[ Page 6909 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Finance and Corporate Relations Statutes Amendment Act, 1989 (Bill 29).

Hon. Mr. Couvelier

Introduction and first reading –– 6910

Oral Questions

Ingenika representation at federal-provincial meeting. Mr. G. Hanson –– 6910

Stumpage payment loophole. Mr. Miller –– 6910

Use of French in court system. Mr. Davidson –– 6911

Komagata Maru incident. Mr. Sihota –– 6912

Realtors' mortgage company referral fees. Mrs. Boone –– 6912

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Labour and Consumer Services estimates.

(Hon. L. Hanson)

On vote 41: minister's office –– 6912

Mr. Sihota

Mrs. Boone

Mr. Blencoe

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm

Hon. S.D. Smith

Mr. Clark

Mr. Loenen

Mr. Barnes

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Today I have the distinct honour of introducing some special visitors from the People's Republic of China to our Legislature. As many of you are aware, a delegation of very important officials from the China State Education Commission has been visiting our province this month on a goodwill tour.

As part of this tour, these distinguished guests are visiting the Canadian College for Chinese Studies in Victoria, hosted by the college's president and founder, Dr. Wee-chong Tan.

We are fortunate today to have with us in the House the following distinguished visitors: Prof. Li Ke-gang, dean of studies for the Central Institute of Education Administration, who is responsible for training university presidents for all of China; Mr. Ji Ming-ming, director of the training office of the personnel department for the China State Education Commission, who is responsible for the training of high-school principals for all of China; Mr. Li Zhong-shan, director of the Training Centre for Education Administration at Shaanxi Normal University, who is also in charge of the entire northwest of China; Mr. Chen Zhong-wen, associate dean of the faculty of education administration at Beijing Normal University; and Mr. Gao De-cay deputy director of administration at the Training Centre for Education at Tianjing University.

As I mentioned, this group is hosted by Dr. Wee-chong Tan. Along with the members from Victoria — and indeed all of those associated with furthering closer connections with our Chinese friends from the People's Republic — I know you join me in congratulating Dr. Tan for his continued leadership in developing cultural and educational links with our Chinese friends and in welcoming our guests to the Legislature today.

MR. JONES: We on this side of the House would also like to welcome the visiting delegation of distinguished Chinese educators. We appreciate the difficult times that their country is going through now, and we wish them an enjoyable visit and enhanced good relations with Canada from their visit.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: In the building today is the administrator of Surrey Memorial Hospital. I would ask the House to please welcome Roger Bernatzki.

HON. MR. REID: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce Miss Nicole Bernatzki, one of the finest young ladies in the province of British Columbia. Miss Bernatzki is Miss White Rock and also the current Miss Lady Fair for the PNE. She graces us with her presence in the audience today. Would this House make her especially welcome.

MR. LOENEN: On behalf of the Premier and myself I would like to take this opportunity to welcome to the House some constituents and also some very distinguished guests from Wakayama, Richmond's sister city in Japan. They are a delegation of Japanese business people looking at business opportunities and at strengthening our business relationships. Mr. Kazo Kuki, head of the delegation, is a member of Wakayama municipal council; Mr. Sadao Tanaka, managing director of Wakayama Living Newspaper Co. Ltd.; Mr. Shinichi Sugimoto, faculty member of Osaka University of Arts; Mr. Tadakuzo Hatakeyama, manager of the Kyowa Realty Agent Co.; Mr. Alan Kishuichi, Allegro Development Ltd.; Mr. Toshiak Nomade, Wakayama Sister City Committee; and Mr. Tsumi, director of waterworks for Wakayama. They are accompanied by Richmond residents Mel Goodwin, chairman of the Richmond Sister City Twinning Committee; Lino Siracusa, business development officer, corporation of Richmond; Irene Firth, chairman of the North Fraser Harbour Commission and former alderman; and Gord Ellis of the Wakavama Sister City Twinning Committee.

We want to wish them well; we know they will do well here. I would ask the House to please welcome these distinguished guests.

MR. PELTON: Hon. members, in the gallery today is the Hon. George Shaw, President of the Legislative Council of Tasmania, and Mr. Roger Kimmerly, former Minister of Justice for the Yukon Territory. Would you please welcome these two distinguished gentlemen.

MR. MOWAT: I'm very honoured today to introduce a group of directors from the Vancouver Chinatown Merchants' Association. The directors we have today are: Mr. King Wong, president of the Vancouver Chinatown Merchants' Association and also president of Dollar Food Manufacturing; Mr. Edmond Lee, director of the association and also a director of Cathay International Television; Mr. Hau-cheong Chau, president of Polex Manufacturing; Mr. Derick Cheng, vice-president of Fred Tay Associates; and Mr. Al Degenova, project coordinator for the Vancouver Chinatown Merchants' Association. Earlier this morning they met with Mayor Gordon Campbell, in the buildings, and they'll be meeting later this afternoon with the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mrs. Johnston) and the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Reid) regarding the parking problems in Chinatown. I would ask the House to please make them welcome.

MR. CHALMERS: On behalf of the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Long), I'd like to introduce eight students visiting from Sir Alexander Mackenzie School in Bella Coola, accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Robin Burgess. They are part of the Fletcher Challenge student visit program, and I'd like the members here today to make them welcome.

[2:15]

[ Page 6910 ]

MR. ROGERS: In the history of every nation there are days of which the nation can be very proud, and often those days are celebrated by way of a national holiday and celebration. But every nation has a day in its history which must be considered a dark day and a day of national or, in this case, provincial disgrace. Today marks the seventy-fifth anniversary— May 23, 1914 — of the entrance into British Columbia waters of the Komagata Maru and the disgraceful performance of the governments of both Canada and British Columbia. Its passing should not go unnoticed.

Introduction of Bills

FINANCE AND CORPORATE RELATIONS
STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

Hon. Mr. Couvelier presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Finance and Corporate Relations Statutes Amendment Act, 1989.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: This bill introduces amendments to several statutes administered by the Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations. These amendments are considered by the government to be housekeeping in nature and are mainly designed to improve the administrative effectiveness of the ministry.

The statutes amended by this bill are: the Budget Stabilization Fund Act, the Company Act, the Education (Interim) Finance Act, the Income Tax Act, the International Financial Business (Tax Refund) Act, the Logging Tax Act, the Mining Tax Act, the Property Purchase Tax Act, and finally, the Taxation (Rural Area) Act.

Bill 29 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

INGENIKA REPRESENTATION AT
FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL MEETING

MR. G. HANSON: I have a question to the Premier. There is a very important meeting tonight between the Minister of Native Affairs (Hon. Mr. Weisgerber) and his federal counterpart, Mr. Cadieux. Among the issues to be discussed is the future of the Ingenika band. The Ingenika band has requested that they be allowed to participate in these discussions with the two individuals who hold their fate in their hands. This has been rejected. Will the Premier consider overturning that decision and allowing the Ingenika people to make representation at the meeting which affects them?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I met with Ingenika representatives three or four weeks ago in Prince George, and we had a good meeting. The meeting being held today is in part a result of the representation made at the meeting on behalf of the Ingenika people. They outlined what they were faced with and had suffered from over the past many years.

I'm very pleased to see we've been able to bring the federal and provincial ministers together for such a meeting. We can then bring the requests which were presented to us to the ministers, and hopefully they can make a favourable and fair decision on behalf of the Ingenika people. I don't think I can tell a federal minister — nor should I — that he ought to include others in particular meetings, particularly since I believe they've already received the information, as I did, from the Ingenika people.

MR. G. HANSON: Clearly the Premier recognizes that two parts of the equation are present, but the third part isn't. The Ingenika people's situation, as the Premier knows, is one of the most glaring injustices in the history of this province. The first member for Vancouver South (Mr. R. Fraser) talked about an earlier one; this is certainly in that category.

Would the Premier not reconsider and advise the minister that it would be, in his judgment, prudent to have the Ingenika people present?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: As I said, I did receive representation from the Ingenika people in Prince George about a month back. It was an excellent presentation. We received all of the detail, and certainly we went over much of the history as well. They gave us their position, and we promised to take this forth to the federal government and to bring the province and the federal government together in attempting to bring a resolution to this matter.

The meeting today, as I said a little earlier, is in part as a result of that. I realize that the Ingenika people may be here today, and it would be, I suppose, politic to say that they ought to be included in this meeting; but on the other hand, I think, in fairness to the minister who has travelLed here from Ottawa to have the meeting.... I understand that he is travelling north to meet with another native group tomorrow, and I don't think it is fair for me to impose on him or his meeting, especially since I believe a resolution is near. All of the facts as presented by the Ingenika people are being considered fairly.

STUMPAGE PAYMENT LOOPHOLE

MR. MILLER: A question to the Minister of Forests. The minister received a letter, of which I have a copy, sent on April 25 from RCMP Inspector Terkelsen regarding the stumpage issue. The letter says: "The logging industry has found a loophole which enables them to delay payment of stumpage sometimes indefinitely." He goes on to describe the situation where operators walk away from their stumpage bills and then are allowed to bid on new sales under a different name.

First of all, can the minister advise the House just how much revenue we are losing or have lost as a result of this loophole?

[ Page 6911 ]

HON. MR. PARKER: The report says it could happen; it doesn't say it does or did happen.

MR. MILLER: Supplementary on the same topic. The letter says: "As you are well aware" — addressed to you — "there are those contractors who do not in the end pay their stumpage bills and continue to receive timber sales by bidding under different company names or having a relative bid for a new sale." Is the minister saying he is unaware of this situation?

HON. MR. PARKER: Contractors don't pay stumpage; licensees pay the stumpage. The contractors generally work for the licensees.

There are occasions when licensees don't pay their bills, including the stumpage bill. Where they are identified, their opportunity to participate in a small business program is taken away from them for several years — I believe it's a minimum of two. Some of these licensees will participate behind other corporate names, rather indirectly. It's difficult to identify them, but where we can, they are exempted from further activity in a small business program for a minimum of two years.

MR. MILLER: It certainly takes a lot to drag things out of this minister.

Would the minister advise, in response to my first question, how much revenue was, or is being, lost? Secondly, what steps has the minister taken specifically to deal with the situation outlined by Inspector Terkelsen in his letter?

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Speaker, I don't have the letter in hand, like the chap across the way.

The question, I think — perhaps he would like to clarify it — is: how much stumpage is lost by those licensees who don't pay their bills? Is that the question?

MR. MILLER: Well, we'll get the answers some time, whether we get them here or later.

The letter goes on to say: "Without criminal prosecution there is no compulsion to pay stumpage that is due." The RCMP are quite frustrated in trying to deal with this issue. The inspector says this situation was much less prevalent when Forests conducted all their own scaling. "At present, Forests is relying on the honesty of the private scaling industry...." Then he goes on to say that Forests has effectively relinquished control of scaling to the private industry.

Could the minister advise what specific steps are being put in place to allow the RCMP to do their job to stop this revenue escapement?

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Speaker, it's not the RCMP's job to stop revenue leakage as such. We, the Forest Service, ask the RCMP to investigate whenever we think there may be criminal misdoings. The investigation took place because we flagged it to the RCMP and asked them to take a look at it to see if there was any criminal wrongdoing.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. PARKER: The responsibility of the Forest Service is to make sure that timber is scaled and that revenues due to the Crown are collected. The very first premise that we have, unlike the members opposite, in dealing with British Columbians, for whom every one of us works, is that they're honest. We follow that as the first rule, and the balance of control is through an audit process. Wherever we encounter wrongdoing, we take a look at it; if it's considered to be criminal, then we ask the RCMP. But we look after it.

MR. MILLER: Mr. Speaker, a case came to light just in the last little while where an operator had a scaling sheet tucked away in a drawer for nine months. And the minister is relying on the honesty of the private sector to collect the bills for the trees that are owned by the people in this province? What specific steps has the minister put in place to prevent this kind of theft taking place?

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Speaker, one out of several thousands has misplaced a scale sheet, so that makes everybody in the private sector guilty of a misdemeanor, considered by the opposition to be less than honest; and these are the very people that are paying their salaries, their bills, and making sure they're living comfortably here in Victoria.

This ministry took to heart the constructive criticism we received from the auditor-general, and we have directed staff and added necessary personnel in each region to make sure that the revenue is identified and collected according to the law.

USE OF FRENCH IN COURT SYSTEM

MR. DAVIDSON: I have a question to the Attorney-General. In view of the fact that in the province of Quebec all indictments are printed in either English or French, depending on whether the person involved is French-speaking or English-speaking, can the Attorney-General explain why he has instructed that indictments in British Columbia will be in both English and French?

HON. S.D. SMITH: The government of Canada enacts the Criminal Code of Canada, and we administer it. It is the case that all indictments and all processes for criminal offences, as of the end of March, I believe, are by law to be provided in both official languages. That is what we're doing in the province of British Columbia. That is the law for everyone in British Columbia, and it must be dealt with by all members of the system, including the judiciary.

MR. DAVIDSON: In view of that answer, if the province of Quebec continues on the policy that they

[ Page 6912 ]

have at the present time, will the Attorney-General review the policy he has in place?

HON. S.D. SMITH: We always keep our policies under review, and we'll make certain that they're consistent with national standards. There's no question about that.

KOMAGATA MARU INCIDENT

MR. SIHOTA: I have a quick question to the Minister of Tourism. Today marks the seventy-fifth anniversary of the Komagata Maru incident, which, of course, is a matter of note to the Indo-Canadian community in British Columbia. The Komagata Maru was here from May 23 to July 24. What steps is his ministry taking to come up with some type of commemorative recognition to mark the visit of the Komagata Maru and that incident in Canadian history? Will there be some kind of commemorative here in B.C. or in Vancouver?

HON. MR. REID: The simple answer is nothing.

REALTORS' MORTGAGE COMPANY
REFERRAL FEES

MRS. BOONE: I have a question to the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services. As the minister is aware, real estate agents currently recommend particular mortgage companies to clients and receive a good fee in return. Since these referrals may not be in the client's best interest, has the minister decided to take action to protect home-buyers in B.C. ?

[2:30]

HON. L. HANSON: The article in the Vancouver Sun is interesting. To the member opposite, my ministry continues to monitor that situation; but I believe that the people licensed under the Real Estate Act come under the jurisdiction of the Real Estate Act.

MRS. BOONE: Supplementary to the minister. The problem is that consumers are being subtly influenced to use a particular mortgage company, and they're not informed as to why that company is being recommended. Has the minister decided to require that real estate agents at least inform clients of their options?

HON. L. HANSON: Again, Mr. Speaker, I believe the responsibility for the Real Estate Act lies with Corporate Relations, under the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier), and is not under my purview in any case.

Orders of the Day

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

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF LABOUR
AND CONSUMER SERVICES

On vote 41: minister's office, $273,577 (continued).

MR. SIHOTA: I just want to continue that last question from question period with the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services. It hadn't been my original intent to do this, but between myself and my colleague for Prince George North (Mrs. Boone), some important questions arise here.

We're not talking about matters that fall under the Real Estate Act; we're not talking about regulation of the industry through amendments to the Real Estate Act. We're talking about consumer legislation and consumer information. That's distinct from what falls within the purview of the Minister of Finance. Maybe the minister didn't hear, so I'll go over it again. What we're talking about in terms of information to people who buy homes and the requirement for disclosure doesn't fall under the purview of the Real Estate Act; it falls under consumer law and consumer regulation in this province. The minister has broad powers to provide for consumer regulation. Given that explanation, could the minister explain why his government is not requiring disclosure of real estate agents?

HON. L. HANSON: Maybe I could ask the member a question. Are you suggesting disclosure of why the recommendation is a requirement of consumer protection?

MR. SIHOTA: What I'm saying to the minister is that real estate agents who steer business to mortgage companies and get a kickback for it should at the very minimum be required to disclose the fact that they're doing that and receiving a commission for it. That's not really asking for a lot. It's simply a requirement of disclosure.

That isn't something you have to do through the Real Estate Act; you've got enough power under your consumer legislation to allow that. All we're asking for is disclosure, a disclosure statement, a one-page statement saying: "Yes, the purchaser of the home is hereby advised that the real estate agent is also receiving a kickback from the mortgage company for steering the purchaser of the home to that mortgage company."

HON. L. HANSON: I certainly will keep that in mind. I haven't been made aware of the great difficulty that the member on the other side is suggesting, but certainly we'll keep that in mind. I would think that the government's decision as to how they may require the industry to reveal that will be a future decision. At this point, I have no intention of introducing that into consumer legislation.

MR. SIHOTA: Maybe we on this side of the House are not making ourselves clear. The government

[ Page 6913 ]

doesn't require legislation; it just requires regulation. It might simply even require voluntary compliance by the real estate industry. I'm sure that they themselves would not object to disclosure of that very basic information. But it's a matter of consumer protection, so that the consumer is advised that the agent receives a benefit for steering somebody to a particular mortgage company.

It's no different than lawyers who, under their rules, are prevented from steering business to another firm and receiving a kickback for doing so. That's contrary to the rules of practice.

It's not as if it doesn't exist in society today; it does. We're wondering why it doesn't exist in the real estate trade, given the fact that this type of steering is taking place. It's a matter of just simple ethical involvement by government. It's not overregulation; it's not extensive. It's just something that gives the consumer information in advance that there's a benefit to be derived by the real estate agent — a factor which they can take into account when deciding to go to the particular mortgage company.

You've had editorials this morning, I think in the Times-Colonist, saying that you ought to look into it. I don't think your answer, quite frankly, in question period was adequate, because it missed the point, and that's why we are dealing with it now. It doesn't require a major enactment; it requires regulation or compliance. Again, I don't understand why the minister hesitates at the introduction of that type of disclosure requirement.

HON. L. HANSON: As I said earlier — I will state it again — we have no intention of introducing consumer protection legislation at this point to deal with it.

I might point out to the member that the Real Estate Association, which is self-governing and a self-regulating body, I have always found to be a very responsible and publicly aware group. I'm sure that if they find there is a need within their industry, they can well introduce it within the real estate association.

It is interesting to note that the member is raising the issue as a result of an editorial. My research has told me that a number of the financial institutions have refuted any association with this sort of practice. Again, the real estate industry has been a well-known and very well-respected agency in the province, and I'm sure that if they see that as a need in the consumer area, they would look at introducing internal rules.

I will continue to monitor it from the consumer protection side of my ministry, but I have no intention of introducing changes at the moment.

MRS. BOONE: The minister is missing the point here. It's not the fact that the real estate people are going to be protecting themselves; they are not the ones at risk here, or do not have all the information. The fact of the matter is that some mortgage companies would be giving a benefit and that the consumer would not be given the full range of choices there. They wouldn't know, especially first-time homebuyers. If you go into a place and you're with a real estate agent who suggests somebody, you ought to know that that person who has been suggested is being suggested on the basis that this real estate person is getting a kickback from it, and that it may not be the company which has the best rates or the best deal for your needs.

Surely the minister can't object. It's not the real estate company we're looking at to introduce regulations within their own selves to protect their own people; it's the government's responsibility. It's the Minister of Consumer Services' responsibility to ensure that the purchaser of that product — which in this case is a mortgage — is given every option open, is given all the companies there; also that they know that the particular one being advocated for is giving a fee to the real estate company. Surely that's nothing the minister can object to. Or what objection do you have to that?

HON. L. HANSON: I guess I should go back and tell the member that if the real estate association sees it as a problem, I am sure they would have no difficulty in requiring their members to make the disclosure the member was asking for. Quite frankly, the editorial is the first I have heard of this being a difficulty in the province. I don't oppose the disclosure part; I simply say that the problem is not a major one in British Columbia. We will continue to monitor it; when it becomes a major problem this government will act, as it always does.

MRS. BOONE: Mr. Minister, you are denying that you are even going to look into this. You have said that you just found out about this today, yet you say it is not a problem. If you've just found out about it today, at least give us the assurance that you will investigate, review the process and, if necessary, introduce legislation to protect the consumers, to ensure that consumers have all the information necessary to make a wise decision regarding a mortgage.

You stand up there right now, when you've only heard about it today, and say that there is no problem, there is no need, and when the real estate companies see that there is a problem they will deal with it. I can guarantee you, those people who are getting kickbacks are never going to see that there is a problem there. They are not the people that you are out to protect, Mr. Minister; it's the consumer that you are out to protect, and it is the consumer who has the right to have all the information.

If you don't know that it is a problem — and you've just said you don't — and if you've only just heard about it today, give us the assurance in the House today that you will investigate and if there is a problem out there you will put in the necessary legislation to protect the consumers of this province.

HON. L. HANSON: I guess the member doesn't listen well. I have said that we will continue to monitor it. I simply said that when there is a consumer protection problem, it usually comes to the

[ Page 6914 ]

attention of the ministry long before someone writes an editorial on it. Quite frankly, I have not had any news of this. We will monitor it. If we see it as a problem we will act, as we always do.

MRS. BOONE: Did it ever occur to the minister that perhaps it has never come to your attention because the consumers out there were never aware that there were kickbacks taking place and that the people who were advocating a certain company were receiving money back? If they have not been told this is taking place, how are they to know about it? It has come to the front, and it's up to the minister to take action on it now and not wait until some public wave sweeps him into action. Let's have some action on behalf of people, and not reaction later on. Let's work on behalf of the people of this province, Mr. Minister.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, I wasn't intending to get up at this point, but the whole question of real estate dealings and transactions is, I think, one of great interest, particularly at this time because the market is hot and there are a lot of things happening out there. Although the minister may say it's not specifically within his purview, I think he has the power and responsibilities; and, quite frankly, I think he has the interests of the consumer at heart. There are some decisions he has made recently that I applaud him for.

[2:45]

In terms of real estate transactions and some of the things that are going on, particularly right now.... Let me give you one instance, one thing that is of concern to me: the whole question of real estate agents who do their own appraisal on a house, list it and buy their own listing. It brings up questions of ethics and of the general public not being able to participate in that kind of operation. A number of cases have come to my attention where it is quite clear that the agents involved had every intention of buying the house but, for various reasons, listed it, did the appraisal and then bought it themselves without its ever going on the market. There are some ethical questions there, Mr. Chairman, and I am wondering if the minister is aware of some of these things that are going on. Is any review of this area being conducted?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: There may be some confusion. I thought I was participating in the estimates for the Minister of Labour, and the questions we're being asked from across the floor appear to be related more to the Ministry of Finance.

MR. LOVICK: Consumer Services.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Consumer Services. I realize perhaps it could be tied loosely into that and, frankly, I feel that I have a duty to stand up and participate to some extent in this debate.

I look across directly from where I sit, and daily see the Leader of the Opposition missing from his chair. I have seen the Leader of the Opposition go about Vancouver talking about some of the problems in real estate. They appear to be addressing the wrong minister, but we'll hear from the minister in that respect momentarily, I'm sure.

We've heard it said by the Leader of the Opposition that he's really concerned about the plight of the elderly and people seeking accommodation during difficult times, not knowing who to turn to, what information to get or where to seek the proper legal advice, etc. The reason I stand up here, Mr. Minister, is not so much to ask you a question but to get some clarification.

I do so largely on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition who is so often absent from the House. I think the question ought to be asked. It's unfortunate that he can't be here sometimes to ask these questions himself. It's unfair that we label him the absentee landlord, but that's what he's been called. However, having said all of that, I do think that we should....

MR. BLENCOE: On a point of order, I wonder if the Chairman would give us an opinion or reflect on the fact that the hon. member makes reference to another member's attendance. I don't think that's very honourable, and it's certainly not a tradition in this House. Perhaps the Chairman could give us a ruling on that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The only point the Chair would like to make in this regard is that relevancy, of course, is the main thing with respect to this debate. We are debating vote 41, which deals with the Ministry of Labour and Consumer Services. Having said that, maybe the Premier would like to continue.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Frankly, I don't want to talk about the Leader of the Opposition while he's absent; then again, he's never here, so I really don't have much choice in that matter. If I ever want to mention him or ask a question on a matter that I know he's concerned about, I have to make reference to him while he's absent, because he's never here. Having said that, I would like to....

MR. BLENCOE: Politics, politics, politics.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Politics? Come on! We wouldn't play politics in this House — unheard of, terrible. The second member for Victoria suggests that we're politicking. It's terrible to suggest that. I should raise a point of order on that matter, but I won't.

I would like to ask the minister to consider the questions that have been asked. Frankly, I was of the opinion that they might have been asked more appropriately of the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations (Hon. Mr. Couvelier). Has consideration been given by the ministry to develop some means by which we might assist particularly our seniors in cities like Vancouver where there are often pressures upon them and where they need to seek some legal information? Has consideration been given to providing a means by which we can refer

[ Page 6915 ]

them to an appropriate agency? Possibly you already have within your ministry a means whereby you would refer them to an appropriate agency.

Unfortunately, with housing being what it is today, there is a shortage of rental accommodation. Many people are being displaced because properties are being redeveloped to a higher use. Whenever that happens, we do find, unfortunately, that especially seniors are displaced by this. It's a very difficult situation for them. If there is a means by which we could have them referred to someone who has the necessary information and expertise to assist them, I would like to know. It would be a help to me as well.

It's not so much a problem in the constituency of Richmond. I suppose we experience some of this, but it's more a problem in Vancouver proper and perhaps in parts of Burnaby. If you could answer me in that respect, I would appreciate it.

HON. L. HANSON: Yes, we have so many branches of the ministry in the consumer protection side. When it deals with housing, we have within the residential tenancy branch a group who will advise people where they can get information relating to their particular difficulty.

For example, in some of the housing problems that have been created by the changing of land use from a rental apartment building to a condominium or strata title type of arrangement, we've had excellent cooperation from the Rental Housing Council of British Columbia. On referral from our ministry, some of those developers have actually assisted people in finding other accommodation. We have that resource in place.

I might add to the hon. member that the issues raised at the consumer protection branch of my ministry are varied and many. We do have a system of referring them to the proper information, be it within our ministry or be it within another ministry.

To the member for Victoria, in dealing with the question of a real estate operation doing their own appraisal, their own listing and then the individual buying himself, if the member has knowledge of specifics, he should report it to our ministry to see if there is a consumer problem within that. I think, most importantly, that information should be given to the Real Estate Council of British Columbia, who I'm sure would deal very swiftly and correctly with that sort of situation if it isn't aboveboard or revealed. My remembrance of the real estate requirement is that if the salesman who took the listing made an offer on that listing in his own name, there was a very definite requirement to reveal why he was buying it and that he was in the business of buying it. As a matter of fact, I think this disclosure is a requirement of almost every real estate person.

I think the real estate governing body does an excellent job of looking after its members and the internal disclosures that are necessary to protect the public.

MR. BLENCOE: I'm sorry the Premier feels so offended that we're talking about consumer issues and people issues. I don't want to get into politics. We're here to deal with the people's issues, not with the Premier's politics of the day.

The minister refers to the real estate board as very much self-policing — that they take care of themselves — but there are times when that kind of regulation needs review in terms of consumer protection. I think there are concerns out there, particularly in a market such as we have today, that some of the requirements for special disclosure.... For instance, a real estate agent makes a special disclosure on why they want to buy their own listing. After they've done the appraisal, they put it on the market and then instantly buy it. Some of the reasons are pretty vague. Of course, we find that the real reason for buying it was to put the house back on the market two or three months hence at an incredibly inflated cost, basically flipping the market and not living in the property. That's going on, and those in the business will admit that it's going on.

I think there needs to be a review, not just in terms of consumer protection but in the interests of British Columbians trying to get into the market. I don't know how widespread that sort of activity is; I know it's going on. If it is widespread, we have the industry itself participating in a major way to cause the cost of housing to spiral by that kind of use of the current rules, such as disclosure, which is very vague. You can list virtually what you want to buy your own listing, and then the company flips it some months later, making incredible capital gains subject to no speculation tax in this province. I think there's a need in terms of the interest of the consumer, the average guy on the street who wants a house. Referring it back to the industry to take a look at itself is fine, but there are times when government, in the interest of the public, who don't know this is going on.... I suggest that most times when this happens the general public is not aware that it's happening. They're not aware that these listings are being dealt with in this way by the industry itself and that consequently homes are not made available to them because they're dealing with it themselves. I think there needs to be a review of this kind of policy.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: What's this new tax you want?

MR. BLENCOE: The Premier is aware of the kind of tax that the Leader of the Opposition has called for. It's done in Ontario. I don't have to go over it today.

I think there needs to be a serious look at some of these aspects of the real estate industry. I'm not doing it in an attacking fashion, I'm doing it in terms of taking a look at what's going on and some of the activities that are sometimes close to the line.

HON. L. HANSON: I feel I have to respond to that. I think the member opposite well recognizes that the superintendent of real estate lies within the Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations. My

[ Page 6916 ]

experience has been that any time my ministry needs to refer a consumer protection problem to the real estate industry — or to the Law Society or the medical society, if you will — those societies are very sensitive to their reputation and their standing and their ability to self-regulate. I would certainly urge the member, if he has any specifics, to make the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations aware. He will raise the issue with the appropriate body, and I'm sure it will be well investigated.

MRS. BOONE: One wonders what this Minister of Consumer Services really does. The mortgage issue is under the Minister of Finance. This issue is under the Minister of Corporate Relations. Other issues that I've brought up with him regarding labelling are under the federal jurisdiction. It appears very much that there's not a heck of a lot that the Ministry of Consumer Services does to protect the public in this area.

[3:00]

There is definitely an area here — and this is under your area — that is of great concern to all of us. The Premier mentioned to you a concern about people who were being removed from their houses — a little after the fact, I think. We'd like to see the ministry take some action through the Residential Tenancy Act to deal with the issue of helping people before they are evicted from their homes, Mr. Premier.

Mr. Minister, it's very upsetting to have phone calls and letters from various people being evicted, who have been given notice to leave their homes — sometimes with very little notice — and they have to remove their children from their schools, and all of these things. It's clear to me that there is practically no protection for tenants in this province, who are virtually at the mercy of their landlords. They can go through the arbitration process, but it's a sham. Very few of those arbitration processes ever come out on the side of the tenant, and there's nothing they can do.

We have rents being increased tremendously — not just in the Vancouver area, where we see it on television every day, but in any area with a shortage of housing. In the very small community of Mackenzie, because it is a company town, there is a zero vacancy rate now, and landlords there are virtually doubling the rents. You've received letters from the residents of that area — and so have you, Mr. Premier — complaining because they have doubled the rent in that area, and there's nothing they can do about it. There are no places they can move to. Even having some place to go to for a referral wouldn't help, because there are no referrals there. There is no empty housing. Some people are not in a financial situation where they can afford to purchase a home.

What we have been asking — and my colleague from Victoria has asked you numerous times and has brought this up in a private member's bill — is that you reintroduce legislation that would bring back some protection for the tenants, so that they have an area to go to; we call this a rent review. The government likes to twist this around and say that we want to put in rent controls. That's not what we're asking for. We are asking for a legitimate form of rent review, where both landlords and tenants can go to have their rent reviewed. If it's justified, then so be it; if it's not justified, and it's totally outrageous — given the accommodation there — then we believe there ought to be some recourse for people to have that increase denied. We've asked for this, and the minister keeps coming back saying there is no need for rent controls. We're not asking for controls, Mr. Minister; we're asking for rent reviews with regional rental mediators to deal with this — not somebody in Vancouver. It doesn't help somebody in the interior to have to deal with a rentals person in Vancouver. Have a regional rental mediator in the region, where they were before 1983, and where they were able to give some protection to the consumers there.

Mr. Minister, I'd like to hear your comments on this and to ask you for your response as to why you won't consider reintroducing this office.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to hear the answer and the explanation for regional rent reviews and regional rent review coordinators, as proposed by the NDP. I'd like to hear from the minister on that.

I'd also like to hear from the minister on a point which was raised by the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe), because I realize I can't ask him the question. But I'd certainly like to have some explanation. Does the minister have information — it might have been provided to him by the opposition — on what the NDP proposes when they talk about a new tax called "speculator's tax"? Mr. Minister, if you've received this information in written submission from the NDP, I would like to have you explain it. I wonder, when the NDP or the Leader of the Opposition talks about a speculator's tax, if this is on someone who sells a home. Is it someone who sells a home because they purchased it and perhaps decided they didn't like it? Or are they selling it because they have to move? Or is it someone who buys a lot with the intention of building and then later decides they don't want to build? I don't know what the reason might be, but it could be that they weren't able to raise the mortgage. Is it any number of those things that the NDP are talking about when they talk about a new tax on so-called "speculators"? I'd certainly like to have a definition of that, Mr. Minister. If it has been provided you by the NDP, it would be of help to me.

I would also like to ask the second member for Victoria — but obviously I can't ask him, so I would ask you, Mr. Minister, because possibly your staff has had some opportunity to review a private member's bill presented by that member — where there is a proposal to levy an amount on an individual who gives notice to a tenant. I'm wondering if any details are available on that proposal from the NDP, where I believe the suggestion is that if you give notice to a tenant, it has to be six months and there's up to a $2,000 discomfort fee, or something along that line. If

[ Page 6917 ]

you have any information on that, it would help me in that regard.

MRS. BOONE: On a point of order, I fail to see the relevancy of any of this. From what I understand, we are in the minister's estimates and we are discussing the minister's spending authority. We are not discussing anything to do with a private member's bill by the New Democratic Party. I would ask the Chair to bring this member back into order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. There are some problems involved in dealing with this particular portfolio, certainly with respect to relevancy, because we are dealing with two things, consumer affairs.... As you'll recall, some time ago the corporate part of that ministry was broken off, and it does make it difficult for relevancy. Therefore the Chair is trying to be as lenient as possible. But the point the member makes is very well taken.

Before we proceed, Mr. Premier, the first member for Vancouver South would like to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. R. FRASER: I think members of the House have seen the students on the far side of the gallery, and it's my great pleasure to advise you that those same students are from the great riding of Vancouver South. They are from Moberly Elementary School and are accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Garside. Would the House please make them welcome.

MR. LOVICK: Be an example and try to be relevant.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Yes, I certainly wouldn't want to offend the House through the use of irrelevance.

I was only citing these examples because I'm here — like I'm sure the majority if not all of us are — to seek other ways of possibly assisting those who are having some difficulty, particularly since we're talking about housing and, if not the availability of it, certainly the fairness in how people might be provided notice or what information they may be given or where they could seek information. So I suppose it's a fairly broad-ranging discussion we're having here with the minister under the consumer affairs part of his portfolio. But again, if he does have some information that has been provided him by the opposition — I can't ask the opposition in the House — with respect to the new proposed tax or with respect to the penalties that are being suggested by others regarding people giving notice to tenants, and if he has any further information on this regional review proposal involving these regional arbitrators, I would appreciate that.

HON. L. HANSON: I was interested to hear the comment from the member for Prince George about what this ministry looks after. I guess I'd have to suggest in all fairness that if the research was done other than in the media, you may know what this ministry is responsible for. In any case, the research the member has done obviously doesn't suffice her in the knowledge she should have.

The member's reference to a rent review is interesting. The members opposite quite often suggest that there should be a rent review. I have a little difficulty in determining how that would have any practical effect, without some mandate of those who were conducting the review to deal with increases or other issues if they are out of line. To be anything but rent controls.... I don't understand how you can give that other title to it. Simply changing the name from rent controls to rent review doesn't in fact change the procedure.

There has been a very well-received process whereby when we have had some indications of rent increases that are at least claimed to be out of proportion, we've had the Rental Housing Council of B.C. look into the issues for us. They have done things such as go to the actual location to view the accommodation. They have then done a study of similar accommodation in the general area to get a feeling of what the market is. They have talked to the owners, who have, in many cases, gone on a fairly extensive renovation program providing fridges, stoves, carpets, renovating buildings and that sort of thing. In some cases they have had rents not necessarily rolled back, but they've had an agreement — because the rents were proportionately low to what market was — that the increase was a very substantial amount over a short period of time, and they have phased in the increases over a couple of years. In some cases they rolled them back; in others they adjusted them. In some cases, after looking at all the different circumstances, the tenant has come forward and said: "When you explain all these things to me, these rent increases are not what we would consider out of proportion."

It's interesting and, I think, fair to quote the Leader of the Opposition, although he is not present today. It's taken from the Journal of Commerce of February 6, 1989, and your leader is quoted as saying: "I, personally, even when we, the NDP government of the early 1970s, introduced rent controls, was opposed to them. Our party is not advocating rent controls."

I know that there has been some consideration — particularly by the city of Vancouver, where the apartments that might be converted to strata title or at least torn down for the erection of a condominium or strata title type of building — of recommending that some fee be imposed. I think the fee was $1,000 per unit that they were required to pay as demolition fees. I'm not sure that they have gone ahead with that.

[3:15]

There was also some movement or at least some suggestion from the members opposite that there be a longer notice period required. There are a number of notice periods required, the least of which is about ten days for notice of eviction, usually related to

[ Page 6918 ]

non-payment or some problem within the building — damages to the premises or whatever. That's the shortest one. There are others up to a maximum of two months in the majority of cases.

One of the difficulties with the six-month requirement is that in many cases, when notice of a building conversion or demolition is happening, the notice triggers a number of people to find other accommodation, and then there's a vacancy. There are a lot of things to be considered.

Under the circumstances, the majority of the difficulty being created is because of the shortage of rental accommodation available. I'm sure the members opposite are well aware that it isn't cost only. In many cases, people can't afford the rent, whatever it may be. There are some social service programs to help people in financial difficulty which — again to the member opposite — lie within another ministry.

We have looked at the Ontario system in depth and found it to be less than effective. Ontario is having great difficulty with it. The last knowledge I had, there were about 16,000 cases to be heard by the review panel in Ontario. I think it is generally felt that if there is a method of providing adequate supply — or encouraging adequate supply, as we are doing in a number of initiatives in this government; not in this ministry — that is really the answer to those difficulties.

The Premier's question on the opposition member's initiative on taxing was again directed to the Minister of Finance, but my understanding of it was that there should be a tax on those people who acquire property and turn around and sell it very quickly at a high profit. I think that was the gist of the suggestion.

The budget initiatives mentioned and the social service programs that we have in place are good programs that, I think, will help with the difficulties. At this time we have no intention of introducing rent controls, but we monitor, as we should, the situation on a current basis and will continue to do that.

MR. BLENCOE: I'm pleased that the Premier is interested in our initiatives. It goes to show that this side of the House is clearly setting the agenda in British Columbia today. I wasn't quite sure, during that exchange with the Premier, whether they were already looking at themselves as the opposition and this side of the House as the government — coming forward with progressive and innovative ways to deal with the problems of British Columbia today. I'm pleased that the Premier is already getting himself into the mode of playing the role of opposition. It's certainly in keeping with the times. We will be pleased to meet his request when he calls the election.

I want to continue to cover the issue of rent review and the residential tenancy branch. I will start by asking the minister a very simple question: will he confirm that any rent increase today in British Columbia — no matter how much — is legal?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Premier has asked leave to make an introduction. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I note in the gallery a very good British Columbian who is working very hard on behalf of those involved in the labour movement and striving in every way to make this a better province for all concerned, Mr. Ken Georgetti. I would ask the House to welcome him.

MR. SIHOTA: I'd also like to welcome Mr. Georgetti, and Joy McPhail, who is with him.

MR. LOENEN: Do you have permission?

MR. SIHOTA: Will you just listen for a minute? Behave, and I'll continue. I think the Premier should have a chat with his seatmate from Richmond over there so he knows what's going on here. He can go back to sleep now if he wishes.

The Premier was saying that Mr. Georgetti is doing a good job and working hard on behalf of British Columbians. I know that nothing would bring more joy to Mr. Georgetti's heart than the election of a New Democrat government. I would invite the Premier to make Mr. Georgetti really happy right now by calling an election so we can give him the satisfaction that he so deeply desires.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: You're being political.

MR. SIHOTA: The Premier says I'm being political — of course, this is not the place for politics, in this chamber.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I just might remind all hon. members that I believe we are dealing with vote 41.

MR. SIHOTA: Sorry. I had trouble trying to figure out what the Premier was dealing with. I understand that in my absence he was asking the opposition for more information with respect to a speculator's tax and rent review and all of these important issues that afflict British Columbia today. Again, if the Premier wants more details, just call an election. We'll be happy, on the campaign trail, to give him as many details as his heart desires. Mr. Premier, the challenge is to you.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: That's the third tax you've proposed today.

MR. SIHOTA: Third tax? He overlooks the fact that the government, through the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier), introduced a bill at 2 o'clock today increasing four different taxation mechanisms in the province. The Premier must have been oblivious to that — asleep or not communicating with the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations.

[ Page 6919 ]

In any event, I want to deal with the Ministry of Labour and Consumer Services.

AN HON. MEMBER: That would be refreshing.

MR. SIHOTA: It is refreshing to see the Premier in the House for a change, I must say.

We were talking the other day about health and safety regulations in British Columbia and the fact that a new board is proposed under Bill 27, which I've said, in principle is good legislation. There are regulations being developed right now through an internal mechanism in the WCB.

Would the minister not agree that in light of the pending legislation, which in all likelihood would get our support fairly quickly and passage through the House, the process they've commenced internally in the WCB to review, modify and develop health and safety regulations should now be stopped pending the implementation of the new board? Would the minister not agree with me that that's prudent?

HON. S.D. SMITH: I have a couple of matters I would like to raise with the minister. One relates to the provisions of section 7 under the former Labour Code and how they still relate to an injustice which is going on in the province, and it has continued for a good long time. It relates to 90 workers at Kamloops, former members — some still current, in fact — of the IWA, which union, I hasten to point out, has, in my view, a justifiably good record of performance in this province with respect to fairness on behalf of its workers.

This particular issue is an injustice and is now before the ombudsman of British Columbia. It is one in which the workers have been denied, through a combination of the efforts of their union leadership and, I dare say, an acquiescent management, the most valuable possession that any worker owns, what is really the most important property anyone has under a collective agreement: namely, their seniority. They have been denied that because under the constitution of their union there was a provision that mandated — not only encouraged — those members and the leadership of that union to seek a single seniority. In the case of then Balco Industries, they had a mill and they had a plywood plant. The workers throughout that period had separate seniorities. During the course of some negotiations with management, there was an agreement reached in which the seniority of 90 workers was sold for $20,000 — a pittance.

I have a question for the minister. When you are dealing with grievances, like the section 7 grievance that is still ongoing in this instance, there seems to me inherent in the system if not an outright conflict of interest, then a process that necessarily will guarantee either that justice will not be done or most certainly will not be seen to be done. The problem is very simply that when these workers went under the provisions to bring a complaint against their own union and their own employer, they were confronted with a board that was made up of an independent chairman, a representative of their union and a representative of management. There's no way, under that kind of a provision, they can get justice. Two of the folks that they are aggrieved about are sitting with representatives on the board. That is the problem.

The process is bad. The process was bad for the Balco workers, and it is still as bad today in that circumstance. When a worker has a grievance against the organization that is representing him and/or the organization that employs him, then it seems to me that that worker ought to have the right to a process that is, in fact, independent and is seen to be independent. It is a very serious problem.

In the case of the Balco workers, it still goes on. They have had people acting on their behalf gratuitously now for some seven years to try to bring some resolution to this. There is no question, because it is in testimony now, that their own leadership lied. There's no question about that; that has been acknowledged as fact. There is no question that there was collusion between their employer and their union to hose them out of their most valued property possession, their seniority.

[3:30]

They don't seek to bring down the system. They don't seek to get rid of their union. They are proud members of their union. They quite properly seek to have redress. They have gone through the process. They have gone now to no fewer than five hearings before the old labour board and now through the Industrial Relations Council. They have now gone to the ombudsman, who has drawn it back together again. They still presumably have an avenue of going to the courts. Obviously, that's extremely expensive.

What they have lost is of great value. Coincidentally, just after the seniority was merged, Balco was bought out and the sawmill was shut down. Of course, the effect of that, because the sawmill was older and the folks in the plywood mill had lost their seniority through the merger, was that they were out of a job, even though it was the plywood mill that stayed running and continues to uphold the value of that operation and even though those workers were the major contribution over the years to the success of that plywood mill.

They've been screwed, to put it in the vernacular. There's no question about it. They've been screwed out of their seniority by their own organization in concert with their employer. I want to tell you that it's not right. There's nobody in the system prepared to stand up on their behalf and take a look at that thing. It is a good little way of getting together in a nice, clubby atmosphere and making sure that above all else you preserve the system. That's the whole point. The system in this case became a greater article of preservation than the seniority rights. The people who were involved in the grievance process were more interested in maintaining their relationships and the clubby way of resolving disputes than they were in ensuring that these people got redress.

I implore the minister to review that, to take a very hard look at the process for resolving disputes inside the system, where the grievance comes from

[ Page 6920 ]

individuals against the organization that is supposedly bargaining collectively, and fairly so, on their behalf. It has not worked in this case. It is just flat wrong.

You would think that somebody in the system — be it the employer, the trade union, the Industrial Relations Council or the old Labour Relations Board — would twig, would have a little light bulb go on and see the inherent flaw in that. You can't expect someone to go in front of a committee of three comprised in two instances of the very people against whom he has a grievance and in the third instance of a chairperson chosen by those two parties. It is just flat wrong; it doesn't work.

So those workers have been done a grievous injustice by the system, and the system has a responsibility, and all of us on both sides of this place have a responsibility, it seems to me, to stand up on behalf of people who have lost something of real value. As I said at the outset, there is nothing of greater value to those in the position where their rights are subsumed by the collective organization, where their individual right to bargain is subsumed, and they give that up because of the greater strength they get. What they get out of that is seniority, and that seniority has a real and absolute value. When their own organizations are prepared to sacrifice and compromise the individual's seniority in order to preserve something that was manifest within their own constitution, that is wrong, and we all have a responsibility to look at that fairly and openly and redress it. We haven't done that. Hopefully, in the case of the Balco 90, the ombudsman will be able to bring some redress where others have so far failed.

I must say I have raised the Balco 90 before, and I am going to raise it in this place and everywhere else I can until their improperly taken seniority is either returned or compensated for. It is something I think simply cannot be left undone. It is not a partisan issue, and I am sorry to see only three members of the opposition in the House today for this very important discussion on labour matters. I think it is something that deserves greater attention, particularly from the Leader of the Opposition, who can't even bother to be here when this debate is on.

But the issue is not a partisan one; the issue is one of fairness, equity and process. Let us all be reminded that our rights and our responsibilities — but particularly our rights and our freedoms — repose in and are protected by process; not ad hockery, not little backroom deals where we get together and look at the constitution and nod and say, "I guess silence means consent" — quoting from that deal with Balco. Silence doesn't mean consent; you have to stand up.

I have one other question. We had a debate in this House a couple of years ago on what was then called Bill 19. That piece of legislation brought the best debate, I think, from all sides of this House. During that time a commitment was made by the opposition that they would lay before this minister a new bill to replace Bill 19. That was their commitment; they gave their word to the people of British Columbia that they would bring in a new bill. They would put before the people and this Legislature a new document that would replace Bill 19, that would eradicate Bill 19, that would remove all of Bill 19: not bombast, bafflegab and legalese out of lawyers from Esquimalt, but a bill, a document that people could see, touch, look at and think about. They gave their word to the people of British Columbia two years ago that this would be presented to the House, that it would be done and the alternative would be there for everyone to see, so that people could see how what we did was different from what they would do, and how it would work. They brought in a lot of bills this year on the environment, parroting what the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Strachan) had already done last fall, but I haven't seen their alternative to Bill 19. I stand to be corrected on that; I may well be wrong. So I'd like to ask the minister if he yet has received a copy of the proposed legislation that the opposition promised to put before the people so that we could all see their alternative to Bill 19.

HON. L. HANSON: The Attorney was referring to section 7, the duty of representation, in Bill 19. I'm very aware of the situation the member raised. As I believe he mentioned in his remarks, it has been referred to the ombudsman.

I'm sure the member is aware that there is legislation — I think it's been there since the days of the NDP in the seventies — or at least a portion of a bill, that would allow for the appointment of a labour ombudsman. That has never been done, for a number of reasons. At the time when it was originally brought in, I don't believe there was an ombudsman as such. We've seen a number of overlapping responsibilities as the legislation is currently written.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

It's interesting that you should bring it up, because I have been discussing that with staff. We will be testing the community to get their feelings about the ombudsman's responsibilities as they relate to labour. I do see that and those particular circumstances as bearing some investigation.

I am aware of those suggestions made by the opposition members not only, I believe, in this House.... Although I don't remember the specific member who raised it, I know it has been mentioned a number of times in speeches around the province. As yet I have not seen that. I've had the odd letter from members asking me something about the act, but I haven't yet seen that; nor have I any indication that they have any intention of tabling it with the ministry. I certainly would like to look at it. It might be interesting to get the members opposite to make a commitment in public as to exactly what they would do in the labour relations field.

MR. CLARK: I wasn't planning to speak in this debate, but I have to rise at least briefly to comment on some of the remarks made by the Attorney-General in this debate. We're used to hypocrisy in this chamber and in politics, but I think his remarks have

[ Page 6921 ]

reached a new zenith. The Attorney-General talks about the sanctity of seniority....

MR. LOENEN: On a point of order, I think all members are offended when we hear the word "hypocrisy" applied to the Attorney-General. I would ask the member to withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Were you impugning the motive of the Attorney-General?

MR. CLARK: No, I wasn't at all. I was commenting on an observed fact. I wasn't impugning motives. I will withdraw if it offends the Attorney, but I note that the Attorney didn't ask for a withdrawal.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please proceed. I would note that we are proceeding on vote 41, the estimates of the Ministry of Labour and Consumer Services.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Chairman, we had a 15-minute discussion of the merits of seniority in this chamber by the Attorney-General, with respect to 90 people in his constituency. I suggest to the Premier, the Attorney and the Minister of Labour that this government, through Bill 19, has removed more seniority rights from employees than any government in the history of British Columbia. Where was the Attorney-General when it came to successor rights in Bill 19 and the elimination of seniority in the event of bankruptcy? Where was the Attorney-General when he was a backroom boy to the Premier and they made the Expo site a union-free zone — or tried to, at the very least? Where was he when he dealt with the inviolable rights of seniority in those days? Nowhere. But when he has 90 people and can make a speech in the House that he can mail out for part of his leadership campaign, he's all keen to talk about seniority.

We've seen hypocrisy in this chamber. It reminds me of when he dealt with the Charter of Rights. The Attorney-General said he's opposed to the Charter of Rights but is in favour of including property rights in the Charter, which prompted one judge to say: "There are those who are against the Charter and those who are in favour of the Charter. Then there are those like the Attorney-General who are both."

Here we have the same situation with respect to seniority. Where is the Attorney-General when we want to deal constructively with protecting seniority in British Columbia, which Bill 19 does nothing about? Where is the Attorney-General when we want to deal with questions about section 7? By the way, Mr. Chairman, nobody likes the present section 7 procedure — unions, management or otherwise There are other ways of dealing with it. The Attorney-General suggested one, but there are others What about dealing with lawyers? What about dealing with getting rid of lawyers at the labour board, and the tremendous cost to unions and employers with respect to lawyers?

[3:45]

Some jurisdictions — the Minister of Labour may be interested in this — don't allow any lawyers at labour relations tribunals unless both parties agree. Maybe the minister could consider that. No, we haven't heard anything like that from the Attorney-General; we've just heard a speech given for a mail out. There's nothing to help those 90 people, and there's nothing to deal with the real question of seniority in British Columbia, which this government has consistently undermined.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before proceeding, I understand that the debate had ranged prior to my taking the chair. I allowed the opposition to readdress that particular point; I would now ask members to deal with points relevant to the minister's estimates.

MR. LOENEN: I want to deal with the labour section of the minister's portfolio, and I would preface my remarks by saying that my constituents are mighty happy with Bill 19. In fact, we had a delegation of Japanese businessmen who are interested in our province and our city. They were very impressed: in 1986 over 2,500 worker-days were lost to work stoppages, but in '87 that was reduced to just over 500; in '88 it was further reduced to just over 400. That's the trend we're seeing, and if Bill 19, which was introduced in the intervening years, is responsible for it, that's good news indeed. I know I speak on behalf of my constituents when I congratulate the minister for setting the tone for good industrial relations not only in this province but in this country — and the figures prove it.

I want to ask a specific question related to a labour issue that has been festering in our municipality for altogether too long. I'm referring to a labour dispute at Western Canada Steel Ltd. that affects some 400 workers. These are CAIMAW union workers. They and their families have suffered immensely as a result of that labour dispute. The minister knows that certain features in the history of this make it particularly important for us to have a review of the circumstances that led to the closure of that mill. About three and a half years ago this government instructed and commissioned the then commissioner of critical industries, Art Phillips, to see what jobs could be saved at the mill. As a result, all kinds of concessions were put together by a variety of people, including B.C. Hydro, Workers' Compensation Board, the municipality of Richmond, in order to save those jobs for the workers themselves, first of all, but also for their families and dependants.

Last year the Western Canada Steel mill was subject to a labour dispute, and subsequently it was sold to Ipsco in November. In December they publicly admitted in a letter that they had no intention whatsoever of ever opening that plant; in fact, they had bought it with the intent of closing it. It has been suggested that this was a betrayal of the kind of collective bargaining that had proceeded and that was still ongoing at that time. Those kinds of circumstances around the sale and the closure of that plant have left a bitter taste in the mouths of many of my constituents.

[ Page 6922 ]

As I say, Mr. Minister, because some $5 million of public money in the form of tax concessions was given to the former owners — and perhaps also to the present owners — the question becomes all the more pressing: were those moneys used for the intent and purposes for which they were given? And why is it that after all that goodwill and all that community effort the plant nevertheless shut down? What happened to those funds, and what happened to the obligations that were undertaken at the time by the people who received the benefits? Moreover, what about the aspect of seeing the last steel mill in all of British Columbia close? What about our ability to recycle some of the large items, such as fridges and stoves, that are now put into landfill? What about the environmental impact? Those questions remain.

I would very much like to ask the minister whether he could tell the House and my constituents what his ministry has done to bring those parties together, what he has done to ascertain whether or not the funds were used appropriately, what he has done on behalf particularly of the members affected, those union workers in those jobs. I know this is of concern to the workers. It's of concern to their families. I know the minister carries a special burden for workers and their families and the various people who depend on a pay cheque, and I would like to hear the minister explain what he sees can still be done to save those jobs.

HON. L. HANSON: The issue of Ipsco, the closure of that plant, has been a long tale. Although I don't have any direct knowledge of it, I know that the critical industries administrator was responsible for a number of concessions given to the operation by the municipality of Richmond, certainly by the Workers' Compensation Board, by B.C. Hydro and a number of.... Those were some of the methods by which the critical industries commissioner was able to keep some things operating. The conditions of those concessions I'm really not aware of nor have I dealt with those aspects in my ministry. I know that the Ministry of Regional Development had attempted to investigate that, if you will, and also had done some work in hopes of keeping the plant operating, from an economic point of view, particularly since there isn't a resource now to dispose of some of those things, such as refrigerators and other metal.

The issue is now before the Industrial Relations Council to determine the nature of the closure, whether it was in fact a strike or a closure. The nature of that stoppage will determine what the members of the workforce are entitled to in terms of separation That hasn't been determined yet, so I'm a bit restrained in what I can refer to.

The Industrial Relations Council part of my ministry certainly was involved, in the hopes of mediating the dispute, and has spent a fair amount of time, sometimes in cooperation with the Ministry of Economic Development, in that hope. In fairness to the people who purchased the company, when they originally purchased it, they said publicly and without any reservation that they had purchased it for the asset and had no intention of operating it, although there were some negotiating sessions that went on after that.

I guess another question being asked of the Industrial Relations Council is whether those negotiations and any of the things that happened would constitute an unfair labour practice, and the council is pondering that difficulty. But the firm that purchased the plant had originally intended to close it. They have, to the best of my knowledge, removed a lot of the equipment to other plants that they have in Canada and British Columbia, and it's my understanding now that there isn't any hope or suggestion that the plant will be reopened, although I can't deal with that in absolute.

The severance problem will be dealt with when the Industrial Relations Council has made its decision. It is an unfortunate incident that a plant of that size.... I think the Ministry of Economic Development is actively searching or encouraging anyone who may want to get into that sort of industry in British Columbia to establish here — as a matter of fact, I know it is. But dealing with the specifics of that plant, at this point there is no hope that I can see of its reopening.

Certainly the members of the Industrial Relations Council, the mediation side, spent a lot of time and effort trying to resolve the dispute and keep the plant open, and it really is unfortunate that we're still awaiting the decision of the council on the questions they have before them.

MR. BLENCOE: Before we go into the latest labour part of the debate, I want to go back to the rent review and the area of responsibility that the minister has for tenants in British Columbia.

I asked the minister a question, and I'll put it again: will the minister confirm that...?

AN HON. MEMBER: You're not interested?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: It's so boring.

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE: It's unfortunate that the Premier decides to leave when I'm going to talk about 1.2 million tenants in the province who have virtually no protection in terms of the Residential Tenancy Act. A lot of British Columbians — through Mr. Chairman to the Premier, as he is about to leave — are very concerned about the lack of a level playing-field in terms of tenants' rights and responsibilities. I want to ask the minister responsible: is it accurate? Will he confirm that any rent increase in the province of British Columbia — any amount — is legal?

HON. L. HANSON: First of all, I have to put this in the right context. The member opposite is asking whether any amount is legal. In the Residential Tenancy Act, if a rent increase can be construed or looked at as being a deliberate attempt to evict simply by making the rent totally unrealistic as it

[ Page 6923 ]

relates to market and other things, that determination would be that it is another method that they can use for eviction and therefore circumvents the protections. In that sense, any amount of rent increase is not allowed.

[4:00]

But there isn't a ceiling. We don't have rent controls in British Columbia. If you look over the last five or six years, you will see that the rent increases in British Columbia have been really relatively moderate and have, if anything, reflected nothing but the increase in costs, inflation and the other things that we see in the province. They do have a security of tenure; they can be evicted under some circumstances, but only for really just cause.

I know that the member opposite is trying to make a point, but I think the point is that the marketplace does determine what is fair and reasonable. Despite some remarks made by, I think, the member for Prince George North (Mrs. Boone), to the best of my knowledge there is rental accommodation available just about everywhere in British Columbia — to a lesser degree in some communities; I certainly would agree with that — but if you look back at history and how effective the system has been, it has been very effective in British Columbia. The aberration that we see at the moment in a shortage of rental accommodation has to be attacked in a positive manner, such as we have done in a number of the initiatives in the budget to encourage the building and provision of more rental accommodation so that there is the marketplace discipline that comes with that.

MR. BLENCOE: I think the minister is trying very hard to avoid the issue that thousands and thousands of British Columbians wish to be addressed: that is, a fair system of rent review.

Let me go back in history. I recall vividly in this House, in '83 and '84, when the former government — I know this member was not here then — gave their rationale for eliminating all those security issues like the rentalsman, rent review, the old Residential Tenancy Act, which I think was much fairer to both landlords and tenants. The argument they gave for eliminating those quite progressive pieces of legislation — obviously there are some things that always need to be reviewed — was that if you removed them, the construction industry would boom and housing would be built and the private sector would take care of the housing needs.

All the evidence is in now that the private sector has not. The market has not been able to respond, and indeed, if you look at the evidence and the unit construction since '83-84.... We have had that field vacated. The rentalsman disappeared; rent control went; rent review went.

Construction, particularly in key areas like Vancouver and Victoria, in non-condominium kinds of units — the regular apartment units — dramatically dropped at a time when the government said: "Get rid of those checks, those mechanisms that affect the supply of housing, and we will have all the housing we need." It simply did not happen.

The bible in housing — according to the Fraser Institute — failed miserably. This Fraser Institute line to get rid of all those innovative and progressive pieces of legislation that gave some protection to tenants — remove them and affordable housing would be constructed by the private sector — has been a miserable failure. This government's policies have been a miserable failure in supplying housing in the last six years in the province of British Columbia.

There is a good reason why I asked the minister to confirm that any rent increase is legal in the province of British Columbia. It is accurate: any amount. There is a section in there — I forget which section it is — which basically, in lay terms, is economic eviction. You talk to lawyers — and I've talked to many — about trying to use that section. As far as I know, no one has tested it, no one has wanted to test it, because what is construed as an economic eviction? Sixty percent, 70 percent? I've got rent increases, as have many as my colleagues and you across the other side — of 50 percent or 60 percent. The minister says that up until the latest hiatus in the market and the problem we've got today, the rents were reasonable. But now the market tightens up and the rents become, in many instances, very unreasonable.

I want to know what the minister says. To that minister: what do you say to senior citizens, for instance, who are on a very fixed income, pension, and all those life savings...? The portion is given over to rent. Suddenly, overnight, in a building 200 or 300 senior citizens get an increase of 50 percent or 60 percent. It's happening. There's every evidence — and this is the point I want to make — that if we had a review board or an appeal board, those senior citizens could go and lay the evidence that the rent increase was unjustified, that the market, even, didn't determine that rent increase.

Why does this government refuse to have at least a review system whereby families or tenants or senior citizens, or whatever, who feel aggrieved that 50 percent or 40 percent is unfair have somewhere they can go and say: "Will you please look at this?" There's nowhere in the province today.

We're just asking for basic fairness; we're not asking for rent control. I make it quite clear, and I've said that over and over again. We're not asking for an arbitrary ceiling on rent increases. We're saying — and I want the minister to answer this other question too — that most landlords are reasonable and fair; most recognize that there are difficulties; most try to give reasonable increases. But there are those who in difficult times take advantage. Right now you have no way to help those seniors or those families have reviewed increases by those landlords who are taking advantage. That's all we're asking for.

I recognize that most landlords and owners are fair. But what do you say to those senior citizens or those thousands of families — and there are over a million in this province now — when they get a rent increase that is so dramatic? It's clearly because they're taking advantage of a tight market. It's not justified by the market. Oh, it is in terms of them knowing they can get it. Sure, if they go back and

[ Page 6924 ]

keep taking and taking, people can't move anywhere because there's nowhere to move.

Why can't the minister have a decent, fair and just review system, particularly for those on fixed incomes? What's wrong with that? Don't you believe in a fair system, or do you believe any rent increase is legal and the only solution is to move?

HON. L. HANSON: I guess I will repeat the answer that I just gave, because it really hasn't changed anything. The member opposite has gone through a long discourse about the need for rent review.

I have asked a question, which he didn't answer in his long speech about rent review: what happens if there is a rent review system and then there is a determination that a rent increase is not to market?

What happens with the system — and the member opposite well knows it — is that once you establish a rent review process, you establish also what is fair and reasonable as far as a rent increase is concerned. If you do that, then what you establish as being the ceiling on rent increases becomes the norm; and unless the review process has an ability to deal with an increase — in other words has a method of effectively rolling it back — then it doesn't have any effect.

I did say to the member opposite, and I will repeat it, that the Rental Housing Council of B.C. has very nicely offered, and has done, a number of reviews in cases where we have knowledge of rent increases that are above and beyond market.

I would point out to the member that if market for a particular establishment is $400 and the rent is currently $200, if they bring it up to market, that's a 100 percent increase. In fact, the Rental Housing Council has been successful in getting — if that has happened — a recognition by the landlord that that is too much of a shock, too much of a burden, even though they do recognize that the amount is within the market. They have been able to get the landlords to phase it in over a period of time, so they can reach market.

A number of circumstances recognized in the process were renovations and improvements to the building, better amenities and so on. I don't know what the average increase has been, but when we look at the removal of rent control — which was in 1983, I believe  most of the rent increases have been reasonable and moderate. In some cases — where the rents have fallen behind the market and a new landlord attempts to bring them to the market value at that time, there is a perception that the increase is unfair. I don't think the ones I've been able to look at have been unfair, in the sense that they are unfair as relates to market. They may be unfair in relation to what was being charged in the past.

I do not want to downplay the difficulties people face, particularly senior citizens who have lived for years in one particular location. It's a traumatic thing I've had some stories about apartments that were going to be demolished to make way for a condominium or strata title development — mostly in Vancouver. Elderly residents have lived there for 20 or 30 years — a major part of their lives. Although it is a rental apartment, after that length of time a sense of ownership is established and is certainly recognizable. It is a very difficult situation. In most cases the rental housing council has been able to find accommodations. If the member opposite were to speak to them.... I have some copies of reports that they have provided me with which look at some of these difficulties. They have been dealt with in a very fair and reasonable manner.

Up to September or October of last year, the average rent increase was very reasonable and in most cases less than the inflation rate or very close to It. We have been successful in getting some rollbacks where things have been pointed out. There is an unofficial review process that has been effective and has worked very well.

The imposition of rent controls and rent reviews — if there is a control, it is a rent control — in all jurisdictions I have been able to study has had a negative effect on the supply of rental housing. We have not seen instances where it has been successful in increasing the supply of rental accommodation. That's the measurement that provides the discipline in the system.

[4:15]

Through the Ministry of Social Services and Housing, we also have assistance to individuals on fixed incomes who have difficulties with rent and other things. Also, as I pointed out to the member earlier, we have taken a number of initiatives in other ministries to encourage the provision of housing and rental accommodation. These also have a balancing effect on the market.

As I pointed out to the member, we do have an informal procedure. I can give the member some information. We did a little research on the period from July 1988 to March 1989. During that period, about 15 cases of rent increases were brought to our attention. Some were individual cases, and several others were all within the same building. The Rental Housing Council of British Columbia was able to.... In one case the rent was rolled back; in another couple of cases it was phased in. But in most cases the result of the investigations was that the owner was either reaching market by those increases or had been providing improvements to the facilities that justified the increases.

There was and is an informal method in place. If the member has knowledge of situations that need to be looked at, I would appreciate that and certainly will get a report.

MR. BLENCOE: The minister really misses the point. I realize that there are times when pressure can be mounted against a particular owner. It can be done, but it depends on an informal procedure that may or may not be satisfactory. I think the minister and the government are missing the point, and politically they're missing the issue. This is a big issue.

[ Page 6925 ]

Over 1.2 million tenants with families don't want an informal procedure. They may happen to know the owner, deal with him one to one and maybe get it rolled back quietly behind the scenes. They don't want that. They'll take it, I suppose. What they want is a very simple mechanism whereby if they can show that the increase for their building is unfair and unjustified with clear evidence of taking advantage of a tight market and really gouging.... I don't know how the minister deals with gouging. You don't deal with gouging today, because you say they can move, I suppose. But how do you deal with those who are very unfair? You're leaving thousands of tenants subject to great unfairness out there.

All they're saying is: "Look, give us a review system." The old rent review system used to do this. If it's market, so be it. If there are circumstances where the owner is having difficulty with refinancing or additional costs, fair enough: pass some of those on to the tenants. But tenants shouldn't have to absorb all the additional costs of the owners — maybe partial. Right now they're taking it all, Mr. Chairman. Anything goes in the province of British Columbia.

The Minister of Social Services and Housing (Hon Mr. Richmond), when he was being pressured on this issue some months ago, said: "Oh, there is rent appeal in the province of British Columbia." He quickly had to backtrack when he realized that the government had gotten rid of that some years ago He then thought there was rent appeal. It didn't seem alien to him when he said there was. But it was eliminated in 1983.

Why not? Why, in these difficult circumstances, when you have those owners gouging and being unfair...? They're a minority. How do you deal with them? How do you say to senior citizens — as the minister said — who have lived in the same building for 15 or 20 years: "I'm sorry. We don't like rent review, because it's rent control. We don't want a rentalsman, because the owners might get upset." What do you tell them? Move? That's always been the argument; it's the bottom line from Social Credit: you can move. But during these times, where do you move to?

This government knows it's a major issue. It's all political stripes right across the board. People want a fair system of review. They don't want tenants to have more rights than landlords, or landlords and owners to have more rights than tenants. They want a playing-field where both can go face to face when they have to resolve these issues. That's why we used to have a rentalsman, and that's why I'm going to reintroduce a bill called rentals mediator to do that very thing: a level playing-field and equality in the system, so that all are treated fairly and have their day in court, if you will — the rentals court. What's wrong with that? Are you so afraid of it? Are you afraid that we might catch some of those people who are taking advantage of the situation? We might make them roll back their rents to a reasonable level based on what is happening generally in the market. Is that what the government is afraid of? Or has the government made so many commitments to those people that it can't see that this is a major issue for tenants, families and households? They just want to shove it under the carpet. That's what you're doing. That's what you're saying over and over again.

This minister and the Minister of Social Services and Housing know that people want fairness in the system. That's all they're asking for. They're not asking for rent control; we're not saying arbitrary limits. If a tenant feels an increase can be shown to be unjustified, we're saying that it can be appealed to rent review and can be heard. An independent review committee — as we used to have — takes a look at it. What's so bad about that? What's wrong with fairness and equality between the parties?

Right now we don't have it. Despite what the minister says about economic eviction, basically any rent increase is legal today. Anything goes. You can gouge, you can take advantage and you can do what you will. We're saying yes to rent increases based on fairness, on costs and on making a fair return on your investment. But if you go beyond that, if you try to take advantage of families because of a tight market and impose increases way beyond what can be justified in a rent review procedure, then no. You're going to have it reviewed, and it's going to be rolled back. It's fair.

Mr. Chairman, there are so many British Columbians today facing these circumstances. I'm not talking about isolated cases; it's the general rule today. Over a million tenants wonder what's going to happen to their rent this year. Is the owner going to try to make — instead of a 10 percent or 15 percent increase — a 30 percent or 50 percent increase, because they know there's nowhere to move, and this government won't ask them to justify the increase? The government is not playing fair with those 1.2 million tenants. Why not play fair?

HON. L. HANSON: I'm not going to repeat the answer that I've given so many times, because the member has heard it. He keeps referring to fairness. There is a fairness in the marketplace; it's there now. He keeps referring to 50 percent and 60 percent rent increases. Give me an example of that. If that is a 50 or 60 percent rent increase over market, that's a different situation than a 50 or 60 percent rent increase. The majority of British Columbians, in terms of rental accommodation and those rent increases, are not finding that situation. The member keeps referring to 1.2 million tenants, with the inference that all those 1.2 million tenants are facing exorbitant rent increases. I think it's only fair to point out that the few cases the member is talking about.... If he will give me the circumstances, we'll look into them. But we have been able to deal with every one that we have looked into at this point.

MRS. BOONE: To the minister, I will give you some examples. I have letters, and you've received copies of them, from people in Mackenzie. Probably close to a hundred have written to you, me and the Premier expressing their concerns about Camp De-

[ Page 6926 ]

velopments, which is gouging the people in that community. These people are living in accommodations, Mr. Minister, that have towels covering cracks in the doors and doors that are nailed shut. One of the places I went through would have been a fire disaster, a fire hazard. If the fire inspector had gone in there, he would have closed the place down. The front door was nailed shut, because it won't stay shut.

They have blankets over the windows in this particular condominium to keep the cold out, because there is as much as a quarter inch to half an inch showing where you can hear the wind whistling through. Believe me, when you get to 40 below up there, that's pretty cold, and you can see those things. There are door handles missing in their apartments, sinks not working, lighting fixtures not properly there. And they received a notice from Camp Developments of a 35 percent increase in their rent — in Mackenzie, where there is a zero increase. Come on! This is true.

If you will look into these, I will give you every single letter from the people there. And I expect you to look into these, one at a time, and make some commitment to these people to review this process. These people have written to everybody. They've had a public meeting. They've called on Camp Developments to reduce their rent, to not increase it, and Camp says that they are going to be doing some repairs. Well, they've already increased their rent, and they haven't done the repairs. They've lived in these substandard conditions for ages.

There is no building going on there, Mr. Minister. It doesn't matter how many programs you've got going. I phoned throughout the area last week — or two weeks ago, I guess it was — to the construction association, various builders, the municipality, the regional government there, trying to find out if anybody was interested in building there, because there is no rental accommodation. The answer is that nobody is interested in investing in Mackenzie because the future is unstable. Every time the forest industry goes into a downturn, the future goes down, and suddenly there's a rental accommodation surplus. So right now these people are being kept at the mercy of the landlord, Camp Developments, who right now owns the majority of the rental properties up there. It has further bought property in Prince George, the lowest income property that we have. And we are already hearing that these people are receiving notices of their rent doubling. Gouging is taking place. Our homes aren't rising in price to a tremendous degree in either Prince George or Mackenzie, yet rental prices are increasing there, because there isn't any rental accommodation and because one company controls things to the extent where they have the people at their mercy, where the people are afraid to complain. If they complain, they will get an eviction notice, and then they'll have no place to go. That is the situation out there right now.

[4:30]

It is not fair. For you to sit there and say that it is fair, that these people have some place to go, is ridiculous. There was a public meeting and legal advice came in to tell them: "There is nothing you can do. The landlord can do to you what he wants. He can increase your rent. He can give you an eviction notice if he wants to, and there's nothing that you can do." That's the message that came out loud and strong to these people. So don't give me this stuff that there is something out there, that there is fairness out there. There is no fairness out there. Maybe in your circle you don't know people who are having problems in accommodation; that may be true. But I can tell you, in the circles that I deal with, there are plenty of people having difficulty with accommodation, and they're not very happy that this government is not doing anything about it and is totally unwilling to even look at anything.

I will give you those letters, Mr. Minister. If you want exact cases, I'll give them to you. I invite you to take a tour of those places and tell me then if you think they're worth 35 percent increases. I'll show them to you personally. I will go to Mackenzie with you and personally show you those places if you want specific cases, because we have them for you.

MR. BARNES: I will join the member for Prince George, who is going to escort the minister around to find some of the problems in the housing field. Certainly there's no lack of cases where people need intervention and assistance in dealing with unfair landlords and exorbitant rent increases.

I wanted to ask the minister something slightly different, although it's on housing. The minister promised to bring in amendments to the Landlord and Tenant Act last December which afford protection to long-term tenants in hotels and rooming houses. At that time the minister said it would be about four months before he would be introducing legislation. That would have brought it to last April; last month would have been the time for that bill to be introduced.

There was a press conference, apparently, when you had the support of people of the downtown east side. Jim Green was quoted as saying: "After 15 years of struggle, it's finally over." You did make quite a few people happy with the announcement. Has the minister changed his mind? Will that bill be coming in? When will it be coming in?

The problem hasn't gone away. We've discussed this In the past. Perhaps you would like to bring us up to date with respect to your intentions.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

HON. L. HANSON: First of all, I'd like to deal with the previous member's statements. I think they're a little misleading. The member is suggesting that a 35 percent increase is totally unjustified. That statement in itself is, in my opinion.... I agree; it is unjustified. It depends on where the base is that the 35 percent is taken from. If the market rents in an area are — to pick a figure — $300 a month, and the current rent on a place is $200, then you could get an

[ Page 6927 ]

increase of that size. It depends on where the base starts from.

There was some investigation done in the Mackenzie area. The determination was that, in most cases, it was market. If the member has specific instances, I would be pleased to have my people look at them.

We had, and do have, in place in the residential tenancy branch a requirement for reasonable maintenance and repairs. The way the member was describing some of the accommodation in Mackenzie, I wonder if the people who live in Mackenzie would appreciate the description of their living accommodations. I was getting the attitude that there were cracks in the doors and windows and so on. I haven't been there, but I suggest to the member that if she has examples of that, we'll go and look at that without any difficulty.

In answer to the member's questions on hotel residency, I acknowledge that I had hoped to introduce that in the last session. Unfortunately I wasn't able to. It's my hope that I will be tabling that legislation in the House in the next two weeks, just as soon as we can cross all the t's and dot all the i's. I have not abandoned it, nor do I intend to abandon it.

There is some further information that the member may be interested in. The issue of security deposits and dealing with monetary disputes will be added to the residential tenancy branch's responsibilities. That is partially as a result of the justice report that came in and partially as a result of the ministry. I believe the limit will be the same as is proposed for the small debts court — up to $5,000. It will deal with other disputes — other than security deposits — in the case of damages or expenses the tenant may have faced. All going well and not having any unexpected problems, we hope to introduce that in about two weeks.

MR. CHAIRMAN: just before we proceed, hon members, it might be an appropriate moment — and I hark back to the point of order that was raised earlier today by the hon. member for Prince George North (Mrs. Boone) — to bring the House's attention to the famous Sir Erskine May and his nineteenth edition on page 741 where it deals with the general restrictions on debate in supply. Just to read this one short sentence: "The administrative action of a department is open to debate, but the necessity for legislation and matters involving legislation can only be discussed in Supply on a substantive motion."

MR. BARNES: It's encouraging indeed to think that the minister is going to honour his promise and bring in those amendments.

As you were speaking, I got the sense that you were perhaps reflecting on the problem in terms of its broader implications — not just the protection of residents of hotels, but disputes, security deposits, issues in general; pretty much the kind of responsibilities the rentalsman's office once looked after.

What it sounds like to me is that the government is perhaps considering bringing back the rentalsman in a different form. Is that a possibility? It's certainly necessary. We — especially the critic, the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) — have been saying that steadily; all of us have been saying that. There is a need to bring back the rentalsman. Is that part of the government's intention? If it is, we certainly will support it.

HON. L. HANSON: The member has been here somewhat longer than I have and is probably more aware of the rentalsman's office as it existed before. I certainly have no intention of introducing the rentalsman as such in the Residential Tenancy Act. We have determined that some of the abilities it has, or its mandate to deal with certain issues, will be expanded, particularly in the case of the circumstances in downtown Vancouver, which I was taken on a tour of. It isn't our intention to reintroduce the rentalsman as such, but to broaden some of the mandates that the existing legislation allows the branch to deal with now.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, with your remarks in mind, I am not going to reflect on possible or potential legislation. I'm interested — the minister talked about it some time ago, and he has referred to it again — that he believes that security deposit disputes, which are major monetary disputes, should no longer be in small-claims court. I've always contended, and so has this side, that that was one of the major things the rentalsman's office could resolve.

Interestingly, the minister says that he considers this to be a major monetary item. Up to now, under this post-'83 Social Credit administration, all monetary items have been in small-claims court. This is a major shift in dealing with financial matters up to $5,000. If the minister — and I applaud him for doing this — is prepared to do this with a major monetary item up to $5,000, why not go the next step and deal with rent increases up to $5,000? They don't go up to $5,000, but why not go that step? Have the residential tenancy branch, under a rent review section, review monetary items such as rent increases.

I am pleased — I'm not reflecting on any legislation — that the minister has said he is coming forward with some changes: security deposits back to the residential tenancy branch, something that should never have disappeared. This is a major monetary item. Rent increases are probably the monetary item; security deposits are maybe second. Why not bring rent increases, and the disputes around them, back into the residential tenancy branch? That's just a suggestion to the minister: go the next step.

MRS. BOONE: I can't let go undisputed the fact that you think I was exaggerating. I can tell you, Mr. Minister, that I wasn't exaggerating the state of those places. I know for a fact that the people who own that place would not complain, because they specifically took me, along with some of the media, through their accommodation to show us just exactly what it was like.

[ Page 6928 ]

You said you investigated it. I would like to know just what form the investigation took and how you formulated your decision that the increases were justified.

HON. L. HANSON: I'm sorry if I misled the member. The Rental Housing Council of British Columbia looked into it; my ministry didn't.

MRS. BOONE: It is my understanding that the Rental Housing Council is the council of landlords. Is that correct?

MR. BLENCOE: The owners.

MRS. BOONE: They reviewed this and — amazing! — found that it was justified. It's incredible, isn't it? You ask the landlords to review their own increases, and then they come out with a decision that it's valid. Come on, Mr. Minister, let's be a little more sensible than this. The problem we have here is that this ministry does not investigate anything, does not question any of those things, and takes the landlord's word that those rent increases are justified. If you accept that as acceptable, and if you think that's acceptable to the people, I think you're sadly mistaken, and I think you'll find that out very soon.

I'd like to move to something a little bit different here. I know this ministry does not involve itself with labelling, but I would like to know if the ministry involves itself in packaging at all. Does the ministry become involved in any of the packaging of products?

[4:45]

HON. L. HANSON: I guess it would depend on what the member is referring to. If there is some suggestion of a consumer concern with packaging that is misleading or something like that, then possibly that would be the case, but packaging from a health point of view and others are generally not this ministry's responsibility.

MRS. BOONE: I think this is both a consumer services point of view and an environmental point of view. A tremendous amount of garbage is created by unnecessary packaging — and that's the environmental point of view, but there's also the consumer aspect. Any one of us has gone to the store and had to purchase three batteries when you really only need two because they come in a bubble package where you're forced to purchase three rather than two. Just about everything nowadays comes in these bubble packages and the consumer is constantly being forced to purchase more than they require in order to obtain any at all. If you want six, maybe you have to buy ten because they come in packages of five. It's frustrating as a consumer.

Then, of course, you have to open them, and that's the other story there. I think you have to be a magician to do that. There is definitely a very real consumer problem here and a consumer issue regarding the whole packaging issue. I believe this ministry should be looking at this from the aspect of protecting the consumer.

The ministry should also be working in conjunction with the Ministry of Environment to deal with the issue of excess garbage, because we have a tremendous amount of garbage not just in this province but in the world as a whole. We ought not to be contributing to it by producing unnecessary bubble packages to force us to purchase more than we require of anything. Has the minister reviewed any of this or had any thoughts on this issue at all?

HON. L. HANSON: The question is sort of interesting. My experience has always been that the marketplace determines these sorts of things, and if a package of three batteries is not acceptable to the consumer, the marketers who deal in this consumer market are astute enough to provide packaging that is to the likes of consumers.

If the member is suggesting that all of these packagers of goods get together and have an understanding that they won't do anything but package them in those quantities to do what the member is suggesting, I would think that there's federal legislation that would be very concerned about that — probably under the Combines Investigation Act.

I do know what the member is talking about in terms of batteries, but I also know they're available individually at many retailers, not even packaged, and at a lesser price. I think the consuming public is intelligent enough to do that sort of research. I know that I certainly do that sort of research when I'm buying something, and if the package is something that is out of the context that I want to use it, I search at a place that sells them otherwise.

I am a firm believer that if someone provides a package that is more acceptable to the consumers, whether it be single or two or three, that probably is where the consumers will go to make their purchases. I believe that the marketplace deals very well with that.

I understand what the member is talking about in the difficulty of the environment. I was a member of a municipal council, and the disposal of garbage is a continual problem that is certainly growing. I think the Ministry of Environment has been doing some studies on it. I know it is of major proportion. The system that we had of sanitary landfills.... Land is very difficult to find. The environmental impacts are becoming more and more difficult to measure.

The aspect of containers doesn't lie within my ministry. I think the member would accept that as fair. I have no difficulty in commenting on these sorts of things, but it's probably unfair that the ministry responsible be deprived of the privilege in their estimates.

MRS. BOONE: Again I beg to differ with the minister in that the consumer has a choice. There are times when the consumer has no choice; things are packaged. You can go all over town, I suppose, to find something that is not packaged.

[ Page 6929 ]

I use batteries as an example. There are many other commodities that are also packaged in such a manner that you are forced to purchase much more than you require. This is the frustration of many people who do the shopping for the family. They go out and purchase these things, and later they find one of something around, and by that time they have purchased another set, because they have forgotten about the other one that they've got.

This is not a partisan thing. It's a consumer thing. It's a concern of people that they pre being forced. As Minister of Consumer Services you ought to be out there protecting those people's rights, making sure that they are not forced into purchasing more than they require.

I would like to go to something I know will cross several different ministries: the task force studying the fish-farm industry, and some of the consumer aspects. There are some concerns regarding the labelling of products from wild and farmed fish. There is also some concern regarding the improved regulations and inspections of wild fish as well. I am wondering if the ministry has looked into the concerns that have been brought up regarding the antibiotics — and what have you — that are found in the fish that are farmed as compared to wild fish; if there has been any thought to making recommendations for labelling on cans to distinguish between them; or if there is any thought to improving regulations or inspections of those fish.

HON. L. HANSON: I think the task force the member is referring to was initiated by the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries. I am not aware of what that report will eventually determine. As the member said herself, the labelling issue is a federal issue. I haven't dealt with it within my ministry quite simply because there are some parameters for the responsibilities of the various ministries. I believe the member is referring to fish caught by fish boats, or those running wild, and those that are raised on the farm. I can't answer that. As I said, I haven't looked into it. We'll talk to the Ministry of Agriculture to see where they are with that. If we feel that it is a consumer issue, we may look at something, but at this point I think it is amply covered by the Ministry of Agriculture and the federal legislation. I have no immediate thought of getting into that.

MR. SIHOTA: I'll switch gears a bit. I want to ask the minister a number of questions about the lack of corrective action taken by the Ministry of Social Services and Housing with respect to the employment standards legislation and the employment standards branch.

This deals with a case that I am sure that the minister is well aware of. It's the case of Rick Konopasek, who resides just outside my riding in Malahat. Earlier this year he brought to the ombudsman's attention the payroll practices in the Ministry of Social Services and Housing. He asked why the government was not complying with various sections of the Employment Standards Act — in particular, if memory serves me right, section 4 (2) of the act, which deals with payment of wages. I don't have the act in front of me, so I may have it wrong, but I am pretty sure it was that section. In any event, the section requires payment within a specified period. The Ministry of Social Services and Housing is not complying with that provision. As a consequence, Mr. Konopasek wrote to the minister to complain in February and filed a complaint with the ombudsman regarding this situation. He asked for an investigation, after being dissatisfied with the actions of employment standards.

It appears from the documentation forwarded to me that Social Services and Housing implemented this payroll practice in August 1987. They knew at the time that any variation from the Employment Standards Act required a joint application from both the employer and the employee — in this case, the union — and approval from employment standards. Could the minister advise me as to whether or not in this instance both the employer and the employee had given their consent to this variation, or whether it was a unilateral act at the time by the ministry involved?

HON. L. HANSON: I'm certainly aware of the issue that the member refers to. We in employment standards have never charged people who are attempting to rectify the situation. I believe the time limit is eight days. In those cases where pay has not been forthcoming in that eight days, and it has been a deliberate situation as opposed to one where there has been a technical difficulty in complying with it, we have not charged those people under the act, but have worked with them to rectify the problem.

The problem the member is referring to has been largely to do with auxiliary people who aren't on a full-time, completely regular basis. I don't think the ministry — and the Ministry of Social Services was the one the member referred to — has any difficulty in living up to the standards with those regularly employed people. It's those auxiliary workers.

[5:00]

We have a commitment now. We issued a directive from the ministry some months ago that they had to comply with the eight-day requirement. We have a commitment from the Social Services ministry that they now have a system that they are implementing that will actually provide payment to those auxiliary staff within seven days of the close of the period.

There are still some administrative difficulties that we have to overcome, but I'm confident that the solutions will be found and we will be able to come within that eight-day period. I reiterate and emphasize, though, that there's no delay to pay on a deliberate basis. It's an ability to put a system in place to handle. It's only those workers who have a sporadic schedule as opposed to those who have a standard schedule on a regular basis.

MR. SIHOTA: It was interesting to listen to what the minister had to say with respect to the entire incident. I think he dismisses it too lightly. The

[ Page 6930 ]

Employment Standards Act, as the minister correctly notes, under section 4 (l) says: "An employer shall...not later than 8 days after each pay period, pay to each employee all wages earned for the pay period by the employee other than wages for annual vacation or accrued general holidays." That's fairly straightforward.

Employees have been waiting up to five weeks to receive this money, in cases that I'm aware of — or at least one of them, in terms of Mr. Konopasek. He had to wait at least five weeks to get the funds. I also have here a petition from a number of employees who are affected by this policy within that ministry. I can tell him that there are about 25 within that ministry who are affected, so it's not as if it's an isolated case involving Mr. Konopasek.

The act says very simply that an employer shall pay within that eight-day period. The act doesn't say that you look into the intent — whether there's an intent to avoid that eight days. It doesn't say there is a defence if they haven't set up an automated scheme to deal with it. You can't dismiss it that lightly by saying that we don't have an automated scheme and it's no fault of the employer. The fact is that when you're waiting five weeks, these people are the ones who lose the opportunity to receive their pay. It's no help to them to say: "Yes, there's no violation of the act here, because the government hasn't come up with an appropriate computer system." That's no help to them. In fact, the situation gets as bad as them having to apply for welfare, which has occurred. I'm told that it has occurred routinely.

Nor is it a situation where these people work sporadically on an on-call basis, as the Minister of Labour would suggest after advice from the Minister of Social Services and Housing (Hon. Mr. Richmond), who was sitting there talking to him during the course of my introductory comments. The fact of the matter is that the Minister of Social Services and Housing took that position some time ago in a letter to the Times-Colonist, which I believe appeared on February 7, 1989, but never did deny that his ministry had been illegally denying employees their paycheques. In fact, he never did respond to the allegation and the rebuttal from one of the people affected that these aren't on-call employees who work on a sporadic basis. Many of them are full-time employees who work 8:30 to 4:30 five days a week when they're on assignment, and most assignments are consecutive; and while they continue to work full-time on auxiliary assignments they simply cannot afford to wait five weeks to receive their paycheques. So we're not dealing with sporadic employment and an isolated number of employees.

The ministry entered into this practice in August 1987 and to date has not corrected it, knowing all along that it is contrary to the government's own law. Section 4(2) allows for a variation from the requirement to pay eight days after each pay period. Was a variation agreed to by the employee and the employer so as to allow section 4(l) to be waived, or did the Ministry of Social Services and Housing act unilaterally? If they acted unilaterally, then they not only violated section 4(l) of the act, they also violated section 4(2). Was this initiative taken exclusively by the Ministry of Social Services and Housing without the support of the union? I guess it would be the union in this case. Section 4(2) says: "On receipt of a written application from an employer and his employees or their representative, the director may authorize an extension of the 8 day period under subsection (1)." So the question again to the minister is: was a variation applied for and received in this instance?

HON. L. HANSON: First of all, I would like to clarify my reference to the sporadic employment issue that the member dealt with. I wasn't talking about someone who was on call; I was talking about someone who worked a variety of hours — that there wasn't a standard. Even though they may be consistent and regular days, I wasn't suggesting that. It was the number of hours that was hard to determine.

No, a variation was not applied for, and none was granted. Quite frankly, as minister responsible I appreciated the individual who brought the issue forward. As a result, our ministry has done a number of things to correct the situation.

My reference to the intent was that if we have a situation where pay is not produced within those guidelines to the individual who has earned it, on a deliberate basis or for some reason other than lack of ability to do it because of a system or whatever, we certainly do deal with it, and deal with it very vigorously and in fact charge people. But in a case where a system is at fault and it is not a deliberate violation on the part of the employer, we try to work with them to get it in place quickly, and in this case we have their assurance that this is the case.

Are the numbers that the member is referring to recent difficulties, or are they ones that were raised some time ago?

MR. SIHOTA: I don't know who is supposed to be asking the questions and who is supposed to be giving the answers, but there are a couple of things. I'll deal in a second with that response from the minister.

The point here is that the minister's comment with respect to systemic, problems and sort of turning a blind eye to the act when there is a systemic problem doesn't really solve the situation for the injured — if I can put it that way — or harmed employee, who still has to wait, when he or she relies on section 4(2).

I am not yet getting into it — I may get into it later; I guess it depends on some of the answers the minister has — in terms of action against the party who violates section 4(1). I am saying that it was violated, and even if you accept that there was a systemic problem with computers, surely the ministry should have respected the law, made an application explaining that problem and sought a variation under the act. The act allows you to extend it beyond eight days.

The prudent, appropriate and correct thing for the Ministry of Social Services and Housing to have done

[ Page 6931 ]

was to say: "Hey, look. We've got this systemic problem with our computers, and we can't deliver within this provision. Will you give us a variation?" I find it unacceptable that the government would bypass its own law and not even seek a variation explaining its position to both employees and the responsible government official. It shouldn't have done that. I will make it very clear to the minister that that ought not to be accepted within government.

If the ministry wants to take the view as a matter of policy that a systemic difficulty is an acceptable excuse under 4(l), then its policy should be to get a variation to do that. But when a ministry doesn't seek a variation under the act and fails to even ask permission to violate it, I think that's going a little bit too far. In terms of enforcement, you ought to be going after any employer who (a) decides to contravene the act and (b) makes a conscious decision not to seek a variation. That ought to be the guidance the policy should provide in this instance.

Sure, that would mean that the government would have to sue itself or take sanction against another ministry, but it begs the obvious question: if ministries such as Social Services and Housing don't have respect for the government's laws, you have to ask why other employers should. If the Ministry of Social Services and Housing isn't prepared to seek a variation under section 4(1), why should any other employer go and ask for permission to bypass the requirement to pay wages in eight days? When the government shows that type of disregard for the legislation, why should any employer show any regard for it?

Really, I am trying to take the debate beyond Rick Konopasek, beyond those employees — who, by the way, made their representations in a petition signed in the summer of 1987, so we are about 18 months away from it. The minister says he has received assurances that the problem is being remedied. Could he tell me the deadline for that? In this case, the Ministry of Social Services made a commitment that it will abide by the act. The matter was, of course, brought to the minister's attention some time ago. I believe I corresponded with the minister sometime in January or February. Could the minister tell me the deadline Social Services and Housing agreed to?

HON. L. HANSON: There wasn't a variance applied for, and I am not sure that a variance would be justified. The problem that existed within the Social Services ministry was, as I said, pointed out, and we are very thankful of that. It was pointed out to Social Services at that point too, and we then worked in cooperation with the ministry to bring it into compliance. There was no intention of delaying pay. We were interested in getting the problem corrected, not in penalties.

[5:15]

We don't proceed in a punitive fashion against employers who have that difficulty and show to our satisfaction that they are honestly and truthfully trying to rectify it; that there is a genuine and sincere desire. We now have their confirmation that they have a system that will put them into compliance. I am not exactly sure at this moment where we are in the period of time to bring it in, but I understand they do have a system that will rectify it. When they can make all the changes that are necessary to put that system in place, they will certainly be in compliance, and that is the whole dedication of the clause in the legislation: to have people paid on time, as they should be.

MR. SIHOTA: They're not being paid on time as they should be. The complaint was brought to the ministry's attention. The payroll practice has existed since August 1987. The ministry knew that the union and employment standards would not have gone along with the application. This minister is correct: it's not justified. If he says it's not justified, then that really crumbles the earlier argument that he tried to hang on, which is that systemic problems explain the difficulty. If employment standards would not have accepted a variation in these circumstances, then the government should not accept this payroll practice, which has existed since August 1987; this is evidenced by internal memos that the ministry has, which I have here as well. They acknowledge that by doing what they were doing, they were violating the contract with the union. So those documents speak for themselves.

Again, I don't want to get yet into the matter of prosecution of the ministry. I may not get into that at all, depending on what the minister has got to say. In a letter dated April 26, 1989, the ombudsman advises that a new payroll system will be in effect on May 26, 1989, which is just a few days away. The minister has not given me a date. Is he now saying that this latest agreement, which the Ministry of Social Services and Housing came up with to make good its policy by May 26, 1989, will not be adhered to as well?

HON. L. HANSON: I'm again assured by the Deputy Minister of Social Services that they have that system in place. If the ombudsman said it was May 26, I'm sure the information is accurate. I have no reason to argue with the ombudsman. Members of the employment standards branch are monitoring it very closely, and while they may not have advised me of the exact date for implementation, I'm sure the ombudsman's information is accurate. But I can certainly find out what promise was made to employment standards and report it to the member.

My concern — and the concern of Employment Standards — is to get the ministry in compliance with the requirements of the eight days, and May 26 could quite properly be the day. I don't have the precise day in front of me.

MR. SIHOTA: Look, the minister is the minister responsible. He has his officials here. It would seem to me only logical that his officials would know whether or not this will be done by May 26, 1989.

My information is that although the ombudsman has been told, it indeed is not going to happen. I

[ Page 6932 ]

would like some explanation from the minister. If it's not possible for the minister to find out what's going on and what assurances his ministry has received from Social Services and Housing, the Minister of Social Services and Housing (Hon. Mr. Richmond) is five seats away. Maybe they can have a quick conference and the Minister of Social Services and Housing can tell the Minister of Labour whether or not his ministry will oblige and respect the law of the province or not. Alternatively, the minister can get in touch with his staff down at Employment Standards and find out what the heck is going on, whether or not this May 26 deadline is going to be met.

The minister is well aware — as he said in the opening comments — of what's happening in this instance. I mean, I thought I would ask the question and the minister would say, "Well, we'll have the new system in place on May 26." I was surprised the minister didn't say that; and I am surprised now even more that the minister doesn't even know what's going on and what assurances have been given by the two ministries to each other.

I say it's about time that you guys got your act together over there and figured out what you're doing. But if you can't — like I said before — call an election.

I would like the minister to know, by tomorrow when we get back into this at 2 o'clock, and have some answers in terms of when it is that Social Services and Housing said it's going to comply. I'll tell the minister in advance why I ask that question. The Ministry of Social Services and Housing has been aware since the early part of 1988 of the fact that it's breaking the law. It has been given extensions and deadlines that it hasn't met. It has failed to comply with the legislation. It is somewhat cavalier for the Minister of Labour to say: "Well, they'll get around to it eventually."

How many deadlines do you have to break before the government says: "Hey, look, something has to happen here to force Social Services and Housing to comply"? When employees, as far back as August 1987, are signing petitions, and their situation hasn't been remedied 18 months later, I think enough is enough. The act is very clear: you have to pay your employees within eight days.

Every small business in this province — and I see one of my good friends is here; he's a small businessman in Vancouver — has to pay its employees in compliance with section 4 of the Employment Standards Act. Why should the government be any different? Why should the government be allowed to break its law without any penalty, whereas every small business has hovering over it a whole bureaucratic regime that will come tumbling down on it if it violates provisions of the Employment Standards Act? Surely, if anybody ought to be taking leadership in showing that they're going to comply with employment standards legislation in British Columbia, it ought to be the government and the Ministry of Social Services and Housing.

I want to ask the minister this: if indeed the deadline of May 26.... We'll get an answer in terms of whether it's going to be met or not. If that deadline, which, according to the letter I just quoted to the minister, applies to Social Services and Housing.... Could the minister tell this House whether or not his people in Employment Standards have been able to ascertain whether any other ministries are violating section 4 of the Employment Standards Act? Or have you not looked into that matter?

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

HON. L. HANSON: Yes, I can acknowledge that there are some difficulties in other ministries with pay periods.

MR. SIHOTA: I'm glad the minister has conceded that this evil is rooted in other ministries as well. Could the minister tell what other ministries are breaking the law?

HON. L. HANSON: I don't have the list with me today, but I'd certainly be prepared to have that information.

MR. SIHOTA: Well, I'll tell the minister three of them. Forests is not complying with the Employment Standards Act. I see the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Parker) sitting in this House. That minister over there should ask his ministry to comply with the law, Mr. Chairman. And the Minister of Labour should walk one, two, three seats over and tell the Minister of Forests that there's a law in this province under section 4 of the Employment Standards Act, and that the Minister of Forests ought to be complying with the act, which requires that every employer shall, at least semi-monthly and not later than eight days after each pay period, pay employees the wages due to them. They shouldn't have to wait five weeks. They shouldn't have to go on welfare. They should get their pay in compliance with the act. I want to tell this House that the Ministry of Forests is breaking the law. The Minister of Forests should know.

Again, I ask the question rhetorically: why should every small business be asked to comply with this section when the government is unwilling to do it? This is a government that says day in and day out that they stand up for small business and all that kind of stuff. Some type of leadership, when you can't even comply with your own act! Shame on the Minister of Forests. He should go back and find out why his ministry is breaking the law. He should go back and tell his deputy ministers: "Look, this is the law. We're going to abide by it." It's as simple as that.

No, this government would rather find comfort in committing illegal activities. If the Minister of Forests is unaware that this happens, let me tell you that he had better talk to his representative on the interministry committee that is looking into these payroll practices.

It's not just the Ministry of Forests. The Ministry of Health is also breaking the law and not doing what's required under section 4(1) of the Employment Standards Act.

[ Page 6933 ]

MR. BLENCOE: You fought the law, and the law won.

MR. SIHOTA: The rest of the song.... I think we all know the song. The fact of the matter is that the law is not winning in this case, because the government is afraid to take action against itself. The left hand won't slap the right hand. The Minister of Labour won't go to the Minister of Forests and say: "Look, you're violating section 4(1) of the Employment Standards Act." What's the point of having these laws if you can't comply with them?

The Ministry of Transportation and Highways is another one that won't comply with the law of paying employees. You put yourself, Mr. Chairman, in the position of someone who is an auxiliary worker, who doesn't work full time, who is gratified to get an opportunity to work and go out there and make a few bucks, meet their obligation to their family, make the mortgage or rent payment, improve their financial status and maybe get themselves off welfare. Thank God we still have unionized positions in government. They're happy to go to unionized positions in government and make a few bucks, because it improves their financial lot. Then they find out that they have to go on welfare to wait to get their paycheque, because the government won't abide by its own law.

It's astonishing that the government in this age of technology is unable to develop a computer system that will pay out employees in compliance with the law. I suggest to the Minister of Labour that he talk to the intermediate businesses and small businesses in British Columbia that have to make their payroll payments on time. They all have computer systems that can meet the payroll on time. Large employers do that as well, but this government won't.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: Oh no, they fought the law and they won so far, because they're not prepared to take action against themselves. They aren't prepared to do unto themselves what they are prepared to do unto others. That's one way to put it.

I want to know from the minister what other ministries are involved, apart from Forests, Health, Highways and Social Services and Housing? If he doesn't have a list today, we'll wait till tomorrow and get it then. But I want to ask the minister this: with respect to those other ministries, has the government arrived at a system to make them comply as well, or is the compliance applicable only to Social Services and Housing?

[5:30]

HON. L. HANSON: The original complaint forwarded was a very enlightening one. As a result of that, investigations were done in a number of areas The director of employment standards issued a compliance order to all deputy ministers within government that they had to comply. That will be an ongoing monitoring process; all of the ministries will have to meet that deadline.

The member's suggestion that 35 days.... I think the member would agree that it was not the rule but the exception. In no way am I condoning that, but I think that by inference the member is suggesting that all the delays were that. That isn't the case, but I do acknowledge that there were delays that came to the attention of my ministry as a result of the letter that was received. There is no question that the situation is wrong. I acknowledge that. But to suggest that 35 days is the standard is just not true; that is the exception. I wouldn't want the House to be misled.

Again, the situation is wrong. We do not condone it. The objective is to get the problem resolved and to get everybody into compliance in all ministries in the government. We, as government, who have that legislation in place, should certainly be complying with it, and that's what will happen.

MR. SIHOTA: My question to the minister was: what deadline has been provided to those other ministries? By what time must they begin to comply with the act, which they've been violating for years? What is the deadline that the ministry has given? Have they been told it's got to be done by the end of the year? End of the month? End of June? Have you given them a deadline? What are they working towards?

HON. L. HANSON: No, we haven't given them a deadline, nor do we intend to. The problem is slightly different in each ministry. The time, and the changes that are needed to comply, vary. But we will have compliance; I can promise the member that.

MR. SIHOTA: Again there is this discriminatory treatment. There's differentiation between the public sector and the private sector. If a private sector company was not complying with the Employment Standards Act — was not obeying the law — the government would say: "Look, you've got to clean up your act by such and such a date, or we're going to take action against you."

The Minister of International Business (Hon. J. Jansen)...

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: Did you say something I didn't quite hear?

...is a good minister, an excellent minister. He is going to take those comments and mail them throughout Chilliwack.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I ask the member to address the Chair, please.

MR. SIHOTA: The Chair is an excellent Chair, whom I have a lot of respect for, who is going to take these comments and mail them to every household in Merritt. I want to tell him I almost made it to Merritt this weekend, but my relatives went instead.

[ Page 6934 ]

The point still remains that if it were the private sector, the private sector would be told it had to get its act together by a set date, and if it hadn't got it together, it would be prosecuted. Yet this government is not prepared to treat its own ministries in the same way it would treat any other employer. It's little wonder that employers don't have any respect for this legislation, given the way the government itself feels.

The Ministry of Social Services and Housing has had more than a reasonable amount of time to correct the situation. They have been ordered twice by Employment Standards to comply, and have failed to follow through on their promise to change the system by January 1989. They said on February 24 this year that the interministry committee had met two or three times since its inception. Employment Standards has failed to take firmer action; two Employment Standards representatives and the former director said that Employment Standards would be extremely reluctant to have one ministry prosecute another.

Would the minister agree with me that this comes down to a situation where the Ministry of Labour is reluctant to take action against its friends in cabinet? Will the minister confirm that that is really what is happening here? The government is looking at itself as some type of employee. It makes its own rules and really doesn't want to adhere to them. They flex this way and bend that way, but they will never prosecute themselves. There is a reluctance there, isn't there, Mr. Minister?

HON. L. HANSON: It's an interesting position that the member opposite is taking. I assure the member that there is no reluctance at all to prosecute. Like all lawyers, he has a tendency towards prosecution, and prosecution isn't always the answer to a difficulty.

We in the ministry spend an awful lot of time working with the public and the private sectors to ensure compliance, not just to do with payroll but to do with overtime and all those other things. We spend an awful lot of our energies helping those people get into compliance. That is the objective, not a punitive measure.

But it certainly is an interesting concept that the member suggests, that if we take the Minister of Social Services (Hon. Mr. Richmond) and drag him off to court and he or his ministry gets a fine, that in itself solves the problem. I think we have the approach that we want to get the problem resolved, and that to me makes an awful lot of common sense. But I can't reiterate often enough that the situation is not acceptable the way it is, and we will have compliance.

Mr. Chairman, could I have leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

HON. L. HANSON: We have in the gallery today a gentleman by the name of Gerry Kristianson, a representative of the Brewers' Association of British Columbia. Would the House please make him welcome.

MR. SIHOTA: It's interesting what the minister says about prosecution not being the answer. Is the government saying...? Let's just take this approach a bit further; let's extend it into the Ministry of Environment, as an example. There are people breaking environmental laws left, right and centre; governments break environmental laws. Is the minister saying that prosecution is not the answer, that we're just going to let it go on and on because it's our friends breaking the law? Do you want to take it to the criminal realm? Someone steals $50 out of your wallet and you say, "Well, no, that's okay," and take no action? At some point, Mr. Minister, it makes sense to begin to prosecute if people don't comply, especially after you've given two or three warnings. So that doesn't make sense.

I agree when the minister says it's not the only solution. It's not the only way to get the Ministry of Social Services and Housing to comply. I'll give the minister another solution, apart from prosecution, as to how to make the government comply. It's very simple: deduct it from the paycheque of the Minister of Social Services and Housing. Every time the minister — who makes $80,000 a year — fails to comply with the act and to pay Rick Konopasek his $100 or $200 or $400, take it out of the pocket of the Minister of Social Services and Housing, the Minister of Forests, the Minister of Health, the Minister of Transportation and Highways. You want them to move quickly to solve the problem? Take it out of their pockets. It'll be solved tomorrow. Tell them you're going to hold them personally liable for violation of the Employment Standards Act. Solve it retroactively. Start making those deductions today. Within hours there'll be a miracle computer cure; a system will be in place.

I agree with you, Mr. Minister: if you don't want to prosecute, don't. Go directly to the source and say: "You're responsible." Maybe that will get them to comply with the act. So there you go; I've given the minister another suggestion.

Tomorrow I want to know from the minister which ministries — apart from the four that I've discussed in this House — are not complying with the law. How long is this ministry prepared to give them to begin complying with the law? I think those are fair and reasonable questions to the minister in terms of asking them to adhere to the same standards as any other ministry, any other business, any other employer in the province of British Columbia. If you're not prepared to do that, take it out of the minister's pocket for this violation of the Employment Standards Act that we're dealing with. I look forward to what the minister has to say tomorrow.

I want to make some general comments with respect to that legislation, which the minister might find interesting. Quite frankly, I think that one of the things missing from the minister's comments was the lack of any initiative in this year's budget to review employment standards legislation in British Colum-

[ Page 6935 ]

Columbia. I know my colleague from Prince Rupert wants to bring to the minister's attention one critical gap, as it deals with an occupation which I'm sure many of that side of the House are familiar with: used car dealers. He'll be bringing to the minister's attention gaps in employment standards with respect to that. But I want to bring to the minister's attention other areas of employment standards legislation that require attention and don't really make much sense.

There are a number of variances granted under section 31 of the legislation with, respect to overtime work. I think that the ministry should look into the variances that it is granting to security companies. Through a number of variances you've allowed for three days of up to 12 hours without overtime. By allowing that, you allow employees to work up to 12 hours without payment of overtime; in some cases it amounts to only four or eight hours, so there's no commitment that people will actually work the 12 hours. What you've created in the marketplace is this. You've got security company A, which has the variance, which doesn't have to pay overtime beyond 12 hours, competing against security company B, which does not have the variance and has to pay overtime in respect to provisions of the law. You should take a look at what you've done. In fact, I'd like the minister to tell me exactly how many variances have been provided for under section 31, with respect to security companies — when we get back into this tomorrow. I think the answer will in itself explain why I'm asking the question.

[5:45]

You really wonder why other sections of the act are there: section 7(2)(e), section 27(3) and section 29(1). I would like the minister to tell me how many variances have been granted under those provisions. If you look at that, you'll see that you really haven't granted any, and you have to ask yourself why we've got those provisions in place.

How many variances have been given under sections 34(3) and 32(4) ? The latter deals with minimum daily pay.

I think the minister should take a look at section 105(3)(c), which allows for lower wages to be paid to people who are handicapped. There's a philosophical question there as to whether or not the government should have legislation in place which allows, or mandates and blesses, the payment of lower wages to people who are handicapped. I'm not convinced philosophically that you should have that in place.

Take a look at section 105(3)(b), which deals with minimum wages, which my colleague for Prince Rupert (Mr. Miller) will be dealing with.

If you're not making notes of those, I'm sure Hansard has, because I want to ask the minister some questions afterwards.

There are all sorts of regulations which I think are peculiar, and one wonders why they're there in the Employment Standards Act.

Regulation 9 creates a series of exemptions with respect to the overtime provisions of the act, and they don't seem to have any logic to them. Let's say you have two people in Quesnel out staking a line, and one is looking for a mineral, let's say bauxite, and the other one is looking for gas. The one who is looking for bauxite doesn't get overtime and the one who's out looking for gas does. I don't think those types of distinctions make much sense, in the exemptions you've created in regulation 9.

You have exemptions in there which deal with B.C. Rail, and I'd like to know why those exemptions exist there for B.C. Rail, because they really shouldn't exist in terms of overtime for any Crown corporation. I would suggest to the minister that they are really there because of lobbying.

Horticulturists. If you work at the back end of a horticultural shop, you don't have to be paid overtime, but if you work in the retail end, in the front, you do. If you work in between, I don't know what the situation is. The point is, why do we have a regulation that creates those types of exemptions?

I'll tell the minister what my favourite one is, if I can find it here, because it's a crazy one, and you wonder why it is. I'm going to read regulation 14:

"The truck driver, his swamper or helper who, at a location more than 160 kilometres from his home, is employed on a truck that (1) suffers a mechanical breakdown, unless (a) the breakdown resulted from the negligence of the employer or (b) the truck driver, swamper or helper claiming the overtime was actively engaged in effecting repairs, or (2) is immobilized due to weather conditions, road blockage, an accident or an act of God...." He doesn't have section 30 apply to him.

I believe that section 30 deals with certain forms of pay. What happens if your truck driver, swamper or helper is 159 kilometres away from home? Why 160 kilometres? It doesn't make any sense. I don't understand the origins of that regulation.

There should be a provision in your budget this year for a review of these regulations, because a lot of them are antiquated and out of date. They exist there, and quite frankly, your act and your regulations need to be clarified. If you look at section 8 of your regulations — sections 8(l)(e), (f) and (i) — you make reference to federal programs that don't even exist anymore, including exemptions around those federal programs.

Section 4 of the regulations deals with pay to employees, and when you pay overtime pay and when you don't. I defy the minister to accurately interpret that regulation and tell me what it means. Think about all those small businesses in Vernon that have to comply with that provision. Try to tell Patrick Nichol at the radio station in Vernon what he has to pay people who work seven days. You will not be able to explain to him when you pay overtime and when you don't, and what exactly the law is.

As much as there are antiquated and out-of-date provisions in the act, I'll tell you another thing. There's no law here on the books that requires employers to give employees a coffee break. It doesn't exist. Read the Employment Standards Act and the regulations.

There are other regulations. Section 9(1) philosophically deals with overtime for residential-care workers and exempts them from the payment of

[ Page 6936 ]

overtime moneys. Why them? It doesn't make any sense. I would suggest that there was either some policy decision or some lobbying to put in those provisions.

I'll commend you for this: I take it from your budget, from the research I've been able to do, that you're going to be hiring some more people as IROs under the legislation. I understand the number is 12, but if I'm wrong.... I think it's good that you're actually doing the hiring.

I think someone in that portion of your ministry should be spending some time taking a look at the regulations and the act, particularly cleaning up regulations that just don't dovetail. I really think, from discrimination of handicapped employees on one end of the spectrum to swampers who get stuck 159 kilometres from home and have to push that broken truck one more kilometre if they want to get the variance that's allowed in the regulations.... I think the ministry would be well advised to spend a few bucks in this year's budget to take a look at this legislation, make some amendments and introduce them later on in the session, or to clean up the regulations, which somebody in your ministry just hasn't been looking at for the last few months.

I'll leave it at that in terms of employment standards, subject to what I've had to say about Mr. Konopasek, because I want to hear a little bit more about him. I think those are fair suggestions. If the minister's got some comments in terms of his ministry's intent in that regard, as it's allowed for in the budget, I would be most happy to hear them.

HON. L. HANSON: I appreciate those comments from the member opposite. We will review Hansard as the year progresses and look at the various difficulties.

The 160 kilometres, I would imagine, refers to 100 miles, which I guess is the.... When things do happen as a result of something that is not manageable by the employer, there is a need to deal with that. I think the member truly does understand why it was put in in the first place.

A number of the issues he's raised are good things. We will look at them.

MR. SIHOTA: Some members opposite — more than members on this side — seem to be shocked that we on this side of the House would even dare to give the minister some advice in terms of improvements to legislation.

HON. MR. PARKER: You know what they say about free legal advice.

MR. SIHOTA: The Minister of Forests should stop making comments about free legal advice and just get on with the job of looking after his ministry. There is a galaxy of questions that he has yet to answer.

MR. WILLIAMS: It's no accident that your estimates haven't come up.

MR. SIHOTA: We look forward to those estimates, Mr. Minister of Forests, as we peck away through....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I would ask the hon. member to continue with the estimates of the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Chairman, I'd be happy to step down if the Minister of Forests would agree right now to call his estimates. I won't ask the Minister of Labour one more question. I'd love to have the Minister of Forests before the House. I guess it's got something to do with the fact that we haven't heard from him yet. It would be most desirable to hear from him.

It might be appropriate to move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Richmond moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:55 p.m.