Hansard -- Tuesday, October 28, 2003 p.m. -- Vol. 17, No. 11 (HTML)


CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page



Tributes		7589
	Legislative press gallery Webster Award winners and nominees
	J. MacPhail

Introductions by Members		7589

Introduction and First Reading of Bills		7589
	Youth Justice Act (Bill 63)
	Hon. G. Plant
	Columbia Basin Trust Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 79)
	Hon. R. Neufeld

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		7590
	Federal policy on gravel extraction from Fraser River
	R. Hawes
	Naturopathy
	J. MacPhail
	Economic development in Lumby
	T. Christensen

Oral Questions		7591
	Loss of income assistance benefits
	J. Kwan
	Hon. M. Coell
	Crime rate in B.C.
	J. MacPhail
	Hon. R. Coleman
	Hon. G. Campbell
	Development of aquaculture industry
	G. Trumper
	Hon. J. van Dongen
	Government aid for B.C. cattle industry
	P. Nettleton
	Hon. J. van Dongen
	Employment standards in agriculture industry
	K. Stewart
	Hon. G. Bruce

Petitions		7594
	P. Nettleton

Reports from Committees		7594
	Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills, second report
	B. Lekstrom

Committee of the Whole House		7595
	Accountants (Chartered) Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 78)
	T. Christensen
	Hon. G. Abbott
	L. Mayencourt
	B. Kerr
	I. Chong

Reporting of Bills		7599
	Accountants (Chartered) Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 78)

Third Reading of Bills		7599
	Accountants (Chartered) Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 78)

Committee of the Whole House		7600
	Tenancy Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 77)
	J. Kwan
	Hon. R. Coleman
	L. Mayencourt
	M. Hunter
	J. Bray
	R. Stewart

Report and Third Reading of Bills		7619
	Tenancy Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 77)

Introduction and First Reading of Bills		7619
	Western Pentecostal Bible College Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill Pr409)
	B. Penner

J. MacPhail: I want to acknowledge some important achievements made last week by members of our very own press gallery. On Thursday night of last week, the annual Webster Awards for excellence in B.C. journalism were given out. While some may say that's a contradiction in terms here in British Columbia, I am, as you know, a passionate defender of and an advocate for our extremely professional press gallery. Could the House please join me in congratulating the Commentator of the Year, Paul Willcocks. Also, BCCTV's Ed Watson was awarded a Webster fellowship, and I understand Ed will take on the onerous task of travelling to New Zealand to study electoral reform. I also want to acknowledge that Judith Lavoie, Les Leyne and Jeff Rud were nominated for best print reporting. Would all members please acknowledge, thank and honour our colleagues of the press gallery.

T. Christensen: I'm pleased to welcome to the House today one of my constituents, Dave Carroll from Lumby. Dave's a past president of the Lumby Legion, and he's joined this afternoon by his daughter Lynn Radbourne, who resides here in Victoria. Would the House please make them both very welcome.

R. Hawes: Today the naturopaths of British Columbia are set up at the Grand Pacific Hotel, doing testing for anyone who wants to go over and have a little bit of a health checkup.

Today in the House we are honoured with the presence of Dr. Garrett Swetlikoff, the president of the British Columbia Naturopathic Association; Dr. Chris Kind; Dr. Stephanie Trenciansky; Dr. Jim Chan; Dr. Stefan Kuprowsky; Jim Hart, who is a public relations consultant for the naturopaths; and Glenn Cassie, the executive director of the BCNA.

I urge anybody who has time to go over and get tested. Maybe, like me, you'll find out things you needed to know but really didn't want to know. Could the House please make them welcome.

Hon. G. Bruce: There's a jewel of a little community on Vancouver Island — well, there are many jewels of little communities on Vancouver Island — Lake Cowichan. Today with me in the House are some friends of mine, Garth Sims and his grandson Bradley Vomacka. Garth is actually a councillor for the community of Lake Cowichan, and with him is Georgina Taylor. Would the House make them welcome.

L. Mayencourt: We have three visitors in the gallery, and I'd like to introduce them. Visiting from Israel are Eyal Heldenberg and Idan Bobrov, and from France is Lucy Bourner. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. G. Plant presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Youth Justice Act.

Hon. G. Plant: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Hon. G. Plant: I'm pleased to introduce Bill 63, the Youth Justice Act. As members know, on April 1, 2003, the federal Young Offenders Act was repealed and replaced with the new federal Youth Criminal Justice Act. Bringing in a new federal act afforded us in British Columbia the opportunity to review and update our own provincial youth justice legislation.

The Youth Justice Act repeals the existing Young Offenders (British Columbia) Act, repeals the existing youth provisions in the Correction Act and consolidates the relevant provisions from those acts into one new Youth Justice Act, written specifically for young offenders.

Three main objectives are fulfilled by this new act. First, it ensures that our provincial statutes are consistent with federal terminology and up to date with current practice. Second, the act parallels the federal legislation by ensuring that serious consequences are available as a sentencing option for six serious provincial statute offences that previously could only attract non-custodial dispositions. Third, the legislation increases the maximum custody sentence available for serious provincial statute offences where the maximum penalty for an adult is more than six months from a maximum of 30 days to a maximum of 90 days.

Finally, the Youth Justice Act supports the work being done by the Ministry of Children and Family Development to devolve youth justice programs and services to regional and aboriginal authorities. By focusing on the specific needs of youth in conflict with the law, while increasing the use of custody for the most serious provincial statute offences, this bill balances the need to focus on rehabilitation for young persons while providing increased consequences for those youth who pose a risk to public safety — an-

other of the actions taken by this government to ensure that we have safe streets and safe communities.

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

Hon. R. Neufeld presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Columbia Basin Trust Amendment Act, 2003.

Hon. R. Neufeld: I am pleased to introduce Bill 79, the Columbia Basin Trust Amendment Act, 2003. These amendments implement decisions of the core services review for Columbia Basin Trust. Through the act the trust board will be restructured to modernize it, enabling it to more efficiently deliver the legislated mandate of the trust.

A smaller, skill-based board will continue to be made up of Columbia basin residents who are guided by priorities set by the basin residents through the Columbia basin management plan. Importantly, the changes will also clarify issues of ownership and control as they relate to new accounting standards to ensure that auditors continue to include government's investments in the trust in government's summary accounts.

The government remains committed to supporting the work of the trust and to providing ongoing funding for local power projects that benefit the region. As well, a number of the amendments support government's deregulation initiative to reduce unnecessary red tape and regulation by one-third within three years.

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 79 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.

R. Hawes: Yesterday Dr. John Davis, regional director general for the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans, stated in a letter to the Vancouver Sun that DFO policies on gravel removal from creeks and streams are not responsible for the recent flooding disasters. Last week Dale Patterson, regional manager, made the same claim. To the extent that heavy rains caused the floods, they are correct. However, flooding came much faster and with much more severity because of the DFO policy, which makes gravel and silt removal all but impossible. Property is more extensively damaged and lives are put at greater risk when the ability of creeks and streams to carry runoff is diminished. This has been confirmed with Mr. Merv Harrower, provincial director of the PEP program. He's extremely concerned with the dangers created by this policy.

I've walked many of the creeks and streams in the Hatzic Prairie area of my riding, and I have numerous photographs taken both before and after the flooding. They make it abundantly clear that both Dr. Davis and Mr. Patterson are incorrect in their assessment.

This ill-conceived DFO gravel moratorium is intended to provide additional habitat for fish. Fair enough. But the reality is that the few fish that do spawn in these choked watercourses do so in high-water periods. Their eggs hatch in low-water periods, and the silt prevents the hatchlings from escaping. They die in great numbers within these non-functioning systems. The people of Hatzic Prairie know this.

My constituents feel that the DFO is unaware and uncaring of the damage their policy is doing to the people affected, to their property and to the fishery itself. People who are struggling to protect their families and their property are regularly threatened with charges if they go anywhere near the creeks on their land. This is an unacceptable situation to the people I represent, where in their desperate effort to save roads, bridges and in some cases homes, they are being told to stay out of the streams. It's now past time for the DFO to revise its policies regarding the management of creeks and streams in order to make the safety of people and property truly paramount.

J. MacPhail: Today I want to celebrate the practice of naturopathy and urge all British Columbians to embrace this wonderful science-based health care delivery system. Naturopathy, of course, is a practice of medicine that promotes health wellness and illness prevention, and that perhaps makes it apart from the other practices of medicine in this province. It's not to pit one practice of medicine against the other but to embrace all practices of medicine that are science-based and accessible so that British Columbians can continue on the path of increased health year after year.

Naturopaths, of course, are medically trained for years and years and often are MDs with a specialty in naturopathy. Many of us had the opportunity today to get tested by the naturopaths, and the results were interesting, to say the least. What we do know is that in our health care system, when there is so much pressure

on services and when access is an issue, it makes sense for British Columbia to embrace the practice of naturopathy so that people can have health care where they need it, when they need it.

Naturopathy epitomizes that through all towns in British Columbia. They offer a wide range of medical services that are of benefit to all of us. I must say, though, that with the tests that were done on all of us today, there's probably some bad news for the B.C. Liberal government, and I'm sorry I have to bring that bad news to them. It turns out that in all of my tests, I'm extremely healthy, and I'm going to be around for a long, long time. [Applause.]

T. Christensen: One of the privileges of being elected to represent Okanagan-Vernon has been the opportunity to learn more about the communities I represent outside of Vernon. Today I'm going to speak about the village of Lumby, a community that is rightly proud of its roots in farming and forestry, a community that has experienced more than its fair share of disruption and adjustment occasioned by the tragic decline in the forest industry in this province, but a community that epitomizes the value of small-town living and is working hard to provide the foundation for continued and future opportunity and success for its citizens.

The legacy of the 1990s for Lumby was the closure of the three major mills that provided the bulk of employment for people living in the community. The village of Lumby has responded to the disruption of the 1990s with an aggressive plan to renew infrastructure, examine new economic opportunities and market the area as the gateway to the Monashees.

Downtown revitalization is a cornerstone of the village's efforts to diversify its economy. Phase 1 of Lumby's downtown revitalization proceeded prior to the last election and was completed in 2001, totally funded by the village. Phase 2 will proceed next spring, thanks to the contribution of this government under the Canada–British Columbia Infrastructure Works program.

In addition to the revitalization of its downtown, the village of Lumby is proceeding with long-planned upgrades to its water system with a contribution of over $600,000 from the provincial government, and the village is currently developing a strategy to upgrade its sanitary sewer operations. Such infrastructure initiatives are essential to the progress of any community, as we all know.

Over the last six months Lumby has hosted the Canadian hang-gliding and paragliding championships and has also been the site of a week-long international Norton motorcycle rally, attracting over 1,200 motorcycle enthusiasts from around North America. What shines through in these events is the dedication and community spirit of the people of Lumby. The many volunteers ensure that all events are a great success and that visitors feel welcome and leave eager to return. The village of Lumby has faced challenges, but it has met them head on, positioning itself to grow and continue to offer a quality of life that is described quite nicely by the village's slogan: "Simply the best."

J. Kwan: Yesterday the Premier told us how many people won't get kicked off welfare, but he would not say how many people will. Well, here's the FOI. The numbers are blanked out. Will the Premier finally tell us how many people will lose income assistance? Just fill in the blanks.

Hon. M. Coell: Every day in British Columbia, people on income assistance are finding employment through programs of this government. This government has helped tens of thousands of people on income assistance find employment, and we're going to continue to do that. We're going to continue to do that. But I would say to the member — if she read the Vancouver Sun today about the great opportunities coming to British Columbia, the great job opportunities that are coming — that people on income assistance will have an opportunity because of this government's training and employment programs to participate in….

Hon. M. Coell: The members fail to realize that people on income assistance deserve to succeed in British Columbia, and they will.

J. Kwan: British Columbians who need help deserve to get the help they need, irrespective of some arbitrary decision on a time limit where they will be kicked off of the only social safety net that's left. "The most open and accountable government in Canada" — that was the promise, but continued evasion and denial is the reality. The result is growing concern about what the government knows but refuses to acknowledge.

J. Kwan: …will be families with kids. I can see why the Liberal government might be embarrassed. We're talking about the health and well-being of children.

To the Premier: put aside the spin. What were the numbers blanked out on the FOI? Fill in the blanks.

Hon. M. Coell: There are 22 categories of people who are exempt from time limits with this govern-

ment's policies. They are persons with disabilities, persons who temporarily have a medical condition, single parents with children under three, pregnant women, people participating in training-for-jobs programs. If someone wants…

Hon. M. Coell: …to participate in a training employment program, they're exempt. We're encouraging people to seek work. We're encouraging people to get the training they need to find success in British Columbia, and they will, despite the opposition's protests.

J. Kwan: Thousands of children in B.C. live below the poverty line — one in six. Many live in troubled homes. Now the Premier is cutting income assistance to those families, leaving very little for the children. Many British Columbians are wondering what possible purpose it serves to cut income assistance for poor children. Many also wonder why a government that promised openness and accountability is behaving so cowardly now.

The question is to the Premier. It is very simple. Just fill in the blanks of how many people he is intending to kick off of income assistance the next fiscal year.

Hon. M. Coell: Every day people on income assistance are finding employment in this province through programs developed by this government….

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. We'll wait until there is quiet in the chamber. Please proceed.

Hon. M. Coell: People leaving income assistance are leaving for jobs that pay three times what they were on income assistance. If the members were the least bit interested in child poverty, they would know that the best social safety net is a job and that the best thing we can do is help people find employment. And that's exactly what we're doing.

J. MacPhail: Well, here's one that the Premier can answer. Yesterday the Premier said crime is on the decline in British Columbia, but I read the government report, and that's not true. Let me quote from the report. This is from the government report.

In the first quarter of 2003 the crime rate increased by 4 percent over 2002. In the year 2000 property crime hit a low of 63.9 crimes per thousand people. In 2002 the figure is approaching 65 crimes per thousand people, and it's on the rise. In 1999 there were 35.5 non-violent Criminal Code offences per thousand British Columbians. In 2002 that figure jumped to 38.8.

Why did the Premier yesterday stand in this Legislature and suggest that crime is going down when in fact, according to his own report, it's going up?

Hon. R. Coleman: The fact of the matter is that crime is always a challenge, and statistical reporting of crime is also a challenge.

Hon. R. Coleman: You can find statistics anywhere and do whatever you want to do with them, but the fact of the matter is that we have improved the infrastructure of policing in British Columbia through our initiatives like PRIME-BC, which are actually going to let us target enforcement to crime in this province and actually target it where it needs to be. We are making the improvements that are necessary so the police will be able to deal with the issues in and around crime in a five-year plan to make this province a better place.

J. MacPhail: There seems to be quite a disconnect these days between the Solicitor General and the Premier. Yesterday the Premier said crime was going down. We actually read his own government's report. Today the Solicitor General, who took great pride in saying that everything was fine, said: "Oh, you can do whatever you want with statistics."

Well, here are some more statistics. It's a very simple matter. From 1996 to 2000, property crimes in British Columbia declined dramatically. Now this government is reversing that trend. According to the government's own numbers, the crime rate is going back up for the first time since 1993. Can't tell the truth on the economy…

Hon. member, let us remain parliamentary while we ask our questions. Please proceed.

J. MacPhail: The Premier can't get the facts straight on the economy. He can't get the facts straight on income assistance. He can't get the facts straight on crime, even from his own reports. Can the Premier point to where, in the New Era, he promised to increase unemployment, increase homelessness, increase hunger and increase crime?

Hon. G. Campbell: I welcome the opportunity to remind the member opposite that for the first time in the history of the province, over two million people are at work. I welcome the opportunity…

Hon. G. Campbell: …to point out that after that member's government's dismal decade, in the last two years we've created over 100,000 jobs in this province. I welcome the opportunity to say again today what I said yesterday.

Hon. G. Campbell: The peak of property crime was in 1996. There were 86.7 offences per thousand people, and in 2002 it is 64.9 offences. That is a trend down, as I said yesterday.

I also pointed out yesterday that, in fact, as people find work, as they move off income assistance into the workplace, as they create a better quality of life for themselves and for their families, crime continues to go down. That's what we are going to continue to build on: a safer, secure society based on a strong economy in British Columbia.

G. Trumper: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries. It has now been over a year since the moratorium on aquaculture was lifted, yet there are still no new fish farms.

G. Trumper: This industry has untapped potential to create jobs and to stimulate the economies of coastal communities up and down the Island, particularly in the west coast communities such as Ucluelet and Tofino which are in my riding. Can the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries tell us why, despite the enormous potential, we still have no new fish farms?

Hon. J. van Dongen: At the provincial level we have a very comprehensive application process for both relocations and new sites, and provincially those are processed through Land and Water British Columbia. They have a time frame in which to do the referrals and do the processing, and they have processed a great number of relocations and new sites. The real issue is the Canadian environmental assessment…

The Leader of the Opposition has had her turn in question period. Please extend the courtesy to others.

Hon. J. van Dongen: The real issue is the Canadian environmental assessment process, which is handled by DFO. That is a very complex process. It duplicates a lot of the requirements at the provincial level. It is a very serious holdup.

We have applications that have taken over two and a half years and have not come through. We are working very actively with the federal minister, federal deputy ministers and associate deputy ministers to break this logjam and get these applications processed. We're very acutely aware of the economic needs in the member's community and other coastal communities. We will work hard to get this logjam broken.

P. Nettleton: Unfortunately, the B.C. beef producers are still in dire straits from the continued fallout from the mad cow situation. Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan are not waiting for the federal government to make the first move to bring the BSE aid up to a level that will better meet the needs of all suffering producers. They are proactively providing assistance from the provincial coffers and are pressing the federal government to meet their obligations. Indeed, they are upping the ante in the name of compassion.

Even though there are differences in operation between B.C.'s beef industry and that of the prairie provinces, the B.C. government's $2.3 million assistance package is minuscule compared to Alberta's extended assistance of approximately $100 million, not including the federal contribution, and Saskatchewan's $20 million to extend the BSE recovery program, plus another $20 million in loans and cash advances. Manitoba's similar BSE extension package amounting to $110 million in assistance and incentives and loans….

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order. Order. Order, please! Would the member now please put his question.

P. Nettleton: I certainly will. Granted that Alberta's ranching industry is….

P. Nettleton: In light of the minister's previous statement that he is looking into following Alberta's lead in offering further assistance to our cattle industry, can the Premier tell the cattlemen in B.C. what steps he is taking to extend and enlarge the BSE assistance in this province beyond the stringent limitations of the federal effort which is of little benefit to B.C. ranchers and producers? Mr. Premier?

Hon. J. van Dongen: Our government has been very, very active on the BSE file, including prioritizing, getting the border open, which is the only lasting solution. Starting with the Premier's conference in Kelowna, our Premier, together with the three other western Premiers, was very instrumental in getting the $460 million BSE recovery program, which was really very, very instrumental in getting the Canadian beef industry on its feet.

Hon. J. van Dongen: We have been flexible in terms of grazing arrangements. We have worked very actively with the federal government and other provinces to make money available on the CAIS program. There is an interim advance program that we have pushed. We are actually issuing cheques to producers, and we are actively working with the federal government on a cull cow program.

I say to those other provinces: if they had worked together with us and the federal government, we would have had the cull cow program a lot sooner than we have it. We will continue to push to have that program in place very shortly.

K. Stewart: Last summer the Minister of Skills Development and Labour and the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries announced a partnership agreement between the B.C. Agriculture Council and its member organizations in an effort to improve employment standard compliance to protect farmworkers. Since this announcement, there have been suggestions that changes to the employment standards regulations may negatively affect some farmworkers. Will the minister responsible for labour explain why these changes were made, and will vulnerable farmworkers be better off with these changes?

Hon. G. Bruce: We take this part of the ministry very, very seriously in respect to protecting vulnerable workers. Within the agriculture community, particularly the sector that we've been dealing with on the berry side, we've put together a very aggressive program. We did, as the member mentioned, have an MOU signed amongst the agriculture community. But with the berry side, to make sure that people were paid, we've brought in a program of direct deposits where all farm labour contractors have to have direct-deposit programs in place for their employees.

We've also made sure — for people that English is their second language — that we have the appropriate people in the field who can speak the language to explain their rights. We've also made sure that farm labour contractors are bonded. Those that find themselves in contravention of employment standards are now, today, faced with mandatory fines — of which some have already received fines in respect to not having direct-deposit systems in place. Those mandatory fines, as you remember, are $500, $2,500 and $10,000.

P. Nettleton: I have with me here today 11,000 petitions, in addition to 12,000 petitions that were submitted earlier, requesting that government protect and enhance the scope of practice for naturopathic physicians.

B. Lekstrom: I have the honour today to present the second report of the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

"Your Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills begs leave to report as follows: one, that the preamble to Bill Pr407 intituled Buron Construction Ltd. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2003 has been proved, and the committee recommends that the bill proceed to second reading; two, that the preamble to Bill Pr408 intituled Buron Construction (1986) Ltd. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2003 has been proved, and the committee recommends that the bill proceed to second reading; three, that the preamble to Bill Pr406 intituled Ver-Tel Communications Ltd. (Corporate Restoration)

Act, 2003 has been proved, and the committee recommends that the bill proceed to second reading.

B. Lekstrom: I ask leave of the House to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.

Bills Pr406, Pr407 and Pr408 ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. G. Collins: I call Committee of the Whole House for consideration of Bill 78.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 78; K. Stewart in the chair.

T. Christensen: I've just got a couple of general questions which I'll ask under section 1, because that seems to be where they'll best fit. I guess the most general question in respect of the bill as a whole is: why is the government proceeding with this bill at this point in time?

Hon. G. Abbott: In response to the member's question, the Ministry of Advanced Education is proceeding with this bill on the request of the chartered accountants association. They've been looking at issues around their act for some time, and what's being put forward here in Bill 78 certainly represents the work they have done within their own body to modernize a piece of legislation which has not been amended since 1987. Certainly, many of the features of this bill are ones which will modernize an important piece of legislation for one of the very important groups in our society. There are some additional benefits as well. Among them, consumer protection will be enhanced as a consequence of the bill, and further, the changes which are made in respect to the institution rebroaden the mandate and broaden the role of the public in relation to the institute.

T. Christensen: My thanks to the minister. I guess even backing up one more step, in terms of this type of legislation, perhaps the minister can expand on what the role of the Institute of Chartered Accountants is vis-à-vis the public.

Hon. G. Abbott: In a broad sense, the role of the institute is to ensure that consumers are protected by having a standard of conduct which can be a reference point, I guess, on issues about whether accountants have fulfilled their moral, legal and other responsibilities in relation to their work. They also have a vital role in respect of an educational process for the chartered accountants themselves, with respect to their responsibilities in relation to the public.

T. Christensen: I understand that many of these amendments have been brought forward because of a desire on behalf of the Institute of Chartered Accountants for some changes in terms of how they can regulate the profession and be more modern in terms of some of their needs. Is there any sort of specific public concern that's being addressed here, or is this generally a modernization exercise based on what other institutes are doing in other jurisdictions?

Hon. G. Abbott: I guess the short answer to the member's question is that, certainly, this was part of a move to modernize and update the legislation under which the chartered accountants operate. There were also, though, issues around, for example, the Enron collapse, which called into some question or called into focus some issues around the area of licensing and disciplining in the area of accounting practices. Certainly, if there was a prompting or triggering event in terms of this legislation moving forward, perhaps that was it, but the general move to modernize was well underway in any event.

The ability to license professionals and firms, to discipline where codes of conduct were breached or not achieved are important issues not just for chartered accountants but for a whole range of professionals. This brings the chartered accountants into the modern view of how those things should be conducted. There's an increase in the scope of authority, all aimed at providing enhanced consumer protection for British Columbians as well as modernizing the act for chartered accountants.

T. Christensen: As the minister is aware, there are a number of accounting designations. There are CAs, CGAs, CMAs. I think there are CPAs, but not necessarily in Canada. There are probably others. Can the minister comment just briefly on whether there's general support among the wide range of accounting professions for these types of changes? Is there any disagreement in terms of the need for these changes?

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm advised that in the process of preparing this bill, broad consultations were undertaken, including with the CMA group and the CGA

group as well as chartered accountants, and there is general support for proceeding with this bill.

T. Christensen: In terms of the public as a whole, as a consumer of services that a chartered accountant firm or individual would provide, can a consumer expect this to have any sort of real impact in their day-to-day dealings with chartered accountants? Or is this more just along the lines of the institute?

Hon. G. Abbott: The answer to the question is, clearly, yes. This will improve the relationship of consumer protection to the profession of accountancy. It will, I think, very much improve confidence because it broadens the scope and broadens the authority of the profession to regulate its members and regulate the activities of its members. It provides for opportunities to discipline where that is necessary. It provides for increased fines in relation to breaches of codes of conduct and so on. Clearly, it is a step forward in terms of managing those issues, which happily only rarely come forward but, when they do, do require action by the professions themselves.

T. Christensen: I just have one more question in terms of this particular section. This move forward in terms of the profession of chartered accountants in British Columbia — is it something other jurisdictions in Canada have already undertaken? Or are we doing something unique?

Hon. G. Abbott: In addition to the broad consultation which was undertaken and which I pointed to earlier in response to an earlier question from the member, the staff in Advanced Education also looked very closely at the legislation and, certainly, the experience of other provinces and jurisdictions in relation to regulation, discipline, and so on, within the accountancy field. Alberta and Ontario, for example, have recently undertaken changes in their respective acts in relation to the chartered accountants, and what you see before you in the current bill is reflective of the experience there but also in other jurisdictions as well.

T. Christensen: Section 2 of the bill references what will be a new section 4 of the act. There's a change there in terms of how the council of the institute is put together. Can the minister just clarify what the change is and the reasons for it?

Hon. G. Abbott: There is a modest change that's contained within the new section 2 from the past. It is certainly consistent with the goal that was referenced earlier of increasing public participation and public involvement in the regulation of the profession. That is that now the three lay members of the commission or institute will be lay members. They will not be accountants. They will be, generally speaking, from the public as opposed to members of the profession.

T. Christensen: What qualifications can we expect those lay members to have in terms of their role in protecting the public interest?

Hon. G. Abbott: The character of the lay members — and it's difficult to be too prescriptive about this, obviously…. When potential lay members of the institute are being considered, the board resourcing development office would look, as they do with other appointments, at a range of issues — for example, what educational qualifications the potential lay members possess; what their experience is in fields perhaps related to accountancy, which might come into play here. Although again recognizing that we're not looking for accountants themselves, they will be represented in the other six members of the institute. They would be looking at the experience, the objectivity and the interests the candidates might bring to bear and which might be used to enhance the skills package that goes into making any board successful.

L. Mayencourt: Section 3 relates to the powers of the institute. I just wonder if the minister could give us a little bit of an overview of what the institute can do in order to protect consumers and the public.

Hon. G. Abbott: The role of the institute is a vital one in relation to the conduct of its members. In the first instance, under the terms of the bill now being considered by the House, the institute will be able to set standards of competence and qualification and be able to measure up their members against that and, of course, against the code of conduct which is embraced by the profession.

Where there is evidence or an allegation of a breach of any of those things, obviously, the institute can investigate and provide, where it's appropriate, discipline in accordance with the provisions applied in the bill.

L. Mayencourt: I was reading that what this bill is really about is actually extending the liability from an individual accountant to also include a firm — in other words, an accounting firm. Can you explain the rationale for that?

Hon. G. Abbott: I appreciate the member raising the important issue of liability, which pops up in, it seems, just about every area of public policy these days. The member is correct. The provisions of Bill 78 will make firms accountable to the institute, not just the

individual members. Firms now will be accountable to the institute for their work as well.

Almost invariably, audits are signed off by firms rather than by individual auditors, and so I think it's consistent with the approach that has been undertaken in virtually every other jurisdiction to extend this to firms. Again, not only was there a broad consultation with respect to the development of this bill but also a long look at what is being done elsewhere. Certainly, what's being done here is consistent with the kind of approach to accountability which has been embraced in Alberta, Ontario and other jurisdictions.

L. Mayencourt: I thank you for your answer. Certainly, protecting consumers and the public is of very great importance to me and to all members of this Legislature. I wonder if the minister could please explain what kinds of penalties for non-compliance these firms might have to pay.

Hon. G. Abbott: Again, consistent with the consumer protection aspects of this bill, there is an increase in the level of fines or the discretion to impose fines — for members, from $10,000 to $25,000; for students, from $2,000 to $4,000; and because it's a new category, up to $100,000 for firms.

Clearly, the public has every reason to expect that when they engage a professional accountant, they can expect competence and they can expect ethical conduct. Where on those rare instances the profession should fall short of that, this bill provides for increased penalties to ensure that kind of behaviour is not repeated.

L. Mayencourt: Those are pretty substantial penalties. I'm not sure if you could, as part of my next question, just let us know if that's consistent with other jurisdictions. That's the first part of my question. Sometimes there are real bad actors. Sometimes there are individuals who pay the fine and continue to breach the code of conduct and what have you. What kind of powers will the institute have with respect to those real bad guys who we really want out of the business in the interests of protecting the public?

Hon. G. Abbott: Again, I think that as the member noted, in rare instances we do have people occasionally breaching professional rules of conduct or breaching a law for that matter. In those instances and particularly when breaches are repeated…. That is a situation, obviously, that the profession wants to discourage because the profession, in its own best interests, wants the public to be completely confident of the work of the professionals who are members of their institute and of their profession.

Among the steps the institute might take where they encounter a breach or repeated breaches of the rules is that they can certainly suspend a licence — with conditions or without conditions, as the institute chooses. They may completely remove the licence if the seriousness of the breach merits that, and they could bar an accountant from membership permanently, should they choose, where a serious breach has occurred.

So there are real teeth in this bill in addition to the monetary penalties that were outlined earlier. Again, this is all about having people feel entirely confident about the competency and the professionalism of the chartered accountants.

L. Mayencourt: I wonder if the minister could speak for a moment about the increased powers to create bylaws here and to actually implement them a little bit more quickly. In debate earlier in second reading, we talked about the fact that the institute could, in fact, introduce bylaw changes and have those ratified at a future annual general meeting. Why do they need that power, and what safeguards are in there to protect members of the chartered accountant profession?

Hon. G. Abbott: I think the enabling provisions here in respect to making bylaws at a time between annual general meetings are really very much a part of the character of modernizing this bylaw after no changes since 1987. Obviously, if we look back to '87, there's a whole realm of technology that has speeded up a lot of business processes since 1987. It's important that we empower the institute to act quickly, because in today's modern world, with the speed at which business is conducted, it is necessary at times to be able to act quickly.

The previous legislation had the bylaw-making power attached only to annual general meetings. We believe it's important to modernize it in respect to bylaws relating to the appointment of committees, special general meetings, fees, voting procedures, appeal procedures, standards of conduct and competency, and qualifications and procedures for admission to membership and enrolment as a student.

These are all areas where again, recognizing that we're dealing with chartered accountants who are attempting to manage issues within their own profession, it's certainly consistent with other accountability mechanisms in this legislation to provide that bylaw-making power for the institute in those areas.

L. Mayencourt: Does government have a role in the bylaws? Specifically, we have a self-regulating industry here, and I think there needs to be some sort of safeguards for the public with respect to those self-regulating bodies. Most legislation we've brought forward has contained some provisions for government to reach in when something has kind of gone awry. Are there provisions in this bill for that?

Hon. G. Abbott: The member's question is a good one. There is a safeguard contained in the legislation which provides that the institute, where they undertake a bylaw outside of their annual general meetings, must file with the minister within 30 days a copy of the bylaw. Government is then given a time limit of 45 days to disallow, if that is the appropriate response.

L. Mayencourt: There was one other question I had, and it had to do with…. I think we refer to them as associate members of the institute, people who may not have the CA designation. What's the rationale for that? Is that something the industry was asking for?

Hon. G. Abbott: The answer is yes. This is the product of a request from the industry.

Hon. G. Abbott: I think I understand the member's question. The bill is structured as it is so that people who are not chartered accountants, strictly speaking — CMAs, CGAs or people who just describe themselves as accountants…. It gives people the option of coming under the regulation of this bill.

B. Kerr: I've just got a question that you maybe could clear up for me on section 4, section 8(2). It says: "Without limiting subsection (1), the council may make bylaws respecting the following…." Then it goes on to say: "…the voting rights, if any, of members in a class…." But then we've given the council…. They make the rights relating to bylaw, and they have to then take it to the members to vote at some time, but it's in effect at the time they make the bylaw.

I guess my question is: if they make a bylaw that's in effect relating to the voting rights and then they take it to the meeting to vote, what takes precedence — the old voting rights or the new voting rights?

Hon. G. Abbott: Staff and I would like you to repeat the question, if you would. We just need a little additional clarification.

B. Kerr: On section 8(2)(a)(ii), it says the council may make bylaws respecting the voting rights, if any, of members in a class under section 14. But once it's made the bylaw, that bylaw holds until the annual general meeting. So the bylaw comes into effect as soon as they've made it, because council is making that bylaw.

My question is: if that's in effect, when notice goes out for the annual general meeting outlining the voting rights of the members and the members don't want those voting rights, what takes precedence?

Hon. G. Abbott: I think we've captured the member's question, and we think the answer is that the bylaw would have a force and effect until the AGM. It would have precedence. Were it overturned, disallowed, at the AGM, then obviously it's struck. But until the issue was considered by the institute, we believe the bylaw would have effect under the provisions of the bill.

B. Kerr: I guess my question is: what if the bylaw restricted the rights of some members? Would those members whose rights are restricted by the bylaws be allowed to vote at the AGM to protect themselves?

Hon. G. Abbott: Again, further to the last answer, we believe the bylaw would have a force and effect in relation to its members. Presumably if it was around an issue of, for example, voting rights, the bylaw would prevail until any one of a number of things happened: (a) it may be sustained by the membership; (b) it could be overturned by the membership, in which case the bylaw would no longer have force and effect.

The third possibility would be the one that the member for Vancouver-Burrard's question referenced, which is what safeguards there are in relation to bylaws being passed outside of the AGM time period in a case where there was some controversy. Perhaps this could happen. Occasionally there may be controversy in the accountancy profession as well. I don't know.

In a case where the issue of voting rights came to the fore as a product of one of these interim bylaws, the minister would have an opportunity to look at that bylaw. I think they have an opportunity, within that time limit of 45 days, to disallow the institute's bylaw.

It's difficult to imagine a scenario where that might occur, but the provision does exist there for, presumably, aggrieved or disaffected members of the profession bringing the issue to the minister. Theoretically, that could result in an overturn of an interim bylaw of the institute.

B. Kerr: Thank you very much, minister. That's a good answer. I think that would be the protection.

I. Chong: A question on section 5 amending section 9 of the Accountants (Chartered) Act, dealing with students. I know it is rather subjective, but I'm wondering if the minister is able to provide additional clarification where the council may determine one or more of the following: (a) the requirements for enrolling — I don't have a difficulty with that — or (b) the curriculum of studies, again, but 9(c) "the fitness and character required of a person applying to be examined or evaluated…." Would the minister be able to add further clarification on that kind of criterion? It is rather subjective.

Hon. G. Abbott: The reference to fitness and character is not a new reference. This existed previously in the act guiding the profession. Nor is it, I think, that unusual in other statutes which regulate professions. Generally, fitness and character references are included into legislation to provide for those extraordinary circumstances where, whether it's a product of behaviour or action or something else…. It does provide an op-

portunity for, essentially, the institute to question the fitness and character of a candidate.

I. Chong: On section 7, dealing with the old sections 12 to 14 in the original act, the appeals, which is being adjusted here. A person who has failed to pass an examination or an evaluation and feels aggrieved is able to appeal to the Supreme Court within three months. Can the minister clarify whether that three months is in any way extended in another part of the act?

The reason why I ask is this. I should clarify that I'm not sure if this is the way it still is. Oftentimes exams can be written at the end of a student year. It could be April, May or June. Oftentimes people will go away and be on holidays as opposed to waiting around for their exam marks or evaluation to come out. Should that happen while someone's away — and they could be away on a work-study project — and the three months lapse, and they're not aware of that, there could be a problem. I'm wondering whether three months was put in more as a guide and whether that is firm or whether there is an opportunity for that appeal to be revisited. Can the minister just provide a little more clarification on that?

Hon. G. Abbott: The provision for reference to the Supreme Court within three months existed in the previous act. It certainly is firm in that it's stated here and is, therefore, firm. It is consistent, again, with what one would find in other statutes of this character. I guess there has to be a guidepost in relation to the time frame in which one can appeal, and three months is the tried and true date for that.

Hon. G. Abbott: I move the amendment to section 18 that's in the possession of the Clerk.

Hon. G. Abbott: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Bill 78, Accountants (Chartered) Amendment Act, 2003, reported complete with amendment.

Bill 78, Accountants (Chartered) Amendment Act, 2003, read a third time and passed.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 77; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

J. Kwan: I have some comments with respect to the Tenancy Statutes Amendment Act, 2003, but I think I'm going to save most of those for towards the end of the debate.

In section 1 we're dealing with, first of all, the manufactured home owners component of the Tenancy Statutes Amendment Act, 2003. Many of the manufactured home owners had concerns about Bill 71. They're concerned that the government's legislation makes it easier for landlords to increase their rents or move them off land where they've lived for many years, even decades, to make way for townhouses.

One of the specific concerns about Bill 71 was that it dictates one-year notice with the equivalent of one year's rent. Homeowners were also concerned that landlords were only asked to give three months' notice of a rent increase rather than six months. Another concern is the rent increases of 5 or 6 percent that the minister said he plans to mandate by regulation. If the pad rents get increased every year, the very valid fear is that it will become too expensive for homeowners. Manufactured home owners are in a sense a captive audience, if you will, since finding a completely new park is not an easy task.

Manufactured home owners requested a seat at the table in the drawing up of the regulations. My question to the minister is: did homeowners get that seat at the table for the drafting of the regulations?

Hon. R. Coleman: We consulted them during drafting. They're in draft form. They'll be consulted with prior to the regulations going forward.

J. Kwan: Would the minister then agree that several of these concerns are not, in fact, addressed in the bill? If that's the case, would the minister then commit that those concerns will be addressed through regulation?

Hon. R. Coleman: Some of the things will be covered in regulation; some will be in policy. They're not specific to this piece of legislation in front of us. This one is cleaning up some language and some other issues with regard to Bills 70 and 71 as they were debated last fall. Like I say, we've been consulting with them and will continue to do so.

J. Kwan: Can the minister provide a list to the opposition, in terms of the concerns that have been raised by this constituency base, of which concerns are being addressed through regulation, which ones are being dealt with by policy, etc., — just so we have a clear idea that their concerns are in fact being addressed comprehensively?

Hon. R. Coleman: The consultations are ongoing, and what's being addressed has really got nothing to do with the debate on this particular piece of legislation. I did say we would consult as we drafted regulation, which we've done. They're in draft form now. They'll be consulted again before we put them in place.

We've tried to address the issues and concerns of both sides of this discussion. I'm sure you'll hear from some of my colleagues, as we move through this legislation, that the owners are particularly unhappy with the ministry because of some changes that we've made to the legislation. Actually, I guess that when both sides aren't particularly totally happy, maybe we've actually got some balance.

J. Kwan: The interesting thing is that…. I'll just draw one example, because the opposition had sent out information to various people who were concerned with the original bill that was first tabled — Bill 71, the Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Act — and also the Residential Tenancy Act. We have a litany of issues that people had raised. In fact, the concerns that people raise…. I know that many of those concerns were brought to the government members when we debated those bills last spring. The problem was that the government members actually didn't raise any of the concerns.

In fact, the member for Vancouver-Burrard said, "Well, gee, the member" — me — "for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant raised all those concerns already. Therefore, I don't have to do anything," he figured. Then he went on to say that because those concerns had been raised, everything is fine — with the exception, of course, that he voted for the bill.

L. Mayencourt: Actually, my comments are in Hansard, and they are not as described by the member from Mount Pleasant. I would ask that she withdraw those statements because they are untrue.

The Chair: Member, I don't believe that's a point of order, but you can certainly have an opportunity to make your comments at a later date.

J. Kwan: Yes, it would be useful to learn the rules of the House. The reality is this, with respect to what

the member for Vancouver-Burrard actually did say. In fact, I'll actually put it on record now. I was going to do that later, but let me just put it on record now.

When I rose to speak on this bill at second reading, I made the point that although the opposition thinks it's a good thing that the government is admitting an error and reversing itself, particularly on the issue around retroactive rent hikes, those were concerns that, in fact, many people had raised on the issues related to both the Residential Tenancy Act as well as the Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Act.

At the time, there was less than 24 hours to engage in second reading debate, without warning, and I had suggested that for a proper debate to take place, for fulsome debate to take place, it might be better to actually have more time between first and second reading. But that was not to be, and the government decided to call second reading with less than 24 hours' notice.

The Chair: Member, would you take your seat for a second, please. I want to remind the member that although we give a lot of latitude on section 1, let's get back to the actual content of section 1.

J. Kwan: Thank you, hon. Chair, and let me tie in the pieces for you. I'm talking about issues around consultation, issues around what the government is doing with respect to consultation. In the definitions it really does lay out the whole notion around tenancy and the parameters related to it, and therefore it would be important to understand the context in which my questions arise, which is why I'm bringing up these points.

With less than 24 hours of notice, without warning, second reading was called. The ink was barely dry, and with the introduction of the bill by the minister, Hansard was only in draft form. We had indicated that stakeholder groups had not been notified of the new legislation and were themselves, once we informed them, scrambling to discern what — besides the flip-flop on rent hikes — was in the bill.

The response we got to these concerns merely proves, I think, the main point. The government backbenchers' ability to debate this bill was clearly compromised. As a matter of fact, only two members of the government bench even bothered to try to raise the issues. We had the member for Vancouver-Burrard saying he didn't know what the opposition was complaining about. He had plenty of time between 9 o'clock at night and 10 o'clock the following morning to read the bill in its entirety and decided it was okay by him.

This, we can only assume, was the same approach to the bill research that led the member for Vancouver-Burrard to support the original flawed bill to begin with. Despite that fact, as he freely admitted in second reading comments, he was "in constant communication" with tenant representatives who were telling him that the bill was flawed.

The member and indeed this minister like to make a big deal out of the consultations they did after they passed Bill 70, but they conveniently forget that they also boasted about all the consultations they did before bringing in the flawed bill, when they ignored the concerns of the tenants and decided to side with the landlords.

Despite the valid concerns that the member for Vancouver-Burrard had admitted were raised by tenants with him, he chose not to bring them to the minister's attention. He says he chose not to do this — and I take him at his word on this — because he felt it would be "redundant" of him to raise these issues as a government backbencher after I had raised them as a member of the opposition. This member then voted wholeheartedly for the entire flawed Bill 70. So I take with a grain of salt the member's criticisms of concerns over having between the hours of 9 p.m. and 10 a.m. to examine a brand-new bill.

Perhaps it would be more convenient for the government if the opposition took the approach of one of their colleagues who at second reading of the first residential tenancy act said: "I don't have to go through the bill section by section. I think it's a good piece of legislation." That was a statement of the member for Victoria-Hillside. That would certainly make the government's job easier, less embarrassing. They wouldn't have to deal with stories in the media like the ones about another bill, Bill 48, and how this government was giving guaranteed access to the aquaculture industry for potential farming sites.

We in the opposition take very seriously the job of examining government legislation, and despite our limited resources, we will continue to do the work….

The Chair: Member, please. I've asked you to get back to section 1, please. You're completely off topic here. We are talking on Bill 77 and section 1. I'd ask you to please confine your debate to that section.

The Chair: Member, you are linking everything but the kitchen sink here. I'd ask you, please, to get back to section 1.

J. Kwan: Mr. Chair, we're talking about the issue, and I was asking the minister questions around consultation. The minister says: "Don't worry. We consulted extensively." In fact, the minister went on to say their members — this Liberal bench, the MLAs from the Liberal government — said that they will raise their concerns because they will bring them forward. The fact is that the history of these bills we're debating — Bill 70 and Bill 71, which are being amended through Bill 77 — was not brought up. Those concerns were not brought up by these members.

So when I ask the issues around consultation and its relationship to it, it is important that I put it in the context that when the minister says those issues would be raised by the members, in fact they were not. They were not under Bill 70, the Residential Tenancy Act, and they were not raised under Bill 71, the Manufac-

tured Home Park Tenancy Act, and now we have Bill 77 amending those two pieces of legislation.

So to the point, for the members: how it relates is the issue around consultation and the absolute silence from the government side in raising concerns. There had been no concerns raised that people brought to government MLAs' attention. They didn't raise them, and that's a reality. Then they say: "Well, gee, I thought I didn't have to raise it because you did it already." Then they turned around and actually voted for the bill in its entirety, against the people and their constituents who raised the concerns with them.

On the issue around consultation, I find it, well, not trustworthy to take the word of any of the government MLAs — including the ministers, I'm sorry to say — when they say, "Don't worry; trust us; everything is fine," because their practice has shown that they don't listen to people.

The minister says, on the issue around consultation, that everything is being addressed, so you needn't worry about it, when in fact I actually have a letter from the Active Manufactured Home Owners Association dated October 22, 2003, to the minister with the concerns around this bill. The minister says this bill will not be dealing with any of the concerns that people raise, when in fact that is not true. So let me just put on record the questions that the Active Manufactured Home Owners Association had put to the minister, and I'd like the minister's response to their questions.

On the question, as it relates to section 1 and as it relates to the issues that have been raised by this group, hence the government consulted with them. Will they be at the table in terms of the drafting of the regulations, and will their concerns be addressed? How would it be addressed? Would it be by regulation or through some other government policy or some other legislation at a later date?

L. Mayencourt: I wish to respond to some of the comments from the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. Is this the appropriate time to do that?

L. Mayencourt: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant made some comments about my comments in this Legislature, and I would like to make the point that she should perhaps look at Hansard to see what I did say. I did not say that my asking questions would be redundant. I said that it would be redundant for me to repeat the questions that she had copies of and that she had simply asked just a few moments ago.

Another thing I did say in Hansard…. This deals with her comments about reading the bill, coming into this Legislature, us not giving her enough time to take stock of this bill and us not giving her enough opportunity to look it over. I made comments in this House that I had received the bill at the same time as her. I received it at 9 o'clock on the night…. I received this bill at the same time as her, and I went to work that night because this bill means a whole lot. This is a very important bill for my riding.

The Chair: I think we've got completely off track here with this section 1. I want to get back on track. I'm going to now ask the minister to stand up and give a response to the question, and let's get back on section 1, Bill 77.

Hon. R. Coleman: Section 1. I'll deal with the member's question. I just want to make sure the House is understanding what section 1 is about, so we know what we're actually debating. It revises the definition of terms for the periodic tenancy, which clarifies that a tenancy agreement must be ended in accordance with the requirements of the act.

As currently worded, the definition allows for periodic tenancy to end by verbal notice or other steps a party might take to end a tenancy. Our advice from counsel was that that wasn't acceptable. It deals with the definition of "registered mail," and it corrects the reference to Canada Post.

On the tenancy side, it clarifies that a tenancy is premised on a right to possession rather than actual possession, because in some cases the person actually occupying the rental unit is different than the person on the tenancy agreement.

With regard to the member's question on the consultation, that's how we actually got to what the member's being critical of. That is, when we went out and talked to these organizations, retroactivity was something we discussed. We've made it clear all along that any extraordinary rent increases above what is set in regulation will have to go to arbitration, and that will continue to be the case.

J. Kwan: Specifically on the question around consultation with respect to the drafting of the regulations, the minister actually said that he is in consultation and that he will continue to be consulting with stakeholders on this. My specific question is: on the drafting of the regulations related to the rent increase component in terms of the amount — and that's what this letter that I read off referenced — will they be at the table in terms of the consultation, specifically with the drafting of the regulations related to that issue?

Hon. R. Coleman: They've been told all along that we're not consulting on the amount and that that is a decision to be made by government when the regulations are done. That hasn't changed in our conversations with them.

J. Kwan: Well, that's a shame, because the minister would like you to believe that they are consulting far and wide. On the issues that stakeholders are particularly concerned with that actually deal with the amount of the rent increase and how it would impact them…. To a certain extent, it may actually impact them to become homeless — to actually lose the site, the park they have their home on — if the rent increases are too high and could not be sustained. The pertinent issues that impact people's lives…. The minister just admitted that he would not be consulting them on those issues.

I think that is more than unfortunate, and it would make no sense to me. If all those Liberal MLAs who are working hard on behalf of their constituents were, in fact, speaking to their ministers, they would actually be standing up right now, fighting to make sure they're at table on these critical questions and issues they've raised that are of concern to them. Yet they're not. They're happy that the stakeholder groups don't have a seat at the table on the matter most important to them — namely, the issue around the amount of the rent increase they might be faced with by regulation and legislation. Yet the government MLAs are proud of the work they do. One wonders about this kind of representation for the people.

J. Kwan: The member for Vancouver-Burrard no doubt is proud of his record of not only not raising the concerns for his constituents but voting against his constituents, as he has demonstrated time and time again.

The Chair: Member, I want to remind you again: please, section 1. We're dealing with section 1.

The Chair: Member, I asked you to please confine your remarks to section 1. We'll get back to the debate on section 1 of Bill 77.

J. Kwan: Absolutely, Mr. Chair, but from time to time I must admit I do get sidetracked. The member for Vancouver-Burrard is heckling me, so I get sidetracked, and I feel compelled to respond. I apologize, Mr. Chair. I do get distracted by the noise around me, and I feel compelled to respond from time to time. So I do apologize, Mr. Chair.

J. Kwan: No, it's not that I don't heckle. I heckle, but hey, when people heckle from time to time, people respond. That's what happens. I'm doing that. Then they get bothered and troubled because I respond as well.

It is perplexing to me for government members to say, "Don't worry; everything will be fine; regulations will be in place; people will be consulted," when in fact for the most pertinent issue people need to be consulted on, they're not at the table. No government MLA, including the member for Vancouver-Burrard, is standing up to advocate to make sure they have a seat at the table.

Section 1 of the bill is the definitions section. I know there's another bill concerning manufactured homes. It's a Finance bill, Bill 72, the Manufactured Home Act, which was introduced last week. I'd like to ask the minister if he could explain the interrelations of these two bills and whether any of the concerns raised by the manufactured home owners about Bill 71 from the year 2001 are addressed in this new Finance bill. Is there any relationship between these two bills, and if so, what is it?

Hon. R. Coleman: Let's make it clear: we did consult. We consulted with the very people the member is

actually quoting from. We consulted on the amount, but we did not tell them what it would be because that hasn't been decided yet, because regulations haven't been brought forward.

The fact of the matter is that there are, in the act, a couple of things. Obviously, if we consulted and we took out retroactivity, they were at the table having that conversation. The member wants to know with regard to how this bill affects each section of Bill 71. Well, we can go through it section by section. What we're dealing with right now is some definitions. We seem to be off topic. I don't want to get off topic. I'm not here to redebate Bills 70 and 71; I'm here to debate the amendments to those bills that are before the House in legislation.

I can tell the member that we have consulted, and we have said we would consult as we finalized the regulations. At the same time, maybe they don't like the answer they got during consultation, but to say they weren't consulted with is wrong. They were consulted, and that's why we're here today with some of these changes, particularly the retroactivity. When we brought forward the retroactivity, we decided to clarify some issues in common law that were brought to our attention by legislative counsel and by legal advice, which we're doing in this act. We're moving forward.

J. Kwan: Well, when the minister says that he's consulted with these groups, save and except…. One of the key issues that the groups want to be consulted on is the amount of the rent increase as the government will be bringing this in legislation, and he just admitted on record to say that they would not be consulted on that particular issue. It doesn't add up. You say you've consulted, but on key issues that people want to be at the table to be consulted on, the minister admitted that he won't be consulting them. We can check Hansard on what he just said. We can check Hansard on that comment.

The question I asked of the minister was around Bill 72 — whether or not there's any interrelatedness with the new bill that was introduced last week, the Manufactured Home Act, as it relates to Bill 77.

J. Kwan: Under the definition of tenancy — and I quote from the act — it reads: "'Tenancy' means a tenant's occupation of a manufactured home site under a tenancy agreement and the rights and obligations of the landlord and tenant during that occupation." The definition here has changed about the tenant's right to possession of a manufactured home site under a tenancy agreement. Could the minister explain why the language about the rights and obligations has been removed?

Hon. R. Coleman: The previous definition read: "'Tenancy' means a tenant's occupation of a manufactured home site under a tenancy agreement and the rights and obligations of the landlord and tenant during the occupation." Legislative counsel's advice was that the second part of that sentence was unnecessary because the rights and obligations of the landlord and tenant are contained in the tenancy agreement.

J. Kwan: So is it safe to say that it's just a language issue and that it has no substantive impact in terms of the changes between — I shouldn't call it the old act — Bill 71 versus this amendment?

Hon. R. Coleman: Under "changing occupation," it does, because it can affect who's allowed to be on the site, and that's why it was done. On the others it has no impact whatsoever.

J. Kwan: Would one read this change in definition with section 5 in terms of the amendments that are being put forward in section 5, or are they completely separate?

Hon. R. Coleman: Our understanding is that there is no impact, but unless the member has a specific concern about the impact, it would…. Section 26 is landlord and tenant obligations to repair and maintain, and it's basically some clarification that was asked for by the parties.

J. Kwan: I'll ask some questions under section 5, then — when we move to section 5. I canvassed that question as it relates to section 5 to see whether or not there's anything substantive that I'm missing. The people who wrote the legislation and the amendment, I would trust, might have more information than me in terms of reading that. That's why I ask that question. So on that, Mr. Chair, I'm ready to move on to section 3.

J. Kwan: Section 3 deals with the landlord's obligations surrounding terminating or restricting services. How does this new language about "material term of the tenancy agreement" — and that's a quote from the act itself — change the obligations of the landlord? Or does it?

Hon. R. Coleman: In the original drafting of the legislation, there was what we determined was a drafting error, which really said that they could basically restrict or terminate a service or facility that's essential to it. In this one, the material term of the tenancy or essential services, in most cases, are the same thing, but sometimes there is something that's so material to the

The drafting error was such that it could have been interpreted that the landlord could terminate, restrict services or essential services, and this is actually a drafting improvement so that they can't.

M. Hunter: I want to ask a question about the same section. I recall during debate on the other bills, the original bills, that we were trying to seek some new balance in the rental housing legal situation. We were trying to encourage some investment in the rental housing market. Thirdly, and I think importantly, it was to seek some plain language.

So I guess my question to the Solicitor General is that I'm concerned that the rewording is, perhaps, less plain than the original language. I think I understood his explanation to the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, but there is some concern, as I'm sure the Solicitor General knows, that there are occasions where factors outside of the control of the landlord, such as garbage service, may change. The conditions of a garbage service provided by a municipality might change; water billing might change. Even something almost as mundane these days as cable service provisions might change — bulk service to manufactured home parks and so on.

I guess I would just like to hear again the explanation as to why this change was necessary and whether or not the change is suggesting that landlords need to deal with the issue of material changes for such items as service delivery in a tenancy agreement. Are we leaving the door open for that or not?

Hon. R. Coleman: The industry would like us to actually list all the things we would determine to be essential services to a tenancy — water, sewer, electricity, etc. When we do that, we actually cause ourselves some problems in common law. That's why they weren't defined that way when the industry asked us to actually put that into the act.

This is about the material change of a tenancy agreement or essential services, so things like cable arrangements are not material to the tenancy agreement. Garbage pickup could be something that wasn't material to a tenancy agreement, because it could be in there that it was by contract, as determined by the landlord in the tenancy agreement.

Certainly, things like water and sewer, for the essential services of what would be the requirements of life…. In most manufactured home parks, as we looked at it — and actually all that I could find — each person had their own separate meter for electricity, so it wasn't something that was part of the tenancy agreement or an essential service that would be in the tenancy. It really comes down to municipal utilities that a tenancy may be affected by. I don't know of many municipalities that do the water for a manufactured home park on an individual basis, but they do it on a property basis.

If there's a substantial increase in that from municipalities, the ability is there to go before an arbitrator and say, "I've had a substantial increase," and cover your costs. We think that although it's not completely satisfactory to the industry, we have to do this within common law. Their biggest concern is that if we don't define it, then an arbitrator will decide it's otherwise. That comes down to training and disciplining arbitrators. We've said we're going to do that and have measurements for arbitrators moving forward. Although it's not what the owners of manufactured home parks would ideally like to see, it is the balance we have to achieve within the common law and our advice from legislative counsel.

M. Hunter: I appreciate that explanation from the Solicitor General. I guess I would then ask the question that — we're not satisfying the landlords, and I don't know if we're satisfying the tenants — in a case of a service provision such as garbage and the provisions of a garbage contract or a change to the significant disadvantage of the landlord, is the landlord able under this section, in the Solicitor General's view, to protect him or herself against a large increase in costs that cannot be claimed back from the tenant by inserting language in the tenancy agreement that could cover him or her for that eventuality?

Hon. R. Coleman: The garbage is actually a pretty good example, because it could be in the tenancy agreement that the landlord, as part of the rent, provides garbage removal. If the price of the garbage removal goes up and the tender changes and they wish to go with another contractor, there's nothing stopping them from doing that, because it's just a material part of the contract that there be garbage removal. It doesn't say it has to be by a specific company or service provider.

If the landlord decides outside the tenancy agreement, however, that now he wants to make a material change to the contract because he no longer wants to include garbage removal within it, then at the end of the term of the tenancy agreement, he would have to negotiate that back or put it into the next tenancy agreement.

Certainly, during the term of the tenancy agreement, that material change is not something where you can just unilaterally say: "Tomorrow I'm going to charge you all, in addition to your rent, for your garbage removal, even though it's already in your tenancy agreement." That's what this section deals with. If they wish to change the service and it's not a material change to an agreement, then they can do that, or if they need to tender it or change the costing to save themselves money but provide the same service, they can do that too.

J. Kwan: Section 4 deals with the removal of the phrase: "Except in accordance with an arbitrator's order." The explanatory note says this change is to remove the implication that arbitrators have the jurisdiction to issue restraining orders. Was that implication unintentional?

J. Kwan: Section 5 amends section 26 of the Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Act to read that the landlord must provide and maintain the manufactured home park. The question is: is this the section that replaces the rights and obligations language from the definition of the tenancy that we were discussing under section 1?

Hon. R. Coleman: The current act says a landlord must provide and maintain. If for some reason "provide" wasn't included…. So no — in answer to the member.

J. Kwan: Section 5(b) adds a subsection to section 26 that is numbered (6), but my version of section 26 of the act has only four subsections now. My question is: is this a drafting error? Maybe I'm not reading the right version of Bill 71.

Hon. R. Coleman: Our version of the bill does have five, and that's why it's 26(6). We'll gladly provide her with that copy, and maybe that would clarify it for her.

J. Kwan: There's something amiss here, because the version I have of Bill 71 is dated October 22, 2003, off the government's website, and it only has four subsections. I won't read into the record what they are. I'm actually perplexed, because from the government's website, it seems that this Bill 71 is not the version I'm working off of. It's not the same version the minister is working off of — that is, the one that's posted on the government website that I pulled up. I'm not quite sure what's amiss here with regard to that.

Hon. R. Coleman: We think that the subsection (5) was a House amendment during debates and may not have made it onto the copy on the website.

J. Kwan: That's the work we're developing our questions from. I hope there aren't substantive differences in terms of what the real version is that one should work from versus what the government has put on the website for the public as well as the opposition to work off of. That's a bit of a problem. I hope that's not a recurring problem and that it will be corrected very quickly.

The subsection (6) that is being added is said to correct an omission in Bill 71 concerning the landlord's obligation to comply with legal standards, regardless of whether the tenant has knowledge of a breach. Was this also an oversight, or did this result from consultation? Is this a brand-new thing that is added in Bill 77?

Hon. R. Coleman: It's in section 10(2) of the current Residential Tenancy Act, and it was inadvertently omitted in the Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Act.

J. Kwan: In this section from Bill 71 being amended, section 1(e) is repealed and replaced with the language: "the tenancy agreement is frustrated." Could the minister please advise: why have the specific conditions been removed? Is there a definition of "frustrated" provided in the act? What exactly does that mean?

Hon. R. Coleman: The member remembers in the debate that we actually had some discussion — I think it was even with the member from Vernon — in and around the definition of "frustrated." Our advice coming back was that this was the common-law discussion and to try to codify the common-law definitions always leaves something out. So you're better off just to deal with the term "frustrated" and let your arbitrators, based on training and judgments, come to the decision of what constitutes the frustration of the contract.

J. Kwan: Well, then, where did this change come from? More specifically, was it just the issue that was raised by the member from Vernon? Or was it from the broader consultation from the public in terms of the clarity that needs to be put in place with respect to the issue around "frustration"?

Hon. R. Coleman: I should clarify. The member from Vernon, probably in a committee versus the Legislature, brought up the term "frustrated," just in case it's not in Hansard. But I know as we've dealt with this discussion with regard to this act, what really was brought up to us by a couple of our arbitrators, who felt that in trying to codify things, there were other examples that would also frustrate a contract or would cause them difficulty in defining that. By codifying it, you may leave something out by accident that actually needed to be there for the protection of either one of the two parties to the contract.

So it was felt that by just having the tenancy agreement identify the tenancy and the relationship and using just the term "frustrated," under the common law it would be better to do it that way than to try and codify it.

J. Kwan: Subsection (2) is also being repealed. Could the minister please explain why?

Hon. R. Coleman: This subsection is deleted to eliminate the unnecessary reference to common law. If

a landlord accepts arrears of rent or compensation of a use and occupancy only, the tenancy agreement is not reinstated. That remains unchanged. The section was new to the Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Act and so, however, was widely interpreted as significantly changing the common law, which was not the intent at the time of writing that section. That's why.

M. Hunter: I was going to ask a question on section 37(1)(e), but I understood the Solicitor General's answer to the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, and I will let that one go — although I will observe that I think the objective of the use of common language so that landlords and tenants can understand the act, not just arbitrators, is an objective which is perhaps set back a little bit by the change. But that's okay.

I am, though, concerned about the repeal of 37(2). Perhaps the Solicitor General could answer this question: what, in section 37(2) as it now stands in Bill 71 — and, by the way, in Bill 77…? It's the same changes proposed under Bill 77 in a subsequent section of this bill. What exactly in the language that exists now in both Bill 71 and Bill 77 is offensive to the common law to the extent where we would have to repeal it and open the door to some pretty wide-ranging arbitral room that has created problems in the rental housing and the manufactured home market in the past?

Hon. R. Coleman: I don't actually disagree with the intent of his comments. However, we were attempting to codify something that would actually affect common law, and our legal advice was not to do it within the act. That's why it's coming out. I realize it might be interpreted that it would actually clarify some things, but in common law the acceptance of arrears on a bill doesn't necessarily mean that the service continues to be provided, because you do have a tenancy agreement in this particular case. It's one of those ones that I as minister struggle with, because I actually do ask the same question as the member, and then I have to acquiesce to the legal advice I'm given with regard to the section.

M. Hunter: Epithet lawyers, I guess, is my initial response. I don't want to pretend to be a boy lawyer, because I'm not, but isn't the role of the Legislature to provide clarification to common-law concepts? Does not the specific overrule the general as a general rule in arbitral, paralegal, quasi-legal and legal affairs?

Hon. R. Coleman: Yeah. Generally, we have common law with regard to the history of residential tenancies in B.C. When you try and do things in plain language, and then you actually try to codify something, sometimes there is the unintended consequence on the other side of codifying, which actually takes out a number of other things that can happen or should be able to happen, and a decision that may be good for particularly the landlord or the tenant….

We attempted to codify it. We did have some discussion, and we've had continued discussion about this for some time with me, frankly, at times pushing back to see if there's a way to do it. At the end of the day it really does come down to the common law, and if you try to codify something, sometimes you have these unintended consequences. So advice was not to do it and to remove it, and we took the legal advice that we were given.

M. Hunter: I thank the Solicitor General for his frankness. I'm not equipped to continue this argument and I don't intend to, but I would ask that if the specifics originally in Bill 71 and Bill 77 — if you permit me, Mr. Chairman, to refer also to the same provisions in a subsequent part of this bill at this stage…. If the provisions reflected our intent and our willingness, our desire to see the arbitral field narrowed, is this an area that the Solicitor General is able, through some other instrument, to make clear to arbitration panels — that this is the policy and these are guidelines you will apply in such cases that section 37(2) is originally intended to address?

Hon. R. Coleman: Generally, you only put in legislation things that would modify the common law. Previous legislative counsel did give us some latitude in the initial drafting of legislation, and you should know this legislation has been through a number of drafters over the period of time. The advice now is: don't codify things in common law. You could use legislation to modify it, but don't codify it because it causes all kinds of other problems.

We know the issue with regard to this for the owners of manufactured home parks. I get that they would like to have it clarified. We are pretty strong on the fact that we're going to have very good training for our arbitrators; we're going to expect performance measures from them. They will be educated on the applications with regard to these types of sections so that we can't end up with some of the difficulties we've had in the past. We'll have very strict policy guidelines for them to follow with regard to arbitrations and how we will deal with these issues, rather than trying to codify it in legislation.

J. Kwan: Section 11 deletes the requirement for a landlord to specify a particular date when applying to terminate a tenancy agreement. Why is the minister getting rid of this requirement?

Hon. R. Coleman: The present wording appears to require a landlord to specify a particular date in their application to end the tenancy early. The problem with that is if the arbitration can't actually take place before the date, then they're specifying a date where the arbi-

trator hasn't had the opportunity to rule. The actual arbitration decision specifies the date, so we're setting it up so the arbitration actually specifies the date, depending on the circumstances.

J. Kwan: Section 16 concerns the arbitrator's ability to extend time limits. It replaces section 59 in the Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Act with the new section 59. Section 59 of Bill 71 — at least, my version — reads as follows:

The minister himself in second reading highlighted that this would be an area of concern, and we have indeed received a copy of correspondence sent to him by the manufactured home owners association, raising the concerns about the application of this language — only "in exceptional circumstances."

Hon. R. Coleman: It's for, let's say, somebody who was in hospital for an operation and couldn't get there to get the documents in or for the service of application for arbitration and review decisions — those types of exceptional circumstances. It's not because you weren't available, but it's because you have some exceptional circumstances you can give to the arbitrator that made it impossible for you to do certain things or receive certain things.

J. Kwan: Is there a list of what would be deemed to be exceptional circumstances, and if so, would the minister provide that?

Hon. R. Coleman: We didn't put it in the legislation, obviously, because we're getting back to the codifying of things. Somebody might have another exceptional circumstance. We usually deal with that in policy guidelines. I'll review what's there. As we process, I will provide the member with the policy guidelines.

J. Kwan: I guess in the policy guidelines, that would be provided, and it would just be guidelines that would be used in that context. Who would then actually make the call in determining what is deemed to be an exceptional circumstance? Would it be the arbitrator, or who would do that?

Hon. R. Coleman: Only the arbitrator may extend or modify the time limits, so it would be the arbitrator.

J. Kwan: I know I asked this question before when we debated Bills 70 and 71 — that is, the issue with respect to precedent-setting. Especially in light of the comments from the minister — that is to say, he doesn't want to codify things with a list of items in legislation — whether it be in this instance around exceptional circumstances or in the previous discussion that we had around frustrated issues…. As far as I recollect, arbitration decisions are not precedent-setting. Therefore, it's up to each arbitrator to interpret things and make the decision accordingly, but it does not bind decisions in the future by other arbitrators. Isn't that correct? If that's the case, then really, it's subject to the interpretation of each arbitrator — what they might deem to be exceptional circumstances or any other term such as "frustrated" that was commented on earlier.

Hon. R. Coleman: I think the member's correct. We have policy guidelines, and then performance measurements we'll have for arbitrators, but they're paid to make decisions based on the facts in front of them. They make those decisions, and we expect those decisions obviously to be made based on the best information — and to make those decisions in a professional capacity. We set the guidelines, but we don't actually set the decisions.

J. Kwan: It's very subjective in its nature. I have actually in the past, as an advocate for tenancy issues, gone before an arbitrator with very similar sets of circumstances and ended up with different results from different arbitrators. In the instance where, let's say, one arbitrator might deem — let's use the example — medical reasons as an exceptional circumstance which they would accept as a reason for the utilization of this act, another arbitrator decides that that's not the case. In the event something like that happens, what recourse do people have who are taking the matters to arbitration with these two different kinds of interpretations? Or do they have any recourse at all?

Hon. R. Coleman: We try and get that through the policy guideline and the performance measures. One of the challenges, as the member knows…. I've had the same experience. Sometimes what appears to be the same case between two different arbitrators actually gets different decisions. Sometimes it could be just on how credible the witnesses were that the arbitrator on one case was dealing with versus the credibility of the witnesses in another case.

We pay these people to make decisions based on facts, so we give them the policy guidelines — the policy guidelines will outline some of the circumstances — and then leave it, obviously, open. If there is something exceptional over and above what we thought could be defined, it could also be considered. We wouldn't make it so that it was impossible for them to consider other circumstances where there might be exceptional circumstances that haven't been previously defined.

We think that by basically measuring, training, using examples on policy guidelines as we train our arbitrators and increase their level of professionalism, and the fact that we will obviously be monitoring this…. We are hoping we can get better decisions with regard to that balance the member describes.

J. Kwan: When the minister says he'll be monitoring this, how will he be doing that? Will all the arbitration decisions be forwarded to the ministry so that you will be able to get a sense of what the decisions are and so, therefore, be able to monitor it? How will that monitoring process take place?

Hon. R. Coleman: No, I won't be reading the decisions and trying to decide that. We expect to have a director at the branch who will have the ability to assess that and will be able to deal with concerns with regard to the performance of arbitrators. If we set in place performance measures, like anything else we measure, we will measure that according to those performance measures. It's the last thing I as a minister — or anybody who ever would be a minister in the future that would receive this file — would want: to be actually reading arbitration decisions and trying to make that determination.

I think it's important that the branch runs in such a way that people understand there are performance measurements and policy guidelines that were put in place so people can make most of these decisions without a lot of controversy, because they'll have some training and measurements to go with them. If we find we have obvious performance difficulties, then we would deal with that as we did any other personnel issue.

J. Kwan: Section 59(2) provides that a tenant might have withheld the rent in good faith, either for emergency repairs or under an arbitrator's order. Is that correct? Am I reading this correctly? Perhaps the minister can advise how this change came about.

Hon. R. Coleman: It was pointed out to us after we'd done the debates and legislation. We wanted regulation that…. Although the provision in the act is that the rent is due and you have to pay it, in actual fact, if there was an extension agreed to by the landlord for a payment that came past the five-day limit, we didn't actually have that covered off. Or if there was an amount that was unpaid, it was deducted by the tenant because of a genuine belief that the deduction was allowed for emergency repairs or under an arbitrator's order. So if there was an order from the arbitrator from the previous month and they deducted it and the landlord issued an eviction, it was felt we had to cover those two issues off.

It allows the arbitrator to record an agreement between a landlord and tenant that would extend the time to pay the rent, but it also provides the arbitrator with the ability to extend to the tenant in good faith as withheld payment of the rent — for instance, the tenant carries out emergency repairs and deducts the repair costs from the rent — but if the arbitrator finds out later they were not emergency repairs so the tenant was not entitled to deduct the amount of the rent — that sort of thing….

This basically covers off those eventualities to take care of…. I recall in the debates with the member there was an issue brought up: what if there was an emergency repair deducted, how do we cover them all? That's what this does.

J. Kwan: In section 21 the two clauses from Bill 71 are being amended. They are sections 89(2)(g) and (p). I won't read the changes into the record. This change does not appear to be about the rent retroactivity issue. What is the reason for this change?

Hon. R. Coleman: There are two changes under section 21. One is that it substitutes the current RT regulation-making power regarding assignments and subleases because there was some concern about the ability to actually have the regulatory-making power. It's to clarify that we have the ability to have regulation with regard to assignments of subleases in regulation.

The second one is the one that removes the regulation-making power for the three-year carry-forward of rent increases. That's section 89(2)(p), which is under section 21. The second part is the one that removes the carry-forward of rent increases.

J. Kwan: So effectively, the two substantive changes are the subsections I mentioned, (g) and (p) in 89(2).

J. Kwan: Section 21, which changed section 89(2)(p), is the retroactivity clause for the Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Act, and it's expected the manufactured home owners are pleased the minister has removed the provision for the three-year retroactive rent hikes. As I mentioned earlier, though, they still have expressed concern about both the amount of the rent increases and the fact that the rent increases are, in their words, not questionable.

As I put on the record earlier, a letter was written from the stakeholders dated October 22 to the minister where they made two requests. I've raised those issues with the minister. I would ask the minister to reconsider the notion of including these stakeholders at the table with respect to the notion of the amount we're dealing with, because that is of paramount concern to these individuals.

I'd like to ask the minister this question. Specifically with respect to the request of the manufactured home owners, and that is to say, "If automatic increases are mandated by law" — that is, in the case of manufac-

tured homes, increases be given only on the first $100 of rent — the manufactured home owners association suggests this will represent a generous operating allowance for park owners. The homeowners also point out that excessive rent increases put people at risk of losing their homes and that homeowners have much more to lose if a park fails. Was this opinion specifically raised through the consultation process the minister had embarked on?

Hon. R. Coleman: That was the specific input from the Active Mobile Home Owners Association.

J. Kwan: I would make a final pitch, then, on behalf of this stakeholder group for the minister to address their concerns seriously and through regulation, because rent increase…. It is not just the issue about the retroactivity of the rent increase that is of concern, as mentioned. It really is the amount as well, and that has tremendous ramifications for people if the amount is exorbitant. It could force someone out of their home as a result.

L. Mayencourt: Section 22 amends the definitions of four different terms within this act. "Registered mail" I understand. That's probably just a correction of the reference to Canada Post Office and changing that to Canada Post. We also change the definition of "periodic tenancy," "residential property" and "tenancy." Could the minister please explain to me why these changes have been incorporated into this act and what they accomplish?

Hon. R. Coleman: Three of them are the same as what we just discussed in the manufactured home park with regard to it, but I'll read out basically my understanding of it so that the member has it on the record.

The revised definition for the term "periodic tenancy" clarifies that the tenancy agreement must be in accordance with the requirements of the act. As currently worded, the definition allows a periodic tenancy to end by verbal notice or any other steps a party might take to end the tenancy agreement. That was a clarification for both acts.

"Registered mail" corrects a reference made to Canada Post under sub (b). "Residential property" clarifies the definition of residential property to specifically include the rental unit itself and related groups of buildings, not just the building in which the rental units are located. In (d), "tenancy" clarifies that a tenancy is premised on a right to possession rather than actual possession, because in some tenancies the tenant may never actually occupy the rental unit. Those were clarifications basically for the purposes of making the tenancy agreements work and so people have a clearer understanding.

L. Mayencourt: I got the first three. This last one, "tenancy" — I refer to it. Tenancy is premised on the right to possession rather than actual possession. I don't quite get what that means. Can you please expand on that?

Hon. R. Coleman: It's to clear off a situation where, for example, somebody signs a lease and doesn't actually move in for 30 days. They actually haven't moved in yet, but they still have the rights and conditions under a tenancy agreement. Or in the case of a lease where it's allowed to be sublet without agreement by a landlord that they could sublet and the tenancy agreement continues, it could be a completely different party in the unit paying the rent. It clarifies those type of circumstances.

L. Mayencourt: Section 23 amends Bill 70, section 4(b) and (c) with respect to…. I guess in the case of (b) it's with respect to an educational institution. It could be others, I guess. The second one is…. We're changing it from "landlord" in subsection (c) to "owner of that accommodation." I'm wondering if you could please tell me what the benefit is of those two changes.

Hon. R. Coleman: Section 4(b) clarifies that this exemption from the act applies only to living accommodations provided by an educational institution to its students or employees — i.e., student-employee housing.

Under subsection 4(c) it clarifies that this exception from the act applies only when the living accommodation is shared with the owner. As currently worded, Bill 70 exempts many of the downtown eastside hotels because the act's definition of a landlord includes a resident manager, who in many hotels shares bathroom or kitchen facilities with other hotel tenants.

It's really not a change in existing policy from the existing RTA. The new act applies to residential hotels and rooming houses in which tenants share bathroom or kitchen facilities with the landlord or resident manager.

I guess to clarify it further, the exception is that you can sometimes get too far down in definition, and you can actually unintentionally exempt people from being protected under the act. This is to protect those people in SROs on the downtown eastside within the act.

J. Kwan: On section 24, it appears to clarify what the government intended in its original section, section 18 of the Residential Tenancy Act, which is to allow landlords to ban all pets if required. It amends the

RTA, section 18, by replacing the terms "in a rental unit" with the broader term "on the residential property." Was this included at the request of landlords? And was it viewed as a loophole from the previous legislation, to broaden the language from a rental unit to residential property?

Hon. R. Coleman: It never ceases to amaze me when I do legislation. It was identified not by landlords or tenants but by our own people in review of the act. It could have been interpreted that a dog in the back yard was not in the premises that were rented, and therefore certain applications of the tenancy agreement wouldn't apply — something that basically closes a loophole that was identified as a result of the last legislation.

J. Kwan: Well, Mr. Chair, pet owners were extremely disappointed with the government's Residential Tenancy Act changes. When Bill 70 was passed, pet owners said the new act did nothing to provide for more pet-friendly rental accommodations but, instead, gave landlords for the very first time the legal right to ban all pets if they so desire.

Pet owners were also unhappy with the new provisions that allow landlords the ability to charge a half-month's rent in terms of damage deposit. What is more, Bill 70 gave landlords licence to charge this pet damage deposit for any and all pets — right down to the ludicrous case of a tenant who may have a pet that is a goldfish.

The reason why I ask the question around this is that when I look to sections 24 through 27, which would deal with the pet issues…. I was looking for something that, through the consultation process, particularly with pet owners, the minister would come back to amend this Bill 77 to make it more friendly for pet owners. As it turns out, that is not the case. Section 24, as the minister just established, is really to address a minor oversight, if you will. Perhaps I should not say it is a minor oversight but an oversight in the previous bill.

It's interesting to note that the government members — and I recall one particular member, Vancouver-Burrard — rose in this House with respect to the pet provision, saying that he must advocate for his constituents because it's of great concern to his constituents. As it turned out, the bill itself and now the amendment will actually do nothing, really, to address the concerns that have been raised by the pet owners, and that is to make rental housing accommodation more pet-friendly. In fact, it does not do that at all.

L. Mayencourt: The minister has spoken about consulting with a number of groups, including landlords and tenants and what have you. I'm wondering if, in those consultations, either the landlords or tenant associations raised the issue of the prohibition of pets like goldfish, for example. Was that one of the key issues that was brought forward through the consultation process?

Hon. R. Coleman: We debated; we discussed. We dealt with the pet issue going into the writing of this act. The member for Vancouver-Burrard, along with the member for Vancouver-Fraserview, where people had brought the issue of pets to us…. We tried to strike that balance. I know there are people on both sides of that debate who aren't happy with that balance, including the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant.

We debated that in the first piece of legislation, and that decision was made then. The consultation on regulations isn't to go back and change legislation. It's about what the regulations should do to actually make the legislation something that can be implemented. We are not dealing anymore with the pet issue until such time as we put this act into operation for a period of time and see whether it does actually enhance the opportunity for people to get pets in residential tenancies.

J. Kwan: It is interesting because the government often likes to talk about consultation, and the issue of consultation was just raised by the member for Vancouver-Burrard. In fact, there was a group that led the concerns with respect to the issues around pets in rental accommodations. They advocated hard on this issue. That is, of course, the Pets of B.C. Residents, the group called POWER.

Interestingly, when the opposition contacted POWER about Bill 77 to see what they thought about the changes related to the pets provisions — that is, sections 24 to 27 — they had no idea that this legislation was up. They had no idea at all. We had to go through the process of ensuring that they actually had the information, and so on and so forth. It actually told a story. That is to say, in spite of the supposed consultation that has actually taken place, it kind of makes you wonder that some of the leading groups in terms of advocating for change weren't even notified of the changes the government had brought forward related to that.

Interestingly, as well, that the member for Vancouver-Burrard might like to have you think that somehow the opposition is just raising these issues and nobody's really concerned about it, and somehow we just made it up and these ideas just fly into our heads or something like that. Interestingly enough, the information and the concerns we raised in debate on this issue regarding pets in rental accommodations actually came from the people who are advocating hard. The member for Vancouver-Burrard purportedly says that he is raising their concerns on behalf of his constituents, which he has not done to date.

Interestingly, the information I raise and the concerns I raise come from the newsletter of these advocacy groups who have done their work in the community. It is on that representation that I raised these matters in the House. Why should I be surprised that the member for Vancouver-Burrard and other members in

this House actually don't stand up for their constituents? They certainly have a long track record of doing exactly that — being silent on the concerns their constituents have.

As I mentioned, I'll be voting against section 24 for the same reasons that I had laid out earlier when we debated the original bill, Bill 70, the Residential Tenancy Act, and that is to say that the provision to make rental accommodations more friendly for tenants with pets is actually not achieved. In fact, it makes it worse than it was before.

L. Mayencourt: I take it from the minister's answer to my last question that any question or discussion of pets in this bill would be irrelevant. Perhaps the minister can confirm that for me as part of this next question.

My question to the minister is: when groups come forward to consult with government on legislation, is it a reasonable expectation of those groups that their consultation will result in changes to government policy and perhaps even government legislation?

L. Mayencourt: Section 25 amends section 20 of Bill 70 and removes the words "or accept" a security deposit. So require or accept a security deposit is amended in subsections (a) and (c). Can the minister please explain why the need for the removal of "or accept" is there?

Hon. R. Coleman: It excepts particularly those involved in the management of non-profit housing to accept deposits in payment form by staggering it. That is what it's for.

J. Bray: I appreciate that during the debates for Bill 70, we certainly canvassed the issue around pets. I'm wondering, because I have got a few calls in my office around this area in Bill 77…. I don't want to rehash the debate at all; I just wanted to recontext the debate a bit. I've got two questions on this.

The first would be: could the Solicitor General just put in context how Bill 70 changed the issue around the ability for landlords and tenants to negotiate possibly having pets with respect to the concept of having an additional damage deposit? Am I remembering the debate correctly that it was hopeful that the market would actually look at this as possibly being an inducement for landlords to have some extra security and to look at negotiating possible pet rentals with the prospective tenants?

Hon. R. Coleman: The answer to the question is yes. We felt the relationship on the decision on pets and what they may cause relative to damage should be something for the landlord and tenant to work out. We didn't say they had to take a pet damage deposit; it was just enabling them, to allow them to do that. We won't know how this works until we actually finish the regulation when Bill 77 is completed and we actually implement the two acts. I am comfortable that we struck the balance as we went through this debate, and we're going to see what happens — whether this has a positive result or not.

J. Bray: I thank the minister for that. I'm certainly one who thinks that perhaps this doesn't appease everybody on the issue, but I do think in my community this can lead to more of the interaction we really want, which is for the landlord and tenant to work on these types of issues.

My second question, then, is: In striking out "or accept," the goal is to provide pet damage deposits in instalments. Could the Solicitor General just give me some more clarification as to where this concept came from and what issue it might be alleviating that's been identified?

Hon. R. Coleman: Maybe I could clarify what section 20 deals with. It corrects a drafting error to allow payment of a security deposit for a pet damage deposit in instalments, as is the practice of some non-profit housing providers. Section 20(c) and (d) clarifies the payment of pet damage deposit to coincide with a pet being allowed on the residential property but not only in the rental unit, consistent with proposed changes to section 18(2). The policy discussion with regard to pets went through committees, went through the Legislature and went through discussions with interest groups over a period of a number of months — probably up to a year. This section itself just clarifies some drafting errors with regard to the existing legislation.

J. Kwan: The minister has clarified the changes to this section of the bill. I would like to put on the record the concerns that have been raised by, particularly, pet owners. I know that both the member for Vancouver-Burrard and the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill would like to have you believe that somehow these changes the government has brought about is a fine balance and that somehow it would bring in more rental units to accommodate pet owners. In fact, the people who are the advocates on behalf of tenants with pets feel exactly the opposite.

Let me just put this information on the record from a newsletter from Pets of B.C. Residents, or POWER:

Then it goes on with other concerns they have raised, but really, that's the thrust of it.

The sections in Bill 77 that deal with the pet provisions really have done nothing, in my view, to assist pet owners. If their MLAs were there to advocate with the minister in terms of making changes to better accommodate the concerns raised by pet owners, they would be raising these points and not just sitting there saying, "Hurray, minister. Thank you very much. You've done a great job of balancing the needs," when in fact the pet owners themselves who are tenants feel exactly the opposite.

J. Kwan: Section 26 provides for a brand-new section around condition inspections at the beginning of a tenancy and puts details around these inspections into the regulations. Could the minister please advise: what was the pet owners group's response to this change, and will there be further consultation prior to determining this regulation?

Hon. R. Coleman: On condition inspection reports, we consulted with landlord and tenant groups. Basically, this section clarifies the procedures required for conducting condition inspection reports at the beginning of a tenancy, makes minor changes to condition inspection reports resulting from the consultation with landlord and tenant stakeholders and makes the process work better and protect the interests of both landlords and tenants.

J. Kwan: Sorry, did the minister say there would be further consultation? I didn't quite catch it.

Hon. R. Coleman: As we came out with the draft regulation, we consulted with landlord and tenant groups. With regard to condition inspection reports, we did not specifically consult with the group the member is talking about with regard to pets.

J. Kwan: Will the minister be consulting them, then? I would think they're a pretty important group, seeing they are a major group in advocating for changes around the issues of pets in rental accommodations. I would have thought the minister would have consulted them. Given that the minister said they hadn't, would he be?

Hon. R. Coleman: No. This is a landlord and tenant act. It is not a pet act, and as such, the changes on condition inspection reports are something that we consulted with landlords and tenants about. Maybe some of those tenants may be pet owners and may have brought something to the table, but that's where the consultations were done.

J. Kwan: It's not only just disappointing; it's shocking, really — the minister's answer. He says this is not a pet act, and so therefore he would not be consulting the Pets of B.C. Residents group. They are a group who are tenants with pets, advocating for change in rental accommodations. You would think they are a pretty relevant group — an important group to be consulting with in terms of these changes. It is just utterly disappointing to hear the answer from the minister. I think it just goes to illustrate the point that the consultation the minister talks about in many respects is just a farce.

J. Kwan: Section 27 replaces section 24 with a brand-new section concerning the consequences of a pet owner not fulfilling the requirements of condition with inspection reports. With respect to this, I assume the answer is the same for the questions that I asked of the minister under section 26 — that is, with respect to the consultation around this piece, related to POWER. Is the answer the same — that no, they have not been consulted, and the minister will not be consulting them?

L. Mayencourt: With respect to this particular section of Bill 70, I have a question for the minister, and it is: if I am for some reason unable, as a tenant, to participate on either occasion, have I lost all of my rights here to a return of my security deposit? Have I lost that forever?

Hon. R. Coleman: The regulations are going to take into consideration the fact that the landlord has to take into consideration the tenant's availability to attend and to make flexibility with regard to that. If the tenant can't attend, it also contemplates allowing an agent to represent the tenant at the inspection.

J. Kwan: It's not my intention to cut any member off debate. It seems to me that I know the member for Vancouver-Burrard did cut off my debate with questions to the minister, but it's not my intention. And if the member for Vancouver-Burrard wants to continue on, then I'll go back to my questions. I'll be happy to do that.

L. Mayencourt: It certainly wasn't my intention to offend the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. My

question to the minister would be…. You've had a consultation with the Tenants Rights Action Coalition, and I know this is one of the things they brought to my attention that was a concern. Have you sat down with both landlords and tenants to try and resolve the kind of language that you might need to have in the regulations?

Hon. R. Coleman: Yes, that's the case. As a matter of fact, they've actually been provided with a draft of the section to comment back on.

J. Kwan: When I asked the minister the question about whether or not POWER had been consulted, as anticipated, his response was no, they hadn't, and they wouldn't be. My response again is the same as section 26. That is, that is utterly disappointing, really. The Tenants Rights Action Coalition has done a terrific job in advocating for positive change for tenants, and they certainly have made some headway with respect to this bill with this minister, particularly on the retroactivity on the rent increase issue. They've been strongly advocating for that change, and they have achieved that. My congratulations to them.

On the sections relating to the pet issue, once again I would suggest to the minister that he consult with that group. They are tenants in rental accommodations with pets. They're trying to advance positive change for tenants with pets in rental accommodation, and their opinions should at least be given an opportunity to be heard and considered, as the minister is bringing forward regulations and perhaps future legislation changes.

J. Kwan: Section 29 removes an implication that arbitrators have jurisdiction to issue restraining orders. The question to the minister is similar to the question that I asked under the Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Act: was this implication inadvertent? In other words, was it just a drafting error?

Hon. R. Coleman: I'll reconfirm it was a drafting error. They don't have that power now, and we didn't feel it was necessary to give it to them.

J. Kwan: Section 31 provides that a landlord's obligation to comply with legal standards applies, whether or not a tenant knows of any breach. This would appear to me as a positive change to the original Residential Tenancy Act. Could the minister please advise: did this change come out of consultation with tenants and tenancy groups?

Hon. R. Coleman: No. Actually, it was a provision that's in section 10(2) of the existing RTA. It was inadvertently omitted from the new act, and it was brought to our attention by arbitrators.

J. Kwan: So it's just an oversight from the original act. Therefore, it's just putting the provisions from the original act into this amendment.

J. Kwan: Section 35 is an interesting section. It requires that a tenant provide his or her forwarding address in writing. Could the minister please advise: what is the rationale for this change? I'm wondering how this provision might perhaps interface with other government policies — for example, policy changes related to the Ministry of Human Resources or the new municipal bylaw reforms. Could the minister please advise: how did this change come about, and what was the reason behind it?

Hon. R. Coleman: It actually came out through the consultation process from both landlord and tenant groups. It's to clarify — to get the address in writing where the cheque can be forwarded to so that there's no dispute as to whether a forwarding address has been provided by the tenant.

J. Kwan: In the case — let's say the Ministry of Human Resources, particularly with damage deposits for income assistance recipients — where no forwarding address was given…. A lot of times and particularly in my own riding, people move around a lot. The housing is not necessarily up to par, if you will. It is oftentimes very substandard housing. People oftentimes are forced to move a lot. The Ministry of Human Resources pays one damage deposit for their clients, and after that, the clients have to assume the costs themselves, which causes great hardships for a lot of people.

Because of the nature of the housing environment these individuals are faced with from time to time, they may not have a forwarding address for the landlord. In those instances, would the landlord be required to return the damage deposit to the Ministry of Human Resources? They know very well that's where the moneys came from or, at least, are being held in trust by the ministry so that the landlords don't end up getting a windfall. By the way, they have been getting a windfall with damage deposits.

Hon. R. Coleman: This is one that's always, I guess, difficult. Even though it's provided by the ministry of social services, it's actually paid by the tenant to the landlord. Legally, the landlord has to send it back to the tenant.

That's why, when we did the forwarding address — if I recall the debates and the consultation — they provide a forwarding address that's not necessarily the address where they are but where the cheque could be sent for them to pick it up. That was to try and deal with the whole issue in and around what the member has described — the ability to send it to the address.

It also deals with, back when we had this discussion, perhaps somebody, because of an abusive situation, not wanting to give a forwarding address for where they were going to be living. They could just give a forwarding address. We've tried to capture that, but there are no provisions. The damage deposit goes back to the tenant, not back to the ministry, simply because it's actually the tenant that paid the landlord.

J. Kwan: Could the tenant give a forwarding address of a ministry office, a Ministry of Human Resources office, for the cheque to be held in trust there?

Hon. R. Coleman: Our legislation provides the opportunity to provide a forwarding address. What I will undertake on behalf of the member's question is to have a conversation with the Ministry of Human Resources as to whether we could actually facilitate that as being one of the solutions. I'm prepared to have that discussion with them.

J. Kwan: I would appreciate that very much. If that could be done, perhaps to a certain degree we can provide some assistance to tenants in those situations so that they don't end up losing their damage deposits, resulting in a windfall for the landlord. If the minister could facilitate that, I think that would be useful and helpful.

L. Mayencourt: Section 35 also adds a couple of subsections, if you will, under section 38. One of them is that if a landlord is entitled to retain some of the damage deposit, a pet damage deposit can be used only for damage caused by the pet. I see that as a very positive thing — unless, of course, the tenant agrees otherwise.

Subsection (c)(8) I don't quite understand, and I wonder if the minister could explain what is meant or what is intended there.

Hon. R. Coleman: It's to clarify the method of service the landlord must use to repay a security deposit or pet damage deposit and the interest. It's to clarify.

R. Stewart: I have a similar question related to the addition of subsection (c)(7) which, as the member for Vancouver-Burrard raised, suggests that the damage deposit for a pet…. Even though moneys might be legitimately owed by the tenant to the landlord, the landlord would be required to refund the pet damage deposit if the money is owed for something other than damage done by the pet.

I have some questions as to what the rationale was behind that position. I've had one of my constituents raise this question: is it possible that even though he has an uncollectible debt from a tenant for severe damage to a rental unit, he'd actually find himself in the unenviable position, first of all, of giving the tenant some money?

Hon. R. Coleman: As we went through the discussion with regard to this particular damage deposit, these issues were raised through different stakeholder groups and also through committees. If we were going to allow a pet damage deposit in a tenancy, we didn't want the pet damage deposit to become just another reason to add costs on or to try and hold money back for the wrong reasons.

The idea behind a pet damage deposit was so you could have a deposit for damage caused by a pet. The provision clarifies that policy. The landlord cannot use a pet damage deposit to satisfy a claim for unpaid rent or non-pet damage, unless the tenant agrees to set it off. That's where the business relationship in regard to that damage deposit comes into the tenancy agreement and the landlord and tenant having that discussion.

It was never the intention that we set up a situation where we would have a pet damage deposit and somebody thinking: "I actually have some damage other than what was caused by a pet, and I'm going to set it off against the pet damage deposit." That's part of the tenancy agreement. Frankly, a pet damage deposit is called that because it's for the damage with regard to the pet. The minute we actually spread those lines around, people will try to attach other things to the money that it wasn't intended for.

R. Stewart: It's not a situation I lack empathy for. Unfortunately, though, there are situations that landlords face, and I'm sure the minister has heard of them. Some of the landlords in my riding, for example, are raising concerns about the possibility that unpaid rent exists at the end of a tenancy, and the landlord once again finds himself having to refund moneys to the tenant and then sue the tenant in small claims for the unpaid rent.

It's an issue that people have raised with me. I promised to raise it here in the House, along with other issues related to this piece of legislation, so I raise it now. Was there any contemplation given to the possibility that the refund of any unclaimed damage deposits, as such, would be set aside pending resolution of, for example, unpaid rent?

Hon. R. Coleman: No. It's one of those things we could have gone either way on, but the notion of the pet deposit was for a pet. There's a tenancy agreement that says what the rent is. If we had just wanted to increase the damage deposit overall, we would have taken it to one month's rent and just done it overall rather than having a pet deposit for those tenancies where the opportunity existed.

Once you make the first distinction, we didn't think it was fair to make a distinction that could roll backward to other issues with regard to the tenancy. The

reason we took the deposit was to encourage landlords to actually have pets in their tenancies because they knew they had the extra damage deposit for pet damage.

J. Kwan: Section 42 adds a subsection to include the residential hotels in the current act. Could the minister please explain the purpose of this section and whether or not there is any connection between this section and the efforts by Vancouver city council to deal with the issues of SROs?

Hon. R. Coleman: This provision was in section 55(5) of the existing RTA and was inadvertently omitted from the new act. That's why it's here.

J. Kwan: Section 46. This change through Bill 70 is good news for tenants. Tenants are very pleased that arbiters have once again been given the ability to extend the time to pay rent. I'd like to remind this House that this government had taken away the arbitrators' ability to give time extensions in Bill 70, and we in the opposition are glad to see that this government has admitted its errors and restored that for the tenants.

Tenant representatives and tenant groups are really to be commended for the work they have done on this. But one concern that tenants have, and we have, about the section is the definition, again, of "exceptional circumstances." Again, the issue around its definition and the fact that there isn't actually a list provided for the purposes of clarity are some of the concerns I have with that.

Under this government's new two-out-of-five-year rule related to income assistance recipients, which will take place as of April 1, individuals deemed employable are going to be kicked off of income assistance while families on income assistance — parents with children over three — are going to have their benefits reduced by $100 a month. That raises the serious concern that tenants could become homeless if they are unable to secure an extension from an arbitrator because of those changes. Has the minister considered the impact of the two-out-of-five-year rule on this section?

Hon. R. Coleman: This is the Residential Tenancy Act. These are the amendments and changes to it. We added in the "exceptional circumstances." However, the tenants still have to pay their rent, and it's only if the landlord agrees that the amount was withheld by the tenant in good faith or an extension is agreed to by the landlord and all those things, basically, that were in the previous discussion around manufactured home parks. No, changes to the Ministry of Human Resources with regard to social services are not part of the policy direction that affects how we would like to balance the relationship between landlords and tenants.

J. Kwan: As the minister drafts the regulations to define the exceptional circumstances, would, as an example, exceptional circumstances include the two-out-of-five-year rule, which is why I raise the issues related to Human Resources?

When a person is kicked off income assistance, not because of an assessment of their need but because of some arbitrary decision by government to put time limits on income assistance, would that be considered exceptional circumstances? When a person is faced with that situation or when a family, a single parent with children over the age of three, has their benefits reduced by $100, which may well impact their ability to pay rent, would that be deemed to be an exceptional circumstance that would allow for the arbitrator to extend the time to pay rent for these individuals?

Hon. R. Coleman: There are only two areas where an extension can be done, and that's under the agreement to the extension by the landlord or the amount of the unpaid rent was deducted by the tenant because of a genuine belief that the deduction was allowed for emergency repairs or under the arbitrator's order.

The other issue is in and around exceptional circumstances for service of applications for arbitration in the review of decisions, which could have affected the ability to have a tenant to hold back rents that are to be deducted because of the genuine belief that the deduction was allowed.

J. Kwan: I'm completely perplexed with the minister's answer. The question is actually not about the deduction of rents but, under section 46, about the ability for an arbitrator to extend the time to pay rent in what I think is going to be a whole bunch of people who are going to be faced with this problem. When the Liberal government puts forward and puts into effect the two-out-of-five-year rule on eligibility for income assistance — when that comes into effect — a lot of people are going to be affected. Some of them will be kicked off income assistance. Some of them will see the amount reduced. That would be even children and single parents with children that are over three. They will see their income assistance reduced by $100 a month. That may well impact their accommodation and cause a ripple effect on the issues of homelessness.

The question to the minister is: when he goes and drafts regulations related to the definition of exceptional circumstances, will the minister be putting forward this rule — the two-out-of-five-year rule that the Liberal government will be putting forward in kicking people off of income assistance and reducing their benefits — as an exceptional circumstance to allow the arbitrator to consider extending the time to pay the rent for these individuals?

Hon. R. Coleman: The answer to the member's question is no. The only terms on which an arbitrator can extend the time for the five-day limit is (a) the extension is agreed to by the landlord or (b) the amount unpaid was deducted by the tenant because of genuine belief that the deduction was allowed for emergency repairs or under an arbitrator's order.

If there's a difficulty with the tenant receiving a cheque or something, they need to sit down with their landlord and come to an agreement on accommodation.

J. Kwan: Well, I can tell you, I'm very worried about what will happen in the next fiscal year come April, when income assistance recipients will be kicked off of income assistance through no fault of their own and especially through an assessment not on the basis of need but rather on some arbitrary decision on a time limit that this government is putting forward — the first ever in the country.

That will affect people's accommodations, and that will affect people's ability to pay rent. That, to me, is an exceptional circumstance — that this government is putting people at risk of homelessness. That includes individuals, that includes single parents, and that includes children, single parents with children, parents with children under the age of three. I would urge the minister to look at that when he's crafting the regulation.

You can't look at regulations or policies or legislation of one area in isolation from other policies within government. A good government will look and attempt to look at all these things, how they're interrelated and how they connect and what the ramifications are. Therefore, I would urge the minister to do that and ensure that there's at least a measure, small as it may be, for these tenants.

Under section 40, it has been suggested to us that under the Law and Equity Act, there are sections, sections 24 to 28, that allow relief from forfeiture or one chance in commercial tenancies. Did the minister consider applying this notion of one chance, which is allowed in commercial tenancies to residential tenancies?

Hon. R. Coleman: Arbitrators don't have the ability to apply for relief for forfeiture. Only the courts have that.

J. Kwan: Yes, the legislation that allows under the Law and Equity Act for commercial tenancies to exercise this one-chance notion…. I can appreciate the minister's answer to say the courts don't allow for it right now, but the minister actually has the authority to change the legislation before him. The question is whether or not he's considered that and to allow for this one-chance notion through the Tenancy Act.

Hon. R. Coleman: We considered it. We rejected it. We think that the relationship has to be between a landlord and tenant and that there has to be some balance in a working relationship between the two parties. If somebody has difficulty with their rent, they do have somebody that's due the payment who has things like mortgage payments, interest, taxes and other things to pay as well. That business relationship should be worked out between the two parties.

J. Kwan: Well, that's too bad. For commercial tenancies, the minister says that the landlord has to consider paying mortgages and bills, etc. That applies in commercial tenancies, too, and not just in residential tenancy; yet that concept is allowed on commercial tenancies. One would think, though, that it would make sense to allow for this notion, to apply the notion of one chance, in residential tenancies as well. It's unfortunate that the minister has just rejected that out of hand. Again, I would simply urge the minister to consider that as a viable and important change for residential tenancies as well.

L. Mayencourt: I just want to rise and commend the minister on this particular section. I think this was a very important issue that was raised in my community by a number of individuals as well as by community groups. I do appreciate that the minister took the time to understand those concerns from the point of view of landlords and from tenants. I think this is a very positive move. At times people do go through rough times, and this is a satisfactory way of addressing that when there is agreement between a landlord and a tenant, which there often is. Thank you very much.

J. Kwan: Section 52 deals with the actual retroactivity of rent hikes. This is a section that under Bill 70 allowed landlords to play catch-up with rent increases and saddle tenants with one huge rent hike. We're glad the government has listened to the tenants and the tenants groups and decided to drop this punitive and unfair provision.

I'll remind the House that this provision was such an unpopular move that last February tenants in Vancouver were so angry that in my riding — but especially constituents of the member for Vancouver-Burrard — they said they were planning to vote against the Olympic plebiscite if the government didn't back down on this. Even the Vancouver 2010 Bid Corp. weighed in, conveying the renters' concerns about rent retroactivity to the provincial government.

I don't know what ultimately got the minister to back down. I'm glad he did, I'm sure, through the strong voice of tenants groups like the Tenants Rights Action Coalition for their advocacy for many British Columbians. My congratulations must go to them for their hard work in raising these matters.

Now, with respect to this section, what is the reason for expanding regulation-making powers in section 52(a)?

Hon. R. Coleman: First, let's not give all the credit to the Tenants Rights Action Coalition with regard to this whole carry-forward issue. Let's give some credit, also, to the landlord groups who said they felt they could live without it as well. I think it was probably the Tenants Rights Action Coalition and ROMA talking to each other that probably brought this forward to me, and I think we should give credit to both parties.

As the member says, this section also expands the regulation-making power related to the condition inspection and report process. The regulations govern procedures for scheduling and reporting of condition inspections and use as evidence of condition inspection reports. This change results from the consultation with landlord and tenant stakeholders to make the process work better, and that's what the change is.

J. Kwan: Fair enough, and I would say, yes, congratulations to the landlords who also advocated for this change. As I say, it is a big win for everyone concerned.

Now, could the minister also address this issue? One outstanding issue for tenants, one that concerns them greatly, is the amount of the rent increase and what it will be. The minister has said it in the past and used figures like 4 percent to 6 percent per year. Can the minister provide any information today about the rent increases he's planning that would allay the fears of the tenants?

Hon. R. Coleman: We've consulted with them. We will come back with the formula, obviously, as legislation outlines this. The ability to do that is…. We do the regulation and bring forward what that discussion leads us to believe is something that's acceptable and fair.

J. Kwan: That is to confirm that the tenants groups will have an opportunity to see what the formula is before the regulations come into force?

Hon. R. Coleman: No. They already know what the formula is. They've already talked to us about that, and they've also given us input on amounts. What we have to do now is decide the amount, as we go forward with the regulation and bring that forward.

J. Kwan: I would urge the minister, actually, to ensure that the tenant groups have the full opportunity to see what the increase would be and to provide their feedback in relation to it before the regulations come into force. The reason why I say that — and I don't say this lightly — is that we know how difficult it is. As the cost of living is increasing across the province in many communities, we know how difficult it is for people to survive on a day-by-day basis. Statistics Canada shows that people's disposable income is actually decreasing right now. We know that unemployment is up — a nine-year high. Some 200,000 people are now unemployed. Many people are struggling.

Those with rental accommodations particularly, I think, need some comfort in knowing that their rent is not going to skyrocket and that somehow, next thing they know, they find themselves without accommodations and the next thing they know, they find themselves homeless.

I would urge the minister to ensure that the tenant advocacy groups have an opportunity to see what that amount in terms of the rent increase would be and to provide his feedback before the government puts the regulation forward.

R. Stewart: Just one quick question related to the removal of the retroactivity. I ask the minister. There are some people who are concerned, including some tenants, that the ability of a landlord to forgo a rent increase in a given year because, perhaps, the tenant is suffering in hard times or something…. The ability of a landlord to forgo that rent increase is an important ability, and it has been curtailed by the removal of the retroactivity here.

I express a bit of concern on behalf of tenants that we may have removed some flexibility that might have been important, recognizing at the same time that there were challenges with the retroactivity. In this case, we don't have the flexibility that might be needed by a landlord and tenant trying to work out an arrangement during hard times. I wonder if the minister might want to comment on that.

Hon. R. Coleman: It wasn't retroactivity; it was a carry-forward. I get the member's comment, but in actual fact, a landlord can increase the rent and then forgo payment under agreement with the tenant. They can work that out between themselves. That's the whole beauty of this particular piece of legislation. It re-establishes that one-on-one relationship between landlord and tenant that they're in a business relationship and that they need to work things out together.

R. Stewart: On that one point, I want to applaud the minister for listening to the public on that issue and on other issues related to this. I believe we've gone a long way to improving the relationship between landlord and tenants, and I think that's a good thing.

L. Mayencourt: I want to stand and speak in support of this as well. I think that this has been a clear demonstration of the Solicitor General taking the time to meet and consult with a wide variety of stakeholders to ensure that we were getting the Residential Tenancy Act correct. I think it speaks highly to the kind of government we have — a government that will sit back and work with stakeholders when the time comes to bring in legislation, to deal with regulations. We will actually sit down with individuals that are affected by that and ensure that their voices are heard. I want to thank the Solicitor General for that.

I want to go just to one question, and that is…. There's a discussion here today regarding the rent increases, and I know that's going to be done by an order-in-council. I'm wondering, when the minister comes to the point of setting that regulation, what kind of…. If I was to look back in the history, for example, of arbitrations that were handled by the residential tenancy branch, was there some sort of magical figure — some percentage of rental increase — that was average for those arbitrations?

Hon. R. Coleman: No, that information isn't available, because each one would be specific to a particular tenancy under the old way we did things. This is really about having some stability in allowing people to actually do some planning on both sides of the fence, both for landlords and for tenants, trying to balance what has not been a very balanced relationship for many years and also a confusing relationship, and to encourage people to actually invest in more residential tenancies, to become landlords. The more landlords we have, the less pressure there is on the rents themselves, and the more availability there is for housing for people who need it.

It's important that we strike a balance. I think we've gotten there with this act, and the formula that was outlined in legislation will be applied by an order-in-council when we do the regulation.

Hon. R. Coleman: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Bill 77, Tenancy Statutes Amendment Act, 2003, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

B. Penner presented a bill intituled Western Pentecostal Bible College Amendment Act, 2003.

B. Penner: I move that the bill, of which notice has been given on the order paper, be introduced and now read for a first time.

B. Penner: I move that the bill be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

Bill Pr409 introduced, read a first time and referred to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY