1973 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 30th

Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational

purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, APRIL 5, 1973

Night Sitting

CONTENTS

Thursday, April 5, 1973.

Night sitting

Routine proceedings

An Act to Amend the Evidence Act (Bill No. 100). Second

reading.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2275

Mr. Wallace — 2275

An Act to Amend the Landlord and Tenant Act (Bill No.

101)

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2275

Ms. Young — 2276

Mr. Wallace — 2276

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2277

An Act to Amend the Mortgage Brokers Act (Bill No. 109)

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2277

Mr. Brousson — 2278

Hon. Mr. Hartley — 2281

Mr. McGeer — 2282

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2282

An Act to Amend the Land Registry Act (Bill No. 117)

Second

reading.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2283

Mr. Gardom — 2283

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2284

An Act to Amend the Government Liquor Act (Bill No.

121)

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2284

Mr. Gardom — 2284

Ms. Young — 2285

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2285

Mr. McGeer — 2286

Mr. Wallace — 2286

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 2287

Mr. Kelly — 2287

Mr. G.H. Anderson — 2287

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2288

Fair Sales Practices Act (Bill No. 123). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2288

Mr. McGeer — 2289

Mr. Wallace — 2289

Mr. McClelland — 2290

Mr. Gardom — 2290

An Act to Amend the Strata Titles Act (Bill No. 124).

Second

reading.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2291

Mr. Wallace — 2291

An Act to Amend the Conditional Sales Act, 1961 (Bill

No.

128). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2291

Mr. Morrison — 2292

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2292

An Act to Amend the Bills of Sale Act, 1961 (Bill No.

129).

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2293

An Act to Amend the Supreme Court Act (Bill No. 138).

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2293

Public Officials' Disclosure Act (Bill No. 132). Second

reading.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2293

Mr. Chabot — 2294

Mr. McGeer — 2295

Mr. Curtis — 2296

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 2296

An Act to Amend the Credit Unions Act, 1961 (Bill No.

141).

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2297

Mr. Phillips — 2297

An Act to Amend the Motor Vehicle Act (Bill No. 163).

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2297

Mr. Phillips — 2297

Mr. Gardom — 2297

An Act to Amend the Change of Name Act (Bill No. 43).

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 2297

Sexual Sterilization Act Repeal Act (Bill No. 45).

Second

reading.

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 2298

Ambulance Service Act (Bill No. 106). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 2298

Mr. Wallace — 2298

Mr. McClelland — 2299

Mr. McGeer — 2299

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 2299

An Act to Amend the Medical Act (Bill No. 110). Second

reading.

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 2299

Mr. McGeer — 2300

Mr. Wallace — 2300

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 2300

An Act to Amend the Medical Grant Act (Bill No. 118).

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 2300

An Act to Amend the Health Act (Bill No. 122). Second

reading.

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 2301

An Act to Amend the Hospital Act (Bill No. 134). Second

reading.

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 2301

Mr. Wallace — 2301

Mr. Gardom — 2301

An Act to Amend the Hearing Aid Regulations Act (Bill

No.

137). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 2302

Mr. Wallace — 2302

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 2302

[ Page 2275 ]

THURSDAY, APRIL 5, 1973.

The House met at 8 p.m.

Orders of the day.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I move that we

proceed to public bills and orders.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill No. 100, Mr.

Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE EVIDENCE ACT

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, these ones are in order.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Attorney General.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, I have

pleasure in moving second reading of An

Act to Amend the

Evidence Act . It's a simple little Act, and I suppose I

really should read the notes that are prepared for me, and then

all the Members would think, "My goodness, he knows that bill

very well." You know, I'd read something that had been

carefully prepared for me, and it would be very impressive.

AN HON. MEMBER: Give your own evidence.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: But I'd rather give my own evidence.

Court cases are too expensive and they take too much time, and

that is becoming increasingly the case. Many people are to

blame in respect to that, including the legal profession, who

are sometimes apt to federalize a case and make a bigger case

of it than it really ought to be. Now, I don't know why they

should do that, unless it's got something to do with the way in

which they earn their living as professionals. But that's the

human tendency.

Now, in the case of medical evidence, with which this little

amendment deals, busy practitioners are called to court and

come to court very reluctantly, usually charging a pretty good

fee for giving evidence in an accident case or something of

that kind, where the human injury has to be weighed and

evaluated. Sometimes it's very necessary that the doctor be

there to be cross-examined in court. But sometimes it's not

necessary — the doctor could draw up his report based upon his

examinations and that document could be submitted and it could

be received in evidence, provided neither one of the parties

said, "No, we want to get to the bottom of this thing and

cross-examine that doctor."

So the present bill allows the doctor's medical report to be

evidence — and it has to be given to all the parties concerned

at least seven days before the trial — unless some party says,

"No, we want that doctor to come into the court." In that case

that party can call the doctor and insist he be there, but if

the judge decides his evidence was unnecessary, then the party

calling that doctor pays the costs of his attendance.

I think this is one useful little step which will help to

simplify justice and make it a little less expensive. There are

full protections to the parties concerned because, as I've

said, the doctor can still be called by anyone concerned.

I move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to support

this bill. I like the idea behind it and as long as there is

the protection that either party can insist that the doctor be

there, I think that gives the protection necessary to the

individual when the medical evidence is being given.

I hope the Attorney General will go a lot further than this

because, with respect, although he mentioned that they're often

well paid, it isn't just the question of payment that's of

concern — it's the mere appearance and the re-scheduling of all

work and operating room commitments and time. I know this is

just a little off the point, but I'm hoping that this kind of

saving of doctor's time, which is the first small step, will be

pursued by the Attorney General in subsequent legislation. I

support the bill.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the question be

called.

MR. SPEAKER: The Attorney General winds up the debate.

There'll be no further debate.

Motion approved; second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 100 referred to a committee of the whole House at

the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill No. 101, Mr.

Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE LANDLORD AND TENANT ACT

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Attorney General.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, this is

An Act to Amend

the Landlord and Tenant Act . The amendments are relatively

simple and that is what is before the House to be debated in

principle at this

[ Page 2276 ]

time. I don't pretend for a minute that the problem

landlord-tenant relations in the Province of British Columbia,

where our population growth is phenomenal — some say higher

than any other part of the world — is by any means an easy

subject. It's a most difficult subject and one of our great

social problems.

I don't pretend that this bill does everything that I would

like to see. In particular we're considering, for example, a

small amendment at the committee stage in relation to the

privacy of tenants at a time when premises are being re-let.

But beyond that, the whole question of possibly moving out of

the provincial court, which serves as a rental court with a lot

of the trappings of a court, with the assistance of the

municipalities or regional districts into a new kind of

informal settlement of these disputes, is something that is

being actively pursued. So I am not pretending for one minute

that this is a be-all and end-all, so far as the problem of

landlord and tenant relations is concerned.

It's a case where a balance has to be maintained,

nevertheless, in that we are no friend of the tenant if we

discourage particularly smaller landlords from leasing

premises, when we have a shortage of rental accommodation, and

we can do that if we're not careful with the kind of

legislation we bring down.

The propositions in this bill, as I say, are very simple.

First, we bring mobile homes clearly within the definition of

residential premises.

Secondly, we make it clear that an employee or agent of a

landlord or tenant stands in the shoes of the landlord and

tenant, so that there can be no escaping of responsibility in

that respect.

Thirdly, and very important for the tenants in the Province

of British Columbia who are undergoing very heavy rental

payments — there's no question about that — we have proposed in

this bill a plateau of one year. It applies to the premises and

it is, in effect, a rent rest. I am quite sure it will be quite

beneficial to a great many people who are renting accommodation

at the present time. It will be important, too, if our friend

the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi), to give him

his new name, brings in further social legislation. We do have

a flutter of increases aimed at scooping up by landlords of the

additional money that's made available to people in need in the

social welfare programmes of this government. The rent rest

will be an important break upon that process. That's as far as

I go — an important break in that process.

The next

section deals with condominiums, and we face the problem

whereby there have been a great many conversions. I think increasingly

there will be conversions of rental accommodation to condominiums. We

want to be sure that the existing tenants in condominium buildings that

are going to be converted are treated fairly, so we provide for four

months' notice and moving expenses. More importantly, these provisions

must be read complementary to the amendments we are making in the

Strata Titles Act , whereby we

give to the municipalities the power to

space to condominiums can take place.

Next, we do simplify in some ways the procedure in the

provincial rental court. We give the judge in that rental court

the power of injunction so. that he will have the power to

require a landlord or tenant to live up to the terms of the

Act, or to the terms of his or her lease.

Finally, we make it mandatory for the cities and district

municipalities, either singly or together, to set up landlord

and tenant advisory bureaus.

So I think these are important steps, but not everything. I

think further study must be given to this field and I move

second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Little

Mountain.

MS. P.F. YOUNG (Vancouver–Little Mountain): I'd like to ask

the Attorney General if this 12-month requirement for the rent

to be applied to the premises rather than to the tenant applies

to residents of public housing, where their rent is predicated

on their income. I'm thinking specifically in view of the fact

that the new welfare rates will be coming into effect. Some of

these people are very afraid that their public housing rents

will go up because of this increased income, and I would like

to know if this will apply to public housing.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: In closing the debate I appreciate the

question that…

MR. SPEAKER: One minute, please.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well who — there is nobody else…

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Before the Hon. Attorney General

closes the debate I have to first find out if anyone else

wishes to speak. The Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

MR. WALLACE: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I'll just say a few words,

that in general we like the tone and the tenor of your

suggestions. In other words, we appreciate your comment that

there must be a balance between the landlord and the tenant,

and that to attempt too quickly to correct the situations that

you have been approached about… We have all had letters and

approaches and delegations asking for changes either way. The

fact that the occupancy or the vacancy rate is something of the

order of 0.6 per

[ Page 2277 ]

cent in Vancouver is an indication of the fact that

rental

accommodation is very scarce.

The rate of inflation also makes it difficult for the

landlord to cope with rising expenses, if indeed he is not able

to raise the rent at least perhaps once a year. I think since

employees in our society seem to be encouraging one-year

contracts, and since there seems to be no end in sight to

inflation, that it is only reasonable that the landlord should

retain some ability or right to be able to raise the rent at

least once in 12 months.

I also think it makes a lot of sense that the restrictions

should be on the premises and not in relation to the tenants.

The question of advisory bureaus, I think, is also a very sound

one. This has been started in the City of Victoria, as the

House probably well knows, and I understand is finding that it

can serve a very useful purpose.

The problem of course is that the tenants never seem to be

completely satisfied about the fact that the bureau has no

authority, but has only the power to make recommendations. But

I think that as far as advisory bureaus are concerned, the very

word "advisory" suggests that they are really trying to bring

objectivity into a situation where there is some issue in

dispute.

So because of the fact that the Minister has made it plain

that this is not the be-all and the end-all and that we can

look forward to further amendments, I would say that this party

would support the bill.

MR. SPEAKER: Is there any further debate on the second

reading? The Hon. Attorney General.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the remarks

that have been made in respect to the question of the first

Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Ms. Young) in terms of

our legal powers. I would like to take that under

advisement.

I am thinking of public housing projects like Skeena

Terrace, for example, where I am a little doubtful whether we

have the constitutional legal power — one Member nods his head — and I

hope that is the case. But, I hope to be able to give

you an answer to that question at the committee stage. I move

second reading.

Motion approved; second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 101 referred to a committee of the whole House at

the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill No. 109, Mr.

Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE MORTGAGE BROKERS ACT

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, this is

An Act to Amend

the Mortgage Brokers Act , and I would like to say to the

Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Brousson) that I

think his remarks have done a great deal of good in focusing

attention upon this problem.

I recognize, of course, that merely lashing mortgage brokers

with the power of publicity is not sufficient. I am sure my

friend does the same. But, nevertheless to focus attention upon

a social problem of this festering magnitude constitutes, I

think, for any Member of this House, a public service. I point

out that the problem is not simply British Columbia. I have

here a headline from the Calgary

Herald of March 17,

1973: "High Cost of Money. Mortgage Rates up to 42 Per Cent."

There is not really much difference in the kind of problem they

are suffering from there, and what we have heard about here in

this province.

As I say, the long-term solution to this kind of situation

where people desperate for shelter for themselves and their

families, tired of paying high rents, attempt somehow to find

those last dollars that will put a roof over the heads of

themselves and their families, and enable them to build up an

equity. That is a very pressing social problem in this

province, and like the rental situation, one that is not going

to be easily solved. It is going to depend very substantially

upon the kind of social services and income levels, employment

and particularly provision of homes that we can make available

to the people of this province in addition to anything that can

be done through the Registrar of Brokers.

Nevertheless, in this bill we are giving very substantial

powers to the Registrar of Brokers to investigate, subject to a

hearing, cancel or suspend the licence of a mortgage broker.

And if he is engaged in that business in any scale, he has to

be registered, if we can find him, or if not he will be

prosecuted.

To cancel that person's licence to carry on business if we

believe that his actions constitute usury in the sense that his

loans are "harsh and unconscionable." Now that is a pretty big

power to give to a public official, but we do it with proper

hearing safeguards. I would hope that the very existence of the

power would be salutary to the industry, and without going

outside of the four corners of the Act there are other things

that we are also looking at.

So we hope that this is a very important forward step in

exerting some social control in the field of mortgage lending.

Now there are one or two other minor parts of the bill, but

that is the big principle involved, and having said that, I

move second reading of this bill.

Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, I might say one other thing. Important

cases are now going forward in the courts

[ Page 2278 ]

with respect to testing the powers of the Registrar

Brokers in this field. There is a case, and I might use the

wrong name for the defendant — I know it is Whetter v. ,

I think it is Associated ,

that is now going to the court

of appeal. It may be that, subject to my timetable, I will be

able to intervene as Attorney General before the court of

appeal. I would like to be able to do that. I don't know

whether my timetable will permit it. But I am very anxious to

see the judgment of the trial court upheld in the court of

appeal in that case. I don't want to say more about it because

then I might be commenting on the merits.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, I'm urging one side without saying

what the legal merits are, because I shouldn't really try to

prejudge the case.

But if I did intervene, it would be in terms of trying to

uphold the broad and I think salutary powers that we are trying

to give for the protection of consumers in this important field

in the Consumer Protection Act

and in the Mortgage

Brokers Act and I move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for North

Vancouver–Capilano.

MR. BROUSSON: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly gratified to see

this bill brought in by the Attorney General. At the same time

that I am gratified, I must say I'm a little disappointed in

it, and I'd like to make some comments about it, Mr. Speaker,

to the Attorney General.

The Attorney General mentioned the story in the Calgary

Herald . It is interesting to note, as a sideline to that

story, that it is about the one company mentioned in the

Calgary Herald to which he

refers, a company called

Midtown Mortgage and Loan, in Calgary. It is run and owned by

Mr. Larry McCallum, who also operates Modern Finance in British

Columbia, which has been one of the major offenders in this

field, and about which I have given the House a number of

examples of problems.

This bill, as I read it, Mr. Speaker, does three things. It

gives the registrar complete discretion in deciding what is in

the public interest, and thus when to conduct a public hearing

of a particular broker's affairs. It gives the registrar

complete power to suspend or cancel, as the Attorney General

said, on the basis of harsh or unconscionable or inequitable

terms, or terms prejudicial to the public interest.

The third main thing it does is require the broker to use his

registered name in every advertisement. I do want to say I am

particularly pleased to see this in the bill, Mr. Speaker, because I

think this has been one of the kinds of things that have caused

problems — where brokers were able to advertise under their home

telephone numbers and things of that sort, and mislead the public that

this was a private arrangement of some kind.

Well, so far, so good. The powers of the registrar are going

to be greatly increased by the bill. But, Mr. Speaker, I am not

sure just what good this is going to do, unless regulations and

clauses of the bill are strictly enforced.

We've already heard the Attorney General say that to date

there have been no prosecutions under the Mortgage Brokers

Act throughout its history right up to date. We've already

seen in the estimates of the Attorney General's department that

the securities commission, which is responsible for actually

administering and enforcing the Mortgage

Brokers Act , is

having a small increase to its staff. We've talked in this

House for years about how understaffed the securities

commission is. It's getting a very small increase now, so I

wonder if it is going to be able to enforce these new and

tougher and more complete powers that are going to be given to

the Registrar of Mortgage Brokers. There's certainly little

provision for that in the budget. Unless we enforce those

powers, what's the point of having them?

Another comment we should make here, Mr. Speaker, is with

regard to the fact that so much is now going to be left to the

discretion and to the opinion — I think the word "opinion" is

used in the bill — of the Registrar of Mortgage Brokers. Now, I

previously suggested, in speaking on this subject both in the

House and directly to the Attorney General, that a useful piece

of machinery to use in this situation would be a mortgage

advisory council, to give it one name — perhaps it could be a

council that might operate in a very similar way to the Real

Estate Council — to offer advice on ethics, standards, rates

and that sort of thing; to assist in the policing of the people

that operate in this industry; to advise the Attorney General

regarding legislation; to help promote the educational

programme that I think is an absolute essential, quite apart

from this Act. There must be an educational programme for young

people and older people throughout the province. I think such

an advisory council could assist in that educational

programme.

The Attorney General writes to me that he has had an ad hoc

committee working in this regard — people from the industry

whom he's called in to help him in this matter. I'm sure that's

a good committee, and I'm sure it's been of assistance and it

has been working. But why not include such a committee, such a

council, as part of the legislation? Give it some permanent

being, and give it some responsibility.

I believe that government should, as much as possible and as

often as possible, involve the private sector in whatever

industry or field or profession it's working. I think for too

long these kinds of things have been done on an ad hoc,

volunteer basis. What

[ Page 2279 ]

happens? The particular Minister concerned, in

whatever

department we're talking about, calls in the people he knows — perhaps

his friends, or the friends of the government. I would

like to have these kinds of boards and committees and councils

enshrined in the legislation with specific terms of reference

as to how they're appointed and then I think on this kind of an

official basis, we get good boards and good committees and good

advice — broad representative advice — to the Attorney General

or in whatever department we're considering.

There are some other problems brought out by some of the

investigations I've done, Mr. Speaker. Let me explain briefly

how a mortgage broker operates. He usually is arranging a

second or a third mortgage on a piece of property. He advances

perhaps $2,000 to someone who badly needs some money. There are

legal fees of perhaps $150, and then he charges what we call a

bonus of, say, $500. So now we have $2,000, plus $150, plus a

$500 bonus — that's a total of $2,650. So the mortgagor must

repay $2,650, and this is the face value of the mortgage and

perhaps there's 20 or 24 per cent interest.

Now, the broker has given the man $2,000. He has a mortgage

that has a face value of $2,650. Then the broker looks around

and he finds someone else, maybe a little investment club,

maybe someone who wants to put some money away and earn some

interest on it, perhaps a retired person, a perfectly

legitimate group, club, small company or whatever, who wants to

have their money out at the best rate of interest they can.

He tries to sell the mortgage for its face value of $2,650,

at whatever rate of interest he's written on it If he does sell it for

$2,650, he has a clear profit of

$500. That's the amount of the bonus. I think that very often

people are not understanding that the bonus isn't there because

of any special risk — it's there because that's the profit that

the mortgage broker thinks he can make, or wants to make, in

each case.

Now the assignee, the person who is buying that mortgage,

under present circumstances, has no knowledge of how much cash

the mortgagor actually received, because that amount of $2,000

doesn't show up anywhere in the documents. It is not anywhere

in the mortgage document. The only figure that shows is the

$2,650, which is the face value of the mortgage.

Part II of this Act, Mr. Speaker, which has not yet been

proclaimed, there is provision for a disclosure document. I suggest,

Mr. Speaker, that one of the ways this Act can be made to work properly

— I think that's the objective, that's the principle we're talking

about — is that that disclosure document, when it is set up by

regulation and is proclaimed, must be attached to the mortgage as a

permanent part of the records, so that when someone as a potential assignee is considering buying that mortgage,

they know exactly how much money the mortgagor actually received in

cash and how much profit, if you like, how much bonus is built into the

total face value of the mortgage.

Mr. Speaker, the new bill, the amendments proposed, say that

the registrar may suspend a mortgage broker if he's a party

to a mortgage transaction which is harsh and unconscionable, or

otherwise inequitable. How is the registrar going to ever know

about that unless that disclosure document becomes an official

part of the mortgage documents? That becomes a secret between

the mortgagor and the mortgagee unless that disclosure document

becomes an official part of the mortgage document. As an

alternative, perhaps the Act might require that the disclosure

document be filed with the Registrar of Mortgage Brokers or

with the Consumer Affairs officer or something of that sort. No

one's going to know unless later on the mortgagor goes and

complains, and then it's long too late.

So I think it's an essential that the disclosure form shows

all the details. I'm sure that the Attorney General is going to

see that the regulations will provide for a disclosure form and

that

Part II will be eventually proclaimed, but that must be

attached to the mortgage or, alternatively, filed with the

registrar in each case.

At present, as I said, there is no disclosure required, and

I'm only assuming and hoping, Mr. Speaker, that perhaps the

Attorney General would advise, when he closes the debate on

this bill, when perhaps we might expect to have proclamation of

Part II of this Act.

Up to this point, despite the fact that no disclosure is

required in this industry, a great many mortgage brokers have

been using a disclosure form. In some cases they are using

forms as required by Alberta or Ontario or other

jurisdictions.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, these are very valid

points, but not part of the bill before the House.

Part II is

not involved.

MR. BROUSSON: What I'm trying to do, Mr. Speaker, is talk

about some of the things that perhaps will help to make this

bill work. I think that's the objective. I'm sure it's the

objective that the Attorney General has.

I've made some other suggestions to him, Mr. Speaker. I

think there must be a separation of the receipt of a disclosure

form at the actual signing of the mortgage. What is happening

at the present time? The man who is signing such a mortgage is

handed his details about the disclosure form, the details about

the mortgage and the entire form, all at one moment. He sits

there in a lawyer's office and doesn't, in some cases,

understand what he's getting. He badly wants

[ Page 2280 ]

to get his hands on the money, so he signs it as

quickly as

he can.

One of the things we could do to make this Act work better,

to protect people better, would be to have a time lag between

the time that he gets all the information, the disclosure of

the details about it and the time that he actually signs the

mortgage. So that one of the things we might do, Mr. Speaker,

is to require a 24-hour delay between those two things. This is

an additional suggestion I made to the Attorney General. The

Attorney General says that he is advised, or tells me that he's

been advised by the industry that this would be perhaps an

impractical thing to do. But I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it's

not impractical, and that the important thing is that it would

save a lot of people a lot of money in the long run.

The other point that I have found in discussing a lot of

problems of these kinds of mortgages is that even when people

have the details of disclosure, they don't seem to understand

the meaning of what they are signing. They very often believe

that they are taking out a 20-year mortgage, when in actual

fact it is only a five-year mortgage. And the reason for this

is that they are making payments on the basis of a 20-year

amortization, but there is a clause in the mortgage somewhere

that says the whole thing is due in five years in a lump sum.

They don't realize that. I have told so many people this in the

last couple of months and they are shocked to discover that

there is such a clause in the mortgage that they have signed.

They say, "My God, I couldn't possibly pay that back at that

time " — next year, or three years from now, or whatever it

is.

In many cases, Mr. Speaker, these people believe that the

bonus that they have seen on the disclosure document that they

have been given, and as I say, they are getting some kind of

disclosure documents now; they believe that that bonus of the

$500 that I mentioned just now in the example is a statement of

the total amount of interest they are going to pay back. This

is because they are gently misled by the man with whom they are

dealing. I won't say he lied to them, but he somehow gently

misleads them in this direction.

These people do not know their rights.

Mr. Speaker, usually in these situations, there is only one

lawyer involved in the whole situation. And the lawyer involved

is the lawyer for the mortgage company. He is being paid by the

borrower, but the lawyer is hired by the mortgage company. So

he does everything in a very legal way; he draws the documents

legally; he stays strictly within the letter of the law.

Previously on this subject, Mr. Speaker, I think I have spoken

somewhat disparagingly of the legal profession in this regard. I have

suggested that they adopt a kind of a see-no-evil, hear-no-evil,

speak-no-evil kind of attitude. But I think this is true, because what

the lawyer has done in this case, is draw up this document in this

legal way, hand it to the party concerned, and say nothing more. And if

he wants to sign it, that appears to be acceptable in this.

Now I have

suggested, Mr. Speaker, that the real solution in this case would be a

separate certificate, a certificate which must be signed by another

lawyer, so that before the mortgage documents could be legal, be a

valid document, the borrower would have to take the mortgage documents,

go to a second lawyer who would have to sign a certificate certifying

that the borrower, before he signs the mortgage, has received

independent advice as to his rights and obligations under the covenants

in the mortgage, and has confirmed his understanding of the mortgage

contract. That would be a very simple thing to do, and it would ensure

that he got advice from someone who was not hired by the mortgage

company, and that is the nub of the problem today. The only advice he

can possibly get, in case after case, after case, is from the lawyer

who has been hired by the mortgage company.

I suggested this last week to the Attorney General, Mr.

Speaker, and his answer indicates, I am sorry to say, that he

doesn't really understand what is happening in this industry.

He suggests that this kind of separate advice, independent

advice, would be a boon to the legal profession. It would be an

additional cost that the borrower would have to bear.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That's right — have a lawyer at both

elbows all the time. Too much!

MR. BROUSSON: But, Mr. Speaker, the borrower is paying

perhaps $125, $100, $150, that kind of money, to have the

mortgage documents drawn up. To have such a certificate signed,

which is not an uncommon thing to do in the legal profession,

to have such a certificate signed would cost what — $20, $15,

$25? I think that this would be a very small amount of money to

a lot of people, and a lot of heartbreak and unhappiness in

later years for those same people.

It certainly would be an additional cost that the borrower

had to pay. But $20 or $25 at that time, if he clearly

understood? Now, under those conditions if he then wants to

sign the document, fine. But I would like to guarantee that he

gets some independent advice right then, before he signs the

mortgage. And he could get it in this way, very cheaply.

MR. SPEAKER: Excuse me, Hon. Member. Much of the argument

that you have been engaged in deals with things that are not in

the bill before us, and what you propose as suggestions to

improve it. However, basically the principle of the bill seems

to revolve

[ Page 2281 ]

around means of suspending the registration of the

mortgage

broker, termination of his employment and publication of his

bona fides in

section 4 of the bill. Now if you can possibly

confine the debate to the principles set out in the bill at

this stage, the more useful it would be.

MR. BROUSSON: Mr. Speaker, I understand your point, and the

problem is that it is so regrettable that having had some of

these suggestions a week or so ago, the Attorney General wasn't

prepared to make the bill this much better. And it could have

been so much better, and so much more effective, in such a very

simple way. That is what I have been trying to demonstrate.

MR. SPEAKER: May I say the way to help in that regard in the

House is to file amendments to this bill before the committee

stage.

MR. BROUSSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, if I can speak directly to

that point. Two or three weeks ago, I spoke with your Clerks,

and they suggested to me that the amendments I had in mind

could not possibly be in order if I moved them. Now I have

heard the Government, in the last weeks, say the way we should

operate is to bring bills in, and let the Opposition tell us

how to make them better, and then we'll see if we can get them

amended. Mr. Speaker, there is no way I can put amendments on

the order paper that are in order. The only way I can do this,

is first of all offer them to the Attorney General by letter,

and second, raise them in the debate on second reading, and

that is what I am trying to do.

Now I have had every invitation from the Government and

yourself to do this, and I think I explained to you quite

clearly how this can be made better, very simply. I would hope

that, in fact, Mr. Speaker, this would be an opportunity for

the legal profession to operate under the Mortgage Brokers

Act . It wouldn't exactly be a boon — $20 or $25 is not a

very large fee. It would be well worth it in terms of the

saving in money and human misery through the years on this

situation.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Everybody who wants to make a loan, if

you send them to a lawyer — the lawyers would be rich and the

borrowers would be poor.

MR. BROUSSON: Mr. Speaker, the Attorney General knows so

little about this situation. I think he should learn more about it.

He'd know that this situation could be cleared up in this very simple

way. Mr. Speaker, I know the Attorney General's heart is in the right

place. I know his motives are good. He has just missed the

understanding of this point, and I hope very much that he will

reconsider it a little bit, and perhaps before we get to the committee

stage, bring in one or two of these very simple little, easy little

amendments.

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

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): Mr. Speaker,

on Bill No. 109, the Mortgage

Brokers Act . I believe the

reason that we have this legislation before us this evening is

that what has gone on, and unfortunately what is continuing to

go on within this province, is free enterprise at its

worst.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Present an investigation

of the Glenshiel Hotel.

Interjection by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Order! If the Hon. Member

persists in making irrelevant statements in the House, we'll

have to ask the House to do something about it.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. If the Hon. Member does not

believe in the rules for debate, then he should not be in the

House, he should leave. Accusing the Speaker of being partisan

when he calls you to order is a disgrace.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Mr. Speaker, seeing the ex-Minister of

Labour (Mr. Chabot) has seen fit to call me, I'll challenge him

to step out into the hall and make that statement out there

that he has made in here.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. Order please. The mischief of what the

Hon. Member does, is to create a debate that has nothing to do

with the matter before us, which is Bill No. 109. I ask the

Hon. Member to resist the temptation to engage in a quarrel

with that Hon. Member, and proceed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: What happened to the Minister — he

left.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member proceed with the debate

on Bill No. 109.

MR. GARDOM: Let them both go out into the hall.

AN HON. MEMBER: Might be an excellent idea.

[ Page 2282 ]

(Laughter).

MR. SPEAKER: Order.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Mr. Speaker, had more been done over the

years to display to the people of this province the

possibilities and potentialities of the co-operative and credit

union movements, there would be far less broken homes, and far

less suicides.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: This refers and relates to the most

untenable position that many young couples, many people who are

not aware of what happens when they get involved with finance

companies — and not just on homes, or larger mortgages, but

when you go in to certain home furnishing houses, whether you

are buying a coffee pot, or a Mixmaster, you will find, if you

study those contracts that you are paying as high as 86 per

cent interest.

lnterjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: 84% — O.K. This, Mr. Speaker, strikes at

the people that can least afford to pay: the young couples, the

people who are financially embarrassed and financially

dependent. This legislation is long overdue but we have to go

even further than this to a broad programme of education in our

schools. We must all go out and promote the credit union

movement so the people can get a fair shake. If you deal there,

you don't have to go to the first lawyer, let alone the

second.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point

Grey.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, this

has been a very broad, wide-ranging debate, rivaling the throne

speech debate. (Laughter). I wonder if I could be permitted to

speak to the principle of the bill just briefly.

MR. SPEAKER: If you promise not to take too long on the

bill. (Laughter).

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, the Member who is just going out

into the corridor — I don't know if he's to be joined by the Member for

Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) (Laughter) — made reference to the failure

of free enterprise in the matter of looking after the subject of

mortgage lending. I think if the attitude of the Government is to fail

to legislate properly in a field that is quite clearly the Government's

responsibility, blaming it on the free enterprise scapegoat, the

province is going to be very ill-served by that Government.

I speak in support of the Member for North

Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Brousson) because he studied this

particular problem in far greater detail than the Attorney

General, though it was the Attorney General's responsibility to

do so. When we've heard the debates it's clearly been the

Member for North Vancouver–Capilano who's brought forward the

constructive ideas — not the Attorney General with his

legislation. And uncomfortable as it may be for the Attorney

General to hear these remarks made on the floor of the House,

it's our responsibility as Opposition Members to point out to

the Attorney General what his responsibilities are and what the

scope of his office might be.

The Member for North Vancouver–Capilano is not a lawyer but

he understands the plight of the person who must obtain credit.

It's the Attorney General that needs to place himself in that

position; for too long he's been field of drawing up contracts.

Mr. Speaker, what we need to have in this province is adequate

legislation to govern the mortgage field, not the kind of

half-baked bills that the Attorney General has brought in. Mr.

Speaker, could we have a little order, please?

MR. SPEAKER: Order. Order.

MR. McGEER: The Attorney General is agitated this evening.

We've been trying, Mr. Speaker, to offer constructive

suggestions in a humble way and the Attorney General has

accused us of lecturing. We bring in bills and they adjourn

debates on them. We ask for adjourned debates and they refuse

us.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Back to the bill again,

please.

MR. McGEER: I was just, Mr. Speaker, trying to get the

Attorney General into a mood where he would listen to the pleas

of the Members on the Opposition side of the House because the

bill doesn't do what could be done now.

The Attorney General has had the constructive suggestions

from the Member for North Vancouver–Capilano. We don't need to

repeat them. All we need say, Mr. Speaker, is that we hope the

Attorney General, if not now, in the session in the fall will

reconsider this particular Act and give us the kind of adequate

control over mortgage brokers that will make even the socialist

government proud of the free enterprise sector in British

Columbia…

MR. SPEAKER: Is there any further debate on Bill 109? The

Hon. Attorney General closes the debate.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I think I

[ Page 2283 ]

should say something about the point of the Member

for North

Vancouver–Capilano with respect to

Part II, even though

strictly speaking it's not really part of this bill. We're

working on that and the advisory committee that you've

mentioned is part of it because we are trying to get a very

simple disclosure form. I hope it will be proclaimed, certainly

by June. I don't like to say a definite month but they're

printing the circulation as the rest of it. It's being actively

worked on.

Having said that, I ask that the question be called on

second reading of this bill.

Motion approved; second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 109 referred to a committee of the whole House at

the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill No. 117.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE LAND REGISTRY ACT

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, moving second reading of

this bill, I would rather hope that the lawyers in the House

would raise their questions on this bill in committee. It is a

very difficult bill to understand.

I myself feel a little bit like the story of the German

philosopher Hegel who turned on his deathbed to his faithful

disciple and said, "Of all the people in my life, only you have

understood my philosophy. And even you don't understand it." It

is rather like that with this bill.

It's a very difficult, complicated matter of land law

involving everything running from easements when there are two

lots involved owned by the same owner, building schemes,

transferring interests in land by simpler forms — which is good —

simplifying legal descriptions in land registry documents,

functions as an approving officer, and things of that kind. I

would be glad to answer questions at the committee stage. I now

move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point

Grey.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): We support academic

amendments to this bill, Mr. Speaker. There's not any necessity for the

Hon. Attorney General to make apologies to the bill at all. I think in

explaining a bill such as this which he indicated was of complicated

nature that it would be much more use to the Members of the Assembly to

explain where the desire and where the contributions for the amendments

came from. These obviously came from the various registrars of title in

the Province of British Columbia. You just have to stand up and

say, Mr. Attorney General, the reasons for this bill are these.

This is a problem that has been presenting itself to the registrars of

title and they have advocated it through their experience. They have a

life-long experience, as you well know, Mr. Speaker, in this particular

Act and I would say that they are one of the most dedicated groups of

civil servants that we have in the Province of British Columbia — the

people who run the land registry offices.

I'm delighted to hear you agree. There's only one person in

this whole assembly who agrees with that? Two… Three… Four… Five…

Six… Anyone else?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Bingo! (Laughter).

MR. GARDOM: Seven… Do I hear eight?

MR. SPEAKER: Order.

MR. GARDOM: Eight. Thank you. (Laughter). Sold American.

Nine…and a half.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's the Liberal Party; selling to the

Americans.

MR. GARDOM: But Mr. Attorney General, let's not go ahead and

make apologies for a complicated bill. I think, with every

respect to you, Mr. Attorney General, in a bill — as you have

well indicated to the Members of this Assembly that contains a

degree of complexity that this does, I think it would be a very

useful thing to explain to the Members of the House as to how

this bill came about. If you were to suggest, Mr. Attorney

General, shall we say, that the motivation for this bill came

from the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Nimsick), I'd

automatically vote against it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, come on.

MR. GARDOM: …or the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr.

Hartley).

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): Just the kind of thing

you want to have carried out.

MR. GARDOM: …even 10% against the Minister of Labour

(Hon. Mr. King), if he proposed it. And the Premier, if he

proposed it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member deal with

debate? I know he's skirting the intricacies of the bill.

MR. GARDOM: I think the fairest way to treat this bill of

all is to ask the House for unanimous consent so that the Hon.

Attorney General can be

[ Page 2284 ]

permitted to speak again and explain to us what it

means.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Attorney General closes the

debate.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, in view of that invitation,

I have to say something about the bill. I agree with the Hon.

Member that the registrars, the deputy registrars and their

assistants in the planning departments, sketching — they're all

good. They're great public servants of British Columbia.

You know, too, that we have in the Attorney General's

department some very dedicated, capable people in this field.

I'm thinking of Victor DiCastri in particular.

. So I have no hesitation in saying that these bills that

come forward that are technical in nature — and this one is — do

receive a great deal of attention from very capable people

in this province. I think they do their best to make these

bills as simple as they can be I ask that the question be

called on second reading.

Motion approved; second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 117 referred to a committee of the whole House at

the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill No 121.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE GOVERNMENT

LIQUOR ACT

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, this is a bill to amend the

Government Liquor Act. It is a

very substantial

fulfilment of the recommendations of the Morrow report.

It is establishing in this province a very salutary

principle: wherever possible we would like to see public

business done in public with a hearing on contentious matters.

People who have dealings with the board whether as consumers,

producers or licensees should have their little day in court

before a board that meets openly, in the sunshine, in the light

of day.

This bill therefore establishes an appellate body which I

hope and expect will be part-time. It may have to become a

full-time body sometime but I would hope not.

I would say we have very capable public servants in the

Liquor Control Board and I am sure they will welcome the

direction and assistance they will receive from having an

appellate body to which some of the thorny problems that are

laid on their desks can be referred for hearing and

decision.

I think we as a Government will welcome that appellate body, now to

be called the British Columbia Liquor Board, in terms of being able to

refer to that board things on which the Government wants its

consideration and advice. The appellate body has to be hung in mid-air,

as it were, between the policy of the Government as established by

regulations and the questions it is empowered to hear such as licensing

and listing and other questions below that, the administration of the

Liquor Control Board, which is a very big business. It has very many

capable public servants of British Columbia working faithfully in that

very big business.

So the appellate board has to be very carefully spaced so as

not to trespass upon the administration below or policy above

for which the Government ultimately must take its full

responsibility. We hope that we have done that in this Act and

that we will shortly have this tribunal established in British

Columbia.

Apart from that there is also established a general licence

which, I suppose, speaks for itself. It will now mean that we

will have four types of licenses: public house, dining lounge,

lounge and, in addition, a general licence which will enable

the sale of liquor other than beer and cider with light

refreshments. The general licence will cover the situation as

it may be found by the appellate board after very careful

consideration of applications and representations made to it

over a period of time.

I move second reading of this important bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point

Grey.

MR. GARDOM: Well, I would just wonder whether or not the

Hon. Attorney General has vetted this bill through Colonel

McGuigan.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No, I should have.

MR. GARDOM: I think you should have, indeed. This is his

life work, Mr. Attorney General, and I think he would be most

interested to find out what the kind of legislation is that you

are now proposing.

The concept that you have introduced is without any question

of a doubt an improvement, in our view. However, I would very

much like to say that we continue to have a most archaic and

intemperate statute on our books: the Government

Liquor

Act . It's a mishmash of regulations, its a mishmash of law,

it does not do justice to the intelligent consumption of

liquor, it does not do justice to the pleasant side of the

industry. I think the Government

Liquor Act has been a

sluice box to intemperance.

I think the Government Liquor Act

has also totally

dictated itself to governmental priority over customer

priority. This is the shift I think we should have in this

particular statute. This field will reap $100 million net

profit in the Province of British Columbia this year. We should

have a shift at long last to a little more customer service, a

little more

[ Page 2285 ]

customer input, a little more customer convenience.

As I

said before, I cannot for the life of me understand why it's impossible

this day of refrigeration for an individual to buy a chilled case of

beer or bottle of wine. It's not possible; and that to me is silly.

It's also

very, very silly to me that a customer cannot have the advantage of a

loss

leader if a liquor company wishes to sell a case of liquor at a lower

price

than another.

On the whole, Mr. Speaker, I think the very best direction

for the Government would be to get out of the business. Handle

it by taxation, handle it by regulation and let it go to the

private sector to distribute it. I don't honestly know why we

have got to have government liquor stores. There is no reason

that I can see behind that. I'm not in favour of a liquor store

on every block in every city in British Columbia. I'm not

advocating that at all. But I can't see why the government

cannot go ahead and receive the return that the government

feels it is entitled to from the industry via taxation in the

initial stage, and leave distribution up to the private sector

totally. They're not going to sell all night if you don't want

them to. I don't think they should. All of that can be handled

by regulation. But in my view this is not a business that

government should be in one single, solitary bit.

I have never yet heard in the six years that I've been in

this House one argument from any side of the House — from the

Government when they were the official Opposition, from our

side of the House, from the Social Credit Party — the

Conservative Party was not here in those days — as to why the

distribution and the sale of liquor should be under the behest

of government. To me it's nonsensical. Control it, regulate it,

determine the price in the initial stages if you please, but

after that let it go out to the private sector to sell and let

them take care of it. I don't think we should be doing it.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Little

Mountain.

MS. YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, I must take issue with the Hon.

Second Member from Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) in this

matter of the government controlling liquor distribution in the

province. I lived in an American state in which the liquor was

distributed by the so-called free enterprise system.

MR. GARDOM: Which state?

MS. YOUNG: Illinois. In that state, it was a known fact that

from 40 per cent to 50 per cent of the liquor sold in all

retail outlets was bootleg liquor. By "bootleg" I mean it was

the same sort of junk that was made during the days of

prohibition.

MR. GARDOM: Those were during the days of prohibition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! Order.

MR. GARDOM: Oh, sorry. I retract. (Laughter).

MS. YOUNG: I accept your retraction, Hon. Member.

No, this was from 1960 to 1963. It was an open scandal. This

was before it became a known fact that the Mafia really did

exist. Living in Chicago I discovered with my own eyes and

experience that the Mafia was alive and well and living in

Chicago. They ran the rackets there; they ran the liquor

business there.

There is a label on the bottle in Illinois that says, "This

bottle may not be used again." It must be destroyed; it cannot

be used again. They used those bottles again. They duplicated

or forged labels of the top brands. They forged these state tax

stamps that went across the top of the bottle. There was

absolutely no way that the state government could control

this.

So I must disagree with the Hon. Member. I believe it should

be kept in the control of the provincial government.

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

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I rise in defence

of my colleague. I don't think he was suggesting that the

liquor distribution system in British Columbia be sold to the

highest bidder, which might mean the Mafia, I am not sure. But

I don't think he had that in mind. It was not a proposal to

turn it over to Al Capone and his friends; it was a proposal

for the Government to perhaps adopt systems which exist, not in

Illinois, but in other jurisdictions which work quite

satisfactorily without crime involved. And one can think of

many in Europe and indeed, others in the United States as

well.

I appreciate, Mr. Speaker, the comments of the Attorney

General regarding the appeal and tribunal. I think that's good.

Unfortunately, there are times when this principle seems to be

lost sight of. I'm glad that he has gone on record as favouring

this sort: of thing. It has after all been a bone of contention

in many other pieces of legislation on which we have argued

that appeal is not permitted and that the tribunal is not

"letting in the sunshine" as the phrase of the Attorney General

goes.

As mentioned earlier, we approve of the general licence. The

problem in this province for far too long, I think, has been

our unwillingness to allow institutions which there are

elsewhere which allow a more civilized type of drinking than we

have had. We

[ Page 2286 ]

have made many strides over the last few years, there's no

question about it. The former head man of the Liquor Control

Board, Col. McGuigan, who was mentioned earlier, has done a

great deal. But there is no question that we have a long way to

go and it doesn't necessarily mean to say that we are moving in

the direction of Mafia control.

So we approve of the bill and the amendments, but we do feel

there is much more to be done in this area, as was mentioned

earlier. We trust that this is not the extent of the Attorney

General's interest in this matter and that this will not mark

the end of any improvements in the general field of

distribution and sale of liquor.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point

Grey.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, may I

compliment the Attorney General — he's looking at me

suspiciously, Mr. Speaker — on bringing forward these welcome

changes to the government liquor Act; to say how pleased we are

to see that there's going to be a board instead of a one-man

secret show; that we're going to have the whole business of

liquor opened up just a little bit more. I think it's going to

be a healthy step forward for the province.

I'd like to make one small suggestion, something we might

consider, Mr. Speaker, and that is that in the liquor stores

themselves, that you have the various suppliers bidding for

shelf space. I've always found it a strange thing, Mr. Speaker,

in going into the liquor stores that there were certain brands — and

I'm not going to name them here — that you would almost

stumble over as you went through the door.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. McGEER: Do you want me to name them?

They were favourite brands of

former

Members of this House.

Can the Members guess? In any event, I don't think I need to

go beyond that, Mr. Speaker, except to say that the matter of

shelf space was one of these mysterious things in a liquor

store. It seems that wherever you turned, right at eye level

there around the corner there were certain brands of wine and

certain distillery brands that were very prominently displayed.

We know that the Liquor Control Board shows only modest

profits, Mr. Speaker, and that we should do everything we can

to improve the return. Therefore, if one were to open up to

competitive bid the shelf space, have it come up every three

months, and then let Calona Wines compete with everyone else.

(Laughter). Oh, I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker. I promised not to give

a commercial.

In any event, I think the Hon. Members can grasp the possibilities

here of having every company that wanted to display liquor — and I know

that the Second Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mr. Cummings) —

am I correct? He's the one that really suggested this idea to me first.

I want to give him credit, Mr. Speaker, because I know he's very

interested in this subject too.

It would be a way of making a little more money. It would be

a way of introducing that measure of fairness. And it would be

one more way in which the light could shine in.

Be these minor changes — they are something that can be

brought in in the future. For the moment, we may compliment the

Attorney General on progress, Mr. Speaker.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, this party favours the attempt to

take a more intelligent approach to the whole question of

liquor. The idea of a three-man commission is better than some

kind of tsar. The guarantee that they'll meet at least once a

month and so on, I think is progressive.

I am disappointed at some of the absolutely insane aspects

of this bill, which I can't see. I may not have read it fully,

but such matters as not being able to stand at the bar in the

steak house — you have to sit down. You can drink if you're

sitting down but you can't drink when you're standing up. That

seems to me to be the height of being ludicrous, I can't see in the

bill, although I thought I heard someone

comment on the fact, that it would permit a person to have a

drink in their hotel room. If you choose to have your meals

sent up to the room it seems rather ludicrous that if you walk

down a flight of stairs that you can drink downstairs but you

can't have the drink with your meal in the hotel room, and this

kind of thing — and this isn't a debate on the whole realm of

the liquor Act.

These are some of the very simple, sensible kinds of things

that have to be changed. The very fact that in the early months

of the Government's life that already they are bringing in some

measure of intelligent and well-considered approach to liquor…the whole

principle of trying to make it difficult to

drink is just another failing measure of prohibition. If you go

to the Nth degree and try to prohibit it altogether, you know

where we'll land up. If you try to be too restrictive, then I

don't think you really achieve a sensible attitude on the part

of the drinking public.

The other point the Attorney General mentioned in the media

the other day was the stupid idea of closing the liquor store

on election day, as if elections are ever in this day and age

likely to be influenced by whether or not people got drunk and

their votes could be bought or sold, as I think was suggested

years ago.

These are some of the points, Mr. Speaker, which

[ Page 2287 ]

badly need to be corrected. Although there are some

corrections in this bill, I am disappointed that some of these

points I've raised are not in the bill. I don't think they

require a great deal of study to write the appropriate

amendments.

We support the bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Mines.

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources):

Mr. Speaker, I'd just like to say a few words on behalf of the single

chairman of the board that has been operating over the years. You

usually judge an operation by the complaints that you get. Over the

years, in the Liquor Control Board I've had the least complaints of any

organization in the government's departments. I feel that they have

done a very good job, even with just a chairman, without a board, and

that they must have operated on behalf of the people or we would have

had a lot more complaints than we have had.

In addition to that, I would like to say that I am sure

there are going to be more changes. Because I think in the

small communities we've got to allow a grocery store or some

place to be able to dispense beer and wine so that people don't

have to drive miles and miles to a liquor store in order to buy

a dozen beer. I think this is something that should be

considered.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member of Omineca.

MR. D.T. KELLY (Omineca): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just had

two or three little things that I would like to bring up. I

don't know whether they would be included under this bill,

although I am very pleased to have seen the sections added into

the bill.

Some of the things that bothered me were that in recent

years, when new construction sites were put in — and new

shopping centres, especially the very large, elaborate centres

that are going in now, it seems to me that certain supermarkets

encourage the liquor stores to be located near them.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: At Fraser Lake for example.

MR. KELLY: No, right here in the lower mainland, where there

is a lot of pressure on liquor stores. I think that if you

would make a survey of the lower mainland that you would notice

that one particular chain of super markets has more liquor

stores around it than others. I would like, if this commission

were empowered to look into this, that they make sure that they

don't in fact have a hold on this sort of affair.

Another thing that I'm wondering about, Mr. Attorney General, is the

hotels that are trying to change their brands. I know that once a year

they're able to…

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Twice a year.

MR. KELLY: Twice a year? Well, then, I'm misinformed. I

heard it was just once a year. I know that in the interior, if

you get a bad brand of beer all year, as I thought it was, you

can get awfully sick of that particular brand of beer. It seems

to be that hotels are tied in with these liquor concerns,

because for some reason or other this seems to be the reason

why they're selling their particular beer. It could be a poor

brand of beer.

I think it's been known in the past that the breweries did

have a certain interest in the hotels and they in turn had to

sell their beer. I think it was unfair to people in these small

communities, as the former speaker was saying, who are miles

and miles apart. If you wanted a good glass of beer you had to

drive a long way to get it.

I think that the Liquor Control Board should be in the

business of building their own liquor stores rather than

leasing buildings from private industry. There are cases I know

in the province where the buildings are actually antiquated and

inadequate. Yet they're the only buildings available so the

liquor store has to be located in that particular building.

It seems to me that just around Christmastime when you have

your arms full, trying to get out the door, you're having to

hold everything under one arm and put two or three parcels on

the floor and open the door all at the same time. And if it's a

cold country why, you know, they don't like the door held open

too long. At 30 or 40 below zero the clerk in the store isn't

very anxious to let you leave that door open too long. So I

think, Hon. Minister, that we should be constructing our own

liquor stores rather than leasing too many of these

buildings.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Kamloops.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): Just about every matter I

intended to bring up has been covered, Mr. Speaker, except the

one on which I have had some conversation with friends in the

riding. This is the temperature at which the working man gets

his beer when he's on his way home from work when he drops into

one of the government vendors to pick up a case. As has been

mentioned before, the Liquor Control Board makes a "modest"

profit, but I think the profit is enough that there could be a

cooler in there.

People in the interior — I suppose it's bad on the coast too — are

facing a temperature of 90º and 92º and in some parts of

the Okanagan up to 102º and 103º is not too uncommon. So you're

coming home from work and picking up a case of beer of some

type

[ Page 2288 ]

to entertain your friends or yourself and find it

approximately the same temperature as the outside. Now, this

may be all right in England, but I don't think it's necessary

here when even in staid old Ontario, for the last 30 to 35

years, you've been able to go in and get a case or two of beer

and it's always served from a cooler. I'd like to see some

attention given to this, Mr. Attorney General. In fact I'm sure

the Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Brousson) and

myself can design it for you if you want, with the coolers in

the wall.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I don't think we'd trust him.

MR. GARDOM: You've got the wrong Member. He sells heating

equipment.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: Heating or cooling — they can do either

one.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Attorney General closes the

debate.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, in closing the debate I

want to thank the Members for suggestions. One advantage of

Hansard is that a number of

people concerned, such as

our liquor control people, will have an opportunity to read

these remarks and suggestions in addition to my hearing them

and making notes, mental and otherwise. That's an

advantage.

I want to thank the Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Little

Mountain (Ms. Young) for her spirited defence of the

proposition that unless the people control the liquor industry

the liquor industry will control the people. It's as simple as

that. I think we have a good public system in this province.

And in those areas where it is under private enterprise, don't

underestimate the power, political and otherwise, of that kind

of massive money industry to control government itself. I ask

that the question be put on second reading, Mr. Speaker.

Motion approved; second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 121 referred to a committee of the whole House at

the next sitting after today.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Second reading of Bill No. 123, Mr.

Speaker.

FAIR SALES PRACTICES ACT

HON. MR. MACDONALD: This bill is intituled the Fair Sales

Practices Act . It deals with those things called pyramid

sales.

I realize that the Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr.

McGeer) has put his own bill upon

the order paper and it was debated shortly today. I would like

to say, however, much as that effort is appreciated, that it is

modeled on the Ontario bill and it really is not as effective a

means of dealing with pyramid schemes as I think we're

proposing in this legislation.

It's fine to say that everybody who engages in a pyramid

plan has to register, file a prospectus, tell the recruits how

little chance they've got of success or to reveal the true

nature of the scheme to them. But a lot of them practice their

schemes without coming forward to register and without there

being any further prospectus at all.

In Ontario at the present time their registrar, whose

function it is to receive these registrations has about two

registrations, I think it is, from our last count, and 14 or 15

schemes that they're trying to run down going full blast

throughout the Province of Ontario.

So we're moving in this legislation with several weapons and

I think they're pretty stringent.

To being with, we have prohibited practices. They're pretty

wise. For example, requiring a person to purchase an

unreasonable quantity of products or services, having regard to

all the circumstances. I can remember Holiday Magic — which is

still alive and well, under the gun in California at the

present time, trying to sue the Attorney General down

there.

I remember a widow who sold these cosmetic products, trying

to make her living, and at her age finding it hard to get a

job. So she put a lot of money, $3,000 or $4,000 into

purchasing the cosmetic products on the basis of the assurances

that she would be able to line up salesladies and they would

take so much and it would all be gone and she would be the top

merchant of the chain and make a good living out of this.

Well, of course, her basement was filled with these cosmetic

products. There was nobody solvent around that she could sue,

even though I suppose she had a pretty good case at law in

terms of fraud.

We are trying really to outlaw pyramid sales in British

Columbia, because the endless chain operation simply fleece

people. There aren't any good ones. There aren't any ones about

which we can warn people and then let them go ahead at their

own risk. Because this kind of thing, especially when it's

built up as "dare to be great" was built up in an air of almost

religious hysteria, plays upon the emotions of gullible people

as that particular scheme did and as others will do as they are

expelled from other parts of the continent, particularly states

of the United States, and comes into the Province of British

Columbia.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: We were a trio for a

[ Page 2289 ]

minute there, over the mike.

MR. GARDOM: That's pyramid selling. (Laughter).

HON. MR. MACDONALD: So we start on prohibited practices and

then we describe pyramid schemes. We have in there a further

provision that those schemes include any person or class of

persons designated as a pyramid distributor by the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. So if we've missed something

which is hurting people in this province we intend to pick it

up.

We have as enforcement procedure in this Act offences where

somebody can be prosecuted and the penalties are pretty

substantial; we have the right of an inspector to go in and

investigate the plan; we have the right of the inspector to

have a receiver appointed of its assets, if somebody is being

defrauded or there is a likelihood of being defrauded to

protect those assets until they can be properly dealt with by a

judge; and we have the power of the inspector to apply for a

court injunction if these other matters do not work.

I believe in this bill that we will be ridding our province

for all time of the kind of "get rich" schemes which have made

riches for the promoters and a great deal of heartsick misery

for a great many of our sincere people in this province. I move

second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point

Grey.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I studied the explanatory note on

this bill particularly carefully. The explanatory note said,

"The purpose of this bill is to enact the Fair Sale

Practices Act , the contents of which is self-explanatory."

I don't know if this is the new method of explaining

legislation, but I think the Attorney General laboured his way.

through supplying some of the explanatory notes that should

have been attached to the bill when it was first

introduced.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's the only way to get you to read the

bill.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, may I commend the methods used in

the Province of Quebec, because not only do you get the bills

in two languages there, but you also get very extensive

explanatory notes going through the whole text of the bill,

explaining

section by

section exactly what legislation it

intends to do.

It is my opinion that even writing the explanatory notes

would do a great deal to help the draftsman himself in making

certain that the wording of the Act agrees with the intent that

he's describing.

Having said all this, Mr. Speaker, I must apologize for some of the

bills that I introduced this afternoon not containing similar

explanatory notes, but I certainly intend to correct that in future

years.

As far as the Act itself is concerned, Mr. Speaker, may I

compliment the Attorney General again on bringing in some kind

of legislation to deal with this rather serious problem we have

in British Columbia.

The "dare to be great" scheme was one of the more

spectacular recent ones brought into the province.

HON. MR. HALL: That was in the election platform.

MR. McGEER: Yes, it had that little tinge of politics to it.

But whether that aspect creeps in or not, Mr. Speaker, all

pyramid selling schemes are operated by confidence people.

Every last one. Therefore, any legislation which hopes to deal

with this problem is going to stand or fall, not on the

contents of the legislation itself, but upon the vigour with

which that legislation is applied.

I would submit that the failure in the province of Ontario,

and indeed their legislation has failed, has not been because

the law itself was not adequate to do the job. It's because the

people that have to be dealt with in these pyramid selling

schemes are unscrupulous; they are scheming, and they are going

to get around any kind of legislation, no matter how stiff, if

the administration of that legislation is not extremely

tough.

Applying that same reasoning, Mr. Speaker, to this

particular Act, makes it absolutely essential, if the

Legislature supports the bill — and we certainly intend to

support it, that the Attorney General waste no time in

proclaiming the Act, every

section of it, in appointing the

people to perform the duties of inspector. The week after the

bill receives royal assent, have that man in the field closing

down these nefarious operations.

So may we urge the Attorney General, in closing the debate,

to tell us what steps he plans to take in implementing this

valuable piece of legislation.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

MR. WALLACE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think there is little

doubt from much of the publicity locally, in the city and the

greater Victoria area, that the pyramid sales practice is not

only present in the province, but it is very serious. I've had

quite a bit of communication with the Better Business Bureau

who find this an intensely difficult problem to nail down. I

strongly support the Attorney General's effort to bring in a

bill which will give people like the Better Business Bureau the

chance to inform businesses and the citizens generally about

the existence of such

[ Page 2290 ]

schemes in the province.

I think the former speaker for Vancouver–Point Grey made it

very clear that they are confidence people, but the other

difficulty, Mr. Speaker, above all is that they are in the

province for a week or two or three and then they are gone. The

best example of that was this pyramid selling outfit called

"Canada Golden Products" who were fined a large sum of money in

Alberta one month and the next month they were in British

Columbia functioning here in Victoria. I am told that they have

now left British Columbia. It just seems that they are on a

round-about — they go from province to province and country to

country, and they just seem to be a few steps ahead of the

law.

I have a clipping here from a Toronto newspaper of March 29 — where

the police in Toronto have arrested 14 people concerned

with "Canada Golden Products" — that's the same outfit that has

been fined in Alberta and has been in British Columbia until

recently.

So the point has been made, but I think it should be

repeated: that the difficulty of policing this particular

organization is going to be difficult no matter how well you

write the legislation.

In fact part two of the legislation under the heading

Pyramid Sales, I think, describes beautifully just exactly what

the structure of the pyramid selling is — that you've so many

levels of people inciting other people to go out and sell, but

out of all the people involved, there are very few people doing

the selling. The Attorney General's written, I think, an

excellent description in part two of the bill which makes it

very clear that to carry out that kind of practice is an

infringement of this Act.

I agree with the speaker from Point Grey that unless we have… All I

see is if an inspector is given power to examine and

investigate and so on…it sounds rather lengthy and

complicated to prove the case that pyramid selling is going on.

And since these people come and go very quickly, my

reservations about this bill is that the speed and efficiency

with which the inspection can be carried out might be impaired

in terms of all the things the inspector has to do. This may

not be the case, but maybe the Attorney General can tell us

when he winds up the bill.

I think also that in relation to the sums of money involved in this

kind of organization, I would say the fines are not particularly heavy.

We are dealing with people who are, under false pretences, fleecing

citizens of millions of dollars. It says here that the penalty is not

less than $2,000 and not more than $5,000. I just feel from the limited

knowledge I have of what has happened in the greater Victoria area that

for the misery and hardship and the real financial mess that some

people finish up in because of pyramid selling, that the perpetrators

of the scheme should be subject to a heavier penalty. But, that again

is something which experience will probably help us to amend in a later

bill.

I would like to say just how much we support the Attorney

General in his willingness to get this statute on the books,

and I would add our encouragement that it be proclaimed as soon

as possible. With experience, we can perhaps co-operate — perhaps the

inspector can be tied in to co-operate with the

Better Business Bureaus, who all across Canada are well aware

of the dangers of this kind of organization functioning in each

of the provinces. As I said earlier, I gather that the Better

Business Bureaus have been aware of it, but have great

difficulty within limits of time and the law to bring it to a

halt. I hope this bill starts them on that path.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Langley.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Of course, we support this

bill as well. I just wanted to say that I'd like to see the

House pay tribute to a man, the General Manager of the Lower

Mainland Better Business Bureau, Mr. Vince Forbes, who time and

time again risked legal action against himself to bring this

problem forward. I think he is the one person in British

Columbia more than anyone else, responsible for this kind of

legislation and responsible for the public outcry against this

kind of practice, and I think he deserves to be commended at

this time.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point

Grey.

MR. GARDOM: Well, I rather hate to take a somewhat

alternative position from every speaker who has had a few words

tonight, but there is no way in my view, Mr. Speaker, that we

can protect society against those people who are crooked or

completely rule out the great desire of those who are

gullible.

I think the area really and truly where we are failing is in

the area of making these things publicly aware. I spoke a

little bit about that earlier today. You know, the Midas

Muffler ad is doing more use today in explaining to the people

the fraudulent nature and the lack of backing in the word

"guarantee." They are making people think about the word

"guarantee."

I certainly go ahead and support the legislation. But, I

think government would do an excellent job in bringing to the

attention of the general public, in quite a dramatic kind of a

manner, those people who have been fleeced. I agree very much

with the remarks that were made by the Member for Langley a few

seconds ago concerning Mr. Forbes of the Better Business

Bureau. But he's never had the equipment to go ahead and inform

the public of what has happened to the gullible who have been

taken in.

[ Page 2291 ]

This was brought home to me very strongly once. Mr. Attorney

General, it dealt with a gentleman who was sued for $1,000 for

dancing lessons that he had not taken. He came in to see me as

a lawyer. He wondered whether or not he had to pay this $1,000

on the contract for dancing lessons that he had not taken. To

cut a long story short, we were quite successful in the

position he took that he would not have to pay that $1,000.

But what really came home to me was that he said, "You know,

Garde" — he's a little bit of an Irishman — "It's the $1,000

they're claiming now that I've not received the benefit of that

hurts me. But I paid $4,000 for lessons and I still have two

left feet."

This is the kind of fact that I think should be brought

across to the general public. We'll bring in this bill. We all

totally support it, of course. It's a great first forward.

We'll bring this bill in. We'll still have pyramid sales in the

Province of B.C. and we'll still have gullible people being

taken in. For gosh sakes, when you get the situation…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. GARDOM: They're a separate problem.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: You bring in a bill on that and we'll

look at it.

MR. GARDOM: I'm glad you recognize the difference.

(Laughter). I think a very important thing to do is go ahead

and bring to the attention of the general public… We could

receive a fantastic number of illustrations, even from these

ombudsman kind of columns we have operating in one of the daily

Press in B.C. There are all sorts of illustrations of people

being taken in with these kind of things. Let the public know

about it and the public will learn from example.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Attorney General closes the

debate.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the question be

put.

Motion approved; second reading of the bill.

Bill 123 referred to a committee of the whole House at the

next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 124, Mr.

Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE STRATA TITLES ACT

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker in moving second reading of

this bill, there's a very full explanatory note of this bill. Apart

from more technical details, the essential

point is that a conversion from rental units to condominium be approved.

On the other matters in this bill, I'd be glad to answer questions

committee. I move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, we just wish to support this bill

for the very clear reason that in Oak Bay in particular we have

many apartment buildings where elderly citizens moved in with

the clear design to live in rented accommodation for the latter

years of their lives. This bill gives the local municipality

the kind of insight and authority to decide what is best for

its own municipality in terms of the very important matter of

accommodation, authority to decide what is best for its own

municipality in terms of the very important concerned, the

change has taken place prior to the legislation. But I

certainly appreciate the introduction of the legislation and we

support it.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the question be

put.

MR. SPEAKER: The Attorney General closes the debate. Are you

ready for the question?

Motion approved; second reading of the bill.

Bill 124 referred to a committee of the whole House at the

next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 128, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

CONDITIONAL SALES ACT, 1961

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The same principle will be found in Bill

129. Perhaps the explanation of that principle, which is

really quite simple can prevail for both bills.

It simple boils down to the two words "seize" or "sue", but

you must elect. This is something quite new in our law. We know

of many cases where great hardship has been inflicted upon

purchasers. The standard kind of case is where an automobile

has been inflicted upon purchasers. The standard kind of case

is where an automobile has been sold on conditional sale or a

mortgage. The payment and finance charges are not met. The car

is seized. The 20 days go by and the purchaser is unable to pay

the amount owing under that mortgage plus, by that time,

bailiff's charges for seizing it and accumulated finance

charges. So it is sold by the finance company — not by the

garage that originally sold the car, in most cases, because

they've sold the paper off to a finance company. All their

[ Page 2292 ]

rights pass to that finance company.

Now, having sold the car, the finance company then goes

after the purchaser, who has nothing except that he's lost his

car, his investment, his interest and his payments. He's had

his vehicle seized and they still go after that man for what's

called the "deficiency." You hear of some tragic cases where a

car's been bought for, say, $2,000. He's paid it down to $

1,000 and the car is seized. Then it's sold off, not for $2,000

but for $300 or $400. Very often — and I have no hesitation in

saying this — the finance company that holds the paper sells it

to a dealer with whom they have association. Maybe it's a

subsidiary company. So, that the resale price of the seized

vehicle is ridiculously low in many cases. Then the poor

victim, the purchaser, is sued for what is called the

deficiency. Believe me, that can run into $1,000 or $2,000

arising out of a simple car purchase.

So we say — and I think we're being fair to both sides,

creditors and debtors alike — that you must elect your remedy.

Seize the car, provided that no more than two-thirds of the

payments have been made. That's another provision of the bill — you

can't seize if more than two-thirds of the payments have

been made. Make your election but don't think that you're going

to hit twice the person to whom you've sold the goods: once by

seizing his chattel and once more by taking him to court for a

sum of money, including all your expenses and finance

charges.

We think this legislation is eminently just and long

overdue. I move second reading.

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

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to say

that I support the bill.

As a former automobile dealer, I understand some of the

problems. I might also say that if you don't know automobiles

and you don't know anything else, know your dealer. At least

know who you're doing business with.

I think the expiration of the contract after three years is

also a good thing. With the Central Registry here in British

Columbia, a good many of the liens are never lifted. As a

result, at some future point you might find that there's still

a lien on the vehicle.

There's one part that concerns me and I don't know quite how

you're going to correct it. What happens to the vehicle which

is abandoned? Or in the case when it is repossessed and you do

acquire it, until you have that car you really have no

indication of its value. At that point you're committed. You

have taken possession of the vehicle and you have no other

recourse.

It has been my experience that automobile dealers very rarely make

any money on repossessions. On the contrary, it's a very expensive part

of the business for a bona fide automobile dealer. Usually, in the

course of a year, repossessions can be very expensive. Also, in many

cases of repossession the customer knows a long time before the

repossession that there's no way he's ultimately going to be able to

pay for it. As a result, he runs it into the ground. Although he may

not have stripped the car — that does happen — in many cases the

vehicle is not worth anything.

Then the dealer is faced with the problem of whether to

recondition the vehicle — in other words, spend more money on

it — before the sale. This becomes a very complicated

procedure. In many instances, the fact that the vehicle is sold

for perhaps wholesale or even below wholesale, is because they

don't want to muddy up the transaction in any way, shape or

form by having added to it.

I would like to point these various problems out. I think

some of this should have further discussion. Perhaps in

committee we can solve some of those problems.

The abandoned cars are a serious problem. When a customer

abandons a car, you never find him either. Vehicles are very

mobile. Repossessions can take place all over the province. In

many instances, the car can be repossessed hundreds of miles

away. The company which repossesses it returns it to the dealer

at the dealer's expense. In many cases, when that vehicle is

returned to the dealer's floor, it isn't worth the cost of

transportation of getting it from where it was repossessed, let

alone any value when you go to dispose of it.

There's one other item I'd like to mention. This is a letter

which the Attorney General was sent and I received a copy. It

concerns a furniture store. They also would like to point out

one or two of the problems concerning this Act. They feel that

if the amendment prohibiting suit following repossession

becomes law there will be a greater tendency for the careless

debtor to abuse the merchandise and invite repossession,

believing that it will end his obligation; conversely, they

feel that legislation that will give the buyer greater

incentive to keep and take care of the chattel would be

beneficial, both to himself and to the seller.

It appears that there is a trend in our country to protect

the careless and the irresponsible to the hurt of the

honourable citizen or the honourable businessman.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Attorney General winds up the

debate.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, in winding up the debate

I'd be glad to take into consideration what has been said by

the First Member for Victoria (Mr. Morrison). In committee

stage we may have something further to say about it. I ask

that

[ Page 2293 ]

the question be put.

Motion approved; second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 128 referred to a committee of the whole House at

the next sitting after today.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Second reading of

Bill No. 129, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE BILLS OF SALE ACT, 1961

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, this is the complementary

bill, same principle, and I move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: Any debate on second reading? The Attorney

General closes the debate.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Question.

Motion approved; second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 129 referred to a committee of the whole House at

the next sitting after today.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Second reading of Bill No. 138, Mr.

Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE SUPREME COURT ACT

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, Bill No. 138 is again

complementary to the two bills that we've just passed. It's a

very simple bill, as are all of these bills very simple bills.

The definition of "writ of execution" is made necessary by the

changes that have just been approved by the House in the

Conditional Sales Act and the Bills of Sale Act .

In addition to this, this amendment to the Supreme Court

Act gives a local judge of the supreme court power in

foreclosure matters that he did not have heretofore.

I move second reading.

Motion approved; second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 138 referred to a committee of the whole House at

the next sitting after today.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Second reading of Bill No. 132, Mr.

Speaker.

PUBLIC OFFICIALS' DISCLOSURE ACT

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, Bill No. 132 is called the

Public Officials' Disclosure Act .

It is

an Act that is of importance to

every Member of this Legislature and to elected members throughout the

Province of British Columbia holding provincial office.

I would like to say that the Government hopes that this will

be regarded as a non-partisan measure. To try to show that we

mean what we say in that respect, I would hope that the debate

tonight would cover three or four speeches in which each of the

party groups here would give their comments about the bill and

its problems and that then the debate may be adjourned.

Quite frankly, I would think it might be well that it be

adjourned until next October, either by adjournment or a new

bill. It isn't that we're in any way, Mr. Speaker, afraid of

standing up for the very vital principle that's contained in

this bill, and that is to eliminate corrupt influences that may

guide the decisions of legislators or which may seem to guide

the decisions of legislators — and that's just as important. If

democracy falls into disrepute because people think that this

man or that is bought by the special interests he represents in

casting his vote on this measure or that, then democracy

suffers very grievously, even though the charge may not be

true.

Yet at the same time we balance here two things — the public

interest and full and open disclosure, so that it can be sure

that there is integrity on the part of its lawmaker, and on the

other hand the rights of privacy of individuals, including

elected people and politicians.

So this bill grapples with that problem not in terms of

disclosure — which I think is the right approach, rather than

attempting to say that this or that motion or bylaw or law of

the Legislature of the province might under certain

circumstances be declared invalid because somebody was

interested fraudulently and voted upon it. I think that kind of

thing leads to endless unsettling effects on the lawmaking

process.

This does not, of course, touch upon the sections already in

the Constitution Act . It may

well be that those sections

should be brushed up. I would think they'd have to be looked at

and brushed up. They're pretty ancient. They're familiar to the

Hon. Members. There are also one or two rules in the standing

orders that bear directly upon this questions.

Yet while the principle is very important, there are

questions as to how broadly you should define interest to be

disclosed. Should it apply to a man's car? I would certainly

think not. To his clubs? I would certainly hope not.

AN HON. MEMBER: His golf clubs?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: To what extent should he to the best of

his ability declare the interests of his spouse or her spouse

or child? So that there are many points, and they have been

debated to some extent in

[ Page 2294 ]

the province.

I think all Members are aware of the kind of balancing of

interest that has to go on to make this an effective bill and I

would therefore hope that we would have a constructive

discussion, perhaps passing around the House, and then this

bill will be possibly adjourned and debated and discussed very

fully before it is implemented as law.

I move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Columbia River.

MR. CHABOT: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate

very much the words of the Attorney General relative to this

Act. I am sure the Attorney General realizes that there are

needs for amendments to the Act as it presently reads. I don't

rise to speak for any special interest groups or for myself,

because I have nothing to hide. I am sure that my assets are

substantially less than those of the Attorney General.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: You were staying at the Glenshiel.

MR. CHABOT: I must say that…

MR. McGEER: Financial assets or otherwise? (Laughter).

MR. CHABOT: All kinds of assets — diplomas, law degrees.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I didn't have a room in the

Glenshiel.

MR. CHABOT: Union Club.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where's that?

MR. CHABOT: Seriously, I'm going to speak on this because I

do really believe that it's an invasion of privacy to a certain

degree. I am going to attempt to be as objective as I possibly

can when I discuss this in a non-political way, being the

non-political guy that I am, really. This is why I am going to

be non-political.

We've already seen the effects and the attitude that has

been generated out in the community. When it was originally

proposed in the Legislature we saw the reaction of one of the

aldermen in one of the lower mainland municipalities, a Mr.

Moore, whose profession is that of horticulturalist and

landscaping consultant, who immediately resigned. He didn't

want to disclose his particular financial assets or those of

his family. He owns a gravel pit and he doesn't think what

interest he has in that gravel pit should be revealed.

What he had to say is very revealing, and I am going to read

just briefly some of his comments. He says:

"This bill works on the principle you are guilty until

proven innocent. I don't like the disclosure of family

interests. My wife and family didn't run the office."

He went on to say that he's prepared to give his time to the

Municipality of Delta at very reasonable indemnity. He was

quoting something in the neighbourhood of 35 cents an hour. He

says:

"Any successful businessman is bound to be concerned

with the development of the municipality. I'd

rather be a successful businessman than a provincially

suspected alderman. I object strongly to this. This is another

Bill 42 for aldermen.

"Work on council is done out of community spirit, not

to earn rewards. I am here because I thought I

might be able to help the development of the municipality. If

people think you're here to make a buck, they're mistaken."

He went on that the mayor of the municipality said that he

is a very valuable man and that he was sorry to see him leave.

They had a chat and he attempted to convince him to stay in the

municipality but he was unwilling to stay because of his strong

belief that this legislation is really an invasion of

privacy.

There have been other municipal bodies as well as school

districts who have objected quite strenuously to this type of

legislation. It not only applies to Members of the Legislative

Assembly. I would think that if it applied only to Members of

the Legislative Assembly there would be no room for any

criticism of this legislation.

But it goes down into the municipal councils. It doesn't

matter whether it is a municipal council of the lower mainland

or just a small village or town up in the interior of British

Columbia — it applies to them as well.

It applies to school trustees throughout the province.

The legislation appears not to have been promoted but

introduced on an assumption of guilt which I think is the wrong

concept.

There are ways and means of avoiding the declaration of

one's assets. One can hide behind many legal institutions where

he doesn't have to declare his assets. It's not that very

difficult, really.

But what you are really doing is subjecting a family and its

assets…you are making them chattels to be exposed in

public.

The legislation attempts to legislate moral standards and I

don't think legislation should ever be intended, Mr. Speaker,

to legislate honesty or moral standards.

The legislation will not, in my opinion, stop,

[ Page 2295 ]

restrain or disallow dishonest people from being

elected to

public office despite the disclosure Act. People will still be

elected despite their declaration and non-declaration of

assets.

As it is presently worded the legislation, in my opinion, is

window-dressing. What it will do to a great degree is

discourage responsible and well-meaning people from offering

themselves for public office. As I said before, I am not that

concerned on the provincial scene because I believe maybe there

is a need at a provincial level for a declaration of

assets.

I am concerned about the people who, because of the fear of

this particular legislation, the failure to reveal a small

interest in a company or a small interest, a few shares of

something owned by his family that have been stored away in a

safety deposit box, and he's forgotten to reveal it to the

public — then he's subject to the penalties.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, the bill says he must make

reasonable efforts to determine — it's not an absolute penalty

if he makes a mistake.

MR. CHABOT: But he'd have to prove that it was a legitimate

mistake that he'd made.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: He's got a chance. He's got to be very

careful.

MR. CHABOT: It's one of those things that could discourage

the type of people that we're attempting to bring into public

life from running for public life.

Also I don't really believe that anyone who runs for trustee

of a school board who, for instance, might own property in the

Province of Quebec or in the State of Vermont, should have to

declare his holdings in those two particular jurisdictions. Of

what interest is it really at the British Columbia level as to

what his holdings are in those jurisdictions?

What the legislation as it presently appears on the statute

books as Bill 132 — Public Officials

Disclosure Act

attempts statute books as Bill 132 — Public

Officials'

Disclosure Act attempts what it's asking them to do.

I really cannot understand the reason for the introduction

of this legislation in its present form.

There is a very serious need for amendments to this

legislation and I'm happy that the Attorney General has

indicated that he is prepared to entertain amendments, and that

he's prepared to hold the legislation over, because I consider

that the legislation as it is presently worded is clumsy

legislation. It will not serve the intent and purpose for which

the Attorney General or the Government has introduced the

legislation.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point

Grey.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to speak in support of the

general principle of this bill, but to offer one or two

suggestions to the Attorney General for his consideration in

judging what amendments would be appropriate for it.

I think it was General Eisenhower who first came out in a

very famous declaration about 10 or 12 years ago, calling for

the open declaration of holdings on the part of people who

formed the federal cabinet in the United States. There was very

wide public acclaim for that particular statement of principle

and I think many people, myself included, were disappointed

that the United States did not follow up on his suggestion. Had

it been introduced there I think it would have become a

widespread and generally accepted principle.

The difficulty with this bill is that it has not been tried

before. This is pioneering legislation, the kind of thing which

the Attorney General and the Government should be complimented

for attempting.

I personally feel that, far from the consequences that the

Member for Columbia River suggests, this would be a protection

for the public official. A protection. Because in declaring at

the very start his beneficial ownership…and remember,

speaking through you, Mr. Speaker, to the Member for Columbia

River, there is no necessity to declare the extent of the

holdings — only the fact that they are there…that this will

save that public official from any number of witch-hunts which

might take place to his embarrassment when he least expects it

later on.

The fact that it is all laid out on the table beforehand is

going to be a deterrent to witch-hunts as well as a deterrent to the

kind of rumours

that aren't true but which continually plague everyone who is

in public office.

I can't tell you over the years how many times people have

whispered in my ear about conflicts of interest that people

holding high office have held that are completely and utterly

false. Yet these circulate to the detriment of that Member's

reputation without him ever being aware of it.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. McGEER: Don't be too sure. (Laughter). Don't be too

sure. Now having said these things, Mr. Speaker, there are one

or two points which I think the Attorney General might

consider.

First of all, is it really necessary in the first stage to

take it all the way down to the dog-catcher, or however far it

goes down? We might start, Mr. Speaker, just to begin with by

having the cabinet declare, then perhaps extend it to the MLAs

and mayors and, as we worked the bugs out of this

[ Page 2296 ]

legislation, the people who introduced it being the

ones to

help out most in this regard, then we can work our way through

the backbenchers, the Members of the official Opposition, then

to the Liberals — and work our way down to the groups that are

even less significant, if any, in the Province of British

Columbia.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. McGEER: The second, Mr. Speaker is that the person who

considers running for office might be discouraged more by the

prospect of making a mistake than the prospect of making the

full disclosure, because there are many pitfalls in making an

appropriate declaration. If the man does make a mistake in the

opinion of some other person, then he is required to defend it,

I presume, in court.

Therefore I would think, as a safeguard, Mr. Speaker, the

Attorney General might consider that the declaration should be

checked by whoever receives it on behalf of the government; and

if it is not challenged within a given period of time, then it

is accepted as a valid document so that two years later or five

years later, or ever how long later it might be, if someone

wanted to challenge the validity of the disclosure that he then

would not be faced with court action in case an honest mistake

were made.

Mr. Speaker, the intent of the bill, in my opinion, and I'm

sure that each MLA has his own attitudes towards this

particular legislation; in my opinion it is excellent. I

believe if a really workable bill can be brought in by the

Attorney General, that it will quickly be copied by other

jurisdictions and will set a different kind of standard, a

better standard for public life.

Yet, Mr. Speaker, its workability is going to require some

period of experimentation. Because of that, I think the

Attorney General should do more than just postpone the bill for

a few months, but to bring it in bit by bit, starting with the

Members of the Legislature and then extending it, if necessary,

to other groups.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Saanich and the

Islands.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, at

the risk of antagonizing some of my colleagues in local

government, I must speak very strongly on behalf of the intent

of Bill No. 132. I would commend to the Hon. Attorney General

some suggestions which appear elsewhere on the order paper. It

may be best, in order that the best possible legislation can be

brought down, that this matter be held over until the fall — as

the Attorney General has indicated.

I do agree with the observations of the Hon. First Member

for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) with respect to the fact

that a bill such as this offers protection. I don't think a

public official need feel naked, need feel guilty before all in

the province merely because he or she is required to disclose

conflict of interest or his or her holdings.

Those of us who have been in municipal government know very

well the embarrassment and the frustration which is felt,

particularly in the rezoning process, when a whisper campaign

reaches one's ears to the effect that this member of council or

that member of council holds property nearby and therefore has

a direct conflict of interest. To have declared in advance,

particularly with respect to land, is to once and for all wipe

away that particular whisper or rumour.

There is no assumption of guilt as far as I can see, and I

must make the observation, Mr. Speaker, that if there is

nothing to hide, then there is nothing to fear in a disclosure

such as this.

I want to refer to one instance which goes back about four

or five years, as I recall, in one municipal council where on

at least two or three occasions it was necessary for the mayor

to inquire of an alderman, was he speaking as an alderman or

was he speaking as a landowner nearby. I don't really think the

alderman concerned was acting improperly, but the two matters

were muddied in his own mind and he wasn't sure which role he

was playing at the particular time in the heat of debate.

I hope the Attorney General and the Government will not lose

sight of this legislation between now and October. I hope that

the Attorney General will work on refinements and will bring us

a bill which could very well lead and show an example for a

number of jurisdictions. There is very definitely in British

Columbia at the provincial and local and, I suggest, at the

school board level, a very real need for this kind of

disclosure on the books.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Education.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I thank Hon. Members for their comments.

As you heard the Attorney General state, this will be brought

up again in the fall. I would now like to move adjournment

until the next sitting, not at the fall, some future sitting. I

move adjournment of the debate to the next sitting of the

House.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill No. 141.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

CREDIT UNIONS ACT, 1961

[ Page 2297 ]

HON. MR. MACDONALD: This is

an Act to Amend the Credit

Unions Act . It arises out of taxation legislation of the

Hon. John Turner — some of which met with the approval of our

colleagues in Ottawa, but not all of it.

In this particular case it means that the credit unions may

be subject to taxation. They may very well find that there

would be an exemption, nevertheless, for those of their funds

that belong to the credit union reserve board. At the moment

that board in order to safeguard the savings of credit union

members holds funds, but it holds them for the various credit

unions. The change in this bill will be that the funds held on

deposit by the credit union reserve board will be owned by the

board; they will be owed to the credit unions. If there is

therefore a taxation exemption upon the income to be earned by

those funds attracting itself to the credit union reserve

board, the credit unions will have the advantage of it. It is just as

simple as that.

I can't be sure I got it right, but it is just as simple as

that. Therefore, it is a proclamation measure that depends upon

the Ottawa action, but we are making it possible for the credit

unions to reap this benefit. I move second reading.

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

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I move

adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the

House.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill No.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

MOTOR VEHICLE ACT

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, this is a bill to amend the

Motor Vehicle Act . I will only

refer at this time to two

of the principles contained in it, because it contains a number

of minor amendments. I think one of the major problems that we

seek to deal with is the abandonment of parked cars in the City

of Vancouver. A great many of them are standing on the streets

of the city, abandoned to all intents and purposes, and while

you can leave parking tickets on them, it is not an offence as

such. There should be provision that the police pick up those

cars.

The other

section of concern is the question of a person challenging

his demerit points before a provincial judge. The present provision is

that he must pay $10 and unless he wins his case, he has lost his $10.

Now the amount is not large, and the whole matter is before the

court because the system was challenged. It

was rejected as unconstitutional in the provincial court. The system,

as in the present Motor Vehicle Act ,

was then upheld in the Supreme

Court by the judgment of Mr. Justice Hinkson and it is now on it way to

the Court of Appeal.

At the same time we do feel, regardless of the results of

that appeal, that the principle of paying the $10 and losing it

unless you win your case, is not something that belongs in this

kind of legislation which is in effect prescribing demerits or

penalties upon people. I therefore, subject to discussing the

other sections as the Hon. Members may desire in committee,

move second reading.

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

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to commend the

Hon. Attorney General for

section 25 which allows the vehicle

to stand with the motor running, providing it is locked.

Section 182 as it did stand, said that you had to take the key

out of the ignition; if you didn't, you were violating the Act.

This meant that in the northern part of the province where if

you wanted to leave your car idling, if you locked the doors,

you were in essence breaking the law because you had not

removed the key from the ignition. So I just commend the

Attorney General for making this change in the Act.

MR. GARDOM: I would just like — if I do have the ear of the

Attorney General — concerning this particular

section which the

last speaker spoke about —

section 25 dealing with the locking

of vehicles. I do hope that you dovetail this with the

Insurance Act because you

don't want to get into the

situation whereby if the individual doesn't happen to lock a

car, that he has lost his insurance rights in a theft

claim.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald moves second reading of the bill.

Motion approved; second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 163 referred to a committee of the whole House at

the next sitting after today.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

CHANGE OF NAME ACT

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Health Services and

Hospital Insurance.

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

Insurance): Mr. Speaker, Bill No. 43,

An Act to Amend the Change of

Name Act , is very

[ Page 2298 ]

straightforward. I think it has been looked for for

a long

time, particularly by those people who have been offended by

the lack of opportunity afforded by the previous

legislation.

Mr. Speaker, this Act provides that subsequent to a divorce,

a woman may change her name back to her original name by going

back to the Supreme Court without the two-month limitation

that is now in effect. As I say, Mr. Speaker, it's

straightforward. Vital Statistics requested it. It's been

requested by those people interested in the legal realm. I

would therefore move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister closes the debate.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I would therefore call the

question.

Motion approved; second reading of the bill.

Bill 43 referred to a committee of the whole House at the

next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill No. 45, Mr.

Speaker.

SEXUAL STERILIZATION ACT REPEAL ACT

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Health Services and

Hospital Insurance.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, in moving second reading of

Bill 45, the Sexual Sterilization

Act Repeal Act , I went

over the records. In the past 10 years, there have been very,

very few calls for the use of the eugenics committee that was

set up. We find it quite archaic to provide for sexual

sterilization of people who are in mental institutions.

Not only that, Mr. Speaker, it provided for sterilization of

people who were in boys' industrial schools, girls' industrial

schools and that type of situation. The people in our health

department and the people in the professions feel that it was

most archaic. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I move second

reading.

MR. SPEAKER: Any further debate? The Minister closes the

debate.

HON. MR. COCKE: I call the question.

Mot