British Columbia Hansard — Tuesday, July 29, 1980 — Afternoon Sitting (32nd Parliament, 2nd Session)

32p 02s 800729p

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

1980 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 32nd 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)

TUESDAY, JULY 29, 1980

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

3575 ]

British Columbia Place Act (Bill 46). (Hon. Mr. Rogers)

Introduction and first reading –– 3575

Insurance Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 40). (Hon. Mr. Nielsen)

Introduction and first reading –– 3575

Tabling Documents

Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills, sixth report. Mr. Strachan –– 3575

Oral Questions

Maplewood Poultry Processors. Mrs. Wallace –– 3575

Open-heart surgery. Mr. Cocke –– 3576

Incineration of wood preservatives by BCFP. Hon. Mr. Rogers replies –– 3576

Water level of Nechako River. Mr. Howard –– 3576

Standing Order 35 Motion. Mr. Hall –– 3577

Status of the office of the comptroller-general.

Orders of the Day

Insurance (Motor Vehicle) Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 24). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 3577

Mr. Hall –– 3578

Mr. Cocke –– 3578

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 3579

Mines Act (Bill 39). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 3580

Mr. D'Arcy –– 3580

Mr. Hanson –– 3582

Mr. Cocke –– 3583

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 3583

Mineral Resource Tax Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 41). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 3584

Mr. D'Arcy –– 3585

Mr. Barrett –– 3585

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 3585

Private Investigators and Security Agencies Act (Bill 38). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 3585

Mr. Macdonald –– 3586

Mr. Barber –– 3587

Mr. Levi –– 3587

Mr. Mitchell –– 3589

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 3590

Business Licence Act (Bill 42). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 3591

Mr. Cocke –– 3592

Mr. Mitchell –– 3592

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 3592

Committee of Supply; Ministry of Environment estimates. (Hon. Mr. Rogers)

On vote 75: minister's office –– 3593

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. Davis

Tabling Documents

Pre-feasibility study for an aluminum foundry in British Columbia. Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 3598

Standing Order 35 Motion. Deputy Speaker's Ruling. –– 3598

Erratium

Wednesday, July 23, 1980, Volume 6 Number 20 –– 3598

TUESDAY, JULY 29, 1980

The House met at 2 p.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Introduction of Bills

BRITISH COLUMBIA PLACE ACT

Hon. Mr. Rogers presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill

intituled British Columbia Place Act.

Bill

46 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of

the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce a bill.

Leave granted.

INSURANCE AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

a motion by Hon. Mr. Nielsen, Bill 40, Insurance Amendment Act, 1980,

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the

day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Mr.

Strachan, Chairman of the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders

and Private Bills, presented the committee's sixth report, which was

read as follows and received:

"Mr. Speaker, your Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills begs leave to report as follows:

"Your

committee recommends that Bill PR 401, intituled

An Act to Incorporate

the Institute of Accredited Public Accountants of British Columbia, not

be proceeded with.

"All of which is

respectfully submitted. W.B. Strachan, Chairman, Select Standing

Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills."

MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I move that the rules be suspended and the report adopted.

Motion approved.

Oral Questions

MAPLEWOOD POULTRY PROCESSORS

MRS. WALLACE:

Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Agriculture. It relates

to the Maplewood Poultry plant, which has again closed its doors. There

is not a sufficient processing facility for the turkeys. My questions

is: has the minister received the request made by the federal Minister

of Agriculture to participate in joint federal-provincial funding for

the turkey growers to take over the plant?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, no, I'm not aware of any request by

the federal Minister of Agriculture regarding joint federal-provincial participation

in the turkey growers taking over the plant.

MRS. WALLACE:

The minister is telling me that he is not aware of any such suggestion.

In view of that, I wonder whether or not the minister is aware that

those people who are creditors of this company have been withholding

suing Maplewood, and they have now proposed to proceed on Friday. Is

the minister prepared to take some action to ensure that these

proceedings are forestalled by, I would suggest, contacting the federal

Minister of Agriculture with a view to ensuring that a buyer is found

for this plant?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I must

advise the House that I have been in touch by phone on a daily basis

with the office of the federal Minister of Agriculture in Ottawa. I

have not been able to communicate directly to the federal minister. All

I get is that our calls are acknowledged, but I cannot seem to get a

reply from the federal minister. I would say, Mr. Speaker — and I say

this in all seriousness — that I only wish that the opposition had

allowed me to attend the Ministers of Agriculture conference in Toronto

a week ago, where I could have spoken directly to the federal Minister

of Agriculture to advise him of the seriousness of the problem.

The

matter of Maplewood and the British Columbia turkey producers' problems

at the present time is serious. They may not be major in Ottawa, but

they certainly are here. I can further advise the member that

representatives of the B.C. Turkey Marketing Board attended Ottawa a

week ago to meet with the federal minister. Since their return I have

not heard of any further developments from either the producers or the

federal government.

MRS. WALLACE: I somewhat resent

being accused of refusing to let the minister go. Certainly I referred

the matter to our caucus, which discussed it with your caucus. There

was certainly an alternate way for you to attend that meeting.

Can

the minister tell the House whether or not he is aware of an

outstanding offer from the Alberta Poultry Marketers to purchase

Maplewood? The arrangement, I understand, is being fostered by the

federal Minister of Agriculture with federal funds.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

One of the problems I have in regard to this Maplewood situation is….

Yes, I've heard rumours that there are interested parties, that

possibly the Alberta people and possibly the federal government will

provide some of the funding. Those are hearsay items. I have had

nothing official from the federal Minister of Agriculture by wire,

telephone or letter. Until I receive something official I think it

would be wrong on my part to make statements which I can’t confirm.

Until I receive some communication from the federal Minister of

Agriculture I cannot be put in a position of making any such statement.

MRS. WALLACE:

Is the minister prepared to make some provincial funding available

should such an arrangement be worked out and should it be necessary, or

is he still anxious to wait and deal with Cargill? Has he decided to

make provincial funding available for such assistance to the federal

government or has he decided that he wants to sit it out and let

Cargill take over?

[ Page 3576 ]

HON. MR. HEWITT:

The opposition is aware that this government withdrew its objection for

the Cargill purchase of Maplewood, as did the turkey producers of this

province. The matter was cleared by the province and the producers, and

Ottawa so advised. The decision as to whether or not Cargill purchases

Maplewood is strictly in the federal court, and until such time as they

make that decision or until they can acquire another buyer — whether

they fund it or not we have a major problem in this province.

Interjections.

OPEN-HEART SURGERY

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Speaker, when the Premier settles down, I have a question for the

Minister of Health. On July 10 the minister told the House that his

staff was working with the Vancouver General Hospital to increase the

number of cardiac surgery cases from 10.5 to 15 a week. I was disturbed

to learn yesterday that a constituent of mine, while waiting for

admission to St. Paul's Hospital, has three times had his admission

date cancelled since April of this year: April 30, June 30 and then,

finally, July 30. In the meantime he has had four heart attacks and his

doctors have written to St. Paul's stressing the urgency of the case —

without result. Mr. Speaker, what steps has the minister taken to

ensure that all patients requiring open-heart surgery at St. Paul's are

to get it promptly?

HON. MR. MAIR: I'd be very

pleased to take that question as notice and bring an answer back

quickly; but I do hope that the hon. member for New Westminster will

privately provide me with the name and the particulars of the

individual, so that I can look into that case specifically. I do

undertake to answer the general question as quickly as I can in the

House, and the private question you have asked me privately with you as

soon as possible.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I have one

more question. Can the minister report progress to the House on the

number of open-heart operations that are happening at VGH — as distinct

from St. Paul's — and in particular whether the average is now up to 15

or better?

HON. MR. MAIR: I'll be very pleased to do that when I get the information, and I will get it as quickly as I can.

INCINERATION OF WOOD

PRESERVATIVES BY BCFP

HON. MR. ROGERS: I have been

asked on two occasions by the second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson)

about British Columbia Forest Products' incineration of wood

preservatives. I've just received the answer this morning. I'd like to

read it to the House:

"B.C. Forest Products

treats all its rough dimension lumber produced at their Victoria

sawmills with a liquid fungicide, Woodbrite 24, marketed by Van Waters

and Rogers.

"A total of 50 gallons per day of Woodbrite 24 is used.

Approximately 25 gallons per day is contained in shavings produced in the planer

mill. These shavings are burned in the power boilers. Another 25 gallons remain

in the lumber. In addition, approximately three cubic yards of sludge is removed

from the dip tanks every three weeks when they are cleaned out. The sludge is

distributed over the surface of the hog fuel pile with a bulldozer."

I think this is the part that you brought up.

"This hog fuel is then burned in the power boilers.

"Woodbrite

24 contains the following: sodium tetraborax is 2 percent, sodium

tetrachlorophenol 16.32 percent, and sodium pentachlorophenate 7.68

percent. The chemical is reported to break down at 310 degrees Celsius

into carbon, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide and sodium and chlorine

compounds. Power boiler combustion-chamber temperatures range from

1,000 degrees Celsius to 1,450 degrees Celsius.

"Environmental protection service was consulted, and they are unable to give any further information at this time."

MR. HANSON:

Mr. Speaker, the minister has outlined the technical description of the

problem. What he has not responded to is whether this method of

disposal is consistent with the guidelines of the Ministry of

Environment. That's the question.

HON. MR. ROGERS:

I'll undertake to get a definite answer for him. I thought he wanted

the technical one, but I'll undertake to bring that one back tomorrow.

WATER LEVEL OF NECHAKO RIVER

MR. HOWARD:

I'd like to pose a question to the Minister of Environment. Inasmuch as

the Aluminum Company of Canada, in the last few hours, has shown itself

to be a poor environmental citizen of this province by ignoring

warnings from the federal Fisheries department with respect to the

level of water in the Nechako River and by their refusal to accede to

the suggestions by Fisheries, and in view of the extreme hazard to the

salmon fishery and other fisheries in that river and others caused by

Alcan's failure to comply, can the minister tell us what he has decided

to do or what he is doing to ensure that there is an increase in the

water levels in the Nechako River?

HON. MR. ROGERS: I

thank the member for the question. We have requested through the

ministry that officials of my ministry be allowed to attend the

meetings between the Aluminum Company of Canada and Fisheries Canada.

We went so far as to approach Mr. Tansley, the Deputy Minister of

Fisheries and Oceans. It's their position that British Columbia

Ministry of Environment officials are not welcome at that meeting. I

presume they have some reason they don't want us to attend. We are

given a briefing afterwards. To that extent, the quarrel exists between

Alcan and the federal government. I would very much like my officials

to be fully involved and briefed, but federal Fisheries chooses not to

invite us to their meetings with Alcan. There is nothing further I can

report at this time on it.

MR. HOWARD: In view of

what the minister is now saying in answer to an earlier question I

asked him, namely that there has been a rejection by the federal

Fisheries of the "moral support" which he said he would lend to the

federal

[ Page 3577 ]

government on June 24, can he tell me what his department is now doing to resolve this question of waterflows?

HON. MR. ROGERS:

I don't think your

preamble is correct. The federal government chose

not to invite us to their meeting. It is not a question of us having

abandoned the cause with which we were involved in the very first

place. On behalf of the fisheries that the British Columbia government

— and I, as the minister — have responsibility for, we requested that

the Aluminum Company of Canada increase their flow. They did that.

Subsequent to that the federal Fisheries have asked them to increase

their flow from what was then 800 CSF to 7,000 CSF. They did that for a

two-day period and then, for some reason unknown to me and people in

the ministry, Alcan has cut that back based on some long-range weather

forecast. That was at 11:30 this morning. At this point I still haven't

further information.

MR. HOWARD: The

preamble to that

question was absolutely correct. That is based on what the minister

told this House on June 24. What I was asking him for was not an

explanation about the failure of the federal Department of Fisheries to

deal with the question. We know that that has happened, and I have no

faith in the federal Department of Fisheries with respect to waterflows

in the Nechako River. What I am asking the minister, with respect to

his responsibilities under the laws of this province, is what he and

his ministry are doing to ensure that the water level in the Nechako

River is kept at an adequate level.

HON. MR. ROGERS:

The federal government won't even let us sit in on the meetings to let

us know what they consider to be the adequate waterflow. We asked for a

waterflow which we considered to be adequate, but it is not. The

federal government will not allow us to be privy to their information.

It is very difficult for us to ask for something when they won't even

allow us to know what it is they're asking for.

MR. HOWARD:

I'm sure that I'm correct in assuming that the answer to my first

question was that the minister is doing absolutely nothing. I wonder if

I would be correct in asking whether he is going to bring in a bill to

change the name of his ministry to "Ministry Against the Environment."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is out of order, hon. member.

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm tabled an answer to an oral question.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I would ask leave of the House to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today is His Worship Elmer Mercier, mayor

of Prince George. I would ask the House to bid him welcome.

MR. HALL:

Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move adjournment of the House pursuant to

standing order 35. The matter I wish debated is the serious concern

that my colleagues and I have respecting certain recent events which

affect the office of the comptroller-general. I have a short statement

that I would like to make.

On June 18, 1980, the comptroller-general….

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

One moment, please, hon. member. As long as the Chair is being occupied

by an individual, that individual will determine whether or not a

member is in order. Until then I will hear the second member for

Surrey. Proceed please, hon. member.

MR. HALL: On

June 18, 1980, the comptroller-general, Mr. Lionel Bonnell, read a

statement before the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts and

Economic Affairs. In that statement Mr. Bonnell said that the fabric of

internal control had been weakened in the government of British

Columbia. He told the committee that he had been "ordered" — and I use

his words — "directly to consent to an unlawful violation of the

Financial Control Act." Yesterday we were informed by Mr. Bonnell that

he was leaving his post. We subsequently learned that he is suing the

Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis).

Mr. Speaker, the

issue is not one man's departure from government. The issue is how the

government is to be held accountable for its use of public funds. The

function of the comptroller-general is to check expenditures to see

whether the government has authority from this House to make them. This

is the continuing pre-audit function, without which there can be no

guarantees of financial integrity. The office of comptroller-general

must be independent of the bureaucracy and the politicians in order to

do its job. This recent event has questioned this and the House needs

to determine fully and completely that sound financial management and

accountability is in place.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I will receive and review your motion without prejudicing it, and return with information on it to the House.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 24, Mr. Speaker.

INSURANCE (MOTOR VEHICLE)

AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker,

Bill 24 will enact a number of amendments that are intended to enhance

the ability of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia to deal

more equitably and efficiently with matters under its jurisdiction. It

will give more protection to members of the motoring public and will

allow the corporation to effectively implement further stages of the

FAIR program.

Proposed sections 9(1) and 14(1) will increase

the corporation's efficiency by allowing the microfilming and

destruction of large numbers of documents and processes under Autoplan,

and by giving the corporation a more effective means of dealing with

older damaged vehicles that come into its possession and that have no

damage coverage.

The proposed

section 19 is a rewrite of existing provisions in the act that are in turn the successor provisions to

[ Page 3578 ]

those

establishing the former Traffic Victims' Indemnity Fund, giving

protection to the public for injury or damage caused by uninsured

motorists. The rewrite of

section 19 is intended to clarify the

relative position of all parties and to refer to uninsured motorists

rather than the present less clear concept of an uninsured motor

vehicle.

The proposed amendments to sections 20 and 23 will

give increased protection to the motoring public. The proposed

amendment to

section 20 will remove the corporation's power, where an

insured motorist has liability insurance above the minimum limits but

has committed a breach, to raise the breach as a defence to a third

party claiming in respect of bodily injury. The corporation does not

presently raise such a defence in a bodily injury case. This amendment

will confirm in legislation the present practice of the corporation.

The proposed amendment to

section 23 will remove the inequity faced by

certain claimants as a result of the inability to identify the driver

of a stolen car that causes property damage.

The proposed

section 34 and the amendments to sections 38 and 46 are designed to

empower the corporation to implement further stages of the FAIR

program. The proposed

section 34 and the amendment to

section 46 will

permit the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to make regulations providing

for additional premiums to be paid by drivers or owners under FAIR, and

dealing effectively and equitably under FAIR with fleet vehicles and

with vehicles used for commerce or business. The proposed amendment to

section 38 will prevent persons who keep vehicles permanently outside

the province from taking advantage of significantly lower premiums

under FAIR, particularly in respect of younger drivers. In practice it

would be virtually impossible to collect additional premiums under FAIR

from drivers or owners of vehicles kept permanently outside the

province.

The other amendments in the bill are of a minor

and housekeeping nature which tend to clarify the legislation with

regard to motor-vehicle insurance.

With those comments I would move that the bill now be read a second time.

MR. HALL:

We will be supporting the bill, Mr. Speaker, although there are a

number of comments that two or three members may wish to make.

The

full amount of bodily injury claims being paid now…. In effect the

corporation will now, in law, recognize what has in effect been policy,

and this is welcome. There is an unwelcome side to it, perhaps, and I'd

like to explore that with the minister a little bit. I'm not a lawyer,

and neither is the minister. I wonder if he has any information as to

how vigorously the corporation prosecutes the redemption or the

recovery aspect of those who are in breach of the regulations once such

a payment is made. I realize that there is a liability, and I'm not one

who's seeking to excuse the payment of that liability. But the

liability now starts off at, say, $100,000. If they're technically in

breach of a liability because of some minor breach, I'm wondering just

how seriously the corporation will prosecute those in some minor breach

of the regulations, and what recovery rates are. It seems to me that

once we get to these figures of $1 million…. I'm wondering what the

substance of the argument really is. Taking after somebody for $1

million seems to me to be an exercise that probably isn't crowned with

much success. I'm just wondering what is happening there in terms of

the corporation's practice. I'm not suggesting for a second that it

shouldn't be in the bill. I'm not suggesting for a second that we

abandon that possibility, but I'm just wondering what kind of policy

there is in following those who are in breach of the regulations.

Certainly it's a good section.

Let me now deal with another

section, and that's the question of hit-and-run. I'm pleased to see now

that there's some alleviation in the financial penalties that are going

to be inflicted upon those people suffering from hit-and-run. Some

easement is in this bill; some forgiveness is contained in the bill.

I'm going to say to the minister, as I said in estimates, that I think

we're embarking now, in terms of time of the year, because of the

introduction of the FAIR program, onto a whole new area of hit-and-run.

I want to take this opportunity on second reading to suggest to him

that he better start to assemble his officials at ICBC and give them

certain notice that hit-and-run is going to be on the increase.

Already, Mr. Minister, in certain areas in the Lower Fraser Valley and

the mid Fraser Valley hit-and-runs have increased by 50 percent.

Already hit-and-runs in the city of Vancouver have increased 5 and 6

percent. I realize that the identification of a hit-and-run car as a

stolen vehicle is going to be trickier than ever. While this particular

section may not refer to all hit-and-runs, there's going to be an

increase in claims based on anything that's going to do with the

ability of an insured motorist to get his coverage increased or

bettered by claiming hit-and-run.

There is going to be an

increase in those people who attempted to leave the scene of the

accident because of the penalties that are laid down in terms of

demerits, financial and otherwise. What I am saying to the minister, in

a roundabout way, is that I think we'll find in the not-too-distant

future that this particular bad aspect of our motoring behaviour is

going to be increased. While I may be technically out of order in this

bill because the bill talks about somebody driving a stolen car and I

am talking about all hit and runs, there is the connection,

nevertheless, that we're going to have the kind of dishonesty involved

in claims-making that we experienced in the early days of ICBC when we

had a raft of arson and manufactured theft, theft to order, in 1974 and

With those two points, I will support the bill. I do,

sincerely, ask the minister if he will double-check with the SIU group

in New Westminster as much as he can to tool up with the

Attorney-General's department and with anybody else that's involved in

this whole area to put out the message about hit and run. I hate to be

a harbinger of bad news but I very much fear that this is going to be

hitting the newspapers shortly. I think the sooner we get on to this —

the sooner we take pre-emptive action, pre-emptive publicity and

pre-emptive staff work — the better we'll all like it, the better shape

the corporation will be in and obviously, in the long run, the better

shape our premiums will be in.

MR. COCKE: I note that

since the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) is

back, the place is full of "ayes." I think he is probably a latent

seaman.

Speaking to Bill 24, if I may, I hope the minister

is very much aware of the possibility — as the police departments

certainly are worrying in this province with respect to the problems

around the hit-and-run situation…. Having said that, I think we've

debated that a bit in the House and certainly I don't wish to debate it

further. There are a couple of notes I've made on this bill that I

think the minister and everyone should take fairly seriously. The

intent of the bill is

[ Page 3579 ]

legally require ICBC to indemnify an insured who is in breach of

regulations — that is good; there is nothing wrong with that — to the

full extent of that third-party liability carried by the insured. You

will recall that there was a limitation up to $75,000. I believe the

limitation was increased to $100,000.

I think this is where

we get onto the tinderbox. It is presently the policy of the

corporation to pay third-party claims to the limit carried. What the

act simply changes is that this is going to be law. Also included in

the bill is an amendment to

section 21 of the Automobile Insurance Act

which would require an insured who was in breach to repay to the

corporation — this is the key — the full amount of the third-party

claim. There was a limitation there and this gets to be a little more

of a concern as we go through this. In any event, ICBC then can turn to

the insured who happens to be in breach — possibly impaired — for $1

million. I think this is something we'd better look at very carefully.

Currently

section 20 only permits the corporation to recover the

compulsory minimum limit, which is $100,000. The corporation, in the

guise of being a benefactor to the innocent victim of the motor-vehicle

accident, has added a further burden to the motorists of B.C. Surely

$100,000 is sufficient punishment to an insured, regardless of the

reason for the breach. I really think this should be listened to very

carefully by the minister.

It is in the public interest, as

I see it, to leave

section 20 of the Automobile Insurance Act as it is

at present. I think that that would give the full benefit of $100,000

access to ICBC if the person is guilty of a breach.

Now this

is what I think is the key: "Breaches are not limited to offences such

as impaired driving, but include trivial offences." Mr. Speaker, I hope

that the minister knows what those trivial offences are. I suspect

sometimes when I listen to him that he doesn't really understand what

he's doing in the position that he holds; he has difficulty with

agriculture and increased difficulty with this. "The person in breach

can be in breach for the following reasons: an expired driver's

licence" — that's a serious breach, an expired driver's licence; not

somebody doing it on purpose, but a driver's licence expired by

accident — "or driving a vehicle to work more than once a week, unless

the vehicle is rated for that purpose." Now granted, in most cases,

when the person fails to report the change of address or fails to renew

a licence, the breach is waived. But the fact remains that these are

just as valid breaches of the regulations as is impaired driving.

might hear some policy from the minister today, but I hope it's just a

little bit more than suggestion; I hope that it's firm policy. As a

matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I would like to see some amendments before

this bill becomes law. Those amendments, as the minister knows, can be

brought in under committee stage. The best solution would be the

elimination of all third-party breaches; but failing this, the amount

which ICBC should recover or should be allowed to recover should be

left at $100,000 rather than the policy which could provide ICBC access

to a $1 million or a $10 million judgment against a person found in

breach of his contract with ICBC.

Mr. Speaker, a person

would have difficulty paying ICBC $100,000. I'm not standing here

indicating that we're to laud and honour those people who are in breach

of their contract, but sometimes it is a simple breach, and by law now,

as I interpret it, they have access to a very sizeable amount. I think

that the minister should have this looked at by the legislative counsel

again to satisfy himself that there isn't a detrimental aspect to this

bill that he's put forward. Homes can be seized and people will run

away from the country, as we have seen before, because the Automobile

Insurance Act has a very strong section,

section 21(9), which gives

them a tremendous power of seizure.

There is another part of

the bill that pertains to coverage for a B.C. resident. Now this means

that if a B.C. resident moves to another jurisdiction, this act, if

passed, cancels his insurance in 60 days — bang! — just like that. You

move from here to Saskatchewan and your insurance is cancelled in 60

days. Now in Saskatchewan, in California or many other jurisdictions,

in Manitoba, you have 90 days, and in some jurisdictions in the United

States you don't lose your insurance until your licence runs out. A

person moving into one of those jurisdictions could be reassured by the

people he's talking to there and feel that his insurance is still in

force with ICBC.

One thing we know is that with ICBC you

don't get a contract indicating anything specific in terms of your

coverage. So I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that there are aspects to this

bill that should be changed, and I would ask the cabinet to go back,

look over those sections again and come back with some amendments;

first, that will give protection to that person in breach; and second,

for heaven's sake, let's not be so hard-hearted as to suggest that the

policy is cancelled in 60 days — let's go longer. The two longest in

Canada are the other publicly owned insurances, and those are 90 days

in both Saskatchewan and Manitoba. I see no reason why ours should not

be the same. As I said, in some jurisdictions in the United States it

isn't until your licence runs out.

Mr. Speaker, I would hope

that the minister is not going to permit this bill to pass this

Legislature until he's had an opportunity to really get some legal

advice on the two questions that I've mounted here. I urge the minister

to come back here with amendments that would satisfy the people in this

province.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, with regard

to the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall), I believe he asked how much

effort we make in regard to recovering of funds where we have paid out

on a bodily injury claim where there has been a breach. The member is

not here at the present time, but that area, I guess, is not pursued

too vigorously in regard to recovering of those funds. The member for

New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) has mentioned it in regard to the

individual possibly being faced with a $1 million claim which has been

paid when he's had a breach. I think the Insurance Corporation has

recognized, and continues to recognize, the limitations of the person

who has committed that breach. The reason for the amendment going

through is that it gives protection to the injured party, which allows

payment up to the amount of the insurance coverage as opposed to the

statutory limitation of $100,000. I think we're first looking at that

person who is injured as opposed to looking at the impact on the

individual who caused the accident and who is in breach of the contract.

regard to what the second member for Surrey was talking about — the

deletion of $150 — he was in agreement with the fact that that

limitation was being removed. I appreciated his comments and the

comments from the member for New Westminster concerning hit-and-run

problems. We can look at that matter and I'm sure we can cover it even

more fully under committee debate. Regarding the cancellation in regard

to 60 days, the member will note that

section 8

[ Page 3580 ]

the bill indicates the registration of licensing of the vehicle in

another province or state in respect to where the certificate was

issued. It also states that if the vehicle is situated in another

province or state, the law of which requires that the vehicle be

registered and licensed in that province….

The third part of

that

section is 60 days. So all aspects of the registration in another

province are fairly well covered there, but the member may wish to

discuss that further in committee stage.

With those comments, Mr. Speaker, I now move second reading of the bill.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 44

Waterland

Nielsen

Chabot

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Brummet

Ree

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Mair

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

Hyndman

Passarell

Mitchell

Hanson

Wallace

Barber

Brown

Barnes

Lockstead

D'Arcy

Gabelmann

Sanford

Levi

Macdonald

Howard

King

Lea

Nicolson

Hall

NAYS — I

Cocke

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Bill

24, Insurance (Motor Vehicle) Amendment Act, 1980, read a second time

and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the

next sitting after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call second reading of Bill 39, Mines Act, to be followed by the Private Investigators and Security Agencies Act.

MINES ACT

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

This bill actually consolidates the Mining Regulation Act and the Coal

Mine Regulation Acts, which at the present time are the statutes that

control all the aspects of mining operations in the province. As

members know, those were two very large acts which have been modernized

and compressed into one that is probably much easier to read and much

section 2 of the Inquiry Act. This is no longer spelled out in this

act, and it would seem that the inspector of mines is going to lose the

ability and the power to, on his own accord, disburse funds and hire

staff. In other words, his ability to function will be limited by the

fact that he will only have himself and the abilities that he has,

rather than the right to hire support staff when and if he deems it

necessary. Both unions and management have expressed to me the fact

that they have always liked having mine inspectors who could make

on-the-spot decisions without having to run to Victoria. It would seem

that the tendency of this government to centralize powers in Victoria

with the minister — as we have seen under this department and under

many departments in the five years this government has been in office —

is now spreading to the mining industry as well. I want to repeat, this

is a concern which has been expressed by both the people who work in

mines and the people who operate, own and develop them.

also see the elimination of a

section of the Coal Mines Regulation Act

which allowed for an inspector to approve the roof support system of

any given coal mine. I presume that it is now in the discretionary

power of the minister to require that an inspector approve the roof

support system. I think everyone concerned who is working in an

underground coal mine would feel a whole lot better if they knew it was

an absolutely essential requirement that an inspector approve the

support system in the mine that they had to work in.

I want

to talk, just briefly, about the reclamation plans of mining companies.

The reclamation by open-pit miners — I'm thinking particularly of some

of the work done by Kaiser and also by Fording in East Kootenay — by

and large has been fairly satisfactory. In discussing it with the

people involved, the fish and game branch, the environmentalists, they

seem relatively satisfied with the reclamation work which has been done

by mining companies. I also know that near my own riding the work done

by the Mines ministry and Granby copper in reclaiming the land in the

Phoenix area after the open-pit copper mines closed has also been quite

successful in returning that land to productive wildlife support land.

However, we now see that under the new act, once again, the

requirements that we saw there and the ability of companies to fulfil

those requirements seem to be somewhat restricted. The discretionary

power of this minister, or some future minister of this government or

some other government, once more will be there to perhaps lower the

standards of the requirements of a company to reclaim land which has

been disturbed by open-pit mining. Once again, this is a concern of

environmentalists and people who live within the communities, who are

going to be living in those areas long after a mine has closed.

There

was a provision in the old act which allowed management, mine

inspectors and union representatives to cross-examine witnesses at an

inquest after a fatality in a coal mine. That provision was there for

many, many years, and has now been dropped. I think the fact that it

was dropped speaks for itself, and I'm not going to dwell on it more at

this time.

Under the old act an underground miner who could

no longer pass normal pulmonary-function testing — in other words he

had a chest x-ray and he was deemed to have silicosis — was retained on

staff by the mining company and given a surface job. In other words,

his job security was safeguarded. There is no such provision now. It

would appear that if a mining company can't find work, or doesn't

desire to find work, or a worker who is no longer deemed medically able

to continue work as an underground miner, there's nothing to prevent

that company from simply laying off that worker and, quite literally,

sending him down the road. I think that's a step backward, Mr. Speaker.

Possible silicosis is an occupational hazard of mining which the rest

of us don't face. I don't believe that we should cut out this provision

and deal so cavalierly with people who, through no fault of their own,

because of their occupation become diseased and can no longer work at

that particular occupation.

Mr. Speaker, I want to close my

remarks by indicating once again to the House that I and a great many

people in the industry are very much concerned about the additional

ministerial discretion which is allowed here in a great many

[ Page 3582 ]

areas.

It's not presuming or assuming at this point that the present minister

will not handle that discretion correctly. But if it was not deemed

necessary to have this ministerial discretion in the past under a

coalition government, the original Socred government, the New Democrat

government, or the present government, I would ask why it is suddenly

needed today. I'm not aware that the industry asked for it. In fact,

the industry has expressed concern about it. Certainly the workers in

the industry have not asked for it.

I would like to hear the

minister and government members explain to this Legislature and the

people of this province why, under the guise of consolidation and

modernization of statutes in B.C. and deregulation, they are giving so

much discretion to themselves. This would seem to be an area where the

government of B.C. needs more information on working conditions, and

particularly the hazardous conditions that can and do exist in some

mines, so that the appropriate regulation can be enshrined in

legislation — appropriate legislation after due consultation, which the

minister indicates is going to take place between industry and workers.

The point is that this will all be done by regulation, which means that

it's done at the minister's discretion and by order-in-council.

Mr.

Speaker, it is the view of the opposition that this is simply not good

enough and that the workers in the province today, particularly

underground miners, need more protection — protection that cannot

simply be changed by regulation at the whim of this minister or some

future minister of this province — because we think that safety and

health and the efficient operations of the mining industry in British

Columbia are too important to be left to people such as ourselves and

this Legislature, who are not underground miners and who don't face the

hazards that mine operators and mine workers face every day of their

lives.

MR. HANSON: I listened very carefully to the

introductory remarks of the minister, and he alluded to the fact that

full consultation had been made with the employers and unions involved.

It is my understanding that the B.C. Federation of Labour

representatives and their occupational health and safety officers are

rushing over here for a rush meeting tomorrow with the minister to

express their grave concerns about the provisions of this act. What is

the rush? Why could he not have held this bill until the main labour

organization of this province had a chance to raise their concerns with

him? Why is he trying to push it through?

As my colleague

for Rossland-Trail has pointed out, it weakens the inspection

procedures and it doesn't make any gains in terms of what is now known

about occupational health and safety in mining. There is no safe level

for the ingestion and respiration of silica dust. Did they make any

changes to the provision in

section 20, which calls for any person

exposed less than 20 percent of the workday not to be covered under the

provisions of that section? What medical basis is there for that? Would

the minister stand up and provide this House with the medical evidence

which indicates that a person breathing silica dust only 20 percent of

their workday is not vulnerable to emphysema, mesothelioma and

asbestosis?

This is a rush, patch-up job. I think this bill should be pulled, full meetings

should be held with the occupational health and safety people in the trade union

movement in British Columbia, and then a full review of current legislation

should be made.

Let

us just take a quick look at some of the provisions, for example, in

the United States, comparing the U.S. federal Coal Mine Health and

Safety Act with this 1980 addition of the consolidation of these two

statutes.

section 101(7) states: "Where a miner is found to be at risk

because of a safety or health hazard covered by regulations, he or she

should be reassigned at no loss of pay." By contrast, in this

legislation

section 19(6) allows a company to dismiss with four weeks

pay a worker found to be unfit for employment or dust exposure

occupation.

Section 101(9) in the American legislation

states that "exceptions to regulations, including those pertaining to

health and safety, can only be made after a public hearing." After a

public hearing! What do we have here? A bill is introduced here without

even discussion with the main labour organization of the province. Bill

39, as my colleague from Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy) points out, allows

for a considerable degree of ministerial discretion.

Section 103 (g)….

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, that member will have every

opportunity in the world in third reading to debate this bill clause by

clause. This is the principle of the bill. Let's wait until the bill

comes in for third reading. If he wants to talk about every clause,

we'll let him talk about it then.

MR. COCKE: On the

same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to point out to the

minister that there is no debate on third reading normally. The

minister is wrong, as usual. The member may have an opportunity in

committee stage to do the thing that the minister was talking about.

However, this is a bill that has many, many principles, and I would

suggest that the member for Victoria wouldn't be allowed the latitude

that he would have in second reading. I would urge the Speaker to

permit this kind of latitude.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank

you, Hon. member. I'm sure that members are well aware of the scope of

debate allowed in second reading, the principle of the bill, and I

would ask members to bear that in mind. I ask the second member to

continue and possibly tighten his debate to some degree.

MR. HANSON:

Mr. Speaker, as you and the minister are aware, a debate in principle

is really a consolidation of a number of principles that are reflected

in the clauses of the bill, and I am saying to the minister that this

bill is wanting. It is a regressive bill; it does not address itself to

current needs of occupational health and safety. It puts into the hands

of the cabinet, uninformed as they are about health and safety

standards…. These cabinet ministers should pull this bill and discuss

it with people who understand the working environment addressed in the

bill. The reclamation provisions should be fully examined, and not be

at ministerial discretion but laid out for full protection of the

environment.

I want to address myself mainly to the complete

inadequacy of the bill in its form of addressing workers' safety and

health. There is no safe level at all for breathing silica dust. That

clause which refers to the 20 percent of the workday should be pulled;

it's been on the books for too long now.

A full review of the U.S. literature, the U.S. regulations

[ Page 3583 ]

which

address themselves more progressively to worker health, should be

carried out. I entreat the minister to withdraw this bill.

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Speaker, this bill will be discussed, I'm sure, in much more detail

in committee stage. However, the bill concerns me with respect to the

ministerial discretion contained in the bill. You will note that if you

go through the bill clause by clause you do not see "the minister

shall," but "the minister may." The minister in his best judgment, in

other words, will either insist upon reclamation or, on the other hand,

may not insist upon reclamation. He may do a number of things or he may

not do a number of things, depending on his or her judgment — whoever

that minister may be.

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the bill

is tailor-made for the minister to look after those he feels should be

looked after and, possibly less appropriately, those he doesn't feel

should be looked after. There is far too much discretion in the hands

of the minister in this bill. Mr. Speaker, I suggest that this is not

the kind of discretion we should allow a minister of mines.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE:

My colleague from Victoria says: "Especially that minister." But my

colleague from Victoria must remember that he himself has raised the

argument many times that this bill — hopefully, if it's of any

significance whatsoever — is to be on the statute books for some time,

and we have every hope that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum

Resources will be replaced in the near future, if there is no election

soon, certainly by a minister from this side of the House. Anyone would

be a recommendation over and above the one we have now.

Mr.

Speaker, I want to draw to your attention one aspect of the bill that

quite concerns me. Maybe this is sort of the underpinning of this type

of bill. Let me bring to your attention that no person other than the

minister or an inspector may lay an information under this bill.

However, an inspector may not lay an information if he's assured in his

own mind that the management of the mine didn't mean to perpetrate the

offence. What kind of law is that? Are we looking at law here, or are

we looking at a joke? I really don't understand that kind of law being

put forward to this Legislature and this Legislature being asked to

view it seriously.

I have those two main criticisms:

(1) The

minister has far too much discretionary power. He may use the power or

may decide to overlook using the power at his discretion. There is very

little in this bill binding the minister to anything.

(2) I certainly

feel that to ask that an inspector not lay an information where he or

she feels that all reasonable means to prevent the commission of the

offence was put forward by the owner…. I just don't really understand

how a person can come to that kind of a conclusion. If there's an

offence, then it strikes me there's an offence. If there's no offence,

then there is no offence. But the owner, manager or whoever of the mine

or the diggings can defend themselves after the inspector has laid an

information. They have a defence. I just don't see how we can make law

out of this kind of farcical suggestion.

So, Mr. Speaker,

with that I suggest that that, along with the many other aspects that

my colleagues have pointed out, makes it very difficult for us to deal

with this. Why hasn't the minister been in consultation with all the

people that would like to consult him prior to the second reading of

this bill?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I wish that some of

the members in this House who have spoken would have read the bill. It

would have helped an awful lot for them to understand what is in this

bill. In regard to the last person who spoke, the member for New

Westminster, I'd really like him to make a list for me of all these

places where he says the ministerial discretion is — where it says the

minister may do this or the minister may do that. I think if he read

the thing he'd have a tough time finding them. I sure as heck can't

find them in here.

MR. COCKE: Have you read the bill, Bob?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

They're not in any of the statutory obligations, Mr. Speaker. There's

very little ministerial discretion. There is a lot of discretion on the

part of an inspector, there is a lot of requirement on the part of

owners of mines, but there are very few places in there where the

minister has very much discretion — in fact, he has hardly any — to

vary from those provisions of safety required in this bill.

The

member for Victoria talked about me meeting with the B.C. Federation of

Labour. The B.C. Federation of Labour sent a letter to me requesting a

meeting on this some time after the bill had been introduced in the

House, and I said: "Of course I'll meet with you." The B.C. Federation

of Labour was not one of the agencies which was normally met with over

the many, many years of discussion over the provisions of this bill.

The thing's been around since the 1890s, Mr. Speaker, and generally the

people who were consulted were the mining unions involved, the managers

and the owners of the mines. Between those kinds of discussions this

bill was amended over the years. But because of the nature of the bill

at the present time, it makes it easier, if the B.C. Federation of

Labour occupation and health safety people have some pertinent

suggestions for me, to make changes without changing the bill, because

we are going to lay down those major regulatory powers in regulations.

The

very nature of the kinds of things that the second member for Victoria

(Mr. Hanson) brings up in terms of the changing nature of health needs

is one of the reasons we want to put these regulations in. I'll tell

you, if something changes in a hurry and some new standard is decided

to be necessary, it must wait at the present time until the opportunity

comes forward for the Legislature to be in session again and major

changes made in the legislation. At the present time we can respond

much more quickly to those kinds of needs which may be discovered. If

you think the minister has any more power that way than any other way,

Mr. Speaker, you are completely wrong. I don't mean to call you wrong,

Mr. Speaker; I meant the second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) was

wrong. That is not the case. You all know that if a bill is to come

before the House it is the minister who brings it before the House. If

the minister doesn't want to bring one, perhaps that is even worse. In

this instance, officials and everyone else can at least sit down and we

can talk about changing those regulations as those changes become

needed.

The second member for Victoria conveniently left out one part of a

section that he read about requirements for the

[ Page 3584 ]

figure

of 20 percent in terms of dust-exposure occupations. That 20 percent

does not apply to an asbestos-mining operation. That was a convenient

lapse of memory by the member, or a convenient lapse in reading the

entire

section that he talked about. It does recognize that asbestos is

a different situation than that of other dust operations. Even at that,

there is an opportunity for us still in this Legislature. If the member

is correct and that is an outdated percentage figure, then I would

undertake to have a look at it between now and committee stage of the

bill, and we can discuss it at that time. I think that is the proper

way to do it.

Both members — the member for Rossland-Trail

(Mr. D'Arcy) and the second member for Victoria — also conveniently

misread the

section which involves the dust-exposure worker who is

medically required to get out of that job. It doesn't allow the company

to fire him at all. It requires that the company offer him other

employment within the mine and that the employee accept that

employment. If, for one reason or another, the employee doesn't accept

that employment, then there is a requirement on the employer to pay

that person four weeks' pay. That is eminently fair, and it is a

requirement on the employer under the

section you read.

similar thing is true about the member's understanding of the

section

dealing with roof-support systems in underground mines. What we have

done is we've changed that to require all support systems, not just the

roof…. What's wrong with the sides and the floor? We've now said that

all support systems have to be considered in this act. It is no longer

just the roof-support system.

The matter about requirements

for cross-examination at inquests was taken out of this act because you

have changes before you, or they've already been passed — I'm not

exactly positive of the nature of those changes, since they're not

under my ministry…. Those requirements have all been put in the new

Coroners Act. They've been taken out of this act, because it is now a

requirement of the Coroners Act that those things be done.

The

mines inspectors' powers haven't been reduced. In many cases they've in

fact been enhanced and strengthened under this act. It is one of the

reasons we wanted to modernize the wording of this act. At the risk of

offending my own point of order, I would just like to say that the

mines inspector has wide-ranging power, notwithstanding any of the

regulations or this act. The chief inspector can require anyone — the

union, the owner, the agent, or the mine safety committee which is set

up in every mine, to provide a report to him and if that report comes

in with some danger perceived by the inspector, then he can close that

mine down immediately without any further action. That then allows a

justification to happen later.

The bill, I think, instead of

providing the minister with more powers, really provides the

opportunity for fast action and fast response to new opportunities for

new knowledge about workers' health requirements that comes before us

in one way or another. It does give the inspector of mines the

opportunity to act quickly. It increases the penalties for companies

who refuse to act quickly in the face of those kinds of orders. It does

allow us to have an ongoing discussion — not just once a year when the

Legislature is in session — about the nature of the safety regulations.

To my mind, it is a far better bill, much more modern and much more

able to meet the changing needs of the workplace today. With that I'd

like to move second reading.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 29

Waterland

Nielsen

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Brummet

Ree

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Mair

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

Hyndman

NAYS — 21

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

ing

Lea

Lauk

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

Arcy

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Bill

39, Mines Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the

Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after

today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 41, Mr. Speaker.

MINERAL RESOURCE TAX

AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: This is a

short bill, and I'm sure it'll have a short debate. It has a couple of

principles in it. One of them is that we hope it will help our Minister

of Finance in taking some significant steps to ensure the

diversification of British Columbia's industrial base. We hope it will

encourage the further processing of B.C.'s mineral resources. It is

short, but of great importance to the province of British Columbia

because it establishes a new processing allowance base of 8 percent of

the original capital costs of producing assets. In addition, the

amendment will tax the profits from mining activities as opposed to

processing activities, because it has been very difficult for the

mining companies to separate processing and mining and allocate the

profits to each area. This is a move that's welcomed by the mining

industry. It also increases by up to 20 percent the maximum allowance

of taxable income for those mines which further process the

concentrates into a smelted or refined product. We hope that the new

guidelines will result in better tax recognition with a return on the

assets employed in mineral processing.

The bill also moves

British Columbia's practice into more consistency with other provincial

tax systems, and also with federal income tax provisions. An amendment

under the act will change the date by which the operator must file his

annual return to coincide with the same date which is required by the

federal government. The amendment will also assist small mining

companies, because individuals or groups of individuals engaged in mine

operations will have

[ Page 3585 ]

their

basic tax exemption increased from $25,000 per year to $50,000 per

year. That's for those people who don't have the opportunity to take

that exemption off their federal income tax. It's not applicable to any

corporations, only individuals or groups of individuals. As I've said,

they are not able at this present time to deduct the cost of their own

individual wages from the operation of their mines.

With those few comments I'd like to move second reading of Bill 41.

MR. D'ARCY: The opposition will be supporting this bill. We have

some reservations about certain sections but we will deal with those in the

committee stage. We are particularly pleased to see the government accepting

the principle of an incentive or a reward for those companies which are processing

more of their materials within the province than they have been in the past.

It's been my view that there has been very little incentive or reward for

companies to develop their processing industries in British Columbia rather

than simply to ship ore and concentrates out of the province as fast as they

can, as has been the practice with too many mines over the history of this province.

I've indicated, we will be supporting the bill and discussing the

various areas we have concerns about in the committee stage.

MR. BARRETT:

I just have one question of the minister. Could he tell me, since he's

brought the bill in rather than the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr.

Curtis), whether he will be responsible during the administration of

this bill for all minerals in British Columbia, or whether this bill

will exclude the northeast coal that has been taken out of his

jurisdiction and given to the Minister of Industry and Small Business

Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) as a result of a fight in cabinet? I'd

like to know who else in cabinet is going to get a hunk of your

jurisdiction, and if more people do, how you are going to administer.

Will you make a deal with the minister that what you decide under this

bill applies to his coal field, or does his coal field come under his

own rules? Can the minister tell us how come he lost the fight for the

northeast coal? He's not the minister responsible for that coal field;

the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development has his own

personal coal field. I want to know whether or not your legislation

applies to his coal field, whether his coal field is subject to your

legislation. Who's running the show?

I refer the minister —

perhaps he's not aware of it — to order-in-counciI 1593, "that the

powers, duties and functions of the Minister of Energy, Mines and

Petroleum Resources respecting the administration of the North East

Coal Development Fund, under

part 7 of the Special Funds Act, 1980, be

assigned and transferred to the Minister of Industry and Small Business

Development." You've lost a fight. Now we sympathize with you; we know

that the minister has more clout in cabinet than you have, because he

can speak louder than you can. I know that you have a wider range of

vocabulary; but noise wins, and you lost in noise. Now tell us: will

this bill apply to his coal field, or is his coal field excluded from

your responsibility for administering this bill? Level with us, Bob.

How did you lose?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I

looked all through the bill and I can't find that order-in-council in

here anywhere. I'm surprised you didn't call that member to order.

Nevertheless,

Mr. Speaker, just to comment quickly about all of that, the debate on

the allocation bill itself was very specific about where that

responsibility would be lying, and it was never contemplated that

industrial development and the fund relating to it would be the

responsibility of any other minister. The debate took place in this

House. I guess you were in Japan, or some place like that, on holiday,

but I can't help it if you go on holiday when we're working. Mr.

Speaker, the next time the member goes on holiday, perhaps he'll do it

after the House has risen, so that he'll know what's going on in this

House when we're working and he's traipsing around Japan.

MR. BARRETT: It was passed last week and I was here last week.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, you didn't go away last week; it's one of the few weeks you've been here.

Anyway,

this bill, we hope, will go a long way to meet some of the commitments

that the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) and this government have

made to increase processing here at home by offering tax incentives,

and also by offering tax incentives to those small entrepreneurs who

don't get the same breaks as the large corporations. This bill will go

a long way in that regard.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

MR. D'ARCY: Division, Mr. Speaker.

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Bill

41, Mineral Resource Tax Amendment Act, 1980, read a second time and

referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the

next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 38, Mr. Speaker.

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

AND SECURITY AGENCIES ACT

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The

Private Investigators Act of this province has been in place with only

minor changes since 1948. The rapid growth which the industry has

enjoyed in this province was certainly not envisaged at the time the

legislation was first placed on the books. I might point out to you

that in 1970 there were 64 agents licensed under the existing

legislation. By 1975 that number had increased to 91, and in 1979 there

were 172. Over nine years there was a 260 percent increase. There has

been a similar spectacular increase in the number of persons employed

by those companies. In 1970 there were 588 persons licensed and

employed. The figure had risen to 856 by 1975 and in 1979 there were

2,841 persons licensed under the existing statute, an increase of 483

percent over the same nine-year period. I would point out that these

figures do not include private security personnel hired by an employer

to protect his own property. In-house security employees are presently

not required to be licensed and will not be required to be licensed

under the legislation which we are debating today.

[ Page 3586 ]

[Mr. Hyndman in the chair.]

Under

the existing statute, persons who sell, install and service security

alarm systems, armoured-car services, locksmiths, persons who offer the

services of detecting listening devices and experts who offer

consultation on methods of protecting property from vandalism, theft

and burglary are not presently required to be licensed. The 1948 act

does, however, require the licensing of security patrol services and

private investigators.

Certainly one could not have foreseen

in 1948 the significant technological advances that there have been in

this industry and the spectacular expansion of the alarm business and

the business of locating electronic listening devices. As a

consequence, it is clear that the 1948 statute has been seriously

outdated by these developments in this industry. Private security

personnel in the province, both licensed and unlicensed, surpassed the

total numbers of municipal and provincial police strength in 1978. In

1978 there were 4,374 police personnel in this province and there were

more people who were in licensed and unlicensed security services. The

private security industry presently requires little formal training and

is virtually unregulated while, of course, our police forces are

extensively trained, highly regulated and made accountable for their

actions.

There were concerns from the police forces, from

the public and from within the industry itself, demonstrating a

positive and constructive approach and indicating a desire to upgrade

the industry standards. As a result, the second member for Vancouver

East (Mr. Macdonald), when he was the Attorney-General in May 1975,

directed the B.C. Police Commission to establish a task force to study

private security agencies and make a report to him. As a consequence,

the commission received and analyzed 43 written briefs and conducted 23

public hearings. The recommendations of the commission were examined,

along with initiatives in other provinces in this field, and these have

formed the basis of the bill introduced for second reading today.

Among

the many factors which will be dealt with in this legislation were

concerns pointing out the need to eliminate confusion sometimes caused

when private security guards operate vehicles and wear uniforms of a

type which results in their being mistaken for policemen. There were

instances not only of badges and identification cards being used by

private investigators so as to give the impression to the public that

they were peace officers, but of similar articles being used by members

of the public to impersonate private investigators.

As the

industry has grown and taken a greater role in some of the activities

previously within the sole realm of the public police, there has been a

tendency by companies to equip their employees with a variety of

weapons, ranging from truncheons and handcuffs to rifles and shotguns.

It is the direction of this bill to ensure that such practices cease.

There have been examples of persons licensed as private investigators using

their occupation as a means to collect debts or to act in the capacity of bailiffs.

These conflicts of interests or abuses of occupation obviously require some

regulation and control. It has been felt for some time that the RCMP, acting

in their capacity of the provincial police force in this province, should no

longer be burdened with the largely administrative responsibility of a licensing

system. As a result, the legislation will transfer the administration of this

field to an official known as the registrar. The statute will enable the registrar

to determine who has effective control or ownership of a corporation licensed

as a security business, and it places very significant responsibilities with

respect to accountability on officers and directors of companies who are engaged

in this field.

The

legislation will provide for appeals, however, from a refusal by the

registrar to issue a licence. The appeal will be by way of a re-hearing

and will be conducted by the B.C. Police Commission, who will be

authorized under the statute to substitute their own opinion for that

of the registrar.

The act provides for the creation of

regulations dealing with the issuing of licences by the registrar,

bonding and insurance requirements, standards and qualifications to be

met in order to receive a licence, use of equipment, weapons, guard

dogs and the wearing of uniforms, badges and insignia.

With

the objective of giving the security industry a voice in creating these

regulations and a position to continually monitor the industry within

the scope of the statute, the legislation provides for the

establishment of a private investigators' and security agencies'

advisory board, which will have up to five members representative, in

whole or in part, of the industry. The registrar will be the chairman

of that board, who will have the responsibility of reporting in an

advisory capacity to the Attorney-General with respect to changes in

regulations and, indeed, any needed amendments to the statute.

With that, Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to move second reading.

MR. MACDONALD:

Mr. Speaker, Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition supports the bill in

principle. We'll have questions in committee and some of my colleagues

will have comments to make on second reading. Mine will be mercifully

brief [applause], as my fan club quickly acknowledges with appreciation.

There

is a very large body of people in the security business in this

province, other provinces, and, in fact, throughout the western world.

That's rather a sad commentary on our times, when people are fearful —

and perhaps rightfully fearful — of break-ins, assaults and muggings;

and there are things such as industrial theft which can't be ignored.

So we're dealing with many thousands of people, and to the extent that

the bill moves toward giving them some kind of recognition, standards

and a sort of professional standing — I won't say para-professional;

I'll say some professional standing — it's a step in the right

direction. Their conditions of work, the wages they receive and their

right to any kind of job security is not what it should be in many

cases. It may be that through this instrumentality of having a licence

they will attain better conditions and better security in their

employment. As security officers in one field or another, they will

unquestionably have better acceptance out in the community.

don't know whether the Attorney-General mentioned this specifically,

but there is always the danger with security personnel that underworld

elements can infiltrate, so that they are both inside and outside the

locked premises. It can be a very dangerous development and a very ripe

field for infiltration by those who want to make break-ins or commit

other crimes. So some kind of check, surveillance and protection of

these personnel is definitely in order.

It's very difficult

to define — I appreciate that — all of the coverage of this act in the

act. What is a common key? What is the kind of lock that doesn't

require registration on

[ Page 3587 ]

behalf

of the person who installs it, and what isn't? We want to know things

of that kind. So it's

an act that should be carefully monitored, and we

should watch very carefully how the registrar proceeds and how the

Police Commission handles the appeals under this act to make sure it is

working fairly. It should not, of course, result in anyone who is

legitimately in the business, either as a locksmith or as security

personnel, losing his or her employment. Those who are doing a good job

and have proven so on the job should have nothing to fear. If they do

face that kind of discrimination, we will certainly be aware of it. So

I welcome the passage of this bill.

I think one name that

might be mentioned in connection with the bill in its earlier stages is

Dr. John Hogarth, plus the people who worked on the original task force.

There

are details which kind of worry me. I don't know why a licensed

security person should have to turn in his licence when he loses his

employment. It's kept sort of on deposit for him when he resumes

employment in the industry. It seems to me that it would be easier for

him to seek his new job if he were a licensed person and had already

been accepted as such by the registrar.

There will be other

things we'll draw to the attention of the Attorney-General in

committee. With that, I'm pleased to second second reading.

MR. BARBER:

I rise in regard to one of the principles raised in the bill, which I

think might more aptly be debated in second reading than in committee.

It's not so much a matter of mechanical application as it is a policy

intent. One

section here establishes a means whereby the industry may,

through the proposed private investigators and security agencies

advisory board, enact or write a code of ethics. The particular concern

I have, which is a matter of principle in regard to the entire private

security business, is the way in which sometimes some of them choose to

high-pressure people into signing contracts for protection of their own

homes and make promises which are clearly not viable or enforceable.

Let

me illustrate. I've had drawn to my attention, in the almost five years

I've been an MLA, the fact that a number of seniors in my riding have

been high-pressured by various so-called home security patrol companies

into accepting so-called protection in their apartments, co-ops,

condominiums or private single-family dwellings. The so-called

protection apparently consists of signing a contract and seeing a small

foreign automobile drive by with a tired dog in the back of it, and

that's it, period. Nothing more happens; nothing more results. I'm

interested in knowing whether it is the intention of the minister, as a

matter of principle raised in this bill, to encourage or propose that

part of the code of ethics be some industrial security industry

self-restraint and self policing in the whole field of high-pressuring

people into signing contracts that may not, in any fashion, be

legitimately required or executed according to the nature of the

contract.

Let me illustrate again a very personal matter.

Some years ago my parents, who live on Balfour Avenue in Victoria, and

their neighbours were high-pressured into signing contracts with one

company that has since gone out of business. The turnover of these

companies seems to be quite high. In my parent's neighbourhood, the

Burnside-Gorge district on Balfour, apparently there had been a

break-in some weeks earlier. This was the first that any of the

neighbours could remember for years and years, but the neighbours were

sufficiently concerned by this that somehow word got out to these

companies and they instantly came racing in and told people that they

were in great danger of more break-ins if they didn't accept the

contract being proposed by the company. Regrettably a lot of people

signed those contracts; they were high-pressured and frightened into

it. They were pushed into it in a way that I think is unreasonable but

not regulated by law at the moment.

The possibility of such

regulation is one of the reasons why we welcome this bill, and one of

the reasons why I, particularly, am pleased to see the possible

introduction of a code of ethics to this industry. No doubt the vast

majority of people in the home security patrol business are honest and

honourable and do the job. I don't question that. It is equally, no

doubt, a matter of public record that a lot of people, especially

vulnerable, lonely, old people, are particularly pressured in an unfair

way by some of these high-pressure operators. Some stop has got to be

put to that. Some end has got to be put to frightening old folks into

signing contracts for so-called security services which, in fact, offer

no security whatever — none, just none in any demonstrable way.

I've

seen it happen in my own household through the experience my parents

had in their neighbourhood and as an MLA through the community office

which my colleague and I run. From time to time we get complaints about

these high-pressure salesmen who offer a service, which cannot, in

fact, be guaranteed or apparently delivered at all. I'm interested in

the prospect of a code of ethics which would attempt to stop that or at

least diminish it. I'd be interested in the Attorney-General's opinions

on the same matter.

MR. LEVI: I'd just like to point

out to the Attorney-General at the outset that one of the things that

always concerns me about reports that deal with policing and matters

which the police are dealing with is that for some reason they never

get the kind of circulation that they should have. What I want to point

out to the Attorney-General is that the task force report on private

policing in British Columbia, for some reason which has never been

explained, was never made available to the members. I asked his

predecessor if he would make such a report available but he didn't. I

only got to look at the report at the initial stage by going down to

the B.C. Police Commission and borrowing it from their library. The

other day when I made some inquiries in our library I found that they

have a Xerox copy of the report and on it it's got: "Do not circulate.

Library use only." I don't know why this particular document is treated

this way. It is not of interest to everybody, but certainly it is of

interest to the members. I would hope that when they do these kinds of

reports in the future they will make them available to the members and

that they are in fact in libraries and not with a stamp on saying:

"Don't circulate."

I just want to make a few comments about

where the industry, at a level perhaps that we're not dealing with in

British Columbia, is going. It is a big industry. As the

Attorney-General pointed out, there are almost three times as many

people in the security business as there are in the police. I would be

interested if the Attorney- General, when he closes debate — maybe

we'll get into it in the committee stage — would tell us just what

impact this has on the general policing of the province. One might ask

if we have enough

[ Page 3588 ]

policemen,

because if we don't it is being made up by what was characterized some

years ago in England by Professor Radzinowicz, who used to operate out

of the Cambridge University, as a new hybrid being created, apparently

half business and half police. It is a little more than that in some

respects. I have in mind at least one organization which from time to

time does operate in British Columbia. That is an organization called

Intertel. Intertel is kind of an acronym for International Intelligence

Ltd., which is a subsidiary of Resorts International. We've had some

dealings with Resorts International in this province. Certainly

Atlantic City is very much aware of Resorts International. They own

most of the casinos there. From time to time in hearings before the

U.S. Senate there have been some statements made about the difficulty

of understanding why it is that perhaps the largest private security

agency in the world — it has branches all over the world — should in

fact be controlled by a company which from time to time has been

alleged as having organized crime connections.

Mr. Speaker,

you may know that during the Quebec crime commission Mitchell Bronfman

was one of the people who was called to give witness. He explained in

great detail what kinds of loans he had had from a man called Obront —

something like $1 million on which he paid another $1 million in

interest. Mitchell Bronfman also had the controlling interest in a

private security firm called Securitex. He finally got out of it at the

request of the Attorney-General of Quebec. Because of his involvement

on the one side of the street with people who were identified with

organized crime, it was felt that he would be better out of it.

The

whole industry in the United States is estimated to be worth between $5

billion and $7 billion a year now. In this province 50 years ago there

was the tradition of the private police assisting the provincial

police. We had a very small provincial police force. They were quite

busy in those days. They used to do a lot of the investigation work.

Eventually the police force was built up to the stage where they

weren't really required to do that kind of work. Now it looks like the

wheel has turned completely and we have more security police than we

have municipal police. Many of the public are not quite sure, when they

run into a private policeman — I am going to deal with the name in a

minute — as to what kind of jurisdiction he has. Presumably this act

will help spell that out.

One part of the act deals with

what we are going to call these people. They are not going to be

allowed, in the security business, to be referred to as detectives, law

enforcement officers, peace officers or police. You are kind of limited

as to what to call them. It would help if we could get some kind of

descriptive term. We can't realistically use things like "shamus" and

"private eye" and "gumshoe" and this kind of thing. That doesn't really

do too much. Besides, Dashiel Hammett has been long gone from the

scene. There needs to be some way in which the public understands when

you refer to somebody who in fact is a non-policeman, because that is

really what we're talking about. This industry is a business. It is not

part business and part police, because we have a definition for

"police" and it certainly doesn't include these people. They need to

have some kind of definition as to what they are. I don't think they

are often refer-red to as private police.

At a seminar in

England a few years ago a man called Flavel, who was a professor of

sociology, suggested that private security is an exercise in selecting

policing biased in favour of wealth and power. We know that people who

can afford it do hire people as security guards and have all sorts of

complicated mechanisms to keep people out.

One of the things

that is happening has some impact, I think, on policing generally in

the province. I have always been very concerned that we involve a

considerable amount of police time in investigating, for instance,

shoplifting. It has always been my feeling that part of the reason for

shoplifting is that the stores simply won't employ enough people. Now

they have moved into the business of having some of these security

people around. They can be on the preventive end in that way; that's

fine. That will save the taxpayer quite a bit of money.

But

what is the impact of having all of these non-police people around who

have all sorts of quasi-police functions? I don't want to say powers,

because that has been described in the bill as something that they

don't have. There is a difficulty with definition, something that the

public should understand. I know the public for some years was never

quite sure whether the CPR police were an official body or could only

operate on CPR property. I think what is perhaps missing from the bill

and is needed is a very specific definition as to what we are actually

talking about. We have described the creature but we haven't found a

name for it. What we've done is to define what it's not.

really need to define with some word what we are talking about so that

the public can recognize this. I think it would be useful. If we are

prohibited by the act from referring to these people as detectives or

law enforcement officers, then we need a definition. I have thought

long and hard about this, and I can't come up with a definition that

doesn't include something like the word "security" or the word

"police." So in respect to what we've got in the bill, I don't think

it's going to be too clear to people just who they are and what they

are allowed to do. It would have been useful, I suppose, if we could

have lent something to this.

One other thing that I want to

say is that once the advisory council operates — something which is

certainly useful and is operating in other jurisdictions — we should

make sure…. It's the same story about who sits on these commissions.

We've seen, unfortunately, in an attempt to deal with the police aspect

of our society when they set up CLEU, that there were to be some

civilians on that board. But we now have no civilians at all; they are

all policemen. When they are setting up this particular advisory

committee, I would hope that we get some consumers on it, some people

who are involved in it. That's very important. I think it lends itself

to what my colleague from Victoria is saying. That's the unfortunate

part about the division that exists in our society between citizens and

policemen. Citizens are referred to by policemen as "civilians." That

separation is perpetuated.

I would hope that we might be

able to make some kind of breakthrough with the advisory council that

is going to work with this particular legislation. Let's get some lay

people on who are not and have not been policemen, but who have — as a

lot of people in our society have — a genuine interest in the way

matters are conducted in respect to the operation of…. We are also, of

course, dealing with some aspects of the bailiffs here. Let some

ordinary people who do not have police backgrounds make a contribution

to this. I think that would be useful.

Perhaps one of the

first tasks we might give the advisory committee is for them to come up

with some reasonable name tag for these people that we are talking

about, because we don't have that. Certainly the legislation is welcome.

[ Page 3589 ]

want to finish what I started in pointing out to the Attorney-General

that it would have been very useful if, when the report was released in

1976, the government had taken the trouble to print it up sufficiently

so that the members and maybe some of the public could have had a copy.

It has been dealt with in a very parsimonious way. If you want to look

at it you have to go to the library. Then you wonder what it means when

it says: "Don't circulate; library use only."

MR. MITCHELL:

Mr. Speaker, I rise on this particular bill with very mixed feelings,

It legalizes something that definitely we should have some control

over, but it also legalizes something that in many cases cannot be

provided. It brings under a cloak of responsibility or legality a

business that in many cases, as my colleague from Victoria has pointed

out, will never be provided. I can tell you from personal experience of

many companies that get a licence to operate as a security firm, go out

with some super high-pressured salesmen, and they go from door to door.

Every one of us who has knocked on doors realizes that the more doors

you knock on, there is a certain percentage of people who will buy your

product. But they buy a product that has no guarantee that can be

enforced. What happens, Mr. Speaker, is that a lot of older people and

people who feel that they need additional security think they need to

help their local police by having another vehicle drive down the road

at 30 miles an hour with a dog in the back. They think that is helping

somebody, when in fact in many cases it is giving a false sense of

security that is hindering a proper development of policing.

are entering today in police work into the type of security that is

coming in through electronics. Electronic surveillance and electronic

security will be one of the major steps that will hit policing and

security of the world, and I am a little worried that that particular

surveillance and these security methods will be in control of private

and unorganized groups.

I'll tell you of a few examples that

I've seen myself. As this gets bigger and more sophisticated with

cablevision and the fibre-optics development that is coming in through

telephones and the cablevisions of security, you have security in the

hands of a multitude of private groups. I've seen where alarm systems

have been installed on buildings and are fed into a private office

somewhere in the city or somewhere in the outskirts. The alarm comes in

for that particular company, which will then call their car that is out

on the road. That car could be on the far side of Saanich, and the

alarm would come in to Esquimalt, but to get through and show to the

person who is paying for the alarm system how efficient they are, the

alarm company will not contact the local police until their particular

patrol car is right at the door so they can go to the customer the next

day and explain how they were there first and then the police arrived.

I know of many cases where there has been up to a half-hour delay in

police or anyone answering an alarm system. If the local police were

notified immediately the alarm system was activated, there would have

been an apprehension, but it would not have been to the credit of that

particular private company.

I'm sincerely convinced that we

need some control over security companies, and I feel that there should

be some standards set by the ministry that coordinates their activities

and responsibilities with those of the local police and security

organizations. We can't legalize a lot of private police forces. I

think the danger of it is that the multiplication and the gimmickry

that will arrive into the business world will jeopardize the effect

that policing must have; it must have some security, it must have some

guarantees and the public must feel secure that a person coming into

their business or to their home wearing a uniform has the

qualifications, the moral background and the training needed to support

that uniform.

The Attorney-General will agree with me that

there have been thousands and thousands of dollars spent to upgrade the

training and the qualifications of the public police force so they are

more prepared to deal with the public, more humane and qualified, and

have a broader knowledge of what it takes to deal with the general

public. especially the public who are under a certain amount of stress

because of an offence or trouble or problems. To not give that same

guarantee of those same qualifications and standards to other people

who are in many cases doing some of the work that the public police are

doing now…. As I said before, I feel we are making a step. I think the

minister should take into consideration that the need for the standards

and protection must be tied in with the local police. We can have the

pleasure of a lot of little businesses competing out in a market that

is there to give protection to the general public.

I feel

that if we are going to go out and legalize a police force, if we are

going to give people a licence to develop a new technology, as I said,

in security, then they must have the qualification that is needed and

not be developed as super-salesmen, saying they are something when they

are not and then not tying into that technical ability that they have

developed and that the public is paying for, either by fees or taxes,

that is not tied into one central policing. The coordination should

always be there for the protection of the public.

What I

have found in a lot of these particular private security firms is that

they may go out and charge $8, $9 or $10 an hour for their services,

but what they are doing is hiring a lot of younger. well-meaning people

who want to be a cop, who want to wear a uniform, and they are paying,

in many cases, minimum wages or next-to-minimum wages. But the public

or businesses are paying top dollar for that service. It is not going

to the person who is giving the service; it is going to a company. I

believe the provincial government is one of the biggest offenders, from

some of the stories that come back to me. We are hiring, in and around

the buildings, private security people. There is one standing joke

going around that the particular person hired was protecting one of the

buildings and someone sneaked in and stole his guitar. It is a laughing

matter. If they can come in and steal his own guitar while he was on

duty, you are not developing the professionalism that security people

must have. Security people must be developed to do a job, to be

responsible, and not simply to go out, wear a uniform and drive around

with a couple of orange lights on top of your car.

I feel

that this is a step in the right direction. There is a certain amount

of control being developed over this mushrooming industry that is

developing not only in Victoria, not just in B.C. but in all of North

America. Everybody wants to have their own police force. I think it is

wrong unless we can guarantee that these police forces we are

legalizing and giving a permit to — not endorsing but giving a stamp….

I can just see it now, the advertising coming out that this particular company is now licensed and comes under the

[ Page 3590 ]

qualifications

of the new security act as passed by the provincial government. This

stamp of approval cannot be given lightly. It must be monitored.

sincerely hope that the Attorney-General, when he studies his

regulations, sets up some sort of training qualifications. The only

thing I notice now is that the licence is given for the length of the

time a person is employed by a particular company. This in itself is

wrong. If you are qualified to be a carpenter, when you no longer work

for one company you are still a carpenter. When you are a doctor or

anything else, if you have these qualifications and you leave the

particular company you are employed by, you should be able to keep that

licence. But before that licence is given — and this is the thing I

think is so important — he should have some qualifications. The

professionalism should be there before he gets the licence. It

shouldn't be held over his head solely because he is employed. If he is

fired from a certain company because he lacks those qualifications…. If

he is found to have sticky fingers, or he sleeps on the job, or things

like that, and if he is fired for a cause, then, yes, there should be a

way that that licence could be taken away from him. The licence should

go with the qualifications of the job, not solely the place where he is

employed.

I have some other questions I might like to develop when we get into committee stage, and I'll bring them up then.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

In the course of this debate the members have raised important issues

touching upon the legislation. I believe that when we deal with the

matter in committee, I will be able to assure them more fully that the

bill will deal with their concerns.

I would like to make a

few comments with respect to the contribution to the debate from the

member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell). Let me say that he is

correct: this is but a first step in what I believe will be a process

which will enable us to bring a measure of control, a responsibility

and an excellence to this particular industry.

As I

indicated when opening the debate, the numbers of persons who are now

employed has grown dramatically over the past decade. We have had no

means of knowing who these people are, what their qualifications are,

what standards they are obliged to comply with in the conduct of their

affairs, what training is available to them and what the consequences

are if they fail in the responsibility which is placed upon them by

people who engage their services. I think this legislation will allow

us to ensure that we have a grasp upon those elements. That being the

case, if we find that there are continued practices which are

undesirable, then, of course, this industry will have failed in the

opportunity we are providing to it — that of being involved in the

development of the industry — and additional regulatory provision will

need to be made.

Without infringing upon the rules of the

debate, I would say one thing to the member on a matter of detail. He

is incorrect to suggest that when you lose your employment you lose

your licence. The licence is surrendered to the registrar upon the loss

of employment for security reasons only. When employment is regained,

unless the licence has expired, the registrar would return it to the

employee. There is no intention on the part of the government, nor

would there be on the part of the registrar under this legislation, to

use the licensing power to inhibit any person from being gainfully

employed.

The member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi) raised a couple of matters.

I would like him to know that I was not aware that the report of the task force

had not been generally circulated. I was aware that it was in the library, but

why it would be indicated that it was not for distribution, I cannot say. Certainly

it was not on my instructions. This is a report which was produced as a result

of tremendous contribution from the general public, and they certainly are entitled

to see reports of this nature.

The

member also raised the question of what name we would give the people

who are engaged in this industry. I suggest that the name contained in

the bill — the very definition of the occupational classifications —

would be an appropriate one. Quite frankly, I don't wish to see the

people in this industry become tagged with a handy name which seems to

be all-embracing. I think that if you are a security patrolman, that's

what you are; if you're a private investigator, that's what you are; if

you're a locksmith, that's what you are. It shouldn't go any further

than that. The giving of a name which may still lead to confusion as to

what your specific qualifications, training and service might be,

would, I think, be inappropriate.

The matter of extensive

corporate control is, I think, dealt with in the legislation. We make

very specific requirements of corporations that engage in this

business, and are to be licensed, to provide information with respect

to shareholdings and directors. It is for the sole purpose of ensuring

that we find out who the people are in this business.

The

member for Maillardville-Coquitlam made mention of reports from other

jurisdictions that criminal elements have seen this as a fertile field

in which to engage. I wish to advise him that British Columbia has not

escaped the consequences of such attention. It is one of the main

reasons that we are moving into so many classifications of the security

business. When you want to have an alarm system installed in your house

or business and you hire somebody to come and install it, it is a

perfect opportunity for the person who surveys your property for that

purpose to find out exactly what your weaknesses are, and sometimes to

pay you a visit on a later date following that examination. Even if you

don't buy the alarm or the system, he's been through your premises.

Therefore we want to know who the people are who are holding themselves

out in this business, to ensure that they are bona fide and that they

meet the standards which are required.

The member for

Maillardville-Coquitlam also talked about the CPR police and other

organizations of this kind. I might just say in passing that the number

of anomalous police forces that we have in this and other jurisdictions

is a concern of mine. The member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew will know

precisely of what I speak. We have a number of organizations whose

members are policemen, peace officers, and who exercise the powers and

authority of police officers throughout areas of this province, yet

they don't come under the control that our provincial and municipal

forces have imposed upon them. This is a matter of concern not touched

upon by this bill, but a matter which the ministry is delving into.

The

first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) raised a matter which I know was

a concern of the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) when

he was the Attorney-General. It was one of the principal reasons that

this task force was put to work. I suppose the greatest expansion in

this business has been in the area of so-called security patrols. Yes,

the complaints that are received with respect to high-pressure tactics

are very serious. One wonders at the

[ Page 3591 ]

qualifications,

the training and the level of service which is provided for the kind of

money that's paid. It is of particular concern to my ministry and to

the officials who are responsible for designing this legislation that

such practices cease. We will be taking very particular steps, in the

regulations, to ensure that high-pressure tactics — selling service to

people by creating apprehension and fear in a variety of ways, yet

providing those services in response to those apprehensions will be

discontinued.

I'm very please that the question of the

advisory board was raised. I don't wish to see it composed of only

those people who are in the industry. They should certainly be

responsible for involvement in the monitoring activities, but I agree

that some person who can qualify as a consumer of those services should

also be there, with the opportunity of expressing his or her views as

to changes that may be required in the regulations from time to time.

The

second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) raised in his comments

the question of licensing practices and the monitoring of the

regulatory powers that are contained in this statute. I must say that

this is a concern which I have. I don't wish the licensing practices

and the regulations to be cumbersome, but we must recognize what the

basic concern is: to ensure that we have in this province an industry

which provides a high level of service by competent people, at proper

prices, and that the business is, to all intents and purposes, carried

on so that the interests of the general public are supported rather

than hindered.

To that extent, if we have to be a little

difficult at the beginning or during the course of licensing, or if

some of the regulations seem to be too stringent, then I think that the

industry will have to meet the challenge and measure up to the

standards which are set for it. We will continue to monitor the

industry and the legislation in the hopes that we will achieve the

objective.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading now.

HON. MR. MAIR:

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, during the course of debate a term

was used by a number of the members opposite which I think should go on

your proscribed list. I was surprised that the member for

Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) did not immediately rise, and I was

surprised that the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) didn't rise.

But on behalf of the member for Kootenay (Mr. Segarty), and

particularly on behalf of my grandson, who is half-Irish, I take

exception to the word "shamus." That is the Irish Gaelic word for

James, and ought not to be used in that context. I hope, Mr. Speaker,

that when you see the real Speaker you will point out the remarks I

have made and ask him to add that word to the proscribed list.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair will take the matter under advisement and, I'm sure, have comment in due course.

Motion approved.

Bill

38, Private Investigators and Security Agencies Act, read a second time

and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the

next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Second reading of Bill 42.

BUSINESS LICENCE ACT

HON. MR. CURTIS:

The Business Licence Act proposed in this bill is intended. as members

will know, to replace the Trade Licence Act. which is the present

legislation for regulating businesses operating in the non-municipal

areas of the province. Not for the members of the House but for the

record, it is important to emphasize the point that this deals only

with those parts of British Columbia which are not within a city,

district, municipality, town, village or other local government

jurisdiction.

The present Trade Licence Act, I think it will

be agreed, is an anachronism in several respects. Enacted in 1888, the

act has undergone only minor changes over the intervening 92 years.

Certainly nothing of substance has taken place with respect to this

law. I am very much in favour of heritage, but not necessarily in

statutes of this kind.

Clearly the law is not contemporary

in terms of the types of businesses being carried on in the province

today as compared to 1888. The schedules of the present act, as members

will have noted, no doubt, in their research for today's debate,

provide for such things as the licensing of stage-coaches, drays,

omnibuses, livery stables, pack trains, freight wagons and menageries.

Nor is the act contemporary in the level of fees charged. The trade

licence fee for a wholesale or a wholesale-retail merchant was set in

1888 at $50 for a six-month period, and it is the same today. The fee

for a retail merchant in 1980 remains at $5 for every six-month licence

period, unchanged from the fee in 1888.

The wholesale and

retail merchant categories are the most common licensed under the Trade

Licence Act, accounting for about 80 percent of the total number of

licences issued during the 1979-80 fiscal year. In fact, a total of

7,097 licences were issued last year to merchants and tradespeople

carrying on a variety of business in that same non-municipal area if

the province. The total revenue generated was really quite small, about

$128,000, or an average of $18 per licence.

The principal

businesses licensed last year were…. I would like to go through the

list with three columns, if I may use them: type of business, estimated

number of licences issued and estimated revenue from those licences.

The first category would be retail — 6,410, producing $64,100;

wholesale and wholesale-retail — 255, producing $25,500; auctioneer —

130, for $13,000; pawnbroker — 120, for $12,000; pedlar — I find the

term rather offensive but I'm using it as it shows in the

schedule now

— of produce and merchandise accounted for 80, for $3,200; dance hall —

35, for $7,000; druggist, dentist and veterinary — 25, for $250:

architect and surveyor — 25, for $250. Under the "other" category there

are a total of 17 businesses for $2,500. That is 7,097 licences

estimated to have been issued and, as I indicated earlier, $127,800 in

fees. Revenues therefore are not large in this regard.

The

proposed legislation, we believe, will overcome the present difficulty,

of applying the 1888 categories of business to modern-day business. The

new fee structure will, frankly, be prescribed by regulation under this

Business Licence Act. I am sure hon. members can appreciate the

variations in business licence fees that may exist in years to come and

that would exist between municipalities and non-municipal areas for

businesses which are similar in nature. Because of this, great care

will have to be taken in setting the non-municipal area business

licence fee at a level which will not impair a

[ Page 3592 ]

business operator from carrying on that business in the so-called rural area in competition with a business in a municipal area.

other words, there will be a requirement for us to be most fair when

the fees are set. Updating the act will result in a number of

businesses not presently licensed becoming subject to business licence

requirements, again, because we have been restricted by a schedule.

It's intended to use the personnel of the consumer taxation branch to

assist in the field work which will be associated with this.

This

new legislation is an indication of the approach that this ministry is

taking with respect to all provincial revenues. We have a comprehensive

and ongoing review of all licences and fees, and from this process I

would expect that in time we will see some increase in some fees, where

appropriate, to at least recover the cost of issuing the fee. In other

cases, however, it may be appropriate to eliminate the licence and the

fee.

I would urge hon. members to accept this Business

Licence Act as a replacement for the Trade Licences Act, bearing in

mind that, if nothing else, it is a source of embarrassment, I think,

to government agents throughout the province when they must, of

necessity, pull out the

schedule and say: "Now, let's see. Is this an

omnibus or a dray, or how many horses are in your pack train?"

I move second reading.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Speaker, the members are interested in how many horses there are in

my pack train. Over here we're not like Datsun; we're not driven. When

they get the drift of that, why, everything will be….

Mr.

Speaker, I note in the bill that the cabinet is going to be setting the

rates of the licences, and I guess that that is probably a more

convenient way of doing things. Certainly, if legislation is left

unlooked at since 1888 — it has been amended, I believe, since 1888,

but they were not particularly wide and sweeping amendments — and the

schedule, I note, as the minister pointed out, is somewhat archaic….

think, however, that there is one portion of the regulations that

scares me; that is that it gives the right to the cabinet to exempt any

particular business they want to. I'm just wondering why that's in

there; that's really all I'm asking. Other than that, why would, for

instance, we give the cabinet the right by regulation to exempt people

who were running a particular business — say, hardware? We recognize

that that would have to be across the province in all of the….

AN HON. MEMBER: By category.

MR. COCKE:

Yes, it's by category. I realize that. Therefore, if we said hardware

stores it means all hardware stores which were not in either cities or

municipalities that were incorporated. In any event, it's just a

question that crosses my mind: why is it there? I think possibly the

minister can answer that in second reading. He'll also tell us that

they'll be very fair in setting the rates for the different categories.

He'll also tell me that they'll review them from year to year, I'm

sure. They won't leave it, say, from 1980 until 1982, when they're

voted out of office.

In any event, I'd like the answer particularly to the other question with respect to why there is

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	32p 02s 800729p
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	32p 02s 800729p
Language	en
Format	htm
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	107658c2ea1bd5396be960797f9d192606b03206

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (htm).

British Columbia Hansard — Tuesday, July 29, 1980 — Afternoon Sitting (32nd Parliament, 2nd Session)

HANSARD

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

TUESDAY, JULY 29, 1980

CONTENTS

TUESDAY, JULY 29, 1980

BRITISH COLUMBIA PLACE ACT

INSURANCE AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

MAPLEWOOD POULTRY PROCESSORS

MRS. WALLACE:

MRS. WALLACE:

HON. MR. HEWITT:

MRS. WALLACE:

HON. MR. HEWITT:

OPEN-HEART SURGERY

MR. COCKE:

INCINERATION OF WOOD

PRESERVATIVES BY BCFP

MR. HANSON:

HON. MR. ROGERS:

WATER LEVEL OF NECHAKO RIVER

MR. HOWARD:

HON. MR. ROGERS: I

HON. MR. ROGERS:

HON. MR. ROGERS:

MR. HOWARD:

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

MR. HALL:

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

INSURANCE (MOTOR VEHICLE)

AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

section 19 is a rewrite of existing provisions in the act that are in turn the successor provisions to

section 19 is intended to clarify the

section 20 will remove the corporation's power, where an

section 23 will remove the inequity faced by

section 34 and the amendments to sections 38 and 46 are designed to

section 34 and the amendment to

section 46 will

section 38 will prevent persons who keep vehicles permanently outside

MR. HALL:

section 21 of the Automobile Insurance Act

section 20 only permits the corporation to recover the

section 20 of the Automobile Insurance Act as it is

section 21(9), which gives

section 8

YEAS — 44

NAYS — I

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

MINES ACT

section 2 of the Inquiry Act. This is no longer spelled out in this

section 20, which calls for any person

section 101(7) states: "Where a miner is found to be at risk

section 19(6) allows a company to dismiss with four weeks

Section 101(9) in the American legislation

Section 103 (g)….

MR. HANSON:

MR. COCKE:

MR. COCKE:

YEAS — 29

NAYS — 21

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

MINERAL RESOURCE TAX

AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

MR. BARRETT:

part 7 of the Special Funds Act, 1980, be

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

AND SECURITY AGENCIES ACT

MR. MACDONALD:

MR. BARBER:

MR. MITCHELL:

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

HON. MR. MAIR:

BUSINESS LICENCE ACT

HON. MR. CURTIS:

MR. COCKE:

MR. COCKE:

Document details