2002 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 37th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes
only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2002
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 10, Number 7
|
| ||
|
CONTENTS | ||
|
Routine Proceedings |
||
| Page | ||
| Introductions by Members | 4445 | |
| Tributes | 4445 | |
| Preston Bruce Hon. G. Bruce |
||
| Introduction and First Reading of Bills | 4446 | |
| Forests Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2002 (Bill 75) Hon. M. de Jong College of Applied Biology Act (Bill 76) Hon. M. de Jong Acting Police Complaint Commissioner Continuation Act (Bill 77) Hon. R. Coleman |
||
| Statements (Standing Order 25B) | 4447 | |
| Contributions of Tara Singh Hayer D. Hayer Contributions of Norma Mickelson I. Chong Status of B.C. economy R. Nijjar |
||
| Oral Questions | 4448 | |
| Privatization of B.C. Hydro assets J. MacPhail Hon. R. Neufeld Prevention of street racing R. Lee Hon. R. Coleman Privatization of B.C. Hydro assets J. Kwan Hon. R. Neufeld Government plan for health care system K. Krueger Hon. S. Hawkins |
||
| Reports from Committees | 4451 | |
| Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services, first report B. Lekstrom J. MacPhail Hon. G. Collins |
||
| Tabling Documents | 4453 | |
| Ministry of Skills Development and
Labour annual report, 2002-02 Public Guardian and Trustee of British Columbia annual report, 2001-02 |
||
| Committee of the Whole House | 4453 | |
| Residential Tenancy Act (Bill 70) (continued) J. Kwan Hon. R. Coleman R. Stewart K. Johnston |
||
| J. MacPhail Forest and Range Practices Act (Bill 74) Hon. M. de Jong J. MacPhail |
||
|
| ||
[ Page 4445 ]
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2002
The House met at 2:04 p.m.
Introductions by Members
Hon. R. Neufeld: It's my pleasure today to introduce some very special guests. Brit Skjelbred is the State Secretary for Petroleum and Energy. She is accompanied by His Excellency Ingvard Havnen, the Norwegian Ambassador to Canada; and Stein Gudmundseth, the Norwegian honorary consul general in Vancouver. The state secretary is in Victoria along with a delegation of Norwegian oil and gas industry representatives and government officials to share offshore experience with British Columbia.
[1405]
Just as a note, Mr. Speaker, I want to leave everyone with this. In his closing remarks, the ambassador said that Norway has no debt. They have $130 billion — get it, $130 billion — in an offshore fund that they're trying to figure out how to spend.
Hon. C. Clark: Today in the members' gallery we also have some special guests from Finland. His Excellency Ilkka Ristimaki is the Ambassador of Finland to Canada. He's accompanied by Lars-Henrik Wrede, who's the honorary consul general of Finland at Vancouver, and their wives, Kateriina Ristimaki and Riitta Wrede. Ambassador Ristimaki is making his official calls on the government in Victoria, and I hope that everyone will please make them welcome.
Hon. G. Halsey-Brandt: Today in the members' gallery we have a special guest from France. Jean-Yves Defay is the newly appointed consul general of France in Vancouver. He is accompanied by his wife, Marie-Noëlle Defay. Consul General Defay, whose last position was in the office of the Prime Minister of France in Paris, is visiting Victoria to meet with government officials. He is no stranger to Canada, having served in Quebec City. We look forward to working with Consul General Defay in strengthening cultural and economic ties with France. May the House please give him a warm welcome to our Pacific province.
J. Weisbeck: A visitor to British Columbia in the gallery today is Bishop Simon Oketch from the Anglican diocese of Maseno North in Kenya. Bishop Oketch is here visiting the Anglican diocese of British Columbia. With him today are his hosts, Rod and Pat Crossley of Victoria. Would the House please make them welcome.
R. Sultan: In the gallery today are two very important women in my life, both of them from my constituency office.
Patti Hamilton is a former cabinet secretary in Consumer and Corporate Affairs and was producer of the Rafe Mair Show for 17 years, during which time Rafe won the Michener Award for distinguished public service in opposing the Kemano completion project and during which time Rafe's broadcasts helped defeat the Charlottetown accord.
Susan Lundell is a member of the pioneering Lundell family in Vancouver, was introduced to politics at the age of 12 at a John Diefenbaker fundraiser, worked for several Members of Parliament, was frequently seen on the arm of Pierre Trudeau and thinks what he did to Canada is simply…. Well, it merits reconsideration.
Would the House please make these two distinguished guests welcome.
W. Cobb: Today it's my pleasure…. I don't see them, unless they're behind me here, but I have a group of young people from my riding. They represent the Royal Canadian Sea Cadets, the Chilcotin corps — and their leaders.
With us are Jeff Skea, John MacQueen, Arron Blair, Sheena Jarvis, Daniel Brennan, William Bolton, Janine Johnson, Dorian Johnny, Tyler Lulua, Katelynn Brissard, Josh Lulua, Tyler Thompson, Nicole Lachapelle, Kallin Wilson, Riley Gibson, Alissa Clements, Gordon Jarvis, Ashlianna Nyack, Garrett Nelson, Kendra Storozynsky, Megan Frankiw, Trenissa Hoffman, Cory Smithson, Sierra Williams, Rae-Lynn Gilbert-Kerr, Ashley Nystrom, Julian Brissard, Cole Mitchell, Frances Rolston and Melissa Bilkhu. With them are instructors, Bruce Coles and David Feil, and their trainers, Laurie Stapleton and Stacey Paley. They're here on a sailing trip with the federal Department of National Defence.
[1410]
H. Long: Mr. Speaker, it's good to be recognized so quickly, standing in this House today. I have in the House today my daughter Brenda and her husband, Tor Birtig, who are here visiting from Powell River. I'd like this House to make them very, very welcome.
Hon. M. de Jong: Joining us in the gallery today are representatives of the Association of Professional Biologists of British Columbia: President Mel Kotyk; Linda Michaluk, the executive director; Linda Stordeur, the registrar; and Pat McLellan, the administrative assistant. I hope the House will make them welcome.
Tributes
PRESTON BRUCE
Hon. G. Bruce: I would just like to take an opportunity to thank all of you so much — the Premier, the Leader of the Opposition — for your expressions of condolences and sympathy at the passing of my father, Preston Bruce. I want to tell you, though, it was a very joyous event for us. It's not that we wanted Dad to move on in a hurry, but there have been times when he has told us stories that have gone on and on, and with those thoughts, we thought maybe it would be good for him to move on a bit.
[ Page 4446 ]
The fact of the matter is that as life turns and goes along, you can have wonderful times with your parents. He was 87 years old. He worked right up to the very end. My brother and I are concerned whether or not we ought to be paying him the full wages for Thursday. As Minister of Labour, I'm looking into that.
I would like to say, though, that the Premier did come to the celebration of life for Dad, which was great. His timing was impeccable. He managed to slip into the front row unnoticed, at the singing of How Great Thou Art, and that wasn't missed by anybody. More alarming to all of us was when the Premier slipped up to the photograph of Dad and put on the corner a cap of the Boston Red Sox, Dad's beloved baseball team.
I thought at that point I heard Dad clearing his throat, and I knew he would be passing on some advice to the Premier. The problem was that we only had the theatre for an hour, and if Dad was passing on any advice to the Premier, we would be there for a good while longer than the hour we had. To you all and to many other people throughout the government….
K. Krueger: Like father, like son.
Hon. G. Bruce: Yes.
If I may, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to finish by saying to the others through government and throughout the province who have passed on words of condolences and sympathy and support, on behalf of my family, thank you all very much.
Introduction and
First Reading of Bills
FORESTS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 2002
Hon. M. de Jong presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Forests Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2002.
Hon. M. de Jong: I move that Bill 75 be introduced and read a first time now.
Motion approved.
Hon. M. de Jong: Today I am introducing Bill 75, Forests Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2002. Bill 75 includes an amendment to the Forest Act that will enable me as Minister of Forests to access undercut timber for the awarding of forest tenure directly to first nations. The bill transfers the remaining land use planning provisions of the Forest Practices Code to the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management.
The bill also includes a number of streamlining amendments to the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act that will help with the transitioning from the existing Forest Practices Code to the results-based forest and range practices regime. The streamlining amendments will have an immediate reduction in regulatory burden, which licensees can enjoy through the two-year transition period until the results-based code is fully implemented.
I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Bill 75 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.
[1415]
COLLEGE OF APPLIED BIOLOGY ACT
Hon. M. de Jong presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled College of Applied Biology Act.
Hon. M. de Jong: I move that Bill 76 be introduced and read a first time now.
Motion approved.
Hon. M. de Jong: I'm honoured today to introduce Bill 76, the College of Applied Biology Act. This legislation, the first of its kind in Canada, gives professional biologists the same recognition and responsibilities as other self-regulating professions like forestry, agrology, engineering and geoscience. The act establishes a college of applied biology to oversee the profession of applied biology. The college is charged with upholding and protecting the public interest by preserving and protecting the scientific methods and principles that are the foundation of the applied biology sciences; upholding the principles of stewardship of aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems and biological resources; and ensuring the integrity, objectivity and expertise of its members.
Recently I introduced the Forest and Range Practices Act, which establishes a workable results-based code and reduces the forestry regulatory burden without compromising environmental values. The key to meeting this commitment is to ensure that the government, natural resource industries and the people of British Columbia can rely upon highly trained, dedicated, accountable professions to make sound resource-management decisions.
The new College of Applied Biology Act builds on that foundation by establishing a self-regulating profession to oversee the field of applied biology. Biologists act in the public interest in protecting the province's biodiversity, and with this legislation they are getting the recognition that they have earned.
I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Bill 76 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.
[ Page 4447 ]
ACTING POLICE COMPLAINT
COMMISSIONER CONTINUATION ACT
Hon. R. Coleman presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Acting Police Complaint Commissioner Continuation Act.
Hon. R. Coleman: I move that Bill 77 be read a first time now.
Motion approved.
Hon. R. Coleman: I am pleased to introduce the Acting Police Complaint Commissioner Continuation Act, which extends the appointment of the acting police complaint commissioner until a permanent commissioner is appointed by this Legislature.
The appointment of the acting commissioner will expire on November 21, 2002, and there is no provision in the Police Act for the Legislative Assembly to reappoint him. We want to give the Special Committee to Appoint a Police Complaint Commissioner time to select the best possible candidate. It is not in the interests of the people of this province for the position to be vacant. Therefore, it is necessary to make this amendment and extend the appointment of the acting police complaint commissioner until a new appointment is made.
I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Bill 77 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.
Statements
(Standing Order 25b)
CONTRIBUTIONS OF TARA SINGH HAYER
D. Hayer: Mr. Speaker, like many of my colleagues, I attended Remembrance Day ceremonies last week to honour all those who gave their lives and all those who fought so courageously for the freedom we enjoy today.
There is another remembrance this week, Mr. Speaker, for a freedom fighter. Today is the day I remember my father, who fought so diligently and was so dedicated to freedom of speech, freedom of expression and the freedom so many of us take for granted today.
On this day four years ago my father, Tara Singh Hayer, was brutally assassinated for standing up and speaking up through his newspaper for the freedoms we enjoy, for the democracy that we all enjoy today.
In fact, my family has established a bursary in his name at Kwantlen University College and North Surrey Secondary School so that his name and the principles he lived and died for will carry on.
[1420]
Another freedom fighter in my family, my uncle Sarwan Singh Shokar, who was a priest in London, England, died a few weeks ago. We will be setting up a bursary to honour his work as well.
So, Mr. Speaker, I remember not just the tragedies that have occurred to preserve our way of life, but I am reminded personally every day that we have all faced sacrifices and that to keep what we have and hold so precious to our values, we all must be vigilant and must be willing to fight in as many ways possible so that we can preserve it.
Terrorism has no place in our society. Intimidation, threats and assassination are in complete contravention of what Canadians hold so dear.
On November 24, Mr. Speaker, there will be a special memorial service for my late father at Surrey's Guru Nanak Sikh Temple. I invite all in this House to join me on that day to celebrate the life of my father and the contributions he made to further the cause of peace, security and freedom.
CONTRIBUTIONS OF NORMA MICKELSON
I. Chong: It is my pleasure today to acknowledge and pay tribute to a remarkable lady in my riding. Last week while we were back in our constituencies I had the opportunity to attend one of four fall convocation ceremonies at the University of Victoria, an afternoon that had a special meaning for the chancellor, Dr. Norma Mickelson, for it was her last convocation before her term expires at the end of this year.
Dr. Norma Mickelson is UVic's eighth chancellor. Elected in 1996, she is an exceptional role model. Norma has dedicated her career to education. After attending Victoria College, she taught elementary school. She went on to complete her bachelor of education at UBC before receiving her master's from UVic and her doctorate in educational psychology from the University of Washington.
Norma specialized in reading and language acquisition. Her accomplishments are many, including the publication of more than 140 scholarly articles and a book, in addition to workshops and conference presentations around the world. All her work focused on providing teachers with the tools to teach reading in a supportive manner.
Dr. Mickelson achieved many firsts. She was the first female academic dean at a major Canadian university, the first woman president of the UVic faculty association, the university's first adviser on equity issues, and she is UVic's first female chancellor.
Her hard work and commitment have been recognized through the many honours bestowed on her. In 1991 she received the first Sarah Shorten Award, recognizing her commitment to the advancement of women in Canadian universities. In 1998 she received the Victoria YWCA Women of Distinction lifetime achievement award. She is a recipient of both the Order of Canada and recently the Order of British Columbia. The alumni association named her one of UVic's most distinguished alumni.
As the titular head of the university, who confers degrees, I know many faculty members and staff will
[ Page 4448 ]
miss her presence, but we all know that the legacy of her work will continue to benefit future learners.
STATUS OF B.C. ECONOMY
R. Nijjar: On November 6 the member for Vancouver-Hastings leaned over from her seat and said that she hadn't heard from me in a while. Well, she can hear me now.
In the second quarter of this year, retail sales are up two times the national average; housing starts are up 21.3 percent, year to date; consumer spending from January to July is up 5.6 percent over the same period last year. Between the second quarter and third quarter this year, non-residential building construction is up 6.8 percent in Vancouver and 6.6 percent in Victoria. Value of housing permits is up 38 percent over last year. Motor vehicle sales are up 19 percent in September from last year. Oil and gas production is up 22 percent. Average weekly wages in B.C. are up 3.6 percent in the last year, and 90,000 new jobs were created in B.C. this year.
According to a survey by Watson Wyatt Worldwide, Vancouver workers can expect a 3.4 percent increase in salaries this year — more than any other Canadian city. Convergence recently announced that it will add 400 new jobs in its call centre in Kamloops. A new LiveBridge call centre in Prince George is now expected to create 1,000 jobs in the next two years. The Tembec mill in Cranbrook will reopen after a year-long closure, putting 41 people back to work.
[1425]
Across government, $142 million is being spent on social housing, the largest provincial contribution to subsidized housing by any government in the history of British Columbia. The number of children in ministry care decreased by more than 10 percent. The Canadian Association for Community Living and Inclusion International, worldwide organizations, have congratulated the B.C. government for its visionary approach to services for people with developmental disabilities. For the first time ever in the history of British Columbia, two million people are working in this province.
Mr. Speaker: That concludes members' statements.
Hon. members, I would urge each and every one of you to read the statement that I left on your desks today. [Laughter.] I'm very serious about it, hon. members, because abuse of members' statements will not be tolerated in the future. Thank you.
Oral Questions
PRIVATIZATION OF B.C. HYDRO ASSETS
J. MacPhail: Last week, after months of secrecy, the Minister of Energy finally told the public that B.C. Hydro will be split into two, and private power producers will get unfettered access to Hydro's transmission grid. But according to Michael Costello, B.C. Hydro's chief operating officer, the downsides of this approach far outweigh the upsides for B.C. consumers, resulting in big rate increases.
To the Minister of Energy: why does he insist on breaking up B.C. Hydro if, as B.C. Hydro's own analysis confirms, consumers in B.C. will end up paying more for their electricity?
Hon. R. Neufeld: That letter was written to the government by the president at the instruction of a left-leaning, politically appointed board, which that member was responsible for doing. That's what took place there.
We have been very open with the people of British Columbia. British Columbia Hydro will stay in public hands. We will continue to use B.C. Hydro as our advantage in British Columbia, with low electricity rates going well into the future so that we can create jobs in the province. That's what we intend to do. We intend to take the political meddling out of setting rates for B.C. Hydro, from the cabinet table — which that member was a part of doing — and return it to the B.C. Utilities Commission where it absolutely should be, to set properly for the people of British Columbia. We look forward to more good news in British Columbia.
Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplementary question.
J. MacPhail: Since this letter was written by Michael Costello….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Let us hear the question.
J. MacPhail: Since this letter was written by Michael Costello, who remains at B.C. Hydro, the situation around independent power production has gotten worse in North America, so for people to somehow disregard this letter is to put them completely out of touch with what's happening elsewhere in the world. That's what people suspect about this government: they are completely out of touch.
As the minister well knows, B.C. Hydro's capacity to sell high to Americans and Albertans at peak times and buy low at off-peak times results in the low rates for B.C. consumers — some of the lowest in North America. If we give private power unfettered access to our grid, that advantage disappears.
The government doesn't have to listen to the member for Prince George–Omineca. They can call up the CEO of B.C. Hydro today and receive the same advice as is contained in this letter. Mr. Costello warns that allowing unfettered access to the grid for private power…
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
[ Page 4449 ]
J. MacPhail: …results in jobs leaving the province and big rate increases. Will the minister explain why he's jeopardizing B.C.'s competitive hydro rate advantage by breaking up B.C. Hydro and force-feeding consumers expensive private power?
[1430]
Hon. R. Neufeld: B.C. Hydro has been purchasing power from IPPs since 1989. In fact, in April of 2000 the previous administration put out a request through B.C. Hydro for IPPs for clean energy — interesting. Fifty applications came in, and 23 were accepted. We have been using independent power producers in British Columbia before. We will continue into the future. There's no reason why we shouldn't have independent power producers risk their capital, build plants — not put the province further in debt — and provide good, cheap, clean electricity for the province, which we want to do to take us into the future.
Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplementary.
J. MacPhail: I worry about this minister being in charge of such an important issue, because it's as if nothing has changed in North America in the electricity market, according to him, since 1989 or 1999. Well, here's what's changed.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
J. MacPhail: British Columbians are already paying through the nose for Pharmacare, for MSP and for increased sales taxes. Now the Liberals want to jack up hydro rates — all to satisfy their ideological preoccupation with privatization. This approach has been a disaster everywhere else. In Ontario, as we speak, prices are going up and supply is stalled because private power companies are refusing to invest in new power generation.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
J. MacPhail: That's what's changed. B.C. Hydro now wants to do the same thing.
Can the minister explain to this House and to every British Columbian why on earth his government is taking us down this dangerous privatization route of independent power when everyone — from the member for Prince George–Omineca to the mayors throughout this province to the CEO from B.C. Hydro — is saying that it will lead to huge price increases because the supply will not be there?
Hon. R. Neufeld: Well, it's no wonder that that person had trouble when she was in government and was running B.C. Hydro. It's no wonder that government had trouble adding and subtracting and realizing British Columbia's assets.
It's also a little bit hard to take when we have said — and we ran on a platform, each and every one of us…
Interjection.
Hon. R. Neufeld: …that B.C. Hydro will stay in public hands. The core assets are going to stay in public hands for the benefit of British Columbians. We're going to re-regulate the industry the way it was before, and we're going to include IPPs in generation of new electricity. I've already explained it.
It's interesting. I have a note that came out of her administration when she was in government. It says: "Sell big-ticket symbolic assets — British Columbia Hydro, British Columbia liquor, British Columbia Lottery, British Columbia railroad…
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. R. Neufeld: …Columbia Power Corporation…
Interjection.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. R. Neufeld: …Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, Bridge Studios, PNE, B.C. Place." It's pretty hard to take that from a member who was going to sell…
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order.
Hon. R. Neufeld: …all the assets of British Columbia — to start talking the way she is now in this House.
PREVENTION OF STREET RACING
R. Lee: My question is to the Solicitor General. Traffic deaths on B.C. roads due to street racing by young people have become an all-too-common sight in our province. Many of my constituents have approached me with their concerns and their plans to have the community become more involved in helping to prevent these accidents from occurring. However, they also believe that the province has an important part to play in helping to prevent these tragic deaths. Can the Solicitor General tell my constituents what steps his ministry has taken to address the issues of street racing?
Hon. R. Coleman: Our government has, as does our society, a zero tolerance with regard to street racing. That's why we brought in legislation that allows
[ Page 4450 ]
police to immediately seize a motor vehicle involved in street racing for 48 hours on a first offence by impounding the vehicle. In addition to that impoundment, we also have fines, criminal records and charges under the Criminal Code. We're not going to let people off the hook. In addition, we also made it possible for the police to contact the superintendent of motor vehicles from the roadside in a case of dangerous driving and ask for a suspension.
[1435]
Since that was put into place, over a hundred drivers have had their licences suspended for street racing in the province of British Columbia, and nine vehicles have been seized. I think, actually, we're sending the message to the community that we will not tolerate street racing in the province.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Burnaby North has a supplementary question.
R. Lee: Education is one of the most important tools in the fight against street racing. Educating young people about the consequences of dangerous driving is probably the best policy in helping to reduce incidents of street racing. Can the Solicitor General tell my constituents what education programs are in place to teach young drivers the importance of safe driving?
Hon. R. Coleman: There's a variety of programs in place. SUCCESS has put together some symposiums and done some work with regards to young people and street racing. There's one out in my riding with regards to what is called STARR, which is Students and Teachers Against Road Racing, that we're helping to get off the ground. CARS-BC, which is a youth-driven initiative, also goes with Road Sense back into schools and tries to work on this.
This is a community problem. It's parental. It's the individual. It's education. It's responsibility. Everybody has to understand that we have to take responsibility for our actions. People should not street-race in this province, and we'll deal with it expeditiously if they do.
PRIVATIZATION OF B.C. HYDRO ASSETS
J. Kwan: What the Minister of Energy and Mines doesn't understand is this: the previous government did not privatize Hydro. It had a discussion with caucus and listened to caucus.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Order, please.
J. Kwan: All British Columbians want….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us hear the question.
Interjection.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
J. Kwan: All British Columbians want is for the minister to come clean on his plans for B.C. Hydro. They want to know why the government is planning to force-feed them expensive private power when B.C. Hydro already provides the best rates in the country and can generate new capacity cheaper than the private sector.
Will the minister agree to immediately table the secret task force report that he's been sitting on for eight months — not next week, not the week after, but immediately table the report — and agree to hold formal public meetings before he lifts a finger to destroy Hydro and jack up rates?
Hon. R. Neufeld: We will release that report in the very near future, along with an energy plan that's going to take British Columbia well into the future. It's going to maintain low hydro rates in the province. It's going to maintain B.C. Hydro within public hands, owned by the public, owned by the people of British Columbia for our advantage well into the future. It's more good news.
I can tell you that people are going to be happy about our plan moving into the future with energy from a wide array of sources, not just electrical energy. They tend to forget that there's all kinds of other energy in the province: coalbed methane, natural gas offshore. You name it — coal? — we've got it, and we're going to exercise our right to develop that.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a supplementary question.
J. Kwan: Well, that's not what Mr. Michael Costello has to say. It is all downside when you privatize Hydro, all the downsides to privatizing Hydro.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Let us hear the question.
J. Kwan: It's an embarrassment how this minister has handled the file. He's refused to release the report. He says next week. Why won't he release the report now, not next week, not the following week? Why won't he commit to the public and to the back bench of this government so that they will have a say as well? Hold full public meetings so that everyone can have a say on the future of Hydro, on the public-privatization of Hydro, before you take action to destroy it.
Hon. R. Neufeld: Again, the member's been asleep. We've been out there since last year and, in fact, were criticized for asking for information as long ago as last August. From the public we have letters, all kinds of submissions, where we asked for input to put together
[ Page 4451 ]
an energy plan for the province. This member's just waking up to that today, but those members were too busy…
Interjection.
Mr. Speaker: Order, order.
[1440]
Hon. R. Neufeld: …spending about $500 million on fast ferries that wouldn't float. The province of British Columbia consumes domestically almost all the energy we produce. Those members should know — I hope they would know — that in the last ten years we have been net importers of electricity. We have to look for new development, new electricity to come on stream, so that we can continue to maintain the lowest-possible rates we have in the province.
GOVERNMENT PLAN
FOR HEALTH CARE SYSTEM
K. Krueger: Recently the Canadian Institute for Health Information released figures demonstrating that on a per-capita basis, British Columbia's spending on health care leads Canada.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Order, please. Let us hear the question.
K. Krueger: Would you like me to start over, Mr. Speaker?
Mr. Speaker: Yes, please do.
K. Krueger: Recently the Canadian Institute for Health Information released figures demonstrating that on a per-capita basis, British Columbia's spending on health care leads Canada. While my constituents definitely want the best health care system possible, they also want a system that is sustainable.
My question is to the Minister of Health Planning. What is the government doing to ensure sustainability while at the same time ensuring that British Columbians continue to receive the best-quality health care?
Hon. S. Hawkins: Our government wants to make sure patients get the care they need where they live. That's why we've not only protected the health budget but added $1.1 billion to it over the last year. We're now spending $2,684 for every man, woman and child in B.C. That's $400 more than two years ago, and that's $329 more than the national average.
You know, money isn't the only answer. We've made moves to make the system more sustainable. We reduced the number of health authorities from the mess the last government created — 52 health authorities — down to six, so we could find administrative savings, so we could decrease duplication, so we could enhance cooperation and coordination of services between communities. Health authorities know that every dollar they save, they target right back to patient care.
We're also the first jurisdiction in North America to set access standards for care. For the first time ever we have performance contracts with our health authorities to make sure they're held accountable for positive patient outcomes. We're working with health authorities to restructure and stabilize services so that patients have the health services they can count on in their communities.
[End of question period.]
Reports from Committees
B. Lekstrom: I have the honour to present the first report of the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services for the third session of the thirty-seventh parliament.
I move the report be taken as read and received.
Motion approved.
B. Lekstrom: I ask leave of the House to suspend the rules to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.
Leave granted.
B. Lekstrom: I move the report be adopted.
This report reflects what our committee, the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services, heard from British Columbians. We toured this province, travelled to 13 communities, and along with that we received 88 written submissions. This report reflects the true commitment of a government that's open and accountable. We didn't present a report on what the committee wanted to say; we put forward a report on what the committee heard from British Columbians.
This report clearly states that the people of British Columbia that presented to our committee and wrote to us said: "Stay the course. We know it's a difficult decision, but we want you to do that. We want you to balance your budget." But if the opportunity avails itself, there are four key recommendations included in that report. It's very clear that those four recommendations contain monetary issues in them.
[1445]
What's also in that report, if you read it, Mr. Speaker — and I'm sure you have — is that these changes, if they're accomplished, have to be made within the fiscal mandate of this government. I think that's a very key, key statement.
I think this report reflects what British Columbians expect from a select standing committee of the Legislature, a committee that has toured the province, a committee that has listened to British Columbians, a committee that reflects what they heard from those British
[ Page 4452 ]
Columbians and has not reflected what a government may want to hear. I think it's very clear, though — and I'm very encouraged by the message that I heard, along with my colleagues on this committee — that as difficult as it is, there is no way we can continue down the area of spending more money in this province than we bring in. The people are soundly behind the idea of balancing our budget, and when that budget is balanced, then we can begin the economic recovery and debt repayment schedule that's so rightly needed in this province of ours.
In concluding, I want to thank the members of my committee that I had the opportunity to work with. I want to thank the staff that helped out so much in the development of this report, in travelling with us and setting things up, and I really want to commend the people of British Columbia that took the time out of their busy lives to come and present to our committee at one of the public forums or took time to write in and express their views. I think it says a great deal about the people of our province that when they know times are tough, they want us to stay the course, and if the possibility avails itself once again, there are four key areas they would like us to have a look at in the direction we've taken. Thank you very much.
Mr. Speaker: On the question of the adoption of the report, the Leader of the Opposition.
J. MacPhail: I was a member of the committee, and I travelled the province as much as I could with the ten other Liberal MLAs. I read every single brief that was presented, including the almost 100 written submissions. I'm not signing on to this report, not because of what's in the report but because of the failure of the committee to address how the Finance minister could possibly achieve the recommendations of this report.
The four recommendations that the committee made did reflect what the public heard — there's no question about that — and the four recommendations, including other notes made in the report, recommend that the Minister of Finance, in the upcoming budget and the following budget, spend hundreds of millions of dollars more to recover the damage done from the cuts that have been made by this government. What the report fails to do, though, is tell the Minister of Finance how that can be achieved given his failed economic policies on revenue generation.
There is a gap in the logic between the report's recommendations and the reality of this government's economic initiatives that have failed miserably. The one economic initiative that was promised by this government and has failed and has led to this report is the submission by the Minister of Finance, by the Premier, that tax cuts would pay for themselves. Because that has failed, we now have a gap in the two aspects of the report: to stay the course and balance the budget and yet spend almost half a billion dollars on social spending that has been cut by this government. It is incumbent on a government that claims to have a responsibility for fiscal matters, a government that claims to be fiscally responsible, for the government caucus to answer that question. I asked for that question to be debated. We didn't, and therefore I have not signed the report.
Hon. G. Collins: I think this is a good opportunity for us to have a bit of a discussion around this. Perhaps the member wasn't paying attention earlier when the member from Vancouver stood up and listed the long list of areas where the economy is performing far better than elsewhere in Canada, where we're leading the country, where we've got great growth and where there are huge job opportunities. I think she should start paying attention to the good news out there instead of just the bad news that she tries to perpetrate on a daily basis.
I also know from the deliberations, from what I've heard from our members of the committee, that the member opposite didn't offer any solutions or any suggestions as to where those revenues are to come. The only issue I've heard her address today was that issue of income tax reduction. I can only assume that the member opposite, the leader of the NDP and member for Vancouver-Hastings, would be advocating a 25 percent across-the-board income tax increase in order to restore things to the way they were under the NDP, which was leading us down the path of depression, recession…
Interjection.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
[1450]
Hon. G. Collins: …and slow growth in British Columbia.
Interjection.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. G. Collins: Mr. Speaker, the reality is that this province, which used to lead the country in economic growth year after year after year, declined during the 1990s and in 1999-2000, when that member was a minister of the Crown, fell over the cliff and became a have-not province to the point where we now accept transfer payments from the other provinces to British Columbia. We've seen the NDP economic agenda. It took us from first to last. We're going to turn this province around. That's well underway. Look at the statistics. They're all out there for you to read if you choose to look at them.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Peace River South closes debate.
B. Lekstrom: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Certainly, I feel it's incumbent on myself to respond to the statements and comments by the member for Vancouver-
[ Page 4453 ]
Hastings. The issue of the committee is laid out quite clearly in our terms of reference. We toured the province, and we listened to British Columbians.
Out of the number of British Columbians that came forward to speak to us at the public hearings or put in their written submissions, I can tell you that what is reflected in that report truly reflects what was said. What wasn't said by members of the public is where that money should come from if it could be found. I think, as a member of a committee and as the Chair of this committee, that it would be very presumptuous of us as a committee to come up with our own ideas and say, "This is what we want to do," when we didn't hear that from the people of British Columbia.
J. MacPhail: I bet you the Premier said: "Don't answer that question."
B. Lekstrom: I think it's very important to recognize that the job that our Minister of Finance has…. He carries a heavy load. He takes it on willingly, and he does a tremendous job on behalf of British Columbia.
J. MacPhail: "Don't answer that question."
B. Lekstrom: The issue as far as the member stating that we shouldn't answer the question…. I'm more than willing to answer….
Interjection.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order. Just a moment. The Leader of the Opposition, please recognize that someone else has the floor. Thank you.
B. Lekstrom: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want to read just one part of this report, one sentence. It says: "We recognize that budget-making involves making difficult choices at the best of times and that the financial decisions about any additional spending in the next two budgets will have to be made" — and I want this to be listened to and clearly understood — "within the constraints of the existing fiscal plan and the ministry spending targets."
With all due respect to the member who won't sign the report, I think, again, that it would be very presumptuous of a committee to tell our Minister of Finance where that money should come from when our Minister of Finance is asked to do this on behalf of the people of British Columbia. The Premier has asked the Hon. Gary Collins, our Minister of Finance, to work with that portfolio, and I think he's done a tremendous job. I also think that every minister that's involved in this process puts their heart and soul into this job. They come here to make British Columbia a better place.
I'm proud of the report we've put forward here today, and I'll stand behind it. Once again, I thank my colleagues that lent their support.
Mr. Speaker: The question is the adoption of the report.
Motion approved.
Tabling Documents
Hon. G. Bruce: I have the honour to present the annual report for the Ministry of Skills Development and Labour for the year 2001-02.
Hon. G. Plant: I have the honour to present the 2001-02 annual report for the public guardian and trustee of British Columbia.
Orders of the Day
Hon. G. Collins: I call committee stage debate of Bill 70.
[1455]
Committee of the Whole House
RESIDENTIAL TENANCY ACT
(continued)
The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 70; J. Weisbeck in the chair.
The committee met at 2:58 p.m.
On section 18 (continued).
J. Kwan: We were debating section 18 before we had a break to go back to our own constituencies last week. The issue with the pet damage deposit and the terms in the new act, in my opinion, provide for a lesser act than what was in place, an act that actually outright allows for the prohibiting of pets. It makes no discrimination between what kinds of pets we are talking about, or the size of pets. There is what some would call the no-goldfish clause. In other words, you could actually be charged a damage deposit if you had a pot of goldfish in your home versus an alligator in your home. This is rather, in my view, problematic. It is also problematic from the point of view that it imposes a pet damage deposit.
[1500]
In fact, just last week when I went back to the constituency, in consulting with tenants organizations, seniors and individual families about this new act, I was informed by at least one individual that before the act has been passed, the landlord is already imposing a damage deposit on tenants for the ownership of pets — in fact, not even suggesting the half month's application in terms of a pet damage deposit but a full month's pet damage deposit. This has already taken place. The damage is already out there in the community. I think it is a very aggressive act.
I was very sorry to learn that last Thursday night just before the House recessed, the motion I had tabled to strike out the prohibition of pets and restricting of the sizes and kinds of pets a tenant may keep and also the suggestion to strike out the damage deposit was ruled by the Chair to be contrary to the intent of the act. I was very disappointed about that, because our
[ Page 4454 ]
staff did check with the Clerk's office beforehand to make sure that the amendments were in order.
Having said that, I'd like to simply conclude that for section 18, the opposition will not be supporting the amendments as put forward by the government.
Section 18 approved on the following division:
[1505]
|
YEAS — 64 |
||
|
Falcon |
Coell |
Hogg |
|
L. Reid |
Halsey-Brandt |
Hawkins |
|
Whittred |
Hansen |
J. Reid |
|
Bruce |
Santori |
van Dongen |
|
Barisoff |
Nettleton |
Roddick |
|
Wilson |
Masi |
Lee |
|
Murray |
Plant |
Collins |
|
Clark |
Bond |
de Jong |
|
Stephens |
Abbott |
Neufeld |
|
Coleman |
Chong |
Penner |
|
Jarvis |
Anderson |
Orr |
|
Harris |
Brenzinger |
Belsey |
|
Bell |
Long |
Chutter |
|
Mayencourt |
Trumper |
R. Stewart |
|
Hayer |
Christensen |
Krueger |
|
McMahon |
Bray |
Les |
|
Locke |
Nijjar |
Bhullar |
|
Bloy |
Suffredine |
Cobb |
|
K. Stewart |
Visser |
Lekstrom |
|
Brice |
Sultan |
Hamilton |
|
Sahota |
Hawes |
Kerr |
|
|
Hunter |
|
|
NAYS — 3 |
||
|
MacPhail |
Kwan |
Johnston |
On section 19.
J. Kwan: Section 19, at least according to the government's press release, deals with the fact that in addition to half a month's rent, the new regulation will now allow for landlords to collect an extra deposit for keys, access cards and garage door openers. This could be a substantial amount. The minister, the Solicitor General himself, has said in the House that it could be up to $100, and for tenants on income assistance, on disability benefits, on fixed income and for seniors who are on fixed incomes, this will of course put financial pressure on them.
[1510]
Could the minister please advise — and perhaps he may not have consulted with his colleague the Minister of Human Resources — whether or not the Ministry of Human Resources will provide for, under this section of the act, the extra deposit for keys, access cards or garage door openers?
Hon. R. Coleman: The $100 is what we feel would be the maximum, and we will do that in the reg-making powers. We will identify that amount as the maximum amount allowable for deposits for keys or things like garage door openers — that sort of thing. That wasn't something that was objected to by either the tenants or the landlord groups. Both of them seemed to feel comfortable with that when we talked to them. I don't know what the member's issue, necessarily, is with it.
On the other side of the coin, we debated the pet damage deposit in section 18. I think we were pretty clear on the reasons for that.
J. Kwan: That wasn't my question at all to the minister. My question to the minister is this: has he consulted with his colleague the Minister of Human Resources about whether or not they would also provide for the extra deposit that is now required for keys, access cards, garage door openers and the like?
Actually, just last week when the House was not sitting, I spoke with seniors, I spoke with tenant advocacy groups, and I spoke with income assistance advocacy groups. They were very concerned about some of these changes — inclusive of this change — requiring, potentially, an additional $100 that tenants would have to pay.
The question to the minister is: has he consulted with the Minister of Human Resources on this issue? Would income assistance recipients, as at least one group of the people who would face financial barriers if this deposit were required…? Would there be support from his own government, his own colleague who is responsible for income assistance, that this deposit would be covered by income assistance?
Hon. R. Coleman: I guess we both talked to landlord and tenant groups last week, because I did too. I even talked to some people that worked in residential tenancy in this province for many, many years and have said they're looking forward to the new act because they think it's actually going to make the operation of residential tenancy relationship in the office that much better.
We don't have an answer back from Social Services for the member's question. We will endeavour to get it, as this debate goes through, and get back to her on that. My understanding is that they're not anticipating they will pay any pet damage deposits. They'll continue to pay the damage deposit, but there's been no feedback with regards to the up to $100 for deposit for keys.
J. Kwan: Wouldn't you think it would be prudent to talk to the Minister of Human Resources to make sure that they will actually provide for this increase in damage deposit?
The fact is this: a key is pretty substantive to a tenancy. If you don't have a key, you can't get in. If a ten-
[ Page 4455 ]
ant or a prospective tenant doesn't have the money to provide for such a deposit, would that mean they would be denied access to their own new home? Is that the implication? Can a landlord deny that access if they refuse to pay for the key deposit or garage door access card deposit? Is that a requirement as part of the tenancy?
If we don't know the answer from the Minister of Human Resources about whether or not they pay for it, doesn't that jeopardize the lowest-income marginalized residents — those who are on income assistance — potentially denying them a home?
Hon. R. Coleman: Like I said, I will get the member the answer to that question. I will do that. We will send a note out to see where they're at with that discussion. This is not intended to deny anybody access to their ability to enter into rental accommodation. At the same time, whatever that amount is — up to the $100 — is something that's negotiated as part of the tenancy agreement.
J. Kwan: The minister says and commits that he will speak with the Minister of Human Resources with respect to this question. What if the Minister of Human Resources says: "No, I'm sorry, our budget actually doesn't allow for this deposit"? What will happen in that case? Is the minister suggesting, then, that will not be applied? A landlord cannot apply a requirement for a key deposit as part of a tenancy agreement?
[1515]
Hon. R. Coleman: We are going to work those details out as we work through the consultation with the tenants groups and the landlord groups as we do regulations. We will get the answer to the other part of that question for you.
You know, this is something that both groups have told us they didn't have any difficulty with, so I'm surprised that the member has a tenants group that has changed their mind. That doesn't surprise me; I suppose that could happen. In our consultation process it was a recognized thing that there was a cost in trying to get keys back or garage door openers, or whatever the case may be, in some tenancies. It's not something that has to be charged in every tenancy. It's only cost recovery. It's to make sure that the cost is recoverable for the landlord.
R. Stewart: I have a couple of questions about pets in housing. I note that sections 18, 19, 20, 23, etc., all deal with pets in housing and the moves that government is trying to make to permit or encourage the permitting of pets in housing that the government doesn't own, of course. I was concerned, because I wasn't actually in the chamber on Thursday the 7th, I think it was, when the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant rose and said that the government is now bringing in legislation that will allow for refusal of pets in rental accommodation. She said that a number of times into the Hansard. She was implying that this legislation will permit landlords for the first time in history, I gather, to refuse to permit pets in rental accommodation.
That one struck me as odd, so I wanted to ask the Solicitor General, first off: is it the case that this is the first time landlords will have the right to refuse pets in rental accommodation?
Hon. R. Coleman: It's never been dealt with in legislation before. This actually clarifies the rules as far as a prohibition of pets, allowing for the pet damage deposit and allowing for the fact that the two — the landlord and the tenant — can enter into an agreement with respect to pets in the tenancy agreement.
R. Stewart: It's clear that in the past, landlords have refused permission for tenants to have pets in rental accommodation — is it not? It seems to me that is something that has been going on for at least the decade when the previous government was in power — that landlords traditionally…. I guess that was a problem. In fact, the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant referred to it a number of times in her long discussion about this clause and in the discussion at second.
I'm concerned, though, that there seems to be an impression that prior to this, all landlords permitted pets and that now we are going to be bringing in legislation that will allow for the refusal of pets. Is it the case that all landlords accepted pets before?
[1520]
Hon. R. Coleman: In tenancy agreements now landlords can define pets — what type of pet, whether they're allowed or not, or what have you. The problem was in clarifying what a pet was and what a no-pet clause was. This legislation really allows them to define their building — basically, to define that relationship.
The intent here is to say, okay, a landlord can make a decision that he has a building or buildings or a single unit that he doesn't want to have pets in. They can now enter into a tenancy agreement with somebody who doesn't have a pet and decide between the two of them that they agree that there will be no pet. It also allows for pets to be in the tenancy agreement, for that relationship to take place between a landlord and tenant and, if so wished, for a landlord to take up to half a month's additional damage deposit for a pet if they wish to have a pet put in a tenancy agreement.
Now, given that, the comment back by industry was: "If you allow us the deposit and allow us to define the pet within our tenancy agreements, whether we want them or not, then the industry will adjust, and we think that there will be more pets allowed in tenancies. By not allowing us to have that choice, since we're the investor, we think you're actually going to restrict the growth of investment in property so that we can deal with this."
I identified, way back when I was the opposition critic for housing as early as 1996, the fact that I felt this province was going to face a rental crisis simply because there were a number of things within the marketplace, including this situation, that just weren't clearly defined so that people could make the decision
[ Page 4456 ]
as to how they could operate a piece of property that they've made a personal investment in and taken a personal risk in.
I think the intent of what we're trying to accomplish here is clear. You're going to be able to make the choice as a landlord with your tenant as to whether you're going to have pets or not. When you make that choice, you're also going to be able to identify what the pets are and how the behaviour of the pets should be dealt with and handled within the tenancy for the benefit of both landlords and tenants. I think that's an important step forward.
R. Stewart: I thank the Solicitor General, because I see in this a tremendous benefit for tenants. It has been a concern of mine for many years that landlords had little option when it came to permitting pets in rental accommodation. In fact, it was something I raised with the previous government. I wonder if, perhaps, you could fill me in a little bit. I'm not certain of everything that the previous government did.
The Solicitor General was housing critic. Perhaps I could ask the Solicitor General, then, if at any time during the previous government's reign, particularly the last term of their time in office, particularly when the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant was in cabinet and particularly when she had some responsibility for the housing portfolio…. Could the Solicitor General explain whether at any time the previous government took a step to try to solve the problem that the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has raised?
She has raised the issue that this, for the first time, will allow for the refusal of pets in rental accommodation. That's not true. The concern I've got, then, is: did the previous government ever do anything specifically to permit a tenant to have a pet in rental accommodation? Did the previous government ever move to solve the problem they have identified so carefully in the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant's private member's bill and in debate of this legislation as well?
Hon. R. Coleman: I think it's safe to say that the same people who — I guess we could call it — lobbied government with regards to pets when we became government 18 months ago were also lobbying for something that said landlords had to have pets in their residential tenancies in the previous time under the previous government. I know I debated with the then Attorney General this particular piece of legislation in its old form many, many times in estimates and had great discussions with them with regards to it. The only thing that ever came forward to the House was a private member's bill that was brought forward.
The Residential Tenancy Act was never the responsibility of the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. That act always rested with the Attorney General of B.C.
I don't know if the member was here. He may not have been in the House when I began debate on this act. I told the story about the then Attorney General bumping into me in the dining room downstairs prior to some estimate debates back in 1996 with regards to residential tenancy. He said: "How long do you think we'll spend on residential tenancy today?" I said: "Oh, two to three hours." He said: "Good. I didn't understand the act when I was in law school, and I don't really understand it now." That may have been the description of how this piece of legislation, the regulations and the rules around it have morphed over time.
[1525]
Our intent here was to try to strike a balance somewhere to see if we could get the market to start to have more pets in tenancies because we've made the rules clear and actually have people understanding that (a) you can prohibit pets, but (b) you can also take pets. We'd like you to take pets and so much so that we're going to allow you to take an additional deposit to make you feel comfortable in taking it and building that relationship with your tenant, which you would then describe in a tenancy agreement as to how you want that relationship with the pet to be handled.
As any member of this House that's ever had a conversation with anybody from the different groups knows, it's a difficult issue. It's an issue of: what is the right of the individual to protect their investment? What is the right of the individual that's going to be occupying a tenancy with regards to that? If you clearly define that in tenancy agreements and build the relationship from that perspective, landlord to tenant, rather than somebody trying to legislate behaviour, I think we're way further ahead.
R. Stewart: I really do believe this is a tremendous move forward, and I recognize there's a long debate about whether, in fact, the landlord should have the rights to protect his property by regulating the occupants of the property in some way. That debate won't end today. It will certainly continue after today. I think the move forward that we've made today — the move forward to permit landlords and tenants to work out the arrangements necessary to permit pets, the move that would encourage landlords to accept pets in rental accommodation — is a very good one, and I support that move.
J. Kwan: You know what? All any member in this House has to do is look at the previous legislation and see what it says. It is very clear that there are no provisions in the previous legislation that prohibit pets in rental accommodations.
What the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville just voted for minutes ago is a clause that says that "a tenancy agreement may include terms or conditions doing either or both of the following: (a) prohibiting pets or restricting the size, kind or number of pets a tenant may keep in their rental unit." Let's be clear in terms of what this legislation says. For the first time in legislation under the Residential Tenancy Act, the government has now put in a clause that will allow for the prohibition of pets. That was section 18, by the way. We already debated and voted against…. The member
[ Page 4457 ]
for Vancouver-Hastings and myself in opposition and the member for Vancouver-Fraserview voted against that section.
Make no mistake about it. To pretend otherwise, you're only pretending, and I'm not sure who the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville is trying to fool. To suggest that the old legislation says this, and there was nothing the previous government had done…. You know what? The previous legislation never prohibited it. Yes, it needed clarity. After the election this government said that they were going to deal with it and address some of those issues. What kind of clarity was brought forward? It brought forward clarity that said pets could now be prohibited in a rental accommodation. In addition to that, there would be a damage deposit charge, to many people's opposition.
Anyway, I don't wish to re-debate the pet debate under section 18, because we've already done that both last week and today. Section 19 deals with the limits on the amount of deposits. The issue that I want to get back to with the Solicitor General is around the amount of deposits with respect to not just pets, but a deposit that will now potentially cost, by the Solicitor General's own admission, up to $100 for keys, access cards, garage door openers and the like. In my view, a key to a home is an essential component to someone's residency. If the person is not able to pay for the key deposit, what will happen? Can the landlord deny access for that person? Can the landlord deny access for that tenant? Will there be interest compounded and paid on these extra deposits?
[1530]
These are questions for the minister. I know the Solicitor General says: "Don't worry. We'll deal with those in regulation." Well, we're passing the act right now, before this House, that allows for such a provision, so I don't think we can wait to find out: "Well, gee, let's see what happens." For the minister to suggest that nobody raised this matter with him…. I know that some of the questions I'm raising in this House and all of these questions from the tenancy advocacy groups and the Tenants Rights Action Coalition were shared with the minister and every member of this House. The minister knows very well about this concern. It wasn't just dreamt up yesterday. The tenancy groups actually raised it. They shared these questions and their concerns with the minister.
Hon. R. Coleman: The member is actually entering into a debate about what I described in second reading as up to $100 deposit for keys, garage door openers — that sort of thing. There are some buildings where the actual cost of some of the entry keys or the entry systems are very expensive, so it was felt that it would be fair. Basically, I'll take the member back to the security part of the definition within the act where, under section (c), it says: "a fee prescribed under section 97(2)(k) [regulations in relation to fees]."
We are going to set that fee in regulation. It's not going to be a fee that, in my opinion, would ever go over $100, because in regulation I can't see where the deposit could be higher, and we're not going to allow it to be higher. It may be that when we do the regulation, that number is $50. We will know that as we go through in consultation, when we do the regulations with industry.
The member's question with regards to the tenancy arrangement…. All fees and security deposits are to be deposited at the time of the tenancy as part of the tenancy agreement, and the tenant and landlord have to meet the terms of the tenancy agreement.
J. Kwan: Will there be interest compounded on this deposit?
Hon. R. Coleman: As I said, as part of the tenancy agreement, it has to be part of the very beginning. Obviously, if there are a fee and a damage deposit that are due at the time of a tenancy agreement…. If they don't pay, the tenancy agreement hasn't been acted upon, and therefore you have no tenancy agreement. Therefore, what would you be compounding, unless you're going to, by arrangement, have a particular deposit paid later? And it better be in writing, because the rules will be pretty clear.
J. Kwan: Well, under the current rules…. I assume the application will still be applicable here, and that is that even on just a strictly damage deposit — half a month's rent, the damage deposit…. The landlord collects that money, and until the tenant vacates the unit and when the damage deposit is returned, interest is compounded on that money. So on these extra fees, which I presume will go through no matter what the amount is, whether it be $50 or $100, the question is: will there be interest compounded on this deposit to be returned to the tenant at the time of the expiry of the tenancy?
Hon. R. Coleman: Yes, it would be treated just like a damage deposit and the interest that's prescribed under the regulation.
J. Kwan: In the event that the Minister of Human Resources does not have the budget for this extra deposit…. Maybe for the Solicitor General, $50 or $100 may not be a lot. In his own press release the Solicitor General said that the deposit could be up to $100. It would be, perhaps, a range — $50, $100. For people on a very low income…. When you are on income assistance, your housing portion, generally speaking, for a single person is $325. The food component is less than $200. It's less than $200 with a reduced rate. When you take $50 away from that minuscule amount, which a person…. If they have to pay for a key deposit, $50 or even $20 is a lot of money.
[1535]
Can I get the commitment, then, from the minister that if…? I assume this clause will pass, unless the minister is prepared to stand it down until such time as we know the answer from the Minister of Human Resources, but given that we don't know the answer, will the Solicitor General, in this House, give the commit-
[ Page 4458 ]
ment to ensure that people on income assistance would not be denied access to housing because of this extra fee? Will he actually commit to make sure that somewhere, whether it be through the Ministry of Human Resources or elsewhere, those extra dollars will actually be provided to people on income assistance so that they will not be faced with a situation where they would not be able to secure a home because they are unable to come up with the extra deposit that is now required by legislation?
Hon. R. Coleman: When we do this regulation, it will deal specifically with something in the order of certain types of keys or access systems where there is a substantial cost to replace. This isn't something about getting the key to the door, which is given on every tenancy. This is about identifying where those concerns are. There have been concerns identified by both landlord and tenant groups.
I cannot speak for the budget of the Ministry of Social Services. They will have to adjust accordingly to how legislation passes in this House. We are going to allow for a deposit for certain types of things with regards to that as we prescribe in regulation, and we'll work that out between all parties, including that ministry and the member, if she wants to have input into it, as we do the regulation.
The Chair: For the information of the Chair, there is an amendment sitting on the order paper to section 19. I'm asking the minister when he wants to introduce that.
J. Kwan: The answer that the Solicitor General gave, quite frankly, is not good enough; it's not good enough. You cannot have one branch of the government — in this instance the Solicitor General, who is responsible for the Residential Tenancy Act — say that we're now going to put in a clause that would allow for an extra deposit to be required to secure a tenancy and then, on the other hand, another branch of government, who has had no discussion with the minister on this, affecting hundreds and thousands of people who are the poorest people in the province, who depend on government assistance to have shelter, to have food and in order to survive. If the Solicitor General cannot give reassurances in this House to say that when that extra deposit is required, it will be covered by the Ministry of Human Resources, then the Solicitor General is putting forward a big question mark in terms of security of homes for people on income assistance. Quite frankly, it's not good enough.
It's not good enough for the government to come forward with such a change after supposedly ongoing consultation that this Solicitor General claims he has done, and has not even bothered to walk across the office to his colleague the Minister of Human Resources to say: "By the by, I'm bringing forward this recommendation, and it may well impact hundreds and thousands of your clients. I want to make sure that this is covered off so that their homes — their need for safe, secure housing — will not be jeopardized." The minister hasn't even bothered to do that. It is shocking to me, quite frankly.
We know from the week before, when we debated section 18 on the deposit for pets, that the Solicitor General rose in this House and said that this government is not in the business of providing damage deposits required for pets and that they will provide a damage deposit for humans only, notwithstanding that there are a lot of people on income assistance who have pets, particularly seniors and particularly those on disability. We know that there was no consultation there. I already objected to that issue. But here on the issue around keys, whether it be a security access thing to get in through the main gate or another lock through the building, it's essentially the same. You can't get into your unit with your own key if you can't get through the main gate. Go figure.
It's not that illogical to sort of figure that out and say: "Hey, you know what? If I don't get this access to the main gate, I'm not going to be able to get into my unit." It is the same net effect, and that is that you will not be able to get into your home unless you pay a deposit. That's what this provision is allowing for. It will create tremendous hardships for a lot of people.
[1540]
The opposition will not be supporting this section, section 19, for all the reasons I've highlighted. We will not support a provision that allows for a damage deposit for pets in addition. I am going to move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper relating to section 19, "Limits on amount of deposits." The amendment would strike out the words "either" and "or a pet damage deposit" in section 19(1) and in section 19(2) strike out the letter in parentheses, "(a)," and the last word, "or," then strike out sub-subsection (b) altogether so that the amended motion would read as follows:
On the amendment.
Hon. R. Coleman: We will not be supporting the amendment as put forward by the member. Just so the member can understand, our intention in regulation is that the normal access, which would be the front door into your apartment or the front door of a building, will be
[ Page 4459 ]
covered as part of our standard-form tenancy agreement. The up to $100 is over and above the basic access to a building. It could be something the tenant and landlord would agree to in a tenancy agreement — that somebody wants an electric garage door opener or whatever the case may be — and allow for that. The basic key access is going to be part of the tenancy agreement. The deposit we're talking about is for exceptions over and above that. It's not even actually included in section 19.
With regards to the rest of it, we feel that section 19 covers it. We do have an amendment to section 19(2) that's the clarity of some language, which we'll get to after we deal with the member's amendment.
J. Kwan: Speaking to the amendment, on the issue around the pet deposit I will only simply say this. Requiring a pet deposit will create a two-tier access issue. Those who have the ability to pay will have a better opportunity to get rental accommodation for the purposes of also accommodating a pet. Those who don't have the ability to pay would not have any option open to them when a damage deposit is required for the purposes of a pet. It creates a two-tier system. It's as simple as that. I don't think we want to, in our society, say that if you have money, you can have better access. That's not choice or access, quite frankly.
We should equalize that to give equal opportunity and clarity in legislation to allow people to understand better what is allowed and what is not allowed. I think there should be language that says in the case of pets…. With all of the demonstrated reports — health reports particularly — that say pets are actually good for you, good for a person's health, and that they save government money and save the individual money for better health, it should therefore be something we should support. To create an extra barrier, a financial barrier, I believe is not the way to go. It's regrettable that the government will not be supporting this amendment.
[1545]
K. Johnston: I was going to ask questions of the minister in terms of section 19, but I think it's just as well I give my comments speaking to the amendment.
I'm a great proponent of, certainly, the Fluffy law that was in Ontario. That was dealt with through section 18, which I showed my position on. But to me the objective here, through this whole situation and through this act rewrite, is to get more people, more landlords, to accept the fact that it is important to have pets in rental accommodation. As the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant said, it is a health issue beyond even accommodation or a social housing issue or anything like that.
Through the consultation process that's gone on, the landlord groups and, quite frankly, the pet groups that have come to me have said that one way to do that is, in fact, to have a pet deposit. I think it is counterproductive, frankly, to say that by having a pet deposit, they're going to make pets and accommodation inaccessible. It is extremely important, in my mind. In fact, I was even debating, myself, an amendment in terms of making an additional deposit to one month. That would maybe be prohibitive, so I didn't do that. But I think it is absolutely imperative that we offer an incentive to landlords and tenants and that we do some consensus-building and some trust-building and get on with getting more pets into rental accommodations.
I think the intention of the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant — and my intention is going in the same direction — is trying to get more pets into rental accommodation. I think the ways of doing that are different, so I disagree and will not be supporting the amendment. I want people to have an incentive and landlords to understand the importance of this issue by having a pet deposit of half a month, which people generally, I'm pretty sure, can afford. Because they pay thousands of dollars in vet fees and food and everything else, I think it's critical that we do not support the amendment and we offer that incentive to landlords.
Amendment negatived on division.
Hon. R. Coleman: I move the amendment to section 19(2) standing in my name in the orders of the day:
On the amendment.
Hon. R. Coleman: This clarifies that a landlord and tenant can agree to a security deposit and pet damage deposit of one-half month's rent for each but cannot agree to an amount greater than one-half month's rent. If the tenant pays more than one-half month's rent for either of the deposits, a tenant may deduct the overpayment from rent or otherwise recover the amount through arbitration. Both landlord and tenant groups have told us that the language of section 19(2) is not clear in their minds. It appears to allow the landlord and tenant to agree to deposits in excess of one-half a month's rent, which is not the intent of the legislation.
Amendment approved.
On the main motion.
J. Kwan: On section 19, the issue is still about requiring an extra deposit. The issue is still about whether or not people on low incomes or fixed incomes would actually have the extra money. The fact of the matter is this. When the minister says that the tenancy agreement will be subject to whether or not the landlord and the tenant agree, the reality is this: when the landlord says, "You know what? I'm going to charge you an extra deposit, and if you don't like it, we won't sign the tenancy agreement," that's denying access to a tenancy. Let's just be very clear. The tenant would not be able to say: "No, you can't do that. You cannot deny me access to a tenancy by not signing the agreement." It doesn't allow for that, because the legislation
[ Page 4460 ]
allows for precisely that right to the landlord to deny access to a tenancy. So when the minister says, "Well, gee, don't worry. They will still get a key to their tenancy…." But if the tenancy agreement is not signed on the basis of an extra fee, the person is denied access. That's the reality. That's how it operates out there in the real world.
Section 19 as amended approved on division.
[1550]
Sections 20 and 21 approved.
On section 22.
J. Kwan: On section 22, the start of a tenancy. Tenants groups and others have called for the inspection reports, and generally they see that as a positive thing. The issue, though, is that the consequences for tenants, if they do not participate in the inspection, are very onerous and could be abused by unscrupulous landlords as another way of, quite frankly, ripping off money from tenants with the blessing of government. The reports may also be problematic for tenants and the landlords who perhaps speak English as a second language, who lack literacy skills, etc. This may be taken into consideration when developing the implementation of this….
The Chair: Pardon me, member. I'm sorry — just a clarification. What section are you speaking to?
J. Kwan: On section 23.
The Chair: Section 23. I'm sorry. Shall section 22 pass?
Section 22 approved.
J. Kwan: Sorry, I thought you had passed section 22. My apologies.
On section 23.
J. Kwan: On section 23, Mr. Chair. I thought that you had called section 22, and we were debating section 23.
Just continuing, then, with my comments. The reports may be problematic for tenants and for landlords who perhaps speak a different language or English as a second language, who perhaps lack literacy skills. This, in my view, must be taken into account, into consideration, when developing the implementation of this idea. Will there be public education and communication programs around the inspections report?
Hon. R. Coleman: Of course there will be, because that is something that the tenancy branch undertakes already with the literature that it produces, and we would continue to do that. I think this is actually one of the really positive steps of this particular piece of legislation. I think that the two parties going in, doing an inspection and identifying what the state of the unit is when going into a tenancy is an exceptionally good thing. It works in many jurisdictions around the world, as does the inspection on the way out. This was certainly something that was brought to our attention by both groups, and I think this is something that is a benefit to a tenancy. The member may want to find some fault with it somewhere, of course, but I think this is a step forward. The inspection report will be produced. It will be on line. It will also be available through our tenancy offices. The appropriate educational material, obviously — as we would normally do as part of our day-to-day business — will be developed in order to deal with the issue.
J. Kwan: Let me just share these comments with the Solicitor General. This is from AIDS Vancouver, and here's their concern about the inspection reports clause. Yes, generally speaking, I would concur with that. Having the requirement of the inspection reports is a good thing, because then you know in writing what the status of a particular unit is before a person moves in and when a person moves out. You have it all documented in writing, and that's a good thing.
The issue here is this. From AIDS Vancouver:
[1555]
There are concerns, and I share those concerns, because when I read section 23, the date of the inspection, of course, is established by the landlord. If you're not available to be there, then you run into a problem. If you're not available, there could be a variety of reasons. If you can't make those appointments, then you're deemed to have forfeited your deposit. There's something unjust about that.
The minister says that there will be public education and communication programs around inspection reports. Could the minister please advise what kind of communication or education programs he is planning to implement?
[ Page 4461 ]
Hon. R. Coleman: The time for the inspections has to be mutually convenient to both parties. What we're going to do is work with both the landlords and the tenant groups as we work through the regulations to define what "mutually convenient" is. It's not something you could do at 3 o'clock and then at 3:05 say that you couldn't make it. We're not going to allow abuses of this.
This is something that the industry will adjust to, as will tenants adjust to, simply because it is the right thing to do. The relationship in a tenancy, to actually clearly inspect on the way in and clearly inspect on the way out, so the parties know the state of the unit, and they can take into account normal wear and tear and what have you…. It can actually end up in a mature landlord-tenant relationship between people.
As the member knows, there are 500,000-plus tenancies in British Columbia. There may be some people who are going to think that there's some diabolical way that they're going to abuse the system. We're just not going to allow that. We're going to have strong regulations on how that mutually convenient time and those condition reports will be dealt with. Frankly, given that, this is the right thing to do.
The member asks me what educational materials will be developed. We will be developing the regulations in consultation with the stakeholders in this particular activity, which is tenancy between landlords and tenants. During that period of time we will also develop the materials that we think are necessary as we work through that.
This is a change. This is something that we will work together to make work. It's not something that we're bringing into a piece of legislation so it doesn't work for both landlords and tenants. It's actually something that I think is highly beneficial to both and will actually take an awful lot of the…. In most tenancies — again, you never know — you're going to have abuses on both sides, whether it be landlords or tenants abusing the system with regards to inspections or not, or how they actually take care of their units either as a landlord or a tenant. The intent is to try and get to where we're actually dealing with those issues rather than issues that for the most part, for most people who have a good working relationship between landlord and tenant, should be allowed to continue on.
I'm a big fan of this section, because I think it's important. I think it's important from both parties' aspect, because it actually outlines a very important part of the relationship between the two parties.
J. Kwan: The section actually contradicts itself. Section 23(1) reads as follows: "The landlord and tenant must inspect the condition of the rental unit together on the day the tenancy starts or on another mutually agreed day." That's section 23(1). Then you go to section 23(5): "The landlord may make the inspection and complete the report without the tenant if (a) the landlord has offered the tenant, in accordance with the regulations, at least 2 opportunities for the applicable condition inspection, and (b) the tenant does not participate on either occasion."
[1600]
I understand and I support the intent of this section, and that is to allow for inspections and to make sure that inspections in fact take place and that there would be inspection reports. But you cannot, on the one hand, say that the dates on which those inspections take place should be mutually agreed-to dates between the landlord and the tenant and then later on in the act, in the same section of the act, say: "No, by the way, we changed our minds."
If the landlord sets out those dates and the tenant cannot make those dates, then the tenant would be deemed to have forfeited their right to participate in the inspection report. Then, in that case, unscrupulous landlords…. They're the ones that I'm most worried about.
The Solicitor General is right. Most landlords are probably not unscrupulous. But I also know of landlords that are very unscrupulous. The purpose, I hope, of this act is to make sure, particularly, that those unscrupulous landlords do not get away with taking someone's damage deposit when they're not entitled to do so — that is to say, when there's no damage done to the rental accommodation. This section of the act, section 23(5), allows for that loophole to do exactly that, for the landlord to say: "Here are the dates. If you don't like it, I'm proceeding with it anyway. And you know what? You forfeit your right, and you're not going to get your damage deposit back." That's the concern here.
In my own community, in Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, I can't tell you how many unscrupulous landlords there are, particularly in the downtown east side. Even in the best of times the landlords will not repay the damage deposit — in this instance to the government, because many of them are income assistance recipients. It's not in the best interests of government to allow such a loophole to be in place and for these landlords to exercise that right just to take advantage of tenants and, quite frankly, to take that opportunity to not return damage deposits. It doesn't make sense.
In order to make it far more secure, the clause should simply say that inspection reports should be done either on the day the tenancy starts or on another mutually agreed-to date, and when the tenancy ends or on another mutually agreed-to date — but not both, where the landlord says: "Here's two days, and if you don't like it, too bad for you, and I'm going to keep the deposit."
Could the minister explain the contradictions between section 23(1) and 23(5)?
Hon. R. Coleman: Section 23(1) states that the tenant and landlord must inspect the condition of the rental unit together on the day the tenancy starts or on another mutually agreed-to date. Section 23(5) actually says that the landlord has offered the tenant — as I mentioned in my previous comments to the member, in accordance with regulation — those opportunities. Then I went on to explain to the member that we
[ Page 4462 ]
would actually work with both parties to decide how that mutually convenient time could be defined in regulation so that we would take care of her concern and my concern, which is unscrupulous landlords, on one side of the coin, or tenants that choose to damage a suite and then leave — not come out to an inspection report and leave damage behind.
The intent of this act is to strike a balance. This strikes the balance. I think that when we say "in accordance with regulation," we're clear, and there's no need for any changes to this section.
J. Kwan: No, it isn't clear. When you look at the act, the act says that it is either on a mutually agreed-to date or alternatively, the landlord can set out two dates, two opportunities.
[1605]
The act reads as this: the landlord has offered the tenant, in accordance with the regulations, at least two opportunities for applicable condition inspections. As an example, a landlord offers a person — let's just say for the purposes of fact that we may know this landlord to be unscrupulous and knows that the tenant works evening shifts — two opportunities to do the inspection during a time when the person is working during the evening and the person is unable to attend those inspection times. This will allow the landlord to say: "Hey, I've met section 23(5)'s requirement, and you weren't able to make any of those inspection dates. Therefore, I'm now going to exercise my right to keep the damage deposit." Isn't that a scenario that could happen? Could the minister not anticipate such a scenario? I could, because the legislation allows that. Section 23(5) allows for that scenario to take place.
Hon. R. Coleman: I disagree with the member completely. I don't think it allows for that scenario. You can paint any scenario you want, but the bottom line is that we're going to have defined in regulation what the mutually agreeable times are. I think it will work for industry and for landlords and tenants.
J. Kwan: With all due respect, all the minister has to do is actually bring forward an amendment to this section of the act to make it clear, not just rely on regulation but make it into legislation to make it clear, that the dates have to be mutually agreed to — stop. Then there are no more ifs, ors and buts — no loopholes to it allowed. Then you would have precluded any abuse of the act by any party. You would have stopped the potential for that taking place in the act.
I do have an amendment to that effect, and I don't think it's contrary to the bill. If what the minister says is the intent, it's not contrary. You can put it in legislation as well as in regulation. I think putting it in legislation is a much stronger statement than putting it in regulation. It gives people the reassurance right now, as we're debating this bill, as these sections are being passed in this House, so that people know what their protection and their rights are relating to this.
I will be moving a motion on section 5 relating to that, but before I go there, I would like to touch on section 23(4). The reason I went to section 23(5) first is because 23(1) relates to that. Let me go to section 23(4) for one moment. Section 23(4) reads: "Both the landlord and tenant must sign the condition inspection report, and the landlord must give the tenant a copy of that report within seven days after it is signed."
Again, the clause is good to say that there's a requirement and a time limitation for inspection reports to be made available. The issue is that there is no consequence if the landlord decides to breach section 23(4). If the landlord does not comply with this section, the tenant's obligation to pay rent ought to be suspended until a copy of the report is delivered to the tenant. As soon as the copy of the report is delivered to the tenant, any rent that was not paid to the landlord in reliance on this subsection becomes immediately due and payable. This, of course, would be in keeping with the old section of the current act, section 19(2), where tenants can withhold rent if they sign an agreement and the landlord does not provide a copy within 21 days.
There's an incentive for the landlord to provide a copy of the inspection report. It gives the legislation teeth, in other words. You must do this to comply with the act, and if you don't, there is a consequence. The consequence is a financial consequence that doesn't have to be permanent. It's up to the landlord to act — that is, to provide the report — and then your rent is due immediately to you. Otherwise, the tenant should have the right to withhold the rent until such time….
My question to the minister is: why did the minister decide to change the act from the current 19(2), with a consequence clause that applies, to taking away any consequence if the landlord decides not to provide a report? I know there's a difference. Before it was a tenancy agreement, broadly speaking, and this is an inspection report, but the same principle applies: making sure that written reports are being provided for tenancy agreements and inspection reports are being provided for the tenant. If they don't do that, there's a consequence. The landlord is given an incentive to act.
[1610]
Hon. R. Coleman: We're actually going to deal with this in section 24, but the consequence is that by failure to do this, you are basically giving up your right to make any claim against either the pet deposit or the damage deposit, because you haven't done the condition report.
J. Kwan: The standard tenancy agreement would still apply. If they don't give an inspection report, does that mean to say the landlord forfeits their right to withhold damage deposits, as an example?
Hon. R. Coleman: The consequence in section 24, which is the next section of this act, is that the landlord's right to claim against a security deposit or a pet damage deposit for damage to residential property is extinguished — extinguished — if the landlord does not offer the tenant, in accordance with the terms of regulation, the inspec-
[ Page 4463 ]
tion opportunities — which again it says are as defined in regulation — or if, having made an inspection, he does not complete the condition report and provide the tenant with a copy of it. By not doing so, he is extinguishing his rights to claim against those deposits.
J. Kwan: All that does is say that the standard tenancy agreement would apply — the one the minister presumably would put in regulation. That's all it does. For extra provisions the landlord may want to put in place, they would not have the opportunity to do so. That's what the minister is saying — that it would just be a standard application of the tenancy agreement. What if, at the beginning of the tenancy agreement, the landlord has said, "Hey, you're allowed to have pets, and there will be no extra damage deposits," and that was supposed to be in writing, and then you don't get that report? Then what would apply?
I haven't seen the regulation in terms what the standard tenancy agreement might look like, but presumably it might give language to say that the landlord could apply a damage deposit for pets. I would assume so, because that's what the thrust of this act does and allows for. But it could be a lot simpler than even all of that, simply by putting forward an amendment consistent with the old act that says that if you don't provide the inspection report under this section within seven days…. The intent of that is to say you have to provide a copy of it, and if you don't, there will be a penalty that applies. Your rent could be withheld by the tenant.
I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper:
Amendment negatived on division.
On the main motion.
J. Kwan: Section 25, which is what we were talking about earlier….
The Chair: Sorry, member — 23(5).
J. Kwan: Sorry. Section 23(5) was what we were talking about earlier. Section 23(5) allows the landlord to offer the tenant two opportunities to do an inspection, and if those two opportunities are not taken up by the tenant, according to this act, then the tenant relinquishes his right to the landlord. Again, if the intent of the act is not to allow for that kind of abuse to take place, then legislation should read clearly what it really means and what it really intends.
[1615]
To assist in that effort, I have an amendment to make for section 23(5), to add in the words that are highlighted and the words that are struck out in the amendment that has been shared with the minister and with you, Mr. Chair.
I think that with that amendment, you would make it clear the expectation is for these appointments made for the purposes of the inspection are to be mutually agreed to and the same application of when those appointments are being offered is applied to both the landlord and the tenant in terms of their availability to attend the inspection.
Amendment negatived on division.
On the main motion.
J. Kwan: It's disappointing that an amendment that clarifies a change would not be adopted by the government. This is all related.
Section 23, which talks about the start of a tenancy or a new pet, the condition inspection reports — subsection (6)…. The concern is that it should not be just the landlord who gets to decide and completes the report if the tenant is not available. If on the other side, the landlord is not available when the tenant offers those dates, then the same opportunity that's being offered to the landlord to fill out the report should be offered to the tenant as well, so there is actually incentive on both sides. Right now as the act is written under section 23, it assumes that maybe it's the tenant who is trying to avoid being there or participating during the inspections, but perhaps it's the other way around too.
To equalize that, there should be a clause that should read: "A tenant can complete the inspection report if the landlord refuses to participate." That way, both sides have to live up to and own up to their responsibility. I think that's fair. I don't think it contradicts the intent of the section of the act. So, Mr. Chair, I'm going to put forward another motion — section 23(7), following section 23(6) to read:
Amendment negatived on division.
On the main motion.
[ Page 4464 ]
J. Kwan: Further to preventing abuse by the landlord relating to this, as we often see, unscrupulous landlords actually try to withhold the damage deposit and not return it to the tenant. Under this section of the act there's a loophole that would allow for the landlord to do exactly that: set up inspection dates for which the tenant is not available and do it on two occasions. Then they can actually come forward and say, "Guess what. I'm not going to return your damage deposit," irrespective of whether or not there's actual damage done. By not making the appointment, it allows for a deposit ripoff, potentially, by unscrupulous landlords, and it's wrong.
[1620]
I don't think that's the intent of the act, so we should be very clear in saying what the intent of the act is and to say to unscrupulous landlords: "You cannot use this act as a loophole to get away with that." If a landlord decides to withhold some or all of a damage deposit, the landlord must be required to provide clear proof of the damage in writing. They must provide proof that there is actual damage. If there isn't damage, then they have no right to keep the damage deposit, and that should be explicit in the act.
To that end, I actually have two amendments relating to it.
Then, for a second amendment, for section 23(9):
I've put these into two separate amendments, Mr. Chair — section 23(8) and then 23(9) — and I would move these amendments.
Amendments negatived on division.
The Chair: Shall section 24 pass?
J. Kwan: Given that the government is reluctant to accept any of the amendments that would lay out clearly what the protection ought to be for both the landlords and the tenants with respect to inspections, with respect to damage deposits — who could keep it and when, to ensure that there's no abuse where people would take advantage of tenants and that no abuse would take place within a tenancy across British Columbia that is in a rental accommodation…. I have to say that I'm deeply disappointed with that, and to that end the opposition will not be supporting section 23.
The Chair: Member, we had already passed section 23.
J. Kwan: As amended?
The Chair: There are no amendments, member.
J. Kwan: Sorry, hon. Chair. I put forward the two amendments, and you called the motion on the two amendments, on 23(8) and (9). I heard that that did not pass, but I did not hear the vote to be called on section 23.
The Chair: Just to reassure you, shall section 23 pass?
Section 23 approved on division.
The Chair: We'll have a recess for five minutes.
The committee recessed from 4:23 p.m. to 4:27 p.m.
[J. Weisbeck in the chair.]
On section 24.
J. Kwan: Section 24 is similar to section 23. This clause allows for the landlord to decide, quite frankly, when he or she would pay back a damage deposit, whether it be a security deposit or a pet deposit. The issue remains that if an inspection date is set on two separate occasions and the landlord or the tenant is not able to participate — and particularly in this instance it's the tenant, because it's the landlord who gets to decide what those dates are — when that happens, whatever report is being put out by the landlord is deemed to have been accepted by the tenant. The issue is that both parties should have the right to sign off on the report. You've got to make sure those opportunities are equally available for all parties so that it is not skewed in one way or the other. It's the same issue we were discussing under section 23, for section 24.
[1630]
The people in Terrace have actually raised this issue with their concerns. They suggest that it may well then come down to an issue of he said, she said. Although the bulk of the province's landlords do carry on as reasonable business people, the fact remains that (a) there are landlords out there who don't believe the act applies to them and therefore they're not governed by it; (b) they will find the loopholes to keep every cent they can, even if they're not deserving or entitled to it, really; (c) our current system has a loophole in place for landlords who have no grounds to keep the deposits — many of the clients of this group from Terrace were ones who were not knowledgable of their rights, and by the time they found out they could do something about it, it was well beyond the current allowable time frame for them to do something; and (d) they also find that landlords have missed the 15-day time frame for applying to keep the damage deposit. Then, in fact, when the tenant applied for arbitration, the landlord made a claim under section 84 that exceeded the amount of the security deposit they held. In most cases, because there was no pre-inspection report, it came down to who was more of a credible party.
To fix the problem and to require inspection reports is good, but to not go further to equalize the opportunities for those who decide when inspection dates should
[ Page 4465 ]
be applied and then the consequences of it…. That is to say now, in this instance, the landlord can decide that and fill out the report all on their own without the tenant present. Then it creates a loophole. It creates a loophole for abuse, and the act should be clear in its definition of the times when these inspections should take place. It should be mutually agreed to by the landlord and the tenant. In the minimum, for the penalty to apply, not only should the landlord have the right to just write up the report, but then an alternative should apply. The tenant should also have the right to just write up the report and for that to apply as well.
Section 24, quite frankly, doesn't do the trick. It doesn't do the trick to allow for both parties to have the same rights, and if they need to go to arbitration, they have the same rights to go to arbitration. It does not skew the burden of proof one way or the other. There's a way to fix that.
To that end, there is an amendment standing in my name on the order paper under section 24. The amendment deletes section 24(1), section 24(1)(a), section 24(1)(b) and a small phrase under section 24(2).
Section 24(2): "The right of a landlord to claim against a security deposit…."
The Chair: Member, excuse me for a second. Are you dealing with two separate amendments? I have on the orders of the day…. It looks like two separate amendments to section 24, but they are different. One of them just deals with section 24(1), and then the next one….
J. Kwan: I see.
The Chair: Perhaps we could just deal with section 24(1) first of all.
On the amendment.
J. Kwan: Sure, we can deal with them as separate amendments. That's not a problem. I was going to sort of expedite. I was anticipating that the minister perhaps would not support this, and expedite the process, but we can deal with them separately.
Let's just deal with section 24(1), by deleting the words under section 24(1) and replacing them with the following words: "The consequence of not participating in an inspection is that the landlord or tenant, whichever party did not participate, is considered to have accepted it." That is to say, on the amendment, that both parties have the onus to participate and the responsibility to do so. When they don't, both parties have to deal with the consequences of that, whether it be the landlord or the tenant.
Hon. R. Coleman: Yes, the member is correct. We're not going to support either amendment.
Actually, section 24(1) does what we want it to do and, I think, what the member wants it to do. Again, it's in accordance with regulations relative to the inspections. Again, it actually tells you that the landlord gives up their right to certain things if they don't do certain things, and the same with the tenant. That's where the discipline comes in to make the inspection report work. I'm quite comfortable with it. Frankly, I think the section works fine.
[1635]
In addition to that, landlords that think they can keep damage deposits unscrupulously are also, in this legislation, subject to double the damage deposit having to be paid to the tenants, etc. I think on this one here, I'm quite comfortable with the section, and I don't see any need for any amendment.
J. Kwan: I just want to be clear so that we understand what is being replaced by way of my amendment. The minister says: "Don't worry; everything is fine." Let's just put on record what section 24(1) reads, "The right of a tenant to the return of a security deposit or a pet damage deposit, or both, as applicable, is extinguished if (a) the landlord has offered the tenant, in accordance with the regulations, at least 2 opportunities for the inspection required under section 23(1) or (2)" — which we just finished debating.
That is to say that the tenant loses his right to his damage deposit if the tenant is unable to attend inspection dates that have been set out by the landlord. That's what this section says, and it is penalizing for the tenant. It is unfair for the tenant. Why should the tenant lose that right just because the tenant on two occasions could not meet on the days the landlord says: "These are the dates we're inspecting your suite"?
Alternatively, when a tenant says, "Here are the two dates that I want to do the inspection, landlord, so you must comply with that," why don't we put that provision in place, as well, if we're going to go with this? Both parties can put those demands to say that these are the dates, and if you relinquish your right, then both parties — whoever it is — would have deemed to accept whatever report they put forward. That's fair; it's fair. It doesn't bias one against the other; it doesn't give an advantage to the landlord over the tenant. Both parties have to share the responsibility of making themselves available. Both parties will face consequences when they don't. That's what the amendment does. The amendment reads, "The consequence of not participating in an inspection is that the landlord or tenant, whichever party did not participate, is
[ Page 4466 ]
considered to have accepted it" — accepted the report as put forward.
[H. Long in the chair.]
Amendment negatived on division.
J. Kwan: Then moving the other amendment, section 24(2), by striking out the words…. Before I move that motion, I will yield the floor to the member who wishes to make an introduction.
D. Hayer: I seek leave for an introduction.
Leave granted.
Introductions by Members
D. Hayer: It gives me great pleasure to introduce to the House two special guests: Mr. B. Jaishankar, consul general of India, and Anil Kumar Anand, consul from the Consulate General of India. They were here discussing business opportunities in British Columbia and Canada with my colleagues. Would the House please make them very welcome.
Debate Continued
J. Kwan: The second amendment is specifically related to the pet damage deposit component and to be consistent with all the amendments that I have been moving throughout and to, of course, encourage that landlords not take advantage of tenants on the issue around pet damage deposits and therefore not return pet damage deposits if they're unable to make the two appointments or the two opportunities that the landlord has offered. The amendment would strike out the words "or a pet damage deposit, or both, as applicable."
[1640]
On the amendment.
J. Kwan: This, I think, reverses the onus — not just for pet damage deposits, but actually for both security deposits as well — to say to the landlord: "You do not have the right to actually take away a damage deposit just because someone is not able to make the two opportunities that were offered by the landlord to inspect the suite." Again, it's an attempt to make the application of the act fairer and to make sure that unscrupulous landlords do not take advantage of tenants.
Hon. R. Coleman: Again, we won't be supporting this amendment, but I should just discuss this section as we move forward because we obviously have some concerns with what the member has to say. This section extinguishes the right of a tenant by not attending an inspection in accordance with the regulations on at least two opportunities under section 23(1) and (2). It also extinguishes it if the tenant has not participated on either occasion. It extinguishes it for the landlord if they do not offer, in accordance with the regulation, at least two opportunities for the inspection required on 23(1) and 23(2) and provide a copy of the inspection report with the tenant that they are extinguishing their rights to the pet deposit and/or damage deposit. It's fair for both, and I'm quite comfortable with the section. That's why we don't see any reason for the member's amendment.
Amendment negatived on division.
Sections 24 and 25 approved.
On section 26.
J. Kwan: I see under section 26 on the issue about…. Section 26 deals with the rules about payment and non-payment of rent. The change? Again, this is actually a positive change, but again there is no enforcement associated with this. The enforcement, if you will, is referred to under section 95 of the act in terms of the application of penalties. Could the minister please advise…? I guess I can wait until section 95 to deal with the offences related to it. The concern, of course, is: is there really real teeth in this application if there should be a violation of the act under section 26? I can wait until 95 to discuss the issues around penalties, or we can discuss it now under 26.
Section 26 approved.
On section 27.
[1645]
J. Kwan: This is a big section, section 27. It deals with the termination or restricting of services or facili-
[ Page 4467 ]
ties. The section, which we dealt with earlier in a different section of this act, actually allows for the landlord to terminate a service in a living condition as long as they are able to provide a reasonable substitute. Yet in the first instance where the landlord could withdraw the service, they could only withdraw the service if that withdrawal of the service is deemed to be an essential service. There are two tests that are being applied. One test is that when the landlord withdraws the service, they could only withdraw it if that service is deemed not to be essential. But to replace an essential service, the landlord can then apply a reasonable test, and this, of course, is very concerning for people.
In fact, just this last week when I was in Prince George talking to individual seniors groups, advocacy groups and individuals about this, they were very worried about it because Prince George, of course, has a much colder climate than that of other communities. They start to wonder about replacement of what they deem to be essential services, and a heater was definitely one of them because of the cold climate.
Could the minister please advise what is deemed to be essential? I know we covered this a little bit the week before, but the questions remain. What is deemed to be essential, and what is a reasonable replacement for the essential services or facilities?
Hon. R. Coleman: The member is right. We have discussed this at length, and I see no need to go into another lengthy discussion in and around this, but let me try and clarify it for her a little bit.
A person enters into a tenancy agreement. They're living in an apartment that has a specific kind of heat. Let's say it is electric baseboard heat, and the problem is that the old baseboards collapse. Now, there are two things that need to be done. One is that there needs to be heat for that individual in the period of time that it's getting repaired, and that's a normal tenancy relationship. If the landlord chooses to change within the building from electric baseboard heat to, let's say, forced air heat and it's a reasonable replacement for the previous heat and it's still going to heat the apartment, that's acceptable. It's not acceptable to turn the heat off, because the heat was there at the time of the tenancy, and that is not replacing it at all.
This allows for a couple of things. For instance, in a case in some relationships that I've seen in the past where a building used to be able to get a cable subscription at a cheaper cost for an entire building versus an individual, today the building may be paying for a cable subscription that is standard form to a certain level within a building, and tenants within the building would like to have options that are allowed within the cable system.
The landlord can make the choice and say: "Well, there's a reasonable replacement. I'm charging you $25 a month within your rent today for cable. I am going to cancel that cable, and I'm going to reduce your rent by $25. Now you can go get that service elsewhere because cable is available to the building, and you can now choose whether you want to have the movie channel or whatever else, whether you want to have cable plus the Internet or whatever as part of your service, and you can pay for that."
You have the ability to reasonably replace that service. This does those two things, so I don't think there's any further discussion required with regards to this than we had already. I think that if you enter into a tenancy, you've got heat, light, water and sewer. You expect that heat, light, water and sewer are part of your tenancy. If, for some reason, you use a separate meter, and you're changing the metering in the building for separate electricity — you want to change it, and the landlord wants to do that with the tenant — the tenant can then pay their power directly. That's an option they can have between them as part of their relationship.
J. Kwan: Then is that to say that whatever is written in the tenancy agreement at the time of the tenancy, those services that are being provided for would be deemed to be essential services under the purposes of this act?
[1650]
Hon. R. Coleman: No, member. As I said, this thing does two things — right? In the past it wasn't possible for a landlord to actually legally allow for the change of cable, to be more beneficial to their tenants, because it was already there. This allows for a reasonable relationship between landlord and tenant. What is essential is essential, and certainly cable is not considered to be essential.
This allows for services, but what it does say is that he has to reduce the amount equivalent to the reduction in the value of the tenancy agreement resulting from the termination or restriction of the service or facility. He has to give notice of the termination, and he cannot take out things that are essential to the use of the rental unit as a living accommodation. Certainly, at 30 below zero, heat would be essential.
I think that the reasonable test applies here, and the ability to actually have a relationship between landlord and tenant works. We had this discussion at length prior to adjourning for the week that we were back in our constituencies. I guess we could go around the room and have it again, but I think we have that covered off.
J. Kwan: Well, yes, we had some discussion on this issue. The week that we were not sitting in the House, I went out and talked to other people — not just people from my own constituency but from elsewhere as well. I was in Prince George talking exactly about some of these issues and concerns that people have, particularly seniors, in relation to the withdrawal of services and facilities and what is deemed to be essential and what is deemed not to be essential.
In fact, just now, moments ago, I was chatting with the member for Cariboo South about what is deemed to be essential. It seems to be unclear to both of us what is deemed to be essential. The member for Cariboo
[ Page 4468 ]
South: "Okay, well, then cable would not be deemed to be essential." I said: "What about laundry facilities? Would that be deemed to be essential?"
For seniors particularly, that would be a pretty essential service, because if you have to drag your laundry…. Especially now with home services being cut back substantively, the ability to do your laundry in your own suite is quite essential. Is that deemed to be an essential service? The member for Cariboo South said: "Ask the minister that, so that you know what is deemed to be essential." Here's the question: would laundry facilities be deemed to be essential?
Hon. R. Coleman: Again, is it reasonably able to be replaced within the marketplace somewhere else, and is the rent being reduced accordingly? In most apartment buildings where there is not in-suite laundry, which is usually the machine that is owned by the tenant and sometimes by the landlord…. That is a relationship that's part of what's described in a tenancy agreement with regards to in-suite laundry, whether there's a washer or dryer or not. If it's within the building, it's usually coin-operated. A coin-operated laundry is a commercial enterprise that is not included in the rent of a tenant and is therefore oftentimes, frankly, in my experience that I can remember, a company that would come in and put the machines in. They would operate and maintain the machines and either pay a percentage to the landlord or not, depending on the volume.
Is that an essential service within a building? Not necessarily, if across the street there happens to be a laundromat that can offer the same service for the same price. It's not part of the tenancy agreement. It's not part of the tenancy relationship.
If it's an essential service, there has to be a reasonable substitute available to the tenant. What's the reasonable substitute? I think there is a reasonable substitute in this particular form of discussion, for the member. I think that, you know, we can go by, and the next thing we can decide is whether cable or Internet access or this or that is an essential service.
I think what is essential is the reasonable test as to what is essential to the tenant's use of the rental unit as a living accommodation. That's what it says in the act: what is essential to the tenant's use of that particular thing as a living accommodation. This is what this deals with. It allows for the ability for the two parties, on proper notice, to work out the other.
J. Kwan: I know of tenancies where laundry facilities are being provided for, particularly in secondary suites, where it's not coin-operated. You actually would be able to get access to a shared facility with whoever is living upstairs; in most cases it would be the landlord. Sometimes there might be two or three suites, depending on the size of the site.
[1655]
The fact is that the minister just said that would not be deemed to be essential. Sometimes that's written into the tenancy agreement as well. The question is: how do you determine what is essential? It's unclear in this act.
Is it the requirement that whatever is deemed to be essential has to be written out in the tenancy agreement, then, to say: "These are the essential services"? Now it allows for the withdrawal of services that can only be deemed to be essential — for the landlord to withdraw them and replace them with a lesser test, a reasonable test. How do you establish what is reasonable?
Let's say I was a single parent with two dirty teenaged kids, and I had to go and get laundry done; whereas the accommodation that I used to have actually provided laundry facilities in the building. Even if it was coin-operated, it would be much more convenient for the tenant to be able to do the laundry just downstairs, as opposed to bringing it to a laundromat that may be a block, or two or three or five, blocks away.
Let me tell you, when I was growing up back in 1975 when we first immigrated here, we lived in a basement suite, and there was no laundry facility at that time. It was a family of eight. My brother and sisters and I took laundry six blocks away to do laundry for a family of eight. It's quite an effort with eight people, let me tell you. We were low-income then. To try and save money, we would use the coin-operated laundry machines to wash our clothes, but we would drag the wet clothes back home to hang on the line to dry in order to save money. It's quite onerous, let me tell you. I did it for years and years when I was growing up. When my parents were making a sufficient living to support the family, that's how we saved money. We did all kinds of stuff like that.
It's not inconceivable that those kinds of things occur now. I'm not so privileged as to think I'm very unique in my own ways. There are many people who suffer out there and who don't necessarily have the economic or financial resources for their daily living.
For a senior or for a single mom, it's arguable whether or not laundry facilities are essential. It's not clear under this legislation. Would regulation define what is deemed to be essential and, therefore, what is deemed to be a reasonable replacement for these essential services? We need to know so that people know clearly what their rights are and their protections are and what the expectations could be under this change in this act.
Hon. R. Coleman: That's why you have tenancy agreements. That's why you have an arbitration if the substitute is not considered to be reasonable.
You know — through to the member — you're not the only person that ever came from a large family. You're not the only person. I was raised by a single-income parent in a large family of six children where a grandparent also shared our home with us. We didn't have a dryer; we still took it out and put it on the line. We can draw all kinds of scenarios around this, but the fact of the matter is that this is a reasonableness test,
[ Page 4469 ]
and if it isn't reasonable, they can go to arbitration and deal with the reasonable test.
On the other side of the coin with regards to this, it says that if you're in a basement suite today and you have laundry service and they decide to change that, they also have to reduce your rent accordingly, because it was part of your tenancy, and a reasonable substitution has to be available. It's pretty clear to me. I think it's very clear.
[1700]
You know, the member wants to go and find the one description she can use to say that this isn't going to work in a marketplace, when we actually do have another system here that says if it isn't reasonable…. If you cut off my power and say, "I'm not replacing it," that's not reasonable. It's pretty essential for me to have my power. If you're not giving me another option, if you're not reducing my rent and you're not giving me a choice, then you're not following this section of the act. If you are giving a reasonable replacement and I don't think it's reasonable, I do have the ability to appeal that and deal with it. I think it actually deals with it.
I know we can go today, and you can ask me: "Is grass-cutting essential?" or "Is weeding essential?" or "Is sweeping the hallways essential?" There is a relationship within a tenancy agreement between a landlord and tenant that is defined. On top of that, this act says that essential uses…. A thing "that is essential to the tenant's use of the rental unit as living accommodation" is what the act says, and I'm comfortable with it. The member isn't comfortable with it. You can spend the next hour finding and describing examples as to why you're not comfortable with it, but the fact of the matter is that I think this will work. I think it will work quite well.
J. Kwan: I was very clear in saying that I'm not the only one who comes from a large, low-income family. I'm not. I absolutely know that is the case. There are many people out there who are low-income and who need better living conditions as well — rental accommodations. This provision of the act erodes their living conditions.
What the minister is doing is allowing landlords to take away services, and two applications of tests are being applied. Services could be taken away and replaced with only a reasonable test, but when you take the services away, the test that would apply would be an essential test. It is unclear to me, to members of this House and to many British Columbians what the application is in determining what is essential and what is not and what a reasonable replacement is. Two weeks ago the minister said in this House: "To replace a central heating system with a space heater is a reasonable replacement." I was just up at Prince George talking to people, and people in Prince George say that is not a replacement.
Hon. R. Coleman: I never said that. You are incorrect.
The Chair: Order, order. The member has the floor.
J. Kwan: I got a straight look in Hansard. What the minister said is there on the record. People in Prince George raised the issue when I was up there. They said: "That may very well be fine in the lower mainland" — even then, I don't think it's fine in the lower mainland — "because the weather conditions are different." People say that for what is reasonable and what is essential in different regions, there are different tests to be applied.
It is unclear as to what the test is and its application in determining essential services that can now be withdrawn and what replacements are deemed to be reasonable. The minister is unwilling to answer those questions, yet he is very prepared to put in a piece of legislation that would, in my view, erode tenants' rights and protections.
The minister says: "Don't worry. When services are taken away, they will also have a reduction in rent." But who gets to decide how much the value of that service is? Is it on actual costs to replace that service?
I know the minister doesn't like examples, but it's the only way that I can try to determine what "essential" and "reasonableness" in this instance mean. You have to use examples to establish and to gauge what would be deemed reasonable and essential. The minister doesn't like that.
When I talk about laundry facilities, maybe it's not an essential service in the mind of the minister, but as I say, that may well be an essential service for many people. What is a reasonable replacement when you say to somebody: "There's a laundry facility five blocks down. You go down there and do your laundry. What's wrong with you? Can't you walk?" Well, that might be a problem for people who have disabilities. It might be a problem for people who are old and frail, as an example. Those are not easy tasks — not easy tasks at all.
[1705]
I'll give you another example in Prince George once again. This, to me, is not reasonable at all, but it happened. To me, that ought to be deemed to be an essential service, as we were talking about landlord-tenant issues. There was a building, a B.C. Housing building no less, where the elevator broke down five months ago. Five months ago the elevator broke down, in May. The tenants complained to management. Management flat out said: "We don't have the dollars to fix it at this time, so you just have to wait." Well, there were people who were disabled living in that building of five storeys. The tenants were told: "Don't worry, but just stay in your suite."
Well, what if you have a medical appointment? What if you want to go out and buy groceries? The elevator was not fixed until October. That's the reality. That's what the people in Prince George that I visited told me about their scenario. Many of the people who lived in the building were seniors, and they were homebound because they could not get down the stairs. Some of them are disabled and could not get down the stairs. Their rents didn't decrease. An essen-
[ Page 4470 ]
tial service was taken away, in my view, and nothing was done.
This act allows them to do exactly that, and it's happening right now, and for the minister to just sit there and say: "Hey, don't worry; be happy; your rents will be reduced…." In some cases, even reducing the rent is not going to help. And where's the answer? Where's the protection in an act that's supposed to provide protection for both landlords and tenants when in fact, under this section of the act, it's anything but?
I'd like to know who gets to decide the amount of the reduction of the rent. What if there's a disagreement to that? I'll use the example of a single parent again. This is a live example that was given to me by a tenancy advocate group. For a single parent with two kids, doing laundry perhaps costs them $20 to $30 a week. Is it on actual cost when a service is being denied and taken away that was previously there? Is it actual cost, and their rent would be reduced correspondingly? Who gets to decide?
Hon. R. Coleman: Let's first of all be clear that if an elevator wasn't working in a B.C. Housing building, they could have done an application for a repair order to the residential tenancy office. That's nothing to do with this act. That's the legislation that's presently in place. If I were the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and I heard that, I would by now have at least called the minister responsible for B.C. Housing from the Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services and asked them to look into it and see where the fairness was.
J. Kwan: It was fixed in October — five months.
Hon. R. Coleman: It was fixed in October, so what about the compensation backwards? That's fine, hon. member, but you know….
Interjection.
Hon. R. Coleman: The member wants to go off on a couple of tangents. One is that…
Interjection.
The Chair: Order, member.
Hon. R. Coleman: …there's an erosion of living conditions as a result of somebody actually replacing one service with another that's of a reasonable value, between two people, that's agreed to by a landlord and a tenant. If they don't agree to it, they can go to arbitration. That's there today. The ability to apply for a repair order is in this act today. That part doesn't change.
What this section is to capture is the things that have caused difficulty for both parties with regards to things that in actual fact sometimes can be a benefit to both parties. If they want to have a service that presently is in place and that they want to change for the mutual benefit of both parties, it says very clearly that it has to be given with 30 days' written notice. It has to be in the approved form. They have to reduce the rent in the amount that is equivalent to the reduction in the value of the tenancy agreement resulting from the termination or restriction of the service or the facility.
[1710]
It says it must not terminate or restrict a service or facility that is essential to the tenant's use of the rental unit as a living accommodation. If a landlord does that and it's deemed to be essential by the tenant, the tenant can go to an arbitrator and have that overturned. When a reasonable substitute test is applied to things like cablevision and what have you, I think that's a fair application of the act.
You know, hon. member, the erosion of living conditions in this province is something I'm concerned about across the board in tenancies, and that's why I've actually been an advocate for this particular piece of legislation. If we don't get some stability and some understanding in the relationships between landlords and tenants, nobody's going to build any housing. Nobody's going to build any rental accommodation, and the erosion will take place because nobody will reinvest in their properties — as is happening in some of the major municipalities in our province today, where they actually let the building go down to the point where they just demolish it and we lose the housing completely. It's replaced with market housing that isn't available for rental.
I'm concerned that we have to bring stability into and have reasonable rules in tenancies, and I think these are reasonable rules that can be applied by reasonable people. We'll deal with those who abuse, but the fact of the matter is there is the ability to go to arbitration if you think that something essential has been removed from you. You can go and make your case and have that discussion. I don't see anything wrong with that.
J. Kwan: The problem is that the Solicitor General is blind to the fact that there are two tests to be applied. The test for when a landlord can withdraw a service in section 27(1) reads: "A landlord must not terminate or restrict a service or facility (a) that is essential to the tenant's use of the rental unit as living accommodations." Then (b) reads: "…that cannot, or for which a reasonable substitute cannot, be purchased by that tenant."
The test and the word that should be used should be "reasonable" test, not an "essential" test, when the landlord decides what service to withdraw. Then it would be fair, but it isn't. There are two tests to be applied, and the landlord can only not provide a service when it's deemed to be essential. It's a much harder test to apply than the test of reasonableness. Yet for its replacement, a landlord can apply a reasonable test, and there's something wrong with that.
The Solicitor General said, "Hey, go and talk to the minister responsible for housing for compensation," and, absolutely, I will be doing that. I will absolutely be doing that on behalf of the people who raised the issue with me. I certainly hope that the Solicitor General…. It
[ Page 4471 ]
sounded to me like he actually supported compensation for the period of May to October for the tenants who did not have the elevator service because it was not fixed. I certainly hope that's the case, and I will be following up with the ministers on this issue.
To make the act fair, I have an amendment standing in my name on the order paper to section 27. The amendment:
On the amendment.
J. Kwan: That's my amendment to section 27. To be fair, both tests should be the same tests that should be applied for withdrawing a service and for replacing it — tests of reasonableness. That would make the act fair in its application. If the Solicitor General wishes to be fair, then I hope he would support this amendment.
Hon. R. Coleman: I think we are being fair and the section is fair, so we won't be supporting the amendment. Just for the hon. member, for clarification for the people that you spoke to in Prince George, they can apply for arbitration to be compensated for the loss of a service, and an arbitrator can rule for them for compensation. I hope that's the minimum advice you gave them when you met with them with regards to that particular issue. I would also, at the same time, encourage you to talk to the minister responsible for B.C. Housing.
[1715]
J. Kwan: When I met with the seniors, the elevator service was withdrawn from them in May, and they didn't get a replacement until October. And yes, the seniors know about the Residential Tenancy Act, but do you know what they're also worried about? Even though it's a government building, they worry about eviction. They worry about making too much noise. They worry about losing their homes. That's what they said to me. They actually didn't do anything.
Yes, they can apply to an arbitrator, but under this section of the act, if that were to happen today, there's a big question mark even in my own mind in this whole debate whether or not the loss of an elevator service is a loss of an essential service. It's unclear to me whether or not it is and what would be deemed to be a reasonable replacement. Maybe the minister will say the stairs would be a reasonable replacement.
That's the reality of it. The minister, the Solicitor General, just tried to backtrack, because what he said earlier was that if they lost the service…. I had actually said they lost the service and that it was replaced. That was back in October. They lost the service from May to October, and it wasn't replaced. It's now replaced. We're now in November, and it was just replaced.
The minister said they should apply to the minister for compensation. I thought the minister, the Solicitor General, was going to rise up in this House to say that the minister responsible for housing should be compensating the people who live in this building that had lost their elevator service for close to five months, but it seems like the Solicitor General is now backtracking on that.
And no, section 27 is not fair. To apply one test of essentialness and another test of reasonableness is not fair at all. There's nothing fair about two standards of tests being applied for services that would be withdrawn for people who are renters in this province.
Amendment negatived on division.
[1720-1725]
Section 27 approved on the following division:
|
YEAS — 64 |
||
|
Falcon |
Coell |
Hogg |
|
L. Reid |
Halsey-Brandt |
Whittred |
|
Hansen |
Bruce |
Santori |
|
van Dongen |
Barisoff |
Roddick |
|
Wilson |
Masi |
Lee |
|
Murray |
Plant |
Campbell |
|
Collins |
Clark |
Bond |
|
de Jong |
Stephens |
Abbott |
|
Neufeld |
Coleman |
Chong |
|
Penner |
Jarvis |
Anderson |
|
Orr |
Harris |
Nuraney |
|
Brenzinger |
Belsey |
Bell |
|
Mayencourt |
Trumper |
Johnston |
|
Bennett |
R. Stewart |
Hayer |
|
Christensen |
Krueger |
McMahon |
|
Bray |
Les |
Locke |
|
Nijjar |
Bhullar |
Bloy |
|
Suffredine |
Cobb |
K. Stewart |
|
Visser |
Lekstrom |
Brice |
|
Sultan |
Hamilton |
Sahota |
|
Hawes |
Kerr |
Manhas |
|
|
Hunter |
|
|
NAYS — 2 |
||
|
MacPhail |
|
Kwan |
Section 28 approved.
On section 29.
J. Kwan: I'll be quick on section 29. Just for the members' information, I'll be calling division on this
[ Page 4472 ]
section as well, so you may or may not want to hang tight. It's entirely up to you.
Interjection.
J. Kwan: I won't be very long on 29. I'm simply offering this information by way of providing a courtesy to the members so they don't have to run up and down the stairs. It's entirely up to them how they want to deal with this matter.
On section 29 the concern, of course, that has been raised by the members of the public is that it opens the door for abuse. What section 29 does is allow for the landlord to inspect a suite on a monthly basis. I know that the government, the Solicitor General, wants to make the argument that it is to deal with illegal activities — grow ops and the like.
However, it also increases the possibility of invasion of privacy. This is particularly a problem for residents of Vancouver-Burrard, where inspections have been used as an excuse for management to abuse and to, quite frankly, harass tenants, particularly women, who are very vulnerable. During second reading debate I actually brought the matter before this House from an article relating to exactly that. There are apparently another ten buildings just in Vancouver-Burrard which are dealing with these kinds of concerns.
I think the amendment is not sound, and I'm going to move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper under section 29.
On the amendment.
Hon. R. Coleman: We will be opposing this amendment. The fundamental right of somebody that is renting out a piece of property that they own and pay a mortgage on and have made an investment in to inspect it from time to time is reasonable. There's 24 hours' notice here and not more than 30 days' notice before the entry. The date and time of entry have to be identified to the tenant, which is between 8 a.m. and 9 p.m., unless the tenant otherwise agrees. I think it's reasonable to expect that we would have that take place in a relationship where there's a substantial asset involved here.
In addition to that, it is a clause which does allow us to deal with an ongoing problem that's a problem in every riding in this province, and that's the insidious situation with regards to grow ops in our community and with regards to illegal activity. I think landlords have the right to inspect their property, with proper notice, once a month. I don't see that as an invasion of anybody's rights. It's in the agreement between the landlord and tenant. It's in the act, which says the inspection can take place. An inspection can take place today, but, you know, we just want to make it clear that that inspection can take place once a month.
I thought, frankly, we'd dealt with the member's concern on this issue when we first debated this act. She was concerned that somebody would be doing an inspection every day or every two or three days to invade the privacy of an individual in tenancy. I'm quite comfortable with the section.
[1730]
J. Kwan: Just a quick comment. How would you like it if someone came into your home every month for no particular reason, just because they want to inspect, just because you're a renter? How would you like that? That's not an invasion of privacy? Unbelievable.
Amendment negatived on the following division:
[1735]
|
YEAS — 2 |
||
|
MacPhail |
|
Kwan |
|
NAYS — 64 |
||
|
Falcon |
Coell |
Hogg |
|
L. Reid |
Halsey-Brandt |
Hawkins |
|
Whittred |
Hansen |
Bruce |
|
Santori |
van Dongen |
Barisoff |
|
Roddick |
Wilson |
Masi |
|
Lee |
Murray |
Plant |
|
Campbell |
Collins |
Clark |
|
Bond |
de Jong |
Stephens |
|
Abbott |
Coleman |
Chong |
|
Penner |
Jarvis |
Anderson |
|
Orr |
Harris |
Nuraney |
|
Brenzinger |
Belsey |
Bell |
|
Mayencourt |
Trumper |
Johnston |
|
Bennett |
R. Stewart |
Hayer |
|
Christensen |
Krueger |
McMahon |
|
Bray |
Les |
Locke |
|
Nijjar |
Bhullar |
Bloy |
|
Suffredine |
Cobb |
K. Stewart |
|
Visser |
Lekstrom |
Brice |
|
Sultan |
Hamilton |
Sahota |
|
Hawes |
Kerr |
Manhas |
|
Hunter |
||
The Chair: Shall section 29 pass? Division has been called. Committee agrees to waive the time.
Section 29 approved on the following division:
|
YEAS — 64 |
||
|
Falcon |
Coell |
Hogg |
|
L. Reid |
Halsey-Brandt |
Hawkins |
|
Whittred |
Hansen |
Bruce |
|
Santori |
van Dongen |
Barisoff |
|
Roddick |
Wilson |
Masi |
|
Lee |
Murray |
Plant |
|
Campbell |
Collins |
Clark |
|
Bond |
de Jong |
Stephens |
|
Abbott |
Coleman |
Chong |
|
Penner |
Jarvis |
Anderson |
|
Orr |
Harris |
Nuraney |
|
Brenzinger |
Belsey |
Bell |
|
Mayencourt |
Trumper |
Johnston |
|
Bennett |
R. Stewart |
Hayer |
|
Christensen |
Krueger |
McMahon |
|
Bray |
Les |
Locke |
|
Nijjar |
Bhullar |
Bloy |
|
Suffredine |
Cobb |
K. Stewart |
|
Visser |
Lekstrom |
Brice |
|
Sultan |
Hamilton |
Sahota |
|
Hawes |
Kerr |
Manhas |
|
|
Hunter |
|
|
NAYS — 2 |
||
|
MacPhail |
Kwan |
|
On section 30 (continued).
J. Kwan: On section 30, I think this is a simple issue, a simple point. We just had an election, a municipal election that took place across the province.
The Chair: Will the members please clear the House as quickly as possible. The members will take a five-minute recess.
The committee recessed from 5:38 p.m. to 5:42 p.m.
[H. Long in the chair.]
On section 30 (continued).
Hon. R. Coleman: I move the amendment that sits with the Clerk with regards to section 30.
On the amendment.
J. Kwan: Actually, after the vote on the previous section of the act, the suggestion that I was going to make was precisely to amend section 30(2) to ensure that all people who are seeking election during an election — all candidates seeking election and their designate — would actually be able to go and canvass in various different buildings, to allow for that. As it stands right now, the omission in this situation…. Section 30(2) actually excludes "park board." I know that "park board" is not applicable in all municipalities across British Columbia, but it certainly is applicable under the Vancouver municipal election; we just had one this last Saturday.
The amendment being put forward by the Solicitor General is consistent with the suggestion that I was going to make in terms of making sure that those candidates who are seeking election for whichever office — municipally, provincially or federally — would actually have access to residential properties to canvass during election times. I would be in support of this amendment.
Hon. R. Coleman: This amendment extends the protection of the act to candidates seeking election to the Islands Trust, improvement districts, parks boards under the Vancouver Charter and the Francophone Education Authority under the School Act, which was the intent that we both…. It was just that counsel felt that this particular drafting was the one they could support with regards to the amendment to the legislation. It is the intent to make it so it's possible for people to have access relative to elections and being able to canvass during election periods.
Amendment approved.
Section 30 as amended approved.
Sections 31 and 32 approved.
On section 33.
J. Kwan: Section 33 lists the kinds of things that would be included as or deemed to be emergency repairs. Under this section, though, it has excluded or does not include electrical systems.
[1745]
Electrical systems. One would, I think, agree that emergency repairs to what needs to be fixed are necessary for health and safety reasons. Therefore, I think it's reasonable to include electrical systems under emergency repairs. Could the minister please advise: is there a reason why electrical systems are not included in this list as we're defining emergency repairs?
Hon. R. Coleman: If I could encapsulate it, things like major leaks in the pipes or the roof; damage from blocked water or sewer systems or to the primary heating system, which could be electrical heating, boiler or whatever the case may be; things for the health and safety of anyone or for the protection and use of residential property and that's urgent…. I think that encapsulates it. The reason, in discussions about whether you try and define electrical, is then that because of the different things electricity is used for — with regards to
[ Page 4474 ]
whether it's the 220 wiring to the stove versus whatever the case may be….
The concern we had was that gets it too broad and actually could lead to abuse, for somebody who's saying: "I'm going to go in and check, for emergency purposes, the electricity." I think we cover the risks in the section under emergency repairs by saying it's urgent, it's necessary for the health and safety of anyone or for the preservation or use of the residential property and it's made for the purpose of repairing certain things like the primary heating system. I think we have it covered. I would be interested to see how the member would deal with electrical from her perspective, but I do know that there were some concerns in and around what level of definition you would take that to.
J. Kwan: The way I read this section of the act, it's not explicit in including electrical systems as a component for the purposes of repair to be defined as emergency repair. I know a lot of people would not want to do home repairs on electrical systems, because it is work that requires high qualifications. If something goes wrong, if you hook up the wrong wires and all that kind of stuff, people could actually get electrocuted. It is a big concern.
To me, electrical systems would be an item you would want to define very specifically. Major leaks in pipes or the roof are not electrical systems. Damage from blocked water or sewer pipes or plumbing fixtures — that's not electrical. The primary heating system is not electrical. There's damage to defective locks that give access to a rental unit, and then the last one is prescribed circumstances of a residential unit or property.
It's sort of pretty basic in terms of electrical systems, so I would simply just amend section 33(1) by adding a subsection, subsection (5), and move the existing subsection (5) to subsection (6) and just simply add in the electrical systems. To that end, I actually have this amendment standing on the order paper in my name with that addition, adding the electrical systems under section 33(5) and then moving the existing subsection (5) into subsection (6).
I would move the amendment.
On the amendment.
Hon. R. Coleman: I just want to have a look at the proposed amendment by the member. I guess if we're understanding that in the description here, an emergency repair means repairs that are urgent, that are necessary for the health and safety of anyone or for the preservation or use of the residential property and that are made for the purpose of repairing major leaks, damage or blocked water and the primary heat system, and if you included the electrical system in that definition, you'd probably be all right.
[1750]
My understanding of this is that it's not an overly used section, because it has to be urgent. If the tenant actually calls somebody out at night and it wasn't urgent or necessary for health or safety, there can be costs back and forth between the call-out costs relative to it not having been a real emergency. I don't think that amendment — if I can get just a second to look at it — is something that, given the definition of (a) and (b) in front of section 33(1)(c), is really that problematic. Let me just have a quick look at it.
J. Kwan: Maybe this will help the Solicitor General as well. If the Solicitor General is somehow worried that there might be some electrical fixtures that might not fall into the emergency repair category…. Obviously, as the minister had said, it has to be urgent and has to be health and safety related. In my understanding of most situations where electrical systems become a problem, usually it's pretty urgent, and usually people's health and safety are in jeopardy.
Hon. R. Coleman: It's fine, I think, if we use "electrical system" and not "electrical fixture." In actual fact, it may prove to be a benefit with regards to some of the hard wiring that takes place with regards to people going direct and bypassing meters, with regards to marijuana grow operations. It may give us some more latitude relative to our ability to inspect that or move on that for an emergency repair with regards to that. We're actually going to support the amendment.
Amendment approved.
Section 33 as amended approved.
On section 34.
J. Kwan: Section 34 deals with assignment and subletting. In this section there isn't anything that talks about whether or not a landlord could unreasonably withhold permission for a new roommate in a particular tenancy. Is it the intent of the legislation under section 34 to allow for people to have roommates when that should come up, even though that might not be in the original tenancy agreement when the person first moved in? Is the intent to not allow
[ Page 4475 ]
for landlords to unreasonably deny roommates in particular tenancies?
Hon. R. Coleman: I don't actually interpret — maybe the member can tell me why she is — that this is actually dealing with roommates.
This is about assigning a tenancy agreement or subletting a rental unit that's in a tenancy agreement to someone else. It's not a case of a roommate. The tenancy agreement should say: "I rent the unit to you." I don't know that tenancy agreements say, "I rent it to you," and list the names of every one of your children if you happen to have children. This is about if I choose to move out of the unit and want to sublet it, or if I choose to move out of it and want to assign the tenancy agreement. The assignment cannot be unreasonably withheld by the landlord. If the tenancy agreement is for six months or more, that protects the longer term lease arrangements. A landlord couldn't unreasonably withhold it and say, "Okay, now you have to pay me out the last six months of the agreement," because he can't unreasonably withhold that. At the same time, it says they would have to consent in writing to sublet for less than that. That is subletting or assigning the agreement.
I think it's fair that a landlord should know if a tenancy agreement they are in is being assigned. They should be party to that agreement. The landlord can't charge the tenant anything for considering, investigating or consenting to an assignment or sublease under this section.
It really doesn't have to do with…. My experience when I've rented has been, you know, you're renting, and somebody's on the tenancy agreement. But that doesn't mean I can't, if I have a two-bedroom apartment, have my friend move in and share the costs with me. But I'm the tenant. This is about if I chose to sublet that unit to somebody else and walk away from it. It's my responsibility.
[1755]
J. Kwan: I'm glad to hear that. If the intent of the section is not to let landlords unreasonably withhold permission for a new roommate, then that's good news. I do know people who, from time to time…. At the beginning of a tenancy it might just be them, and then they're look for roommates to reduce the cost. Later on they may actually have another roommate. It's not a matter of subletting or anything like that.
I understand that for the purposes of subletting and so on, you should get the consent of the landlord and all that, because it becomes a different person. You are actually entering into the tenancy agreement with the people who have sublet. The case of a roommate is entirely different. It would be good, in my view, to say explicitly that the landlord is not there to prevent or deny roommates from accessing rental accommodations once tenancy agreements have been entered into.
The amendment that I am putting forward, which is standing in my name on the order paper, is on section 34(4):
That's a new subsection (4) to make it clear that roommates should not be unreasonably denied by landlords.
On the amendment.
Hon. R. Coleman: I don't think we'll be supporting the amendment. This act deals with the relationship between landlords and tenants in the tenancy agreement. I'm the tenant, and I have a relationship with the landlord.
If it was a case where some landlords might say, "I'm only renting you one room, so you really can't move three more people in there," I think that is between a landlord and a tenant. We protect them with regards to the assignment of a tenancy and the ability to sublet. If there's a roommate involved on the way in, maybe they both want to be party to the tenancy agreement. That's a choice they can make with the landlord.
I don't think we need to try to…. I don't think it even fits within this section of the act, to be honest with you, Mr. Chair, but I'm not going to ask for a ruling on whether it's in order or not. I just don't think it's something we need to support with regards to this section. This is about landlords and tenants. Frankly, to me that's the relationship in the tenancy agreement. I think it shouldn't be necessary to put that into this section.
J. Kwan: The test to apply here to determine whether or not a new roommate or roommates would be entitled would be a test of reasonableness — that is, that the landlord could not unreasonably deny someone a roommate. If the suggestion is that there is a bachelor suite, and one person who has entered into a tenancy agreement then wants to bring in three other people as roommates into a bachelor suite, then the test of unreasonableness may well apply in that instance. In other circumstances, maybe there's a space that could be shared. There's a test to be applied here in terms of what is reasonable and what is not reasonable, and when permission could be provided and when roommates should be denied. That's the intent behind the amendment.
I think it's actually consistent with the intent of the legislation, but makes it clearer. It clarifies for landlords and tenants what the requirements are under this act, by explicitly saying that landlords shall not unreasonably withhold permission for a new roommate. That's the intent of the amendment.
[ Page 4476 ]
Amendment negatived.
Section 34 approved.
The Chair: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant on section 35 — noting the time.
J. Kwan: How time flies when we're having fun. Noting the time, I move that the committee recess until 6:35.
Motion approved.
The committee recessed from 6 p.m. to 6:38 p.m.
[J. Weisbeck in the chair.]
On section 35.
J. Kwan: Section 35 deals with the condition of inspection report at the end of a tenancy. We dealt with an earlier section at the beginning of the tenancy. The application, in terms of the argument that I'm making, would apply in both instances, and that is to ensure that there is fairness with respect to inspection reports and at what juncture one gets to deem that a particular inspection report should simply be accepted if one party's unable to participate in the inspection. Right now, with the act skewed towards benefiting the landlord — that is to say, if the landlord sets out the dates for the tenant to do the inspections and the tenant is not available on two occasions — the landlord can just simply determine that, whatever the content, the report is to be accepted by the tenant.
In order to make the system fair, to make the act fair in its application, I would argue that the flip side should also apply. If a tenant is available, but on the other hand, if a landlord is not available, then the tenant can complete the inspection report if the landlord refuses to participate or is not available to participate. I think that would make it fair, because otherwise the penalties, if you will, would only be applicable for the tenant but not on the other side.
[1840]
I'd like to ask the minister — perhaps his answer is the same as the other section: what is the rationale for only applying the ability to deem that an inspection report is accepted by the tenant if the tenant is not available? What is the rationale for not allowing for the flip argument to be made if the landlord is not available?
Hon. R. Coleman: It's the same discussion as we had on the previous section. If the landlord fails to do it, in the next section he extinguishes his rights to the damage deposit. If the tenant refuses to do it, they extinguish their right to the damage deposit. We said we would define in the codes and regulation the opportunities for the inspection under subsection (1). I think it's exactly the same discussion, and I think it's fine.
J. Kwan: Well, the section is problematic from my point of view in that it doesn't say explicitly that if a landlord refuses to participate, then the tenant can complete the inspection report. I think that should be explicit. I think it should say that to equalize the application of the law, the legislation, and to say that both parties are equally responsible and not just the one party.
Mr. Chair, to address this issue, I have an amendment standing in my name on the order paper under section 35, and I move the motion.
Amendment negatived on division.
Section 35 approved on division.
On section 36.
J. Kwan: The comments that I have for section 36 are essentially the same comments I would use for section 24, because those two sections are interrelated. Therefore, I won't repeat the comments I've already made under section 24. I would simply not support section 36, to be consistent.
The Chair: Member, you have an amendment.
Interjection.
Section 36 approved on division.
On section 37.
J. Kwan: Section 37 deals with the time, to be more specific, for the tenant to leave at the end of a tenancy. The trouble I have with the act as it stands now is that the requirement for the tenant to vacate the unit is by 1 p.m. on the day the tenancy ends. The 1 p.m. time on the day when the tenancy ends is problematic, because oftentimes, if you're a tenant moving into a new suite or unit, the landlord on the other side normally doesn't allow for move-in until the first day of the month. That could mean that the tenants are essentially without a place to stay for a day, and that, in my view, is problematic.
[1845]
This could be avoided, of course, if we switched the time to noon of the date the rent is due, so it brings it to the next day, when the rent is due — you're no longer paying rent, and then obviously you should be moving out — but not the day before the tenancy agreement ends. Usually you've already paid for the extra half-day when the tenancy agreement ends according to this time, but still you're required to be out. I think it can potentially cause problems for a lot of prospective tenants. It is good, though — I should also suggest — to actually lay out a time so that people know clearly when they're supposed to move out, but the time that is stipulated in this section of the act does create a problem for a lot of people. This issue's been raised by
[ Page 4477 ]
a variety of people who have been tenants, who are tenants, from the tenancy advocacy groups, TRAC and, of course, those who are doing advocacy elsewhere — in particular, the people in Terrace.
I wonder if the minister could address this concern in terms of the lapse in time potentially causing some tenants to be without a place to stay. Even though they've paid rent for the entire day, they have to move out by 1 o'clock.
Hon. R. Coleman: This is one of those little problematic areas in tenancies. One of the problems we've experienced is that midnight is considered to be when you have to move out, because that's when your rent goes to. It's never been defined in legislation, so it's caused some difficulty for arbitrations.
We think the tenant and landlord can agree to a different time but that defining a time actually may allow for some more constructive move-ins and move-outs for both parties, both the one that's moving out at 1 o'clock on the day but also the one that's going to be occupying the tenancy, so they have time to either clean it or turn it over and vice versa when they're moving in. If they are moving into another one that afternoon or evening, they would know theirs would also be vacant and available to them.
It basically allows for the landlord and tenant to otherwise agree, but it identifies the time. That's 1 p.m. on the day the tenancy ends. I think we're quite comfortable with that.
J. Kwan: The Solicitor General keeps on saying he's comfortable with everything. The issue is not really, quite frankly, about his level of comfort. It is about the application of fairness. Here you have an instance where a tenant would have paid for the full day of rent on the last day of his tenancy, but according to this act, the person would be required to move out by 1 o'clock. In some cases, people may not have secured another place to which they can move in by 1 o'clock, and that creates a problem. So in that instance, even though your rent is paid for the entire last day, would the person then get a refund because they have to now move out for 1 o'clock?
Hon. R. Coleman: One o'clock will work, and the landlord and tenant can otherwise agree. I think that's fine.
J. Kwan: Well, the minister still has not answered my question. My question is very specific. You've paid your rent as a tenant until the very last day. Let's just say, for the purposes of discussion, that last day happens to be the 31st, and you've paid the entire month's rent. This act says you have to move out by 1 o'clock, even though you have paid for the rent until the very last day. Would the tenant then get a refund? The tenant doesn't get to stay there until the end of that very last day, because it's deemed by this legislation the end of that last day is now 1 p.m.
Hon. R. Coleman: I guess that's why we have legislation that sets out the rules, and that's one of the rules we're setting out. A landlord and tenant can otherwise agree. They can put it in a tenancy agreement if they want to. We're saying this is a standard to be applied, if they haven't agreed otherwise. I think that's fine. The member may want to say: "Gee, let's make it 1 o'clock the next day." Still, the same problem will exist.
This is what we think is fair. We think it will work. If there's a problem, the landlord and tenant can otherwise agree to a different time, and so we're allowing it to be enabling.
[1850]
J. Kwan: No, the same problem would not exist, and that's precisely my point. If you move the time to the next day, let's say noon on the 1st of the month — usually when a person moves in and pays rent at the beginning of the month, the first of the month — you have paid rent for the next suite at the beginning of the month so you can actually move in at the beginning of the month. Yet here you have a scenario where you're being asked to pay rent by legislation until the end of the day the tenancy ends, but you have to move out earlier even though you have paid for it.
It's like going to a hotel, and you have a rented hotel room for, let's say, two days. Then the requirement by legislation would be such that on the second day of your stay, you have to be out by 1 o'clock. How does that make sense? I've paid for the whole day. Shouldn't I get to actually stay for the whole day, at least the full 24 hours? In fact, in the hotel business they let you stay until usually around noon or one or two the next day.
I don't have a problem setting a prescribed time. What I have a problem with is setting the time earlier than when the person has actually paid for the tenancy, so that they have to move out earlier than what they have already paid for. That, to me, doesn't make sense. That, to me, is not a fair application. If you've paid for it, you should actually be entitled to use that space until the expiry time. That expiry time should be the full time which you have paid for, for the rental space. Usually on a month-to-month tenancy it's from the 1st of the month until the last day of the month, the full 24 hours, not partway through. That's where I have the problems with it.
The Solicitor General says: "I'm fine with it. I'm fine with it." He's obviously fine with everything no matter how unfair and unjust it may be and no matter what problems it might cause for other people — for tenants, particularly, who would be faced with this problem and may well be in a situation where they find themselves to be homeless for perhaps 24 hours, or one day.
To make it fair, I have an amendment standing in my name on the order paper, section 37(1), which reads:
On the amendment.
The Chair: Solicitor General, speaking to the amendment.
Hon. R. Coleman: We're going to oppose this amendment. The member makes the argument for the tenant going out at 1 o'clock but refuses to make an argument for the tenant coming in at 12 o'clock the next day. She says the tenancy ends on the day of the tenancy, which is at midnight, so from midnight until noon the next day, the other tenant doesn't get access, and the same argument applies actually going both ways.
The standard and practice have been — and most of the standards in the industry are — that most tenants are out by 1 o'clock. That has actually been something that's worked within the industry. The next thing you know, the member's going to say: "Why don't we make it the second day so they get a whole day here and a half day there?" Look, it's 1 o'clock unless the landlord and tenant otherwise agree. That's fair; that's manageable. It's no different than what the member is wanting to do a day later. We're not going to do that a day later. We're going to end the tenancy on that day at 1 o'clock unless the landlord and tenants agree. They can do that. They can agree otherwise as to when they want to vacate. It's fine by me.
When the member says yes, it's always fine by me, actually, hon. member, I've spent a long time on this piece of legislation, and that's why I'm comfortable with it. I'm comfortable with this section because it's a business practice that is already, for the most part, taking place. All it does is define it so people have an understanding of what the rules are.
J. Kwan: The part that the Solicitor General fails to understand is this: tenancies, generally speaking, begin on the first day of the month until the end of the month, the last day of the month. If you don't get to stay for that last day of the month for the full hours to which you're entitled, it creates a problem. By the next morning you're able to move into the accommodation. You are able to have a place to move into, but in the case where you're being forced to be out by legislation on the last day of the month, you actually have a lapse in time to which you have no place to go if you're a tenant, and that creates a problem. That's the part the Solicitor General fails to understand.
[1855]
Amendment negatived on division.
Section 37 approved.
On section 38.
J. Kwan: On section 38, the issue is in relation to the return of the security deposit and pet damage deposit. The issue I've raised under section 24 and also section 36, and again to be consistent with my position before, I do not think that the tenant…. I do not think that section 38(1), which reads under subsection (1): "Subsection (1) does not apply if the tenant's right to the return of a security deposit or a pet damage deposit has been extinguished under section 24 (1)…."
Of course, section 24(1) states that when the tenant fails to participate in the start of tenancy inspection or under section 36(1) the tenant fails to participate in the end-of-tenancy inspection…. Again, just to be clear, I don't support this, because I predict there will be unscrupulous landlords who will abuse the inspection requirements and make it impossible for the tenants to attend. This, of course, will create and allow a loophole for a landlord to keep the damage deposit from the tenant who's leaving, and of course to sign off on inspection reports without the knowledge or information agreed to by the tenant. I don't think that's a fair system that is being put in place.
On that score, I'm going to move the amendment of which I've shared a copy with you, Mr. Chair, and a copy with the minister, to strike out section 38(2), the section that requires the application of subsection (1).
Amendment negatived.
On the main motion.
J. Kwan: In section 38(5), it deals with the return of security deposits and pet damage deposits. It's the same argument that I just made minutes ago. Again, to be consistent with my position earlier taken under section 24 and section 36, to require damage deposits to be returned if the tenant's not able to be available at the two required inspection times, I'm moving the amendment of which I've shared a copy with you, Mr. Chair, and a copy with the minister to strike out section 38(5).
Amendment negatived.
The Chair: Shall section 38 pass? Member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, do you want to speak to 38? Are you finished?
J. Kwan: Actually, I'm going to just let it go.
Section 38 approved on division.
On section 39.
[ Page 4479 ]
J. Kwan: Section 39 deals with the landlord being able to retain deposits if forwarding addresses are not provided. This section is problematic. I think it is open to abuse. A landlord can claim that they did not receive a forwarding address. Does this mean, then, that a landlord can automatically keep the damage deposit if the tenant makes no attempts to claim it?
[1900]
Hon. R. Coleman: Today the landlord can keep it. At two years it's extinguished. This takes it to one year. The issue in and around the forwarding address, which was discussed…. I remember quite a discussion at committee, because it wasn't the forwarding address where they would necessarily have to live, just a forwarding address where a cheque could be sent. We were very specific about that. If somebody didn't want to know, particularly somebody leaving an abusive situation or something where they didn't want somebody to know where they had moved to….
First of all, if a landlord keeps a damage deposit and doesn't file for arbitration for a reason to keep the damage deposit within 15 days of the end of the tenancy, they are then liable to double the damage deposit as a penalty for keeping it wrongly.
This deals with a singular issue, and that is landlord and tenant. The tenant has moved. The landlord says: "Give me a forwarding address." The tenant fails to do so. The landlord now has a damage deposit which they cannot claim against because there's no damage in the suite. A year later there's still no forwarding address, and the individual then keeps the damage deposit. The flip side of that is if the landlord says: "Actually, I didn't get a forwarding address." There is arbitration. It goes to the arbitrator, and the arbitrator finds that somebody did actually give them a forwarding address and had documented that. Then the landlord is liable for double the damage deposit, because he would have kept it wrongly.
I think it's a fairly clear section. It's been up to two years now. One year is fair for both parties involved to have made a reasonable effort for one to provide the address and the other one to send the cheque.
J. Kwan: Well, it's precisely the point that some tenants may not want their landlord to know where they've moved to and may not provide a forwarding address. Some people may prefer to go and pick it up, so they may not provide a forwarding address. Some people may not provide a forwarding address, but they've changed their address in the post office so that any mail going to them from people who may not have received the new address is automatically rerouted to their new address. There are a number of ways in which you can actually get the damage deposit cheque back to the previous tenant, to which they are entitled.
Is there anything in this section — or am I missing it — that requires a certain onus of proof for the landlord to show that he's not able to return the damage deposit, not necessarily on just an address issue? As I mentioned, there are a number of ways in which the person could return the damage deposit without a return address, necessarily.
Hon. R. Coleman: In a tenancy today, if somebody leaves and doesn't provide a forwarding address and skips, whether there be rent owing or not or damage, a landlord has to locate the tenant in order to basically file the arbitration on them with regards to the damage deposit, which actually ties our…. You know, we end up with a bunch of notices of claim at the residential tenancy office waiting on the fact that the two years is going to go by at some point in time, because we haven't been able to locate the tenant, who may have skipped or whatever the case may be.
[1905]
Under this act it's even more rigid for the landlord, because the landlord actually has to file a claim against the damage deposit within 15 days. The inability to be able to serve that or to… The time frame that's attached to all this, I think, is pretty straightforward. I can't think of anybody who, as a landlord, would just for the purposes of…. I mean, the 15 days start as soon as the landlord has a forwarding address, and the address is where we can send the cheque. The landlord finds out whether he's going to send the cheque, and within 15 days they have to send the cheque, file an arbitration, or they're liable for double the damage deposit. If a year later there's no forwarding address, then it's done, and we don't end up with a bunch of processes that are still outstanding in our residential tenancy offices for an additional year after that.
J. Kwan: Section 39 states: "Despite any other provision of this act, if a tenant does not give a landlord a forwarding address within one year after the end of the tenancy, (a) the landlord may keep the security deposit or the pet damage deposit, or both, as applicable, and (b) the right of the tenant to the return of the security deposit or pet damage deposit is extinguished."
The issue I'm talking about here is the requirement that the landlord be given a forwarding address and that if a forwarding address is not provided for, the landlord has the right to keep the damage deposit. That's what it says under section 39. What I'm saying is this: some tenants may not feel comfortable, for whatever reason, to give the landlord, their old landlord, a forwarding address. There are other means by which a person can get the damage deposit back, such as going to pick up the cheque, such as having the person simply send the cheque to the existing address for that particular tenant and having the Post Office reroute that cheque to the tenant, wherever they've moved. You can still achieve the goal of making sure that the damage deposit of extra rent, or whatever the case may be, is met.
The question, more particularly, aside from actually using alternate forms of returning a damage deposit to the tenant other than requiring a forwarding address, is the idea that a tenant could actually make alternative arrangements. The address is not the be-all and end-all as the only means to do that. As well, the landlord ought to be required to provide proof that they've
[ Page 4480 ]
made an attempt to return the cheque to the tenant — maybe a returned cheque in the mail that has been sent because there's no forwarding address in the Post Office. That could be proof, an option in terms of requiring proof by the landlord that they tried to return the cheque to the tenant, as an example. There's nothing within the act that talks about the requirement for proof or alternative means for a damage deposit cheque to be returned to the tenant outside of the requirement of providing a forwarding address. That creates a problem.
The minister, the Solicitor General, has not answered the concerns that I've raised. He kept saying: "Oh well, but there's another penalty if they keep their damage deposit illegally." Good. I'm glad there's a penalty. But here in this section of the act it's very explicit: "The landlord may retain deposits if forwarding address not provided." That is the headline outlining section 39. So the reason a landlord could use to refuse or to not provide damage deposits is to simply say they don't have a forwarding address, even though there are other means of returning the damage deposit to the tenant outside of the requirement and the use of a forwarding address.
[1910]
Hon. R. Coleman: There's nothing that precludes a landlord from giving the cheque to the tenant. There's nothing that precludes a landlord from making other arrangements, but you do need to establish a baseline for when the 15 days start for when the non-return of damage deposit takes place, and this is the baseline.
You've got a forwarding address. You do one of two things. You either repay the security deposit or pet damage deposit to the tenant, calculated in accordance with the regulations, or you file an application for arbitration to make a claim against a security deposit. For failure to do either one of those two things within that time frame, you're now going to be liable for double the damage deposit. It's good discipline. It sets some baselines. There's nothing that stops the landlord and the tenant, at the very time they do the inspection, from exchanging the cheque. I think it will be…. Never mind. I won't go any further.
Section 39 approved on division.
On section 40.
J. Kwan: Section 40 deals with rent increases. Under this part 3, there are several sections, actually: sections 41, 42, 43 and so on. They deal with rent increases and what rent increases are allowed.
First, under section 40. Section 40 states, "In this Part, 'rent increase' does not include an increase in rent that is (a) for one or more additional occupants, and (b) is authorized under the tenancy agreement by a term referred to in section 13 (2) (f) (iv)," which is the requirement for tenancy agreements, additional occupants.
This question for the Solicitor General…. The section of the act does not provide for a requirement for reasonableness when a rent increase is to be applied for one or more additional occupants. Let's say, for example, a family is expecting, and nine months later they have a newborn in the family unit. In that instance, under section 40(a), does that mean that a rent increase would apply for that family unit because they now have a new bundle of joy in their family unit?
Hon. R. Coleman: This deals with a rent increase that's not included as an increase in rent, which is for one or more additional occupants and is authorized under the tenancy agreement by a term referred to in section 13(2). What that means is if you enter into a tenancy agreement and your tenancy agreement says "two people" and that for additional people you'll pay X, then this applies. A rent increase does not include that as far as a definition of a rent increase is concerned. If it's in the tenancy agreement that it's just for occupancy and there's nothing in there that says for over two people you pay, then it doesn't apply.
J. Kwan: Is it feasible then, as an example, if a couple moves into a suite and at that time there is no child or prospect of a baby coming and maybe a year or two years later there is a baby on its way and the baby is forthcoming…? In that instance, if it's not prescribed in the tenancy agreement, then there could be a rent increase that applies.
[1915]
Wouldn't it make more sense to apply a test of reasonableness? Presumably, one could say if there's additional cost incurred to the rental unit for the landlord, then it's reasonable to expect the rent to be increased. But if there is no increased cost to the landlord, then it's unreasonable to see a rent increase, such as in the case of, potentially, a birth in the family unit. Wouldn't that be a better test to apply, to put in as a test of reasonableness, than simply to say they're entitled to increase the rent if the tenancy agreement does not stipulate they're not allowed to?
Hon. R. Coleman: If you're in a tenancy agreement and it does not specifically say you'll be charged for additional occupants, you can't be. If you're in a tenancy agreement that says, "I agree there will be two occupants and that I can be charged for additional occupants," then you can be. You entered into that agreement with your eyes open when you made the decision to enter into the agreement on that basis.
If it's not in there, nothing happens. They can't charge you extra. But if it's in the agreement that they can charge you extra for an additional occupant, then you made that deal. You made that agreement. You signed the tenancy agreement between you and the landlord, and therefore you have a responsibility to that agreement. If you want to negotiate your way out of it, then you negotiate your way out of it.
It's not that we're saying a landlord can just go do this. Frankly, it goes back to the member's concern earlier about a roommate. It's the same. If you have a ten-
[ Page 4481 ]
ancy agreement and it doesn't say anything about an additional person living there, then another person can live there. If you do have an agreement that says, "If I add another person to this tenancy, I will pay you X dollars," then you made that agreement, and that's what this allows us to do.
J. Kwan: What this section and section 43 in particular allow for is to ensure the landlord can increase rent, irrespective of whether or not there is increased cost to the landlord himself or herself. That's the issue the Solicitor General fails to understand. You would think that in the application of a test of when to increase the rent, one would actually say to apply that test when there's an increased cost to the landlord as a result of that tenancy. That, to me, would have been reasonable — absolutely reasonable — as a result of more people living in a particular space. Barring safety and health issues, if you have more people living in a space and if it's not an increased cost to the landlord, then a rent increase should not be applied, yet this actually allows for it to apply. In fact, it speaks to it by legislation to say that you can increase rent as a result of increased number of occupants within a particular unit.
I disagree with that. I think a reasonableness test should apply here, and I'm going to move an amendment to section 40 by striking out subsection (a). The section would read:
Amendment negatived.
Section 40 approved on division.
Sections 41 and 42 approved.
On section 43.
J. Kwan: Section 43 is particularly troublesome. This is the section of the act that allows for a rent increase, irrespective of whether or not the landlord has incurred an increased cost or whether or not there's an increase in number of occupants in a particular tenancy. According to the government's own press release and notes, the calculation will be the cost of living plus 3 or 4 percent. This provides for the certainty of a known number and is, in my view, overly generous. It's a guarantee of investment return for the landlord every year by legislation, irrespective of whether or not the landlord has actually incurred those costs.
[1920]
The current system basically allows for the CPI plus adjustments for specific circumstances — i.e., actual increases in gas costs, capital repairs, maintenance or whatever the case might be. This to me is fair, as it allows the landlord a fair return on the investment. That is to say, they get compensation for increases in costs as a result of maintenance or other costs they had incurred for the rental unit.
The new system automatically guarantees the landlord increases regardless — some 6 or 7 percent after you count in the cost of living — whether or not those costs have increased. Now, there's nothing in the legislation to say that the rent would decrease if the landlord's costs have gone down. You may want to say "cost of living minus decrease in costs," if you want to be fair in terms of the application of rent increases and also to provide for the flip side, but that is not so. This imposes automatic rent increases for the landlord to apply.
Worse than that, this section of the act also allows the landlord to cumulatively over three years, if they hadn't applied their rent increase, gather it all up and apply it in one particular year. This, of course, could mean increases of up to some 20 percent for a particular tenant in any one year.
You've got to ask the question: how is this fair, particularly in light of the fact that the government is pushing for the Olympic bid? There is a big push for it. The principles in the inner-city-inclusive commitment statement that was endorsed by the Olympic partners, including the provincial government…. The commitment statement actually states that one of the key principles is that the tenants will not be displaced due to unreasonable rent increases. This allows for rents to increase dramatically.
Does the government stand behind the commitment statement that was made in relation to the Olympic bid, or was it just lip service? Which would override? Would this piece of legislation override, or would the Olympic bid statement override?
Hon. R. Coleman: I find this one somewhat interesting. I'm hearing from the marketplace that I put on rent controls and should have opened the market and not had any level of control on any increase in rent for the marketplace. I'm hearing from the tenants organization, saying: "You've got to come up with a formula that gives a pretty level control to protect the marketplace, as far as our increase is concerned." I'm hearing from the member that this is a guarantee of a return on investment, because somebody says that in a particular year — or if you had two or three years where you couldn't increase your rent — you could actually take some of it retroactively — that I'm guaranteeing an investment.
I can tell the hon. member that if you went into a lot of jurisdictions in this province today, you'd find that they're actually offering a month's free rent in order to get tenants because the marketplace has a vacancy problem. In other areas where you do have vacancy problems, you have nobody investing in the marketplace whatsoever, because we've had in place here in this province for the last number of years a cumbersome, complicated, arbitration-driven formula to get a rent increase. It wasn't that you couldn't get a rent increase, and usually you could get it within the range
[ Page 4482 ]
that we're talking, but you went through a long process with books, tax returns, invoices and financial statements with regards to having somebody actually cover the costs of the increase of operation in the rental property.
We do well over 10,000 — I think it is somewhere in that vicinity — or 20,000 arbitrations in this area. Obviously, it was a system that wasn't exactly functioning to the best ability, when you start to look at that — the people, time on both sides of the equation, what have you. The market says: "Gee, you should be a free enterpriser, and you should have no rent calculation or protection whatsoever, and let the market decide." We do the opposite, and the member criticizes us for that.
[1925]
I think, actually, in regulation we're going to come up with a pretty fair formula number, and it will work for the marketplace and will not be cumbersome for anybody. It does not, frankly — whether the member likes to believe it or not — give anybody a guaranteed rate of return on investment. The rate of return on investment is calculated on a lot more than just that. The reality is, drawing the parallel over to the Olympics, that we actually have a control so somebody couldn't actually go forward and decide to do something like what the member is describing. If you had no controls whatsoever, I suppose they certainly could. This is one of those balances that was struck through a lot of discussion with a lot of people on both sides of this equation.
You know, if you wanted to tell us where you thought a number of people would be philosophically within my caucus or in my committees, it might have been to not have any at all. Certainly, we came to this compromise through the discussions. I think it's, frankly, a fair compromise and one that brings a balance to the sector that is needed. It's one that actually removes a lot of the difficulty with regards to arbitrations. It certainly deals with the issue that many of the Tenants Rights Action Coalition and other people brought up with regards to: "For heaven's sake, don't take off some form of a formula on rent increases, because the market will go crazy, and we'll see 50, 60, 70 percent rent increases."
But at the same time as we're having that discussion, we also have to remember that B.C. has not — and it's no fault of anybody in particular — seen an increase in the construction of rental accommodation in any marketplace. We have a difficulty, you know.
Interjection.
Hon. R. Coleman: As a matter of fact, the member's talking about a particular problem in an industry that I told her Housing minister existed in 1996, and they ignored me. There we go, hon. member.
Interjection.
Hon. R. Coleman: You can bring whatever debate you want into it. The fact of the matter is that this is a fair formula to deal with a controversial portion of this industry. I think it's balanced and fair and will actually attract investment and stabilize the marketplace.
J. MacPhail: I have some questions from seniors, particularly in Vancouver, but let's just start with a little history on what's a fair return on investment in the market when providing rental accommodation. The minister makes it sound as if somehow a rent on new accommodation is controlled and there's some sort of force other than the market that sets the original rent on new accommodation. Well, it's the market that sets the rental level — the first step of rental in all rental housing in the province. Then after that, there's a debate about how increases to that original market-established rate should occur.
In the lower mainland and on the lower Island we have a problem with supply. If this minister once more stands up and says that it was somehow the previous government who was at fault for dealing with the leaky-condo situation and that he's pure because he raised it with the minister, I'm going to just say he's a phony, an absolute phony. When the minister raised the matter, he was joined by many other caucus members from the then government, who put in place huge support to deal with the leaky-condo crisis. The homeowner protection office is as a result of that. The huge financial support from the province is as a result of that. The problem needs further attention. There's no question about it.
[1930]
This government, this minister, has done nothing — absolutely nothing — to increase supply, absolutely nothing to deal with the leaky-condo crisis. In fact, there's a report of the government caucus — another secret report that's being buried, which nobody has seen yet. The release of it has been delayed not once but twice. Where's the report? I said this week should be an amnesty. You table the reports, and we won't criticize. Every single report that you've got there from the cabinet, the caucus — release them. One of them could be the government caucus committee on the leaky-condo situation. Everybody's waiting for it. If this minister stands up one more time and suggests the government in the 1990s did nothing and his government is good, he's a phony.
The Chair: Member, that comment is entirely unparliamentary. I ask you to retract it. I'd ask you to retract it.
J. MacPhail: All right. I retract the word "phony." Let me see an appropriate word for it. He is not telling the facts in a historical way that's accurate, and by so doing, he's misrepresenting both his commitment and the previous government's commitment. His commitment is zero, and the previous government's commitment is in the hundreds of millions of dollars of support to people who have a leaky condo. As a result of his complete inaction on the leaky-condo crisis, where
[ Page 4483 ]
the interest rates are now low and there is an ability because of the federal government monetary policy that could stimulate construction, the fact that his government has done nothing on the leaky-condo crisis is not encouraging supply. That's number one.
I'll tell you something. If this government, this minister, would make just the same commitment as was made in the 1990s to rectifying the leaky-condo crisis, my colleague and I would call him a hero — just the same amount of money. To date, this government has done zero, nada, nothing. In fact, they're withholding a secret report on the issue, so we have a supply problem. The minister tries to turn it into that the supply problem makes it a renter's market. That's true for about the last two months. That's absolutely true. Let's make long-term, sustained policy through legislation because of a two-month renter's market. Boy, that's good economic policy.
Well, here's the consequence that I'm told is the result of this minister's change to accommodate landlords at the expense of tenants. Here's what it means for Vancouver. I'll speak first for Vancouver. Vancouver is 65 percent renters — tenants — and 35 percent owners. Sixty-five percent of 550,000 residents of the city of Vancouver is over 350,000 people who are tenants — over 350,000. Even if we take it that the minister is accurate that there are 20,000 arbitrations, how many of those are about rent increase, and is that such an outrageous proportion of 350,000 residents? Is that outrageous? It's less than 10 percent of the market, less than 10 percent of the tenants, and that's if every arbitration is a challenge to the increase. Let's put it in perspective.
We now have legislation that totally goes along with this Liberal government's backers, which are landlords — totally. The tenants are left out in the cold. Who is a tenant in this particular situation who is going to be affected by it? Well, my biggest concern….
[1935]
My colleague is doing an unbelievably wonderful job of representing everybody's concerns, but my biggest concern tonight consists of concerns around seniors on fixed income. The member for Vancouver-Burrard has been absolutely silent in this debate, so I went into his riding to find out what's going on. His riding, I think, is over 80 percent tenants, and a substantial portion of those tenants are seniors. I know people like to present it as a young crowd, a crowd of singles living down there, and some of that's true. Yet there are thousands of seniors with whom I met in the past week, who live in his riding — a group, a representation who are extremely concerned about this legislation. Why are they concerned? Because it's piling on….
Timing is everything. Timing is everything for a government who has to govern for everybody. What does this government do? It piles on extra costs to seniors on several fronts of which this legislation is only one. We have seniors now in Vancouver who are facing increased Pharmacare costs regardless of how this government caucus is in denial about that, increased MSP premiums, increased social service tax, the provincial sales tax. It's a guarantee they're facing increased hydro costs, because that's what the minister said. Now they're facing increased rental costs on fixed incomes. When this occurs, what is a senior to do?
Hon. R. Coleman: I thank the member for her comments. I'm dealing with a section of an act, and I'm not going to get into a debate on about the other 75 percent of what she had to say this evening. It actually stabilizes what everybody understands is around a rent increase. Some people might even call it a rent control. Frankly, it makes it clear that it will be done in regulation. It will not be excessive. I think, frankly, it will work fine.
J. MacPhail: A person who lives in a building in the West End now has a landlord who has been able to gear his or her rent according to the market. Then after that, increases are by formula that have to be justified — actual costs. Seniors live in these apartments. In Vancouver, let's be clear, we are the highest rent jurisdiction in all of Canada. What is a senior to do? I'm asking the minister that if everything is going to work fine, maybe he could just speak to the seniors right now. They live in a building where the rent has been established by market plus costs. If a landlord says there's going to be a 6 percent increase in rent, what does the senior now do who is on a fixed income?
Hon. R. Coleman: This is a formula for rent increase. If the market doesn't dictate that they can have it, they won't take it. Frankly, it's a control to keep the lid on and also to keep it to where we can actually make it manageable for both the parties. The member wants to pick a number out of the sky. We haven't set the number in regulation yet, but we did say in our comments and in second reading 3 to 4 percent plus CPI.
In our discussions with both the marketplace and tenants groups, the tenants groups were concerned that we would actually do something…. They themselves didn't necessarily like the way the formula was working. On one side, they said, "Do not take off any formula; apply a formula," so we apply a formula, which are frankly some of these members' constituents who….
[1940]
The member and I can stand here and argue all night, but the bottom line is that this struck a pretty good middle ground in this discussion, because the options were: don't have any rent increases, don't have any controls whatsoever; let the market decide. Then your question to your senior is: "What if I want to push a building to an envelope?" You won't be able to push a building envelope to vacate it, because there is a formula that controls the increase in rent, and that's what the intent of the legislation is.
J. MacPhail: This isn't market driven. It's not cost driven. It's automatic, the increase — automatic.
[ Page 4484 ]
A landlord now has the right, as soon as this legislation is passed, to increase rent, CPI plus 3 to 4 percent. It's not a guess. That's what the news release of the minister said.
CPI now in Vancouver is running about 2½ percent, so it could actually be as high as 6½ percent right as we speak — not fearmongering, not making it up — according to the minister's news release.
No justification. The landlord doesn't have to have any justification. When somehow this minister thinks that the market will prevail, then he's not speaking to seniors. I'm asking specifically about seniors. They live in a building in the West End. They live in dozens of buildings in the West End of Vancouver. The original market rent was set by the market with a built-in rate of return, totally set by the landlord. Then after, those rent increases were justified, adjusted according to costs and a rate of return. But the landlord had to prove it.
Now we have a situation where these seniors will face an automatic increase of up to 6½ percent come January 1. The minister says no. Yes, they will, because in the West End there isn't a glut. These seniors live in the West End because their hospital is there, and their services are within walking distance, and there's public transit. They've lived there 40 or 50 years. I'm asking the minister to explain, come January 1, when they're faced with a 6½ percent increase — which is completely allowable the minute this legislation is passed, without any justification from a landlord: what is a senior to do? Who does she get to complain to about that rent increase on her fixed income?
Hon. R. Coleman: The member, first of all, knows that legislation won't be in place by January 1. It will actually have an effect on the rent increases on January 1, because the regulations have to be written. When the regulations are completed in consultation with both industry and tenant groups, we'll bring the regulations into effect. At that time we'll bring the act into effect — which is, I expect, sometime later this spring.
The question the member has is…. Just because somebody says that there is a figure does not mean that automatically everybody's going to that figure, that everybody's going to 3 percent or 4 percent or 5 percent or whatever number you want to pick. Some may decide that because of their relationship in their building to their tenants, they're not going to raise the rents. That's a choice in the relationship between the landlord and tenant. All we're doing is putting in place a formula so it can't get out of control. That's what we've done.
[1945]
J. MacPhail: Regardless of how anybody else wants to tackle the minister's feedback, I asked a specific question about a senior. Does the senior, then, if she can't afford the rent increase — which is automatic in low-vacancy apartments, which is the West End — where the rent increase is automatic…? The minister is getting rid of the formula that was in place before; it's now automatic. Is the senior's only choice, if she's on a fixed income, to move or pay it? What's her other option? Is there a third option, besides move or pay a 6 percent increase of rent out of her fixed income?
Hon. R. Coleman: Again, the industry asked for something that we didn't give them. We put in place a formula for making sure that rent increases couldn't go above a certain ceiling. That is to protect the tenant from the gouging that could take place in a high and vibrant market where, if you had no rent controls, they could just increase to market. I think this is a good balance and a good compromise with regards to that particular issue and one, I think we'll see, that works.
J. MacPhail: It's a straightforward question, Mr. Chair. A senior on fixed income, who faces an automatic rent increase in a low vacancy now, which is the West End of Vancouver…. There's no denying it. Let's say March, then — shall we? In March of 2003 what are her options, other than moving or paying the increase out of her fixed income? Let's be clear what it means. A 6 percent increase on rent for a one bedroom in the West End is about a $50 per month increase.
Hon. R. Coleman: The fact of the matter is that today a landlord in the West End, if the taxes go up and the water goes up and all the rest of it, can go to an arbitrator and lay that on the table and get a rent increase, which has been averaging between 3 percent and 4 percent. The member has to understand that there's already a formula that allows for rent increases. On the other side of the coin, there is a school of thought that says: "Why are you controlling the income of something that is basically someone's private investment and telling them what they can or cannot charge?"
It's ironic that the member says that the landlord groups have been kowtowed to in this legislation and that the landlord groups are our friends. If you saw my e-mails from landlord groups with regards to this section, you'd find out that we certainly didn't do that. This is certainly not what they would have liked to have seen.
So the balance has been struck, and the balance is there. There already were rent increases but always in a complicated manner — from an arbitration process that took time, with difficulty and problems for everybody concerned, to a formula that says: "We're going to come up with a fair formula that you can't go past, and here it is." Now, the market's over there saying, "Why are you doing this to us?" so I guess we're not making anybody happy here. The fact of the matter is that I think what's proposed here is the balance, and the balance had to be struck.
J. MacPhail: I find it ironic that the minister, on one hand, stands up and says, "There aren't going to be automatic increases," and other hand he's telling me the landlords wanted unfettered market rates. Well, let
[ Page 4485 ]
me see. Does that mean the landlords aren't going to go to the ceiling that's available to them now without any justification?
[1950]
In the words of the minister, I'd probably say: "Not my words." But from what the minister has said, I'll bet it's a fair prediction that they're going to take full use of that built-in extra rate of return, and it is an extra rate of return because investors in rental accommodation know from day one what their 30-year costs are in terms of the land and the construction. It's called a mortgage. It ain't rocket surgery, as George Bush would say. They know from day one what their costs are for construction and land purchase, and they build in a rate of return in the initial rent.
The formula that was in place…. The rate of return is there. It ain't the big Soviet communist bogeyman lurking in the old system. It was called the market setting the rate. Then after that they had to justify the increases. It seems fair to me. Yes, there were arbitrations on the justifications. If a landlord could prove that expenses had increased, they got the rate increase. If they couldn't, they weren't allowed to, because they already had their rate of return according to the market. They already had that.
Now I expect I'll have to tell the people who live in the riding of Vancouver-Burrard that their two choices are, if they're on a fixed income, to move or pay. I'll tell you, it would break your heart to meet with some of these seniors about what they're worried about in this legislation. They will have to move, or else they'll have to pay. Fifty bucks a month in increased rent is unbearable for a senior. By the minister's lack of proposing any alternative, that is what they're faced with now. Shame on this government.
J. Kwan: The issue in this section has been laid out clearly by the member for Vancouver-Hastings, the Leader of the Opposition. The fact of the matter is that the government is now introducing a section to allow for automatic rent increases with no justification at all, with no increased costs to be incurred by the landlord. Each and every year a landlord could increase your rent by the cost of living in addition to a rate of 3 or 4 percent. If the landlord decides not to do that for the year, under this section of the act it could be accumulated over the course of three years. Feasibly, a person could be faced with a rent increase of some 20 percent.
My colleague from Vancouver-Hastings talked about the concerns from seniors, and seniors particularly in the West End whom I know she met with last week when the House was not sitting. I met with seniors groups in Prince George last week, and they told me the same thing.
You know, I talked to people from my own constituency. In Vancouver–Mount Pleasant it's not a surprise to anybody — or it ought not to be a surprise to anybody, because I raise it all the time — that there are some 7,000 units of what we call SROs, single-room-occupancy rooms. They're essentially 10-by-10 in size, and generally speaking, the landlord sets the rent at the welfare rate of $325 per month. Generally speaking, that's what it is.
When the welfare rate for the rent proportion goes up, then the rent goes up. That's usually how it works. In some instances landlords will even increase the rent irrespective of whether or not the welfare rate for the rental portion has actually gone up, and that's already starting to take place. There are deplorable housing conditions; maintenance and repairs are not being done. At least formerly, when rent increases were put in place, the landlord had to justify that. They actually had to show improvements to the building in order to get a rent increase. Otherwise, it would be brought before an arbitration.
I should also say, when the minister says, "Gee, there are some 10,000 arbitrations throughout the province relating to tenancy issues…." You know what? Only a very small portion is related to rent increases, because the formula is there, and the landlords cannot gouge the tenants. When they do, there's a recourse. That is a form of rent control.
This is not a form of rent control. This is an automatic increase every year of close to some 6 or 7 percent that the landlord could impose, irrespective of whether or not they themselves had incurred those costs in their investment. That's the reality of it.
[1955]
Let's get back, then, to the tenants who live in the SROs, who under this piece of legislation may well be faced with an automatic rent increase every year of some 6½ percent. That's what they'll be faced with. Could the minister please advise: when this piece of legislation is passed and regulations enacted to allow for automatic rent increases as proposed under section 43(1) and those rent increases come forward, will the Minister of Human Resources pay for it? Or is it once again the tenant who would have to absorb those costs from their food portion, the amount of which is reducing under this government? Would they have to absorb those costs, just like they have to absorb those increased costs for a key, access cards, pet damage deposits, to which this minister would not commit that he would make sure that his colleague the Minister of Human Resources will provide for those cost increases?
In the instance around rent, where he's now the minister, the Solicitor General is allowing for automatic increases every year for rent. Will he also make sure the Minister of Human Resources will write cheques to the landlords automatically every year when they demand it, irrespective of whether or not the rental unit has been improved upon, or whether or not maintenance has been done, or whether or not it actually is worth the market value?
Hon. R. Coleman: We will find out as this act goes through its regulations how things work. I mean, that's what legislation is about, that's what regulations are about, and that's what measurements are about, and we'll measure that activity.
Hon. Chair, given the time and given commitments of this minister — and obviously, we're going to spend some
[ Page 4486 ]
more time on this particular section of the act — I move that we rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 7:57 p.m.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. M. de Jong: I call committee to consider Bill 74.
Committee of the Whole House
FOREST AND RANGE PRACTICES ACT
The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 74; H. Long in the chair.
The committee met at 8 p.m.
Hon. M. de Jong: For the benefit of members, I am joined by officials from the Forests ministry: Richard Grieve and, on my left, Ralph Archibald.
On section 1.
J. MacPhail: Mr. Chair, I'd like to start with a question to the minister about how he sees us proceeding on this debate. He introduced two pieces of legislation today that amend the Forest Practices Code. Can he give me some guidance on how we're supposed to actually put all of this together? I saw those two pieces of legislation about five hours ago for the first time, and there are substantial amendments to the Forest Practices Code. This legislation amends the Forest Practices Code. Could he give me some guidance as to how I'm supposed to handle this debate?
Hon. M. de Jong: It would be presumptuous for me to attempt to instruct this member, who has great experience in such matters. If it is of help to her, I can certainly advise that the legislation we are dealing with today is designed to create a results-based Forest Practices Code, now entitled the Forest and Range Practices Act. It is admittedly a substantive legislative instrument but designed, ultimately, to stand on its own.
J. MacPhail: I'm perplexed by that. I've never faced a situation like this before in my 11 years of experience, where I'm debating a piece of legislation and on the very day we're debating it, two more pieces are introduced to amend the legislation. I'm sorry, but that's why I was seeking the guidance of the minister and perhaps his staff, because it's a brand-new experience for me. Is there an annotated version the minister has that incorporates all three acts?
Hon. M. de Jong: The member will know that when this act was introduced and in fact in second reading, I spoke to the government's stated intent to create a results-based forest practices code and that there would be an interim period in which the existing code was in effect. There is legislation before the House now that deals with that interim period, and yes, there is legislation that deals with another matter relating to the establishment of a college of biologists. I'm not certain I understand fully the dilemma the member purports to have.
J. MacPhail: Two pieces of legislation that the minister introduced six hours ago amend the Forest Practices Code. This legislation amends the Forest Practices Code. It is helpful, I would think, for the public to understand what the overall changes are. Yet I have no idea how to do that unless I have the other two acts sitting side by side, saying: "Hey, wait a second. The Forest Practices Code is being amended by Bill 75, and yet we're dealing with this here."
[2005]
That's the only way to have a thoughtful, organized debate, but because of the way this government is introducing legislation piecemeal, it's impossible. What I'm asking the minister is: does he have a version for his own use that incorporates every change to date from all acts to the Forest Practices Code? It could be a working document. Does the minister have such a document?
Hon. M. de Jong: I don't know if this will help the member, but what we are endeavouring to do with the introduction of this legislation is actually replace the Forest Practices Code. This will be an instrument that creates a regime under which people will engage in the practice of forestry and range management. There is, as the member points out, another piece of legislation before the House which amends the existing Forest Practices Code. It is relevant for that period of time during which licensees and people operating on the land base will actually have a choice under which regime they wish to operate.
J. MacPhail: Well, let me just try to present my dilemma in a way that the public can certainly understand. The legislation we're debating right now is an enabling piece of legislation, and the minister will have to acknowledge that over and over again as I ask him questions. It's an enabling piece of legislation to change and eventually replace the Forest Practices Code.
There were two other pieces of legislation introduced today to change the Forest Practices Code. That's what the legislation says. It's full of amendments to the Forest Practices Code. If the government actually wants to have an open and transparent and fulsome discussion of what these changes mean, then we should at least know how they all interact, and we don't.
I'm a bit shocked. Does the minister not know? What I'm looking for is a document that says: "Come Novem-
[ Page 4487 ]
ber 28, here are the changes that will be in effect as a package." It could be an annotated version; it could be a working document; it could be a red-lined document. Those are some of the terms we use; in fact, it's quite common. Does the minister have such a document?
Hon. M. de Jong: The member purports to be confused, I suspect, because that is what she wishes to convey. The member will know that when Bill 74 was introduced, I was very clear about the time lines the government had in mind — specifically, that this new results-based code that is the subject of Bill 74 would take effect in the spring and that we would be introducing subsequent legislation that would deal with the existing Forest Practices Code between now and that date and for the subsequent two-year transition period this legislation contemplates. If the transitional nature of the legislation that was tabled earlier today is something the member is having difficulty getting her head around, then I'll be happy to provide her with a briefing or the background she requires.
J. MacPhail: Well, unfortunately, we're here debating it now. As a matter of fact, this government, who promised we would have a fall session to do cleanup on exposure bills, is actually introducing legislation that has never been seen before — passed and enacted.
I'm not confused. I am not confused at all. I know exactly what we're debating here. We're debating enabling legislation to change the Forest Practices Code. Here we have Bill 75, tabled six hours ago, changing the Forest Practices Code. Section after section is about changing the Forest Practices Code.
[2010]
Clearly, the minister can't help me at all. We are going to have a discussion today about changes to the Forest Practices Code, and then we're going to do it all over again under Bill 75. They may be contradictory. It may not flow. The public certainly won't know what's going on. But it is absolutely clear to me that what we're discussing right now…. A portion of the debate and the discussion will be substantially influenced by Bill 75. Yet we're going to have to go through it all over again under Bill 75, because this government has chosen to introduce legislation in a piecemeal way.
Frankly, I am surprised the minister does not have the document to which I am referring. I'm surprised and a little bit disappointed — substantially, not a little bit. How can one have a discussion, a meaningful debate, in this piecemeal fashion? Somehow the minister says: "Well, this document, Bill 74, which we're passing right now, replaces the Forest Practices Code." Perhaps the minister could outline the time line for that occurring, then. Is it tomorrow that the Forest Practices Code isn't in existence? He makes it sound like that. He makes it sound like I'm asking to debate a silly question — to have the information about how Bill 75 influences Bill 74. What is the time line? How long will the Forest Practices Code be in existence?
Hon. M. de Jong: At last we get to the root of the member's confusion. It stems, quite clearly, from her unwillingness or inability to review the material she was provided with. I should add that it is not a confusion shared by any of the many stakeholders that were involved in this process, whether it was the cattlemen, the licensees, the woodlot owners, the agrologists, the biologists. They, I dare say, probably read the material that was released at the time this bill was tabled and undoubtedly read the legislation.
They are aware that what is contemplated is that this legislation creating this results-based code will take effect next April 1; that between now and then the existing Forest Practices Code will remain in effect; and that this legislation contemplates a two-year transition period, during which time licensees and others operating on the land base will have the option of operating under either legislative regime. Now, that's something that was made abundantly clear at the time the legislation was briefed, in the supporting document and at the time the member received the briefing. It appears that's something she didn't understand. I'm happy to be able to clarify it for her today.
J. MacPhail: Actually, I was fully aware of that until the minister stood up and spoke, when he said this legislation replaces the Forest Practices Code. As I was raising my concerns about having the discussion all at once around the changes to the Forest Practices Code, he was yelling across at me: "This replaces the Forest Practices Code." Well, it doesn't for two years. That was my point. Don't, with his cheeky attitude, start off as if somehow I'm not prepared. He's ill prepared. He is ill prepared to have the fulsome discussion about all of the changes to the Forest Practices Code which will be in existence for two more years. He makes it sound as if: "Oh, it's gone. This legislation will replace it." That's what he was yelling across the floor. Yes, two years from now. In those next two years, tenure holders have an option of what legislation, what rules, to apply.
[2015]
But tonight we will be discussing a piece of legislation that is only a portion of the changes to the Forest Practices Code that will exist for two years, because Bill 75, which was introduced six hours ago, amends the Forest Practices Code. When I asked the minister for an amalgamation of all of the changes to the Forest Practices Code, he asked why I would want that. Am I confused? No. We have a piece of legislation being amended not once but twice, which will be in existence for two years, and we're doing it in a piecemeal fashion.
My point is made. The solid information from the minister and the ministry about how all of the changes affect the overall application of the Forest Practices Code is not available. Therefore, as this government rams this legislation through — I expect we'll have the minister, the House Leader, coming in and bringing in closure — we will not know what the overall effect to date is of the changes to the Forest Practices Code.
Yes, Mr. Chair, companies will be able to choose under which process they will abide. Will it be the new process under the Forest and Range Practices Act, or
[ Page 4488 ]
will it be the rules that have applied under the Forest Practices Code? We'll discuss the changes under Bill 74 to the Forest Practices Code tonight, and then next week we're going to go through a whole raft of other changes to the Forest Practices Code. Isn't that an organized government? Isn't that a government that knows what it's going to do?
One of the changes under the Forest and Range Practices Act is to eliminate the preamble of the Forest Practices Code. Keep in mind that after this act is passed, companies, licence holders, will have a choice about what act prevails or what process prevails. The old Forest Practices Code had a preamble. Here's what it said:
That was the preamble under the Forest Practices Code. It's missing from the Forest and Range Practices Act.
Now, there's all sorts of debate about what weight a preamble carries — all sorts of debate — but there is an emerging view in the law that preambles give guidance. They give guidance to the interpretation. They also give guidance to the intent of the Legislature.
Could the minister explain to the House what effect the Forest Practices Code preamble being in the old legislation versus no preamble in the new legislation will have on the two processes of which the company, the licence holder, can choose?
[2020]
Hon. M. de Jong: The preference under the legislative regime being constructed by the Forest and Range Practices Act was to have the statutory provisions speak for themselves. To the extent that an interpreting body may wish, they will have the benefit of reviewing the Hansard to more closely ascertain the intent of the Legislative Assembly.
J. MacPhail: So I've read the preamble into the record. Let me ask this, then. The minister says the legislation speaks for itself. Well, this legislation doesn't say much. It's enabling legislation. We'll get to that.
What effect does the preamble have on the process that a company would choose under the old act versus the new act?
Hon. M. de Jong: The significant differences that exist between the two legislative regimes suggest to me that the decision a licensee or other practitioner on the land base would make around which statutory instrument to abide by would be based on things other than the presence or absence of a preamble.
J. MacPhail: Is it the minister's view that there's absolutely no necessity for the preamble of the previous code, and who did he consult with on removing the preamble?
Hon. M. de Jong: The legislative provisions in sections as set out in the Forest and Range Practices Act, I believe, are sufficient to provide clear guidance to people operating on the land base.
J. MacPhail: Who, in this consultation, recommended the removal of the preamble?
Hon. M. de Jong: Preambles are by no means a constant feature of every piece of legislation that is presented in this House. In this case it is our preference that the provisions of the Forest and Range Practices Act stand and be interpreted on their own merit.
J. MacPhail: Yes, I understood that the first time the minister said it. The second time it was even clearer, and the third time it was boring. Who, in the consultation, recommended the removal of the preamble? I've been looking for that. I wasn't able to find it.
Hon. M. de Jong: As the member knows, we received submissions from a broad range of people — some of which we accepted, some of which we did not. The drafting of this document is a reflection of those submissions, as well as an incorporation of our own views about how to achieve our objective of securing a results-based code as clearly and as transparently as possible.
J. MacPhail: Yes. In fact, searching through all of the consultations, whether it was the MLAs consultation or the review that Dr. Hoberg did, there was not any suggestion anywhere that the preamble should go. There's probably a good reason for that. Governments can indicate their direction or their reasoning in an eloquent way, in a way that declares intent. In fact, that's exactly what the preamble of the Forest Practices Code does.
[2025]
Increasingly, Mr. Chair, I will tell you the courts look to the preamble for intent — not to make a legal ruling and not to somehow hold a premise legally binding but to demonstrate intent. The reason why governments include preambles in legislation is to give comfort to those who are affected by the legislation. Now that comfort is gone, not because anybody requested it but because this government unilaterally removed it.
What is the process for providing information to licence holders, companies, in assisting them to make a
[ Page 4489 ]
choice about what process — the old or the new — they should hold themselves accountable for?
Hon. M. de Jong: I'm always happy to receive advice from an experienced member, and she is apparently now an expert on matters relating to judicial interpretation of statutory instruments. It apparently relates to the eloquence of legislative drafting. I will surrender to her and her government, then, that they were more eloquent than I — less effective, I might add, when it came to ensuring we had a sustainable forest sector in this province. But perhaps they preferred eloquence over substance.
Licensees. I hope the member doesn't get tired of me saying this, but her questions thus far have focused entirely on licensees. I hope she will appreciate that this legislation governs more than just licensees. It governs woodlot owners. It covers ranchers. I presume that when she says licensees, she is capturing all of those people, but we'll see.
Over the first quarter of next year there will be an extensive training module that will involve not just members of the Forest Service but stakeholders involved in operations on the land base to provide them with a clear understanding of how the new legislative framework will operate. They will, I am told, additionally have the benefit of consultations with industry associations, woodlot owners' associations and cattlemen's associations.
My hope is that we can provide them with all of the information they require in order to make a timely decision around which statutory instrument to adopt as their guiding legislation, come April 1 of next year. Some will make that decision immediately; others will wait. I believe we have a structure in place that will provide them with the information they require to make that an informed decision, but we'll be tracking that closely.
J. MacPhail: Let me offer another piece of advice from my experience. Ministers who make claims and can't deliver on them get hoisted on their own petard, particularly in the area of forestry. To date, the record of this minister doesn't in any way come close to the promises that he's made. Those are not my words; those are the words out of the Prince George natural resources forum five days ago. It wasn't from me that those words came; it was from the companies that those words came. It's all very well and good for him to play cheap politics, but eventually he's going to have to deliver. To date, he hasn't been able to, so I expect that the minister may want to limit his comments in that area.
[2030]
Thank you very much for the advice. Perhaps the minister could advise me if "companies" would qualify for including the licensees, woodlot owners and ranchers. Is that a suitable term?
Hon. M. de Jong: If I understand the question correctly, no, it wouldn't be necessarily. A rancher may not be incorporated, nor may a woodlot owner.
J. MacPhail: That's not my understanding of agriculture these days. I'll carry on by going "licensees, ranchers and woodlot owners," then.
The minister has given some general comments about the information that he'll provide to the people affected by this legislation. That's very general. I'm trying to get as many specifics as we possibly can out of this legislation, and they are few and far between. Perhaps the minister, then, could say how the two processes and the choice of them coexisting over the next two years will influence the administration side of his ministry.
Hon. M. de Jong: I hope the hon. member understands what the intention was in making the shift, and the timing around it. First of all, the expectation, based on my discussions with most of the stakeholders, is that they will be anxious to make this shift sooner rather than later. However, admittedly, some will take more time. We've incorporated into the legislation the ability for them to take that time.
As a result, the Forest Service will be administering those dual systems for that two-year period. The purpose, as I say, is to provide for a smooth transition. Although I'm not certain that the member agrees even with the philosophical evolution here, if she did, presumably she would want to ensure that there was a logical and smooth transition period built in for the benefit of those stakeholders.
J. MacPhail: That's exactly the intent of my questions, and so that's why I would prefer some answers.
Will staff responsibilities be split up? There's a simple question. Will staff responsibilities be split up?
Hon. M. de Jong: Staff will have administrative responsibilities under both regimes.
I am harkening back to some years ago when the original Forest Practices Code was introduced. I am reminded that that legislation also contemplated a two-year transitional period. In fairness to her, I don't think she has articulated outrage at this point, but it is not dissimilar in that respect to the introduction of the legislation that her government sponsored.
[2035]
J. MacPhail: How much has the minister budgeted for increases in cost to support the dual process in the transition period?
Hon. M. de Jong: Well, the member understands and knows that, in fact, the overall budgets for the ministry have decreased. I'm not going to be coy about that. The shift towards the results-based code is designed to affect a number of things — first of all, to ensure that we have that environmental protection on the land base but, as well, to address a mountain of red tape that was represented by the existing code and that accrued costs both to government and to stakeholders on the land base. This legislation is candidly and proudly designed to address that.
[ Page 4490 ]
J. MacPhail: We'll get into the situation of how you can have compliance and enforcement and no record of it, how you could possibly stand in court without any paper record. The minister makes it sound as if it will just make all paperwork entirely unnecessary. It will be interesting to see how he's going to enforce those penalties and perhaps send people to jail when they don't have any evidence of it.
My question was simply an administrative one. Dual systems cost more in periods of transition. If this is going to be effective, if there are two systems in place for an effective transition, then there have to be increased costs for that period of transition. That's not unreasonable at all. Is the minister saying he hasn't got any extra money to run the dual systems?
Hon. M. de Jong: We have undertaken a significant degree of planning. In fact, it was not long ago that I think I heard this member chastising the government for not getting on with some of these reforms. In fact, we are. In fact, we have examined the costs associated. We are confident that we have a plan in place that adequately provides for the administration of this transition. It is, admittedly, a transition that we are anxious to get on with.
J. MacPhail: My question was about as pragmatic a question as you could get: how much money have you budgeted? I can't get an answer from the minister on that in terms of running a dual system. I would expect that the industry, the people affected, would want to know that a ministry that's cutting its staff by a third will nevertheless provide adequate resources to run a dual system in transition. To date, despite my questions, they have no answer to that question.
I'd like to look at a couple of the definitions under section 1 and how they tie into the new process — the definition entitled "Objectives set by government." This definition refers back to sections 3 to 5 of the Forest Practices Code. I might just note, because the minister seemed terribly perplexed about why I would be concerned about Bill 75, that Bill 75 changes sections 3 to 5 of the Forest Practices Code, FYI. Here we are. We have a definition that refers to sections 3 to 5 of the Forest Practices Code, and under Bill 75 sections 3 and 5 are slated to be repealed and replaced. So here we are debating legislation where there's a key definition, "objectives set by government," that refers to sections that, in a subsequent piece of legislation to the one we're debating today, are going to be changed.
[2040]
Sections 3 and 5 of the Forest Practices Code deal with resource management zones and objectives and sensitive areas and objectives — very crucial and very key. Can the minister inform the House what the changes are going to mean and how the process for objectives set by government will change as a result of this legislation?
Hon. M. de Jong: The definition contained in the act refers to the specific land use objectives established by government, which are designed to guide forestry operations.
J. MacPhail: And what are the land use objectives?
Hon. M. de Jong: I think the second part of the member's original question, which I didn't answer, related to the process. That process is now contained within the ambit of the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management.
J. MacPhail: Okay. In plain English just tell the House how this section, this definition, is going to be applied. Who's in charge? What does it mean? What will the legislation actually read around sections 3 and 5 after all the legislation is changed, and how will it be applied?
If indeed it is the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management, where are they, so I can ask them questions?
Hon. M. de Jong: The member will know that this relates to the establishment of higher level plans, as is presently contemplated. That process won't change. The ministry that has responsibility for the establishment of those higher level land use plans is now, and has been for some time, the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management.
J. MacPhail: Well, let me just read…. It says here: "Objectives set by government." Now, it's not just my curiosity that's prevailing here. People who I've reached out to, to discuss this matter in industry, in academia and in the environmental community think that this definition is key — objectives set by government — because, let's be clear, the government has removed much of the prescription under the Forest Practices Code. They take great pride in that, absolutely great pride, and then say it's going to be a results-based code. But the objectives set by government will determine what the results are that the companies, the stakeholders, have to comply with. Or am I wrong?
Hon. M. de Jong: If I understand the member correctly — and I think she's inadvertently jumping ahead to section 5 of the bill, but be that as it may — she is correct that the forest stewardship plans must be consistent with general land use objectives.
[2045]
J. MacPhail: Section 5 says what areas there must be for…. It determines the areas in which objectives are set. It doesn't say what the objectives are. It says: "(a) Objectives set by government in relation to the following subject matter: (i) soils." Does that mean the objective is, yes, there has to be soil?
The minister has said that the objectives set by government will be under the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management. He's not here to answer the questions. We have the objectives being set by government,
[ Page 4491 ]
meaning objectives established under sections 3 to 5 of the Forest Practices Code by a person or persons authorized under those sections. Later on this week sections 3 and 5 of the Forest Practices Code are going to be amended. I'm just trying to figure out what it is the government wants to achieve. Where would we turn? Where would an ordinary citizen turn to find out what are the objectives around soil, let's say, that the government is setting?
Hon. M. de Jong: The member will know that pursuant to a process actually initiated by her government, there are a series of higher level land use plans that either have been set or are in the process of being set. The objective — and I don't know that this is particularly or should be at all mysterious — is that harvest activity and, specifically, stewardship plans should be formulated in a way that is consistent with the objectives that emerge out of that land use planning process. It's not much more complicated than that.
J. MacPhail: Couldn't agree more, except that: what's the status of land use planning in this province? Is the minister committed to completing the land use process before proclaiming this code?
[2050]
Hon. M. de Jong: In fact, that land use planning process is ongoing. This act, and we will come to the relevant sections…. This bill makes provision for the establishment of interim objectives in those areas where the planning process has not been completed, but the member will know that the process is ongoing via the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management.
J. MacPhail: You know, I'm trying to not raise concerns here that are unnecessary, because our industry is in such a fragile state right now with commodity prices the lowest they've been in years, with companies worried about their future survivability, with others worried about being taken over by Americans, with the whole issue of still others worried about the sustainability of this industry, and I see this government and this ministry in a state of disarray around forest policy.
Let me just give you an example. Here we have a situation where the key to the application of the whole new act is the term "objectives set by government." I'm told by the minister the objectives will flow from a land use plan. I couldn't agree more. What's the state of land use planning in this province? The minister says it's ongoing. Well, no, it isn't, actually. The government has completely reversed at least two land use plans that were agreed upon and is now deliberating at the cabinet table about what those land use plans will be.
I was talking over the course of the last two weeks to people who are involved in the central coast land use planning and the north coast land use planning, and they're nowhere near agreement, but this government doesn't want to actually do the land use planning first and then set objectives. We're going to set objectives in the interim. So how do we get those objectives set? If we look to the act we're debating now, we have to refer to sections 3 and 5 of the old Forest Practices Code, but those sections 3 and 5…. Let's be clear here. This isn't just a game of semantics.
The objectives set by government will determine the results by which companies and stakeholders must comply, and it will signal whether the resource is sustainable or not. So we look to sections 3 to 5, but it turns out sections 3 to 5 are going to be repealed in a few days, and they're going to be replaced with this. The minister, in accordance with the regulations and by written order, may establish an area of Crown land or an area of private land in a tree farm licence or a woodlot licence as a resource management zone.
And there's a new term added: "resource management zone." Objectives are going to be determined via a resource management zone, but that's down the road. The minister thought that wasn't relevant. It turns out that in the first section, it's relevant. Then I look here to see what a resource management zone is and can't find it. It's not defined. So when does the minister think this will all be settled? When does he think the objectives…? When does he think the land use plans will be in place and the objectives will flow, and when will we know what a resource management zone is? Any time frame on this?
[2055]
Hon. M. de Jong: These are relevant issues presented in a remarkable way by a member who occupied a seat in cabinet in a government that distinguished itself for dithering and prevailing over the overall — almost — dismantling of an entire industry in this province; a member whose government distinguished itself by imposing regulatory burdens upon stakeholders across the field, which drove many out of business; a member whose government distinguished itself by adopting an approach to land use planning that largely said: "Our way or the highway." So whilst I struggle to remind myself that questions around the ongoing land use planning process are indeed relevant to the overall health of our forest sector, I hope the member will excuse me for taking exception to being lectured to by someone who played such an instrumental role in driving this industry to its knees.
J. MacPhail: I guess the best defence is an offence.
Those were some pretty straightforward questions I asked. When does the government plan to complete the land use planning so objectives can be set? Will it be the objectives that flow from sections 3 and 5 of the old code, or will the objectives be set according to the new sections 3 and 5 that are in a piece of legislation that was tabled earlier today? They are pretty straightforward questions.
Again, the minister can try to obfuscate through political rhetoric all he likes. He'll have to live with his own record — absolutely. The record that's emerging so far from the government is being tested daily around the province with mixed results. This is the time for the minister to explain how his model works better — a pretty straightforward question that flows
[ Page 4492 ]
directly from the two pieces of legislation that he's tabled, which are inextricably integrated. Why can't he answer that question? Maybe he'd like to wait until tomorrow to do it. Mr. Chair, actually….
Interjection.
J. MacPhail: Well, clearly the minister needs to do a little bit of homework on this. I'm serious about it. I would prefer that we actually deal with an annotated version, not to pass…. I mean, it's kind of shocking that we're dealing with a section in our first section that's going to be changed three days from now. So noting the hour, Mr. Chair, and the time needed to get the answer, I move that the committee rise, report progress and certainly ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 8:58 p.m.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. M. de Jong moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 8:58 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]
In addition to providing transcripts on the Internet, Hansard Services publishes transcripts in print and broadcasts Chamber debates on television.
TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule
Copyright
© 2002: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
ISSN: 1499-2175