1971 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 29th 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)

FRIDAY, MARCH 12, 1971

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 651 ]

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

By leave of the House, on the motion of the Honourable L.R. Peterson, Bill (No. 26) intituled

An Act to Amend the Sale of Goods Act was withdrawn.

The following bills were introduced, read a first time, and Ordered

to be placed on the Orders of the Day for second reading at the next

sitting after today.

On the motion of the Honourable W.D. Black, Bill (No. 71) intituled

An Act to Amend the Controlled Access Highways Act .

On the motion of the Honourable R.G. Williston, Bill (No. 61) intituled

An Act to Amend the Soldiers' Land Act .

On the motion of the Honourable W.A.C. Bennett, the House proceeded to the Order "Public Bills and Orders."

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (South Okanagan): The Second reading of Bill 23, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 23,

An Act to Amend the Trespass Act . The Honourable the Minister of Agriculture.

HON. C.M. SHELFORD (Omineca): Mr. Speaker, the purpose of Bill 23 is to repeal the Line Fences Act ,

which provided that the owners of adjoining lands in unorganized

territory shall make, keep up and repair the fences that mark the

boundaries between them and each shall pay half the cost. This act also

provided for the appointment of fence viewers. This procedure has been

found unsatisfactory as it is impossible, nowadays, to obtain the

services of people to act in this capacity. The provision requires

owners of adjoining land to make, keep up and repair the fence that

marks the boundaries between them and will be included, now, under the Trespass Act .

Any disputes regarding the same, if desired, can be referred to the

Court. This is a normal procedure. What happens now is that each

property owner is required to keep up half the fence and if there's any

dispute it will go to the Court. It's so difficult to get fence

viewers. I don't blame anyone for not taking the job because all you do

is end up with a poor neighbour or a black eye. I move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Yale Lillooet.

MR. W.L. HARTLEY (Yale-Lillooet): I agree with the Minister,

Mr. Speaker. This sort of situation has caused bad friends,

particularly amongst the ranchers whose range covers a large area. I

believe this change will be a move for the better but, to me, it should

be a simple matter to check the lines, get back to an original iron

post and strike a proper fence. Then, there's no argument. So long as

it was handled the way it was previously, where it was left to a group

of fence viewers, all of whom wished to be fence sitters, there were

problems. We'll support this.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Cowichan-Malahat.

MR. R.M. STRACHAN (Cowichan-Malahat): Well, I know that, in

my years as an M.L.A., there have been a number of occasions in which I

was involved with arguments between neighbours as to where the fence

was and where it shouldn't be. The appointment of the fence viewers,

themselves, and the way in which they can be appointed and as things

now stand if one person so wishes three fence viewers can be appointed

without reference to the second party at all, the second party finds

that he is faced with a bill of some $60, because I think they charge

about $40 a day for fence viewing, without any knowledge that it was

even going to happen. There have been cases of this kind. I don't know

if this bill will correct that situation but I just don't know how you

could find any perfect solution to arguments between neighbours as to

land. Except that I know this, that, in the Province of Ontario, there

is a

section of the Provincial Government which accepts the

responsibility of determining where line fences are because, after all,

we go by the records that are within the Department of Lands, differ

with what the fence viewers find and with what the particular

neighbours think is the true line. I checked on this, a couple of years

ago, because of a particularly bad case in my constituency, and I was

informed then that there was no responsibility on the Crown, here, to

participate but that in the Province of Ontario there is this

responsibility.

I feel that a line is a line and the government which originally

established the lines really should have this responsibility rather

than allowing this situation to develop between neighbours. Certainly,

even this law will not prevent that from happening. I ask the Minister

if he would consider checking other legislation in other jurisdictions,

because it's my understanding that in the Province of Ontario, the

Government accepts the responsibility. They go out and say the line is

here and that's it.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Shuswap.

MR. W.F. JEFCOAT (Shuswap): Mr. Speaker, I'm a little bit confused and a little reluctant to let this bill go, because I have made use of this Fence Viewers Act

on quite a number of occasions. It's not just to resolve who pays for

which part of the fence but, on two or three occasions, there was

controversy over as to just where the line was. In other words, was the

fence on the proper line? I have helped go and measure up and, on a

number of occasions, we have resolved controversies that might have

landed up in the Courts, and have resolved them on an amiable basis and

have made very good use of the fence viewers in the area. Now, I

realize that it could be very hard to get someone who would put

themselves on the line and are willing to go and negotiate on behalf of

two farmers or two ranchers who might be at outs over a fence. But, in

my area, this has worked very, very successfully and so I'm a little

bit reluctant to just step aside from this Fence Viewers Act , at this time.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kootenay.

MR. L.T. NIMSICK (Kootenay): Mr. Speaker, I had an occasion

in my area, too, where there was a dispute and they appointed fence

viewers. It sounds rather odd when you call them fence viewers, it's

nothing more nor less than really an arbitration board to settle a

dispute between two people. Now, to shunt this off into the Courts

might be quite an expensive deal and it would create quite a problem. I

feel that there should be something in there allowing the farmers,

maybe, a neutral committee to arbitrate the case between two

neighbours. It wouldn't create near the problems that it would if you

go to Court. Probably, it would be good for the lawyers, of course, but

you've got to go to Court and they

[ Page 652 ]

might appeal it. They might appeal it again. It's a

fine thing for lawyers but I don't think it's going to do the farmers

too much good. You might create quite a problem. I think that the

Minister should reconsider this question and maybe find that, if he

turned it over to the Agriculture Committee to come up with a report on

it, it might do some good. I don't think that to place the farmers in

this deal of going to a lot of expense, I don't think that you're

improving the act any.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burnaby Edmonds.

MR. G.H. DOWDING (Burnaby-Edmonds): Mr. Speaker, I'm probably

speaking against the interest of lawyers when I suggest to the Minister

that this bill is really not quite as good as what he is replacing. The

Line Fences Act did, after

all, provide, in advance, for a settlement between the parties where

they couldn't complain if they had an arbitration on the quality, the

nature and the location of a fence, or whether it needed repair or it

didn't. Under this proposal, it's obvious that one neighbour, quite

unilaterally, could set up what he considers to be a reasonable fence,

hire surveyors at what he considers a reasonable expense, and build the

kind of fence he thinks is aesthetic, whether it be 10 miles long or

200 feet long, and his neighbour's going to get stuck in Court with a

unilateral decision made by one party which may be to the detriment of

the other. At least, the other way you could iron it out. This way

you're going to end up in Court a lot more often with a lot more fights

because, you see, the provision you suggest would make one party liable

to the other for one half of any cost reasonably incurred for such

purpose. Who has to decide that? The judge after the fact — after the

fact. Then he has to decide, "Well, I'm going to tell the guy who put

this up to tear it down." Well, the odds are against it, aren't they?

It wouldn't be very practical for a judge to say, "Tear down that six

foot fence, start from scratch." It's going to cost a lot of money for

a few ranchers before you're finished and you're at the mercy of the

other fellow.

If you have some way or arbitrating, in advance, where they can sit

down around a table and iron it out without going to Court and say,

"We'll agree on the cost of the surveyor if a surveyor is needed," or

"We'll agree on what kind of fence we're going to have," then, after

they have failed to agree, they could have a provision that they can,

if they elect to do so, bring it to arbitration, maybe appoint one

arbitrator. After all, you do that in most of the Expropriation Highways Act

provisions. You know, you give it a chance to sort itself out. But this

business, here, invites law suits, invites litigation and invites

lawyers. We don't want to do that, do we?

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Speaker, I

join with the concern that has been expressed to the Minister by the

other Members who have spoken in this debate and, in particular, I am

concerned about the suggestion in this legislation that the cost of

keeping up and repairing natural boundaries can be forced upon either

or both of the parties to such a boundary division. That's the way it

is now, but, at least now, Mr. Speaker, we have the opportunity for

serious discussion and resolution of differences before the problem

arises. But, now, you are leaving it only to the circumstances if it's

otherwise agreed. No method is provided for the resolution of

disagreements before the expenses are incurred. It's quite obvious

that, in some circumstances, where lands are divided by natural

boundaries, such as creeks and rivers, that the expense that may be

incurred by one of the owners may be completely unreasonable,

completely onerous and, yet, these could have been resolved if there

had been prior discussion. Nothing in the Trespass Act makes provision for this and you're taking away, by repealing the Line Fences Act , this opportunity.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister will close the debate.

MR. SHELFORD: In closing, I would only like to say that the

Honourable Member from Yale-Lillooet, I think, had it summed up pretty

well. I think it's a step in the right direction. To my legal friends

across the Floor, I would only point out to them that if there were any

real dispute, in the past, they would appeal from the fence viewers,

through the Courts, anyway. So it doesn't change one bit. All of these

major disputes, finally, ended up in the Courts. This doesn't stop two

farmers, and it doesn't need to be farmers, it could be two industries,

for instance, or summer home people, or anything else, it's not

necessarily just farmers, but it doesn't stop them from getting

together and saying, "Now, what type of a fence do we want?" Now, if

they can't agree, of course, it will go to Court and it will be as the

law says is required in that particular area. I don't think there's,

really, any problem at all.

Motion agreed to.

Bill 23 read a second time and Ordered to be placed on the Orders of the Day for committal at the next sitting after today.

MR. BENNETT: Second reading of Bill 24, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill 24,

An Act to Amend the Fur-farm Act . The Honourable the Minister of Agriculture.

MR. SHELFORD: Mr. Speaker, this is an extremely minor bill. The purpose of the act is to place the administration of the Fur-farm Act

under the supervision of the Provincial Veterinarian, instead of under

the Livestock Commissioner. It was necessary due to the reorganization

in the Department of Agriculture.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Yale Lillooet.

MR. HARTLEY: Yes, this is mainly housekeeping, as we see it, and keeping up with the times, doing as the Minister suggests.

Motion agreed to.

Bill 24 read a second time and Ordered to be placed on the Orders of the Day for committal at the next sitting after today.

MR. BENNETT: Second reading of Bill 25, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 653 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill 25,

An Act to Amend the Animals Act . The Honourable Minister of Agriculture.

MR. SHELFORD: Mr. Speaker, in moving second reading of Bill

25, the purpose of this act is to empower a Bull Control Committee to

prescribe the periods of time within which bulls may be permitted to

run at large within the boundaries of a bull control area, which is

another provision of the Animal Act .

It provides also that a person may kill a dog in unorganized territory,

that is attacking or savagely pursuing human beings, or in the act of

pursuing, worrying and wounding or destroying a domestic animal as

defined by the act. The bill also provides that a peace officer in

unorganized territory may kill a dog, running in a pack, and provides

that the peace officer may apply to a judge of the Provincial Court for

authority to destroy a dog, where there are reasonable grounds to

believe the dog is likely to cause injury to human beings.

There's been a problem in some rural areas, especially up in my

friend from Atlin's area, where there was a large number of dogs,

running in packs, and there didn't seem to be any clear authority where

this situation could be taken care of. I'd like to move second reading

of this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member from Atlin.

MR. F.A. CALDER (Atlin): Mr. Speaker, for a great many years

we've had problems up in my part of the country and also in the part of

the country that lies adjacent to the Alaska Highway. We haven't been

able to solve this problem. For the last two years, I've corresponded,

I believe, my last one was with the Department of the

Attorney-General… We've had correspondence on this and, of course, we

couldn't do very much up there because a lot of these small towns are

not incorporated and, therefore, there are no by-laws. In this respect,

the hands of the RCMP are tied. We can't make a move and, yet, we have

these serious problems of vicious dogs that continually attack adults

and, particularly, school children. It's a very serious situation.

We've had some recent cases where families up there have been so riled

up over this that, in some localities, a next door neighbour wouldn't

speak to the next household on account of, maybe, that person owns that

dog. So, now, with this bill…(interruption). I think it was your

letter, Mr. Attorney-General, that indicated that something may be

done. I'm very glad that this bill has come in. I'm very hopeful that

it will be supported on behalf of the people involved and the

northerners who face this as a real problem. On their behalf, I support

this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burnaby-Edmonds.

MR. DOWDING: My honourable colleague didn't mention another

important part of the bill. The Cabinet apparently has decided, and I

think it's long overdue, to restrict the bull in the periods that the

bull can be released. That's the first

section of the bill. I'm willing

to place self-restriction on myself, if the Cabinet is prepared to go

that far, themselves. I think it's about time they did. The other thing

that does, however, concern me, and all animal lovers, particularly

those who love dogs, will be concerned if this provision applies

arbitrarily in certain areas of the Province. I can understand and

sympathize very much with those who live in unorganized territory and,

particularly, where my friend comes from in Atlin, where wild dogs can

be a very serious problem with young people and children who may be

borne down by a pack of dogs and killed. That's all very well, but you

know, the provisions we have in the law in organized areas are bad

enough, when it comes to this sort of execution without trial of dogs.

A very friendly, household pet… A good example I had in Surrey, where

there was a very beautiful collie dog which was accused and tried in

Court and was about to be sentenced to death on the grounds it had

bitten a child. This dog was a household favourite and a friend of all

the children in the block. Two little children thought it was smart to

try to push the dog into a ditch filled with water and it tried to

resist them. One child started to slap this very nice dog over the

head. What nobody realized, until the veterinarian entered the picture,

was that the dog had a tick on its head and, of course, when the

children were slapping it and trying to push it into the ditch, the dog

reacted, as any human being would react, to protect itself. This could

have lead to the dog's death in that Court. Fortunately, the evidence

was such that the magistrate made a decision in favour of the dog. The

dog isn't able to speak for itself, so it's a pretty tough trial. It's

pretty rough on the lawyer trying to get his client to give his

evidence. I'm asking the Minister how can a dog get a decent trial into

this bill? There's no way.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kootenay.

MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Chairman, in speaking to this bill, I

sympathize with the Member for Atlin and the unorganized area up there.

I don't know, when you speak of organized or unorganized areas, whether

you include those portions of the regional districts that are outside

the municipalities or not. But it seems to me that you're giving very

wide powers to the public to take the law into their own hands when you

go out into the area. In this case, you state that they can kill a dog

in the act of pursuing, worrying or wounding animals. Prior to this,

you would have to report the dog. A game warden, of course, had that

power, I think, before to kill dogs. When a dog attacks people, I don't

think any law in the land would argue, if he did shoot the dog without

this wide range of powers. Nevertheless, here, you could have an abuse

in many cases and valuable dogs could be killed and all the person

needs to say is, "Well he was chasing an animal." What Proof have you

got, how can you prove that he wasn't chasing an animal? It's something

that, I think, you're allowing people, in this respect, to take the law

into their own hands. Now, if you wanted to divide the Province, like

in the northern areas where it's very little settled, this may be

different but, in many of the areas, today, you can't go very many

miles, any place, without finding settlers and farmers and, to me,

you're liable to run into some difficulties in regard to this by giving

this wide open power to everybody. Young kids, maybe, out with a gun,

can do anything they like.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Saanich and the Islands.

MR. J.D. TISDALLE (Saanich and the Islands): I just wonder if

the Minister had heard from the female

section of the Women's

Liberation for cows. I don't see anything in here protecting their

rights, but in the second

section it says that…I suppose we'd better

not deal in detail — no. I wonder if we could have a clarification of

what constitutes a

[ Page 654 ]

pack. Two dogs belonging to one man, running

together, and one of them is shot. There is no longer a pack, there's

one left. Do you shoot that one, too? (Interruption.) Yes, that's right. Is it four or more, or two?

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. D. BARRETT (Coquitlam): Mr. Speaker, I wish to break my

five day silence in this House, to…after my absence, I find the place

going to the dogs. Mr. Speaker, I want to announce to the House that

our Party will be taking a free vote on this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Member for Langley.

MR. H.B. VOGEL (Langley): Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister

will tidy up the factors of misunderstanding and dissention quite well,

but I think it's important to bear in mind that the sections of the

communities where the disputes and the damage arises are not,

necessarily, in the unorganized areas. In the Fraser Valley, the matter

of destruction of domestic animals, sheep and so on, particularly by

roaming dogs, is a cause of constant dissent. I think the important

section of this bill has not been referred to and that is, the

provision that the

summary action may only be taken when the dog is

straying on land other than the land of the owner of the animal or the

person who has given consent for the animal to be present. In the

Fraser Valley, this is a matter of great concern. I think this is a

very sensible bill and I support it.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister will close the debate.

MR. SHELFORD: I might just say, Mr. Speaker, that farmers

have always had the right to shoot dogs that were molesting their

livestock. I would also point out, and in support of what the Member

from Atlin said, we do have evidence of cases, especially in rural

areas, and this doesn't apply to municipalities, anyway, where children

would not leave school because they were scared of dogpacks, running at

large close by. We may want to get into discussions,

section by

section, later on, but I think it's certainly a good bill.

Motion agreed to.

Bill 25 read a second time and Ordered to be placed on the Orders of the Day for committal at the next sitting after today.

MR. BENNETT: Second reading of Bill 27, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill 27,

An Act to Amend the Public Libraries Act . The Honourable the Provincial Secretary.

HON. W.D. BLACK (Nelson-Creston): Mr. Speaker, in speaking to the second reading of the Act to Amend the Public Libraries Act ,

this is purely and simply a housekeeping piece of legislation, which is

brought about by the fact that this Legislature, over the last few

years, has made amendments to the Municipal Act . Since this act was last amended, we've had regional districts. Since this act was last amended, we have had the Age of Majority Act , which, obviously, changes the modus operandi of the Provincial Libraries Act .

There's only one

section that will be changed and that's 16. I've put

in notice and that will be found on the Orders of the Day,

next day, and already for discussion, if and when this bill is

considered for committee stage. I have no more remarks to make other

than that, Mr. Speaker, because it is, in.fact, strictly a housekeeping

bill. I move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burnaby-Edmonds.

MR. DOWDING: It seems to me I don't think there's much we can

quarrel with in the bill at this stage, in principle, except when it

comes to several sections. I, certainly, would like to debate them in

detail. I think that, although some municipalities may quarrel with the

idea that once they put the assets of the municipality into a regional

district board, they should have the right to withdraw it if they wish

to withdraw from that association at a later date, that their assets

come out as well as go in.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the honourable Member, with respect, could discuss that more profitably in the committee.

MR. DOWDING: Yes, I'm not going to go into the merits of that

point, except to say that that is one thing that will be a matter of

discussion, no doubt. The other aspect, since you have an amendment on

it, I'll have to study that in more detail. Otherwise, in principle, we

agree with the bill.

Motion agreed to.

Bill 27 read a second time and Ordered to be placed on the Orders of the Day for committal at the next sitting after today.

MR. BENNETT: Second reading of Bill 29, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill 29,

An Act to Amend the Settled Estates Act . The Honourable the Attorney-General.

HON. L.R. PETERSON (Vancouver–Little Mountain): Mr. Speaker, Bill No. 29,

An Act to Amend the Settled Estates Act . The Settled Estates Act ,

Mr. Speaker, makes provision for the leasing, mortgaging and the

preservation of property which is dealt with by will or other like

instrument. It does contain some elaborate provisions for application

to the Supreme Court of British Columbia and there are included, as

well, some safeguards as far as infants are concerned under that

Statute. However, the purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the

public trustee receives notice of every such application. Then, upon

receipt of the notice, he will be able to appear before the court to

protect the interests of any infant or mentally disordered person. I

might say that, not only does this principle find itself in this Bill

29, but the same principle, to prevent a lot of discussion in each of

the bills, Mr. Speaker, is found in Bills 30, 31 and 32. I move the

bill be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

[ Page 655 ]

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, what the Attorney-General has

said is quite clear from the bill. But I would like the

Attorney-General, in closing the debate, to indicate what the

experience has been, not only in connection with this particular

amendment, but with the others to which he referred, which would lead

the Attorney-General to involve the public trustee in this and the

other circumstances. In my experience, the rights of infants have

always been adequately protected by the Courts of this Province, and I

know of no circumstance when matters involving infants have not

received the greatest degree of concern from the judges in the Supreme

Court and other courts of this Province. Indeed, in matters regarding

settled estates and other similar situations, the Court is at great

pains to ensure that the infant is independently advised and

represented in matters which affect the property rights of infants.

Now, if the Attorney-General has indications that, heretofore, the

actions of the Supreme Court have left infants exposed to dangers to

which they should not be exposed, if their affairs have not been

properly handled before our Courts, then, I think we're entitled to

know.

What we have here, Mr. Speaker, is the big hand of Government

reaching down into what are really the private and personal affairs of

our citizens because we are, now, in this bill and in others like it,

invoking representation by the public trustee, who is an officer under

the control of this Government and responsible to the Attorney-General.

It is interesting to notice that his costs are always very carefully

taken care of in this and the other bills. Truly, minors and persons

who may be suffering from some mental disorder and, therefore, not

competent to look after their affairs, must be protected and no one

quarrels with that. But I do not believe that there is any basis for

suggesting that the laws of the land, today, do not protect those

people and that the people who are responsible to ensure that that

protection is afforded have failed in their responsibility.

We have had in the speeches in this House, from the Honourable

Member from North Vancouver–Capilano, an instance related to the

Attorney-General which raises very serious doubts as to the ability of

the person or persons who may be placed in the role of the public

trustee or obliged to discharge those responsibilities. In making that

remark, I do not wish to suggest that there are not highly qualified

people fulfilling responsibilities in various areas of the Province

under the public trustee. But, Mr. Speaker, I just wonder what kind of

interference this is in the resolution of the affairs of the citizens.

Unless there have been some glaring breaches of responsibility, I would

be loath to vote for this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Attorney-General will close the debate.

MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, my only comment in reply to the

honourable Member is that I wouldn't want the content of this bill to

reflect in any way on the actions of the Court. That's not the purpose

of the bill. The purpose of this bill is to see that the notice is

given where there are infants involved, prior to any matters being

heard before the Court, so that it can be sure that the interests of

the infant are protected. It's not to be taken as any reflection on the

Courts, as such, but I think there are circumstances that arise where

counsel may be engaged and the interests of the infant may not,

necessarily, be identical with the interests of his parents, perhaps,

if that is the case in a particular case. So that, in any event, we

feel in all of these instances it would be useful that the public

trustee, at least, be given notice of these applications, whether or

not the second step is necessarily taken of actually appearing in the

Court on behalf of the infant.

Motion agreed to.

Bill 29 read a second time and Ordered to be placed on the Orders of the Day for committal at the next sitting after today.

MR. BENNETT: Second reading of Bill 30, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill 30,

An Act to Amend the Variation of Trusts Act . The Honourable the Attorney-General.

MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, I think we've pretty well given second reading to this bill in the last bill. I move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burnaby-Willingdon.

MR. J.G. LORIMER (Burnaby-Willingdon): Mr. Speaker, I'd just

like to point out that I say that we will support this bill. I think it

will assist the Courts, in fact, to be more prepared to change the

trusts, such as necessary. I think it will be of benefit to the infant

and to the other people receptive of the trust.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, it's not my intention to

repeat the statements I made in the earlier debate but, in response to

the propositions that I posed to the Attorney-General, he did not give

the answers which I think this House is expected to have. The

Attorney-General should well know that, when matters involving infants

or people who are mentally disordered and, therefore, incompetent, come

before the Courts, the Court is at very great pains to ask the question

who represents these people and, if they are unrepresented, to ensure

that they are represented in the proceedings, not by people who are

representing others who may be opposed in interest, but separately

represented. This is the kind of power which we have always had in our

Courts and under our laws. I just don't understand the reason why the

Government is now suggesting that this long-standing procedure is being

done away with and the public trustee is now being inserted in its

place. I would like to know from the Attorney-General are there

instances which have come to the Attorney-General's attention, when the

rights of minor citizens or of mentally disordered people have not been

attended to by our Courts, in this way?

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burnaby-Edmonds.

MR. DOWDING: One thing does occur to me that could be a

problem. If a Government employee is employed as a trustee to protect

the rights of an infant who is mentally disordered and the infant is

being kept in a Provincial

[ Page 656 ]

institution and if the trust that is to be

protected by the intervention of the public trustee happens to involve

how much of the estate goes to the Government in terms of his care,

then, there is almost a problem there of conflict between the

Government agency versus

Government agency. The trustee is in the position of having to protect

the interests of the infant. When the Court is involved and the Court

appoints someone to guard the rights of the infant in a case where

there's a proposal for say a variation of the trust…people want to

vary the trust because it's sound or economical or there's been a

change in circumstances from the time the trust was established…the

Court is zealous to see that the interest of the beneficiaries of the

trust are adequately and separately protected. Is this always true if

the Government, by law, has a public trustee acting, as it were, as a

next friend of the beneficiary, who is an infant or minor, mentally

disordered? It poses problems, if this legislation is meant to take

away or derogate from the duty undertaken by the Courts to protect the

rights of beneficiaries and infants. I don't know of any Supreme Court

judge in Chambers, who would permit the interests of a mentally

disordered infant to be represented by someone who has a separate

interest in that estate and who wanted the estate varied so that it

might affect the mentally disordered infant. The Court would see that

someone who was quite apart and had no self-interest in the matter was

appointed. I wonder whether the Attorney-General, perhaps, appreciates

the extent to which this legislation goes in altering the additional

protections and safeguards that presently exist in law.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Attorney-General will close the debate.

MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear that

neither this bill, nor the previous one, will in any way, restrict the

obligation of the Courts to protect the interests of the infant, nor

does it abrogate in any way the privileges in this respect of

appointing counsel. This bill doesn't necessarily mean that the public

trustee will be the counsel for the infant in each of these cases. All

it does mean is that, at the outset, there will be notice of the

application now given to the public trustee, so that the public trustee

can look into it and see that the interests of the infant are

protected. If that's OK then, I would expect your support of the bill

because what happens, now, is that the Courts don't have an opportunity

in this respect until the matter is before them, which may involve

adjournments, appointment of counsel and this sort of thing. We think

this would be an improvement, recognizing that it will impose

additional burdens on the public trustee but, nevertheless, I think it

will assist in my department's fields in adjudicating matters relating

to infants.

Motion agreed to.

Bill 30 read a second time and Ordered to be placed on the Orders of the Day for committal at the next sitting after today.

MR. BENNETT: Second reading of Bill 31, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill 31,

An Act to Amend the Testator's Family Maintenance Act . The Honourable the Attorney-General.

MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, this particular Statute is used

frequently in our Courts. It empowers the Supreme Court of this

Province to make provisions for the wife, husband, or children of a

deceased person, where it is determined that inadequate provision has

been made in the will of that deceased person.

The object of the amendment before you is to empower the Court, when

there is such an application made and the matter comes on before the

Court, to empower the Court to receive and examine evidence which is,

now, in some cases, excluded or which the Courts are, now, loath to

receive. The provision that is proposed here would allow the Court to

accept any evidence that it considers proper but mentions,

particularly, any statement in writing signed by the testator. The

object, of course, is to ensure, as far as possible, that the Courts

have all the necessary evidence in making any determination under this

Statute. The other provisions have been explained in the previous two

bills that have been given second reading this afternoon. Mr. Speaker,

I move second reading of this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burnaby-Edmonds.

MR. DOWDING: We support the bill, in principle, and, in fact,

I welcome it because one of the intransigent rules of evidence has been

that the statements of a deceased person were not admissible unless

they could be shown to fall within certain categories of acceptable

evidence. But it didn't take into account this problem, that many

lawyers are quite aware of, that there were very good reasons why the

testator made certain provisions for his family that might not be

accepted by some members of the family. One good example, I can give

you just as a hypothetical case, is where the husband and wife are

separated and the husband dies and he leaves a statement indicating all

the reasons why they separated and why his wife is not deserving of his

support. But this may not be received in evidence, if it doesn't comply

with the rules of evidence. There's no way that you could bring it to

the attention of the Court for whatever value it might serve. Now, it

might not be true and there's no way of cross-examining the testator

after he's dead but, on the other hand, if it is acceptable for what

it's worth, then it allows the contestants to contradict it, if they

can. At least, it speaks after the death, as it were, of the testator

in a way that presently cannot be done. For that reason, it should have

some value but only some value and, of course, you have that safeguard

in the bill and that's why we would support it.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister without Portfolio.

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

hesitate to enter this debate because, as is so often the case, it gets

on a highly legal and technical plane and I'm not a lawyer. However, I

would agree very much with and support the bill and agree with what the

Attorney-General said and also with what the Honourable Member for

Burnaby-Edmonds said. In putting it from a layman's point of view, I

think that one of the concerns of the public is that, while the

original act was in order to ensure proper maintenance of blood

relatives — wife, children or husband — that, in fact, because they

couldn't bring in the wishes or the reasons of the testator, there were

times when a hardship was being worked upon a benefactor because of the

rulings of the Court. A second wife might have been left a home, the

[ Page 657 ]

children were excluded from the will and the Court

ruled that a certain cash settlement should be made to the children,

which caused the wife to have to sell her home, which was her only

benefit from the will. People in the public area have been concerned as

to whether or not, in fact, their wills are valid. I think it brings

into question in the public mind how valid is a will and, certainly,

this amendment will help contribute to it. I think, also, in the way

that I understand the Courts have been ruling, there has been a grave

danger in, perhaps, Courts rewriting wills. In today's society, where

there may be very good reasons for people wishing to treat their

children or their husband or wife in a different manner, it was not

previously admissible to the Court. I think that, in supporting this

amendment, we will find that it will greatly enhance the ability of the

Court to not rewrite wills and to make a just decision, to have the

wishes of the testator, in fact, carried out for their reasons and,

also, bring into proper focus whether or not, when one dies, if they

have paid their just monetary debts to society in the form of taxes and

other financial obligations, are they not, in fact, quite within their

rights to dispose of their material assets as they see fit. I hope that

this will help bring this about. I support this amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the First Member for Vancouver East.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, the act

wants to tidy up the rules of evidence to give better effect to the

wishes of the deceased but the real vices in this Testator's Family Maintenance Act have not been attacked. The first one is it doesn't deal at all with the case where there's no will. Then, the Administration Act applies

and that might be very unfair and something that a Court should correct

but it can't do it, notwithstanding the fine language of this bill.

The even worse case is that, under this act, the common-law wife,

Mr. Speaker, cannot apply. I think this Government has always been

against the common-law wife in the taxation Statutes of this Province,

the succession duty legislation, the testator's family maintenance

legislation. You've been against the common-law wife. Now, in many

cases, she's given succour and comfort and assistance to her husband

over many, many years but she's treated as a nonperson in B.C., able,

possibly, under the Administration Act

to get up to 10 per cent of an estate, and that's all, notwithstanding

her devotion to the man who is now deceased. I say that that is a flaw

in the act and that you are tinkering with the rules of evidence.

That's fine, as my friend has said, but the real vices in this act and

legislation have not been met.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the Member who

has just taken his place. I'm surprised at the Honourable the Minister

without Portfolio who spoke, because it indicates not uncommon lack of

knowledge of what this legislation is designed to do. The Testator's Family Maintenance Act is

designed to protect the proper beneficiaries of a deceased person who,

for any number of reasons, may have been forgotten at the time that the

will was prepared. It is a proper move on the part of Government to

ensure that people have not been improperly left out of the class of

beneficiaries in a person's estate. But, Mr. Speaker, there is a much

more serious concern. If you have a will, the Court, now, has the right

to look at the will and look at all the circumstances surrounding it,

including other statements which may be made by the deceased, in order

to determine whether or not the wife or any member of the immediate

family has received the proper benefit. But, if there's no will, we're

left with the rigid rules under the Administration Act

and the Court has no power to step in and take into consideration those

other circumstances where, perhaps, the wife or a member of the family

should be entitled to something of some greater benefit than is

provided under the rigid rules of the Administration Act .

If we're going to have equity, and I agree with this proposed

amendment, if we're going to have equity, in this instance, when there

is a will, then, the Government should be moving as well to provide

that there is equitable consideration of the proper claims of members

of the family in cases when there is no will.

Motion agreed to.

Bill 31 read a second time and Ordered to be placed on the Orders of the Day for committal at the next sitting after today.

MR. BENNETT: Second reading of Bill 32, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill 32,

An Act to Amend the Infants Act . The Honourable the Attorney-General.

MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, in addition to the repeal of two

obsolete provisions that are now contained in the Infants Act , this

bill involves two major principles, one of which has already been

discussed in terms of the previous bills this afternoon. The other

principle is in the sections 3 and 4 of the bill. These would enact new

provisions whereunder the public trustee will be enabled to direct that

money standing to the credit of an infant in Court be paid out for the

benefit of that infant. The bill provides an appeal against such a

direction or, indeed, if the public trustee refuses to make such a

direction, there's an appeal on that score, as well. This appeal can be

taken either by the infant or some person on his or her behalf. This, I

think, will assist in terms of where money has been paid into Court for

the benefit of infants. Now, it's a more cumbersome procedure and

expensive procedure as far as the infant is concerned, in engaging

solicitors to obtain any payment out of Court for emergency expenses,

or for education, or what have you. I move second reading of this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burnaby-Willingdon.

MR. LORIMER: Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to endorse this

bill. I would like to point out an interesting feature of it which is

the fact that we're repealing a

section which dates back some 150 years

to William IV and George IV. I think, maybe, this is a sign of progress.

Motion agreed to.

Bill 32 read a second time and Ordered to be placed on the Orders of the Day for committal at the next sitting after today.

[ Page 658 ]

MR. BENNETT: Second reading of Bill 33, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill 33,

An Act to Amend the Consumer Protection Act . The Honourable the Attorney-General.

AN HON. MEMBER: This bill was withdrawn.

MR. PETERSON: No, this is not the one. It was 26 that was

withdrawn, Mr. Speaker. Bill 33 is

An Act to Amend the Consumer

Protection Act . As the Members are aware, this legislation, which is of

comparatively recent origin, provides a bundle of rights for consumers

in the Province of British Columbia.

In recent years we have been enlarging these rights. Last year, we

made some significant amendments to the act, relating to unsolicited

goods, unsolicited credit cards and several other provisions, as well,

such as referral selling. Now, we propose to extend the rights of

consumers somewhat further.

The first significant amendment has to do with an assignee's

obligations. The normal rule is that when a person becomes an assignee

under a contract then he not only takes the rights and privileges of

the assignor, under the contract, but he also assumes the obligations,

liabilities and duties. The practice has grown up over the years,

whereby a provision is written into the contract to the effect that if

the seller of the goods under the contract should, at any time in the

future, assign his interest to another person, then, that other person,

although accepting all the benefits of the seller, assumes none of the

obligations and this is where the problem arises. This is generally

written in the contract in the small print and the consumer really is

not, in all cases, at least, aware of it when he purchases goods. The

result of this is that the consumer, then, is obliged to continue the

payments, generally, say, to a finance company when the contract is

assigned to a finance company. The goods are defective or something of

this nature but, nevertheless, he is obliged to continue the payments,

even though the seller is not living up to the terms of the original

contract. So this amendment would make ineffective these so-called

cut-off clauses in contracts and it would restore the usual contractual

relationship that would exist whereby, when you assign the contract,

you take not only the benefits but also the obligation of the contract.

I should point out that the Federal Government has introduced

amendments to the Bills of Exchange Act of Canada , a Federal Statute,

and these amendments, as a matter of fact, are in force at the moment,

and affect the related practice where promissory notes and bills of

exchange are involved. We feel that to complete the picture we should

take this additional step, Provincially, so that it applies to the

normal contracts. It would be another example, Mr. Speaker, of

coooperative Federalism, in terms of Provinces cooperating with the

Federal Government, recognizing as well that this area of consumer

affairs has been the subject of considerable study of Royal Commissions

and other jurisdictions, legislative committees. All the reports are

unanimous in this one respect that this kind of action that we're

proposing here should be taken.

The other significant part of the bill is to rewrite the provisions

which relate to contract relief. These provisions, prior to this

contract if it could be shown that the interest charges under the

contract were excessive and the transaction harsh and unconscionable.

Recent judicial pronouncements by the Court of Appeal of this Province

have indicated the need for some statutory amendment to these

provisions if they are to be effective so as to permit the Courts to

exercise this jurisdiction if the interest costs are excessive and the

transaction is harsh and unconscionable or the transaction is otherwise

inequitable. There is a new provision in this bill, which is designed

to bring this about.

The other principle in the bill is another contract relief

provision, Mr. Speaker. It permits a judge to lessen the severity of a

contractual provision in the event of default. This is the time when

you say such and such happens and the whole balance shall become due

and payable forthwith. We have a new

section to include loan

transactions in this respect, giving the judge the discretion to

intervene in circumstances of this nature. I move second reading of

this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burnaby North.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We

certainly intend to endorse this bill in principle. It's obviously an

added protection for the consumers of British Columbia, for which we're

all most pleased. Any further detailed questions we'll reserve for

committee. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Yale-Lillooet.

MR. HARTLEY: Through you, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the

Attorney-General if this would protect the type of door-to-door sale or

any sale, where a small firm goes about the countryside, say, in

selling roofing or aluminum siding and, then, after they have signed up

contracts, they go and sell these contracts to a finance company, prior

to going bankrupt. Then, when they go bankrupt, the householders who

have paid to have a roof installed or the home covered with siding find

that they are bound to keep their commitment with the finance company,

even though the firm that they made the agreement with doesn't have and

the home-owners do not receive the goods they are still paying for.

Now, I realize this is a little different situation in this

legislation. Is there any way that this can be extended, or can we do

something with bonding so that any firm that goes out and holds itself

out to provide this type of service would have to put up a bond before

it was licensed to do business in this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Dewdney.

MR. G. MUSSALLEM (Dewdney): Mr. Speaker, I have a little

point. I must commend the Attorney-General for presentation of this act

and for others that have protected the consumer. It's a good track

we're on and it's an excellent thing to be doing.

I'd like to mention one thing that, when he makes the suggestion

that the fine print, as a merchant as with other merchants in this

House, we are much maligned sometimes by the fact of the fine print on

the contract… I'd just like to tell the Attorney-General that there's

only one reason there's fine print in the contract and that's because

the lawyers have got it so complicated it takes so much paper to get it

in. That's the problem.

However, the point I'll ask the Attorney-General is that

[ Page 659 ]

we are protecting, indeed, the purchaser of goods on time, but who holds the hand of the man who pays cash?

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Is that not important, too? We're holding the

consumer's hand that buys on time but forget the man who wants to pay

his way in paying cash. I think we should be considering this as well.

There are so many facets of this thing that these bills, good as they

are, forget a large segment of our society, the segment of people that

support the economy the greatest and that's the man with the cash in

his pocket. We should not forget him. I think that, perhaps, a great

deal could be said for the bill and, of course, we all agree with the

bill. We all agree with the protection, but let us protect all of the

society or let us not be too particular about the man who goes out and

buys more than he can afford and tries to pay for it on time.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Cowichan-Malahat.

MR. STRACHAN: The Member from Dewdney made a few comments and

I tend, generally, to agree with his comments. The man who pays cash

doesn't have this kind of protection. He doesn't really need that kind

of protection, except… Pardon? No, he's already received the goods.

It's then a straight fight between him and the man from whom he bought

the goods.

With regard to the fine print, which the previous Member referred

to, I remember taking a case to the former Attorney-General, and it's

related to the part of this act which exempts purchases made by a

retailer who intends to use the goods or goods and services in his

business but not for resale. I have in mind a situation, where someone

who is in business for himself could go out and buy a truck for use in

his business. The case I'm thinking of was a case where a man in my

constituency with eight children was in business for himself, a small

trucking business. He had an opportunity to expand the business. It

required a larger truck. He went out and he bought this truck with a

dump. It was a dump truck and week after week, month after month, that

truck just wouldn't operate the dumping procedure the way it was

supposed to, with the result that he was unable to fulfill the contract

he had taken on before he bought the truck. He went back to the

original company time after time to get this thing corrected. It was

finally found to be in a little valve in the hydraulic portion of the

truck itself. The company, it was an automobile supply company, said,

"Well, this was not part of the guarantee because it was not installed

in the factory — it had been installed when he bought it as a going

truck." That man finished up by losing the truck because he couldn't

meet the payments, despite the fact it was faulty goods that he had

been sold. He finished up, as a matter of fact, on social welfare

because of the fact that there was no way of enforcing the agreement

and he had to keep up the payments even though the goods were faulty.

He lost the whole thing and, you see, that particular

section just cuts

a man like that out, because he was tied right into his commitment to

make these payments even though the goods he had received were faulty.

He was in business for himself. He wasn't an individual just going out

and buying it. So I would ask the Attorney-General to sort of think

about that before it gets into committee, because this exempts a

retailer who intends to use the good or goods for use within the

business. In that case, a truck would be exempt, you see and it could

be faulty. He was buying it on time and, yet, there's just no redress

of any kind for that small businessman, because he's cut right out from

the protection of this act.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burnaby-Edmonds.

MR. DOWDING: I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, that the

Honourable the Member for Dewdney would know that the contracts that

the public have most trouble with are the ones that the dealers draw up

through their lawyers with all the small print. The poor consumer goes

into a place that has a contract that's about three pages long. You

need a microscope to read it and it's full of every type of restriction

and reservation on the rights of the buyer. They even say that, if you

sign this contract, you waive all your rights for misrepresentation,

for conditions or warranties. Practically, you waive your right to even

go to Court about anything on a direct deal.

Now, I haven't examined the contracts that are familiar to the

Member for Dewdney but I'm getting interested. I think I'll look at

them because there's no problem. I don't like those crocodile tears

about the poor consumer who buys a car for cash because he can always

go right to the dealer and sue him but, if he buys it on terms, the

dealer whips around and assigns the contract and, up until now, in the

law, the buyer couldn't go after the person who now has the contract or

stop his payments because it was assigned.

I welcome this move by the Government because this is the thing

that, year after year, we've pleaded with the Government to do

something about. The fact that, where there's an assignment of a

contract on conditional payment terms in any conditional sales

agreement, the buyer has no recourse if the goods turn out to be

defective or there's misrepresentation or fraud, so far as his

obligation to pay off the contract. This, in effect, I hope, if this is

the intention, affixes on the assignee a similar responsibility to live

up to the rights and obligations of the contract just as if he were in

the shoes of the original seller. If that is the purpose, and it seems

to be, I hope that the Courts deal kindly with it because it's sadly

needed in this society.

Motion agreed to.

Bill 33 read a second time and Ordered to be placed on the Orders of the Day for committal at the next sitting after today.

MR. BENNETT: Second reading of Bill 35, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 35, the Hearing-aid Regulation Act . The Honourable the Minister without Portfolio.

HON. I.P. DAWSON (Mackenzie): Mr. Speaker, for the last two

and a half years a complete study, as far as possible, into the

problems of the hard-of-hearing in this Province has been carried on

and you will recall that, last year, I introduced a bill to this House

entitled

An Act Respecting Hearing-aid Dealers and Consultants . The

bill was No. 66, but was not proceeded with, pending study of a report

being prepared by the Consumer Affairs Department of Ottawa. The report

was expected to be released in February but, in fact, was not available

until May. During the past year, following the study of the Consumer

Affairs Department

[ Page 660 ]

report, which, incidentally, recommends that the Provincial

Governments pass legislation of this kind, I have met with individuals,

with professional groups and groups that are interested in and

concerned with matters regarding hearing.

As a result of these studies and discussions, I've introduced again

to this House, this Session, a new bill entitled Hearing-aid

Regulations Act . As with Bill No. 66, last year, the purpose of this

new bill is to regulate individuals engaged in the hearing-aid

industry. It is designed to control and raise standards in the industry

so that anyone needing the aid of a hearing device will have the

reassurance that either he or she is dealing with a firm or an

individual properly qualified in the lines and terms of this

legislation. Members will note that the act will be administered by a

board and, while this board will bring to the industry the knowledge,

the backgrounds and the skills which are necessary to provide and

maintain a proficient hearing-aid service, provision is also provided

for representation from the community at large. It is my first

consideration and must be our first consideration that the public

interest must be observed.

Mr. Speaker, this will be the first bill of its kind in Canada and I now move that the bill be read a second time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable the First Member for Vancouver East.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, the subject matter of this bill

is very important and I think it rather draws a division line between

the other side of the House and this side of the House. Because we have…

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.

MR. MACDONALD: My friend supports that already. Just the division.

AN HON. MEMBER: Any time. But the division line is pretty

sharp in this case because, frankly, we think you should move in an

entirely different direction. We think, here, you are regulating an

industry but, really, you are setting up a board, which will be largely

the industry, which will have power to stifle competition in the

provision of hearing-aids to the people of this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Setting up a new group of initials.

MR. MACDONALD: You're professionalizing the industry. Now,

the background of this is that there are, of course, a great many

people involved. The figures are sad. One child in ten will become

hard-of-hearing. One senior citizen out of four needs a hearing device,

today. The prices that are being paid today are exorbitantly high and,

in many cases, rigged and tied into the provision of repair services,

so that the hard-of-hearing person has to come back to the same

business for expensive repair fixtures to his hearing device. I don't

need to quote, possibly, more than the Minister herself without

Portfolio, who said, in 1970… When? I think it's May 7 in the

Colonist . The report said… Oh, this is the Ottawa report. "A

proliferation of hearing-aid dealers in Canada has resulted in a retail

mark-up of 100 to 230 per cent." This is the Ron Basford report in

Ottawa, referring to great mark-ups in the industry. "Mrs. Dawson,

Minister without Portfolio, when the last Bill was introduced, who had

studied the high cost of hearing-aids on behalf of the Government, said

the Bill is the first step in an effort to improve standards and

service and to reduce costs of hearing-aids which she said have been

excessive in many cases." Yet, the House should know that this bill

will not, in any way, reduce the cost of hearing-aids but will increase

those costs because you're steering out of the way competitors, you're

going to have an industry group and we know pretty well who it will be.

AN HON. MEMBER: Self-interest group.

MR. MACDONALD: The existing industry, the Western Hearing-aid

Alliance, or whatever they call themselves, will be the core of this

thing, as they have in other industries, and I refer to optics and I

refer to drugs, they will, and they will have the power under this act

to prohibit advertising of prices to protect their price structure.

Sure, that will follow. It has followed in the other industries. You

give a private group, dealing commercially, the right to regulate its

competitors and it regulates them out of business. They can't practice

without coming to this new association and this new board.

AN HON. MEMBER: And then they rig everything.

MR. MACDONALD: And that's not going to reduce prices. That's

going to maintain high, monopoly-fixed prices in the Province of

British Columbia. You say you'll have clean advertising and fair

advertising but, really, you're going to do the same thing that's true

in the drug stores, today, prevent the advertising of prices and stifle

competition in the industry. There's been the report, which supports

what I've said, that was prepared for the Department of Industrial

Development, Trade, and Commerce, in 1967, which supports the abuses in

the industry, the poor service to the hard-of-hearing and the need for

action. It points that out but, instead of moving the restriction of

competition and placing control in the hands of a cosy trade

association, even though you appoint the board, it's going to be a cosy

trade association that runs this thing.

The other way to handle matters is so easy and that is to make

provision for the provision of hearing-aids under your B.C. Medical

Plan without charge. Break the high, monopoly fixed prices in this

area. Examples I've given in this House, before, are just as true as

they were, then. In Japan you can get a fine hearing-aid for $35 but

you can't shop in Vancouver for the same thing under $400. Binoral

hearing aids…

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, that's nonsense.

MR. MACDONALD: This wasn't nonsense in 1966. Now, there have

been some changes but the mark-ups are still high and excessive. The

Government's own report… I see my friend has his mike up and he's got

his aid turned on and I think he's going to speak and he has knowledge

in this field. But let me say this that the Government's own report, in

1968, said, "A Government report tabled in the Legislature, Wednesday,

says the retail mark-ups on conventional hearing-aids sold in Victoria

and Vancouver are as much as 306 per cent of the wholesale price." And

lots of people with high pressure advertising are paying just that kind

of a fancy price and having to come back for repairs and be whipped

again. The Kefauver probe in the United States showed how the

manufacturers rigged prices and dealer mark-ups, with mark-ups running

from 186 per cent to 304 per cent. So we say

[ Page 661 ]

that you should move in the other direction, that some of these

necessary devices for good and helpful living should be provided under

our medical services as part of our medical plans, that we can import

serviceable, cheap, the best equipment at a fraction of the cost that

the private industry is charging the victims of hard hearing at the

present time, that we can, in Vancouver, as part of our secondary

industry, manufacture these devices and make them freely available as

part of medicare. For that reason, I oppose the bill because I think

you're moving the wrong way. You're restricting competition and we say

that you should move toward the provision of this kind of a service to

people, without charge, as part of our social security, as part of our

medical plans.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Skeena.

MR. D.G. LITTLE (Skeena): Mr. Speaker, I was interested in

the remarks that were made by the last speaker. This is a logical

conclusion I suppose to draw when you don't know what you're talking

about. The trouble with hearing-aids, and I've worn one now for several

years, is that this is a very specialized deficiency that a person has.

We have our five senses and, if you need glasses, you go to an

optometrist. If you have a sore throat or there's something wrong with

your taste, you go to a doctor and so on. But, for some unknown reason,

the sense of hearing — anyone can sell you a hearing-aid.

I have seen hearing-aids sold to people who are over 85 years old

and they were sold by Eaton's at that time. They weren't even fitted to

the ear. The person who bought the aid was so nervous that she couldn't

even turn the aid on. The controls were too small for her to be able to

handle and she was charged $276 and never, at any time, did this fit

her ear or were the tubes even cut so she could put it on her ear

properly because these have to be fitted to the ear. I took this to

Eaton's and told them how ridiculous it was. I'm happy to say that I

pointed out to them, "Satisfaction guaranteed or money refunded," and

they never hesitated. They paid back $276 for that aid that was sold

which was never right at any time.

Now, we talk about restricting competition and this is the thing

that has to be done. The thing that's wrong with hearing-aids and, in

Victoria, I could name two…You have two specialists here in Victoria

on hearing-aids who are as fine as you will find anywhere in Canada.

There are two but how many have you got selling hearing-aids? You have

about 20. The trouble is that the cream is siphoned off by the people

who don't get service and don't know what they're doing until these

other people have a difficulty making a living. If the hearing-aids

were handled by audiologists, who know what they're doing, they would

have a larger volume and consequently people would be able to buy their

aids for much less than they're paying at the present time. Also, you

would have skilled and trained people who were fitting these aids,

which would be able to give service to the public that they should have.

Now, let's not get carried away that competition is going to be the

solution for cheap aids. The poorest thing that you could do for a

person and the worst thing that could happen is to sell him a cheap aid

that doesn't work. This is no answer. I've just gone through a special

deal, because I was a sawyer in a saw mill and for ten years stood

listening to the whistling and high hum of saws, my ears expel the high

notes. So, I have an odd circumstance in hearing insofar as that the

noises in my ear are killed on high notes. So, with a man's normal

voice I can speak and carry on a conversation without a hearing-aid but

when I get into the higher tones, which the women usually have, then I

have difficulty in hearing, and the nerves…(laughter). You can always

make signs, you know. There's a way. You can make signs. However, they

have discovered that the nerves in my ears are dead on the high notes

so, consequently, I have to have an aid that will pick up the higher

notes and not boost the lower ones. This is where the specialist comes

in. This is the man who can fit the audiogram, decide on where your

deficiency is and the type of aid that you should use. There is no way

that the average person selling hearing-aids is able to do this. He

doesn't know enough about it. He doesn't even have the proper aid to do

this.

Mr. Speaker, I had a Vicon hearing-aid that I've had satisfaction

with for a few years. Now, the hearing-aid that's one of the very

popular hearing aids is Philips which is made in Holland, as you know,

and I've recently tried it. Every two years I have two hearing-aids and

I update them so I've been getting two aids while I'm down here this

time. Neither of the former aids that I had, or the Philips, is giving

the satisfaction that I want. Now I find that a Unitron hearing-aid,

that is made here in Canada, is suiting me better than either of the

other aids that I've used. This is something that I've been working on

for two months while I've been here and just now, for the first time, I

feel that I have the aid that I need and how, then, when it takes me

two months and I know my problem and a specialist knows my problem and

it takes two months to fit an aid, how, then, can the Opposition say we

need more competition where anybody can sell aids and you can go in and

buy them at a reduced rate all over town. Let us remember and keep one

thing in mind. If we are going to give satisfaction to elderly people,

or whoever it is, we must go to an audiologist who knows what the score

is, we must support him, we must allow him to sell hearing-aids in

volume so that he, too, can make a proper living.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Oak Bay.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to amplify

a few of the points made by the previous speaker. I strongly support

this bill, its basic aim being to elevate standards of investigation of

hearing difficulties and providing the appropriate type of treatment,

if such type of treatment is, in fact, available. By and large, human

beings are subject to two types of deafness: one type can be helped by

a hearing-aid and the other cannot. The main purpose of this bill is to

eliminate the unscrupulous individual who will sell a hearing-aid, very

often, to an elderly person who does not understand anything about it

and, consequently, gains little benefit and has to go to considerable

expense. It is my conviction that, while this bill like any other first

bill in a new area is breaking new ground, it may not have all the

answers. Time will tell on that account. But I think the very important

point which this House should understand and which the people of

British Columbia should understand is that the question of hearing

difficulty is a very complicated one which requires highly skilled

investigation before anyone can even tell you whether a hearing-aid is

indicated. There are, unfortunately, many people with deafness, where a

hearing-aid is no more use to them than is a kite. On the other hand,

of the classification of people who can benefit

[ Page 662 ]

from a hearing-aid, as the former speaker has just pointed out,

there are many variations and many changes in their hearing deficit,

which vary from person to person. The matter of defining these requires

a great deal of skill and training on the part of either the specialist

and the so-called otolaryngologist, which is a big, long confusing

word, but this is a doctor who has taken further specialist training of

four years in length to become a specialist in hearing problems. We've

even gone further and this brings me back very quickly to some of the

points I made last night. We now have otologists, doctors who not only

specialize in ear, nose and throat but, having specialized in ear, nose

and throat, go on to specialize still further in this very complicated

and highly technical field of hearing deficits. We also now have

surgical procedures which can help deafness, which I think I mentioned

briefly last night and it's worth just mentioning again. Until the deaf

person has had a proper investigation and evaluation by such a skilled

and knowledgeable individual, it may be that a hearing-aid is no good

but it may be amenable to surgery of one kind or another. It should be

made plain that all these investigations, which I'm mentioning, are

available under our medicare coverage, no matter whichever medical plan

you have. If you go to your general practitioner, or family physician,

with a hearing problem you can be referred to the specialist. All the

tests and all the investigations that I've just mentioned are covered

under medicare (interruption) .

Well, wait a minute. I'll get to that in a big hurry. I feel that

this bill, if it does nothing else…that's a poor way to put it…it

will do a great deal more. But one of the things the bill, in itself,

will do is to educate the public, I hope, inasmuch that, with no

disrespect to anyone, the patient often comes to the office and because

they're deaf they immediately think of a hearing-aid. I've even had

patients where I've told them that, having had the tests, they cannot

expect to benefit from a hearing-aid. To my amazement, they still go

ahead and buy a hearing-aid and they come and complain to me because it

doesn't help them. Now, I am not trying to debase anyone or to preach

to them, I'm just saying that the human individual who has any defect

or illness or deficiency, very naturally, seeks assistance. It is not

always possible for the sick person to accept no for an answer.

Therefore, any protection or additional protection which we can give,

particularly elderly citizens, in the area of hearing aids is, in my

opinion, very well worth while.

I would agree with the First Member from Vancouver East that one of

the steps we must attempt to take is to finance, under some form of

Government subsidy, and I don't know exactly how, or whether, in total,

or in part, or by premium, or what have you, but I would agree with him

that anything the Government can do to make the devices, the

hearing-aids, readily available to, very often, elderly pensioners who

have great difficulty in financing them at the present time, must

surely be one of our aims. As I pointed out last night there is a

diversity of other urgent medical needs in the population, which I must

say, quite plainly, I consider have priority over the financing of

hearing-aid needs at this time. But it must surely be one of the

longer-term aims of this Government in providing a total spectrum of

health coverage.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Yale-Lillooet.

MR. HARTLEY: It's very interesting, Mr. Speaker, to sit here

and listen to some of the arguments being put up by the so-called,

self-called, free enterprises but, really, they are corporate

enterprises. I would challenge the Government, particularly the lady

Member for Mackenzie, to give one example of where this sort of a

closed-shop, pseudo-professional society has lowered the cost and

improved the service to the consuming public of this Province. Now,

it's a challenge. It's a challenge, when you conclude this, or at the

next reading. If you can come forward with some evidence, then, maybe,

we can review our thinking and our attitude on this.

Now, from our point of view, we have seen various groups come to us,

all the way from the landscape gardeners, the dental mechanics, the

opticians. They said that theirs was a specialized field and they

wanted to provide greater competition. How do you provide competition

when you build a great protective umbrella in this fashion? You form a

professional or a trade combine, where you hide behind Provincial

legislation. This is precisely what will happen. In reading certain

consumer information, it would indicate that hearing-aids are available

at a fraction, maybe, a tenth of the price that people are now paying

in this Province. I have to agree, and with pleasure, with our Member

from Oak Bay. I believe he is on the right track that we have National

health. This is a health problem. Here, the people who do understand

your health, your hearing problem, they decide whether there's

something that can be assisted and remedied with a proper appliance

and, through their paramedical assistance, have the appliance fitted.

Many of the people who suffer from this are not all senior citizens but

many of them are. We feel that the public service should be extended,

not only to provide these appliances to the people who need them, as a

health care, but a paramedical facility should work hand-in-glove with

the doctors to see that a proper job is done and, through public

service, a low-cost, efficient, proper appliance be made available and

that they work with audiologists and so on. To me, this proposal, made

by the Member from Mackenzie, impresses me that she's being led down

the garden path to corporate enterprise, that it really isn't free

enterprise at all. It's trying to build another Social Credit corporate

enterprise for the corporate elite that we already have.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Alberni.

MR. H.R. McDIARMID (Alberni): Mr. Speaker, I never cease to

be amazed at some of the postures that come from the Opposition. Here

we are. They get up, time after time, in terms of talking about

consumer protection and how the poor people are put upon by the

manufacturers and by the free enterprise system and how they have no

protection. You know, Mr. Speaker, from experience, and just to carry

on a little bit with what the Member from Oak Bay had to say, there

probably isn't any group of people with an affliction in the world that

is any more desperate than the hard-of hearing. You know, they want to

believe, against all odds, against all rationality, against all advice,

that they can hear again. These people are suckers, like you would

never believe, to a slick-talking salesman, who is telling them

something that they want to hear. To hear those people get up and say

that this is the sort of thing that they want to see perpetuated in the

Province of British Columbia, to me, is absolutely incredulous. That's

exactly, Mr. Speaker, what they're saying, because there isn't a group

of people, anywhere, that needs to be more protected against

[ Page 663 ]

themselves. I say this in all sincerity, because they want to

believe so badly that somebody can help them that they're ready to fall

for any line. They're ready to follow anybody who is able to hold out

any promise that they can be helped when, in fact, those people are

ill-trained, in fact, may be con men of the worst sort, who, in fact,

are (interruption) . It's exactly what is happening in the Province

today. If anybody should know it, you should. That's why I find your

position so indefensible. You go on to say that what we should really

do is to provide these free under our health system. I would have to

agree with you that if there were enough funds that this, ideally, is

exactly what we should do. We should provide glasses to everybody. Why

should we provide hearing-aids to people, who are deaf, any more than

we should provide glasses to people who cannot see, or teeth to people

who cannot chew, or legs to people who cannot walk or whatever? The

facts of the matter are that you got up just the other day under

medical care costs, and said these things are going out of sight and

we've got to get something done about it. If we still believe that some

people are responsible for looking after their own responsibilities in

terms of some afflictions that come to them, then, until such time as

we are really able to look after people, in terms of our Gross National

Product and the monies available, why should we selectively pick out

the deaf any more than we should the blind or the halt or the lame or

anybody else? The one thing really when you get right down to it, this

is what I find… The First Member from Vancouver East, Mr. Speaker,

usually, is a responsible Member of the House…

AN HON. MEMBER: You take that back.

MR. McDIARMID: That was a compliment. I don't know what

happened to him today, Mr. Speaker, but I would have to say, in all

honesty, in trying to be as non-partisan as I can, that there is no

Member… Now, listen, and you might just agree with me, that there's no

Member in this House, in terms of what she has done, who has rendered

more help, comfort and assistance to the elderly people of British

Columbia than the Minister who is sitting right there. For you to

suggest that that Minister is going to turn around and betray the old

people of this Province, I think, is a position that even you must have

to look at and reconsider. You know, Mr. Speaker, from all sides, who

else has gone around and visited every old age pensioners' group in

this Province? What Member can stand up and say that he's done that?

What I want to say is that this particular Minister, in fact, has gone

around and has talked to the old people and they know what the problems

are. This is the Member who's responsible for this bill. What I'm

saying is that, under this bill, the Government, in fact, has the

responsibility for appointing control as far as this board is

concerned. I think you have to take some things on faith. Maybe, you

think that we really have brought this in to try and make it more

profitable for the manufacturers of hearing-aids. If that really is

your cynical philosophy, I would have to say that you're, absolutely,

not 100 per cent, but 200 per cent, or 300 per cent wrong, because I

believe in the integrity of that Minister, not because of what she said

but, in fact, what she does. It's not what you say, it's what you

demonstrate or you're prepared to do on behalf of the old people of

this Province. So, Mr. Speaker, without hesitation, as a medical person

with some knowledge of this thing, I support this bill wholeheartedly.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, while I wipe away the tears from my

eyes on behalf of the senior citizens of British Columbia, there is a

vote. If you want to have a vote, call No. 8, Bill 8 on the Order Paper

and we'll see how the Honourable Minister without Portfolio votes

( interruption) . We'll see how they all vote when the opportunity comes

to provide $200 a month to the old age pensioners.

MR. SPEAKER: Can we get back to Bill 35?

MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Speaker, he was way off the bill. I

thought I'd just debate what he was debating, without you calling him

to order. But, since there's been enough dispute with other people not

being able to stay in order, I'll go back to the bill, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as the years go by, we see the wonderful Member from

Oak Bay mellow. He came into this House and on this kind of legislation

would say, "You know, we've got to stop the monster of socialism that

lifts its hand across the pale of British Columbia," and the Member

would say, "Socialism is a dangerous device." Then, he said today,

"Some day, we may have to pay for these hearing-aids." We say, "Some

day is now, Mr. Speaker, now." When do you define illnesses on the

basis of the ability to pay? We deal with total human beings, not with

ear lobes or eyes or arms or legs. This kind of legislation is the kind

of legislation to protect a small group of people, like many others,

who make money out of human misery, Mr. Speaker, the kind of attitude

that we separate, under legislation, prosthetic attachments and

appliances or aids to people who are ill. All this should be covered

under a comprehensive medical plan that's properly developed and

available to people. To come into the House and say, on the one hand,

that it's a valid argument that we should have hearing-aids but we

don't have the money right now when $10,000 spent by the Minister of

Trade and Industry, travelling around the world doing nothing, would

have bought a lot of hearing-aids, Mr. Speaker, a lot of hearing-aids.

The amount of money squandered by the various Cabinet junkets could

have bought hearing-aids for the people who need it. To hear these

grand statements about, "Oh, it's a step forward. We know what the old

age pensioners need." They don't need tea and crumpets. They need some

understanding and some action by this Government.

Now, the bill itself. Why are we opposed to the bill? Because we

don't believe in building some kind of protective little group that

still charges those exorbitant rates for hearing-aids that sell in

Great Britain for one tenth of what they're selling for here. Those

hearing-aids are available in Great Britain under a medical health

scheme at one tenth the cost, and that Member over there…

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BARRETT: "I've revised this antisocialist feeling." I

expect you'll be up waving on behalf of those people who manufacture.

But we stand clear on this, Mr. Speaker. We do not believe in

legislative protection for anybody who wants to make money out of human

illness. It's the same thing we feel about Sandringham Hospital, the

same thing we believe about that. Just to put this on the challenge,

Mr. Speaker…sure, we'll get the chance, you bet your life. So will

you, because the Honourable Member from Vancouver East will

[ Page 664 ]

be bringing in another bill and you will see that there's notice of

it on the Order Paper for that bill already. We'll see how you vote

when that time comes. In the meantime, we're not prepared to go along

with the idea of protecting another group.

Certainly, there's a measure of progress in this bill. There's a

move towards standards. Certainly, there's a move towards standards

but, if it takes you that long to get to move to standards, how long is

it going to take you to get to the point of providing appliances for

people in need? Why don't you go all the way? Why don't you bring in a

bill that says this and other appliances and needs will be put into

legislation, as protection, as part of a total insurance plan. I'm

getting sick and tired of seeing the human body being carved up and

pieces being treated on the basis of their illness, rather than the

total person receiving a total service on the basis of their need, not

on the basis and needs of the legislation.

The medical profession itself has to re-examine, as the doctor said,

its approach. They have specialists examining specialists, who might

become specialists if they pass the other specialists' exams. The

Member has made it very clear. The medical profession has divided

itself into so many categories and it is looking upon medical plans as

a means to guarantee their income, rather than their basic purpose of

providing comprehensive medical schemes to the people in need. I praise

the Member from Vancouver East. He first spoke of this some eight years

ago in this House. Eight years ago he raised this matter in this House.

He has been a man who has followed this problem right through his time

here in this Legislature. I'll stand with him and I'll stand with him

when he brings in his bill next week. We'll see where you stand, Mr.

Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

HON. D.R.J. CAMPBELL (Comox): Mr. Speaker, I hadn't intended

to speak on this bill after the Honourable Member for Alberni had said

most of the words that I wanted to say about my colleague from across

the water in Mackenzie. But, after listening to the Leader, I couldn't

resist myself. It's obvious, Mr. Speaker, that the rest did not do the

Leader any good. He enunciated a very strange principle here this

afternoon and that strange principle is not unusual for the Members

opposite and that strange principle is that you get up and you say, at

least, one or two nice things about a policy and, then, Mr. Speaker,

you make this decision, in principle, to vote against it. Now, the

exact words of the Leader were that this was a measure of progress.

AN HON. MEMBER: Policy.

MR. CAMPBELL: No, you didn't say that. "This was a measure of

progress." Now, today, the NDP are going to be classified amongst those

who will stand in their place being against a measure of progress. I

know, Mr. Speaker, that the Liberal Party will not do that. This will

be one vote when they will join with this side of the House. That's a

prediction. I'm predicting that because I see a glimmer of intelligence

over there this afternoon, just a glimmer.

Mr. Speaker, I had not assumed this afternoon that my colleague, the

Minister without Portfolio, would have been inflicted or afflicted

with, particularly, the speech by the Honourable the First Member from

Vancouver East and the Member for Yale-Lillooet, because what are the

facts of this case? The facts are that there was a great deal of

silence in this House about this question of hearing-aids until the

Member for Mackenzie came into this Legislature and the Member for

Skeena came into this Legislature and, Mr. Speaker… (Interruption) .

MR. SPEAKER: Order.

MR. CAMPBELL: I think it would be very proper to say that the

Member for Mackenzie and the Member for Skeena represent both the

mother and father position insofar as this legislation is concerned.

But what happened here, Mr. Speaker, is that all of the information

that the Member for Vancouver East talked about in this Legislature

this afternoon — the costs, the crooked deals, the crooked dealers — all of these things were enunciated by this Minister whom, you suggest,

is not going to apply the principles of regulation enunciated in this

bill. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that that is a pretty low blow, a pretty

low blow.

Mr. Speaker, it was this Minister who went around British Columbia

and gave hope to the old age pensioner organizations. Not only did this

Minister go around and give hope to the old age pensioner

organizations, but this Minister was the first Minister in Canada to

tell the old age pensioners, "Let us get together in the form of a

co-operative." You never mentioned that. You didn't have the kindness to

mention in this House that there's nothing within this bill that

prevents the co-operative approach organized by the old age pensioners,

themselves, a distribution company organized by the old age pensioners,

themselves. You never mentioned that this Minister already has laid the

groundwork for this. You keep talking about big industry and you keep

talking about monopoly industry. Never once did you indicate, and I

know that you know it, that the Minister has already taken this

proposition down the road of co-operatives and the co-operative involved

is the organization of the old age pensioners, themselves. But you

didn't want to mention that. You didn't want to give that information

to the people of the Province of British Columbia. You still wanted to

mislead the people of the Province of British Columbia. That was the

name of the game this afternoon. Well, that's not going to be the name

of the game this afternoon. The name of the game, this afternoon, Mr.

Speaker, is that you're going to stand up, in all your criticism, and

you're going to have to vote against this progressive measure. That's

what the name of the game is.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Well, Mr. Speaker, I

hadn't been going to say anything at all until the Minister of

Municipal Affairs insulted our Party by suggesting he detected a

glimmer of intelligence. If we've got… (interruption) . I certainly

feel that it's kind of an insult from the Minister of Municipal

Affairs…because our idea of intelligence and his has a very wide

discrepancy indeed.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that we have come to a rather pathetic state

in British Columbia if we have to set up a whole complicated board to

deal with a very simple question, such as hearing-aids. If we have had

a problem over the years, and I believe we have had a problem, surely,

there are simpler solutions than this.

[ Page 665 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, there is a very simple solution and

I wish the Government would seek it, namely, to bring in these

instruments and make them available to the people who need them, not

set up some complicated kind of board. It's just positively ridiculous

and we can't accept this plethora of bureaucracy when the Government

has adequate funds available and an enormous Treasury, made up of tax

money and, simply, cannot move to provide the sort of prosthetic

appliances that these older people in British Columbia require. It's no

way to treat the senior citizens. It's poor government. It's bad

bureaucracy and we're against it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burnaby-Edmonds.

MR. DOWDING: Mr. Speaker, for years in the Private Bills

Committee, the Members of that committee, for the past 15 years that I

can recall, have refused to set up these little commercial empires that

are dignified by Statutes that they seek by private acts of the

Legislature. Talk about inconsistency on that side of the House…the

Minister who just spoke, time after time, in Private Bills Committee

has come out against these private empires being established in favour

of certain commercial groups.

MR. CAMPBELL: Point of Order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just one moment. What is your Point of Order?

MR. CAMPBELL: My Point of Order is that I find it disgraceful

conduct that you talk about my position in camera on the Private Bills

Committee (interruption).

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order.

MR. CAMPBELL: It's your usual disgraceful performance.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order. Will the honourable Minister be seated?

MR. DOWDING: The Honourable the Minister is now denying what

the decisions of the Private Bills Committee have been over the years.

He knows what the recommendation has been, year after year, by the

Private Bills Committee. If he didn't agree with the Private Bills

Committee on these little empires, then, he should have said so in the

House when the reports came in, year after year. What was he doing? He

was derelict in his duty, if he believed that these empires should be

set up for private monopoly. It's obvious from his statements that he

defends the idea of private monopoly that will reinforce, as if

sprinkling with holy water, some of the crookedness that has gone on in

the sale of hearing-aids. The reason I say that is simple. The

hearing-aid mark-up is so disgraceful that, in effect, it becomes a

racket. How do you cure the racket? You're going to set up a board that

will, in effect, legitimize the prices!

How in the world, under this legislation, can you set the prices?

There's nothing in here to regulate the racket, nothing to control the

prices. What you're going to do is legitimize what has been an

illegitimate operation for years. Other countries and this Government,

both have, by their philosophy, adopted a contrary position to the

bill, when it comes to other things that have to do with senior

citizens. For example, the tendency, now, is to go for the

dollar-a-day, chronic care programmes instead of private hospitals.

Now, for years, this Government supported what could only be described

as a racket, in some cases, in feeding off the senior citizens to

private hospitals that exploited the situation, the illness and misery

of elderly patients and charged exorbitant rates to keep them. The

Government has come round to a wiser and more benevolent philosophy in

this regard, believing that chronic care and the care of elderly

citizens, who are chronically ill, should be a charge upon the public

purse. Now, if you believe that philosophy, then, when you find a

racket such as hearing-aids, where the mark-up can be anywhere from

four to ten times the original wholesale price, God knows how far it is

above the manufacturing price, then, you're prepared to do one thing to

help senior citizens, but not in this very vital area of their

hearing-aids are you prepared to intervene and make it into a benefit

under the medical aid plan. I find this extraordinary because most of

these prosthetics in Great Britain are covered, including spectacles.

It's true they have a fee, in some cases, now, to discourage any abuse

of the system but, in the main, they've eliminated the fraud, they've

eliminated the racket. You're not prepared to do that. What you're

doing is sprinkling holy water over the practice.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, it's been my privilege, over

the years, to witness the performance of the lady Minister and I join

with the other Members who have spoken so highly of her performance.

It's because of that knowledge that I find it difficult that she would

have brought this bill forward because the principle of this bill is

one which follows the principles which this Government espouses,

equality for everybody — unless you happen to be ill, mentally or

physically, or have some affliction. Then, the equality ends. We find

this in the attitudes of the Government towards hospital care and, now,

we're finding it in this respect, as well, in regard to these

appliances. In an attempt to resolve this strange, philosophical

difficulty in which they find themselves, they are bringing in

an act

which will put the foxes in a chicken house. They are going to let

these people, who are involved in all these serious problems, regulate

their own affairs — they're going to be the board.

AN HON. MEMBER: And their prices.

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, and their prices. As a matter of fact,

it's interesting when you look into the bill and find that the

industry, apparently, is in such bad shape that they are all going to

be bonded. Well, Mr. Speaker, if this is the state that this industry

is in and, if it needs to be regulated at all, then, it should be

regulated by the Government. The Government has never shirked from

applying regulations in other fields. We've got it in real estate,

we've got it in collection agents, we've got it, surely to come before

us, in mortgage brokers, insurance, private detectives. All of these

fields, which are of serious concern to the general public and where

there is the possibility of harm being done if there are improper

practices — in those areas the Government has stepped in, provided the

regulations, provided for the bonding and provided for the controls.

But, here, we find that, in a situation…the

[ Page 666 ]

honourable Members who are in the medical profession, the Member

from Alberni and from Oak Bay, have spoken about this serious problem

that exists and, particularly, for the older people in our community

who are susceptible to the impositions of those who are in this

business to make a buck. That's where we need regulations and it's the

Government that should take this responsibility to regulate, if it is

not prepared to take the responsibility of making these devices

available under our medical care scheme.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Saanich and the Islands.

MR. TISDALLE: The previous speaker endeavours to make some

sense, but he mentioned the real estate people in respect to the act

setting up their organization or a board from amongst themselves as

being foxes in with the chickens. But, in the Real Estate Act , we have

the people in the industry disciplining themselves and the regulations,

and I don't see that that adds up at all. This man, who is a legal man,

knows that the industry, the real estate industry, has done a good job

of disciplining their members and have continued to do.

AN HON. MEMBER: You don't know what you're talking about.

MR. TISDALLE: Well, I don't think that you made yourself very

plain, then, because that was what you were talking about — supervision. I think in an industry, whether it's the teaching

profession, or whatever it might be, should be responsible and if we

give them the authority, they must have responsibility. I think this is

a good step in the right direction to get an industry that will be

responsible for having the authority that is invested in it.

I don't buy this thread-bare argument of the socialists who come

forth all the time wanting to recycle the wealth of the people through

the Government and, then, back again and try to be an equalizing fact

on their own. It only evaporates our purchasing power and bureaucracy

of the administration. What we want to do is to create guidelines, set

up the rules for the industry itself and, then, as it is capable of

managing its own affairs, probably, Government can withdraw more and

more. I believe that the policy and the programme of Government is the

one who governs least, and the people, themselves, through their own

agencies, whether privately controlled or not, are able to discipline

themselves. I'm looking forward to the people involved to conduct

themselves in a more proper manner, both in the financial charging for

these things and also in the fitting and the approval for the person's

benefit. I believe the bill will do that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kootenay.

MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, you know this Government moves

around in mysterious ways. When it comes to the working people and

trade unions or school teachers, you take the opposite direction

completely and you try to disband them and have them fighting one

another. But when it comes to big business, then, you move in and you

give them absolute control, not of their own efforts but you give them

a monopoly on selling some article. This is exactly what you're doing

in this bill. I'm sure that the Honourable the Minister without

Portfolio, had she heard this argument before this bill was brought to

this House, that she wouldn't have brought it forward the way it was.

In all the years that I've been here, Mr. Speaker, I've watched these

little empires being built. They come in with bills and, in each and

every case, when they come to the House, they come and they want to

organize and they say that they're doing it for the benefit of the

people. They want to protect the public. The accountants did it, the

real estate men did it, the pharmacists did it, the doctors did it, the

lawyers did it. Show me one of them where it has brought about a

cheaper product to the people. It hasn't brought anything. I think that

the Honourable the Minister has been led down the garden path by a

group of self-interested people. They're interested in getting as much

as they can but, in the first place, they've got to get their foot in

the door. They've got to get this organization going where they can

discipline themselves, where they can set their own prices, where they

can say who can sell and who can't sell. The whole picture is right

down their line, selling just their own product of their own

hands…no, it isn't their own product. They don't manufacture

hearing-aids. The Government can bring in hearing-aids and set up a

committee to handle the hearing aids under the medical scheme, just as

well as anybody else. All that these people do are selling the

hearing-aids. They're selling the hearing-aids and, I say, that you're

just building up another empire. If the Government wants to regulate

the prices and regulate the hearing-aid business, they should do it

but, I say, in everything. I don't think that a group of doctors should

say that if somebody applies to them that they've got the say and they

can keep the supply of doctors according to the demand, or the people

who are selling hearing-aids they can keep in accordance with supply

and demand. This is what they're worried about. They're not worried

about giving the old people a hearing-aid at a cheaper price. If the

Honourable the Minister without Portfolio was sold on this idea, if she

were sold and I think she was then, I think she should think it over

again, because the confidence people who go around the country can talk

some people into almost anything. They can lead you down the garden

path quite easily.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, it's happened.

MR. NIMSICK: When we look at all the empires we've got set up

— this Province is full of them, and every one of them, you can't break

into them. They're absolutely closed shops as far as business goes.

You're just adding one more to the whole list of closed shops in

business. Yet, you people say that you want free enterprise. You talk

about free enterprise all the time. My goodness, this isn't free

enterprise. I think the Government should move in with regulations on

the hearing-aid business, that they should… These people who are

selling the hearing-aids are the kingpins. They're the ones who are

going to rule the roost and say who is going to sell hearing-aids and

all the rest of it, and how much they're going to charge. The

Government will have nothing to say about the prices.

AN HON. MEMBER: Have you read the bill?

MR. NIMSICK: Yes, I've read the bill. There's nothing to say

about the prices. Have you read the bill? I doubt it very much because

if you had read the bill you wouldn't have given the talk that you gave

a few minutes ago. You wouldn't have given that talk a few minutes ago

if you had understood

[ Page 667 ]

the bill. Instead of across the room, here, in this Legislative

Chamber, Mr. Speaker, advise the Honourable Minister to come out in the

room outside and I'll give him the facts of life about this bill. I

say, Mr. Speaker, that this bill is, definitely, nothing more nor less

than building an empire around another group of people who will have

the say. While, at the first start, you may think that they're doing

something, eventually, it will be an absolutely closed organization.

They will have set their prices where they like and the older people,

the elderly people, who need the service, are going to pay for it. This

is one more case of this Government bleeding the elderly people.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister will close the debate.

MRS. DAWSON: Mr. Speaker, I must say I think we've enjoyed

this debate this afternoon. It does surprise me, though, that this bill

has lain on the table for a year. The members of the Opposition have

been quite aware of this bill and expected it to be presented again

this year. I'm surprised that, during all this time and all this year,

I have never received one letter of protest from the Opposition. I

have, however, Mr. Speaker, received letters from Silver Threads

services and old age pensioner organizations throughout the Province.

They are interested in it and they are all saying that they hope that

this bill will go through because they want to…as one man said, "It

should cover all the contingencies and prevent the fleecing of people,

particularly elderly ones and pensioners." This is what this is going

to do, Mr. Speaker, and so I say that, while the debate has been good,

I would, at this time, move second reading.

The House divided.

Motion agreed to on the following division:

YEAS — 35

Messieurs

Wallace

Tisdalle

Smith

Ney

McCarthy, Mrs.

McDiarmid

Marshall

Jordan, Mrs.

Capozzi

Wenman

Dawson, Mrs.

Skillings

Kripps, Mrs.

Kiernan

Chant

Mussallem

Williston

Loffmark

Price

Bennett

Gaglardi

Vogel

Peterson

Campbell, D.R.J.

LeCours

Black

Brothers

Chabot

Fraser

Shelford

Little

Campbell, B.

Richter

Jefcoat

Wolfe

NAYS — 14

Messieurs

Brousson

Clark

Dowding

Cocke

McGeer

Nimsick

Hartley

Williams, L.A.

Barrett

Lorimer

Macdonald

Dailly, Mrs.

Calder

Strachan

PAIR:

Messieurs

Merilees

Gardom

Bill read a second time and Ordered to be placed on the Orders of the Day for committal at the next sitting after today.

MR. BENNETT: Second reading of Bill No. 36, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Bill 36,

An Act to Amend the Revised Statutes Act , 1966. The Honourable the Attorney-General.

MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, in 1966, the Revised Statutes Act

was passed to provide for a revision of the Provincial Statutes. This

revision was to include all legislation passed by this Assembly up to

and including last year, the year 1970. The bill before you would now

extend that revision up to and including the year 1973. The reason for

the extension of time is that we want to take advantage of new methods.

We want to take advantage of the computers now being introduced into

the Legislative Counsel's Office. We've recently received a machine

that produces current Statutes on tape. This is the first step. The

next step is to place the text of all the present Statutes of the

Province on tape and following this, then, the revision can be

effected. Once this revision has been completed, that this bill refers

to, in my view, there will not be a need for any further dicennial

revisions as we've had in the past. There will not be a need for the

expenditure of producing the revised Statutes every ten years or so,

but we'll be able to keep them up to date as we move along. They'll be

on computers and instead of this type of Statute we will have

looseleaf, so your Statutes would always be up to date. This is the

reason for the delay. We are at work on it, now, but we feel it will

take this length of time to do all the Statutes and put them all on

computers; hence, we want to bring up all the amendments to and

including the 1973 Session. I move the bill be read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burnaby-Edmonds.

MR. DOWDING: You've diffused me completely. I was about to

criticize the Attorney-General for the delay because we try to have

these revisions every 12 years and we're going to be beyond that. It is

becoming laborious for everyone who is not blessed by a looseleaf

Statute, to try to find his way through all the revisions that have

taken place in a period of 11 or 12 years. Both the Attorney-General

and myself had the honour to serve on the committee that served on the

last revisions, along with Mr. Bonner. It's rather a relief to realize

that, possibly, the Statutes are going to go through on tapes. I hope

they go through the Legislative Chamber on their way to being law. If

you're going to use computers to make the revisions, I hope we'll be

consulted before the computers get hold of the handiwork of some of the

Ministers across the way. I was thinking in this regard to an amendment

on the Public Schools Act , which is grossly in error, at the moment,

but I hope it will be corrected before we get to that bill.

We support the proposal but I would urge the Attorney-General that

he make available to the Members the method by which such a constant

revision will be made available and

[ Page 668 ]

how the computer system will work so that we have some general idea

about the efficiency of the system that is proposed, that will

eliminate further revisions after 1973. I think we should know how this

is going to come about so that we can understand that it will be a safe

and sure method of continuing to keep our Statutes up to date from year

to year, because errors can occur. As a matter of fact, I got tired of

checking through the revisions the last time and was hopeful that my

other committee members would do the rest of the Statutes from the M's

onward. I got through to the M's and, then, what do you know? There was

an error in the N's. I should have gone on to the Z's (interruption) .

Well, I trusted the Honourable the Attorney-General. I thought he was

going to do from the N's to the Z's.

Motion agreed to.

Bill 36 read a second time and Ordered to be placed on the Orders of the Day for committal at the next sitting after today.

MR. BENNETT: Second reading of Bill No. 38, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Bill 38, Mortgage Brokers Act . The Honourable the Attorney-General.

MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, during the period of high interest

rates that have persisted now for some time, there has been a marked

increase in the number of people and companies that have been engaged

in lending money on the security of mortgages. Members of this Chamber

and members of the public, generally, have come forward with complaints

of instances where they have been quoted a certain interest rate, with

no reference to a bonus provision. Much to their amazement, they find

that they're going to be faced with a bonus, as well as interest

charges, or, in other cases, quoted different interest rates than those

which obtain in the mortgage itself. So it is with this situation in

mind that we have drafted and introduced this particular bill.

There are two major principles to the bill: one involves

registration, the registration of those who are in the business, the

mortgage broker, and the second important principle is the full

disclosure of mortgage costs. Part one, which is the registration

provision, requires registration of every person and company in the

mortgage business. This register will be public, including the names

and addresses. As well, you will have noticed that there are provisions

relating to transfer of interest so that these require notice being

given to the registrar. In addition, the registrar is given powers of

investigation, rather elaborate provisions in the bill, relating to his

powers of investigation. Depending on the results of the investigation,

certain action can be taken, including the suspension or cancellation

of the registration of the mortgage broker. From the action taken by

the registrar, there are appeals. There are appeals to the Securities

Commission of the Province. A further appeal lies from the Securities

Commission to the Court of Appeal.

The other part of the bill, part two, makes provision for full

disclosure of the cost of borrowing money, which is secured by

mortgage. Briefly, Mr. Speaker, the rule will be that, before a

mortgage is made or an agreement for mortgage is completed, all costs

have to be disclosed on a form which the honourable Members will find

identified as the

schedule to the bill, a

schedule which is subject to

change by order of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council and already we

think there can be certain areas where that form can be improved. But

the part will apply to all mortgages, except those made under the

National Housing Act and where the mortgage is a corporate body and

there are no individual liabilities. I might say, in this respect, that

I have introduced… I introduced them today or they will be if I

haven't put them already in, Mr. Speaker, certain amendments to this

part of the bill, which I would ask the honourable Members to consider

when we are in the committee stage. As well, this part of the bill is

also subject to proclamation and will give us an opportunity to canvass

the views of those involved as to how it will, in fact, work in

practice.

Part three of the bill merely provides for the making of

regulations. This, of course, is really an extension of what we have

been doing in the field of consumer affairs. Under the Consumers'

Protection Act we've improved the lot of the consumers. That act does

not apply, generally speaking, to mortgages on land. This is to fill

that void and we intend, in this bill, to effect the same improvement

in the mortgage lending field as we have in the other areas of consumer

affairs. Mr. Speaker, I move the bill be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the First Member for Vancouver East.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, we support the bill but we

reserve the right to be inconsistent in the interests of the Province

of B.C. and our constituents. But this bill does not do all the

Attorney-General says it will do (interruption) .

Oh, I'm talking not about his statement, today, but about the

statement the other day that this would help to keep the Mafia out of

the Province of British Columbia. In a sense, it's a good thing because

there's disclosure here. But there isn't disclosure really of who will

own the true owners — the mortgage broking companies. Because that's

one step this Government will not take. Now, the bill says, to be sure,

that if somebody owns more than 5 per cent of a corporation that's

engaged in mortgage broking, that person's name must be divulged. But

supposing that person is a Panamanian corporation or a Bahamian

corporation, divulging the name is not going to mean anything to the

people of B.C. It will be no protection to them to say that organized

crime is being kept at bay — we have this name and we don't know who

they are. How can you protect yourself against an unknown enemy?

We say that, in this kind of a field, as in many other fields of

law, this Government must come to the point of compelling the real

owners to stand up so that we can see who they are. Only in that way

will we be able to combat the incursions of organized crime which,

believe me, are going to increase in the next ten years, in the years

of this decade. They're not going to subside and fade away. They're

going to increase and the invasion will be on in the Province of

British Columbia. They will be attracted here, and I think the

Attorney-General agrees with this, by the high, the usuriously high

interest

rates which prevail in this Province and which are a product of a lack

of housing policy by this Government and high rents by landlords.

Really, the only social answer to this kind of thing, where people, to

put together their house and avoid paying an exorbitant rent, and try

and build up some equity for themselves, have got to go into the

market, and I admit they may be able to get the $2,500 second mortgage,

that helps too, but a lot of them are still driven out

[ Page 669 ]

into that market, where they must pay an excessively high rate of

interest and a bonus. What good is it going to do those people, if the

thing is disclosed to them, except to make them feel sick. They still

have to go ahead with the deal. I think we exaggerate the fact that

people, who are now paying these huge bonuses and these high interest

rates, are going to benefit from disclosure. I think they know, now,

right from the beginning that they're being had. I regret that the

other act, the Consumers' Protection Act the unconscionable sections of

it, are not really sufficient to protect consumers from exorbitantly

high interest rates. Maybe that case is going to Ottawa (interruption) .

Well, they will make that, yes. Well, I hope you can, because the only

ruling to date is the Court of Appeal saying that an interest rate

which sounded very high, I think it was 18 per cent or more, was not

gross