Mr. Sihota

The House met at 10:06 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to rise in this assembly today to introduce a gentleman I've had the opportunity to meet on many occasions with respect to the fishing industry, and particularly the concerns of the deep-sea trawlers relative to port facilities for docking: Mr. Doug Marsh from Surrey. Would the House make Doug welcome.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: It's indeed a pleasure for me to introduce a good friend to the House today. This friend always wears white, and that's because he's a good guy. He's a long-time ambassador for British Columbia, particularly for the city of Vancouver; he's a former alderman and a restaurateur in that city. But more important than all of this, he's a trumpet player, and there's a shortage of good trumpet players. I would like the House to welcome Frank Baker to the Legislature.

MR. ROSE: It's sort of reliving my youth when I look at Frank Baker up there. I worked with Frank years and years ago. He is certainly a trumpet player, but I think he's used his lip in other ways most effectively. He's an old friend of mine. I worked for his brother. As a matter of fact, we worked for Gary Lauk's dad one time; that's how far back we go. We certainly welcome Frank here and just hope that he doesn't try to play his home in this building.

MR. BARNES: I wasn't going to get up, but since Frank Baker is here I feel I should comment, mainly because of the comments by the Minister of Social Services and Housing that he's wearing white so that means he's a good guy. Knowing Baker the way I do, and Baker knowing me the way he does, I'm sure he would agree that if he were wearing black he would still be a good guy.

HON. MR. REID: I would like to echo the comments of the previous speakers in relation to, first of all, Frank Baker — and I know Frank from his years in Kinsmen.

Interjections.

HON. MR. REID: Do you want me to get into my cultural pitch, or do you guys want to hear this?

On behalf of the Ministry of Tourism, I want to reflect upon Frank Baker as the ambassador of tourism. He is one of our ongoing ambassadors, and for the job that he does on behalf of the province and the city of Vancouver and the music industry, we commend him.

While I'm on my feet, I would also like to recognize a man previously introduced in the House, Mr. Doug Marsh, who used to be a Liberal. Now I think he's even close to being a Socred. He lives in my riding. Welcome to Victoria, Doug.

MR. MOWAT: As the MLA for Vancouver-Little Mountain, where Frank Baker lives and has his restaurant at 14th and Cambie, may I tell you members that the salad bar is excellent.

Oral Questions

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE BENEFITS
FOR EMPLOYABLE SINGLE MOTHERS

MR. BARNES: A question to the Minister of Social Services and Housing. The Premier states that the minister is taking a good, hard look at his $50 cutback for single mothers on income assistance who have babies 15 weeks of age and younger. Has the minister finally come to the realization that his government's actions are unfair and unnecessary, and without delay will he assure this House that the rumour that the Premier is suggesting he is considering is true, and that he will rescind that order requiring these mothers to lose $50 a month?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: First of all, to simply state that the policy was to remove $50 from mothers is erroneous; there's much more to it than that. The purpose of the move was certainly not to create anxiety or any undue hardship.

There has been a tremendous amount of misinformation about this. It seems that even certain columnists are unable to read the news release and get it straight. Yes, we are taking a look at it, Mr. Speaker. We are reviewing it and have been for a few days now. There will be more information on this forthcoming.

MR. BARNES: I appreciate the acknowledgement that the minister and his government are reconsidering their initiative in this regard. I think that in the meantime, the suffering as a consequence of this decision is pretty overwhelming. I hope the minister will indicate to this House that there will be no undue delay in coming to a decision with respect to this very serious, onerous problem that single mothers are facing today.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: To repeat, Mr. Speaker: the change was from 24 weeks to 15 weeks — a difference of nine weeks, and that is the part we are reviewing. Nothing has been instituted, so there hasn't been any hardship placed on anyone. Most of the anxiety has been caused through misinformation. We are reviewing it.

BANK OF CANADA INTEREST RATE

MR. DAVIDSON: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance. In view of the tremendous negative impact on the entire provincial economy by the latest Bank of Canada prime rate increase of an additional one-half percentage point, what steps has the minister taken to convey his concerns to Ottawa, particularly when the policy of the central bank appears to be the only method by which the Canadian dollar can be artificially kept at its present rate?

[10:15]

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I thank the hon. member for that question. A matter of continuing concern to this government — and indeed to most western provincial governments — is the fear that these intercessions in interest rates can be frequently dominated by the needs of the moment of central Canada. As a consequence of that, we made specific reference to our concern in this respect in the budget speech, as I'm sure the hon. member will remember. We continue to have discussions with the federal authorities about our concern

[ Page 4004 ]

in that respect, so the issue is correctly identified by the member as being important to the British Columbia economy. I can assure the hon. member that this government continues to do all it can to influence national decisions in that respect.

MR. DAVIDSON: Can the minister convey what specific steps he might be taking in this regard?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: As I mentioned to the hon. member in my earlier reply, we are doing what we can appropriately, and I don't happen to think there is any useful service provided by me embarking on a public discussion of the issues. They are many-faceted. They can be simply stated, but certainly how influence might be applied is a matter that would involve all of the province and all of the provincial interests. This must necessarily mean that there will be a dialogue involving many players. In that respect, we're merely one of many players.

FREE TRADE

MR. ROSE: I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. If he is unable to answer it, perhaps he could ping-pong it over to the Minister of Finance, and I am sure he will give us a lengthy answer. I don't know how accurate it will be, but it will be lengthy.

Six months ago I predicted that there would be, even before the Reagan-Mulroney trade deal had been signed, profound and tragic effects on some participants in the wine industry, with more to follow. I don't think we've seen the list of losers yet. Yesterday a wine grower in Kelowna — perhaps you know the story — received this little missive from a financial institution with which he had been a customer and a client for years. It says: "If the free trade agreement with the U.S.A. is implemented, the grape industry in the Okanagan will be decimated. Therefore it's unfortunate for your family we can't grant you a loan." So the family risks losing everything: two homes, the breakup of the family and no further income. What kind of adjustment grants or compensation packages has this government got in place to look after some of the losers that are bound to come about because of this Mulroney-Reagan trade deal?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I'd like to respond by saying that I can't reveal the details of the figures, but I can tell you that I am well aware that there's a problem out there. We all recognize that, and we are working diligently to try to resolve the problem. The issue of whether the particular wine producer has a problem going to his authority for lending him money, whether it be a bank or a credit union, relates to the assumption out there that we will not be able to be competitive. I believe there are some sectors in the grape industry where we in fact can be competitive.

The other side of the scenario is that we have guaranteed the price of the grapes; we've already put that in place. For that person to say he's having problems with his banking community.... That's the subject matter of concern. I believe that can happen if there be some transfer of the vineyards to different varieties. But I cannot reveal the details of discussions that are going on between the province and the federal government until those discussions are completed.

MR. ROSE: The minister mentioned that the problem is out there; the problem is right over there. You're the bunch that wants the free trade. There's the government that's going to send a lot of the grape growers and other orchardists down the river. Do you realize the number of people in agriculture appearing before the debt review board just in the Okanagan Boundary-Similkameen areas? Orchardists, 32 percent; beef, 25 percent; horticulture, 24 percent. Before they all go down the tube, they don't need any sweet talk; they need some help financially. You've put them out of business. When are you going to announce some help for them?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I've been meeting this morning with a number of fruit producers. For the member opposite to say that I'm putting them out of business is somewhat of an erroneous statement, because that is not the truth at all. I'm doing everything within my power, as is this government, to make sure they have an industry.

MR. ROSE: I didn't mean you personally; I meant your government. Does the minister, or does he not, fully support the Mulroney-Reagan free trade deal?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I support B.C. being part of the free trade agreement. I well recognize, as I have stated on many occasions, that there are some areas where there will have to be some adjustment. As a minister I well recognize that there are some problems out there in particular sectors of this portfolio.

MR. STUPICH: A question to the Minister of Finance. The Premier said recently that multi-millions of dollars would have to be spent helping those B.C. industries that would be hurt by the free trade deal. He mentioned, in particular, the grape industry. Does the Minister of Finance have any specific plans to deal with the grape industry, or was the Premier just blowing in the wind?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Contrary to public opinion, the Minister of Finance is merely the Minister of Finance, not the minister in charge of all government affairs. It's traditional, with our form and structure, that each line ministry would bring forward their own initiatives as they may impact their responsibilities. As the hon. Minister of Agriculture earlier replied, the issue referred to earlier in question period is being examined very closely, and all levels of government are anxious to ensure that B.C.'s competitive position and the very important role that agriculture plays in our economy are protected and preserved to the extent possible.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, let the record show that the minister said no, at this point in time.

GATT RULING AND FISHERIES

MR. GUNO: I have a question to the Minister of Agriculture and sometimes Fisheries. When the federal government capitulated with regard to the GATT ruling last month, we were assured that a landing requirement would be put into place to prevent massive job loss in B.C. Would the minister tell the House on what date the landing requirement for fish caught off B.C. shores was implemented?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: The GATT ruling was in Geneva, where the decision was eventually made by the council. The Canadian government has agreed that it will not implement

[ Page 4005 ]

that agreement until at least January 1, 1989. In the meantime, as you are, well aware I am sure, negotiations will continue, and legislation may well be brought in to make sure that the landing requirement is part of the agreement.

MR. GUNO: Supplementary. As you know, the GATT ruling is a purely voluntary one. In view of the fact that fishermen and thousands of workers in B.C. industry are waiting for action by this government, can the minister guarantee that when the landing requirements are put into place it would indeed protect the fishing industry and not one B.C. job would be lost?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: No, Mr. Speaker.

PESTICIDES

MR. MILLER: I was going to pose this question to the Minister of Environment, who I was notified by the government Whip would be here this morning. It's unfortunate. I'll have to pose it to the parliamentary secretary to the minister. In the recent ombudsman's report on pesticides and pesticide appeal procedures, Mr. Owen stated in the overview that his study and recommendations are, "supported by the public officials" — and ministers — "responsible for their implementation and administration." Could the parliamentary secretary confirm that the ministry does support the recommendations contained in the report?

MR. DE JONG: I'll take that question as notice at this time.

MR. ROSE: I notice the culture minister on the other side has just given a rating for our question period: 3.2. I see three of the ministers away in the front row, but the .2 is sitting in the back row. We're not short of good questions in this House; what we're short of is good answers. It's very difficult when we see the devastation that's hit the front bench. We ask the questions over here. We've got lots of questions, but we have few ministers available to answer them. Where are they when we really need them?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. member knows that is not a point of order.

MR. DAVIDSON: Mr. Speaker, any time an individual gets up in this House on a point of order, it should have some semblance of a real point of order.

MR. BRUCE: It's my pleasure today to introduce to you and this House a number of members from my constituency executive. If I may, I'd just like to introduce to you Wayne Bauer, my brother Gary Bruce, Bruce and Shirley Atkinson, Norm Fraser, Joan Dickinson and my wife Anneke Bruce. Please make them welcome.

Private Members' Statements

RIGHT TO VOTE

MR. BARNES: I am very pleased to have an opportunity to talk about the right to vote. Unfortunately, I notice the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Veitch) is away this morning. I had hoped that he would be able to respond, but perhaps there is someone else over there who is committed to the democratic ideals of our great country and province and will provide us with the response on behalf of the government.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, the question of voters' rights is one that concerns all politicians especially and certainly the public in general, but unfortunately, no matter how strident and excited we get in fighting for the right to vote, it seems to be an issue that attracts very little attention. Because of this lack of enthusiasm on the part of people generally, it's an uphill battle.

The right to vote in a democracy has been and continues to be a rather evolutionary experience. It's something that has a long odyssey of trials and ups and downs.

The right to vote is a concept that strikes awe in the minds of some people, especially those who are fearful that it may be exercised against them. This is really the point of the brief comment that I wanted to make this morning. I don't want to lecture the House about the importance of the vote as much as I want to point out that politics are being played in a very real and imminent way with respect to the franchise of British Columbians.

Most of us realize that not too long ago — in fact, less than 70 years ago or thereabouts — half of the population in this country was unable to vote because of their sex; we're talking about women. We know that not more than 40 years ago there was no franchise for native Indians, Chinese or Japanese in this province — or in this country, as a matter of fact. Why would such a situation prevail? Why is it so difficult to get the right to vote in a democracy, and why must there be such strident effort on the part of all of us to ensure that this is in no way diminished?

[10:30]

As I said before, the vote is translated into politics and politics is votes, especially in a democracy, where we suggest that everyone has a right to participation and fair representation. As it is stated in some of the journals that are analyzing the franchise, the right to vote for one's representative is the fundamental political right. It produces a most direct verdict by citizens on the performance of those who govern them. "It is," states James McRuer, a Supreme Court judge, "the keystone in the arch of the modern system of political rights in this country." We know that that's an ideal to be pursued; it's an objective that should prevail in every democratic society. As recently as 1982, under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, that right was enshrined in constitutional form to ensure that every citizen has the right to vote. It makes no distinction even with respect to age. That is an interpretation left to the provinces. As we know, this province lags behind with respect to the right to vote, because it requires a person to be 19 years of age before he can vote provincially, whereas in every other province it is 18 years of age, and in fact that is the federal law. So British Columbia is still playing politics with the right to vote.

There are many examples of what it takes to ensure that people have the right to vote. There were days when you had to own property and you had to have so much wealth. There's a poll tax, certainly in the southern United States. Even in my day I can recall the problems that the blacks went through in trying to get the right to vote and trying to maintain that right. Even when you do get it, it can be undermined. This is what we're experiencing in the province today. This is what the section 80 amendment to the Election Act in this province did. It took away something that had prevailed — something that has caused very little reaction in the public. It makes one wonder if the public really understands what is at risk.

[ Page 4006 ]

Those of us on this side of the House are playing politics too, because we want to ensure that everybody has a fair chance. We believe it is the only way that people who concern themselves with human rights, fairness and an even break in society would have a chance.

So those are our politics, but what are the politics of the government side? The government is contrary to that. It would like to see people under control, to manipulate the right to vote, to put as many obstacles as possible in their way. That is the clear implication of the amendment the minister just introduced to the Election Act. It's quite obvious when you take a look at the number of people who are eligible to vote in this province and the number of people who are on the voters list. We recall that in March 1986, when the New Democrat provincial secretary, Gerry Scott, petitioned the Supreme Court of British Columbia, hoping to overturn a decision by the provincial government, to ensure that voters had the right to vote on election day....

MR. SPEAKER: I regret to inform the member that his time is up under the standing orders.

MR. BARNES: Okay. I'll deal with it in summary.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Since the Provincial Secretary couldn't be here, he asked me to listen to see if anything different was said today, and perhaps to try to respond to it. I don't know that anything different has been said, but I'll do my best to respond to the member.

I don't know what the issue is, because we, as well as the members on that side, support the right of every citizen to vote. There seems to be an implication that for some reason or other we don't. I guess what the Election Act says, and what we've said, is that there's also a responsibility on the part of citizens to establish their eligibility. If you follow the argument that if they can't register on voting day, somehow or other they are deprived of the right to vote, then by implication you could say: "Don't bother to establish eligibility, because you can just walk in and say, 'I'm a citizen. I'm here. I want to vote."' Why would people be encouraged to establish their eligibility in advance if there was no need for it? The opposition seems to indicate that it's okay to come in on that day and put all of the onus on the officials to try to reach a decision as to whether you are eligible or not.

Certainly there are envelopes and all sorts of things that can be done, but it's a process that is absolutely unnecessary if people will take the responsibility with the right; and we suggest that. If the opportunity for people to register before voting day was limited, then the member might have a point. But the opportunity is there now. At any time, a person can go in to any government agent office, or to various other offices in this province, and say: "Am I on the voters list? If not, then please put me on. I'm eligible and I can establish that."

The new Election Act has increased the time when the focus is on this. People may not be so election-conscious right now. But certainly once the writ is dropped, they have ten or 15 days in which they can go in. There will be a lot of publicity from government, from the registrar of voters, from both political parties. I can assure you, saying: "Look, please get on the voters list. You have only 16 days out of the 28 to do it." I really think that with that and the opportunities provided for people to register, there is no need to say: "Look, don't bother with all that. Just show up on the day, wherever." Then you have the confusion of whether they're voting in the right area or the wrong area.

All of these things have to be determined at the last minute under pressure, when they can be established very well in advance. That can all be done without trying to force it, to determine eligibility under pressure, at the last minute. I have no problem with the right to vote for citizens. As for some things the member referred to about past injustices, I hope that most of those have been rectified. Right now, citizenship is a requirement, and people who owe their primary loyalty to another jurisdiction surely shouldn't have the decision-making power in this country. So citizenship, I would think, is a major requirement, and everybody then has the right to do that.

The opportunity to register is there, and that is simply to establish eligibility, right up until a few days before the election, when the whole province, the media and everybody know there will be an election on a certain day. I don't think that is asking too much.

I suppose, from the socialist perspective, government should take on the responsibilities for what every individual should do. I suggest that under socialism you say that the government should hold your hand to do everything. If that is the case, it becomes a pretty firm grip as to who tells them what to do. I think people can make those decisions; I think people can establish their responsibility as well as their rights.

MR. BARNES: Obviously this is a debate that requires considerably more time than is allotted to us this morning. I just want to say that the response failed to address the real issue, which is the fundamental right of every citizen to vote, period. It should not be left up to politicians to determine when they can exercise that right.

For instance, in this province, up until this amendment, a person had the right to exercise the vote up until the second the polls were closed, and you're suggesting that they shouldn't have that right. You're suggesting that the lineups are inconvenient, that there is cheating going on, that all kinds of things are happening on election day that you want to clean up in the name of efficiency. This is why you've cut out registrations on election day.

We in the opposition are not saying that everybody should wait until election day. Obviously no one wants to stand in queues that go for blocks. A person has to be pretty highly motivated to do that in the first place. There is a reason why people line up. It is because some of them are in transit, they may have moved, and under your new rules, if you move, you are jeopardizing your right to vote. "It's too bad," you're saying. We're saying that there are circumstances beyond the control of the voter which justify their being able to go down and register on election day.

If they don't show up on election day, that's their problem. Then you can say: "Well, they had the right to be there; they weren't there." You're taking that away now. You're now saying that that is cumbersome and awkward, and we're not going to stand for it; we're going to clean things up." But the point I want to make, Mr. Speaker, as far as the Gerry Scott petition is concerned, is that in 1985 there were 2,120,730 eligible voters aged 19 and over, but only 1,560,174 were registered on the official voters list.

This is not acceptable. This is a situation that is happening now. It is what is going to be happening in Boundary Similkameen, in Nanaimo and Alberni when those by elections take place, because you are not allowing people to register up to three days before the election day. You have

[ Page 4007 ]

said in this House that you will not hold complete enumerations. There is no effort, really, to get people on the voters list.

Voter cards are not available to those people trying to organize and get people on the voters list. This a backward step; it is out of step with what the trend should be. We all know that voting has been an uphill battle and that people have fought for it all over the world, and we also know that there are some countries where people don't even have the right to vote. But we do have it in this country, although it's relatively new as far as universal franchises are concerned.

It has been an uphill struggle, but it is still at risk. There are still those who would use subterfuge for political reasons, to undermine the right of people to vote, and this is what we're talking about today.

YOUNG ENTREPRENEURS AND SMALL BUSINESS

MR. BRUCE: It's a pleasure for me today to stand and speak about some of the wonderful, good things occurring in this province. It's interesting to note that we've just had this little chat about the right to vote. By the time the next election rolls around, with all the good things happening in this province, the people will be lined up there in queues, waiting to vote for us again to return us for another three, four or five years.

What I'd like to talk to you about today — and I've got a lot of good things to say, so I'll try to get through them as quickly as I can — are young entrepreneurs and small business. There are some really good things happening.

First of all, it's important that we understand how important small business is to the economy in British Columbia. Did you know that of the total of 112,837 firms found in British Columbia, 86,144 of them employ fewer than five people? That is absolutely incredible when one looks at those numbers. Of the firms in B.C., 92 percent employ less than 20 employees. So you can see that that small business component means a tremendous amount to our economy. This accounts for approximately 96 percent of new job openings that are created each year. Approximately one-third of all employees in the private sector work for small businesses. So it doesn't take very much for one to understand the importance of small business.

What is our government doing for small business? Well, let's take a look at it. A few years ago we embarked upon a program called Partners in Enterprise, and the majority of municipalities throughout this province took advantage of this. It had a number of components to it and was found to be extremely successful.

Last year we lowered the sales tax to 6 percent, which resulted in an incredible growth in retail sales throughout the province — a good move. This year, mark my words, again this government took action by substantially lowering the small business corporation income tax, another good sign to small business in this province of British Columbia. Of course, we have the B.C. Enterprise Centre, which offers tremendous support services to entrepreneurs and investors alike. When you see all that package, you can see there are some good things happening in the province of British Columbia for small business. But hang on ladies and gentlemen, there is still more.

MR. RABBITT: More to come?

MR. BRUCE: More to come. What I would like specifically to talk to you about today is the young entrepreneurs program. It's an excellent program. It's a comprehensive program that trains people to capitalize on self-initiative — I stress self-initiative — and on their dreams of owning their own businesses.

Was important to understand that when you go into small business you should have some sort of training or some sort of background so you don't get yourself into trouble. What this government have done is recognize the importance of a basic training program so that people can be encouraged to get into small business, be self-reliant, be innovative, be producers for the economy of this province.

[10:45]

This government took advantage of the HETADI program. You're probably all sitting there — I can tell by the way you’re sitting on the edge of your seats — wondering what HETADI means? HETADI is the Hawaii Entrepreneur Training and Development Institute. I'll ask you about this later. It has two main component parts.

MR. WEISGERBER: Are we going to be tested?

MR. BRUCE: You'll be tested afterwards.

There's a basic training program and there is a residential training program. Now the residential training program, of course, is extremely interesting. We put this program on. I would ask you: even in your foggiest or your wildest imagination, could you come up with where you think this residential training program was held? In what constituency in the province of British Columbia do you think they held this residential training program? Of course, Cowichan Malahat, an innovative, progressive riding.

The residential training program was held at Shawnigan Lake, for your information. It was sponsored by the University of Victoria and the province of British Columbia through the Advanced Education ministry and Economic Development. Education, Economic Development, University of Victoria, all working together. An interesting program. It shows good government and it shows that commitment to small business.

The basic training program itself has a seven-hour, pre-business workshop. That allows people to get some idea of what small business entails. The second component is a one day workshop, which allows people to learn the techniques of finding and testing new business ideas, and using an interactive computer video program — now there's a handle for you — again showing we are in the twentieth century. We're moving ahead. We're not just fumbling in the darkness; we're laying out strategy so that people can get involved in small business.

Also combined with that is a two-day market research and business plan workshop, which again allows and helps to provide a basic understanding of the business planning process. It's important that you do have that understanding, of course.

The residential training program is extremely interesting. After you have gone through those three stages, 25 of those people who have been in that first stage are asked to carry on and attend the intensive 24-day, live-in sessions. Out of this first class that was put together, 25 were selected. Their average age was 26.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

[ Page 4008 ]

What happened in that 24-day period is just incredible. Living there together, ideas are bounced back and forth as they attempt to build their business plans, the marketing that's necessary, the financing that's necessary. They have data collection and analysis, strategy formulation and forecasting, marketing, etc., to develop viable business plans. They also, very importantly, are taught and have that interaction with lending institutions, so when they put their business plan together and take it to a financier, it's already in place, and it's proven.

They understand where their markets are, what they're looking to achieve, and how they're going to get there. They're not just set out on a course and left there to fend on their own. They're given the assistance through this training program to move into the marketplace, and they have excellent success rates. More than that, they have some excellent programs and ideas of what they're attempting to do, which have helped many people in providing new jobs, new commodities and new markets.

As we've mentioned, small business is extremely important to the province of British Columbia. The particular development they put together at these workshops.... We've had two now in the province of British Columbia. One was held in Port Alberni and one in the Shawnigan Lake area. There are some fine examples, and I will be happy to share them with you when I finish up in a few minutes.

MS. MARZARI: I had anticipated getting involved with a deeply probing investigation into young entrepreneurs and small business. I didn't realize we were going to be subjected to a sales pitch, right up there with one of those late-night TV sales pitches that tell us to send our money in, and we will get what we want with a live-in business training program.

Mr. Speaker, let me suggest to you, before we run off and sign contracts with this private training institution from Hawaii, that what small business in this province is looking for and needs is economic stability, long-range planning, solid investment, loan guarantees, promises and contracts developed with credit unions so that programs can be carried out, and equity.

What small business needs in this province is equity at the first stage of entering business, and then a bit of a line of credit that can be backed up, especially if that small business is run by a young person or a woman. We know that they are the big movers in this province who are creating the jobs. Those are the people — young people and especially women — who are developing small businesses that are successful; 80 percent of small businesses are being run by women, and they're doing a good job at it.

The quick-fix solution — we've just found a training program from Hawaii that works — is not what small business is looking for in this province. Small businesses in this province, especially those directed towards youth and women, have been to this point half-planned, not seriously thought-out, and short-lived. In fact, the youth program that I remember coming in contact with was for university students or post-high-school students. It was a four-month program where the student was expected to come in with a business plan, receive a little cash and have to pay that cash back before school started in the fall.

The small business community in the province laughs at this program, and we who have been in small business have very often seen young people run through the front door of the store or the shop saying: "Help me out here. I've got to make back my money." You can't run a four-month program for young people to start them off in business when the society we live in and the business world operates on 90-day repayment plans. You can't do it. That's the kind of incentive we have provided our young people with.

When this side of the House talks about investing in young people, women, innovators and entrepreneurs, we're talking about building social infrastructure. We're talking about investing in them when they're little kids and investing in the stability of their families. We're talking about investing in them as they go through their school years and teaching them how to make decisions and choices. We don't believe in feeding them propaganda about having babies for the state and all that stuff that you guys are peddling lately.

When they get older, we've got to invest in their post-secondary education. We've got to ensure that they have some reasonable capacity to think that they're going to have low enough tuition rates and high enough accessibility rates, and that it's actually going to mean something to stay and invest in B.C. That's the kind of investment we're talking about, because then we are ensuring that we have provided an example to and a long-term interest in young people, so that they can afford to have a long-term interest in the economy of British Columbia.

What we say on this side of the House is no quick fixes, please. Let's build the programs by starting with the kids. Then let's build the social infrastructure, because that's what the banks look for in the last analysis, and it will come right back to where we were at the beginning. Small business in this province needs investment, equity and guarantees. High risk small business needs to be told that the money is going to be there — guaranteed by the provincial government perhaps — through their credit union or bank. It's going to be there for them in six months and a year, so that their business plans can be developed with a one-year, 18-month or two-year plan. That's what they need. They don't need five years of education to teach them that; they need a solid grounding, and then they need some money. They need some investment in them.

The volunteer community, the business federation and the small business federation are very interested in looking at that. We are told that B.C. Central Credit Union is ready to work on a program with this government to try to ensure that seed capital is made available through the credit unions to young entrepreneurs, to young women working, to creators and innovators. I haven't seen the announcement for this program yet. I haven't seen the $6 million that was available. I say then, Mr. Speaker, that this is the kind of investment that we've got to be talking about, not quick fixes.

MR. BRUCE: Let's talk about success. If you want to send your money to me at night, that's fine; I'll take it. I have no problem with that at all. But let's talk about success. Let's look at the facts.

It's interesting that the member for Vancouver-Point Grey has said certain things, many parts of which we are already far ahead in putting in place and developing. So it's good that they recognize that. But when you look at this particular program in itself, it's not a quick fix; it's long-lasting.

Look at some of the success rates: 80 percent of the graduates of this program start a business in the first year. In the Shawnigan Lake example, 13 of 25 have already started businesses and eight more will be in operation by the end of this year. What does that mean? It means that of the 13 already started, there are 15 jobs created, and it's expected

[ Page 4009 ]

that by year's end over 60 jobs will be created as a result of this program.

What did it cost? It cost $200,000. What did that $200,000 mean? Well, certainly some of it got into the community of Shawnigan Lake, which helps those businesses and the people in that area; that's great. The business that ran the training program derived a benefit from it, certainly; nothing wrong with that at all. And at least 21 new small businesses will be developed as a result. The short-term estimated costs are very low when you look at the aspect of job development: it works out to about $3,000 per job. But they are good, long-term, solid jobs because they have a good business plan and a good marketing plan behind them; they make sense. It's with the info that people learn in this program that they're able to put together proper financing programs and be able to go to private and commercial lenders to get the money that they need.

Let's just very quickly take a look at a few of the examples of what people were doing there. One business operation is a nanny agency. Because of their success, they're going to franchise offices — they're already in operation — which will be opened across Canada and in the United States over the next three years. What's the purpose of this business plan? It's to revolutionize the nanny industry and capture our share — Canadians' share — of the market in the next three years. These nanny agencies are included in the child care industry, and are a relatively new concept in child care that offer an alternative — and that's okay too in this society — to parents who would otherwise be choosing day care or unscreened baby-sitters to care for their children.

What does this mean in sales and gross profit? In the first year of operation, it's estimated that they'll make some $82,680. Not bad, eh? A good, local, Victoria, British Columbia Canadian. Hey, that's okay, isn't it? By year three of operation, this particular agency is estimated to have sales of $940,000 and a net profit of $343,000. Now aren't those some good things that are happening in the province of British Columbia?

[11:00]

FISHERIES AND THE ECONOMY

MR. GUNO: I'm happy today to rise to speak on what I consider an important issue. I want to bring to the House's attention the significance of British Columbia's fishing industry to the economic well-being of the province. I believe this to be highly appropriate in view of the Minister of Environment's (Hon. Mr. Strachan's) recent sojourn into silliness or, I guess we can say, foray into foolishness. At any rate, this is in reference to his assertion that commercial fishermen should be banned from our offshore, that commercial fishing is essentially a welfare state; and I'm sorry to see that the Minister of Environment is not in the House today.

As a personal note, I found his remarks to be highly objectionable. I come from a fishing family. I fished commercially myself for three years. My father started fishing when he was about 12 years old and fished until he died almost 60 years later. He and countless others like him have worked, and are still working very hard, in a highly dangerous occupation. I find the minister's reference to their occupation as a welfare state to be very objectionable.

One can ignore such non sequiturs, but since this one came from a member of this government, we have to be concerned about the appalling ignorance it represents about such a vital resource industry. There's no doubt about the importance of this industry — and it's longstanding. The aboriginal people were among the first to engage in it in a very significant way, and it grew and developed. Today it is still a very significant source of employment for many people who live in small communities along the B.C. coast. It employs thousands of women. So for the minister to dismiss it out of hand is simply irresponsible.

No one is suggesting that the industry is one of the most efficient. I would concede that it's far from it. The industry today faces a myriad of problems, many of them complex. I think it's almost axiomatic to say that what we have today in our fishing industry is too many fishing-boats chasing fewer and fewer fish. Because of this burgeoning conflict over the resource, I think it's important that both the senior governments get together and try to resolve some of their conflicting jurisdictions with regard to this industry.

I just want to look at some of the economic factors with regard to this important industry, and I take this from the Price Waterhouse report. The British Columbia fishing industry employed 24,000 people full and part time at the peak of the season, creating 14,000 direct man-years of employment in the province. This is about the same number as was generated in 1986 by all of the producing mines in British Columbia, so it's a significant job-creating industry. In terms of economic spinoffs, direct fishing industry expenditures on goods and services, combined with employee spending, created an additional 15,000 full-time equivalent man-years of employment in B.C. and elsewhere in Canada.

In 1987 the industry had a gross revenue of $747 million, representing 30 percent of total Canadian fish sales. About $573 million in fish sales involved exports to foreign markets such as Japan. the European Economic Community and the United States, making the industry an important Canadian generator of foreign exchange. In terms of quality of product that this fishing industry produces, it's first-rate. It's one of the most important in the world.

Nearly 7,000 commercial fishing vessels were licensed in B.C., creating work for an estimated 14,000 fishermen. Commercial fishermen received $390 million for a 1986 catch of more than 220,000 tons of fish. Salmon accounted for 65 percent of the value of all B.C. fish landings. There were 170 fish processing plants operating in B.C., paying something like $129 million in wages, salaries and benefits to an estimated 7,500 employees. The fish-processing industry spent about $540 million on domestic and foreign fish purchases, and on processing, warehousing and transportation.

There's no doubt that this industry is a significant one. It contributes greatly to the economy of not only B.C. but Canada. There have been studies which show that it ought to be supported. I believe this government has failed to appreciate the tremendous economic contribution that the fish industry represents in B.C. I think this government must show that appreciation by being prepared to work with the federal government, who have a clear jurisdiction to work out and reconcile their separate and sometimes conflicting interests and responsibilities. As Peter Pearse called for in his 1982 report, this government must begin to work with the federal government in terms of....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, your time is up under standing orders.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: To the hon. member for Atlin, I'd like to respond by saying that the facts presented by the

[ Page 4010 ]

member are very close to dead on. I compliment him for that, and commend him for his statements. But the fact that you think.... The latter part of your address — that this government doesn't have some concern about the Pacific fishery — is erroneous. I don't recollect considering at any time, as the minister responsible for the industry, that this government would be abandoning the west coast fishery. We are doing everything within our power to have more say in what happens in the Pacific coast fishery.

MR. LOVICK: What about what Strachan said?

HON. MR. SAVAGE: I cannot answer for the member. I can tell you that I've met with the fishing community in Prince Rupert on many occasions. As the member from Prince Rupert could attest to if he were in the House, I have made myself available at every occasion that I've been asked, and as often as I possible can, to make myself available as the minister responsible to the industry, to hear their concerns; and of course their concern is that it is a valuable contributor to the economy of this province.

Your number of $747 million is correct. The 7,000 vessels is very close to dead on, with 14,000 people being employed on those vessels. All very important. But I guess some of the numbers we don't tend to bring forward are those that relate to the value of investment. Those 7,000 vessels probably represent well in excess of billions of dollars of investment, not only by the companies but by the independent people who own their own vessels. Then there's the millions and millions in equipment on board those vessels. The processing facilities, as you said, run into the hundreds of millions of dollars, all contributing towards the economic generator of this province. Let me assure you that this government well recognizes that.

There are other aspects that should be pointed out as well. Approximately $22 million is paid in federal taxes by the industry, approximately $10 million is paid into provincial coffers and approximately $3 million generated in municipal coffers. So it all adds up to an economic generator.

The other aspect that is often not talked about is the sport fishing. We know the value of both, but the fact of the matter is that the vast majority of the fishermen on the Pacific coast here have bought homes and businesses of their own. All are dollars that are generated entirely within the province. Of course, I would be the last person, as the minister responsible, to say that it doesn't play an important role in the economy. It is obviously one of the key economic generators of dollars. For every dollar that is invested in the fisheries on the west coast, we get a sevenfold return from the fishing community. So nobody can say that they don't pay their way, if you like to use that term.

We well recognize that a great many of those jobs that are secured in that industry are full time, not part time. It is often assumed that the people who work in the processing plants are all part time, but there is a terrific sector that is on a full-time basis. There is the marketing of the product, the retail value, the value added for distribution — it just goes on and on. Don't think for one minute that I, as a minister in this government, do not recognize the value of that sector. You can rest assured that I will do everything within my portfolio to make sure that we enhance that wherever possible, including conservation measures that are necessary to undertake. If we are to have a resource and jobs for the future, that will all be part of the mandate, to make sure that this government covers off for future generations to come.

MR. GUNO: I appreciate the comments of the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and I have no doubt about his commitment. I'm glad to hear that he has acknowledged the importance of this industry.

What remains troublesome are still the echoing remarks of the Minister of Environment, who should be one of the key players working in conjunction with the Minister of Agriculture in terms of working towards better conservation programs to protect the fish habitat. So I hope that we will not be hearing differing signals from this government about the priorities they place on this industry.

I think this government must be prepared to show its commitment, not by just saying that they are not abandoning the industry, but by starting to look at some of the industrial activities going on right now that are a clear threat to the fish habitat. I name three. The offshore drilling: we have a moratorium on right now, I know, but I know the government is considering lifting that moratorium in spite of the fact that the full environmental impact on that particular activity has not been studied. So there is no clear, biological baseline research conducted in that area.

Fish farms: there are some very grave concerns about the threat that this particular activity has on wild stock. Again, there is simply no real study being conducted on the part of this government. In terms of forestry — this has been ongoing for years — the fish are the last to be considered when forestry plans are put into place. There is simply no development of plans being insisted upon by this government.

So we need more than just assurances, Mr. Minister. We need action so that the people who are engaged in this industry will know that this government does care.

SENIORS — CONTRIBUTIONS
AND HEALTH CARE COSTS

MR. SERWA: I've entitled the topic I am going to speak about with a special quote: "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country." The quote is taken from John F. Kennedy's inaugural address in 1961. I believe that this statement is symbolic of the attitude of seniors towards the development of this province. It could well be accepted as the creed of seniors in British Columbia. They built this province and this country, and in their retired years they continue to serve.

Much has been said of late in the media about the Social Credit government's policy towards seniors. The media appear to be giving the impression that we do not care about our senior citizens or value their ongoing contribution to this great province of ours. I want to state here and now that nothing could be further from the truth. Seniors are part of our province's most valuable resource, its people. Seniors continue to play a vital role in our society. The wisdom, intensive knowledge, experience and many talents of seniors result in an invaluable contribution to the community.

Seniors today are far from being the stereotypical rocking-chair grandparents with ill health and fading eyesight. Seniors are physically active, healthy, better educated, independent and more involved in their communities than ever before. In my constituency of Okanagan South, seniors participate in and make significant contributions to every club, organization and society. Our seniors, whether they spent the majority of their years here in our province or have adopted our province in their later years, continue to make significant contributions to the life of our province.

[ Page 4011 ]

[11:15]

We have an ageing population. Today just over 10 percent of Canadians are seniors; by the year 202 1, nearly 30 percent will be 65 or older. In the next 20 years, British Columbia's senior citizen population will rise from 373,000 today to 550,000 in the year 2008. Due to our mild climate, our excellent social services and the high quality of life, British Columbia is the favourite retirement destination for people from across the country. As the MLA for Okanagan South, I know that the people of my constituency welcome seniors from across Canada to our thriving community. We are more productive and economically more stable as a result of their choosing to live in our communities.

Many continue to create employment opportunities for others by maintaining active business interests. Retired people have a positive impact on our economy and lifestyle. Through their purchasing power and significant disposable income, seniors have created an ever-expanding retirement industry. Developers provide a diverse range of housing for seniors. Building construction for the retirement industry alone has been a major force in the economic recovery in my constituency.

One senior from Australia has invested millions of dollars of new capital into the Big White ski area. The resulting increase in winter tourism has benefited the whole of my constituency. Another senior builds sites and maintains birdhouses for bluebirds. His group has placed hundreds of these birdhouses. Both these seniors have in their own way added to and enhanced the quality of life for the residents of the Okanagan.

Today's retiree has much more disposable income in real terms than ever before. A recent estimate is that 50 percent of the disposable wealth of this country is held by people 55 years and older. The income generated by the retirement industry provides our economy with stability, and this in turn creates employment in many sectors. Their activities and interests stimulate the development of the arts, crafts and cultural activities and educational endeavours.

Beyond economics, seniors contribute many valuable intangibles. Our communities are richer for the hours of dedicated volunteer service given by our seniors. Their time and patience in transmitting their knowledge to others and providing for future generations the values which made our province and country great are beyond value. We owe to our seniors a debt of gratitude for the province and the communities that they have helped build.

However, health costs are a reality that we need to address in a realistic way if future generations are to enjoy the equivalent standard of care. It has been pointed out that while people age 65 and over constitute just over 12 percent of British Columbia's population, they account for nearly $1.8 billion, or almost half, of the $4 billion Ministry of Health expenditure. These costs will continue to increase as the number of seniors grow.

To address the economic reality of our rising health care costs, I propose that we re-examine the current cost-sharing agreement between the federal and provincial governments covering health care costs. Currently, the federal fiscal arrangements for health care costs provide grants based on the provincial population and the historical costs of the programs, escalated according to the rate of increase in nominal gross national product minus 2 percent. As the amount of the federal transfer is unrelated to current provincial expenditures in the field of health care costs, this could prove to be a problem to our province in the future, as the percentage of seniors increases and health costs grow.

We may need to re-evaluate the current system of allocating transfer grants simply on the basis of population, by taking into account the age of the population in allocating funds for health care. By making grants based on both the provincial population and the age of that population, provinces with a greater portion of seniors would receive larger grants to offset the higher costs associated with providing basic health care services to this segment of the population. Such a scheme would, in my opinion.... I'll conclude in the last three minutes.

MR. ROSE: I'm always pleased to listen to the member for Okanagan South, who is an old friend of mine and a very sincere person, I'm sure: he does his homework well. I know how he loves seniors. As a matter of fact, I love seniors too. I have a mother who is 89, and I'm almost getting to be a senior citizen myself, along with you, Mr. Speaker. It's not a state of life that most of us aspire to, but it happens to even the best of us. So that's about all we can say.

We have about 2.5 million seniors in Canada, and their numbers will be growing as we have better health standards and better education and all those things. I want to tell you some startling statistics. Over half those 2.5 million seniors receive the old age supplement. The only people who qualify for the old age supplement, which is a supplement beyond the old age security, are those who have no other income. So over half the senior citizens in Canada are broke, or else they couldn't qualify for the supplement.

I was quite interested in what the member for Okanagan South had to say, and how much he loved the seniors, and how much he felt their contribution should be recognized. I wondered how he was going to vote on a number of items that affect seniors. How did he vote? For instance, in 1987 the premiums for medical insurance were increased by 10 percent in the budget. How did the member vote? User fees in the 1987 budget were introduced in physiotherapy, podiatry and chiropractic services — $5 each visit. How did the member for Okanagan South vote? Did he support these premium increases? Did he support the medical fee increases?

In 1987, the seniors had another cruel double-whammy. Prescription drug fees went up, making seniors pay 75 percent of dispensing fees on their purchases up to a maximum of $125 per year. Did the member for Okanagan South support this budget item for seniors, or did he vote against it?

Ambulance fees in 1988 — the cost of transporting the patient — increased 25 percent from $28 to $35 for the first 40 kilometres. Does he support that increase?

Long-term care rates are going from 75 percent to 85 percent of the seniors' combined security and guaranteed income supplement. Does he intend to support this? How did he vote on the budget? Did he vote for this increase, or did he oppose it?

The housing allowance: no increase in SAFER. We know that over half of the 2.5 million on old age supplement are broke. Many seniors pay as much as 50 percent of their income on housing. Has he called for an increase in the shelter allowance?

Property tax in 1987 for seniors increased from a minimum of $1 to a minimum of $100. A lot of people have worked all their lives to build their little mortgaged ivy covered cottage, and their tax increased 100 percent.

[ Page 4012 ]

There was a 5 percent drop in the budget for homemaker services. How has the member called for that to be reversed? Personal income tax increased 8.4 percent for low- and middle-income seniors. The lack of consultation, all of these things....

I know the member for Okanagan South loves his mother; I love my mother. She's soon going to be 89, and she's so healthy I accuse her sometimes of denying me my inheritance. Nevertheless, if you say you love me and it's not Valentine's Day for a few months, show me.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I want the member for Okanagan South to get up there on his heels and fight this rampage against seniors; not to be part of the gang that attacks elderly people, but actually to fight for them — not in words, but in deeds. It's deeds that count.

MR. SPEAKER: I regret to inform, the member that his time is up under standing orders.

MR. ROSE: You're a good deal younger than when I first started this speech. [Laughter.]

MR. SERWA: I would just like to conclude my prepared statement.

Such a scheme would, in my opinion, make it possible for any province to maintain basic health care services for seniors at a prescribed standard, without imposing undue taxation on younger generations.

In response to my colleague and senior in the Legislature, I'd like to go back historically a little. The two parties that evolved from the harsh, difficult, Depression were the Social Credit Party and the CCF. The bedrock foundation of both of those parties was a very strong social conscience. I believe that the budget that was recently brought down indicates the determination, the commitment and the resolve of this government to provide for the security of seniors in both the short as well as the long term. I am very proud of our government's commitment to seniors.

The people who grew up through the Depression, and were perhaps in their teens and twenties then, grew up in a period when there were no social safety nets. We have grown a great deal in the amount and the variety of protections that we now have. What we have today is probably the finest care system in the world, whether it's through social services or the medical field. I defy hon. members to find any country in the world that exceeds the levels and standards of commitment of our government.

We want to ensure, that seniors receive the support and assistance they need. But neither I nor they believe in a welfare state. There is nothing that vanishes quite so quickly as unearned capital. They are proud, they are innovative and they are resourceful. They have come through difficult periods, and every one I have talked to is proud and willing to make a fair share of continued contribution and to shoulder part of the burden of operation of this province.

We have a number of programs, hon. members, that are absolutely outstanding. We have increased the GAIN for Seniors supplement; it's $21.5 million. This is the area the member was speaking about. There is a substantial commitment in there.

MR. SPEAKER: I regret to inform the member that his time is up under standing orders.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Committee of Supply, Mr. Speaker.

[11:30]

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
LABOUR AND CONSUMER SERVICES

(continued)

On vote 48: minister's office: $272,097.

HON. L. HANSON: Yesterday the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Cashore) asked a number of questions, and I'd like, for the record, to put those answers forward now.

On the question of the $50 filing fee as it relates to the small claims court, I have determined that that fee cannot be waived, and I understand that there is no authority for Social Services and Housing to pay for it. However, Social Services does pay for arbitration fees when necessary, because arbitration cases are usually the most urgent — possession cases, for example.

I might also suggest that there is an initiative now to put in place an arbitration mediation service on a trial basis that the members to the dispute could take advantage of if they agreed to settle their dispute in that manner. To my understanding at this point, there's no fee for that, but I intend to clarify that.

As for the proclamation on the Residential Tenancy Act that the member suggested for the downtown east side, there's nothing to proclaim, really. We don't feel the sections of the act fit that particular situation. However, I would like to advise the House that my ministry is presently reviewing the options relating to persons living in hotels in the downtown east side, and as a result of that there may be some changes in the act.

Moving on to the illegal lockouts and seizures, there were approximately 60 cases of that last year. Most of those cases involve innocent mistakes on the part of the landlords, and we found that most of those problems are easily resolved as a result of a phone call from the residential tenancy branch. If the members have knowledge of situations that have not been brought to our attention, certainly I would deal with them.

There was a question about staffing in that consumer affairs branch of the ministry. The residential tenancy branch staff complement at this point is set at 20. Last year, we had three and a half arbitrators in Vancouver. Unfortunately one of those arbitrators passed away, and we are currently hiring as required. Through an advertising and interview process we will be increasing the complement of arbitrators, and they will be serving on an on-call basis — as opposed to a full-time basis — so we should have adequate coverage. In Victoria, there are arbitrators on site two days a week.

We do travel to different regions of the province as it is necessary. Last year arbitrators heard 1,055 cases in communities other than the lower mainland. Some of the examples were: in Prince Rupert, we heard 39; in Terrace, 21; Prince George, 82; Kamloops, 66; Kelowna, 86; and Chilliwack, 29. Those examples represent about 30 percent of the caseload outside of the lower mainland.

To the questions raised that there should be regional residential tenancy offices, we believe that's not a requirement. We believe that the system in place now is certainly

[ Page 4013 ]

very adequately serving the concerns. We live in an age of almost instant communications, so we don't feel that a greater number of regional offices are really necessary at this point.

We do use the government agents. I think the suggestion was that the government agents provide information. It's true, they do provide information, but we also use the government agents to communicate with the residential tenancy branch directly if the individual needs it. The cost of all those calls is charged against the government. The liaison that exists with the government agents certainly appears, in our opinion, to be adequate and serving the needs very well.

We're not aware of any complaints about the level of regional service; it certainly hasn't been a major issue brought to our attention. We have the same position on the toll-free line.

The question was asked: how do we communicate the rules on residential tenancy? We have an excellent brochure called "Renting in British Columbia," and it details the Residential Tenancy Act in language that is easily understandable. It's available in all the ministry offices and also from the government agents. We print about 100,000 of those each year, which gives you some indication of how popular they are. We also have staff members appearing on television and radio in ads to inform the public.

MR. BLENCOE: Fireside chats.

HON. L. HANSON: No, the member is suggesting that they're fireside chats, but they're really information advertisements.

As to the number of prosecutions, the member suggested that he had asked a question that I had committed to answer and he had not yet received the answer. I would like to place in evidence before the House that we did respond to the critic of my ministry in that particular area. We did that on July 13, 1987. I have a quote from that letter: "Please find attached in summary form the responses to those questions in, I trust, sufficient detail to provide you with the information which you and your colleagues were seeking." Although several cases were examined with a view to such proceedings, no prosecutions were actually commenced during the last fiscal year. I'd just like to put on the record that this ministry did answer that query. It's unfortunate that the information didn't get to the particular individual, but it did go to the critic.

There was a question from the member for New Westminster (Ms. A. Hagen) regarding the comparison of the office of the rentalsman and the residential tenancy. I also responded to that, on February 10 of this year. I could read that letter, but I certainly would be prepared to provide a copy of it. I don't think the House needs to be going through the correspondence at this point.

MR. BLENCOE: There will be more discussion this morning of the Residential Tenancy Act and the lack of a rentalsman in the province of British Columbia, but let me say right off the top that our party policy is to bring back the office of the rentalsman and introduce a fair process of rent review. The residential tenancy branch....

MR. S.D. SMITH: Even though it's not needed anymore.

MR. BLENCOE: Oh, it's needed, in our view, as the tenants of the province of British Columbia continue to be underserved and lack protection in rental issues. We'll get back to that later this morning.

I want to continue with the discussion that the minister and I were having yesterday vis-à-vis cemetery services, particularly phone solicitation and the kind of activities that continue to be offensive to thousands of British Columbians. The minister concluded yesterday that he is bringing in legislation, but there are obviously no details. I want to put on the record that we obviously will welcome legislation, but what we on this side of the House — like all British Columbians, I think — want to see is legislation that clearly articulates a policy that this kind of phone solicitation for services related to funerals and cemeteries is not allowed in the province of British Columbia. We hear rumours that the government is considering just controlling the hours or the kind of phone solicitation that can happen, allowing both funeral homes and cemeteries to conduct solicitation activities. In our estimation, that would not be acceptable. We require legislation that clearly articulates that this kind of activity, for sensitive areas like funerals, should not be allowed to continue. I will pursue that a little more with the minister later on.

Yesterday I was providing the House and the minister with some specific concerns from correspondence that I have received. I should add that for two or three years I have been drawing this to the attention of the government. Thus far they have failed to act, when they have had overwhelming evidence that British Columbians find this activity offensive. Senior citizens who are terminally ill or families who are ill or have just come out of the hospital, or days before or after going into major, life-threatening operations, get this kind of call with high-pressure sales. Sometimes they have bargain days on Thursdays or $1.49 day: "Today we can give you a deal on your funeral." That's not acceptable in our society.

    We know where it's coming from, and the minister knows where it's coming from. I have also drawn to his attention that we find many of our funeral homes being bought up by American interests or major transnational corporations. It's a big, big business; and they are bringing kinds of activities into Canada and British Columbia that I don't believe British Columbians accept.

I've shown the minister another area of concern. Many funeral homes are being pressured to affiliate themselves with these kinds of activities because there's a vacuum in terms of legislation that would cool down this kind of activity, that would say this kind of activity is not acceptable in the province. For instance, a Texas-based corporation, Service Corp. International, is now very active in British Columbia. I know that in my riding another funeral home has associated itself with this major American corporation, and is now phone-soliciting for their Guardian Plan. It is heavy-pressure sales to elderly people, and more and more funeral homes are being forced into this kind of activity because we haven't had the legislation to control it.

Mr. Chairman, yesterday there seemed to be a reluctance by some members on the other side of the House to understand the importance and critical nature of this issue. So let me provide some more evidence from correspondence I have received in the last year or so. Another letter from a Victoria resident:

"In late June of this year my brother-in-law passed away. He was interred at Hatley Memorial Gardens and my name was listed in the obituary notice in the paper. I am a widow. It was less than a week later that I

[ Page 4014 ]

received a phone call from Hatley Memorial Gardens asking if I would make arrangements for a plot, plus services. They would send me some brochures. I said: 'Not at present. I will make up my own mind about arrangements when the time comes. Please do not phone me again.' A couple of days later they sent me out all the data and phoned again, saying they would send out a representative to go over arrangements with me, plus costs, etc., etc. Again I said no, and that was it. "

This person says, look, this kind of activity has got to end: "I don't need that kind of harassment."

Another letter, Mr. Chairman:

"Two days ago I received a phone call from a solicitor representing the Hatley Memorial Gardens. As I have an incurable blood disease, I replied: 'This is very poor taste and I intend to phone the Better Business Bureau and report this.' The reply was, 'That is your privilege,' said in a very rude tone of voice. In the morning's paper, in an article on the back page of section 2, we are advised to hang up. I have done this for two years and still the calls come. Is there no solution except to disconnect my phone?"

MR. S.D. SMITH: Do you support the Better Business Bureau?

[11:45]

MR. BLENCOE: Yes, I do. The Better Business Bureau wishes to end this. They are on record in the city of Victoria....

MR. S.D. SMITH: Do you support them as an entity?

MR. BLENCOE: Of course, I support them. They are on record as opposed to this kind of activity. Just a matter of a few days ago, my staff received a call from a constituent who received a call from Memorial Gardens regarding pre-planning funerals. Her father's funeral was on that day, and the call was answered at her mother's house. Of course, the trauma and concern it brought to that household on the day of the funeral.... To get this high-pressure sales, asking, "Do you want to arrange for someone to come out? We've got special deals for you," was totally offensive and very disturbing to that family. Another letter reads:

"This week, day and night, has been spent at the hospital beside my critically ill husband who still lies in intensive coronary care. To be a victim of such a telephone call at a time of family illness is bad enough, but I must say with greatest emphasis that it is the second such ill-timed call in two years, the last being in Oak Bay when serious illness was also present. My outraged response was given immediately to the Hatley people, for all the good it did. If the directors — or better, mis-directors — of such business methods condone this type of money-making by telephone soliciting to anyone on their current hit list, then they are cruelly responsible for trauma inflicted on many defenceless people."

I have letters from reputable funeral homes, in particular McCall Bros., who have served this community since 1921, I believe, a family business which has tried to get this minister.... Other family funeral homes have tried to get this government.... Not just this minister, I might add; it's been a number of ministers. This minister is not totally responsible, and I put that into the record. As a matter of fact, I think this minister has tried to deal with this issue fairly, but that doesn't change the fact that we've had no action.

Mr. Dave McCall, president of McCall Bros., writes:

"As you know, I have become frustrated with our provincial government's stance not to ban telephone solicitation by members of the cemetery industry in our province. Complaints have been numerous, but government inaction continues to be 'in vogue.' Cemeteries have even acquired funeral homes in order to prearrange the entire funeral package and thus circumvent the law that prohibits funeral homes from soliciting prearranged funerals by telephone. "

He then goes on to say what Ontario is doing. They have moved ahead boldly in this area, and I think we should do so in this province. I quote again: "It is evident that our provincial government is getting bad legal advice or does not understand the offensive nature of soliciting by telephone for funeral or cemetery services."

The activities of the one company in this town which continues to offend daily.... They don't even identify themselves correctly when they solicit. They don't say "Hatley Memorial"; they say "Memorial Gardens." Many elderly people have phoned me to say: "I thought they were the Memorial Society." There's no reference to Hatley Memorial, to who they really are. As I said yesterday to the minister, so many elderly people have them in their home and sign up. They're confused and don't realize what's going on. They think they're part of the Memorial Society and get themselves locked into multi-thousand-dollar contracts that they don't require. I've got a number of those.

This activity must be curtailed in British Columbia; it's got to stop. I know what's happening in cabinet.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Well, I know some of the things that are happening. You know what's happening. You've got those wide-open marketplace proponents who say: "Anything goes in the marketplace." But you know, this activity cannot be equated with selling vacuum cleaners or carpet cleaning or other kinds of things. The attitude that currently seems to pervade this government is that this kind of activity should be allowed because everybody else does it. Is the minister prepared to recommend to cabinet immediately that this activity should be controlled; that we should have legislation — as they have in Ontario — that phone solicitation for funeral services or cemetery services is not permitted in British Columbia? We need that. We've waited too long. Too many people continue to get offensive calls. Just recently a women called to inform me that the day before she was scheduled to go into hospital for open-heart surgery she received a hard-sell phone call concerning funeral services and that she could make plans. She's going in for surgery and she's worried, and hours before she's due to go in she gets this phone call: do you need to prepare?

Is this kind of activity to be permitted in British Columbia? Do we need this kind of thing? Is it appropriate? No, it is not, and I would like the minister to say today that he is prepared to fight once and for all for legislation to protect our seniors, families that are going through trauma, through illness, or terminally ill patients; that we are once and for all

[ Page 4015 ]

prepared to deal with this issue in a forthright and wholesome way rather than just to avoid it. It's time we had legislation to end it.

HON. L. HANSON: I have very few comments on the member's speech. One that is appropriate is that I think the member was suggesting that the telephone solicitation problem, as he describes it, is partially a result of American influence. I think it has been going on in Canada for a number of years and really has nothing to do with an import problem, if you will.

As I said, my ministry is in the process of drafting legislation; it will be presented to the House shortly. It's not my intention to reveal the government policy until the appropriate time.

MR. BLENCOE: Will the minister tell us if he supports the end of phone solicitation for the kind of services I've put out today? We've asked him before on liquor privatization. Is he prepared, as one member, to say he finds this offensive and wants it dealt with in a forthright way? What's the minister's opinion?

MR. BARNES: I had hoped to get up yesterday in order to stick with the various topics, but unfortunately we had to jump around a little bit. I want to talk about the residential tenancy situation that was raised by the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Cashore) and to which the minister has already responded, filling in on some of the questions. The issue is one that we've been dealing with as long as I can remember: people living in hotels and treating them as a permanent home, and the lack of residential law to protect their rights as long-term tenants. I should acknowledge that the minister and I have talked on and off about this issue for perhaps a year or so now, and it has always been with a view to there being a problem and genuine interest in finding a workable solution. I think we've reached a level of cooperation as far as the issue is concerned. The thing is the remedy, the way in which a solution can be found.

Clearly, the position of this party is to remove the existing bureaucracy — that is, the residential tenancy branch — as the arm dealing with this matter and bring back the rentalsman, giving him the power to define what is a residence and what isn't within his jurisdiction, so that all matters such as this can be addressed.

We had a situation between 1972 and 1975 when persons living in hotels could benefit from being designated during their tenure in a particular unit. I think something along that model is what we are looking for now, and there are a couple of ways in which it can be dealt with. You could amend the definition of a guest in a hotel. For instance, the Hotel Keepers Act could be amended to the point that you have two categories of guest. One might be the standard or ordinary transient off-the-street guest who comes and stays for a day or two, or a week or a month, up to two months, which is the cutoff point as far as your social service tax law is concerned. That is in itself recognized, and to some extent is the distinction between a person who is staying on a temporary basis and someone who is staying on a long-term basis. Then perhaps we should create a new category around the definition of a long-term or extended-stay guest.

If you can make that distinction, this could be part of the definitions under the Residential Tenancy Act. When you begin to describe facilities that are under that jurisdiction, simply include this new one as pertaining to the Hotel Keepers Act; I think that would solve the problem. It just means that a person going to a hotel to rent a space for any period of time less than two months would be a standard guest; but if a person were going to a hotel, such as in the downtown east side and many of those places where they are staying for an indefinite period of time, they would have a right to enter a contract agreement which would allow them to benefit under the Residential Tenancy Act, and hotel operators would know this.

The benefit of an idea like this is that it's not just restricted to the downtown east side. It deals with a hotel anywhere in the province. As we know, there are cases where even in the big hotels some of the more affluent tenants do reside in those hotels for periods of time longer than the ordinary one or two days.

I think that we would benefit — the rich as well as the poor, so to speak — with a concept like this, and it would be fair. It would address some of the concerns that we have been talking about as to security of tenure and the right to protect one's security deposits, and they would have some access to a kind of independent arbitrator, or a means by which they could address grievances.

So that is one idea in mind. It hasn't come easily; we've been addressing this for years. We know the consequences if we don't act. I think we have all seen ample evidence of what is happening to people in these hotels in the downtown east side, in these rooming or boarding houses or whatever may be the case, that somehow are not regulated under our residential tenancy legislation.

[12:00]

I'd like to get your response in terms of how imminently you see your ministry coming forward with a solution or a proposal in terms of legislation. I think it would be sort of like your knife legislation, a very grand and glorious day in B.C. history when we begin to recognize its reality, because it is a longstanding problem. It's not new. It's been a grievous one for those of us who work with people in some of these areas. They are basically people without homes.

I think on any fair interpretation of what a home is, these are less than adequate. Quite often they are without the amenities that you would expect in a normal rental facility. A lot of the toilets, for instance, are shared. Quite often there are no units within those rooms where they can look after themselves in terms of cooking facilities or have any degree of privacy. They quite often are captives of a landlord who can determine, for instance, who may visit, when they may visit, and the hours when they open and close. In other words, it's not really a home in the usual sense. Many rules are imposed on these people, and they are quite often without the confidence that they can defend themselves or speak back. There's always the risk of being evicted without notice and without recourse, even though you may have resided in one of those facilities for ten or 20 years. Furthermore, many of these people are elderly — pensioners, senior citizens, early pioneers as well, if I can so refer to them. Some of the people that we've been describing are here today. Those people who no longer have active lives and are in various stages of retirement need protection; they are feeling more and more alienated, more and more out of touch with the traditional changes that are taking place in life, and deserve our care and our concern.

Obviously, had we a more aggressive program of construction of affordable social housing for these people, we

[ Page 4016 ]

wouldn't have this situation. I recognize that that is not likely to happen overnight. But there is something we can do overnight: we can recognize this problem and address it.

I'd like to get on to another matter. I wanted to make those comments on the record. Perhaps I could get a response: or, if you prefer, I will continue, because I'm going to switch.

HON. L. HANSON: The member is quite correct that he and I have discussed this a number of times, most recently last month. I did take a tour of the downtown area. I looked at a number of the locations that the member is talking about. We do feel — and I feel — that some help is needed there. We're now reviewing the situation, and hopefully we will be able to find a solution that will be helpful.

The statistics from the earlier years when the application was there really didn't indicate that that process was the answer, if you will, because of the numbers of applications. I have to admit that the statistics that we have are not completely accurate on an annual basis. We have the total numbers, but the times are a little.... In any case, yes. we acknowledge that it is a difficulty. Yes, we are working on legislation, and as soon as we have a position, the government's position, it will be introduced just as quickly as we have that approval.

During the tour I took the opportunity of looking at a number of these residences. I was accompanied by an individual from the staff of the city of Vancouver. I have to commend the city on some of the actions that they are taking. They have been able to rectify some of the problems, but certainly they are a long way from total success. I just wanted that on the record: they have been doing things that have been helpful in relieving the difficulty. But we recognize the difficulty. We're reviewing the situation. I can say that as and when determinations have been made, then we will introduce it.

MR. BARNES: Thank you, Mr. Minister. I will be introducing a private member's bill on this subject, probably in another week or so, and I would certainly like you to take a look at it. I can appreciate that as a bill from the opposition it's not likely to be enacted, but nonetheless it may provide some insights into how to go about this situation. So I thank you very much for your encouragement, that serious consideration is being given this problem. I hope this means that we can look to an early announcement that we're finally going to resolve this matter, at least under present conditions.

The other point, though, that I'm going to talk about briefly is not one that we are likely to enjoy as much congeniality and constructive rapport over, because I think that in going against this Jansen report, as far as recommendations on the privatization of liquor stores are concerned, the government is most disappointing. I can appreciate what the government has said its objectives are with respect to downsizing government, getting out of enterprise as much as possible and trying to provide the private sector with an opportunity to do what the government figures is its legitimate domain — the providing of the non-essential services and programs in the community. I have no argument with that. That's a philosophical or ideological point of view, in terms of the state not being involved in any more than is absolutely necessary. That's fine; as far as it goes, that is a point you could probably at least break even on in a debate. But let's consider the matter you are talking about; it's the matter itself that concerns me.

The privatization of something which has been documented throughout the centuries, ever since it was discovered, as fundamentally an evil — to use a harsh word — substance.... It brings more grief than good. But booze is here to stay. It's not my argument that we should go back to the days of prohibition or that we should not recognize that this is a condition that is here, just as much as we are here with all of our shortcomings, attributes, etc. The good and the bad are here, sort of like the issue of prostitution. It's a tough one.

The point I'm making is that while we recognize that this problem is here, why don't we recognize what we're doing before we get involved? I think what you're getting ready to do is a disaster; it's an absolute disaster. There is no way that you can privatize something which in itself is corrupting.

I don't exclude myself when I talk about the effects of alcohol. Some of the statistics I'm looking at here suggest that young people are starting to drink at the age of 12 or 13. I can tell you that I had my first drink at six. I think I may have mentioned that once before. I had to steal it from the adults because they wouldn't allow me to have it, but I was curious. I saw everybody drinking, and I wanted to have a drink. I must say up that until recently I had been drinking ever since and enjoying it, having a good time and partying, because it's what we do.

When you talk about privatizing this substance, this nonprescription drug that everyone uses for all kinds of reasons, probably many of them very good.... It relaxes you; it allows you to forget, to take leave of your senses. Some of us use it as an excuse, rather than assuming any responsibility. But the tragedies are manifold. For every dollar you make in revenue, you lose five in social costs. It's indisputable; there's all kinds of evidence to substantiate this point.

I'm disappointed, because we have the lid on it, at least to a point right now, because the government's in control. The government can monitor it and the government can downplay it. The government doesn't have to promote it. We can recognize that it's there if we want it, but we should be putting up signs saying: "Can't you think of something better to do than coming in here and getting a case of beer?" But we don't have the courage to do that. Besides, the revenue has multiplied many times, almost at an exponential rate, since we began to tax booze, until we're getting today.... Just over the last decade, we've been benefiting from hundreds of millions of dollars as a result.

I can see the motive from a budgetary and revenue point of view, but what's the motive in terms of responsibility to the people of this province? Where is the leadership? Where is the morality that the government talked about when it made such a great, strong case for the right to life and protecting the fetus? We bring them into the world and then we get them drunk and keep them drunk. More and more people are suffering from the abuse and misuse of these substances than any other cause, and we're doing it legally. But the reason we're doing it is that we don't think we can stop it, so we join.

But must we throw it open to the entrepreneurs out there on the streets and tell them to go for it? Their motive is profit, understandably; that's their business — to make money. So what are they going to do? Are they going to be concerned about my concerns or your concerns — the Minister of Health or the Minister of Social Services and Housing? Are they going to be concerned about students who are not concentrating on their studies because they think they found a way to trip out and to get away from it? There are all kinds of problems with this.

[ Page 4017 ]

I'm disappointed that we're taking this step. I can understand the problem of trying to get revenue. We need it; we need all we can get. But there's more to it than that. They're our youth — our young people. The government has an initiative to support the family and maintain the integrity of the family; this isn't going to achieve that. This is the opposite. This is bringing misery — predictably — and we know it. It's all documented. You should keep a lid on this thing. You should maintain this program as you have it and even try to scale it down. Listen to some of the things being said in studies on the effects of alcohol on young people:

"Scientists indicate several key aspects of alcohol and youth which have implications in formulating alcohol policy. Problems among adolescents stemming from alcohol consumption have been described in several reviews on the subject. These problems are wide-ranging and include — but are not limited to — impediment of interpersonal relations, vandalism, suicide, accidental injuries and the affliction of alcoholism itself. "

Mr. Chairman, alcohol, barbiturates, cannabis, cocaine, all kinds of commercial designer drugs, hallucinogens, heroin and inhalants all seem to follow those young people's first experience with alcohol. All of this is documented. It's all predictable; it's a vicious circle. We read in the paper almost daily that young people are losing their lives while they're out having a party and drinking and losing their senses. It's such a customary thing. It's so common, and we're so used to it that we seem to have lost our senses. We've really succumbed to this thing. I'm afraid that we're making a serious error in judgment if we think this, for any reason, is a good initiative.

[12:15]

We've brought gambling in on a bigger scale. When I was first elected in this province, the only way you could gamble was to buy an Irish sweepstake ticket, which was illegal. You had to sneak in and buy one. We have since gone a long way from those days. Everywhere you look, it's Lotto 6-49 or one of the different.... There are so many; I don't know how many there are. But there are an awful lot of ways in which you can spend your money on gambling — hoping for that big break. That tied in with gambling, casinos and cutbacks in programs to societies providing services, forcing them to go into the bingo business and joint ventures with commercial operators in order to get funds that should available through general revenue,

We're going in the wrong direction. We're putting this province at risk. We're putting our youth at risk. We're acting desperately; we're not acting rationally. We're not acting as though we want to have our sovereignty and our future as British Columbians and as Canadians. I don't know where these initiatives are coming from, but it is as though we're being advised by absentee owners or absentee interests in this society. They certainly don't live here. How can we anticipate benefiting from this kind of initiative? I think we're going to pay for it, and it's the wrong way to go. I don't want to have to say "I told you so" later. But you're making a mistake, at least on this aspect of privatization.

We have been talking about others. You have a better case for those, even though we question whether they're going to be successful. But on this one with alcohol, where the industry has profit as its motive, it is going to go after our young people. In fact, an interesting anomaly in all of this is that young people are the ones who are smoking. The adults have begun to realize the negative effects of smoking, and advertising doesn't affect them as much as it does the young people. The industry realizes this. If we were to have the same initiatives in trying to deal with young people, it would be counterproductive for the industry, and they wouldn't see it as a lucrative business. They know these young people are at risk. Young people themselves can't wait to have that first drink. There's no campaign to stop it, and I think that's a tragedy. It's hypocritical in terms of the government's policy of trying to keep families together.

HON. L. HANSON: This debate went on for some time with the member for New Westminster (Ms. A. Hagen), and I don't have an awful lot to add. The member is making an assumption that the report now before us for consideration is going to end in privatization of those liquor stores. That decision hasn't been made yet, but I acknowledge that the publicity has been in that area.

I'd also like to point out to the member opposite that there have been a number of privatization initiatives over the years: the rural agency stores and the LRSs, and the results the member is suggesting are just not there. That's not to say that there isn't a problem, as far as alcohol abuse is concerned. There is no evidence that the reason we have alcohol abuse is that an individual in charge of selling alcohol is not a government employee. I believe that the threat of licence termination will be a deterrent, if that privatization system goes ahead.

With that, I refer the member to the debate that went on yesterday. We canvassed this in some detail with the member for New Westminster.

MR. S.D. SMITH: I want to follow along on some comments made earlier this morning by the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) when he was talking about advertising, and particularly when he was discussing it in relation to the funeral business. He was talking about the high pressure techniques of targeted solicitations. Just before I get into that, I should say to the minister, perhaps, that the second member says he knows what goes on in cabinet, which came as a bit of a revelation to a number of us in this chamber, I'm sure. The thought occurred to me that in future, rather than debugging the cabinet chamber, we ought to "de-Robin" it.

I want to get to the point about this business of high pressure targeted solicitations by phone and by mail. It's an area of a lot of concern, and quite properly so; I think the member should be concerned. From another movie, I have some experience in the area of targeted mailing and targeted solicitation, and I can tell you that it is abused. It can be used well, but in fact it is abused. What happens is that people — for purposes other than that which the solicitation comes in — try in particular to touch the nerves of seniors, the indigent and people who are in a relatively weaker position in society than those who send out the solicitation. Indeed. as the member said, it is an unwholesome practice when people do that. It is reprehensible. It is something that we, as legislators, ought to be vigilant about. Particularly when people seek to prey on seniors, as he said, I think we have some responsibility to look into that matter — if not to just examine our own conscience, perhaps to look into it and see whether there is need to regulate it.

He asked you if you would convey that sentiment to your cabinet colleagues, and if you accept from him that request, I would ask that you perhaps broaden it, because as he was speaking I happened to be looking over a very similar kind of

[ Page 4018 ]

material on my desk, this one entitled: "Medicare Notice." This material, in the same way as he was suggesting, is designed to evoke a response from a particularly targeted group of people, and it is designed to evoke that response by playing on any sense of insecurity or uncertainty that they may have about the particular issue. In the advertising business those are called code words, and the process is called "pushing the button." It's a very cynical process he was talking about. It's very calculated, it's intended and you can actually measure the response.

The response, almost invariably, is grubbing money, and that's what this one is intended to do as well. What it does is make a request. It gets you to open the envelope by putting on the envelope something intended, because of the demographics of the particular mailing-list they have, to cause you to open the envelope, to get you into the piece, as they say in the jargon. That is done by putting on it the words "Medicare Notice" — nothing else.

When you get into it you find that what is ultimately being asked for is a contribution to a political party. Further, you are being asked to join the political party. I agree with the second member for Victoria that it is a kind of hypocrisy. It is unwholesome, it is unsavory, it is a kind of scurvy way to prey on people who have contributed to our society for at least 65 of their years, and it's something which we should all condemn as completely reprehensible.

I would say to the minister that if indeed you are going to accept the views and the request of the second member for Victoria to examine this practice — and it is a growing practice in our society — then I would urge you to expand that examination to take into account some of the solicitation practices of other provincial bodies, including the enormously unsavoury fund-raising tactics of the New Democratic Party.

MR. SIHOTA: I'm not even going to bother to reply to the comments made by the member for Kamloops. If that government wasn't so intent on dismantling our medicare program in this province, it would not be necessary to send out to the populace notices indicating what the government's up to. But the real reason I'm not going to respond to it is that we're running out of time and I want to deal with a couple of issues that are very important. If members wish to extend us until 2 or 2:30 today, I have no problem in terms of trying to deal with it.

However, Mr. Chairman, before I proceed may I have leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

MR. SIHOTA: In the gallery today are a number of students from the Shoreline community school, located in the community of View Royal, which of course is situated in that wonderful riding of Esquimalt-Port Renfrew. I wonder if the members would join me in giving a warm welcome to the students and their assistants, who are seated in the gallery.

I want to talk about an issue that I raised in this Legislature approximately a year ago; in fact, it was on June 18, 1987, that I made reference to it. It's an issue that affects a significant number of people in my riding, and it is an issue that I feel very deeply attached to because I think it represents an inequity in society that must be remedied.

What I want to talk about this morning is the situation faced by those who lived in manufactured homes: mobile homes, in the vernacular, but as the owners like to call them, manufactured homes. It is a critical issue in society. It is an issue that is province wide; however, it is exceptionally acute in my riding simply because over the years the development in the Victoria area has taken place within the core municipalities, while mobile homes or manufactured homes have been provided in the areas outside of the core municipalities, in the Western Communities and in the Sooke region.

It is of concern to me that those who live in manufactured homes in this province are covered by the provisions of the Residential Tenancy Act. It is my submission, and I'll outline the reasons for this in a few minutes, that there ought to be a separate bill of rights, a special set of legislation, to govern the interests and the concerns of both tenants and landlords in manufactured homes. The provisions of the Residential Tenancy Act, which are designed to deal with apartment dwellers, are totally different in their interests and objectives than the interests and the objectives of individuals who reside in manufactured homes.

[12:30]

The easiest example that I can bring to the minister is really an example of rent increases. When individuals in apartments are hit with rent increases, whether it be 2, 8, 10 or 25 percent — what we're seeing in the Victoria area today, because of the vacancy problem; whatever it is — those tenants in apartments have the opportunity to go elsewhere and look for another apartment. There are an abundance of apartments in the Victoria area, in the sense that there are all sorts of options. Another issue, of course, is the vacancy rate. But they have other places to go, and the provisions of the Residential Tenancy Act are predicated upon those other options that may exist for those who live in apartments.

If you take the case of someone who lives in a manufactured or mobile home, that option just isn't there. There is not a galaxy of paths all over the community, with respect to manufactured homes. There is a limited number of options available to people in terms of where they can go. So it's not as if there's this huge marketplace out there when you're hit with a rent increase.

I want to tell the minister that I have instances in my riding where the rent increases have been as high as 63 percent. I want to bring to his attention, in a few minutes, specific situations that have materialized over the past year, where the rent increases have been as high as 33 percent. You're held ransom, because there is no other place to go. There just are no pads; you can't just pick up your mobile home and move onto a cheaper pad, at a cheaper rental rate. That's one dimension of the problem.

The other dimension, of course, is that it's physically, let alone practically, impossible, in most instances, to pick up your mobile home — if there were other pads available — and move on elsewhere. You are really held ransom to the pad you sit on. There just is not a galaxy of pads all over the place so that you can move about. I would venture to say that the problem, which is acute in my riding, is replicated elsewhere, particularly for those who live on pads elsewhere in this province, and particularly for those who live in the lower mainland. There is not a plethora of options available to people when they're hit with rent increases.

In addition to that, and third, one has to recognize that it is an investment for many people to own a manufactured home. It is their equity, particularly in the case of seniors who have gone out and chosen that lifestyle. And it's a good lifestyle, one that we ought not to look down on. I know that

[ Page 4019 ]

in my riding there are a lot of beautiful, well-established, well-maintained manufactured home facilities. People make an equity investment in their manufactured home. They have security, and they expect some level of security in law to allow them to maintain that type of security. If you own a house, for example, you don't expect someone to pull the land out from underneath you and tell you that you've got to relocate. To many people who live in manufactured homes, given the nature of their investment, which can range from $10,000 or $20,000 up to $100,000 and higher.... It's a investment, and they have some security and equity in their mobile home. That's a far cry from tenants, who of course have no equity interest and no security. They don't buy their apartment; they rent those facilities. Again, for that reason it seems to me that a different set of considerations ought to apply to those who live in manufactured homes as opposed to residential tenancy premises.

Fourth, we have seen a number of situations where individuals were told they have to buy their strata lot in order to protect their security of the manufactured home. In other words, the owner of the park makes people buy the land through a strata program so that these people have the comfort of knowing they're going to be there for life. Some of them can't afford to do that, but again they're held at ransom because there's no other place to go. Let me say again, those types of strata considerations often do not apply for apartment tenants.

Fifth, manufactured homes are more susceptible to zoning changes. Inevitably a landlord will take some bare land, set it up as a mobile home park, wait for a development in that area and then make application for zoning changes. The security of lifestyle that people thought they had in their manufactured home and in their location is immediately removed through the zoning situation. Again, that is not a situation that those who reside in apartments are often faced with.

Those are only some of the reasons. I know the minister must be aware of all of them, because there are literally a hundred of them that I could sit here and talk about. For those types of reasons the Residential Tenancy Act, which is designed to govern apartment owners, ought not to govern owners of manufactured homes. There ought to be a different set of laws, a different form of legislation. I call it a bill of rights for manufactured home owners right across this province.

There are other reasons why the legislation ought to reflect some changes. I want to tell the minister in a general way some of the things that people who reside in manufactured homes have to put up with because they are held ransom in many ways to the land upon which their mobile home is situate.

For example, I have seen agreements where tenants are told that the landlord can unilaterally make whatever changes he wants to make to the agreements. I think that's unreasonable. There ought to be a law against it. They are told, for example, in agreements — and I have seen them — that the landlord will not accept responsibility for any negligence or death or damage to property which may occur, despite the fact that it's quite contrary to law. People are forced to sign those types of agreements in order to maintain the security of their place.

I've seen agreements where landlords say that if a mobile home is sold, a commission will be paid to the landlord, whether or not the landlord participated in the sale. I think that's unreasonable, and I don't think it should be enforceable. Again, landlords hold tenants to ransom on those types of agreements. I'm quite prepared to produce those agreements to the minister if he thinks that they don't exist.

I've seen other agreements that say that improvements the tenants make often have to be left at the mobile home park, when those improvements really are tenants' fixtures. But they sign away their rights in that regard. Again, legislation should deal with that type of situation. Pets are a problem that I could get into. Those are the situations one is faced with in the case of manufactured home owners.

Before I get into some specific cases that I want to bring to the attention of the minister, I want to remind the minister that it was about a year ago, back on June 18, 1987, that I made a speech similar to this in the House. When I made the speech, I asked the minister what the government intended to do with respect to new legislation to deal with the specific interests of manufactured home operators. I raised the matter and the minister said, after listening to my comments:

"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 are 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. "

We've had about ten months now for the minister to look into this issue. My question to the minister is: what has the ministry done over the past year with respect to moving toward a separate piece of legislation to govern the interests of mobile home tenants and landlords, to make sure that there is some equitable law in place that recognizes that the situation faced by manufactured home owners, particularly tenants, is different than tenants who reside in apartments?

HON. L. HANSON: It is sort of interesting to hear the member's remarks. I know that he is a member of the legal profession. Far be it from me to suggest that I can tell him something that he shouldn't or doesn't know, but I think he will admit that unreasonable conditions are not enforceable under the Residential Tenancy Act. I think the member knows that. As a matter of fact, just as recently as a couple of days ago, I had the manufactured home owners' association again lobbying me for that legislation.

The member is suggesting that legislation cures everything. I think there are some other considerations that have to be taken in, and one of those is that the problem is not that mobile home pads are unreasonably managed and so on. The problem is that there is a shortage of mobile home pads, and the continuation of the rent increases and so on are probably a result of that.

One of the difficulties in the creation of mobile home parks is that municipalities are quite often reluctant to provide the zoning on a piece of property that would allow it to happen. I do recognize that the majority of the manufactured home owners are seniors. I know that they do gravitate to these kinds of parks, not usually as a result of a cost-saving measure, because to the best of my knowledge people pay up to $100,000 for a super-deluxe mobile home. I think somewhere from $40,000 to $65,000 is the average sort of range. That's the same type of investment you would have in a residential dwelling.

[ Page 4020 ]

It is a difficult situation. I don't think many people would consider constructing a residence on a leased lot unless there was a long-term lease involved, so there is a sort of controversy in that area. Again, if we put legislation in that controls the difficulties that the owners are having, then we immediately put a clamp on the initiative of people to create new mobile home parks.

I think there's an obvious contradiction here. The representations that I've had are to the effect that there are tremendous increases far above and beyond what the market is; but if that is the case, then it would appear to me that there would be great desire on the part of developers to create mobile home parks. I do recognize that it is a difficulty, but I am not convinced that legislation is the answer to the problem.

I think there are better solutions. One is that we should encourage municipalities to provide more zoning so that there can be the creation of these mobile home pads. Another is — of course, I know the member is aware of this too — that there are some provisions in the Residential Tenancy Act that do apply particularly to mobile or manufactured home owners. There's a notice requirement about six months, and then there are some requirements as far as moving costs and so on that do recognize the difference between the two. But again I subscribe, and I think my colleagues subscribe, to the fact that if we do put too strict a law in place, there won't be the creation of mobile or manufactured home lots, and that would be detrimental to the interests of the people already in them.

[12:45]

MR. SIHOTA: Well, that's not acceptable at all in terms of a response from a minister who's supposed to be in charge of consumer affairs and is supposed to be in charge of representing the interests of consumers and of tenants in this province — particularly tenants of mobile homes. If the minister thinks it's his job, as Minister of Consumer Services, to be the advocate for landlords, I don't think that's the way he ought to look at it. I think he should be trying to develop legislation that balances all these competing interests, and should come down and occupy what right now is a vacant field that allows for all types of gouging and all types of activities to persist.

Sure, there's a law right now in the Residential Tenancy Act that says that if a provision is unreasonable, it's not enforceable. But you put yourself in the position of a tenant who then tries to take that type of provision and that challenge to the arbitrator under the Residential Tenancy Act, and I'll tell you what you're faced with, because I see it everyday in terms of what I get coming across my desk. That landlord may lose that fight, and it may well be that that provision is deemed to be unreasonable, but right after that comes a six-month eviction notice, and under this gouged piece of legislation you have under the Residential Tenancy Act, he could evict for effectively any reason whatsoever. It's that type of intimidation that results in people signing the kinds of agreements I talked about.

There is no equity in the law, in the sense of balancing those competing interests between landlords and tenants. That's the problem. A landlord can turn around, as he has in my riding, and charge rent increases of 63 percent or 33 percent, and because of the gouged legislation that this government has embraced with respect to residential tenancy provisions, I'll tell you what happens. There is no rent review mechanism. It is impossible to have a rollback of a rent increase that is incredibly above the rate of inflation — I'm talking about 33 or 63 percent.

You put yourself, Mr. Minister, in the position of someone who is a senior citizen and who's living on a fixed income — a nominal income — and then you're hit with a 33 percent increase in your mobile home pad rental rate, and there is no other place to go. What are the consequences of it? You put yourself in the position of a single parent with a couple of kids, who's trying to make ends meet and who's living in a mobile home park, and then you find out that you're hit with a 63 percent increase in rent, and you try to tell me that there ought not to be any legislation to cover the field.

You try to tell me that somehow people are entitled to charge those rent increases that run way above the rate of inflation without any type of rent review mechanism. You try to tell me that there shouldn't be anything in legislation that says there ought to be some type of landlord-tenant committee — if this government is not prepared to set up ongoing arbitrators — that can negotiate these matters and come down to a consensus as to what the quantum of the rent increase ought to be. Don't try to tell me that it ought to be a one-way street, that the landlord can walk into the mobile home park and slap a 63 percent increase on somebody's door, and tell me that it's some comfort to that single parent or that senior to know that it's not going to happen for six months. Because that six-month date is going to arrive. The person is going to have to try to make ends meet, and they're going to have cut from somewhere else on a limited budget. That's the reality of what I face in my riding when I go door to door and meet the people who live in manufactured home parks. So there ought to be some type of rent review commission; there ought to be some way of limiting rent increases.

I have a situation in my riding right now, Mr. Speaker, out in Sooke, where people are being hit with 33 percent rent increases, and not once has the landlord put a penny back into that park. I want to invite the minister to come with me, because Sooke's not that far away; it's only a 30-minute drive. Maybe one lunch hour the two of us should go down there.

I want the minister to come with me, to meet those residents and hear their tale about how it is that the road that leads to the manufactured home park is full of potholes and has never been attended to by the landlord. I want him to sit down with me and take a look at the foliage, the weeds and all the guck that grows around that park, and tell me, and tell them, that there's no obligation on the landlord's part to put some of that money that he collects from them back into that park. I want him to come with me to Sooke and meet those tenants, to take a look at the water system and the septic system in that facility and tell them that the landlord has no obligation to put some money back. I want him to come with me to Sooke to talk to the senior citizens and those people on fixed or low incomes — the guy on WCB, the people on social assistance — and tell them that somehow, because of this ideological, false belief he has in the free market: "Not to worry, somebody else will create spaces elsewhere." I want him to come in and tell them, and face reality. Because you're out of touch with reality; you're out of touch with what these people are facing.

It's astonishing that a year ago you would tell me in this House that you've got the matter under review, and I stood back and said: "Okay, that's fine. I won't push it any further." Then a year later, what do we find out from the minister? The minister says there's no need to have any

[ Page 4021 ]

legislation to balance the interests of landlords and tenants — and that's from the Minister of Consumer Services, who's supposed to be looking after the interests of the consumers in this province. I can't help but get angry at the responses of the minister.

What kind of comfort is there in a notice provision that you can evict people at six months? Would you like to live in a situation where you knew you could be out, given any six-month interval? No way.

I want to draw the minister's attention to another situation I've got in the Western Communities. I talked about agreements. You can tell me that people can take these agreements to the arbitrator. But I tell you they're seared because they know what will happen to them if they do. At least, that's the psychology of it, because you have put legislation in place that doesn't balance interests. You've put legislation in place that is so skewed in favour of the landlord that there's no hope for them if they decide to take these types of matters to challenge.

Let me tell you about this case in the Western Communities. I wrote to the landlord and said: "Look, I met with the tenants and we talked about all the provisions. A lot of these things" — which I'm about to tell you — "are relatively unreasonable. They probably wouldn't hold up, but the tenants don't want to challenge." Unfortunately, Mr. Minister, if you knew your Residential Tenancy Act.... There's some precedent for a group of tenants, under the guise of the Tenants of Such and Such Place Ltd., going instead of an individual tenant. You can't do that under the Residential Tenancy Act. Individuals have to go, so the landlord knows who to target.

Do you know what happens? I wrote this landlord and said: "I've looked at your agreement and I want to talk to you on behalf of the tenants, to tell you a little bit about what's happening at this mobile home park, to see if we can come to some consensus in terms of redrafting the agreement." I wrote that letter on October 4, 1987 — I believe that's the first letter I have on file — and do you know, I still haven't met with the landlord. The landlord has just refused to meet.

So he has a contract with his tenants that says that any patio fences that the tenants put up around their parks are going to be his. It says that he will not do any work on the driveways coming into that park, and the pavement has been lifted by the trees. But he's got them to sign an agreement that says he won't do anything about it and that he will not be responsible for snow removal in common areas. He's telling people, whose average age is about 60, that under agreement they are responsible for all the snow removal around the park and all the work around all other common areas in terms of any damage, leaves or junk that may collect. He's telling them that they have to do the cleanup around there. He's telling them that they have to prune and look after all the trees not situated on their property, but are in the common areas. Some of these trees are 60 feet high, and when you get a good windstorm here in Victoria, you know the obvious implications in terms of branches coming down. He said: "No, you tenants have to do it, and you have to sign that agreement. "

He's told them that their security deposit is not refundable upon vacating the park. He's got them to sign that agreement. I've got the agreement here, and I would be quite pleased to give it to the minister. That's the one-way situation evident in my riding, and it is elsewhere in this province as well. I've met with those lobby groups that the minister has met with as well. It's irritating to sit here and listen to the minister take that stance and say that he's not prepared to take any action whatsoever on this matter.

I want to ask the minister again: in light of the representations I made.... Look, you can sit here and take shots at me for being a lawyer; I understand the law, and you understand the law. What I'm asking you to understand, Mr. Minister, is not necessarily the law, but the need for a law and the need for some equity in your residential tenancy provisions and for special legislation as it deals with manufactured homes.

You said last year that there was going to be a review. I want to know specifically what you have done over the past year, and what conclusions you have come to. Is it true that your conclusion is that there ought not to be any protection afforded these people? If not, will you agree to come with me to Sooke and meet with those tenants?

HON. L. HANSON: Certainly I'll come to Sooke with that member and meet with those tenants.

I have to say to the member that we have reviewed it. I don't agree at this point that rent controls — which is what you are asking for — are the proper thing to do for the benefit of the mobile home owners in the long term. What will happen is that mobile home parks will disappear and the people who are enjoying them now will not have that privilege later on. I don't support rent controls for mobile home parks. There may be other solutions which we are looking at, but I certainly don't support rent controls — as such, now.

The member also suggested that I have a responsibility for consumer affairs, and that's quite correct. But the member is also suggesting that I'm an advocate for consumers. I have a responsibility as the minister to put fair legislation in place that is a balance between consumer and other interests.

MR. SIHOTA: Look, I made it very clear to the minister, during the course of my comments, that all we're asking for is fair, balanced legislation. I made it clear throughout that there has to be some equity between the interests of landlords and the interests of tenants, because both of them have legitimate interests. My point to you was that your legislation right now is skewed in favour of landlords, and you have an obligation to shift that balance, through legislation.

I'm not going to belabour the point. I think I've made my point, and I've made it as forcefully as I intend to make it this morning. But I must say that I am not impressed with what this government is doing. Believe you me, those that live in mobile home parks in my riding are not going to be impressed. They'll get copies of this kind of stuff, so they'll know where the Social Credit government stands in terms of its desire not to protect the interests of these people — its desire to say that 63 percent rent increases are acceptable, and that there is no desire on its part to put some type of controls on rent increases. I'll tell you, it will get circulated around this province, because I'll be talking to the lobby groups as well. So the message is out, in terms of where, regrettably, this government stands. Hopefully, by getting that message out we may be able to convince this government, as we creep closer to election year, to introduce the legislation we're talking about.

Because our time is limited, I want to move on to another matter, the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, which I also happen to be the critic of. I want to talk a little bit to the minister on ICBC as well.

We have seen, Mr. Minister, a shifting in rates with ICBC. I don't have to again produce to you the file that I've

[ Page 4022 ]

got here from individuals who have been affected by the 22 percent increase in ICBC rates. People are offended, and I'm sure the minister has had his share of correspondence on this matter.

I did some research this morning, Mr. Minister, which I want to share with you. I think it is telling research, and it raises an aura of activity that, quite frankly, I find difficult to embrace. I don't know to what extent the minister is aware of it, and I would like to have his comments on it.

[1:00]

I traced the rate increases for the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia between 1976 and 1987, and an interesting pattern emerges. Between 1975 and 1979, between elections, there was an 85 percent increase in premiums from the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. Actually that 85 percent increase occurred between the years 1975 and 1978.

In 1979, which happens to be an election year, there was a zero percent increase in rates between 1978 and 1979. In other words, we saw the rate between elections go up approximately 85 percent, and in election year, there was no increase at all.

Between 1979 and 1983, which again is a period between elections, premiums of the Insurance Corporation went up approximately 60 percent — and I've got the actual figures. Yet in 1983, the election year, rates actually dropped by roughly 2.3 percent. 

Here we have, in the first interval between elections, an increase of 85 percent and then no increase. Then we have, in the second interval, an increase of 60 percent and then a drop of 2 to 3 percent in the election year. Then of course, we've seen increases between 1983 and 1986, and again in the election year between 1985 and 1986, the rate dropped $8 from a base rate of $371 to $362.

Every time, we get these sizeable increases between elections, and in an election year we don't seem to get any increases at all. For the edification of the minister — just to drive home the point — in 1978, which was a non-election year, the rates had built up to $226 as the average rate. In 1979, the rate was again $226. It goes up between 1975 and 1978, stays the same in election year, goes up again between 1979 and 1983 — from $226 to $353 on the average premium basis — but drops between 1982 and 1983 from $361 to $353. Again, it worked its way up between '83 and '86, only to be held static in 1986, which was the election year, which saw a drop of $9 between'85 and '86 in the average premium, from $371 to $362.

So there's this trend that, tracked over ten years from the corporation's own figures, shows that we seem to be hit with excessive or significant rate increases in between election years and no increases during election years. I'm wondering if the minister would be prepared to comment on that trend.

HON. L. HANSON: Yes, I'd be pleased to comment. I think the member is suggesting that there is a political agenda to rates. I have been minister responsible for ICBC for about 18 months, I guess, and we've had two increases in that time, both increases based on actuarial estimates of what will happen in the following year. If you were to take political considerations into account, the increases wouldn't have happened; but I'm not aware of the process in years past. I know that the process in place now is fair and reasonable, and the one that was in place in years past I assume was fair and reasonable also.

The mandate of ICBC, which was established a number of years ago, was to break even. The member is suggesting that there is some great plot, that you change the mandate from year to year depending on what your wishes are. I have absolutely no concern that that is the case. The reason the rates went up this year is that we had an increase in accidents, well documented. The Insurance Corporation of British Columbia has a record in the insurance industry of being a reasonably efficient organization, in fact very efficient when you compare the costs of ICBC and the private insurance field. Rates are based on actuarial estimates done by people who are experts in that field.

The bottom line is that ICBC is a user-paying, non-profit, break-even corporation. There haven't been great payments to government out of ICBC. Government has nothing to do with it. It stands on its own. Rates are established for that reason and for actuarial reasons. The bottom line is: break even and don't end up with a surplus or a deficit.

MR. SIHOTA: What I should have asked the minister is: will he give us an assurance that there will be no rate increase between 1989 and 1990, because that's when we're going to have the next election? We tracked four elections in the material, and it seems there's a repetitious trend here. The minister may say I'm making unfair allegations, but I must say to the minister that it's more than coincidence.

To look at it with a bit more depth, I want to deal with what the minister says. He says it's based on sound actuarial policies and user-pay. As the rate of claims goes up, so does the rate that individuals pay. I have the financial statement for the corporation here, and I wonder if the minister could explain what happened between 1985 and 1986. In 1986, which happened to be an election year, the corporation chose not to raise its rates. In fact, the average premium fell from $371 to $362, despite the fact that the number of accidents went up and despite the fact, if the minister cares to look.... The financial statement shows that in 1986 the corporation had an underwriting loss of $170 million and that it applied its surplus from previous years to keep those rates down. It's right here in the financial statement. It shows a profit in 1986 of $1 million compared to a profit in 1985 of $73 million.

It seems to me that 1985 was therefore an incredibly good year for the corporation in that it had built up a relatively high profit to cushion what would happen in 1986. If you look at the underwriting loss, which doubled from $84 million to $170 million, it's obvious that there was an increase in claims, but the government — or someone — chose to cushion it. So I think it lends credence to its being more than just coincidence. But the point has been made, and the minister has heard it. Like I say, we will see what happens in the next election. It's obvious what's happening. This year people are being gouged by 22 percent to build up a surplus in subsequent years.

I want to take a look at another aspect of it. If one takes a look at the figures from the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia.... As best as I could determine, about 76 percent of drivers are accident-free. Twelve percent are new drivers that end up paying at the so-called base rate. The corporation ought to be looking at additional ways of reducing the rate for safe drivers and increasing the rate structure for those who have been involved in motor vehicle accidents. I would hope that there's no difference of opinion between me and the minister on that point.

[ Page 4023 ]

It seems to me that what the government has right now is a basis where you start off at the upper end of the claim-rated scale, and you drop down 10 percent until you hit a 40 percent discount in your third or fourth year. If you drop down to 40 percent, it seems to me that the government or the corporation ought to consider a further rate reduction for those who have a good driving record beyond that four-year period. Maybe it doesn't have to be 10 percent; perhaps it should be 2 percent. There is a need, I know, to keep the books in line, despite my earlier comment about what's been done. But if you embrace the argument the minister does, saying it's based on good principles, it seems to me that further discounts ought to be provided to good drivers beyond that fourth year, perhaps not at the 10 percent level, to encourage them to be good drivers.

It also seems to me that the government ought to be providing discounts for young drivers and others who engage in professional driver-training programs. I'd like to know from the minister whether he's prepared to look at a further rate reduction for safe drivers, and to make it up from delinquent drivers. Secondly, is he prepared to take a look at a rate reduction for those who take professional driver training assistance?

HON. L. HANSON: It's interesting that the member, who has done such a good job of research into the political motivations of the past government in charge of ICBC, is also a member of the party that my colleague mentions sending out the letter on. But it's also interesting to note the research that the member has done — and has failed to find that the credit for drivers taking professional driving courses was issued a number of years ago experimentally. The evidence of the members who took the driving course was followed up by the corporation. The record of their driving and incidence of accidents were absolutely the same as those people who did not take a course, in a study group. For that reason, the corporation dropped the policy of giving a discount for taking that course, because the evidence showed that it was not of great benefit.

It's also interesting to note that the member can predict the future as well as he can. Maybe we should include him on the board as one of the actuarial people who can do that. Also, we now extend a discount of 40 percent to safe drivers — a maximum gain of 10 percent a year. We also impose a penalty, which goes the other way, on drivers who have accidents chargeable to their policy. The spread between the maximum discount.... The maximum surcharge doesn't have a cap to it. The differential between the poor driver and the good driver can expand tremendously because of that discount structure. At some point, I guess you have to recognize that there is a limit to what you can do with the discount system.

I guess because of the increase, I've had a number of letters. The majority of them are advocating that there should be more charges onto the people who have accidents and fewer onto those who don't. The fact is that if you stretch the system much further than it is, you've lost an insurance system. If you get to the point where an accident occurs and the owner of that policy next year receives a premium charge relative to the cost of that accident, where is the insurance system? It has disappeared completely. The insurance system is a pool of the exposure, and that's what it was intended to be.

[1:15]

In fact, the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia has a reputation with other jurisdictions that is really second to none. The state of Washington has made a number of inquiries, looking at our system, wanting to introduce it in their state — or one similar. We've had representation from the province of Ontario which, as you know, put in place a system of regulating insurance premiums to limit increases by the private sector, subject to the review of a committee. They are having great difficulty there and are looking seriously at our system here. I had a letter from the Northwest Territories saying: "Would you consider, if we pass the appropriate legislation, covering our vehicles in our territory under the same terms as ICBC, if we provided you with that legislation?"

I can't comment on what has happened in the past. The member makes a case for some political reasons. I wasn't the minister at that time so it's very difficult for me to comment on it, but I assure the member that the bottom line of ICBC.... The costs are up because the numbers of claims are up, and the costs of those claims are up on an individual case basis. That is the reason the rates are higher.

The member asks me to give a guarantee to this House that the rates next year won't increase. I think he must say that with tongue in cheek, because I know that he wouldn't, if he was the private owner of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, give that commitment to anyone.

I might also say to the member opposite — I'm sure that he is aware of this — that the rates are established on what is forecast for the year coming up. They're not established based on what happened in the past, but what happened in the past is used as evidence to forecast the future. So quite often you may have a break-even situation in a particular year; but if the actuarial estimations of the coming year are higher, then you may see an increase because that is what is expected. But because we're a break-even, zero-bottom-line corporation, if there is an overestimate in one year, it comes off the following year.

MR. SIHOTA: First of all, the minister says that people from Washington and all sorts of other jurisdictions are coming to British Columbia to take a look at the ICBC system. I say that's great, because here is a system that was established by the New Democratic Party; it's a system that's working across this province and is a model for North America. I think the minister should then be prepared to congratulate the New Democratic Party on having the foresight to establish this type of corporation, which serves the best interests of the people of British Columbia.

However, my point is that ICBC rates should not be so manipulated as to allow for an artificially high set of rates to be charged in non-election years so as to give people a break in election years, and that seems to be the trend. All I can do is give you the figures, and you can come to your own conclusions. I wasn't the one who initially said it was based on politics; the minister came to that conclusion himself.

You could reduce the effect of those rates by, first of all, doing what I said: not base them on political years. Second, it's interesting to note, if you take a look at the.... Your comment about the forecast doesn't work for 1985-86. But because we're stretched for time, I'm not going to get into that in any detail.

Third, I'll tell you how you could also start looking at a reduction in rates. It's interesting to note that both ICBC and the Workers' Compensation Board claim to be based on

[ Page 4024 ]

actuarial advice and evidence. If you take a look at the financial statements for ICBC, your provision for unpaid claims is enormous: for the year 1987, it's $1.4 billion; for the year 1986, it's $1.25 billion. In other words, the provision for unpaid claims, which is money you set aside from what you're taking in, has increased year after year for the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. It has gone from $594.5 million in 1981 to $1.4 billion in 1987. Interestingly enough, over a three-year period, you've gone up $400 million between 1984 and 1987.

It's interesting to note that the Workers' Compensation Board, which is supposed to work on the same basis, has managed to reduce theirs by some $545 million. It seems to me that a case could be made that some greater amount than is necessary is being put aside in unpaid claims. I don't say you have to reduce it like the Workers' Compensation Board has, but I'm saying that you're putting away a little more than you require.

There are other policies that, I think, can be implemented to help reduce the impact on rate increases faced by individuals. One of the areas that I find particularly galling is that the Insurance Corporation as a Crown corporation is treated the same way as a foreign visitor when we're dealing with the health payments that the corporation has to pay. It has to pay 35 percent more than the hospital daily rates for treatment of in-patients and out-patients. So ICBC pays, as best as I can determine, between $50 million and $75 million into the health care system each year, and about $10 million of that is really in the form of a surtax. In other words, if an individual went in, they would pay less than if the corporation pays.

Again, I don't think that it makes a lot of sense for the corporation to be paying a higher rate for health care costs than an individual. It's a surtax on the corporation, which has the effect of raising your ICBC rates. I don't think that ought to happen. I understand it used to happen with the Workers' Compensation Board, but I haven't been able to determine if it's still happening with the WCB.

So stop manipulating them politically. Take a look at the premiums. Take a look at the amount of money that you're putting aside in your reserves each year, and I think that a case can be made for increases far less than the 22 percent that the government has come up with this year.

With respect to the point of health care premiums and the corporation, I'm sure the minister is going to say: "Well, you know, we'll have to come up with that money from some other source to pay for the health care costs." This government had all sorts of fiscal options. It didn't have to reduce the tax rates for banks. It could have kept that up to where it was prior to this fiscal year and maintained the same level of money and made up that $10 million or $12 million that you're picking up from the Insurance Corporation. So don't give me that as your reply.

Does the minister not agree that those three steps that I've just outlined are ways in which you could address this problem of exorbitant rate increases we're seeing at 22 percent?

While I'm on my feet — because I notice we've only got about six or seven minutes left — I want to make this final point in terms of young drivers. It seems to me somewhat unfair that those young drivers who come into the system are going to be paying at a rate higher than someone who has been in the system and has been involved in a motor vehicle accident. The young driver will come in at the top rate on the claim-rated scale; someone who's been in an accident waits a year and then drops 10 percent. It seems to me somewhat unfair to hit young people with such a high rate increase at the front end, when you are giving a lower rate to someone who has been in an accident and who has been driving for some time — if the principle is that those who are involved in accidents ought to pay a higher rate.

I wonder if the minister could comment on those points.

MR. S.D. SMITH: There are just two or three things I want to raise. The member's research is pretty suspect. In his elections stuff, he was referring to four elections in that period of time. In fact, there were only three. I think that if you start from that point of view, you'll find that the rest of his research is equally suspect. But the one thing that I noted he did not raise when he was going for ways you could reduce costs was to look at some of the rapacious fat-cat contingency fees that lawyers such as he benefit from when they're dealing with personal injury cases in respect of the relationship with the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. I was waiting anxiously for him to raise that issue, because I know that as a person who feels this great compassion for people who are injured and maimed on the highway he would have some very strong views in that regard,

The member was talking about sound actuarial principles, and I am very concerned that he left the impression that those classic actuarial principles should be re-established. I think it would be a grave mistake, because the people who would be most hurt would be young people, and particularly they would be denied the benefit of the postage stamp system of rating together with the penalty for abuse that we have introduced. So, Mr. Minister, I think you should not take his views in that regard into account.

There is one thing I would ask you to consider: that you establish a special category rate for drivers who are convicted of offences involving alcohol. I think the special rate should be so onerous that it renders it nigh-on impossible for people who abuse alcohol while driving to afford to drive cars anymore.

HON. L. HANSON: The member opposite suggested that ICBC was a product of the NDP and they should be congratulated. I would extend that congratulation. I would say that in reciprocal manner they should congratulate the Social Credit government for making it the efficient system that it is.

In any case, the subject of young people starting at zero is.... The member opposite said earlier that we should acknowledge those safe drivers beyond the 40 percent. The whole principle behind the discount system is acknowledging a safe driver record. I will concede to the member that while most new drivers are young people, not all are young people. When new drivers enter the driving field and get their licence, they have to prove they are safety-conscious and have an ability to drive in a safe manner. As they progress, they will earn their discount. If they should in fact have an accident in the first year that is chargeable to them, they will pay a premium just like everyone else. So I think that system is a fair one, and it does recognize that.

I may have missed one of the questions the member had. Maybe if he would repeat it, I would....

Vote 48 approved on division.

Vote 49: ministry operations, $24,274,538 — approved.

[ Page 4025 ]

Vote 50: prevention and treatment of substance abuse, $48,173,368 — approved.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ADVANCED EDUCATION AND JOB TRAINING

On vote 5: minister's office, $248,576.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: On behalf of the Minister of Advanced Education and Job Training (Hon. S. Hagen), I move that the committee rise and report resolution.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Richmond moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 1:31 p.m.