1974 Legislative Session: 4th 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)

FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 22,1974

Morning Sitting

[ Page

4973 ]

CONTENTS

Morning sitting Routine proceedings The Government Computer Privacy Act (Bill 179). Mr.

Curtis.

Introduction and first reading — 4973

Statute Law Amendment Act, 1974 (No. 2) (Bill 178).

Committee stage.

section 1.

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 4973

Amendment to

section 1.

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 4974

Mr. Gardom — 4974

Mr. Smith — 4975

Mr. Wallace — 4975

Hon. Mr. Lea — 4976

Amendment to

section 2.

Hon. Mr. Hall — 4977

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4977

Hon. Mr. Hall — 4977

section 3.

Mr. Smith — 4978

Hon. Mr. Hall — 4978

Mr. Smith — 4978

Mr. Gardom — 4978

Hon. Mr. Hall — 4978

section 4.

Mr. Wallace — 4978

Hon. Mr. Hall — 4979

section 5.

Mr. Gibson — 4979

Hon. R.A. Williams — 4979

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4979

Hon. R.A. Williams — 4979

Mr. Gibson — 4980

section 6.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4980

Mr. Wallace — 4980

Hon. Mr. King — 4981

Mr. Smith — 4981

Hon. Mr. King — 4981

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4981

Hon. Mr. King — 4982

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4982

Hon. Mr. Hall — 4982

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4982

Hon. Mr. Hall — 4983

section 8.

Mr. Gibson — 4983

Hon. Mr. Hall — 4983

Mr. Gibson — 4983

Mr. Phillips — 4983

Hon. Mr. Hall — 4983

section 9.

Mr. Wallace — 4984

Hon. Mr. Hall — 4985

Mr. Curtis — 4985

Mr. McClelland — 4986

Division on

section 9 — 4986

section 10.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4987

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 4987

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4987

Mr. McClelland — 4987

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 4988

Mr. McClelland — 4988

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4988

Mr. Wallace — 4989

Mr. Phillips — 4989

Mr. McClelland — 4991

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4991

Mr. Gardom — 4992

Mr. McClelland — 4994

Mr. Bennett — 4995

Mr. Phillips — 4995

Mr. Chabot — 4995

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4996

Mr. Phillips — 4997

Mr. McClelland — 5000

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

Introduction of bills.

THE GOVERNMENT COMPUTER

PRIVACY ACT

On a motion by Mr. Curtis, Bill 179, The Government Computer

Privacy Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be

placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next

sitting of the House after today.

Orders of the day.

Hon. E.E. Dailly (Minister of Education): Public

bills and orders. Committee on Bill 178.

STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1974 (NO. 2)

The House in committee on Bill 178; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

section 1.

Hon. Mr. Strachan (Minister of Transport and

Communications): This section, for some reason or another, is

being delayed in its passage through the House.

The ICBC has a directors meeting set for Monday. It had been

my hope that I would be able to activate this legislation at

that directors meeting next Monday. This government, and I as

the Minister, want to help these people. I want to be in a

position to send out these cheques to these people. The mere

fact that the private insurance industry of this province has

welched on its contract with the people of the province will

not prevent this government from seeing that justice is done.

We will not sit idly by and see innocent victims of the

machinations of the private insurance industry go without

help.

I want to remind this House that over the years from the

citizens of this province that private insurance industry has

built up massive reserves out of the insurance premiums of

every citizen of this province. Yet, at a time of need, with

125 suffering people — as the Member said: paraplegics,

wheelchair cases — that private sector of the industry is

proving that it has no conscience.

An Hon. Member: Hear, hear!

Hon. Mr. Strachan: These people can sit in their head offices in New

York and London and Hartford, Connecticut, and say that these 125 suffering

people in British Columbia are no concern of theirs, despite the fact that they

had a contract and collected premiums right up to the last day of February of

this year.

As that Member said, a percentage of every premium went in

to guarantee that no person in this province, because of an

insured driver or being a victim of a hit-and-run accident,

would go unpaid and his claim unmet.

These same private insurance companies overcharged the

people of this province long before we were elected in order to

make payments back. The record shows that there are still

another $14 million that they should have paid back to the

citizens of this province under that same authorization.

I outlined to this House the reasons why I didn't want to

accept that amendment yesterday; it would jeopardize the right

of the people of this province to recover from these

conscienceless insurance companies the money that we are

prepared and want to give to these suffering citizens of this

province.

But, Mr. Chairman, rather than see this intransigent

opposition keep these cheques from these people, I'm going to

amend this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I was tempted to take a procedure that would

show these Members as shallow, cheap politicians….

Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh!

Hon. Mr. Strachan: …and stick to it. Then, within

a week, prove they were wrong by handing out the cheques. I

want to give those cheques. You've delayed it. I'm not going to

allow you to stand in my way.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Strachan: Oh, go on. Go on. Look, the record

of this party shows very clearly that we're for the people and

you're for the insurance companies, all the time. That's why

the Member wanted that amendment: to protect the insurance

companies.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Strachan: Well, vote against the amendment,

my friend.

An Hon. Member: You changed it because we forced you

to change it.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please!

[ Page 4974 ]

Hon. Mr. Strachan: I want to thank you for your

gracious acceptance of this proposal.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Strachan: I can't help it if you want to

play politics with human lives. I can't help it.

Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh!

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Strachan: I am not.

An Hon. Member: So you backed up. We realized you

were playing politics.

Hon. Mr. Strachan: Mr. Chairman, I will not allow the

opposition to delay my right to issue cheques to these people.

I will not allow the people of this province to suffer because

of the political attitude of the opposition. I think they've

displayed themselves in their worst in this debate.

Here's a government that brought in legislation to allow us

to meet the needs of the people, and they went nit-picking

through that legislation.

An Hon. Member: Oh, oh!

Hon. Mr. Strachan: They don't believe that this

should be done. However, Mr. Chairman…

Mr. D.M. Phillips (South Peace River): I'm glad

you've seen the light. We pointed it out for you.

Hon. Mr. Strachan: …I move, in subsection (1) of

section 1 of this bill, to strike out the proposed

section

46B(l) — the whole thing — and substitute the following:

"The corporation shall discharge and perform any duty or

obligation and exercise any right or power imposed or conferred

upon the Traffic Victims Indemnity Fund by or under any Act

necessary to settle or litigate any claim or action arising as

a result of injury, death or loss of or damage to property

occasioned by a motor vehicle, or occasioned by or arising out

of the ownership, maintenance, operation or use of a motor

vehicle in the province; and to pay or recover any moneys

required to be paid as a result of a settlement or a judgment

in the action from the Traffic Victims Indemnity Fund, its

group 2 members and its successors or assignees, as if the

provisions of

section 106L of the Motor-Vehicle Act have not

been implemented."

That last addition protects the right of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia to recover from

those responsible.

Mr. G.B. Gardom (Vancouver–Point Grey): Speaking in support of the amendment, Mr. Chairman, we're

very glad to see that light as come to the Minister. I think

all Members of the opposition…and this is not a political

thing, as I said yesterday. These 125 people, I think, would

very much like to thank the backbench of the New Democratic

Party for prevailing upon this Minister to do the right thing,

because he was an exceptionally reluctant Minister as we all

know. He's come up with his fifth posture today in under about

five weeks — he seems to have a different posture every week,

because I note his posture on October 8, when he said this:

"It is hoped that some resolution of the present

difficulties will soon be achieved, and in the event that there

is some assumption of liabilities by the Attorney-General's

department…."

So on October 8 he tended to try to shelve it into the

department of the Attorney-General.

Then on November 8, The Province newspaper said that

he suggested that persons caught in the situation should

consult a lawyer to see what action could be taken to recover

claims legally due. So November 8, his posture was that these

poor injured people should just have to go and see their lawyer

and go through the courts.

Then yesterday afternoon his posture was: "It'll force us to

accept any claim without adjudication, and I'm not prepared to

accept that responsibility." That, of course, was a completely

fallacious posture.

Then he made a great deal of the point this morning about

the right of recovery through subrogation, which is already in

the bill that was presented to us initially, and he

strengthened that by his amendment to subsection (1) of the

amendment.

Then, of course, the last posture of all today is to blame

the opposition for delays.

Interjection.

Mr. Gardom: The Hon. Minister says that is correct.

That, Hon. Minister, is totally false: it's totally incorrect;

it's totally spurious; it's totally fallacious. You know, Mr.

Minister, I think you're starting to suffer from credibility

problems. Your performance this morning is certainly rapid, up

to that point.

Mr. Chairman: Order! I would point out to the Hon.

Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey that the discussion is

to be strictly relevant to the amendment, and there's not to be

a rehash of arguments already covered.

[ Page 4975 ]

Interjections.

Mr. Gardom: Well, Mr. Chairman….

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please!

Mr. Gardom: As I said yesterday the….

Mr. Chairman: Order! I just want to repeat in silence

what I said before. I would ask that the Hon. Second Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey keep his remarks strictly relevant to the

amendment, and not rehash arguments that have already been

presented a number of times in this debate.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Would the Hon. Second Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey continue?

Mr. Gardom: Well, if you'd just keep your hand off

your gavel a little bit here, Mr. Chairman, I perhaps could

continue.

I would like to say, as I said yesterday, this is not a

political situation at all; this is a situation of doing the

right thing for some people who have been seriously and

tragically injured. The Minister was unable to recognize the

fact that he had to do the right thing until today.

I don't care when repentance comes, as long as it comes. I

thank the government Members, and I even thank the Minister for

having the courage this morning to reverse an intransigent and

stupid stand and come up with an amendment that will do the

proper thing for these injured people.

I certainly hope that everybody in the House will — I know

they will — support the measure.

Mr. D.E. Smith (North Peace River): Mr. Chairman, I

think it does show, when we have a few things to say about a

bill and a

section of the bill, which we offered in good faith,

that the Minister did listen, not because he wanted to, but

because he knew it was the proper thing to do in relation to

the people who are involved and may be victims of accidents

over which they had no control.

They, as I said before, were the people caught in the

middle. And if there are any court cases involved, or if

there's a way to recover, that is between the Insurance

Corporation of British Columbia and the Traffic Victims

Indemnity Fund, not between the little people who were involved

in an unfortunate situation.

The Minister said that the private insurance industry welched on the Province

of British Columbia; they copped out. What private insurance industry in the

province? They're not here, Mr. Minister.

They are not in existence in the Province of British

Columbia because of legislation that went through this House.

You know that. So why use that for an excuse for not fulfilling

the liability that ICBC should rightfully take on, and will

take on, with this amendment?

Let it be abundantly clear that what we heard this morning,

in the introduction of this amendment by the Minister, was

nothing but a rehash of threats and cheap theatrics trying to

cover up an obligation which he knows full well really belongs

now between the industry — the ICBC, which is the industry now — and the Traffic Victims Indemnity Fund.

But thank goodness, the small people who are involved in

situations which they could not control themselves, who require

finance because of accidents, will be looked after….

Hon. Mr. Strachan: You guys held it up.

Mr. Smith: Held it up! How do you mean we held it

up?

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Smith: There was no such thing. That's

fallacious; that's fallacious and you know it, Mr.

Minister.

The thing is that the people now will realize that the

government must come through and they say so by this amendment.

Certainly we're happy to support it.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. G.S. Wallace (Oak Bay): I haven't said anything

yet. (Laughter.)

Mr. Chairman: I'm not….

Mr. Wallace: I thought you were anticipating events,

Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: I would like the House to hear what the

Hon. Member is going to say.

Mr. Wallace: Mr. Chairman, I certainly will support

this amendment for the reasons I stated yesterday.

I think both sides of the House realize that regardless of

the technicalities that were involved, and the fact that over a

period of 20 years, I think…. Did the government of 20 years

ever accept any amendments from the opposition?

[ Page 4976 ]

An Hon. Member: No way.

Mr. Wallace: So, while each side in this political

arena that we all scramble around in is trying to make points

on this issue, it means two things to me, at least.

One is that, whatever all the machinations and who scored

which points off whom, the right thing has been done in this

case.

The second thing is that although I have some tremendous

reservations about this NDP government, there is evidence that

it does listen and it's willing to accept amendments from the

opposition and act upon these amendments. If we've made no

other progress than that, I think that's quite a step forward

for this Legislature.

Hon. G.R. Lea (Minister of Highways): Mr. Chairman, I

stand to support this amendment.

But, you know, I'm a newcomer to this House — two short years

Mr. Phillips: You won't be here very long,

either.

Hon. Mr. Lea: You know, that's not as important to me….

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Lea: Whether I stay or I go isn't as

important to me, personally, as it is to you, obviously.

There are people here in this party who support the party

policy — we're not here for our own individual game. That's

different.

An Hon. Member: Hear, hear!

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Would the Hon. Minister

address himself to the amendment, please?

An Hon. Member: If you don't call it a game, what do

you call it?

Hon. Mr. Lea: I don't call it a game.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Order!

Hon. Mr. Lea: Mr. Chairman, I'm used to not a very complicated kind

of politics where I come from up north. All parties are like that up there a

little bit. But, you know, I have never in my life witnessed anything like I've

seen here. It was obvious to me what the government intended, and I think it

was obvious to the opposition that what the government intended to do was to

pay those people — at the same time, Mr. Chairman, trying to protect the people

of British Columbia so they could go back and get what is rightly theirs from

those insurance companies who did welch. That seems to be the case to me.

What has become very obvious to me since I've been in

politics, which hasn't been too long, is that you have to pay

back the people who pay for your campaign. That's the first

rule of politics. It's called pragmatist politics. In this

party we have to pay back the people who supported us: the

working people in this province and the little people in this

province who paid for our campaign. If we don't do that we will

not survive as a political party, and that's what we are.

It's the same for every political party in this House. I saw

it in this House in the last few days — those people paying for

their campaign. They plan to get money from those insurance

companies to try and defeat us next time, and they had to do

it. They had to do it, even though deep down they knew very

well that those people were going to be paid. They made a

political circus out of this chamber in order to make political

points, and so they can get campaign funds when they run next

time.

Believe me, the little people in this province have never

supported you and they won't ever. So you may as well forget

it.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Would the Hon. Minister

address himself to the merits of the amendment?

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Lea: You tried that. You tried that. You put

this whole thing on the floor of this House to try and get

money from the insurance companies for your next election.

Baloney!

Interjection.

Mr. Chairman: Would the Hon. Member state the words

that were offensive to him, please?

Mr. D.A. Anderson (Victoria): I was referring to the

statement by the Minister that this was motivated by a desire

to get funds for political purposes. That statement was made on

a number of occasions. If it's not withdrawn, I'll ask that the

liar leave as well. It's untrue and that thing should be

apologized for, and you know it.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Would the Hon. Members please allow the

Chair to deal with this matter?

I was about to say before I was interrupted….

[ Page 4977 ]

There has been no courtesy shown to the Chair whatsoever

this morning. I think that it's proper that the Chair show a

certain amount of courtesy to the Members. However, I would ask

that the Hon. Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) withdraw any

imputations of any wrong motives on the part of the Hon.

Members of the Liberal Party, in terms of their motivation for

raising this matter. I would ask him to withdraw

unconditionally that imputation.

Hon. Mr. Lea: I withdraw unconditionally, because

it's unparliamentary.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I would ask the Hon.

Minister of Highways to withdraw it without comment. Simply

withdraw it unconditionally.

Hon. Mr. Lea: I withdraw without comment.

Mr. Chairman: Now I would ask the Hon. Second Member

for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) to extend the same courtesy to

whichever Member he referred to as liar.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Mr. Chairman, I would like to

apologize for any words I may have used in the heat of the

moment which were unparliamentary or uncalled for.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I would just ask the

Hon. Member, as tile Minister of Highways did, to say that you

withdraw unconditionally the imputation of a person being a

liar.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Mr. Chairman, I will certainly do

it as the Minister of Highways has done.

Amendment approved.

Section 1 as amended approved.

section 2.

Hon. E. Hall (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Chairman, I

move the amendment standing in the name of the Hon.

Attorney-General on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Mr. D.A. Anderson: I have a general question, Mr.

Chairman. Perhaps it could come up after the amendment is dealt

with, but perhaps it would be better to deal with it now.

Is this designed to allow credit union agencies and credit union members to

become Autoplan agents? If not, could I ask the Minister why the amendment,

and why the

section is being brought in? Is there any reasoning behind it which

we are unaware of?

Hon. Mr. Hall: That's the

section of the bill….

Which one should we discuss, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Chairman: The amendment to

section 2.

Hon. Mr. Hall: Is it the amendment we're bringing in

regarding the credit union reserve board and the approval of

the Minster to alter the formula, or the one where the credit

union may act as an agent for its members? Which one do you

want to discuss?

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Here we have credit unions making

their members agents. I wondered under what….

Hon. Mr. Hall: Okay, that's fine. That's the one

that's not in the bill: "A credit union may act as agent for

its members and for such other persons as may be designated by

the Lieu ten ant-Governor-in-Council." The credit unions have

requested that they keep in step with the banks in the

provision of services that 20 years ago were never thought of

by banks or credit unions — for instance: travel agents, powers

of attorney, paying B.C. Telephone bills, paying B.C. Hydro

bills, and those general family financial matters. The Member

is right that we are also hoping that they will be able, if

they want, to provide ICBC service to their members.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: I realize this question is

somewhat general. Could I ask the Minister whether there have

been discussions with a view to having credit union offices

used for ICBC agency purposes?

Hon. Mr. Hall: I'm informed that there have been

discussions, yes.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: May I again ask the Minister

whether or not the amendment, if brought in, would lead to this

in the near future? Is a government plan fairly well advanced

along this line with the credit union…?

Hon. Mr. Hall: As we said to the House when the

matter was being debated, or questioned in question period,

it's our hope to improve the service of ICBC to the public

generally. I think all Members are interested in doing that.

This will be part of that improvement.

Amendment approved.

Section 2 as amended approved.

section 3.

[ Page 4978 ]

Mr. Smith: Actually, I think what the Crown is trying

to do in this particular

section is make it a little easier for

people who have established a right to sue the Crown to do it

through one central city in the Province of British

Columbia.

It would seem to me that if — in the Attorney-General's

words — we were to "let a little sunshine into the Province of

British Columbia" and that we now have a right to sue the

Crown, that right should not be jeopardized by the fact that

the writ must be issued in the City of Victoria. It would seem

to me that you have to go through the costly process of having

a process served….

Hon. Mr. Hall: It doesn't have to be issued in the

City of Victoria.

Mr. Smith: It has to be served in the City of

Victoria, which is an expense on anybody in the province. It's

an inconvenience at least. It would seem to me that if the

government is as concerned about people in parts of the

province like Atlin, or wherever they might be, as they are

with easy access to the City of Victoria, then they would

accept the amendment which I proposed and put on the desk of

the Clerk some days ago when we were in debate.

The amendment reads: "by deleting all words after the phrase

'the words in line 2,' and substituting therefore 'or at the

office of the court clerk in any provincial court anywhere in

British Columbia.'

The Minister laughs.

Hon. Mr. Hall: Yes, you'd better believe it.

Mrs. Jordan: What a sense of humour.

Mr. Smith: Is it not the wish of the government that

everyone in the Province of British Columbia be given equal

opportunity without any inconvenience or stumbling block placed

in their way, if and when they have established a right to sue

the Crown and by opening it up so that any court in the

Province of British Columbia could be used, and that you'll

make the access easier for every person in the Province of

British Columbia? That is the reason for the amendment. It

would seem to me that if the A-G's department is concerned that

people have a right to sue, they would open it up. It's not a

major amendment, but it would give the public the understanding….

Hon. Mr. Hall: It's an entirely improper one.

Interjection.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The Member for North

Peace River has the floor.

Mr. Smith: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's our feeling

that the amendment does nothing more than set up for the people

in the Province of British Columbia a more workable system than

we presently would have with the

section 3 as it now reads in

this particular bill.

Mr. Gardom: With every respect to the Hon. Member who

just spoke, we don't have any intention whatsoever of

supporting the amendment. He's indicated a procedure that would

be absolutely unwieldy, unnecessary and silly, to say the very

least.

The procedure that is suggested by the government's

amendment is one that is consistent with practice that has been

carried on in this province pretty well since confederation,

and it is one that has worked effectively and well. Suits

against the Crown are not matters to be treated lightly. The

action may be commenced anywhere in the province, and the next

step of magnitude is merely to put the material into an

envelope and mail it to the office of the Attorney-General, who

may accept service.

I think if the Hon. Member or his adviser who suggested the

amendment would perhaps take a look at that, they would know

that we do have some degree of postal service in Canada at the

present time. That would be the continuing and most effective

manner to deal with this.

Hon. Mr. Hall: The amendment is not acceptable. It is

improper as well, because if you want to serve a notice on the

parties, you serve it on the parties. You don't serve it on an

officer of the court.

Amendment negatived.

Section 3 approved.

section 4.

Mr. Wallace: Very briefly, Mr. Chairman, I see the

intent of this amendment and, while it is not part of the

legislation, it mentions that the purpose of this is to ensure

that persons who are fined and don't pay the fine can go to

jail where the defaulting party has sufficient means to pay the

arrears. I'm just wondering what the general standard will be

in deciding who has sufficient means to pay arrears and what

kind of mechanism will be used to determine the person who

appears to have enough money to pay a fine and should not be in

arrears.

Secondly, I approve the principle, and I wonder to what

degree there would be some value in showing the new approach of

that kind of person serving his or her sentence at weekends. I

notice that somebody got 30 days the other day to serve by a

mechanism of 15 weekends. This kind of person who willfully

denies a sound judgment and who has the money to pay and

[ Page

4979 ]

who subsequently is sentenced…. I presume that this is at

the discretion of the judge only as to whether or not it is 30

straight days or 15 weekends.

Hon. Mr. Hall: The genesis of the amendment is found

in two areas, Mr. Member. One is that when we amended the

Summary Convictions Act last session, it left a little unclear

what happens to those people who are in arrears in terms of

maintenance orders. The second part of its origin lies in the

Berger commission on family law, who are slowly moving towards

getting these things out of the courts and into the family…to de-escalate the situation where those kinds of questions,

those kinds of studies, those kinds of value judgments can be

made without the tensions and the bric-à-brac of the superior

levels of justice.

Section 4 approved.

section 5.

Mr. G.F. Gibson (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr.

Chairman, I wonder if I could ask either the Minister having

charge of this bill or the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) to explain to the House the need

for these two changes to the Forest Act.

Hon. R.A. Williams (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources):

I think that the present statute means that improvements might be exempt in

tree farm licences. That's obviously inequitable in relation to other property.

So this statutory amendment would see to it that that would not be the case.

They will be treated like other property owners, even though they are in the

TFL tenure. I think that is simply a move towards equity, and the other part

provides some flexibility with respect to the other tenures.

Mr. Gibson: On the two sections then, Mr. Chairman:

it is a little confusing dealing with the two of them at once,

but I would ask the Minister a couple of further questions.

With respect to the ending of the tax exemption, I wonder if

the Minister has any idea of the amount of increased revenue,

whether to the Crown provincial or to the municipalities, that

might be generated as a result of this.

With respect to the second, I understand that the power to

renew for less than 21 years is a flexibility compared to the

existing Act, which relates to an exact 21 years. Is the

Minister, in effect, suggesting by this that he will be using

this in cases where — how would I put it — where long-term

planning horizons are not necessary because capital facilities

are already in place?

Hon. R.A. Williams: Yes, I think that that would be a

factor, and you could have management relate to whatever the

forestry programmes were in the area. That would definitely be

a factor.

In terms of the dollar amount, I'm afraid we don't have

figures, but there are a range of industrial establishments on

the TFLs of a considerable scale, and it isn't really equitable

between people in the industry.

Mr. Gibson: I'll just say, Mr. Chairman, that I don't

think tax measures should be passed without having some idea of

the impact.

Mr. D.A. Anderson (Victoria): On the same section,

this allows variation, as the Minister mentioned, of the

21-year provision. I wonder whether he could inform the House

as to what he has in mind. It is all very well to say that this

provides a certain amount of flexibility, but — I hate to use

these words — it provides absolute total flexibility for him to

vary.

It seems to me that in the situation we are dealing with a

certain amount of security of tenure is necessary to get the

companies involved to act in accordance with good public

policy. It would seem to me that this variation and uncertainty

might well work against companies acting in the public

interest. They will act in a short-run interest rather than in

an interest of the public over more than 21 years.

I wonder if the Minister would comment on what he has in

mind so that perhaps we get a better idea than these few words

indicate.

Hon. R.A. Williams: I would just like to reconfirm,

with respect to the other section, that this is simply a move

toward equity, like other taxation bills in this area. I think

it gives more comparability. In that sense a move toward equity

is generally considered more just.

The thought here is that these tenures have already been in

place for some time and management has proceeded on them. Now

the question really is what the reasonable length of time might

be in relation to practice in the area. That's the situation as

we see it.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Well, that's the point, Mr.

Minister, I was questioning you on. What would be considered a

reasonable length of time? Would it be 10 years with an

extension to 21 under certain remote circumstances, or would 21

be the normal, but reduced to 10 under certain incredible or

very unusual certain circumstances? What does he really have in

mind with this variation that he is introducing in this

particular amendment?

Hon. R.A. Williams: I think it would vary with forest

management proposals on a specific site basis.

[ Page 4980 ]

Mr. Gibson: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate what the

Minister says, that this may well be a move towards equity in

matters of property taxation, but I still think it is improper

for this House to agree to a measure which may make tax changes

of $100,000, $1 million, $10,000, $10 million; we just don't

know by a factor of 10 or 10,000. I think we should know that

before being asked to agree to it.

Section 5 approved.

section 6.

Mr. D.A. Anderson:

Section 6, Mr. Chairman, is the

Human Rights Code and it, in fact, seems to deal with a number

of things. The first one is, of course, (a): "in

section

3(2)(

b) by adding after the word 'decency,' the words 'or to

the determination of premiums or benefits under contracts of

insurance.' "

If we read that back into the Human Rights Code, it appears

to me that we are introducing another sexual distinction here,

which I think at least should be commented upon probably by

some of the ladies present as well as by myself.

It's a sexist provision which provides an advantage to one

sex over the other, and it is the type of thing which comes up

in the Human Rights Code which we should look at very closely.

The

section as it presently reads,

section 3: "No person shall"

- et cetera, et cetera — "discriminate against any person

without reasonable cause, and for the purpose of

section 1, the

race, religion, colour, ancestry or place of origin of any

person or class of person shall not constitute reasonable

cause, and (

b) the sex of any person shall not constitute

reasonable cause unless it relates to the maintenance of public

decency."

Well, now we are adding in not only public decency, but in

the "determination of premiums or benefits under contracts of

insurance." Now it is a known fact that woman might well be

penalized or men could be penalized under this provision.

The other fact that comes up, and it is one that I think

should be discussed by the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King),

who is here, is that of course in insurance you will find that

certain categories of people have different life expectancies,

different death expectancies in certain age groups, and this

variation might parallel, for example, racial groups. It does,

indeed. It may parallel some other factor which is listed here:

the place of origin, the colour or ancestry.

Once we open the door to allowing insurance premiums to be varied on the basis

of sex, the logic of the argument being put forward by the government in this

amendment could lead to similar amendments to allow insurance companies to treat

separate categories of people differently on the basis of their actuarial tables,

which indicate that certain people of different ancestry, different race, different

colour, or whatever, might well be entitled to different types of insurance

policies.

Now, if we are to accept the thin edge of the wedge with

respect to the female sex, or the male sex in this instance,

are we also going to find that the insurance companies will

then have a ground for saying, "Look, actuarially, David

Anderson, bachelor, of particular age and particular racial

background, is a much worse or much better risk than the

Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) with his background and what

have you."

If we're going to accept this amendment the government is

putting forward, I would like some comment from the government

as to whether or not they're accepting the principle of

allowing insurance companies to adjust premiums and policies in

accordance with risk and based on what might be considered

discriminatory provisions. If we accept this amendment, I fear

we're opening the door to all sorts of discrimination of that

type.

Mr. Wallace: Well, Mr. Chairman, I'll run the

terrible risk of being considered racist after the comments

that I want to make. If the amendment is recognizing that in

the insurance business the basic principle on which they

function is to assess risk in relation to certain factors,

whether we like it or not, women live a lot longer than men by

several years on the average and, presumably, women should pay

a smaller premium for the lesser risk or for the fact that

their chances of dying at age 65 are considerably less than the

chance of a man dying by the age of 65.

I see the Hon. Liberal leader's concern that this amendment

might be opening the door to the recognition of racial, age or

sex factors. But in the insurance business — and certainly as a

medical factor — there are substantial differences in the

potential mortality from lung cancer depending on whether

you're a male or a female. The most typical one at the present

time is breast cancer incidence in women which is almost

negligible in men.

It seems to me that this amendment is trying to permit

reference to specific differences which relate in the insurance

industry. Now, not for one moment would I agree to differences,

say, in employment in an industry, or many of the other factors

where we feel women are discriminated against, but it seems to

me in the insurance business, if they were all treated equally

with men, the women would definitely be penalized.

In many areas, the women in society have a much better

prognosis in terms of survival and liability to many of the

diseases and disabilities of modern life. As I say, the very

basic fact of survival shows that the life expectancy of men —

I don't know the exact figures, Mr. Chairman — is one or two

years less than

[ Page 4981 ]

the life expectancy of women. If you treated everyone

completely equally in this insurance field, women would be

paying the same premium as men on life insurance when, in fact,

they should get it cheaper because they live longer and they're

less of a risk to the insurance companies.

If I've misunderstood it, perhaps the Minister can correct

me, but I think in this exceptional situation there has to be

recognition given to the fact that there is a difference

between the sexes.

Hon. W.S. King (Minister of Labour): In response to

the leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. D.A. Anderson) and the

Member for Oak Bay, the leader of the Conservative Party (Mr.

Wallace), I'd just like to make a few comments on this

particular section. I think that both Members have outlined the

problem and recognized it, the problem being that traditionally

and historically insurance companies have developed their whole

rating system on the basis of the sex factor to some extent.

There is a different ratio for females and males.

Without getting into the argument as to whether or not

that's a justifiable basis to set up different ratings, the

fact of the matter is that it's physically impossible to break

that system down without a great deal of study and without a

great deal of lead time for the companies involved.

Quite frankly, off the record…. (Laughter.) As an aside, I

would disagree with the remarks of the Member for Oak Bay that

it is an equitable basis to discriminate on the life expectancy

of females as against males. One can identify many groups in

society where it is statistically possible to set up

discriminatory rates. Certainly, the race factor could be one,

the age factor, the sex factor, a whole variety of premises. I

reject that approach.

This amendment is simply a recognition that this has

traditionally been the basis upon which insurance rates were

set in the province, It's a recognition that it's going to take

some time to find a new approach. It's a recognition that in

many other jurisdictions, both in this nation and in the USA,

studies are presently underway to find out how we may change

the rating system to comply with the modern concepts of human

rights. There is such a study underway in Ontario and Manitoba

also, I believe.

It's our intention to address ourselves to that same problem

here, not simply make this as a blanket, all-time exemption but

simply to ensure that the problem is not going to be the

subject of any litigation under the Human Rights Commission

before we have a chance to take a broad, comprehensive look at

it and find out just what the answers are in this very, very

complex area.

Mr. Smith: It would seem to me, Mr. Chairman, that what the Minister

is trying to accommodate in this particular amendment is a situation that has

long existed in the insurance industry. If you want to call it discrimination,

I guess you could, but it's in favour of the female sex in the setting of insurance

premiums. It has long been a tradition that females, because of their longer

life expectancy, receive rates more preferential than a male. That extends right

through the whole category of insurance policies offered, particularly life-insurance

contracts.

But the only type of differential that I am aware of is the

premium rate itself. I wonder why the amendment includes the

word "benefits" under a contract. I am of the opinion that the

only discrimination made in insurance contracts is the lesser

premium that is charged to people of equal age, one being a

female who receives a lesser rate per thousand of insurance

than a male. I am not aware of any other contractual problems

that you would have to cover by including the word "benefits"

under contract. I believe the only discrimination is with

respect to actuarial setting of rates.

Hon. Mr. King: No, there are two things basically

affected in the insurance industry. One is the premiums, as you

have identified, Mr. Member. The other is with respect to

pension plans that are sponsored under insurance companies.

That's the reason.

It's true that, as it stands, there is a benefit to females

in the rating system. I don't think it's for the Legislature,

and certainly not from my office, to pass comment on that. The

fact of the matter is that if this issue was tested before the

Human Rights Commission, then we may well have a decision which

found that this was improper under the existing legislation and

we could have a great hiatus in the whole industry. So we want

to provide the lead time to study the whole matter.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Mr. Chairman, just for the record,

I'd like to thank the Minister for his courteous attempt to

explain this. I agree with him that we do need to look at the

whole area in much greater detail.

I would like to put on record our reservations of cutting

back on equal rights provisions for women, which essentially is

what this amendment does. It may give them a benefit in this

case, but essentially we're cutting that back from what is now

the only grounds to discriminate under 3(2)(b), namely public

decency, and we're adding in insurance as another area. It

might well discriminate against a man as well. Exactly.

But we are now cutting back from the non-discriminatory

area. I would like to accept his assurance that this will be

looked at further. The more we cut back from this, the less

happy I am.

[ Page 4982 ]

Hon. Mr. King: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to give

the Member assurance that this is in no way a retreat. We do

intend to pursue the issue.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Mr. Chairman, (

a) and (

b) are

fine; we've dealt with those. But (

c) deals with another

provision, cutting back on civil rights or human rights, namely

something that the Attorney-General and I discussed…. Not

the Attorney-General, the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall).

I keep mixing those two up; they sit too close to one

another.

Anyway, back in November of '73, the Provincial Secretary

and I had a lengthy discussion on an

article in The

Provincial , which was dated September of '73, dealing with the

very question of nationality, because this is a nationalist

provision which is discriminatory — the one that the government

is bringing in at this time.

At that time I was told that there was no problem involved,

and that there was no need for discussion of this particular

thing, Now we find that the government is bringing in a

specific provision respecting Canadian citizenship.

What I would like to ask again is based upon that question I

raised on November 7, 1973: what happens when you have people

who are currently employed who are not Canadian citizens, who

are within the civil service, who may well have had 20 years

service, 30 years service, but who, for one reason or another,

had not taken out Canadian citizenship?

I, personally, think they should take out Canadian

citizenship, but I don't know whether we should affect their

civil liberties by forcing them to, and that's the point I made

at that time, and the point I make now.

Just for the record, Mr. Chairman, to remind people who may

have forgotten that debate of a year ago, the

article in

The Provincial had the headline: "Sorry, Canadians Only

Need Apply", and the body of the

article went: "Provincial

employees who aren't Canadian citizens have two months to

obtain citizenship or face dismissal from the government

service." And there have been instances during last year of

people in the Highways department having been released because

they were not Canadian citizens.

It goes on to say:

"That's the word from the civil service commission in its

September 7 letter to the union. It says that the commission's

policy with respect to non-citizens already employed is that

they be given two-months notice to obtain citizenship and if

they have not obtained in that time, they are released."

I remember speaking up in this House with respect to the government inconsistency

in this area, because at that time they themselves had hired some Americans

as assistants — indeed, one was an assistant to the Premier — and I suggested

there should be consistency.

The question I put to the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr.

Hall) at this stage is: what will happen to those who are

currently members of the provincial service who are not

Canadian citizens, and whether in the past year there were

cases which came up which showed that the previous law was

being applied incorrectly by the civil service commission,

because of their requirements to get Canadian citizenship?

Hon. Mr. Hall: Mr. Chairman, I am asked to explain

and be responsible for an

article that appeared in a journal:

it's not my journal; I'm not responsible for it. You can quote

all you like; it's not my biscuit.

An Hon. Member: What is your biscuit?

Hon. Mr. Hall: What is my biscuit is the Public

Service Act, and the Public Service Act,

section 49 says:

"The commission, in appointing a person to any position in the public service shall appoint a Canadian

citizen; but, if no qualified Canadian citizen applies for a

position, the commission may appoint another person as a

temporary appointment."

That's what we went through. I think we've been through it

twice.

Now, what we're saying is: just in case anybody is not

paying any attention to the Human Rights Code or this Act,

we're now making sure that the provision respecting Canadian

citizenship, which occurs in 200 references in our statutes —

as we've been able to find to date — is not an offence. It

does, in fact, constitute reasonable cause. I say now, as I

said then, that if Canadian citizenship means anything at all,

surely it means a preference for working in the government

service.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: I agree that the Minister is not

responsible for a trade union magazine or journal; it's just

that the information is there which I think he's sidestepping.

Was it, or was it not, incorrect? The fact is, if the union is

misinforming 30,000 provincial civil servants, the Provincial

Secretary should at least pay a little attention to it.

Could I ask what happens in the case of landed immigrants?

Could I also ask whether or not cases have occurred since we

debated this in November of 1973, where would-be civil

servants, or existing civil servants, have attempted to use the…?

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I think we're going

beyond the parameters of the discussion that

[ Page 4983 ]

we should be having in relation to this section.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, what I'm trying to get across to the Minister

is whether or not this

section is being introduced to restrict

the wide extent of civil liberties in the province; whether it

is being introduced because there have been cases of people

using the Human Rights Code of British Columbia to get around

the 200 references in the statutes to Canadian citizenship. Has

that occurred in the last year?

Hon. Mr. Hall: The purpose of this

section is to

clarify for everybody in the province that where the words

"Canadian citizenship" are mentioned in Acts of this

Legislature, that does constitute reasonable cause for

preference or discrimination.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: I understand the intent, Mr.

Minister, but my question is whether the Human Rights Code of

British Columbia has been used to circumvent, or get around

those 200 references which you made mention of.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: If there has been no problem why

the amendment?

Hon. Mr. Hall: Well, I don't know of any specific

problems. The Human Rights Code is another Minister's

responsibility, but this is policy and we're not asleep at the

switch, contrary to some of your statements. We know that

there's likely to be an area that would be investigated, would

be raised, that you yourself would raise. I think at one time

you and I used the word "threatened", in a nice sense…or

promised to raise the question at some future date. So we're

alert, we see what's happening and we say that as far as

government policy is concerned, Canadian citizenship means

something.

Sections 6 and 7 approved.

section 8.

Mr. Gibson: Mr. Chairman, I would take it that this

has something to do with registration and citizenship

provisions in the Land Registry Act which we passed into law

last spring. I would ask the Provincial Secretary if he could

explain briefly the need for the section.

Hon. Mr. Hall: To simplify the procedures; to just

make a statement instead of a statutory declaration.

Mr. Gibson: Is the Provincial Secretary of the

opinion that this will provide as valid a registration? Does he

think there might be any evasion of the registration provisions

because of this? Or are there abundant?

Hon. Mr. Hall: At the moment it's an informational

task we're on. We're trying to get information.

The Member is asking if the information we get is going to

be true, or is it going to be diluted or falsified because

we're not making a statutory declaration. I don't think so. I

think there are more good people than bad people….

Mr. Gibson: There's certainly no question about that,

but one of the things I am concerned about is hiding behind

trusts, and that sort of thing. I'll just leave it as a

representation, at the moment, to the Provincial Secretary.

Mr. Phillips: Would the Provincial Secretary explain

to me who he is going to make this statement to?

I certainly appreciate this amendment because there are many

cases now, particularly in the remote areas of the province,

where a person buys a piece of property and merely has to

deposit his money with the real estate agent. Then he takes off

up in the boondocks or somewhere, or there are cases where

people are in hospital. Now either a notary public has to go to

them….

I have a case in my own constituency now where a person is

in an extended-care hospital, and wants to transfer the

property to her son. The son has to go to a notary…the

documents…it's very, very difficult to work.

Now, who is the person purchasing the property going to make

the statement to? Is he going to make it to the real estate

agent, or does he have to make a statement to a notary? Can the

statement be taken at the time the person actually makes the

deal with the real estate agent?

Hon. Mr. Hall: This person you're talking about must

involve himself at some time during the transaction with

somebody who's got a bit of expertise — either a solicitor or a

notary public. This is no longer a statutory declaration, but

now a simple statement, and must find its weary way to the

Registrar of Titles.

Mr. Phillips: Well, I'll restate my question.

Can that statement be made to the real estate agent? It

doesn't have to be with the notary public. Is there going to be

a form that a real estate agent can have so that if I go in to

buy a piece of property from a real estate agent?

[ Page 4984 ]

Hon. Mr. Hall: The answer is yes. The regulations

flowing from this have not been written yet, and there will be

new forms designed.

Mr. Phillips: When will this come into effect? I've

got several cases right now where….

Hon. Mr. Hall: As soon as we get out of here.

(Laughter.)

Section 8 approved.

section 9.

Mr. Wallace: Mr. Chairman,

section 9 seems to me to

be the most devastating part of this whole bill. I would like

to know whether I read the

section 9 correctly, but anyone

fact, the government of this province is excluding itself

completely and totally from any obligation to meet all the very

important and serious pieces of legislation we've put through

this House in relation to the use and development of land.

Now, if there's one subject which has been contentious above

all others, since this government took office, it is its policy

and its belief in the use and development of land. Of course,

in subsection (

b) it goes far beyond that and talks about

improvements as defined in the Assessment Act, and that any

enactment does not bind or affect the Crown.

This section, Mr. Chairman, seems to exclude this government

completely from all the provisions, for example, of Bill 42. We

don't have to recount the tremendous upheaval right across this

province when Bill 42 was introduced.

The general, wide language which is used in subsections (

a) and (

b) would seem to me to also make a mockery of all the

municipal legislation we have in this province. As I read

section 9 it would give this government the power to completely

ignore or overrule any piece of municipal legislation in any of

our municipalities, regarding the use or development of land.

The planning, construction, alteration, servicing, maintenance

or use of improvements, as found in the Assessment Act, do not

bind or affect the Crown.

Now I understand that already this kind of provision is enjoyed — if that is

the word — by B.C. Hydro, and that there are many painful experiences where

B.C. Hydro goes its own way in contradiction and against the wishes of municipalities

simply because this power is already extended to that particular Crown corporation.

Now it would seem to me that in

section 9 we are facing a situation where the

door is…. I wouldn't even say the door is open wide; the door is taken away.

There is absolutely no impediment whatever, if we pass

section 9, to prevent

the government, through any of his departments or Crown corporations or Ministers

or commissions, doing exactly as it pleases with land and improvements.

First of all, I would like to know if my

interpretation of

the completely unencumbered nature of this amendment…have

I read it correctly? Does it in fact mean that this government

is giving itself total and complete authority to take unto

itself power in the use of land and improvements which does not

extend to any other citizen or group or corporation or

association of individuals in this province? If that is the

case, then this has to be the most shocking and impertinent

approach that this government has made since it became

government.

Not only that, Mr. Chairman, if my

interpretation is

correct, it is an additional insult to try and slip that kind

of far-reaching and dictatorial legislation through as part of

a Statute Law Amendment Act. After all the words and argument

we have heard about how vital it is in our modern society to

use land intelligently — and I agree that it is — it is just an

insult beyond belief that this government in a

section in the

Statute Law Amendment Act should try to exempt itself from the

extremely detailed, complicated laws which it has already

passed, affecting every individual citizen in this

province.

So if my

interpretation is correct, perhaps the Minister

could tell us why this government sets itself above the

individuals in society that it is elected to represent, sets

special privilege for itself in the use of land and

improvements.

Secondly, I would like to know, if that is the purpose of

this section, whether the Minister could tell us — and I can't

possibly see what justification there would be to take this

particular highly privileged, undemocratic right unto the

government which is not extended unto citizens individually — why government feels that it requires this very special

privilege position. Is it due to the kind of situations which

arose when ICBC bought some agricultural land in the Lower

Fraser Valley and then found they couldn't build a claims

centre because the land was zoned for agricultural

purposes?

section 9 meant to get this government off the hook when

it spends public funds buying land for a purpose which it

cannot use? It would seem to me that the phraseology and the

terminology in this very small

section indeed gives the

government just that amount of power to use land for specific

government purposes which no other individual or corporation or

business or group of citizens would ever have any hope of

using. If that's the case, this has to be the most insulting

bill this House has ever had to consider since this government

came to power.

The other question that arises, of course, is to what kind

of use this bill will be put by the enlarging

[ Page

4985 ]

number of commissions and boards and government agencies and

Crown corporations which seem to be increasing at a steady pace

in this province. It would, I think, demolish the confidence

which many people in the province have as to the motivation of

all the legislation we've passed in relation to land and

assessments. Goodness only knows, if there are two subjects

which have caused the most heated of debate in this House, they

have been in relation to land and in relation to assessment of

improvements.

It just seems such a total and complete contradiction of

everything which this government says it espouses, a total

contradiction of what it considers every honest and honourable

citizen should try and uphold — the law. Yet this government

apparently wants to exempt itself totally from these very vital

legislative restrictions on the individual in relation to land

and improvements.

So I wonder if the Minister could answer, first, whether I

have interpreted this correctly; secondly, whether this is to

cover specific instances such as the one I mentioned in the

Lower Fraser Valley, where agricultural land was bought for an

ICBC centre; thirdly, to what degree this extends that

privilege I've mentioned to agencies of the government. Or, at

least, at what level of government administration can this

exemption be sought?

In other words, how far down the line do we go in having

some subsidiary agency of the government wanting to build an

office building in the middle of a residential area, for

example, or, worse still, put up some industrial or commercial

project right in the middle of an area in which the people in

that community have decided should be retained for parks or

residential property or some other totally different

purpose?

It seems to me that this

section 1s devastating in its

potential for government and government agencies to completely

disregard the existing law which applies to every other

citizen. Worse than that, it is again just a complete slap in

the face to municipalities. As I read

section 9, the

municipalities might as well not spend five minutes on their

various rezoning or zoning committee meetings, when at any time

government can simply come along and do as it chooses with its

won property and its own plans.

So I think this

section 9, being slipped in here as part of

the Statute Law Amendment Act, with all the consequences that I

can foresee…. The very least we should have had was a

separate bill at least to determine whether or not this House

feels that the government should take this amount of privileged

position unto itself, which is completely contradictory to the

position as it applies to every citizen in this province.

Hon. Mr. Hall: Mr. Chairman, I want to make just one simple statement

about this

section — which is all that is required. This

section puts the government

in exactly the same position that the previous government was in for 20 years

— exactly the same position that this government was in in 1972, exactly the

same position that this government was in in 1973, exactly the same position

the government was in until the passage of the Statute Law Amendment Act in

the spring session of this year, when, under the

Interpretation Act, a similar

statute such as this…. The

Interpretation Act was a section. That power went.

No point in….

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Hall: The things that you said are available

to this government have been available to the government of

British Columbia for at least the last 20 years. What we are

doing is saying that in this

section those powers should be

restored to the Crown.

Mr. H.A. Curtis (Saanich and the Islands): The

comment by the Provincial Secretary doesn't make us feel any

easier. Whether the right or the actions have been available to

government over 20 or 40 years doesn't make it any more fair

for the people of British Columbia.

I think, Mr. Chairman, that it is an affront to this

Legislature to have this slipped through in the Statute Law

Amendment Act, particularly with an explanatory note which

ways: "This amendment is self-explanatory."

Now, Mr. Chairman, I recall as one not sitting in this House

prior to 1972, that it was this very kind of

section in this

particular kind of bill which was of concern to the present

government party when it sat in opposition: the hooker, the

sleeper, the little note in an omnibus bill, or an all-purpose

bill, or a catch-all bill. I remember Members who are sitting

in this House and others who are not, who were then in

opposition, who repeatedly pointed out that this kind of

legislation — around the back door — was simply not acceptable

and it was not fair.

Let this committee not be confused, Mr. Chairman, what we

have here is double-standard legislation — double-standard

legislation. The citizen, the group, the company, the

corporation — whatever it may be — must follow certain

regulations, but the government exempts itself — and I reject

that principle at all levels of government. I reject it here; I

reject it at the federal level; and I have on many occasions

rejected it at the municipal or regional district level.

Because it is comparable precisely, Mr. Chairman, to a

municipality with an older municipal hall not bothering to zone

the property on which it stands, or to exempt the setback

regulations, or to somehow skirt and pass by the building code

of the municipality. It is not acceptable at any level of

[ Page 4986 ]

government — "don't do as we do, do as we say."

I think that it is — again, as I said earlier — it is an

affront in six or eight lines —

section 9 of the Statute Law

Amendment Act — in the dying hours or days of this session, for

this government to undertake precisely what it opposed

strenuously time after time after time when it was in

opposition — double standard, double-think.

Mr. R.H. McClelland (Langley): Mr. Chairman, just a

brief comment about

section 9.

I've seen, since I've been in this Legislature, a couple of

these Statute Law Amendment Acts, and in each of them there

always seems to be a kicker — one

section which has been sort

of slipped into the middle, but which is much more important

than the government seems to think it is.

Hon. Mr. Hall: In alphabetical order; they are in

alphabetical order.

Mr. McClelland: Mr. Chairman, the Provincial

Secretary destroys his own argument when he says that this is

law which just perpetuates what has gone on for 20 years. This

province has a long history, Mr. Chairman, to the Provincial

Secretary, of land planning, beginning 20 or 30 years ago with

the start of the lower mainland regional planning board, and

then, even going into that bill that the government brought in — the Land Commission Act — and this simple little statute

destroys the concept — makes a mockery, Mr. Chairman — of the

Land Commission Act, because it overrules everything that the

Land Commission Act could do.

The Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) mentioned that the

government will overrule municipal planning. Well, it already

did that with the Land Commission Act, but now it's taking unto

itself the kind of powers that will overrule the Land

Commission Act itself.

We see the prospect of ICBC offices, of motor vehicle

branches, of salvage yards, of body shops, of parts depots,

stuck in the middle of residential sections or in the middle of

town centres, the middle of planned communities — it doesn't

matter. The government will be able to come along and just dump

them on a local community without any reference to any kind of

planning that might have gone on before. And that's wrong, Mr.

Chairman, because this government must get it into its head

that it must cooperate with the local planning authorities,

and it must take

part in the kind of planning that is going on

at the local level; it can't just ride roughshod over local

officials as it intends to do in this law.

In

section B, Mr. Chairman, the government goes against what is happening all

over Canada. Provincial governments are recognizing, Mr. Chairman, that local

governments must have a share, for assessment and taxation purposes, of government

and public buildings and facilities. Three, or four, or five of the provincial

governments, Mr. Chairman, have recognized this and now make certain that all

public facilities are taxed at the full level, the same as private facilities.

The provincial government can't continue, Mr. Chairman, to

ride on the backs of local taxpayers — and that's what this

section allows it to do again. Public facilities which will go

in — whether they're ICBC offices, or whether they're salvage

yards, or whether they're body shops, or whether they're parts

depots, or whatever they happen to be — will ride on the backs

of the local taxpayers, and ultimately the local taxpayer will

end up paying more for his share of the public facilities in

that community — and that's not right either, Mr. Chairman.

I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that this

section of this Act

should be withdrawn, and the government should take another

look at it and should go back and decide, first of all, that it

will not place itself above the powers of local planning

authorities — or, in fact, above the powers of the Land

Commission Act — and secondly, that it will cease from riding

on the backs of local taxpayers and start to pay its own share.

This bill only perpetuates that problem.

Section 9 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 27

Hall

Dailly

Strachan

Nimsick

Hartley

Calder

Brown

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

Levi

Lorimer

Williams, R.A.

King

Lea

Young

Nicolson

Nunweiler

Gabelmann

Lockstead

Gorst

Rolston

Steves

Kelly

Webster

Lewis

Liden

NAYS — 16

Jordan

Smith

Bennett

Phillips

Chabot

Fraser

Richter

McClelland

Curtis

Morrison

Schroeder

Anderson, D.A.

Williams, L.A.

Gardom

Gibson

Wallace

Mr. Curtis: When reporting to the Speaker, would you

indicate that a division took place and ask that it be recorded

in the Journals of the House?

Mr. Chairman: Agreed.

section 10.

[ Page 4987 ]

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Mr. Chairman,

section 10 — at

least the first part; it's in two parts — permits the

government, or permits the Motor Vehicle Branch, to take away

the licence of someone because they are in default of a debate

to a private bank. The money may have been loaned originally to

pay the insurance premiums, but it seems curious that we should

be taking away a driver's licence to enforce a private debt. It

would seem curious even if it were a Crown corporation that we

were doing this for; but when you do it for a third party, it

raises some very interesting questions.

Why is this debt considered so special? What about people

who owe money to Crown corporations — Can-Cel? What about people

who owe money to Hydro? Will they get their licences suspended

as well? Why is there this denial of the right to drive and the

money that has been paid for the licence. Why is that extended

into this private debt area?

Now I can see that for administrative purposes the bank

would like that. They're probably suffering very much from a

rather incautious decision on their part to loan money to

anyone who wanted to pay ICBC premiums. But it seems a quite

unnecessary thing for this Legislature to do: to bail them out

by going in and taking way their licence.

If there's a claim of the bank against that individual, let

them deal with it in the normal way. Banks loan money to all

sorts of people for all sorts of purposes. Once we put this in,

the next thing they'll say is: "Look, if we lend money for

someone to pay any other government debt that he might have,

well, surely we should be able to have the same type of

provisions we're slipping in here." I just think it's a

principle which is wrong, and I think that it would be much

better if this

section were defeated.

Hon. Mr. Strachan: Mr. Chairman, this right to cancel

a licence for the non-payment of a sum of money owed a part of

the private sector is exactly the same privilege that was

enjoyed by the private insurance companies through the Traffic

Victims Indemnity Fund right through.

Interjection.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Well, I'll defer to the Member for

Langley (Mr. McClelland) if he wishes, but I think we should

follow this up.

I can see no connection, Mr. Minister, between a

section that we are introducing,

which would have the government cancel a government-issue licence to help a

private company, a private bank, reclaim money which is owed to them for default

on a bank loan…. I just fail to see that that has a connection with the Traffic

Victims Indemnity Fund. Maybe the Minister can explain how it does. I think

it doesn't have anything to do with the TVIF. But if I can go back to the point:

why are we doing this?

Is the next step to have Crown corporations protected? I can

see that the bank that, got involved in this has probably

discovered that there are far more people defaulting than they

ever expected. Fair enough. Tough lines for them. They're in

there to make money and they fail to make money — tough. It

doesn't worry me; they're making money elsewhere.

I fail to see why we should have the government cancel

licences which it grants to citizens simply because of a

private debt. The next thing we know, we'll have the Minister

of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford) canceling

hunting licences because somebody has defaulted on some other

debt to a private company. There are many other licences we

hold in society as individuals. It just seems that this is the

wrong principle to introduce, that governments will cancel

licences which it issues to citizens simply to help private

corporations collect debts.

Mr. McClelland: Mr. Chairman, I'm amazed at the

response we got from that Minister. I wish that I'd had the

time to research Hansard because, Mr. Chairman, that

Minister made a statement which is in direct contradiction to a

statement that he made earlier this year. It was in response to

a case I brought before this Legislature of a person who was 10

years after the fact assessed a certain amount of money — in

fact, a lot of money, $30,000 or $40,000 — by the Traffic

Victims Indemnity Fund to repay a claim that they had paid that

person, who was 16 years old at the time.

That Minister stood in this House and told me across the

floor that there wasn't any necessity to have any amendment to

this Act because no one would ever have their licence suspended

again for a debt of that kind.

That person, Mr. Chairman, had lost his job because his

licence had been suspended because of the terms of the Act.

That person was in dire straights and was faced with a lifetime

debt which would never be repaid, because all he would ever be

able to repay would be the interest. With a young family — he

was about 26 years old with several young children — he was

faced for the rest of his life paying off the interest on that

debt. He would never, ever get out from under it.

That Minister, Mr. Chairman, stood in this House and said

that no one will ever lose his licence again because of a debt

of that kind. Here we see this Minister putting in the same

kind of provision again where they'll bail out a private

company to which a person owes a debt, and they'll cancel his

licence.

[Mr. Gabelmann in the chair.]

[ Page 4988 ]

In fact, the Consumer Services Minister, (Hon. Ms. Young)

who just left the House, should be looking into this kind of

legislation, Mr. Chairman, because it's vicious. No one should

have the opportunity to have that kind of hold on a person. No

one should have that kind of opportunity — certainly not the

government. But here's the government allowing people not only

to have the kind of hammer they have anyway, but they're

allowing them to have that additional hammer by canceling their

licence to collect the debt. That's not right, that's not fair

and that's certainly not democracy.

I would urgently plead with the government to withdraw this

section from the Act, because it goes against everything that

Minister said and stood up and promised in this House.

Hon. Mr. Strachan: As everyone knows, a requirement

of the laws of this province is that you have valid insurance.

There are many cases within the ICBC files where people

received their insurance policy and their decals by writing an

NSF cheque, knowing full well that they were actually obtaining

their insurance and their licence plate in a fraudulent

manner.

Mr. McClelland: Well, that's already against the

law.

Hon. Mr. Strachan: Therefore, because they were

obtained in a fraudulent manner, they weren't entitled to get

that licence plate.

Mr. McClelland: You're being judge and jury.

Hon. Mr. Strachan: No, no. The other thing is, we

were requested by citizens all over the province to implement

some form of budgetary payment. We canvassed all of the

organizations, the banking organizations, and one company said

that they would do it. They said that it would probably cost

them a great deal, but they did it. It's not a large sum of

money; it's quite different from the $40,000 thing. It's quite

different. It's $100, $150, $200 or $300. I think that it's

fair enough.

Mr. McClelland: Mr. Chairman, the dollars don't

matter. It doesn't matter whether it's $30,000 or $28; it

doesn't make any difference. It's the concept of the whole idea

of being able to have that additional… If I go out and

buy a refrigerator and I pay for it with an NSF cheque, then

there are certain legal methods by which that company from

which I've purchased the refrigerator can get back at me. But

they certainly can't cancel my driver's licence, which may be

my means of livelihood.

For you to say, when I issue you a cheque to buy my insurance, that I'm defrauding

the ICBC — you don't have any right to say that until you go through legal channels.

You certainly don't have the right to cancel my driver's licence, which may

take away the means of my livelihood and may affect my family for the rest of

my life. You don't have that right, and you shouldn't be allowed that right.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: The Minister, if he looked at

this, he would see the lack of fairness in it and, I think, the

bad principle involved here.

The Royal Bank apparently went out and made a whole pile of

loans without doing any proper investigation of the people to

whom they….

Interjection.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: That's a point. They made a great

number of loans without the proper vetting of the people to

whom they lent money. It's their problem if they're now caught

with a lot of people defaulting. It's not mine; it's not the

public of British Columbia's. It's theirs. They were stupid,

and that's apparently what has taken place. They were stupid to

get involved in a scheme where they didn't check people out and

simply went ahead and lent money right, left and centre. Now,

it's their problem.

The banks are making money elsewhere. They have the odd area

where they get into trouble, fair enough. They may want to get

out of this scheme. They may well want to. Perhaps they should,

and again I don't know. But I fail to see why we should go

ahead and have a person's licence taken away simply because

they have not paid their payments to the Royal Bank.

That person may well have abandoned that particular vehicle,

or given it up, or no longer interested in driving it. The fact

is, if they allow this to go forward, they won't be able to

drive another vehicle simply because of the default on payments

to the bank to cover the insurance of a totally separate and

distinct vehicle.

The Minister has indicated that if they are in default to

ICBC under the present

section 78(7) of the Motor vehicle Act,

they can have their licence taken away. And apparently it did

occur under certain circumstances before, as the Member for

Langley (Mr. McClelland) has pointed out to us.

But why should we do this for a private corporation which

is an independent third party? We already have the

superintendent of insurance with the power,

"to take away registration, licence, of any motor vehicle

registered in that person's name, and his driver's licence or

permit, and shall refuse to licence…."

et cetera, et cetera.

We already have that in the case of indebtedness to the

Crown. But we're dealing with a bank which got

[ Page 4989 ]

involved in a poor programme and there's utterly no reason

in the world for us to come to that bank's defence. It's their

tough lines. For us to suggest that the government, ourselves

as legislators, and the public shall all get behind and help

the banks in this instance doesn't make any sense at all.

There are, as has been mentioned by the Member for Langley,

legal avenues open to the bank to recover that money. If

they've made debts using bad judgment, they should follow the

normal legal procedure. They should not come to the Legislature

or have the Minister come to the Legislature with a piece of

legislation which is extremely poor in principle and which, in

practice, will be equally bad.

Mr. Wallace: I just want to support the arguments

that have been presented. I think we're confusing a problem

with a principle here.

The fact is that if someone issues an NSF cheque, it

shouldn't be the problem of ICBC or the Motor Vehicle Branch or

any arm of government to cancel the licence, which is not

contingent upon whether or not the person is honest in the

cheques he issues or whether he can afford to issue them. The

Minister didn't refer to what happens in the case where a

person loses his job for a month or two and, income-wise, isn't

able to make the monthly payment.

I thought this government was dedicated not to penalize

people because of poverty. I thought that was the general trend

these days. Certainly, in terms of going to jail, we've had the

bail reform Act nationally. The general thrust of the recent

family commission hearings has been that people should not be

penalized unfairly because they're poor. If they can't pay,

they go to jail. Somebody who can pay doesn't go to jail.

I think it's very confusing here to penalize someone by the

loss of a right — a driving right — which the person has proved

by passing a driving test and his capacity to drive a car

safely. That right is being taken away because of a completely

different factor, namely the fact that he has defaulted on a

certain payment.

I think if you extend that kind of principle, then our

society could really get some pretty serious problems. One can

foresee that you could lose certain other rights because of

your incapacity to pay or your willingness to break the law by

issuing a….

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Hon. Members, please allow the Hon.

Member to continue.

Mr. Wallace: Well, let me just take a quick example. I think we all

have the right to education. But supposing my parents or some child's parents

don't pay their share of the education fraction of property tax. Are you going

to suggest that the children can't go to school for education?

Mr. D.E. Lewis (Shuswap): They'll lose their

property.

Mr. Wallace: Well, that's just the point. The Member

for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) has just made the point. You've just

made the point plainly from Shuswap: you lose your property if

you don't pay your property tax. All I'm saying is that if you

issue an NSF cheque to pay a premium, you should be penalized

within the law for that offence. But you shouldn't have your

privilege or right or whatever it is to drive your car taken

away because of the default of paying a certain premium.

As I say, it would seem to me just as feasible to move off

in the direction of denying children the right to go to school

for their education because their parents haven't paid the

education fraction of property tax. But that would never happen — at least I hope it never would. The parents concerned would

either be charged interest on the outstanding taxes or they

would, in time, lose the property. If they issued an NSF cheque

to pay their property taxes they would be penalized under the

law.

I just can't understand how we're tying together two

elements which really, in principle, aren't related at all. I

just can't possibly connect the, two. If we were to approve

this first precedent, I can see us coming back to this

Legislature as the years go by with another expanding plethora

of legislation where you would be taking away certain rights or

privileges — call them what you like — for unrelated reasons.

If one of these unrelated reasons is either poverty or breach

of the criminal law, then I think we're really off on a most

dangerous path.

I can't oppose this

section strongly enough. I think it is

completely wrong.

Mr. D.M. Phillips (South Peace River): This

section

really sort of makes me chuckle. The reason it makes me chuckle

is because some of the laws that this government has passed,

particularly with respect to consumer protection and the whole

department, and debt assistance Act, has really, in essence,

come back to haunt the government. This is what this is all

about.

We have laws which are so lenient today that, if a, person

wants to create a debt and really doesn't want to pay it, I

know as an independent businessman that there's really not much

you can do about it. If you harass them, you could be called

into court on character assassination. We've made it so easy

for people in society to create a debt with really no teeth in

the law to make them pay it that the government has finally

found that here they're stuck in their own

[ Page 4990 ]

glue. They're really stuck in their own glue.

Interjection.

Mr. Phillips: I'm quite well aware what my position

is, Mr. leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. D.A. Anderson). I

don't need your assistance.

So the government is really stuck in their own glue, in

essence, because they have gone to a private lending

institution and said: "We want you to finance our insurance

premiums."

The ironic thing about it is that they give this particular

institution the full rate of interest. They're making their

profit. I think they should take their burnps and their grinds.

If there had been a special low rate of interest or something

offered to ensure these insurance premiums, we might have had a

different situation. But this bank is making its full rate of

profit, it's full rate of interest. Now only that, if was

really handed a plum because it's the only bank — unless you

did it privately — that this set-up was through.

Now, after passing this particular lending institution this

plum, as it were, whereby they're set up to finance all the

insurance premiums, they come along and say: "Not only do you

make your full profit on this deal but we're going to ensure

that you're going to get paid. If you don't get paid, we're

going to back you up. We're not going to seize the fridge or

stove or property, or we're not going to allow you to take your

normal burnps and grinds by going through the full course of the

law" — which is available but which, as I said, really hasn't

got that much teeth in it anyway. "No, we are going to back you

up in your business of loaning money and making the full rate

of interest. We're going to back you up by canceling your

privilege to drive an automobile."

Now, I want to tell you this: most of the people who are not

in a position to pay are probably going to be those where it is

most necessary to earn their livelihood by providing their own

transportation. So what you're really doing is hitting those

people who are down. This government is really taking another

swipe at the little people.

Maybe the person is trying to get a job to earn the money.

All of this has to be taken into consideration by an

independent businessman. If somebody owes him money, they have

to say, "Well, if you're trying to get a job, we'll just back

off."

I've said it many times myself. I've said that if you show a sincere interest

— if you've got a bill of $500, if you pay us $5 a month, we'll never bother

you as long as you are sincere. And we've written off thousands and thousands

of dollars. Every businessman in this province does the same thing. You can't

harass a person today. But the government's going to harass them; they're going

to do worse.

Mr. McClelland: They've got a hammer over their

heads.

Mr. Phillips: A hammer and a sickle. They're going to

suspend, in many cases, the very means of their livelihood.

It's amazing to me that the Minister of Consumer Affairs

(Hon. Ms. Young), who is the great protector of every consumer

in this province, has left the Legislature. She's even set up a

department — open storefronts. We had the Member for Esquimalt

(Mr. Gorst) bearing the scissors last night in the big TV

performance. Storefront protection for all of the people who

were in problems, who have either bought something that didn't

stand up…you know, if you bought a fridge and it happens to

conk out…it's the same deal.

We have consumer protection; we have debt assistance. We've

hired thousands — maybe not thousands — but we've certainly

hired a large bureaucracy to protect these people from

harassment, to help them when somebody's trying to collect

their debt. But along comes the government and says, "You pay

the Royal Bank of Canada, or else we'll take your licence

away."

Do you think. Mr. Chairman, that that is fair? It seems to

me that this government, again, is talking out of both sides of

its mouth at once.

I would suspect, and I know — and the Minister just said it

here a little while ago — that people are basically good.

Anybody who is in a position to pay his debt, nine times out of

10 will pay it. If a person is unable to pay his insurance

premium…. . It's only about 1 per cent of the time he could

afford to pay it, the rest of the time it's because he's in

financial difficulties.

The government has even said that — that people are

basically good. I believe that. People are basically good.

If a person who is indebted to the Royal Bank of Canada, and

is in a financial position or has assets and can pay, then you

should proceed to the limits of the laws available to you. If

the laws you have on the statute have not got enough teeth in

them to allow the Royal Bank to collect its debt from that

person, then I suggest that you change the statutes and put

some teeth into them so that not only the Royal Bank, but every

other business institution of the Province of British Columbia

has enough teeth in the law to collect their debt. This is

where we're falling down.

We talk about protection for consumers. There isn't that much protection for

the merchant any more. Many small merchants…and these are the most vulnerable

merchants because nine times out of 10 they're new in the business world, they

haven't

[ Page

4991 ]

got that much experience, they're trying to build up their

capital, they're trying to build up their business. Then some

smoothie comes along and incurs large debts. This is what kills

more small aspiring businessmen than anything else in this

province — large debt incurred by people who really don't intend

to pay.

These new businessmen are vulnerable because they're after

business and they're not — I'll use the word "hard-nosed" —

enough yet to say no to these people. So what they do is incur

a large amount of debt, then look at their books, look at the

business they've done, look at the profit they've made — but

where is it? It's on the books, and they can't collect it.

If the laws of this province are not strong enough now to

allow the Royal Bank, who has access to lawyers, who has access

to accountants, who can….

Interjection.

Mr. Phillips: Well, certainly. If there's not enough

teeth in the law so that the Royal Bank can collect the debt

for the insurance, then I say to you, Mr. Chairman, the laws

should be changed. Not only would it protect the Royal Bank, it

would protect all other types of businessmen.

To take a complete about-flip here and say that you pay the

Royal Bank of Canada, even though they've made their normal

rate of interest, or we're going to suspend your drivers

licence, I think is just not acceptable to the people of

British Columbia today.

When people were buying their insurance from private agents,

many times the private agents had to carry that premium on the

books. I know agents who did carry premiums on the books.

Sometimes many of the agents had to write them off, but that

was the risk those agents took.

Interjection.

Mr. Phillips: Many agents had to write-off premiums

for insurance which was in effect because they trusted the guy,

and maybe the guy didn't pay. I know agents who have had to

write it off, so I don't care what you say you can put it

through.

I wish the Minister of Transportation and Communications

(Hon. Mr. Strachan) would realize the complete effects of this,

because you are suspending a privilege. Just as the Member for

Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) said, it's a privilege to get an

education — it's on the statute books. And there are other

privileges that you can't, in this day, take away because of

debts. We've already established that fact; that's why there's

really no teeth.

You don't put people in jail today because they don't pay their debts. Any

other businessman writes them off. If that's the case with insurance, then the

Royal Bank, the one who has made the profit, should be the people to write it

off.

I am certainly completely opposed to this. I don't know how

the government who in the past has said they are so much for

the protection of the consumers, with their special departments

to assist in debts, can even think of passing this legislative

measure through this Legislature.

Mr. McClelland: Mr. Chairman, I really wish that the

government would take a second look at this. I don't know what

the procedure might be, but surely they could, with leave of

the House, withdraw this section, because I really think the

government is operating on a basically false premise.

The Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) mentioned across

the floor of the House that they weren't canceling the licence

for a debt, they were canceling the licence because the driver

had no insurance. But that's not correct. They are canceling a

licence because of a debt. That's the concept that's wrong.

If you were taking away a person's licence because they had

no insurance, that's a normal legal procedure which is already

in effect.

The Member for South Peace River mentioned that private

agents, in the past, have carried bad debts. If that debt

wasn't repaid, that person's insurance was cancelled because he

didn't pay for it — so he hadn't purchased it. Then because it

was against the law to drive without insurance, if that person

got picked up by the police then he went through the motions of

going through all the due process of law, and perhaps his

licence might have been cancelled. That isn't even sure, but a

court might have cancelled his licence for that infraction of

the law. But certainly the government shouldn't have the right

to do this through statute.

We shouldn't be asked in this House to come before the House

and approve this kind of legislation. It's basically wrong; it

goes against everything this government has attempted to do in

its consumer services legislation.

The government should take that piece of legislation back

and look at it again, because it's wrong morally and legally,

Mr. Chairman.

I'd just like to ask that Minister if he will stand in this

House today and tell this House whether or not he didn't stand

here and promise earlier this year that no one would ever have

his or her licence cancelled again because of a bad debt. That

Minister stood in this House and said that. Now he's

shepherding through legislation which goes against that very

concept, Mr. Chairman. I'd like the Minister to reply to that

question.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Mr. Chairman, others

[ Page 4992 ]

have mentioned, and I mentioned the fact that this is a very

poor principle which, if applied elsewhere, could be onerous

upon the Province of British Columbia.

Could I give a couple of examples to the Minister? Say, for

example, the insurance on my boat is in default; is my fishing

licence to be taken away by the Minister of Recreation and

Conservation? Surely, if I'm in default of my boat insurance

it's up to the ICBC, or whichever other company I deal with, to

collect the money from me.

Say a hunter who has a hunting licence hasn't paid for the

insurance that he has taken out. Is his hunting licence to be

taken away by the Minister of Recreation and Conservation?

If the government gets in the business of using these

licences and the cancellation of these licences as a club or

threat to guarantee repayment of private corporation loans, we

are entering into an absolutely weird area.

I can see in the case of ICBC — and I must say I have my

doubts there, where you have a Crown corporation, but when you

go into the business of enforcing loans — "The Enforcers,

" I guess we should call that crowd over there —

enforcing loans of private corporations by depriving people of

privileges, which are enjoyed by the general bulk of the

population, whether or not they're in default in other areas,

is wrong.

Another point I'd like to make to the Minister is that we

all know that ICBC lives in the same building in Vancouver as

the company concerned. We all know there has been the odd

little computer error — not more than $400,000. What happens if

mistakes are made?

I remember those great ads, as was mentioned by the Hon.

Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) the ads about that sweet

little girl — what was it? — Mary of the Royal Bank.

Mr. Wallace: Just phone Mary.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Just phone Mary and she'll fix

things up. (Laughter.) But I don't know whether we could phone

Eileen in this case and ask her to fix this one up, because

it's really ridiculous provision. (Laughter.)

I'm going to get on the phone to Mary right away. We're

certainly not getting any success at all with the government.

Why have they suddenly taken it upon themselves to add the

extra enforcement, the….

Interjection.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Well, they've suddenly become enforcer for one of

the most private corporations in the land — namely a private bank. I just don't

understand it. What is behind it? What was said when the Royal Bank got that

contract to handle the loans for ICBC? What was said when that space was leased?

Because it's a very, very, very strange to bring in. It's totally unlike anything

else; it's totally out of character with the government, which pretends to represent

small people, and now is out to help the banks collect $50 or $60 or $40 from

people who simply can't afford to pay.

Mr. Wallace: We know how the Premier loves your

bank.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: It's…yes, I wonder if the

Premier, were he here, would vote for this iniquitous

proposition of giving the Royal Bank, specifically, powers of

enforcement so far beyond any other private business in the

province.

I think that if the Ministers, and in particular if the

backbench take this one back to a caucus meeting, they will

probably get it changed there as well.

Interjection.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Well, that's what you said

yesterday, Mr. Member.

An Hon. Member: Oh, there's a chicken plucker.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: He's the one; he's the hard-liner.

It's help the banks; down on the small people. We would like

the Hon. House Leader (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) and the Hon.

Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall)…. It's the Provincial

Secretary who's responsible for piloting this bill through.

Could we not have this

section simply stood over until you can

have another caucus meeting, because it really doesn't

make any sense?

Mr. Gardom: Mr. Chairman, I think the speakers have

well illustrated the point to the House of the ludicrous nature

of this proposed amendment on the part of the government. The

bank — there's no question of a doubt — has the responsibility

to collect and it has the legal competence to collect.

If an individual does not pay his bank loan, the bank can go

to the courts of the land, which are established for that

purpose, and it can recover a judgment against the individual.

If the individual still refuses to pay, the bank can take out a

process known as judgment summons whereby the individual could

be ordered to pay a certain sum per month. The bank could

initiate proceedings known as a warrant of execution, wherein

the sheriff could seize the goods of the judgment debtor in

order to satisfy the loan. The bank would be entitled to

garnishee any funds that the individual might have for his

failure to pay. The bank would be entitled to register its

[ Page 4993 ]

judgment against any lands the individual might have, and

recover that way.

So the bank has four ways within which it can take

proceedings, according to law, to collect the just debt that is

owing to it. There is another proceeding, and this is one that

is followed by banks. The banks keep a list of those people who

don't pay, and when those people go to banks to secure loans

other banks are aware of that fact. There is a certain — I

don't know if you'd call it a harmonious relationship between

banks — but there certainly is a relationship between banks

when it comes to lending money to people. They've got an awful

lot of muscle in the community — perhaps far, far too much.

There's another element that I think the government is not

giving consideration to, and that is the element of error. The

element of error is one that has crept in or I would say crept

is perhaps the wrong word has swept into the administrative

processes of the Insurance Corporation of the Province of

British Columbia ever since it started — one error after

another. It's chock full of errors. We find computers not doing

the job; we find people not receiving the certificates they're

entitled to, Mr. Chairman. At the present time in B.C., Mr.

Chairman, I understand an individual still has to have four

pieces of paper before that individual is in a position to make

a claim to the insurance corporation for loss or damage.

If the individual does not have those four pieces of paper,

the claim can be denied, and is being denied, Mr. Chairman. I'm

talking about the registration certificate, an owner's

insurance certificate, a driver's certificate, and a driver's

license. And if an individual, Mr. Chairman, doesn't have those

four pieces of paper today — and the computer is preventing a

lot of them getting it — they are not entitled to make a claim,

and that is an illustration of the example of error.

Another illustration of the example of error, Mr. Chairman,

is the bank mucks up its books — and I can assure you, Mr.

Chairman, that banks make no end of errors. So we're going to

find an individual in this province denied the privilege to be

on the road because a bank makes a mistake. And you're

supporting them. Why are you bringing down this kind of a

guillotine? Don't you think the banks can stand on their own

feet?

An Hon. Member: They should do.

Mr. Gardom: And they should do. It's their

responsibility to do that.

I haven't heard a logic argument from any government Member.

If what I'm saying is incorrect, please tell me so. Please tell

me so, and tell me exactly how. I'm happy to sit down.

Mr. Chabot: Get up on your hind feet.

Mr. Gardom: I don't see anybody wishing to spring to

their feet and define the necessity to help little old Mary at

the Royal Bank. Why is this? This is a funny session, Mr.

Chairman, it really is. It's turning into a funny farm sort of

a place.

Let's have some reasons for these things. If we're going to

start imposing these kinds of strictures on the public of B.C. — over $1 million people driving cars — let's have a reason.

Let's have a reason. I'm not too concerned about the bank's

problem. They're strong enough to take care of themselves.

Mr. Phillips: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This government, we used to say, robbed from the rich and

gave to the poor. I think the Minister of Human Resources (Hon.

Mr. Levi) robs from the poor and gives to the lazy. But now we

have the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr.

Strachan) robbing the poor to give to the rich; a complete

reversal — robbing from the poor to give to the rich.

The Premier of this province (Hon. Mr. Barrett), if he were

here today and not in China, no way would this legislative

measure go forward, because he has attacked the banks for their

usury methods. He attacks the banks, continually attacks the

banks, but here the Minister of Transport and Communications

jumps in their back pocket.

Interjections.

Mr. Phillips: Well, I have to question, Mr. Chairman,

just what commitment did the Minister of Transport and

Communications make? What side deal? What under-the-table deal

did he make with the Royal Bank?

Mr. Chairman: Order, order! Mr. Member, order! I

think you were ascribing some improper motives, and I would ask

you to withdraw that.

Mr. Phillips: No, I was asking questions.

Mr. Chairman: Well, the manner in which it was said

Mr. Phillips: I certainly wouldn't want to say that….

An Hon. Member: Just deny that there's no such

deal.

Mr. Phillips: I certainly don't want to impugn the

character of the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources

(Hon. R.A. Williams). If I indicated that he made an

under-the-table deal with the Royal Bank, then I'll withdraw

it. But what commitment did he make over the table, behind

closed doors, to

[ Page 4994 ]

the Royal Bank?

Why was the Royal Bank given this deal? Is it because Icky

Bicky rents their premises from the Royal Bank — and how much

profit do they make on that? Not only are they making thousands

of dollars profit from renting the premises from the Royal

Bank, now he's going to back them up and really put some teeth

in it so they can collect their debts. What's going to be next?

I'll tell you if the Premier was here and not in China, this

legislative measure would never go through. Because what we're

doing here, as I said before, Mr. Chairman, is we're really

working a hardship.

Let's take the case of John Doe. John Doe has an old 1967

Chevrolet car that he uses it to transport his family around.

But John Doe is employed driving a truck for A & B

construction company.

All right, now what's the Minister going to do? If he wants

to collect that debt, if he wants to put some teeth into it,

why doesn't he say, "Okay, we'll cancel the insurance on the

Chevrolet car"? But what he is doing by canceling that man's

driver's license is saying, "We're going to penalize you not

only for not paying your debt; we're going to take away your

right to earn a livelihood. We're going to create another

member for the Department of Human Resources." And that's

exactly what will happen, because there are many people, maybe

driving truck as their livelihood, maybe driving bus, maybe not

using the vehicle that the insurance debt is against.

I want the Minister to really take a second look at this,

because there are many people who earn their livelihood, and

maybe some of them aren't the best paying jobs, and maybe

that's why they haven't been able to pay the Royal Bank for the

insurance on the family car. But what we're doing here is

denying that person the right to earn his livelihood if he uses

his driver's licence to do so.

I'll tell you, all we're going to do is add more to the

roles of the Department of Human Resources because, as I said

before, people are basically sound and honest. If they were in

a position to pay, they would pay. If they can't pay, let the

Royal Bank take the burnps and the grinds, the same as every

other private businessman has to do in this province.

So, Mr. Minister, this is diametrically opposed to the

position — the stand — that this government has taken in

two-and-a-half years; it's diametrically opposed to the

position that the Premier (Hon. Mr. Barrett) has taken when he

attacks the banking system.

But here we have a case — and I don't know what grip the

Royal Bank has…. Maybe they're going to threaten to cancel

the contract where they rent the building in Vancouver. Maybe

that's the grip the bank has got over the Minister. I don't

know what the grip is.

But here he is renting and paying out millions of dollars of rent every year

to this bank; he gave them the deal in the first place, and must have made some

kind of a commitment that we will guarantee that all these debts are paid, or

else he wouldn't be putting this legislative measure through.

I plead with the Minister, I beg the Minister, to be the

humanist that he proposes to be and not take the right of

livelihood away from those people by guaranteeing a debt to the

Royal Bank.

Mr. Gardom: Mr. Chairman, if this measure is accepted

by the House today, will it mean that tomorrow the Royal Bank

will be changing its name from the Royal Bank to the Red

Bank?

Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh!

Mr. McClelland: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to ask

again, through you to the Minister of Transport and

Communications, if he won't agree that he stood in this House

and promised that no one would ever have his or her driver's

licence lifted again because of a bad debt. Will the Minister

confirm that, the Minister of Transport and Communications? I

haven't had a chance to look at Hansard yet, but it's my

recollection that that Minister did stand in this House and say

that no one in British Columbia would ever have a driver's

licence lifted again because of a bad debt.

The Minister recognized at that time, Mr. Chairman — I don't

know whether the other Ministers in the House have ever

recognized it — that that was a hammer that the government

shouldn't be allowed to have, that the government, if they're

going to be in the marketplace, should be in the marketplace

with the same legal restrictions as everybody else.

As the other Members have pointed out most clearly — there

are many legal methods by which a government or an ICBC or the

Royal Bank or anyone else can collect bad debts. They should be

subject to the consumer laws of this province; they should be

subject certainly, to all of the legal ramifications in the

They have a portfolio — the Minister is sitting in her place

now…. The Minister should stand up. Mr. Chairman, I'd like

to plead now that the Minister is back in the House, the

Minister for Consumer Services (Hon. Ms. Young), to have her

stand up and plead with this government to take away this kind

of power to collect bad debts, because no one else has it and

no one else deserves it. Certainly the government doesn't

deserve it.

But I'd like to ask those two Ministers, Mr. Chairman — the

Minister of Consumer Services and the Minister of Transport and

Communications — to stand up and clarify their positions with

regard to this, because someone was certainly misleading

this

[ Page 4995 ]

House earlier when that Minister stood up and said that no

one in this province would ever have a driver's licence

cancelled because of a bad debt against him.

Mr. Bennett: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to question the

Minister again on this because, in effect, what he's done to

everyone who buys a driver's licence through the Royal Bank is

to give the Royal Bank a mortgage on their driver's

licence.

He has granted the Royal Bank the chance to have an

unregistered lien or an unregistered mortgage, through

legislation, on the driver's licence to the people in British

Columbia. A mortgage on their driver's licence.

Now if this Minister is experiencing now, because he's never….

Mr. Phillips: They don't even have to have the

mortgage registered.

Mr. Bennett: That's right. If he's never understood

the difficulty of collecting a bad debt, if he's never been on

that side that has its difficulty with collections, why not put

some heat in the collection Act? Why not pass a law that's fair

for all, and just doesn't deal with the commitment he made to

the mortgage bank?

Mr. Chairman, let's get it clear that what this Minister is

trying to do is give the Royal Bank a lien, a mortgage, a

charge against the people of B.C.'s drivers' licences — an

unregistered lien, an unregistered mortgage — something that he

doesn't have the right to do by legislation.

Interjections.

Mr. \ Bennett: Why doesn't he deal with this in the

manner it should be dealt with, by providing some legislation

or putting some teeth in the collection Act? It's difficult now

for — many people of British Columbia to collect from people who

don't pay, but you don't have the right by legislation to give

the Royal Bank this type of power and give them a lien or a

mortgage or a charge against anyone's driver's licence.

I'd ask the Minister, Mr. Chairman, if he'll comment on

this.

Mr. Phillips: Mr. Chairman, it's hardly conceivable

that the Minister would not stand up in this Legislature and

explain, after some of the comments made from the opposition

benches, why this is necessary.

Now we brought up a very, very important point, a point that is maybe….

I don't know how many people are involved here, but let's have the Minister

tell us: how many people are involved? How many haven't paid for their insurance?

How many people are involved? We certainly deserve some explanation, Mr. Chairman.

Let the Minister stand on his feet in this Legislature and

tell us how many people are involved, and give some

justification for this very dictatorial Act he's trying to

force through today,

an Act that, as I said before, will affect

the livelihood of I don't know how many people. Even if it

affects the livelihood of half-a-dozen, that's half-a-dozen

more people that that Minister will be responsible for putting

on the welfare rolls in this province. It will rest on his

shoulders and on his conscience, simply because he's trying to

protect that small, little private enterprise group known as

the Royal Bank of Canada.

Now the Minister can make a change with this. If he does,

he's showing that he's got heart, that he's interested. I'd

like the Minister, Mr. Chairman, before we vote on this, to

give us some indication of what his thoughts are now in view of

the points we've brought up.

Mr. Chabot: Mr. Chairman, I never thought I'd see the

day when that Minister would just turn his back to the people

of British Columbia, turn his back like he's turning his back

here in this Legislature, be unwilling to face up to his

responsibilities as a Minister, be unwilling to give

consideration to the people of British Columbia relative to the

driver's licence.

The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) indicated very

clearly that what the bank has is a first mortgage on the

driver's licence. Is the Minister going to introduce further

legislation giving other people the right to get a second

mortgage or a third mortgage on the driver's licence? Is that

what he's telling us now, that he's made that first step down

the road allowing a first mortgage against a driver's licence,

and the next move of that government that indicates it cares

about people will be to prepare a second mortgage and a third

mortgage on drivers' licences?

What kind of callousness is this, Mr. Chairman? The waffling

Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) indicated this morning that

that government over there were the only representatives in

this Legislature that cared about the little people. Now we see

the action of a Minister who's unwilling to give any

consideration when we're pleading with him on behalf of these

people whose livelihood is being jeopardized by the action and

the silence of that Minister over there. That's not good

enough, Mr. Chairman; that's not good enough.

Yesterday we say the spectacle — we saw a picture, in fact,

in the newspaper, the Colonist of the Minister of Consumer

Services (Hon. Ms. Young) opening a storefront office in

Victoria, along with the official ribbon-cutter ding-dong from

Esquimalt. Mr. Chairman, that's not good enough.

[ Page 4996 ]

Interjections.

Mr. Chabot: Mr. Chairman, here is the government that

indicates it cares because it set up a Department of Consumer

Services. Why haven't we heard from that Minister who's out

there getting her publicity in the newspapers…

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order!

Mr. Chabot: …and pictures when there's a serious

conflict with her responsibilities and the action being taken

by that Minister? AD we get is silence and the back of the head

of that Minister in this House, Mr. Chairman. That's not good

enough.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The Hon. Member should

confine his remarks to the

section before us.

An Hon. Member: He is.

Mr. Chabot: Mr. Chairman, all I ask is that the

Minister take this

section back, remove this

section or

withdraw the bill, go to some other legislation if there's any

other legislation to go to, go back in caucus with his silent

backbench. I'm sure that after the statements that have been

made in this House they are prepared to tell that Minister to

change this

section — to back up, as we've seen so many other

back-ups from him and his colleagues in that cabinet.

That's all we ask, that the caucus have an opportunity…

Mr. Chairman: Order, please!

Mr. Chabot: …to reassess that government's lack of

direction.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Mr. Chairman, I think that this

debate on the Royal Bank benevolent provision which we've got

here before us should be put in the proper perspective.

First of all, as we know, the Royal Bank happens to be the

bank for ICBC. The Royal Bank seems to be not only their bank

but their landlord as well.

I was out of the House checking a few of the debates we had at the startup

of ICBC, Mr. Chairman, and I discovered at that time — I looked at a few press

releases — that the Royal Bank, when they got the agency, thought they would

be doing a substantial amount of the business. But, of course, this didn't happen

quite that way. Prior to the Royal Bank coming in with their special scheme

to pick up anybody, no matter what his credit rating, other banks went in and

loaned money to people as well. And that is something I think we should bear

in mind.

Anyway, the Royal Bank didn't get the business they

expected. Instead of getting 40, they got about 5 per cent.

They got about 62,000 policies on which they may have lost

$750,000. Of the 62,000 policies, about 3,500 only made the

down payment and no more. And what did the Royal Bank do? They

sent every one of those things out to collection agencies — what

they should do, in other words.

Now, what we come in with here is a special provision to

assist the Royal Bank so they don't even have to go to

collection agencies. They can lift the licence and muscle

people that way. Now, back to the Royal Bank.

At that time, the Royal Bank became the official ICBC bank,

and at the same time the agents across the province, as we all

know from those older banks, had to open accounts in the Royal

Bank. Well, some didn't, and those are the ones who had to

phone Atlanta, Georgia, Mr. Minister. If you phoned Atlanta,

Georgia, every time you made a deposit, okay, you can get away

from opening an account. And you agree with me.

Interjection.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: That's exactly what I've done and

you're not denying it.

If you didn't want to open with that specific bank, you

could phone Atlanta, Georgia, whenever you made a deposit.

Well, that's a great way to run it.

Now, the situation with the Royal Bank was that they got in

this position, being the landlord, being the banker, being loan

agent, and they just felt, "Well, this is great. The

government, apparently, is on our side. Let's go a little

further and ask them to get powers to give us rights to have

licences suspended," which is not available to any other

creditor in British Columbia except ICBC itself.

I just find it extremely difficult to understand. We had the

Premier not so long ago talking about banks. He had a Colonist

article on October 8, not so long ago, about usury at the

banks. That's the headline: "Usurious chartered banks."

"Premier David Barrett has taken off again in his favourite

corporate charter. He renewed his attack on the banks for their

having earned profits of 23 per cent last year."

And he went on and on and on denouncing the banks. Yet, just as soon as he

goes off to China, what do we have come into the Legislature? We have this Minister

who has these special deals with the Royal Bank and ICBC; he has a whole series

of them from landlord to banker to loan bank for the people who didn't have

the money to pay up in the first instance. He brings in a provision which is

essentially a provision to give that bank the most enormous powers over those

delinquent people.

[ Page

4997 ]

We know they lost money on this thing. We know they lost a

pile of money. We know why. They lost it because those who

could get a loan elsewhere went to their ordinary bank. Those

who couldn't and didn't have an account, who had been promised

simply for political reasons that they would have no difficulty

finding the premi