1973 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 11, 1973

Morning Sitting

[ Page 2523 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Insurance Corporation of British Columbia

Act (Bill No. 34). Second reading.

Mr. Williams — 2523

Mrs. Jordan — 2525

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 2528

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2529

Hon. Mr. Hartley — 2531

Mr. Phillips — 2532

Mr. McClelland — 2534

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 2535

Division on second reading — 2537

Debt Collection Act (Bill No. 48). Second reading.

Mr. Smith — 2538

Division on adjournment of the House — 2539

Mr. Gardom — 2539

Mrs. Jordan — 2540

Division on adjournment of the debate — 2541

Mr. Williams — 2541

Mr. Rolston — 2542

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2542

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 11, 1973

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

Introduction of bills.

Orders of the day.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): I move the House proceed to

public bills and orders.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT : Mr. Speaker, I move we proceed to

adjourned debate on second reading of Bill No. 34.

INSURANCE CORPORATION OF

BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT

(continued)

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe

Sound adjourned the debate.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Thank

you, Mr. Speaker. I won't be very many moments. We are opposed

to this bill in principle because it is a necessary handmaiden

of the automobile insurance bill which we have already opposed.

When the Minister introduced this legislation he said it was

part of the necessary machinery accompanying the Automobile

Insurance Act . If it is machinery, then may I suggest, Mr.

Speaker, to the Minister that it is a "Rube Goldberg" kind of

machinery which is largely designed to operate for the sole

purpose of making sure that all of its separate parts keep

moving without any real production taking place — a lot

of activity, a lot of commotion, a lot of noise but not very

much in the way of results. It is probably significant that the

Hon. Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan) who introduced

this bill last night should also be involved in the current

controversy about the doughnut.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. WILLIAMS: Quite obviously this Minister is bent headlong

on taking the people of British Columbia into the hole.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, Mr. Speaker, did you ever see a doughnut

that didn't have a hole as a necessary part?

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Highways): Many have jam in

the middle.

MR. WILLIAMS: Oh, but those aren't doughnuts, Mr. Speaker

— those are bismarcks. (Laughter).

AN HON. MEMBER: He's a Bismarck.

MR. WILLIAMS: That's right. But speaking about jam in the

middle, Mr. Speaker, brings me directly to one of the matters

that concerns me about this particular bill. It is the

provision that this insurance corporation is to be managed and

directed by a Minister of the cabinet, who is to be selected by

the cabinet, and by not less than two or more than four other

persons who will be its directors. It is significant, Mr.

Speaker, that there is one provision which indicates clearly

that the receipt of funds, moneys, pay, allowances under this

bill by any Member of the Legislative Assembly is not deemed to

be in breach of the Constitution Act .

That simply means, Mr. Speaker, that any of the backbenchers

who don't get selected into the cabinet in the next few days

will have four more spots open for them — you can console

yourselves with being directors of the insurance

corporation.

AN HON. MEMBER: There's only four of them in the room. Every

one of them could get a job.

MR. WILLIAMS: That's right. How many are there here? Well,

there's seven backbenchers here, so if four of you don't get in

the cabinet in the next few days then there is still hope for

you in the insurance corporation.

The Minister when he opened the debate spoke about the size

this insurance corporation would become. It would be the

largest insurance company in British Columbia, if not one of

the largest in the country itself. I wonder who is going to

operate this multi-million dollar corporation. Which one of the

cabinet members has got the experience and the time to take on

the task of controlling the destinies of this corporation?

I know all the cabinet Ministers are all very hard working

men and women — woman, that is. There is only one woman

in the cabinet, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. BARRETT: So far.

MR. WILLIAMS: However, we may hope to correct that and

improve the cabinet thereby, I'm surd.

How many of those cabinet Ministers have got the time to devote to the task

of controlling this large corporation? There is a weakness — one of the weaknesses

— in the bill which we have before us now. The Minister is turning quickly to

read the bill

[ Page

2524 ]

so that he may perhaps be able to….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WILLIAMS: Oh, I see. I was just hoping that you had read

it before today, Mr. Minister.

But, you know, Mr. Speaker, one of the aspects of this

legislation which causes me the greatest concern is the

heavy-handed and autocratic manner in which the corporation is

to be allowed to function in the Province of British Columbia.

During the debates which raged earlier in this session…No,

they didn't rage. During debates that we had earlier in this

session about automobile insurance, the Minister and Members of

the government party spoke about those big powerful insurance

companies and All the terrible things that they were doing to

the people of British Columbia.

Yet, when we look at the bill before us, we find that this

government, in order to establish this corporation, is granting

powers to this corporation such as no insurance company ever

had or ever expected to have — unique powers such as the

power to expropriate.

Why do we have to create another Crown agency with the power

to expropriate those properties which it may need to acquire in

the conduct of its business? Why do we have to have this

extreme power in the hands of this corporation? Is there some

feeling on the part of the government that the Minister who

will have charge of this corporation and his directors won't be

able to negotiate fairly and properly for the acquisition of

those properties which they must have in order to carry on

business? Are they going to have to expropriate?

They don't have to worry about expropriating insurance

companies — they are in the position to put them out of

business anyway. An expropriation would involve some form of

compensation to anyone who is put out of business by this

legislation. You don't have to spell out an expropriating power

— you have already confiscated those in the automobile

insurance business, whether they be companies or agents or

adjusters or whatever the case may be.

It is an excess of power which the government is granting to

this fledgling corporation which is supposed to replace those

all-powerful insurance companies who theretofore have been

carrying on business in the Province of British Columbia.

It's typical legislation of this government. It always

amuses me that they have so many good ideas, they say; yet when

they bring them into practice, they don't use the carrot in

order to ensure their success but the club and the whip.

Speaking about clubs and whips, what is going to make this

insurance corporation so big when it gets into the field of

fire and general casualty and other classes of insurance? It is

the ability to require all government agencies, all

organizations which are in receipt of grants from government to

insure through this corporation. That means the school boards,

the school districts, the municipalities, the hospital

districts, the regional districts….

AN HON. MEMBER: Homeowners' grants.

MR. WILLIAMS: Homeowners' grants? Say, I never thought about

that. Would it be possible, Mr. Speaker, that if a person

applies for a homeowner's grant — home acquisition grant

— in this province in order to acquire their residential

property that this government might say, "Well, of course we'll

give you an acquisition grant; however you must insure through

the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia."

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WILLIAMS: I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker, the Minister had never

thought of this before, and it had never occurred to the

government, I'm sure. But this is the kind of authority that

they give themselves in this legislation. Here's another one

that I'm sure the government had never thought of: when they go

into the business of life insurance, through their close

connection with the labour movement…a close connection in

the sense that the labour movement is up here and the

government is down here — that's the kind of connection.

Anyway, through that close connection, it just may be that we

will suddenly find in the course of labour negotiations in this

province that unions will be insisting that the pension plans,

the group life plans, be written through the Insurance

Corporation of British Columbia. Wouldn't that be a convenient

idea.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. WILLIAMS: This is the way that this kind of control is

given to this corporation in this legislation.

Last of all, Mr. Speaker, that aspect of this bill which is

part of its principle and which gives me the greatest concern

is the matter of the funding of this corporation. We were told

by the Minister that automobile insurance, when it was operated

as a plan in this province, would be operated at cost; that

premiums paid by automobile owners and the drivers in this

province would meet the cost of administration, cost of losses

— I trust it will also cover necessary reserves that must

be established in order that the plan may function — but

it would flat out on that basis and there wouldn't be any claim

on government revenues, on consolidated revenue.

Yet when you look at this bill, you find that this corporation is given a pipeline

right into the Treasury of the province. Any money that it may require can

[ Page

2525 ]

come directly from consolidated revenue at the decision of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

It's not necessary to come to this Assembly to have any of its funds approved;

it gets them from the Treasury by request to the cabinet. If it is to be encouraged

to go out on the market and borrow moneys for any of its purposes, it is afforded

the full guarantee of the Province of British Columbia in support of any security

that may be issued.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WILLIAMS: Permissive? No one would expect in the

legislation that they would force you to do this. Of course

it's permissive. It's permissive because you may never have to

go out into the open market and borrow your moneys; you've got

the pipeline right into the Treasury. Why would you ever have

to go and borrow? But if, Mr. Speaker, borrowing is required,

the government extends its full guarantee.

This is an opportunity given to this corporation which is

not available to the municipalities in this province. If you

want to build a water system or sewer system and you go out and

issue municipal bonds, you can't get the guarantee of the

province to support those bonds. But anything like the

Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, this new creation

that we have of the government, is going to be given the right

to call upon the government, to stand behind its

guarantees.

You know, Mr. Speaker, when the government embarked on

automobile insurance it was clearly dealing with a limited

aspect of insurance, solely within the province — one

that they could control and, if properly administered, one

which might prove to be a success.

Now that they're going into fire and general casualty, they

are embarking upon a class of insurance which leads them into

grave areas of difficulty and high potential loss. It's

noteworthy that this corporation can engage in the business of

insurance and reinsurance because what will happen, Mr.

Speaker, is that this corporation will be obliged to

reinsure.

We will find, once they get into these classes of insurance

that they will still be thrust into the reinsurance market

where they will be obliged to call upon the assistance of those

major world insurance companies.

They'll end up in London, like all insurance companies do,

seeking to spread the risk. They will be dealing with those

same big, powerful insurance companies that they are putting

out of business in the Province of British Columbia. Not my

friends, Mr Speaker, but companies which know the business

they're carrying on and companies which are within the

regulatory power of government.

You, Mr. Speaker, through you to the government, are

avoiding your responsibility when you fail to control and

regulate those companies. By embarking on this kind of a

programme you are attempting to compete with those with whom

you cannot compete but those with whom in the final analysis

you must do business.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WILLIAMS: No, I wasn't, Mr. Speaker. One day, Mr.

Speaker, the Hon. Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley)

will have a sudden clear vision which will show him at last

that, although the government may be in the business, it's

costing the taxpayer in the Province of British Columbia to

keep the government in that business in order to satisfy a

philosophical aim which the Hon. Minister has so long held.

Mr. Speaker, the government shouldn't be in this field. It's

not its business. There isn't anybody on the cabinet benches

— well perhaps there's one on the cabinet benches —

who could manage, control this kind of industry. I don't know

who on the backbench would form the four commissioners or

directors of this corporation.

It takes men of long experience and great skill to function

in this field. The government may be able to buy them, but you

shouldn't be in this business. You should be regulating the

business. You should be taking the advice of such consultants

as may be required to demonstrate to you the kind of regulatory

powers that you should have and exercise.

You shouldn't be in and compete, because by competing you

can only survive by taking the extreme power that you have

taken under this legislation — by forcing either the

insurance companies themselves out of business in the Province

of British Columbia, or by forcing selective insurants to do

business with your corporation.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for North Okanagan.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In speaking on the principle of this bill, The Insurance

Corporation of British Columbia Act , I have some

difficulty, because as I read it through and look at its

companion legislation I find it sadly lacking in principle.

It's called companion legislation to another bill. I suggest

that if this is the type of companionship we're going to have

in British Columbia, then the average person in British

Columbia doesn't need any enemies because they're going to find

it in their companions.

The lack of principle that's in the other bill and is in this bill relates

to the fact that this government continues to exercise its philosophical hang-ups

with-

[ Page

2526 ]

out any conscience as to how it's affecting the individual people in British

Columbia. I speak in terms of the taxpayers who are going to have a white elephant

around their necks and who have, as the previous speaker mentioned, the rare

privilege of contributing their tax dollars to a philosophical corporation and

to have the rare privilege of having their hard-worked-for tax dollars used

as a means to dictate to them how they should buy insurance, who they should

buy it from, and at what rate.

The Minister may say well, if we go into the fire and life

and theft insurance it won't be on a monopoly basis. We will

get again the same answer we're getting over and over again,

"Trust us. We did it before but we won't do it again." Through

you Mr. Speaker, I suggest to that Minister that the people of

British Columbia have serious cause for concern and have much

evidence to suggest that this government cannot be trusted in

its business activities.

There are so many conflicts in this bill, one of which I

would point out as the previous Member did. That is that there

is room on this board for a politician, either from the cabinet

benches or from the backbenches. One wonders, Mr. Speaker, if

that politician in that appointment must comply with other

bills before this House, ones specifically that would require

that director to be responsible for loss of salary of that

company.

We've heard from Members of this government suggesting that

they must meld the civil service to their liking. This is a

frightening statement for the people of British Columbia to

contemplate. We see in their legislation and in this

legislation their desire, without a mandate, to meld the

practices of the people of British Columbia to this

government's liking.

I happened to have the privilege of being at a life

insurance underwriters' meeting a very short time ago. There

are many young men and women in this business. They were

devoting several days at their own cost and at their own

initiative in examining how they might better offer the people

of British Columbia a more efficient service, a more economical

service, a broader service and the benefit of sound knowledge

in how life insurance can be used to an income tax advantage

and to protect their families.

Mr. Speaker, they were enjoying themselves and they were

enjoying their work. I would suggest that 99 per cent of them,

as in many other businesses, are as dedicated to their work as

this cabinet likes to feel it is dedicated to its work. I

looked at them and I felt very sorry for them, because they

were blithely dedicating themselves into a position where the

axe is bound to fall very shortly as a result of this Act.

Has the government talked to them, Mr. Speaker? Has the

government made it clear to the life insurance industry —

I don't mean the "big companies," as they always like to

call them — but the average agents and salesmen and

saleswomen in British Columbia that they're on the pecking

order of this government and that they will be amongst the

next?

Another matter of serious concern in this bill, Mr. Speaker,

is the fact that this government has stated through

its Minister, who is piloting the bill — if you can call

it piloting; I hope I never fly with him — through this

Legislature, that this is going to be one of the biggest

insurance corporations in Canada.

Mr. Minister, I suggest to you through the Speaker that you

have every intention of marrying this corporation with other

provincial government corporations in other provinces such as

Manitoba and Saskatchewan. I suggest, Mr. Minister, that you're

setting up an area of conflict and this is in danger of being a

sell-out of the tax dollars of the people of British

Columbia.

The people of British Columbia contribute to the economic

disparities that exist in Canada, including Saskatchewan and

Manitoba, through their equalization payments through the

avenue of the federal government. I suggest to you, Mr.

Minister, that the taxpayers of British Columbia are not

prepared to accept subsidization, should that be the case, from

taxpayers of other provinces; nor are they prepared to have

extra tax dollars of their own used to subsidize Crown

corporations in other provinces of Canada. They are quite

willing to do it through the equalization grant but not in

excess of that Mr. Minister.

Manitoba is committed, through powers of their Legislature

and through their own statements and the statements of Premier

Schreyer, to invest their tax dollars in corporations both

inside Manitoba and outside Manitoba. The reason for investing

their tax dollars in corporations outside Manitoba, Mr.

Speaker, is in order to have those corporations headquarter in

Manitoba.

We see the writing on the wall, Mr. Speaker, that British

Columbia tax dollars will be used in monopoly insurance

situations, and are quite likely to be used to subsidize

insurance in sister provinces of the philosophy of this

government. And there will be a hassle, if not a loss to

British Columbia of the headquarters of that company.

Mr. Speaker, I caution the Minister through you that there

is no way that the people of British Columbia will stand for a

Crown corporation financed by their tax dollars on a monopoly

basis with other provinces and headquartered in other

provinces.

This legislation, like so much of the other legislation that

this government brings in, is full of loopholes and unstated

statements. As they call "Trust us," we look at it as

being a bill with little evidence of principle.

The Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr.

Williams) pointed out quite rightly the

[ Page 2527 ]

length of the tentacles of this legislation — it's

like an octopus. It has the potential of reaching into every

home in British Columbia on a compulsory basis. He's quite

right when he says he sees in this legislation the "avenue

whereby the government can tell almost every homeowner" —

well, every homeowner in British Columbia — "in which

company they're going to take their fire and theft insurance

and their life insurance."

Every volunteer agency in British Columbia who receives any

form of government moneys — and nearly every one does

— will be subject to this Act and be subject to taking

their insurance at the price set by the government on the basis

that the government says — no quarterly payments; yearly

payments as in the automobile insurance. Compulsion, Mr.

Speaker.

This isn't a takeover bill of the insurance industry, Mr.

Speaker. It's the old NDP squeeze play — get the control

of the people, get the money of the Treasury which this bill

has through the Minister of Finance and the Revenue Act

of British Columbia which is before this House, and you don't

have to worry about the little agents and the other insurance

companies. You just squeeze them out of business in the

glorious socialist fashion.

We don't see in here, Mr. Minister — unless I've

misread the bill and I would certainly stand to be corrected if

I have — any reassurance to the small insurance agent

— life insurance, fire, theft insurance agent in British

Columbia — that this Minister is not going to exercise

the same unconscionable acts that he did in the automobile

insurance. There's no clause in here to say that agents can't

be fired without cause and without notice. This is a very

legitimate question under the principle of this Act, Mr.

Speaker, because this very Minister has legislation before this

House that allows this government to fire a little insurance

agent without cause and without notice.

Interjection by an Hon. Member,

MRS. JORDAN: Well, Mr. Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke), welcome

back to work. It's nice to see you looking so well. But I would have thought

a man of your integrity and imagination and verve for the future in life would

not rely on the past so much but would come up with some new and innovative

and equity-type programme. He was an insurance agent himself, Mr. Speaker. I

wonder if he was fired without cause and without notice; and if he had been,

what he would have said.

This is a government, Mr. Speaker, that says it's for the

little people. But every piece of legislation that comes in

kills the little people. Even the poor little doughnut vendor

— the only holes around this place are not in the

doughnuts, Mr. Speaker — they're in the heads of the

people of this government that draft this type of legislation.

They should be sent rolling down the decks of the B.C. ferries

right into the Gulf of Georgia.

Mr. Speaker, there's nothing in this bill to protect the

current life insurance agents and those people that I saw

working so diligently the other day from losing their lifetime

investment. Most of these, as I mentioned, were young people.

They're building up offices and equipment — and what's

more important, they're putting their life into this. What's to

happen to them.?

Mr. Speaker, there is ample evidence here to suggest this is

another bill of this socialist government without conscience.

We can't support unconscionable legislation.

You don't have to go into the insurance business, Mr.

Speaker. If they're concerned, they have every avenue —

there are two insurance men in their cabinet. Let them come up

with proper types of regulations to see that the current

insurance business is responsible and equitable.

The Minister keeps saying, "When we borrow money for this we

won't have to use tax money because we'll borrow on the open

market with a provincial guarantee." I think to date they are

going to use the provincial guarantee for something like 12

multi-million dollar borrowing projects, in fact into the

billions of dollars.

This points out again the lack of business acumen of this

government. The provincial guarantee, which has one of the

highest if not the highest rating in the financial world, was

created not by hare-brained schemes, but by sound planning,

sound financial management….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, why don't you go and be governor of

Alabama if you like that state so much. I've been there. I

don't think it's so great.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, the statements by the Premier and

Minister of Finance of this province, the actions by the

Ministers like the Minister of Highways, have caused the

financial institutions in the world to look at British Columbia

with considerable concern and grave doubt as an area in which

to invest. I don't blame them because many people in British

Columbia are concerned about their own individual British

Columbian investment. And there is cause for concern.

Mr. Speaker, that guarantee which brings a very favourable interest rate to

the municipalities of British Columbia and to British Columbia itself — to any

other area of borrowing that has the provincial guarantee — will be in serious

jeopardy if it is

[ Page

2528 ]

expanded too far and if this government continues its actions which are shaking

the confidence of the business world not only in British Columbia, but in other

parts of the world where we must at times draw our resources.

If the Minister is going to Manitoba to talk to the Manitoba

government about this megalopolis Crown corporation —

Crown subsidization of insurance — I suggest that he

detour back east and take a business course while he's on the

way.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: When? Who said that? When am I going to

go?

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker….

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): Can you tell

us the answers?

MRS. JORDAN: Well, well, well — the little Minister of

Public Works has come awake.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: Yes. Fixing the light is about his speed. If

he'd only see the light, the people of British Columbia

wouldn't have so much concern because certainly the statements

made by that Minister in this House have left British

Columbians quaking in their boots as to what influence he has

in this cabinet.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, I mentioned before, there is

really no concrete evidence in this legislation as to what the

government is going to do, only the suggestion — as with

their other legislation. There's no protection in this

legislation for the individuals who are going to be hurt by its

enaction.

I suggest that some of the statements here, combined with

other statements made by this government, do put a stress on

the provincial borrowing credibility. I suggest that there is

the avenue of subsidization of other provincial insurance

programmes by the taxpayers of British Columbia. I suggest that

there are going to be problems when it comes to headquartering

this major monolithic company this Minister is bent on

creating; not creating it for sound reasons, but because he's

always had his hankering for power. Now he is in a position

where he thinks he can grasp it, and in grasping for this power

he is snatching away the democratic rights of the people of

British Columbia.

For this reason, Mr. Speaker, we cannot support this

legislation. I suggest that in time it's going to be a white

elephant around the necks of this government and the people of

British Columbia. A white elephant is bad enough, but when it's

a gargantuan white elephant involved in subsidizing other

province's….

AN HON. MEMBER: It's not a white elephant.

MRS. JORDAN: You're right, Mr. Member. It's not a white

elephant; it's a red elephant, and the people of British

Columbia don't believe in red elephants, and Mr. Member …

HON. MR. STRACHAN: You've been seeing pink elephants.

(Laughter).

MRS. JORDAN: Well, I would suggest after sitting in this

Legislature for the past few weeks that seeing is believing,

but feeling — feeling the pinch and the force of this

legislation and the hunger for power of this government, that

feeling is the naked truth, Mr. Minister, and we're not going

to support that feeling.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for New Westminster.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance):

I haven't very much to say on this bill because I am sure the Minister who introduced

the bill will be able to handle it very nicely.

However, the Hon. Member alluded to some of the cabinet's

past in her dissertation, and I would just like to bring her up

to date on my past, Mr. Speaker, with respect to this bill.

I was 18 years in the life insurance business. Eight of

those were as a manager of one of the major life insurance

companies in Canada; I had the third-largest branch in that $2

billion operation, so I think I have some sort of background in

the insurance business.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not as much as the Member for North

Okanagan.

HON. MR. COCKE: Not quite as much, possibly. But, I think I

have a little bit of background in the insurance business.

So, Mr. Speaker, I have a great connection in that business

as well at the present time, and I've been around; I've

listened to what they have to say. There's no great threat

hanging over the life insurance agents in the Province of

British Columbia and the Hon. Members across the way know

that.

They know also that this is the enabling legislation which

will permit us to go into what the people demanded — a

car insurance programme. This is the enabling legislation, Mr.

Speaker.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, in 18 years in the business I have known

a great number of people

[ Page

2529 ]

seeking charters to go into the insurance business. And what kind of a charter

do they seek, Mr. Speaker? Do they seek a restrictive charter that will restrict

them to one line of insurance only? Of course they don't. They ask for a charter

that will permit them to get into the insurance business, period.

Not being able to forecast the future, Mr. Speaker, there is

nothing monopolistic about this. The fact of the matter is that

it gives us an opportunity to respond to the needs of the

province.

We've already heard from school boards, hospital boards and

a number of other public institutions who say, "At least get in

there so that we can have a look at what your programme might

be like and so that you can bid on the business."

That's not to say that we're committed to that course. But

the fact of the matter is that it should be available in

law.

Mr. Speaker, I think that this bill speaks for itself. It's

an answer to a public demand for universal car insurance in the

Province of B.C. And this group over there indicates that they

represent the little people in the province; the little people

have spoken, Mr. Speaker. They know who represents them and

that's this party that is now the Government of British

Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The

intervention of the Minister is very interesting. He talks

about automobile insurance and says that this was only

necessary for automobile insurance. Well, of course that isn't

so at all.

And the second point he made was that hospitals and school

boards requested that a government scheme be set up so that

they can see what the government has to offer. In other words,

what they are saying is allow competition so that they can

compare your scheme against any other schemes. And that's

precisely what the Minister said.

And yet we get monopoly schemes on automobile insurance; we

get monopoly attitudes on the part of the government. Yet he

justifies it on the grounds that the school boards and the

hospitals have asked for more competition. That's an absurd

attempt to confuse people in this area.

If it's true, Mr. Minister of Highways, why are you setting

up a compulsory monopoly scheme in the automobile industry? Why

are you doing that? Have you answered that question yet? You

have waffled around it as much as you can and now your own

colleague has shown that there really is no truth that can be

placed on either statement because perhaps you are not sure

what you are doing, or perhaps you are simply not telling us

what your intentions are.

The worst feature about this bill, Mr. Speaker, and it comes

up in other legislation, is this desire of the government to

get into fields which have traditionally not been areas where

governments have succeeded. We've seen this automobile

insurance legislation and we can accept that. We would have

accepted that, provided there had been compensation, and in

particular, provided that competition were allowed.

If the government's schemes are so great; if the government

really believes they are so good, we really don't see why they

have to set up monopoly schemes. This government setting up

monopoly schemes is an admission in advance that they don't

think they can meet the competition and therefore they are

going to wipe it out. Furthermore, they are going to wipe it

out by confiscation and without compensation.

Sure, there have been minor changes made about agents

transferring licences, but I don't think that really has done

much to deal with the major points of compensation.

The Minister of Health states that this bill stands by

itself. Well, it doesn't. It's part of a series of bills we've

had to deal with in this House. This one we started dealing

with after, I believe, 11 1/2 hours of debate yesterday —

sorry, 10 1/2 hours of debate. Twelve and half hours after we

started discussions in the morning, we started considering

this, and yet this is, I think, a particularly important bill

which the Premier intends to force through by his programme of

having us stand and speak here hour after hour for well over

half the day, day after day.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's what you were elected for.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I was elected….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Why don't you go back and check with some

of those labour unions….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, he's like those nineteenth

century mill owners who said, "That's what you've got a job

for. You should work 13 hours a day."

In case the Premier is worried about why we want the extra

time, I was speaking to my colleague from Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace)

last night. He was going home to read bills. I wasn't, I might

add. I went home to sleep. I tried to do some reading of bills

this morning. We have other things to do. There happens to be a

committee meeting that I'm meant to be on at this time. There

happens to be correspondence from constituents.

You say that we're elected to work in this way. Perhaps we are. But I don't

see why we should have

[ Page

2530 ]

important legislation handled as carelessly as the Premier would like us to

do it.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It's been on the order paper for

weeks.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: And you've been running this House badly

for weeks, Mr. Premier.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member proceed

with the principle of the bill.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, perhaps if you would rule

the Premier out of order when he interrupted me on this subject….

MR. SPEAKER: I called for order but you kept on in the same

vein instead of getting back to the bill.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I don't actually recollect order being

called at the Premier's intervention in this debate, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Indeed it was.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I'll accept your word that it was called

when he was speaking.

MR. SPEAKER: I kept banging the gavel but to no avail.

MR. D. A. ANDERSON: In any event, back to the bills

themselves, Mr. Speaker. We have this entry into the private

field where traditionally and historically governments have not

succeeded. We have plenty of examples in western provinces of

this same failure on a year to year basis going right back to

the NDP government in Saskatchewan in the 1930's. We have this

failure and yet we're going into more and more and more.

And we're going about them all in much the same way. The

mining industry, for example — entry into that by way of

legislation which allows entry by the government into any

business without compensation simply by use of the production

lease and the powers to regulate that we passed in principle

last night, unfortunately.

We have entry into the forest industry, again a resource

industry. Columbia Cellulose, Ocean Falls — the same type

of thing. Entry into areas where traditionally governments have

not had a great deal of success.

We've had the Minister of Rehabilitation and Social

Improvement (Hon. Mr. Levi) talking about entry into the food

distribution system in the province — the co-ops that he

wants to sponsor to take over from the normal supermarkets and

chain stores. Well, that's fair too I guess. But we'd like to

see….

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Taking over by way of special tax

concessions which is precisely what you're attempting to do in

this area here with your own corporation on insurance. I'm sure

it worries the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) to hear some

criticisms of these things which they think they can sneak

through in principle and get into practice without people

really knowing. They know full well they are not elected and

have no mandate from the public to go into general insurance.

The mandate was for automobile insurance and not elsewhere.

This bill and the others like it that we've had recently

indicate clearly to us the difference between the way this

province is going and the way the parties on this side of the

House — and this party in particular — would like

to see it go. We want a strong private sector because we

believe that only a strong private sector can provide the tax

base necessary to provide social services. We don't think that

entry into areas such as this, where you force out taxpaying

private corporations as the government intends to do, as they

are obviously doing in the mining industry and probably will be

doing shortly in the forest industry, is the way of creating a

tax base which can pay for the social services which the people

of this province would like to have and, in fact, deserve.

We feel that legislation of this nature, which is

confiscatory, which takes away without compensation, the rights

of existing businesses and businessmen and workers in the

province is simply the worst possible way to set up a system

which can be considered fair by the people of British

Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, we reject this bill and the companion bills

that go with it. We think that if the government was sincere in

attempting to get automobile insurance, if they were sincerely

trying to get a good deal for the people, they would allow the

competition which they won't be allowing and they would not

allow the benefits that this bill gives the Insurance

Corporation of British Columbia.

There's just one point that shows the favouritism that the

government corporation will be given which has not been

mentioned by my two colleagues from Point Grey and West

Vancouver. In this Act we're setting up a corporation which is

going to be exempt from the Companies Act . Sure, the

Attorney General is going to bring in amendments to the

Companies Act. Sure, we're going to have a much better

Companies Act . But this corporation is exempt from it

and it says so in

section 31.

That's the type of legislation we're bringing in — legislation which deliberately

favours the state corporation over any private corporation, legislation which

deliberately allows the state corporation to get in,

[ Page

2531 ]

take over the business by way of expropriation or otherwise of people who

are currently paying their taxes, acting responsibly and acting under the overall

regulation of government. There's a difference between the government regulating,

making sure that industry operates effectively for the public good, and governments

getting involved.

The way that this corporation is being set up, excluding the

government corporation from the government's own regulations

which exist on other companies, indicates to me that we're into

an area of favouritism, an area of the government taking

advantage of the private sector by way of legislation that will

be most damaging to the ability of the private sector to pay

the taxes that we need.

It's part of the whole trend which started off with the

favouritism shown in contracts for buses in Manitoba. There the

corporation wasn't even in the province and yet favouritism was

shown. Now we're setting up the corporations within the

province. If private industry, the NDP backbench or anybody

else thinks it's going to be fair and honest and open, they'd

better start looking at what's happened, even up to now, in

dealing with corporations outside the province. This government

has already shown itself to be quite willing to play favourites

and use patronage in the case of these buses and, of course, in

the case of the bill we passed a short time ago, allegedly

called Fair Employment Practices Act .

We just cannot have a situation where the government which

is meant to represent all the people, which is meant to

regulate on behalf of all the people, starts playing favourites

and showing favouritism to corporations be they private or

public against the public interest. Thdt's what we're facing at

this moment. That's what we're facing with this insurance bill.

That's what we faced with the Minister of Municipal Affairs'

(Hon. Mr. Lorimer'

s) non-tender purchase of buses over the

price at which he could receive them elsewhere.

We feel that that is a pretty poor trend, a pretty poor

start for a new government.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Public Works.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I thought the remarks made by

the previous speaker, the Second Member for Victoria, really

indicated his lack of experience, certainly in the political

insurance field (Laughter).

That sure woke them up anyway, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Mr. Speaker, the comments of the previous

speaker indicated the Second Member for Victoria's complete

inexperience in the provincial political and the provincial

insurance fields both. His arguments can all be put to sleep

very, very easily if he even knew the political history of his

own colleagues in the House and the political history of that

once-elected Liberal Party in Saskatchewan.

Of course, the Liberal Party doesn't really take its

promises seriously. When they ran and were elected in 1964,

they said, "Elect us and we will do away with SGIO" — the

Saskatchewan Government Insurance Office. Did they do away with

that? No, they didn't keep their promise. When they looked into

it, they found that the Saskatchewan government insurance had

not only developed the best car insurance in the world but by

going into competition in the fire and casualty field, it made

it possible for the first time in the history of that province

— some 27 years ago — for farmers to insure their

farm buildings. It lowered the rate of fire insurance on all

farm buildings in that province.

The Liberal Party, under the late Ross Thatcher, knew very

well that they would have been defeated much, much more quickly

had they tampered with that legislation. So the arguments from

that corner of the House are very, very empty. If they knew the

history of their own party and what they tried to do, what they

promised to do and what they failed to do, they'd just hang

their heads. They'd say nothing on this issue.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: I would like to ask leave, Mr. Speaker,

just to reply to that comment.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Columbia River

(Mr. Chabot), the ex-Minister of Labour, for some reason is up

to some very nasty political mischief. (Laughter).

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: He waved an advertisement here in the

House that was four years old. Well, we've looked into this….

MR. SPEAKER: Order. Would the Hon. Member please be

seated?

Although on other occasions in the House the Hon. Member for Columbia River

has made certain reflections and innuendoes, he has not on this

[ Page

2532 ]

occasion made one that justifies you interrupting this debate on a question

of privilege. Would you kindly therefore confine your remarks to the bill before

us?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Oh, they both

told you not to say anything, didn't they? (Laughter.)

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Yes. I'll just say, Mr. Second Member for

Point Grey, that at least I'm up-to-date.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. When a matter of privilege comes up it

must be taken up immediately. But there's no question of

privilege and I ask the Member to resume the debate. Now, if in

any way that is not correct, would the Hon. Member point out

where I am wrong?

Thank you. Would you proceed then without further

comments?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Now, for the past

almost three years we've had compulsory insurance in this

province, in that if a person didn't have insurance, didn't

have the dollars to pay the fine, he went to jail.

Did any of those great defenders of the little people ever

speak up against that? Not one of them.

MR. GARDOM: I did.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: You didn't vote against the amendment in

1969 to the Insurance Act , my friend.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Yes, you were given wide scope and I'm

merely replying to some of your comments.

When we saw the removal of traffic violations from the

courts of this province…At one time if you had a traffic

violation you went to court and you paid a fine, but

two-and-a-half or three years ago the insurance companies were

allowed to collect those fines to fatten their coffers. Did any

one of those Members across there speak out for the little

person who was forced to pay fantastically high insurance

rates, merely because he went through a stop sign, or had a

traffic violation?

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Will the Hon. Second Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) resume his own seat?

(Laughter).

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Now, Mr. Speaker, when that change was

made it opened an entirely new area of income for the fire and

casualty insurance companies. Yet there was no justice. Those

people allowed the courts of this province to jack up the rates

of car insurance for everyone having a traffic violation.

Instead of paying those dollars into the court coffers of this

province they were paid into the coffers of the insurance

industry.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Did they oppose that? They did not. We

stood alone and opposed that amendment, Mr. Speaker.

So, Mr. Speaker, the people who have been speaking this

morning not only failed to stand up and speak out to see

that justice was done for the people, but allowed the insurance

companies to start collecting the fines for traffic violations

that should have been paid properly into the coffers of this

province.

Now for the first time the people of British Columbia are

going to be able to buy their insurance at cost. The people are

going to be able to deal with an insurance company that's

wholly owned within this province. The people are going to be

able to see the reserve dollars — the dollars that will

have to be set up on an actuarial basis — invested in

British Columbia.

One of the reasons that B.C. Is owned by so many

corporations whose head offices are outside British Columbia is

that the citizens of B.C. over the years have bought

considerable amounts of insurance. But they have bought that

insurance from foreign-owned corporations. Those foreign-owned

corporations have used the reserve dollars that were set up to

protect the insurance of B.C. citizens to buy B.C. Our own

dollars were used to buy and develop the resources of this

province, yet we did not own those industries. We did not

control the development of those resources.

So to this end, Mr. Speaker, this will be one of the first

great steps wherein British Columbia will start to repatriate

its own economy. Through this development of giving the people

of B.C. the opportunity to deal with a wholly-owned B.C.

insurance industry, we are starting to repatriate our economy.

This is a very, very important step.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for South Peace River.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. If the previous speaker was trying to impress us with

his knowledge of the insurance industry so he could be

appointed to this board, why,

[ Page 2533 ]

I don't know whether he impressed the Premier or not.

Mr. Speaker, I must say that I am most disappointed in Bill

34 — the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia

Act .

When I started studying the Act and thinking of its

implications, I had to think to myself that perhaps the

government had been scared someday in its early childhood by a

bogeyman called "competition." It affected the government so

badly, Mr. Speaker, that now they have to run around corners to

avoid seeing this fellow.

That's exactly what they are doing with Bill 34, Mr.

Speaker. They are running up blind alleys to get out of this

man's way, and in their rush to avoid recognizing some of the

good features of this man called "competition" — this

bogeyman, as they call him — they are trampling headlong

over the rights of innocent people.

This is exactly what is happening in this bill. They are

knocking them to the ground. In many cases, where there are

established insurance agents and established people working for

insurance companies, they are tearing their hearts out,

smashing their rights, and yet they try and justify it by

saying it's for the little man.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that the government's insensitive

approach comes from their early teaching that this creature

comes from a jungle. Competition is not necessarily a jungle.

There are many hard working individuals, conscientious, honest

individuals working in the insurance business today. And it's

not a jungle.

No one, with maybe the exception of one cabinet Minister,

has enough business insurance, Mr. Speaker, to even run an

insurance agency, let alone a multimillion dollar corporation.

And that cabinet Minister's experience, Mr. Speaker, as he just

pointed out to us, is in the life insurance field. Is this

where Bill 34 is taking us — into the life insurance

field?

We've heard a lot of prattling and twaddling from the

Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan) about how good this

bill is going to be, and I can only think, Mr. Speaker, that

the Minister of Highways has his eventual aim as being general

manager of this large corporation that he's creating when he

retires from politics.

By Bill 34, Mr. Speaker, the government has taken a

gluttonous approach to the insurance business in the province,

and no one knows where it's going to end. Their greed has made

them insensitive to the well-being of thousands of honest,

conscientious people employed in the industry today.

The only justification, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Highways could have had when he introduced Bill

34 is that he had been asked by certain, school boards to go

into the insurance field because they said they were being

taken by the present people they bought their insurance

from.

I wonder how much trouble these same school boards took to

find out and to get competitive bids. Because after Bill 34 is

introduced, Mr. Speaker, they will have no place to get a

competitive bid. This bill makes it compulsory that they buy

their insurance from the Insurance Corporation of British

Columbia.

The Government of Saskatchewan introduced similar

legislation in 1944. They set the rates and no organization in

Saskatchewan that received any help from the government had the

opportunity to get a competitive bid. That was the diet in

Saskatchewan for 20 years.

Then in 1965, as the previous speaker was mentioning, when

the Liberal government of the late Ross Thatcher came to power,

over many screams from the competition they took out of the Act

the clause that would riot permit these institutions to get a

competitive bid. They took off the blinders and they let the

sunshine in. If you want to go back and check you'll find, Mr.

Speaker, that many, many of these institutions found that for

the last 20 years they had been swindled by the Saskatchewan

government insurance. That's a fact. Some of the savings were

as high as up to 50 per cent. That's what happened in

Saskatchewan.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman who introduced this legislation

knows that. But to get this insurance company off the ground

he's got to make it compulsory. If you take all of the

organizations and clubs and groups in British Columbia that

receive grants from this government — many of them

through the perpetual funds — that's going to include a

lot of insurance. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the people of

British Columbia don't have to be fleeced by this insurance

company the same as the people of Saskatchewan were fleeced.

And they were fleeced in the general insurance business, they

were fleeced.

In Saskatchewan they didn't have any perpetual funds. This

has been mentioned before — the ultimate aim of this

insurance, Mr. Speaker, is to see that every person who gets a

homeowner's grant will have to buy their insurance from the

Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. This is another

case, Mr. Speaker, of a government institution having unlimited

power.

Last night, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Mines and Petroleum

Resources (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) said the government already has

unlimited power. This is the philosophy of communism —

the government only has power when it's given to them in bills

like this. This Bill 34, like many other bills that have been

passed through the Legislature this year, does give the

government unlimited power.

No one in British Columbia is safe, Mr. Speaker, from the power that this government

has taken unto

[ Page

2534 ]

itself during this session of the Legislature. It's unbelievable when you

think of all the bills that have been passed; and here's another one — unlimited

power: the power to confiscate, to commandeer, and all of it without proper

compensation.

We will never know, Mr. Speaker, whether or not the

Insurance Corporation of British Columbia makes money or loses

money. Other government services will be used and after this

insurance company has been in business for a couple of years it

will take a team of skilled accountants to figure out all of

the input that went from other government services.

Will the MLAs that are going to be appointed as directors

have any experience in the insurance field? Or will they, like

the cabinet Ministers, be able to hire executive assistants?

The power is given to them in this bill. It's very clearly

spelled out that the directors may hire such people as they see

fit — an opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to hire more party

hackmen, more party supporters, and to create a bungling

bureaucracy that will take years to unwind.

Mr. Speaker, this is just the beginning. We now allow

competition in certain other fields under this bill. But I will

guarantee you that as soon as this insurance corporation is in

effect for a couple of years, all competition in all fields of

insurance in British Columbia will be eliminated. That's where

we're heading in this insurance bill. This is just the very

beginning.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: "That's the purpose of the bill," is

right. This Insurance Corporation of British Columbia is going

to put an umbrella and cover every phase of insurance in

British Columbia. After all the talk and the rot and piffle

that was used by the government. They used to peddle it to us

about open government, sending problems to committees. They

bring in this bill and it's never been near a committee.

HON. MR. COCKE: There has been a royal commission and three

years of committees when you weren't here.

MR. PHILLIPS: This legislation that is before me today has

never been near a committee of this House. Yet when you were in

opposition, everything that came up you wanted to send to

committee. But now you've changed your attitude. It's a bunch

of rot, that's what it is. You're forcing this bill on this

Legislature, ramming it down our throats. Your government is

becoming decomposed, Mr. Speaker. The government is becoming

every day more and more offensive to freedom-loving British

Columbians, Mr. Speaker.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Author!

MR. PHILLIPS: You're the author of that one, my friends. The

way you're running this Legislature these days, you're the

author of that one. You're forcing this Legislature to sit from

10 a.m. until 11 p.m. every night, sometimes without lunch.

It's simply disgusting!

Mr. Speaker, this government is leading this province on a

treacherous path that will lead to the complete deterioration

of democracy in this province. Every bill we debate on the

floor of this Legislature leads us further down that slippery

path. I'm certainly not going to vote for it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I recognize the Hon. Member for Langley.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I

hadn't intended to speak in this debate but I just wanted to

make a couple of points. One of them has to do with a comment

the Premier made across the floor last night when he indicated

that a little competition is sometimes a good thing. Mr.

Speaker, why don't we allow a little competition in the

insurance field? What are we afraid of? The socialists seem to

think that there is something supreme about monopoly, that it

is some kind of magic way to save money. But you won't save

money, Mr. Speaker; I think that in fact we're going to find

out that with a monopoly we're going to end up paying a whole

lot more for our insurance in this province than we might

have.

The Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley), in

defending this bill, Mr. Speaker, said that the Liberals in

Saskatchewan didn't dare tamper with this bill when they took

office. I don't very often like to find myself in the position

of defending the Liberals, but that statement isn't entirely

correct. Certainly when the Liberals took office in 1965 they

tampered with that Saskatchewan Government Insurance Office to

a very large degree. In fact, they removed the monopolistic

features of it and opened it up to competition again.

Mr. Speaker, that's one of the things we're asking for in

this corporation that we're setting up in British Columbia

— open it up to competition.

When the socialist again took office in Saskatchewan did

they then turn it back into a monopolistic corporation? No,

they didn't, because they didn't dare tamper with that portion

of the bill, Mr. Speaker.

The other thing that bothers me is the short shrift we're

giving to the agents in British Columbia. We might as well

accept the fact that this corporation, when it's fully

effective, will effectively do away with the private insurance

agents in British Columbia. That bothers me.

I want to read just one letter, Mr. Speaker, which tells the story far better

than I could. It was

[ Page

2535 ]

addressed to Mr. Strachan, Department of Highways, Parliament Buildings, Victoria.

The letter says:

"This is my first letter to a politician. I am the wife of a

real estate and insurance agent. Briefly…"

She also says she's a Liberal voter but she hopes the

highways Minister will read on in spite of that. It says:

"Briefly, do you realize the hardships you are inflicting on

families and insurance agents throughout the province by

confiscating private business without any compensation? There

are three main points involved:

"

(1) Loss of income in 1973. Because auto insurance premiums

now can only be written for less than a year, premium income is

decreasing on a graduating scale as each month goes by. Our

small business will lose thousands of dollars in 1973 before

government insurance goes into effect.

"

(2) Lower commission rates. Starting in March, 1974, I

understand that your government will not allow agents as high a

commission rate on auto insurance.

"

(3) Retirement or pension income. As you know, a small

business owner has to provide his own retirement fund and much

of this money has to come from the sale of his business at

retirement age. This new legislation has drastically cut the

sale value of the insurance half of our business.

"In spite of all the above losses, the costs of doing

business — rent, staff salaries, heat, hydro, office

supplies, telephone et cetera — will continue to be just

as high or possibly higher as inflation continues.

"Mr. Strachan, my husband and his partner have worked very

hard all their lives to build up a business, support their

families and be worthy members of this community. They are both

slightly over 50 years of age and were reaching the point of

looking forward in a few years to selling a successful business

and enjoying retirement. I wish you could see the utter

discouragement and heartbreak you have caused to these two men

whom I know so well, and to the many, many others in B.C. whom

I do not know, by destroying a lifetime's work with this harsh

legislation.

"I never believed I would see the day when a provincial

government in our Canadian democracy could expropriate a

family's business without access to court action. I know you

are a supporter of the unions, Mr. Strachan, but I believe you

would not have dared to cut a union member's or a teacher's

salary and to take away a large part of his pension fund

arbitrarily without compensation How can you justify doing this

to families who have worked so long and so hard and risked

their own capital to be independent?

"I hope that you will have the time to give me the courtesy

of a reply, especially as I heard on a news broadcast just now

that you are considering amendments to the insurance

legislation. "

Mr. Speaker, that says far better than any Member in this

House could say what this Insurance Corporation of British

Columbia will do to the small independent agents in British

Columbia.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister closes the debate.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I've listened with interest

to the remarks that have been made from across the way

regarding this particular piece of legislation, Bill 34. The

remarks they've made about this legislation are similar to the

remarks that have been made about other legislation, which

indicate two things very clearly: either they haven't read the

legislation or they don't want to understand the

legislation.

For instance, they talk about this legislation affecting the

individual and forcing an individual to buy insurance and so on

and so on because he happens to get the homeowner grant. They

know very well that the wording of this legislation limits it

absolutely, completely, clearly to corporations,

municipalities, associations, boards, commissions or societies.

Where do you find an individual in that definition?

Nowhere.

But they deliberately stand up and they moan and they wail

and they cry and they groan and they talk about everything but

the legislation. Thank heavens they're not introducing

legislation in this House. If that's their attitude, if that's

the meaning they put on those kind of words, then by God the

people of this province were saved in time!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would ask the Hon. Member to withdraw the

phrase "by God."

HON. MR. STRACHAN: With God's help.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would just ask him to withdraw it.

MRS. JORDAN: I find the use of this phrase by the Minister

of Highways offensive.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: With God's help the people of this

province were saved just in time.

Mr. Speaker, they talk about competition. They talk about the private companies.

They seem to believe that private companies in this province have some special

privilege that the people don't have. That in essence has been the gist of their

argument — that the private companies have to be protected from something called

the people and the rights of the

[ Page

2536 ]

people to go into business. That's all they've been I saying all during this

debate.

Private companies have these rights and privileges. I They

must be left undisturbed, completely alone, through all

eternity — no matter what the experience may be, no

matter what the pressures of society may be, no matter what the

requirements of society may be.

They say we had no mandate to bring in this bill. What the

previous administration had done was ignore a demand from a

section of the community to produce such a bill. The school

trustees, in examining the whole matter of insurance for the

school buildings, made recommendations to the previous

administration and they repeated their recommendations to this

administration. The recommendation says, "the scheme be

operated by a government department or Crown agency." That's

exactly what we're doing.

Certainly the legislation allows the corporation to go into

the other fields, as determined by the Executive Council. Some

objection was taken to the fact that it allows us to order

commissions or boards to take their insurance from this

corporation. In view of that kind of letter and in view of the

fact that the public purse, for instance, pays 50 per cent of

the capital cost of our hospitals, pays practically every penny

of their operating costs, is there any reason why part of the

charge on the public purse of this province should be a profit

to a private corporation whose headquarters are in New

York?

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, but that's exactly what they've been

proposing. They've been exposed clearly as defenders of major

insurance corporations with interests, headquarters and

controls outside the Province of British Columbia. That's what

they're doing and that's what they have been doing all through

this particular bill.

They point to a

section which allows a Member of the

Legislative Assembly to be appointed to the board. They point

to the

section which allows payments to be made to MLAs. Had

they read the bill, they would have realized that the bill

states very clearly that a Minister designated by

order-in-council shall be the chairman of the board and a

director. Unless that

section was in there to allow that

director to be paid any expenses incurred as a director, that

MLA would forfeit his seat in the House.

That's why it had to be in there. The bill says that a

Minister designated — and a Minister happens to be an MLA

too — shall have the right to compensation for expenses

incurred in the duties of serving this particular corporation.

It's also in there to fulfil the pledge I made that no public

money be used to operate this corporation. Why should the

Minister involved, whoever he may be, in the service of this

corporation expend moneys on his travel or whatever t might be

and then charge it to the office of the ministry he holds?

That's why that's in there.

AN HON. MEMBER: No salary.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No salary, no salary but to be sure that

every penny expended in the service of that corporation gets

charged to that corporation and not to the public Treasury

through the accounts of this province. That's why it had to be

in there. But you sit there and bring out all the innuendoes,

which indicates very clearly that you hadn't read the bill or

you're misleading the people.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Pardon? I didn't explain it clearly? You

know very well that's the situation in this province. You were

in the cabinet. No, no way; it had to be written that way, no

other way. The Member over here talked about reserves. He

hadn't read the bill, because the bill makes it very clear that

the reserves are in there, must be in there — 125 per

cent. It's in the bill, and he says that he hopes there will be

some proposal for reserves. It's right in the legislation.

That's all we got from Member after Member — statements

about things which indicated very, very clearly they hadn't

read the legislation.

The Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) got involved in

some procedure about somehow or other we are going to use tax

dollars from B.C. through this bill to subsidize tax dollars

somewhere else. What utter rot. What utter rot! This

legislation makes it very clear — and had you read the

legislation…well, you didn't understand it.

It says three things: the accounting of the automobile

insurance

section and the general insurance

section shall be

kept separate and clear; there shall be an annual report and a

financial statement tabled in this house. And as I recollect

the legislation, in here it states that the Department of

Finance also has a role in the checking of the accounts.

This is a separate corporation to be set up in the Province

of British Columbia with the authority of this House. Now

what's the matter with that? What's the matter with that? Any

insurance corporation can do that. Insure and reinsure —

the Member over here said that. Every insurance corporation can

reinsure; every insurance company reinsures. You just don't

know anything about the insurance business.

However, Mr. Speaker, they talked about the questions raised about this; why

didn't this go to committee? His own leader, the former Premier, the Leader

of the Opposition (Hon. Mr. Bennett), when he was asked about that he said he

agreed it shouldn't go to committee. He agreed it shouldn't go to

[ Page

2537 ]

committee. Don't you even listen to your own leader? It had a royal commission

— $344,000 — there was an election on the issue, and there it is. This is a

vehicle that's required to implement the automobile insurance.

They talked about the agents, destroying the agents. Mr.

Speaker, what they are trying to destroy is the rapport that

I've built with the agents' representatives in the Province of

British Columbia. I wish I had brought the letter with me which

I received from the agents' representatives just the day before

yesterday. And talk about reading letters….

MR. PHILLIPS: You're tired, you're tired.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That's what you're trying to do —

you don't want this to work. You're praying that this won't

work; you'll do everything in your power to prevent it from

working. That's it, you're right I'm getting agitated because I

know that your allegiance is not to making this work; your

allegiance is trying to make it not work. That's what you're

trying to do.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Don't lose your temper now, don't

lose your temper.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'm not losing my temper. I'm just trying

to impress you, because you seem to have been hard of hearing,

hard of learning.

However, Mr. Speaker, I'm not making accusations against the

corporations.

I just want to quote from the address delivered by Mr.

Tright, the President of the Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company

on March 9 of this year at the annual meeting of the

policyholders. If you read the superintendent of insurance

report, they've been losing money.

The President says written premiums increased by $2.5

million to $54.5 million. There was a small underwriting loss

of $149,000. Now you may examine the books or the report of the

superintendent of insurance. That's a comparatively small loss

for an insurance company, but it's a loss.

It's on that basis that the insurance companies have been

telling the people of this province that they've been losing

money — on an underwriting loss. However, the president

says, "After investment income and allowing for income taxes of

$1.6 million, the policyholders' surplus increased by $2.4

million.

That's the kind of money that has not been involved in the

past in the estimation of the rates being charged the

automobile drivers in the Province of British Columbia. Under

this legislation, under this corporation, that's the kind of

money that will be included in this separate estimate of cost

operation for the automobile insurance of this Province of

British Columbia.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, many things have been said. I'm telling

the Members of this House, and especially the Members across the way, that if

you vote against this bill you're voting against automobile insurance in the

Province of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I'm asking the Liberals, the Conservatives and

the Social Credit Members of this House to put themselves on

the record now. Will you campaign in the next election against

automobile insurance? Will you promise the people that if you

are elected in the next election you will repeal the automobile

insurance legislation which this bill authorizes?

Mr. Speaker, this bill allows for competition. The insurance

companies have said they want competition; we're going to give

them competition.

Mr. Speaker, when I look out over the Province of British

Columbia I think of the name of this corporation. The Insurance

Corporation of British Columbia. I.C.B.C. When I look out over

the great Province of British Columbia and I think of this

legislation, I say to the people of this province, I see B.C.

in good hands. (Laughter). I move second reading. Mr.

Speaker.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 31

Hall

Macdonald

Barrett

Dailly

Strachan

Nimsick

Stupich

Nunweiler

Nicolson

Brown

Radford

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

Dent

Lorimer

Williams, R.A.

Cocke

King

Hartley

Gabelmann

Lea

Young

Lockstead

Gorst

Rolston

Steves

Kelly

Webster

Lewis

Liden

NAYS — 15

Richter

Bennett

Chabot

Jordan

Smith

Fraser

Phillips

McClelland

Morrison

Schroeder

Anderson, D.A.

Williams, L.A.

Gardom

Wallace

Curtis

[ Page 2538 ]

PAIRED

McGeer

Barnes

Brousson

Lauk

Bill No. 34 read a second time and referred to a committee

of the whole House at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I move we proceed to

adjourned debate on second reading of Bill No. 48.

DEBT COLLECTION ACT

(continued)

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for North Peace River adjourned

the debate.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): On a point of order, Mr.

Speaker. Would the Hon. Premier….

MRS. JORDAN: Before he goes.

MR. SMITH: I guess he has left for lunch. That obviously

means the rest of us stay here and debate right through our

lunch hour.

MR. SPEAKER: That is hardly a point of order.

MR. SMITH: It certainly is a point of order.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SMITH: Is the Attorney General prepared to accept an

adjournment until after lunch?

MR. SPEAKER: No. Standing orders have not been changed on

that subject as yet. Is the Hon. Member prepared to debate Bill

No. 48?

MR. SMITH: Yes, I will continue, advisedly and under

objection. I think we should be adjourning for a lunch break.

We went through a number of days when we had no lunch break at

all. We have debated bills on the floor of this House from 10

o'clock in the morning until 6 o'clock in the afternoon with a

very short break for supper and then back at it again. If it is

the decision of the government to steamroller the opposition

and go on with these bills — sure, I'll debate the bill.

Right now. I'll debate them.

The Premier can go out to lunch and so can the rest of the

cabinet but the opposition will sit here and debate these bills

when they come up and when you go.

MR. PHILLIPS: When Members have all gone for lunch.

MRS. JORDAN: What about the diabetics in the House. Don't

you have any consideration at all?

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

AN HON. MEMBER: Organized labour would never stand for

that.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MRS. JORDAN: Yes. That's the threat. Organize, organize,

organize or your rights are trampled.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member now

proceed with the bill.

MR. SMITH: Yes, Mr. Speaker, in speaking to Bill No. 48, the

Debt Collection Act . It is a bill that in many respects

has a remarkable resemblance to a bill that a former Attorney

General had prepared a number of notes on for presentation to

this session of the Legislature if that had worked out that

way. So there is some similarity between this Act and a

previous draft of

an Act that was prepared to come into this

House.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MRS. JORDAN: There they go.

MR. SMITH: I think

an Act of this nature, perhaps not in

this exact form but of this nature, is one that we could well

experiment with in the Province of British Columbia. It was the

recommendation, yes, of the Law Reform Commission that such an

Act be passed in the Province of British Columbia.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that really the Act will have to be

tried out because it is a bit of an experiment and it will have

to be tried out for at least a year before we will really know

the full force and effect of it, and know whether it will

operate properly or will have to be amended at some future

date. I am sure the Attorney General is aware of some of the

ramifications and complications within the Act.

Personally, I have some reservations about provisions within

section 14 which deals with what the Act calls unreasonable

collection practices. In setting up the provisions of this

particular

section of the Act we may well find that in

attempting to improve collections within the Province of

British Columbia between creditors and debtors, we have

provided creditors with a means of avoiding payment of

legitimate debts in that the subsections of

section 14 are

quite extensive and provide a lot of provisions that might be

exercised by, the debtor to his advantage rather than anything

else.

But I believe that the only way we're going to find out, Mr. Speaker, if this

Act will work is to accept it,

[ Page

2539 ]

temporarily at least, in its present form. If we find that the Act is being

used as a means of escape by people who owe legitimate debts and should be paying

them, then we might have to move in the direction of more teeth within the Act

to give protections on both sides of the fence, not just one.

There's another

section of the Act that I would certainly

like some clarification on because it's not clear in my mind

just exactly what is meant — that's

section 16. This is

in respect to the debt pooling and the position of the

collection agent.

It says within the Act that the agent shall not act for or

represent any of the creditors. It seems to me that in many

instances that will pose a problem. In my experience with some

of these agencies and debt collectors — mainly credit

bureaus and such — they have been extremely beneficial

and helpful in arranging a situation between two parties

— arranging not only a pooling of the debts that a person

might owe, but also in arranging with a debtor a means of

payment that was satisfactory. They've done this at no great

expense to either party.

They have acted as an unofficial — I guess you could

say — arbitrator in the matter and they've given, I

think, very good advice to some people in that situation.

Certainly, it has helped to arrange for settlement of claims

and payment of claims without resorting to courts and any of

the costly procedures that we are involved in sometimes in the

matter of both creditor and debtor relationships between two

people, or organizations and other debtors.

I would hope that we preserve the position of a credit

bureau or collection agency. In many cases in smaller

communities this is all that's available — where they do

get involved. Well, I know they get involved in representing

both sides and they sit in a position of mediator, really,

between the two sides and try to arrange something that both

sides will agree to. They do it without any great charge for

their services.

I would hope that we would preserve the position of these

people not only when they help arrange a pooling of the debts

of an individual, but also where they're perhaps representing

not only the debtor, but the person to whom the debt is

owed.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

These are the things that I see about the bill — not

in the form of a great harangue or criticism of it — but

areas that I believe we will have to have some experience in

before we are able finally to determine whether the legislation

is workable in its present form, or whether a year or so down

the road we will have to amend the legislation.

I believe that these are the points that I have to bring

before the House at this time. But, Mr. Speaker, I think we all

realize that we've had a rather hectic week. It is the lunch

hour, and I therefore move adjournment of the House, Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 15

Richter

Bennett

Chabot

Jordan

Smith

Fraser

Phillips

McClelland

Morrison

Schroeder

Anderson D.A.

Williams L.A.

Gardom

Wallace

Curtis

NAYS — 33

Hall

Macdonald

Barrett

Dailly

Strachan

Nimsick

Stupich

Nunweiler

Nicolson

Brown

Radford

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

Levi

Lorimer

Williams, R.A.

Cocke

King

Calder

Hartley

Skelly

Gabelmann

Young

Lockstead

Gorst

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Steves

Kelly

Webster

Lewis

Liden

PAIRED

McGeer

Barnes

Brousson

Lauk

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I recognize the Hon. Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, this bill contains a very

remarkable principle….

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. GARDOM: I'm playing to almost an empty House here, Mr.

Speaker. (Laughter). This bill contains a very remarkable

principle, a very remarkable section, and even more than that,

Mr. Speaker, a most remarkable surprise. I want to ask the

Attorney General whether it happened by accident or by

design, It seems to me that with monotonous regularity, calculated

regularity, I'd say, this government has avoided the means of

access to one of the foremost pillars of democracy, and that is

the courts of the land.

In the statutes that have come before us the government has

gone out of its way to see that there is not any availability

to the free, impartial, independent and unpolitically fettered

wisdom and decisionmaking processes of our courts.

We don't find any access to the courts in the

[ Page

2540 ]

Mineral Act , in the Land Commission Act , in the Energy Act , or in the Automobile

Insurance Act . Those are terribly. restrictive statutes. With expropriative

powers, and expropriation, will follow: with confiscatory powers, confiscation

will follow.

They are statutes denying the rights of individuals. We

don't find any access to the courts in those statutes. The

Attorney General says, "Look at this bill." I'm looking at it,

and it's amazing to me that in this innocuous little bill you

find for the very first time that this government has

recognized that there should be a right to the courts.

Under one

section —

section 7 — if a director

refuses to issue a licence or cancel a licence, then there's an

appeal to the county court and an opportunity for a trial

de novo,meaning that all of the facts can be presented

right from the very start. It's not an appeal in that sense:

it's a complete re-hearing.

But why do you go ahead and enshrine something that is a

fundamental tenet in our democratic system in a little two-bit

bill like this, and throw it out, totally throw it out, in the

most dramatic and individual right-stealing legislation that

has ever probably come across and ever been presented in a

province in Canada? Why do you bring it in here and why do you

leave it out of the others? It just points to one thing, Mr.

Speaker. It seems to me that this government is becoming,

historically, very ethically out of balance.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I recognize the Hon. Member for North

Okanagan.

MRS. JORDAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In speaking to the

Debt Collection Act , No. 48, I must second the

statements made by the Hon. Second Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom). It is astonishing and

remarkable to find that in one bill in this House we find the

right of appeal. It's about time we found that right of appeal

to the courts in all the legislation that we are debating.

But you know, Mr. Speaker, I often find another incidental

point that the shorter the Act the longer the explanation. The

longer the Act by this government the shorter the

explanation, But while most of it's procedure, I would like to deal with

one or two Sections in principle. In reviewing the bill I think

paragraphs 12, 13 and 14 appear to be relatively good and

beneficial to British Columbia. The overall principle of

section 15, as it applies to the whole principle, may be a good

law as it prevents bailiffs from seizing somebody's car on the

street without the owner knowing about it, as I understand

it.

I suggest that clause (c), in speaking to the principle, may

present difficulties and may unduly favour debtors, in that

regulations make it next to impossible to seize chattels

depending on the hours of the day during which a removal or a

seizure can be effected. And I wonder if the Attorney General

(Hon. Mr. Macdonald) should consider making these hours

specific in the bill.

I think another unfortunate aspect of the bill, without

speaking specifically to the

section but reviewing the

principle as it relates to

section 15, is that it doesn't make

it clear whether the

section relates to the chattels ordinarily

used in business, rather than as home or personal items.

I wonder if the Attorney General would consider clarifying

that point. Would you consider an amendment?

I must also speak about the concern that there is for the

individual credit companies in small communities. It has been

pointed out to the Attorney General, but I think he should pay

attention to this. In small communities there is often only one

credit agency and, quite frankly, I have the honour to

represent one of these. He's not a crook, he's not a rip-off

artist, he's not a millionaire travelling in disguise. He's a

young man in his late thirties who worked for a bigger company

in another business, and he bought a credit agency, he paid

good, hard cash for it, and….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, Mr. Attorney General, we really don't

care about his age — we care about the fact that this

legislation is going to put him out of business! You'd better

start caring about that, because you've got another point of

confiscation. The small credit company or agency cannot survive

in a small community if it can't act for both parties, and

anyone will acknowledge the Attorney General's right to examine

that action at any time within a legal means, but not to

prohibit it by law.

What he is trying to do, I suppose, is open up another

avenue where the government can get into business. Is that the

point, Mr. Attorney General, when you fiddle around about the

age of the individual? I am giving you a case now where a man

who has worked hard, saved his money, bought an agency, is

going to have his income reduced, if not almost solely cut off,

and lose his business because of the actions of your

legislation, through you, Mr. Speaker.

We don't think that's a laughing matter and I can assure

you, Mr. Attorney General, that he doesn't think it is very

funny.

I think the Attorney General, before he gets up to close

this debate, should give serious thought to this and make some

provision whereby credit agencies can act on behalf of the two

parties. So often it's the business that the agent is working

for. They pay the costs and the debtor gets the benefit from

it.

[ Page 2541 ]

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: Yes, they should. There are very few members of

the NDP in the House and they should be here listening to this

debate and be aware that this legislation that they believe in

so strongly is, in fact, putting more people out of

business.

Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact that so few of the cabinet

Members and so few of the Members of the government are in the

House during this lunch hour, where they are forcing debate and trying to ramrod through

legislation, I move adjournment of this debate.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): There is no

provision for this under standing order 34, so I suggest the

motion to adjourn is out of order.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: On the point of order….

MRS. JORDAN: I didn't adjourn the House, I adjourned the

debate.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MRS. JORDAN: Would the Attorney General like a hearing

aid?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I refer to standing order 34. The marginal

note says "adjournment of House or debate," and the

order says:

"A motion to adjourn (except when made for the purpose of

discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance) shall

always be in order; but no second motion to the same effect

shall be made until after some intermediate proceedings have

been had."

Upon consulting with authorities, I am informed that the

motions are two separate motions — the motion to adjourn

the House and the motion to adjourn the debate. Therefore I

declare the motion to be in order.

MRS. JORDAN: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. Were you

presupposing this motion, as you'd already looked up the

answer? (Laughter).

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The motion is that we adjourn debate on the

motion that Bill No. 48 be read a second time now.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 10

Richter

Bennett

Chabot

Jordan

Smith

Fraser

Phillips

McClelland

Morrison

Schroeder

NAYS — 38

Hall

Macdonald

Barrett

Dailly

Strachan

Nimsick

Stupich

Nunweiler

Nicolson

Brown

Radford

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

Levi

Lorimer

Williams, R.A.

Cocke

King

Calder

Skelly

Gabelmarin

Lauk

Young

Lockstead

Gorst

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Barnes

Steves

Liden

Lewis

Kelly

Curtis

Wallace

Williams, L.A.

Anderson, D.A.

Gardom

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I recognize the Hon. Member for West

Vancouver–Howe Sound.

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There is an element in

this bill which I think has been escaping the attention of some

of the Members. In the regulation of collection agents and

bailiffs under this Bill 48 it cannot be overlooked that one of

the areas in which these people carry on their business is in

the matter of credit reporting. We support what the Hon.

Minister proposes in this bill, but I can't let the opportunity

go by without expressing some regret that the bill has not been

expanded to indicate more clearly the limitations upon the

activities of those who are in the business of credit

reporting.

I have looked at the bill and it would be almost impossible

to amend. I hope that the Attorney General when he is closing

would indicate whether or not the government has in mind

providing some regulation and control.

One of the aspects of the credit reporting business which is

seriously lacking is the opportunity which must be given to a

person whose credit is being reported upon to have a copy of

that information. Time and time again occasions have arisen

when accounts have in fact been paid and yet somehow or other

that information does not go back to the credit reporting

agency. They continue to report a bad credit rating when in

fact the indebtedness which has given rise to that bad credit

rating has been cleared up.

One of the ways in which this could be regulated is to ensure that when a credit

reporter is giving any information as to the status of an individual insofar

as financing purposes are concerned, a copy of that

[ Page

2542 ]

report be made available to the individual and he be given a clear opportunity

to rectify any errors or omissions that there may be in that report.

I note that the director — formerly the inspector

— has been given some increased powers with regard to the

combination of these two businesses. There have been instances

when unfortunate practices have arisen by reason of the debt

collector and a credit reporting agency being one and the same

group. Certainly those practices should be stopped. In that

respect I believe that the powers given to the director are

worthwhile Bearing in mind always that it is possible to disassociate

these two areas of business and yet still have a real

connection between the way in which they operate, this will

create a serious problem for the director when these instances

do arise to make absolutely certain that a real division

between the areas of business takes place.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I recognize the Hon. Member for Dewdney.

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): Mr. Speaker, I too stand on just

about the same point that the Member for West

Vancouver–Howe Sound does. I really just want

clarification.

Really what I am asking is maybe the director should issue a

policy statement on this — and I'm referring to

section

5, subsection (2),

section (g). I think we should be looking at

that at this stage and not in committee. I think the director

should issue a policy statement that you should not threaten

customers by divulging their credit to other creditors I want to impress upon you that in the Fraser Valley —

in fact in most of British Columbia — the credit

reporting and the collection business work side by side. There

are very few places — I think Toronto Calgary and

probably Vancouver — where you could have them separated

and where they can make a living being separate. But the small

credit bureau, certainly out in my riding, just could not

operate with them not being together. So I am a little

concerned and I think you can clarify this for us.

I could itemize the advantages of the joint operations: the

paid collections can be recorded instantly; special problems

that come to light when reporting collections are available to

the other departments; disputed accounts are recorded instantly

and credit counselling is made available in most parts of the

province. The reporting staff and the manager usually live in

the district. They're more knowledgeable of the district and

the needs of the district and the special problems. They are

closer to the debtor and usually can face each other and deal

with things straightforwardly.

Again, in most of British Columbia I think you'll find that

both are working together. Evidently you need at least 25,000

people in a business area before you can even consider

separating them. From what I understand, it's unlikely that

they are separated.

I guess what we are asking is for some kind of description

of this discretionary power that the director has. I think that

there is a lot of trust in the present director but that can

always change. I'd like you to clarify this at this time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon. Attorney General closes the

debate.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, in

reply to the Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith), he made

some valid points. We'll try to watch that balance. We're also

concerned that the pooling of debts continues. If this

section

proves to be an impediment, we'll have another look at it.

I won't reply to the Second Member for Vancouver–Point

Grey (Mr. Gardom) who isn't in the House at the moment because

he was saying that this was a good bill in comparison to

others. Well, I can't discuss the other ones without being out

of order, so I can't reply to that Member. Even to say I agree

would be to put myself out of order because I'd be reflecting

on bills other than the one before the House. So I can't do

it.

With respect to the point about credit reporting raised by

two Hon. Members, the purpose here is to give control in those

rare situations where there is an abuse in that a debt

collector is using his credit reporting business to threaten

the debtor with, "If you don't pay, you're going to get the

dog-gonnest credit rating throughout the whole of B.C. that

you've ever thought about." And you may never even find out

about it. Now that has happened occasionally.

All this is is a power in the director that if that abuse is

occurring he can insist that you can't combine those two

businesses. But I would think that in many cases in many parts

of the province the two things will go hand in hand without

that kind of abuse creeping in, as they have in the past.

In respect to credit reporting legislation, we certainly

agree that that has to come in very soon, probably October of

1973, 1974, 1975 — very soon. I move second reading.

Motion approved; second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 48 referred to a committee of the whole House at

the next sitting after today.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:35 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1973, 2001, 2013: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada