British Columbia Hansard — Friday, June 26, 1981 — Morning Sitting (32nd Parliament, 3rd Session)

32p 03s 810626a

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

1981 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 32nd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

FRIDAY, JUNE 26, 1981

Morning Sitting

[ Page

6453 ]

Routine Proceedings

Ministerial Statement

Multicultural education. Hon. Mr. Smith –– 6453

Mr. Lauk

The Vancouver Electoral Reform Act (Bill M215). Mr. Lauk.

Introduction and first reading –– 6453

Provincial Court Amendment Act, 1981 (Bill 8). Hon. Mr. Williams.

Third reading –– 6454

Gas Amendment Act, 1981 (Bill 19). Hon. Mr. Heinrich.

Third reading –– 6454

Building Safety Standards Act (Bill 20). Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm

Third reading –– 6454

Motor Vehicle (All Terrain) Amendment Act, 1981 (Bill 7). Committee stage.

Report –– 6455

Real Estate Amendment Act, 1981 (Bill 23). Committee stage.

section 5 –– 6455

Mr. Levi

Third reading –– 6458

Notaries Act (Bill 28). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 6458

Mr. Howard –– 6458

Mr. Ree –– 6459

Mr. Hall –– 6459

Mr. Cocke –– 6459

Ms. Brown –– 6460

Mrs. Wallace –– 6460

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 6460

Notaries Act (Bill 28). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Williams)

section 5 –– 6461

Ms. Brown

Mrs. Wallace

Mr. Cocke

Mr. Leggatt

section 8 –– 6462

Mr. Cocke

Third reading –– 6463

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No –– 2), 1981 (Bill 31). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 6463

Attorney-General Statutes Amendment Act, 1981 (Bill 30). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 6463

Attorney-General Statutes Amendment Act, 1981 (Bill 30). Committee stage. Hon. Mr.

Williams

section 22 –– 6463

Ms. Brown

Mr. Leggatt

section 30 –– 6465

Mr. Macdonald

Mr. Leggatt

Third reading –– 6465

Medical Service Plan Act, 1981 (Bill 16). Committee stage. Hon. Mr. Nielsen

On the amendment to

section 6 –– 6466

Mr. Cocke

On the amendment to

section 8 –– 6466

Mr. Cocke

Third reading –– 6466

Provincial Debt Repayment Act (Bill 14). (Hon. Mr. Curtis). Second reading

Mr. Mussallem –– 6466

Mr. Hall –– 6467

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 6467

Division on second reading –– 6467

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Labour estimates. (Hon. Mr. Heinrich)

On vote 140: minister's office –– 6467

Ms. Brown

Mr. Hall

Tabling Documents

Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills' sixth report

Mr. Strachan –– 6469

Appendix –– 6470

FRIDAY, JUNE 26, 1981

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. STRACHAN: I would ask the House

to welcome a guest of mine who is in the gallery. With us this morning

is Alistair McVey, a College of New Caledonia geography instructor.

Alistair has an excellent standing in our community, and I would ask

the House to give him a nice, warm, Friday welcome.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Speaker, I have good news. The snow has melted in Cranbrook, and as

a result we are honoured today with the presence in the gallery of the

former member for Kootenay, Leo Nimsick. The member is here to catch up

on any old bets that are unpaid or caucus dues that have been left as

liabilities, and he is available this morning for counsel to all

members of the House. We wish to welcome him here.

HON. MR. GARDOM:

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of te government, we also would very much like

to welcome Old Cash Register Eyes back to the assembly, and mention to

some of the younger members that there was always a sign when the

session was coming to an end. One was the one the hon. Leader of the

Opposition referred to as the melting snows, and the other one was when

we had the songbird speech from the former member.

MR. RICHMOND:

Mr. Speaker, in your gallery this morning are two fine constituents

from the city of Kamloops, Ed and Jan Odgaard. They have two friends

from Auckland, New Zealand, with them, Jack and Ramona Wright. I would

like the House to make them welcome.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

I would also like to join in welcoming Mr. Nimsick. I understand he's

here because he heard a rumour that this House was sitting beyond

Easter, and he came to see if it was really true.

MULTICULTURAL EDUCATION

HON. MR. SMITH:

Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a ministerial statement. I think it's

appropriate today, following the introduction of the Civil Rights

Protection Act yesterday, to announce that multicultural education will

be strengthened in B.C. schools today, as a preventive means of

combatting racism. In November of this year my ministry commissioned a

study on multicultural education and surveyed every school district in

this province asking what we could do to give direction and assistance

to the schools of this province. The preliminary results of that survey

show that there is a sincere wish to have assistance in the areas of

curriculum and materials, and particularly in the in-service training

of teachers. Most school districts requested help in developing and

improving programs on multiculturalism, and most said they would like

not as a language of instruction. Today I'm happy to announce that we

will appoint a provincial coordinator of multicultural education in

and that in the fall we will set up a major provincial workshop for

teachers in the lower mainland in October. This workshop will assist

teachers with both the content and the methods of multicultural

education, and will help teachers with practical ideas and materials

for dealing with multiracial classrooms. The objective of this will be

to try to show teachers that they should approach this subject in a

positive and not a defensive way, and to give them assistance in doing

so.

We will also be preparing strong regulations which will

give principals authority to prevent the distribution of racist

literature and propaganda on school property.

MR. LAUK:

I'm pleased that the government is finally acting in this direction

after some considerable movement by teachers, parents and community

groups to encourage the ministry to provide resources for this kind of

education. We'll be monitoring the situation very closely, as all

members will be, to see if the program is sufficient or adequate to

meet the rising tension in our schools.

Introduction of Bills

THE VANCOUVER ELECTORAL REFORM ACT

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to introduce a bill intituled Vancouver Electoral Reform Act.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please. Hon. members, in requiring leave for the introduction of

bills, it is an historic leave. It is really only a pro forma question.

The leave has traditionally been granted, and therefore I would ask the

question again. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

a motion by Mr. Lauk, Bill M215, The Vancouver Electoral Reform 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. MR. GARDOM: I ask leave to proceed to public bills and orders, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted?

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege.

MR. SPEAKER: On a question of privilege, before the question of leave, the first member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. LAUK:

In view of the lack of response from the private bills committee and

the information received by me as late as yesterday as to the nature of

the deliberations of that committee on the ward system bill, I move the

following motion of privilege.

MR. SPEAKER: Order,

please. I hate to interrupt the hon. member in the middle of being

about to make a motion. However, matters which take place in committee,

or even any information about matters referring to what takes place in

committee, can only be made by a report to the House on the instruction

of the committee through the Chairman of that committee. Any matter of

privilege which may arise from proceedings that happen in committee

would certainly have

[ Page 6454 ]

to follow the report of the committee, unless the member can show otherwise.

MR. LAUK:

Mr. Speaker, with respect, any question of privilege can be raised at

any time, whether it occurs in committee, in the corridor, on the space

shuttle or whatever. When it affects the privileges of an hon. member

he has the absolute right to bring it before the House, and the

Speaker, of course, has the responsibility to decide whether it's a

prima facie case of privilege.

MR. SPEAKER: In any

event, hon. member, according to the standing orders the statement of

the matter would be all that could be made in the House. The motion, of

course, would only be moved once it could be determined whether a prima

facie case did exist.

MR. LAUK: This is a statement

on the matter. I would ask for a motion for a Special Committee of

Privileges to be appointed to consider the matter of a breach of

undertaking by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, which

was clearly and publicly given to support the democratic wish of the

city of Vancouver to have a ward system. Because of high political

office that hon. member reneged on the undertaking, denied his vote in

support of that amendment to the Vancouver Charter, and in this chamber

has breached the privileges of hon. members. He has indicated that he

will use his office and his power to renege on that promise and that

undertaking to the people of the city of Vancouver. I therefore move

this motion.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. We cannot accept a motion until....

MR. LAUK: Well, I'll send it up to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER: So ordered.

MR. LAUK: I intend to move that motion if Mr. Speaker finds that there is a prima facie case of privilege.

MR. SPEAKER:

The member is prepared with the motion. We will then take the matter

under advisement, hon. member, and return the decision to the House.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I already asked for leave to proceed to public bills and orders, and I don't think it's been granted yet.

MR. SPEAKER: That was suspended.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, report on Bill 8.

PROVINCIAL COURT AMENDMENT ACT, 1981

Bill 8 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Report on Bill 19, Mr. Speaker.

GAS AMENDMENT ACT, 1981

Bill 19 read a third time and passed.

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, was there a motion put on the Gas Amendment Act, 1981?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Report on Bill 20, Mr. Speaker.

BUILDING SAFETY STANDARDS ACT

Bill 20 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 7, Mr. Chairman.

MOTOR VEHICLE (ALL TERRAIN)

AMENDMENT ACT, 1981

The House in committee on Bill 7; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Sections 1 to 5 inclusive approved.

section 6.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 6 as amended approved.

Sections 7 to 9 inclusive approved.

section 10.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 10 as amended approved.

section 11.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 11 as amended approved.

section 12.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 12 as amended approved.

Sections 13 to 15 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

[ Page 6455 ]

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be considered as reported?

HON. MR. CHABOT: With leave of the House now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave not granted.

Bill

7, Motor Vehicle (All Terrain) Amendment Act, 1981, reported complete

with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after

today.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order,

please. Hon. members, may I just observe that a question of leave is

simply a matter of yes or no. It is not a matter of debate or comment.

The bill will be considered at the next sitting.

MR. NICOLSON:

On a point of order, I believe those remarks were directed toward me, I

would like to draw to the attention of the House that when a bill is

held over for reporting it is then printed in its perfect form, and

that is the reason why it is necessary to ask leave. That is the reason

why leave was denied.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 23, Mr. Speaker.

REAL ESTATE AMENDMENT ACT, 1981

The House in committee on Bill 23; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

section 5. MR. LEVI:

Mr. Chairman, this section, which is the flipping section, is the one I

personally remember having so much trouble with. First of all, I don't

know whether we made it clear in second reading that what the minister

is doing in this bill is really not in accord with what even the real

estate people have asked for. The other day I quoted him a statement by

Mr. Buttress, who is with the Real Estate Council of British Columbia.

They put out a bulletin which he may be familiar with. In it he is very

careful about what he says about the role of agents. Those agents who

have been doing these various things in terms of flipping have suffered

a great deal of embarrassment. There is also Mr. Butler, who is the new

president of the Real Estate Board of Greater Vancouver. He said back

in March that he felt the existing legislation for his particular area

was strong enough, but that it needed to be reinforced. That's fine.

What the minister has done is made the disclosure situation much more

specific.

I'm having great trouble with one of the sections,

and I raised it in second reading. It's the issue of commissions in

respect to these agents. I cannot accept the minister's explanation. I

would repeat the quotation from Mr. Buttress'

article in the bulletin

of the Real Estate Council of British Columbia. He winds up by saying

in effect: "How a licensee can in good conscience participate in. the

commission when purchasing for himself is beyond my comprehension."

That's one of the major spokespeople of the real estate industry.

Surely when you put this legislation together — and I know that you've

had some consultation with them.... They are unhappy about some of the

things that have not been dealt with. We mentioned that the other day.

This

is the key section. I cannot for the life of me understand why it is,

and I'd like the minister to enlarge on this whole question of why he

feels in this case, contrary to the wishes of the real estate

industry.... What you're really doing, when you allow this to happen in

this particular set of circumstances, is saying: "Well, we're not very

happy about this; we want you to make disclosure, but we'd better let

you have the commission anyway." The industry asks how in good

conscience — that's the phrase Mr. Buttress uses — a licensee can

participate in the commission when purchasing for himself. The whole

involvement of licencees in the purchase of property for themselves is

considered a no-no.

Maybe the minister has come up with part

of the remedy. It still doesn't satisfy us, for instance, in respect to

something that goes sour. A deal is completed; we have the business of

the superintendent then having the power. He looks at the disclosure

form and says, " Something is not right here," and then moves towards

sanctions, presumably after a hearing. That leaves the individual

involved in this situation....

I can't even see the minister

anymore, because of that big fellow standing there. Are you having

trouble there? There's a rule in this House. Thank you. I see the

minister.

We are looking here more at enforcing the

legislation against people who contravene the section, but I'm not

satisfied with the minister's explanation that an individual has gone

into this situation in good faith. I spoke to two or three real estate

agents the other day. I want the minister to address this: when you are

doing a conveyance, you're there, you've taken it to your lawyer....

Sometimes people have gone to their lawyers, and maybe at the actual

signing the lawyer is not there. There are some documents to sign. The

document the minister is talking about here — that bright red document

that's going to catch everybody's eye.... The minister knows that when

you're getting into a discussion about a lot of money and there are

various documents to sign, there is no real guarantee that that

document can be signed or witnessed by the people involved, in the

sense that they don't really know what it is.

Let me ask the

minister this. The disclosure document will be made available,

presumably when it's signed, to the representative of the person

purchasing — a lawyer. The main thing is that the person who actually

buys the property — the non-lawyer, if you like — has got to have some

assurance that literally nothing is going to be slipped in among a

bunch of papers. It's a procedural thing. Nowadays most real estate

transactions involve at least $100,000. We're not talking anymore about

$50,000 or $60,000; we're dealing with very large amounts.

Let

me recap what I would like the minister to address himself to. I'm not

satisfied with the whole commission issue. Real estate agents are

entitled to commission; that's a negotiable item. But here you are

tending to reward somebody who may very well get into trouble when the

industry

[ Page 6456 ]

itself

feels that it's unconscionable to allow such a commission in that kind

of transaction. That's the industry speaking. It seems to me that you

need to address that and do a little bit more analysis of it.

The

other question is, what kinds of safeguards are there even though the

form may be bright red? After all, some of the forms people sign are

pink. What kinds of procedural safeguards do the purchasers have so

that they're not going to have something slipped over on them? That's

the key document in terms of your enforcement. Then, of course, there's

the final question: that even though they may be found by the

superintendent to be breaking the law and subject to sanction, we have

the purchasers out there in a situation where they may have been the

subject of some misrepresentation, and they've got to go the whole

civil route.

We would have preferred to see the minister

come in with a

section in this act saying that no real estate agent can

buy for himself in that situation — just as straightforward as that.

Because the industry has said all along that it doesn't want real

estate agents messing around in its own private business or purchasing

any kind of property. They have continually looked for mechanisms....

Mark you, the industry has nobody to blame but themselves in terms of

this kind of legislation. We have now seen in four different areas —

motor dealers, travel agents, the industry and a fourth one which I

can't recall — where the government had to get involved in regulating

an industry that failed to regulate itself. It may very well have been

that they had no mechanism. They had it in the act that you had to make

a declaration, but quite obviously the declaration wasn't being

submitted. So now the minister has gotten into this thing in a very

hard way.

We know that what we have here is a form of

declaration a form of insider trading, if you like. We're not always

that happy with what goes on even on insider trading reports in the

securities industry. Anyway, we said we were prepared to have a go at

this and see what works out.

Has the minister really

listened to what the industry wants? I don't think so. The commission

thing is very serious. I wonder what procedures there are to make sure

that someone who purchases property, even with this bright red form,

really understands what's going to happen. You said that you wanted to

bring this in by September.

If there has been a breach by

the real estate agent, surely there should be a possibility of voiding

the agreement with the purchaser. That is an even-handed way to deal

with both an errant real estate agent and someone who, if you like, has

been a victim of that individual. But you say no, they'll have to go

through the civil courts; and that's a very long and expensive process.

I'd like the minister's views on that.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN:

I will try to briefly cover the various major concerns expressed by the

member for Maillardville-Coquitlam. First of all, with respect to the

reaction of the real estate industry to the legislation, I think the

best answer I can give is that since the introduction of this

legislation, both major real estate organizations — the B.C. Real

Estate Association and the Canadian Real Estate Association — have

issued public statements very strongly in support of this legislation.

Therefore my view is that this legislation enjoys the enthusiastic

endorsement of the key, leading real estate organizations. I do not

think that the somewhat selective reading by the member from certain

real estate bulletins accurately conveys the views of those two

provincial and national real estate bodies.

I was pleased to

see that my concerns from earlier debate that the opposition had not

really clearly stated some of their alternative policy views in this

field have now been satisfied. If I heard the member correctly, he

clearly stated that his party's preference would have been an approach

which simply forbids licensed realtors from engaging in any type of

property transaction in the province, so that their role would be

purely as brokers, and they would not be allowed to engage in property

transactions of any sort. We have a philosophical difference on that.

this side we prefer to take a somewhat more selective approach,

targeting in on that small handful of realtors who are the problem. We

don't think it's fair to the legitimate, conscientious and responsible

broker to penalize that person and to provide a flat prohibition that

under no circumstances can they engage in property transactions.

basic response to the member is to refer him to the very key phrase in

section 28(c), as proposed in the amendment. The phrase is: "...in the

form and manner prescribed by the superintendent." Clearly in that

phrase we have reserved the flexibility and the capacity to ensure that

this new system will indeed work. For example, it is within that phrase

that we shall seek to provide that the citizen is not presented with

the disclosure at the same moment that the interim is required to be

signed, but rather that, because it deals with the manner of operation,

there shall be some advance presentation and sufficient reasonable time

for advance thought by the property owner affected.

In terms

of commissions, as I indicated in earlier debate, with great respect, I

think the member may not have fully categorized or thought about the

range of potential commission situations. Let me just briefly summarize

them and relate those situations to this section. There would really be

four kinds of situations relative to a commission that would arise if,

say, a given homeowner was selling his or her home to a third party.

Category 1 would be circumstances under which no commission was payable; in that event the commission concern doesn't arise.

MR. LEVI:

Oh, you know there used to be a time when this guy used to take up

hours of this House with his legislative program. Remember, Mr.

Chairman?

HON. MR. GARDOM: That was good stuff too.

MR. LEVI: It was stuff all right.

The

only place the minister and I separate on this thing is that I do not

accept his explanation under the fourth example. I can't buy that at

all. I think he would have been far better off to leave out payment of

commission in that particular area. That's the key thing he's

attempting to do in here. Not in selective reading, but in two fine

articles people have taken the trouble to.... This one is an internal

house document: "Speculation in Real Estate." That's what they dealt

with. That's the thing that they wanted to be able to settle. I must

say, Mr. Chairman, that the minister has not listened to what they

want. Apart from the broad adulation he's received from introducing the

legislation.... That's one thing, but he has completely missed what

they've been saying in terms of a fourth category that he gave.

Sections 5 to 27 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

[ Page 6458 ]

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 23, Real Estate Amendment Act, 1981, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 28, Mr. Speaker.

NOTARIES ACT

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

In rising to move second reading of this bill I would like the members

to be aware that for many years in this province there has been a

debate, based upon the present legislation, between members of the Law

Society of British Columbia and members of the notaries' society with

respect to the right of notaries to carry out the rights and

responsibilities which the existing legislation permits. Since

approximately 1948 there has been an arrangement between the two

societies with respect to the numbers of notaries that would be granted

seals under the existing legislation to carry on their

responsibilities, and this system has worked reasonably well. However,

in recent months the arrangement which has worked well between these

two professional bodies has been the subject of discussion and, in some

cases, attack.

In particular the attack has taken place

because under the present legislation the authority of the Supreme

Court of British Columbia to authorize an applicant to be examined and

then admitted as a notary public has depended upon need in the

particular community where that applicant proposes to carry on his

practice as a notary public. Because of these challenges to the right

of applicants to be granted a notary seal, there have been a series of

discussions between the benches of the Law Society and the president

and directors of the Society of Notaries Public in an attempt to allow

the preexisting agreement to function.

During the time these

discussions were taking place there was a challenge in the Supreme

Court of British Columbia of an applicant based upon the question of

need, and a decision of the court has made it clear that the existing

statute requires the matter of need to be established. In the

particular case it was not established because in the community where

the notary proposed to carry on business there were other persons,

either lawyers or notaries public, who had the authority to discharge

the responsibilities, and as a result the application failed.

a consequence the notaries' society proposed to proceed, by way of

private bill, to bring about amendments to the existing legislation.

Those amendments would have given the notaries' society a fixed number

of positions throughout the province. The province would be divided

into notarial districts and the number of notary seals which might be

in existence at any one time in any one district was set by the

proposed private bill. The numbers and notarial district concept was

the direction in which the two societies were then negotiating. Perhaps

it could have been resolved by an arrangement, but in view of the

decision in the courts this was not possible.

When the

notaries came forward with their proposed private bill it was, except

for the matter of the establishment of notarial districts and the

numbers of notaries therein provided for, essentially a rewrite of the

existing legislation, which is very old and clearly required a number

of important housekeeping changes with regard to the operation of the

notaries' society. At that time the government considered the proposed

private bill, and after discussions with the directors of the notaries'

society, it was the government's decision to do two things. One was to

proceed with a public bill, which is before you now, which would make

the necessary housekeeping changes and modernize the statute, thereby

enabling the notaries' society to better discharge its

responsibilities. We cleared out many of the unnecessary hindrances to

orderly operation, and we improved in several respects the structure of

the society and the manner in which it discharged its responsibilities.

At the same time we included in the bill the same provisions that the

notaries' society requested in their private bill regarding the

establishment of notarial districts and the fixing of the number of

persons who could act as notaries public under the authority of this

legislation in those districts. In so doing we recognized that there

would be some areas of the province which perhaps were not identified

in the established notarial districts, and therefore we continued the

authority that exists in the court to grant applicants for notarial

seals the right to proceed if need could be established.

Therefore

we have the benefits of the existing legislation, plus provisions which

will assure that there will be in each area defined in the legislation

the opportunity for applicants who meet the qualifications to come

forward, be examined and be granted notary seals. I think the bill is a

marked improvement over the existing legislation and clearly meets not

only the needs of the citizens of the province, but also the

appropriate aspirations and requirements of the notaries' society and

its members. With that, Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of this bill.

MR. HOWARD:

Mr. Speaker, in my view notaries public serve an extremely valuable

function and provide an extremely valuable service. In my personal

experience I would prefer dealing with notaries public to dealing with

lawyers on subject matters that they're able to deal with, realizing,

of course, that there are restrictions on the types of things that

notaries can do. I've had very good relationships with them. I've found

them to be very efficient, with great attention to detail, and very

competent.

The bill before us seeks to place certain

restrictions on the numbers of notaries public that may be licensed to

practise in specific notarial districts, as I understand it. There's an

element of protection in that, as well as a restriction. It seems to

represent a reasonable compromise between the requirements of notaries

and of members of the legal profession. I'm sure it will continue to

serve the interests of the general public in a very satisfactory manner.

One

question comes to mind. Future amendments may be necessary to the bill

or to the

schedule therein with respect to notarial districts and the

numbers of notaries licensed to participate in those districts. I'm

talking about the possibility that arises from time to time in a

province like British Columbia of new communities being established

around new industrial projects and ventures of that sort. If there are,

there will be a potential population growth in a new area. If it is not

contemplated in the

schedule now, there needs to be some recognition

given to that to ensure that notaries public will also be able to

practise their profession in any new areas or districts that come into

being following the passage of this particular act.

haven't looked at the details of it, but often statute schedules are

amendable by order-in-council. I don't know if that is the case in this

particular bill; if it is, I would hope that

[ Page 6459 ]

order-in-council

activity would be used only to expand the number of notaries and expand

the notarial districts, if that occasion arises, and would not be used

to restrict them in any way. We support the bill completely, wish it

speedy passage and wish the notaries every respect in the world.

MR. REE:

My colleague the Attorney-General has indicated some of the history

leading up to the implementation of this bill. As a result of that

history, representatives of the notaries approached me last January or

February and asked whether I would sponsor the private bill they were

proposing this year. Having practised law for many years in and around

the city of Vancouver, I have had occasion to deal with or be

associated with a large number of members of the notaries' society.

During that period I have had excellent rapport with them. I have found

them competent and capable within their terms of reference, and

therefore it was with pride that I was prepared to sponsor the bill as

such. The bill was prepared and was submitted to me as a member of the

private bills committee of this Legislature.

Upon that

presentation, after discussions with the Attorney-General, and

recognizing the need for maintaining the facilities of notaries in this

province — a very old and historic facility in the community, which has

rendered great service to communities in this province — the

Attorney-General and the government agreed to make this a government

bill. It was with pleasure that I learned of that, and I have

encouraged it until its presentation in the House earlier this week.

might mention that in the bill there is provision for a special fund

which the notaries have had in the past. I am informed that there has

never been a claim on this fund to date. I think that speaks well of

the integrity and the honesty of the members of that society in the

performance of their duties. However, I draw to their attention that,

with inflation and escalating prices on houses in certain parts of

British Columbia, they should seriously consider the increasing of this

fund, because a great deal of the work of notaries is in conveyancing —

a certain amount of it — and their members may be charged with larger

sums than are provided for in the bill. But I leave that to their

discretion, recognizing their responsibility and their integrity.

is with pleasure that I support this bill, and I am very pleased to

hear the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) advise that those on the

opposite side will also be supporting the bill, which I think has the

unanimous support of the people of this province.

MR. HALL:

Mr. Speaker, the bill will be supported on the basis that it is going

to help the notaries who are presently operating. I do have some

misgivings. It occurs to me that if we were talking about landscape

gardeners or butchers or carpenters, the chamber would be full; the

press gallery would be full of people wondering why we were allowing

one group of people to prevent somebody else from doing part of their

work. That is essentially what's happening here. We have a really

powerful monopoly of lawyers at work here, who are basically preventing

a group of people from doing part of their work. That's really the

story behind this bill.

The Attorney-General has said that they're moving forward in concert, but

he knows full well that the notaries public were made an offer they couldn't

refuse. They were really under the gun, and if, indeed, they had proceeded with

the private bill, or anything more than just acquiescence to a diminishing population

rollover, every one of their applications would have been fought by some young

lawyer somewhere in front of an old lawyer somewhere, dressed somewhat differently

and sitting in a chair slightly higher than the young lawyer. That's how

this work is carved up. That's what it's all about.

we were talking about trade unions, everybody on the other side of the

House would be on his feet talking about it. They do it in concert,

under a vote and under a certification process. They do it under a fair

process. You should know about that; you were once Minister of Labour.

This isn't fair; you know that. You've made them an offer they can't

refuse, and they're accepting it. We've got a

schedule which is part of

the act. I suppose I'd have been happier if the number of notaries

public in the notarial districts had been — beggar the thought — part

of the regulations. At least they could have been changed swiftly.

This

is really what the bill is all about. I'm sorry the notaries public

lost their courage at the last minute and didn't go ahead with it.

We'll support it, but it's vested interest in a full monopoly on one

side fighting some small people on the other. Let's not forget what

it's all about. If this was happening amongst ordinary working people

in the trade union movement, the other side would be shouting and

screaming about it. As I say, for the Attorney-General to say the trade

union movement doesn't do it shows an abysmal and, frankly, convenient

loss of memory from when he used to hold a different portfolio.

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Speaker, I think you and others can remember that over the last two

or three years there have been requests made of this House and the

government to act on behalf of notaries. There's no question that what

we have here is quite an improvement over the rather unsatisfactory

situation that we have seen heretofore — and that was the whole

question of every dispute having to be resolved in the Supreme Court of

British Columbia. We saw the results of a number of those, and I'm

pleased to see that the Attorney General, as the representative for the

government, has taken it upon himself to at least go as far as he has.

know the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) indicates that this is a

one-sided proposition and that they had no choice. Unfortunately, they

were in an even worse position before, so naturally we're supporting

the proposition put before us.

However, the problem I have

with the whole

schedule situation is as follows. I see burgeoning

communities where the numbers of notaries permitted for those

particular areas are written in as part of the act. In other words, the

schedule to the act is part of the act and there will be no regulations

pursuant to that. In order to amend this from time to time, it will

have to be brought before the House. It may be, Mr. Speaker, that this

will be a much amended bill. For example, I notice that Kelowna, which

is growing very rapidly....

And there are other areas where

numbers set now probably won't be relevant in two years time. For

instance, I notice the number in New Westminster is the same as it's

been for many years; that is what they had sort of tentatively agreed

upon. The number was ten for as long as I can remember and I notice

it's still ten in the schedule. However, the fact is that New

Westminster has grown, and our province has grown. We now have fewer

notaries public than we had a decade or so ago, and we're seeing to it

that in a decade or so from now we will have no more.

[ Page 6460 ]

They,

however, have agreed to go this route, so I'm not going to admonish the

government particularly for having brought forward a bill that at least

gives them this kind of protection. I also would go along with those

who have said that notaries have given a good account of themselves

over the years in this province — some a better Account than others,

but that's the case in every profession.

The one niggling

little doubt in the back of my mind is the fact that most notaries are

involved in real estate. I would think most of their transactions would

be real estate transactions. There was always the possibility of just a

little bit of self-interest attached to their work. I think that's

probably one of the reasons why it's always been thought that there

should not be a proliferation.

In any event, I hope that the

notaries public are as satisfied as they appear to be with this new

piece of legislation. I hope that in the future where there are needs

for change, those needs can be acted upon readily without lobbies from

the benchers and lobbies from local lawyers and so on and so forth

stifling the opportunity to give at least some proportion relevant to

population, rather than a proportion, as I see it now, only relevant to

that which has always been. If that's going to be the case, I think

that we can support this bill without any hesitation whatsoever.

MR. REE: May I have leave to make an introduction, Mr. Speaker?

Leave granted.

MR. REE:

I'm sorry that I didn't notice earlier, but since we are debating the

notaries' bill at the moment, I feel it's apropos to introduce again to

this House a gentleman in the gallery above me here, the president of

the Society of Notaries Public of British Columbia, Mr. Roy Bishop. I'd

ask this House to welcome him here today.

MS. BROWN:

Like the other members of the opposition, I too am going to support

this bill, but I thought I should just get some answers to a couple of

questions about the decision made about how many notaries there are to

an area. I wonder if the Attorney-General will say whether they have

adopted the recommendation of one notary for every 5,000 people, or

whether the schedule, as it's now written, in terms of the number of

notaries to each area....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Perhaps it would be a question more appropriate for committee.

MS. BROWN:

That's true, Mr. Speaker, except that I thought that under second

reading debate was permitted on any of the areas as long as I didn't

refer to a specific section.

MR. SPEAKER: I thought I heard the hon. member refer to the schedule, but maybe I was in error.

MS. BROWN: I'm sorry, I won't use the word "schedule" then. I withdraw the word "schedule."

I'm

wondering whether the Attorney-General, in closing debate in this, will

explain to us what provisions have been made to adjust the number of

notaries to a specific area. I noticed, too, that Burnaby is going to

be assigned eight notaries. With a population that's growing rapidly,

is the decision to increase or decrease that number attached to the

population? This is what I'm trying to find out. I noticed that in the

brief that was presented by Mr. Bishop there was some request to do

with tying it to the population — that is, one notary for every 5,000

people in the population. I wonder whether the Attorney-General took

this into account in making the decision as to what the total should

be. I also noticed that we're up to a total — if my addition is correct

— of something like 353 notaries for the entire province. Again, that

seems to be within Mr. Bishop's request.

Is there any room

in the legislation? I've looked through it, and I didn't see any room

in the legislation to increase or decrease this amount based upon the

need. For example, if it became obvious that 350 notaries were being

overworked and that more and more people were beginning to use notaries

because they found that the service they received from them was

excellent service and not quite as expensive or as complicated as

dealing with a lawyer, is there anything in this legislation that would

then make it necessary or possible to increase the number of notaries

without having to bring it back to the House?

I would also

like to associate myself with the comments made by the member for

Skeena (Mr. Howard). I have certainly received a number of letters from

people in my constitutuency of Burnaby-Edmonds who speak very highly of

the service that they have received from notaries and regret that the

number of notaries is going to be limited in any way.

MRS. WALLACE:

Following along the same lines that my colleague for Burnaby-Edmonds

was speaking on, I would like to commend the Attorney-General for at

least upgrading the legislation in relation to my area. The original

draft called for one notary for Duncan, and it completely ignored the

fact that Duncan is a very small city in the centre of a very

fast-growing population. I'm pleased to see that the municipality of

North Cowichan is now included in those total figures and that the

number of notaries is increased to three, which is the existing number

of notaries in that area.

My concern relates to the same

situation raised by the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown). The

whole area south of Duncan, which is neither in North Cowichan nor in

Duncan city, is not considered in the total population figures shown

there.

The area of Shawnigan and Mill Bay is one of the

fastest-growing areas in the province. The population is estimated to

be growing at one and a half times the normal growth rate for the rest

of Vancouver Island. I can foresee in the very near future a

requirement for an amendment to this legislation, because there is no

provision that I can see for allowing an elastic situation to provide

for the addition of a notary in the Shawnigan-Mill Bay area, which is

growing so rapidly but is completely excluded from this particular

piece of legislation. It's true, a person can go to Duncan or North

Cowichan, but that is not in line with the general thinking and the

principle behind this bill that these notaries would be assigned

according to population. I am concerned that that seems to be

completely omitted from this legislation.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

In closing debate, may I say that I associate myself with the remarks

of the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Ree) and also with the

remarks of the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) with respect to the

quality of professional performance of the notaries. In discussions

with the notaries' society, their president and directors, it is clear

that they are concerned about the quality

[ Page 6461 ]

persons who hold notary seals. It is their intention to vigorously

pursue programs which will ensure that applicants for positions will in

every way be fully qualified to discharge their responsibilities. This

is not to say that those who presently hold seals are not so qualified,

but as entrants come in, that the profession is aware of the need to

ensure that the highest standards are maintained.

The

prospect of new communities is of concern to the government. For that

reason we inserted the provision in

section 7 whereby, based upon need,

applicants for notarial seals and examination can still be allowed to

proceed. But I wish to assure members that from time to time, as

circumstances change throughout this province by reason of growth of

population or the establishment of new communities, the government will

expect the Society of Notaries Public and the general public to make

known their view with respect to need, so that the

schedule can be

changed either by establishing additional notarial districts or by

increasing the numbers of notaries who can practise within any district

now in the schedule.

We considered whether or not the

schedule should be amendable by order-in-council. We concluded that, in

view of the public interest in such matters, it would be more desirable

if the matter were attended to by legislation, thereby avoiding any

suggestion that changes in the

schedule might not provide full

opportunity for debate as to the need for change.

May I say

to the member for Burnaby-Edmonds that there is no intention of

reducing the number in the schedule. As it is changed from time to

time, that number will undoubtedly increase.

I move second reading of Bill 28.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to refer Bill 28 to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Leave granted.

Bill 28, Notaries Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

NOTARIES ACT

The House in committee on Bill 28; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

section 5. MS. BROWN:

Mr. Chairman, I don't think that the minister answered my question. He

said that he wanted to reassure me that there would be no decrease, but

I am also interested in increase. I notice that in one of the briefs

presented by the notaries a formula was suggested of one notary to each

5,000 increase in population.

section 5 of the bill says that we are

stuck with the districts listed in the first column of the schedule,

and also with the numbers listed in the third column of the schedule. I

am asking the Attorney General whether there is a formula devised that

would deal with increases in population.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Mr. Speaker, no formula has yet been devised, and the

schedule

establishing the districts and the numbers which has been incorporated

into this bill is the

schedule which was advanced by the notaries'

society. As I said in closing second reading, if with changing

population and the growth of new communities there is an indication

from the notaries society or from the general public that the

schedule

needs revision, then the government will be most happy to sit down with

the society and consider that.

The difficulty with using a

formula — one for 5,000 or whatever the case may be — is that it may

not necessarily provide a fair allocation of numbers throughout the

province. As you will note, in the present

schedule there are a very

large number in our very large communities. As circumstances change,

that may prove to be the wrong way to go. As the member herself said,

maybe there should be more in Burnaby and fewer in Vancouver, but I

think that's something that would have to be established on the basis

of demand from the public. This is one of the matters to which the

notaries' society will be addressing itself.

It's the same

with the question from the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace).

The fact that there are now, perhaps, growing communities which are not

in the

schedule may produce a need for revision to the

schedule to make

those inclusions. Presently, if a need is established, then a seal can

be granted in an area outside the district. But if the notaries'

society would prefer to reorganize the districts and change the

numbers, then that is a matter the government is prepared to consider

with them.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I'm very

interested in what the Attorney-General has said. What I think I heard

him say was that if they were going to add one in Burnaby, they might

have to take one away from New Westminster. Will he tell the House, in

no uncertain terms, that that magic number — whatever those numbers

total — is not a fixed and total number, but that it is subject to

upward revision if the need arises, so that we can have notaries

appointed in new areas? Granted, it has to be done by law, because for

some reason, while everything else can be done in order-in-council by

this government, for some reason they have decided that this particular

piece of legislation cannot be handled by order-incouncil, but must

come before the House. It seems to me we've seen other, far more

important things shoved away to order-in-council, and now we have one

that has to come before the House. But my point is: can we be assured

that if an amendment comes before this Legislature, it could be an

amendment that would add a notary without taking one away from some

other area?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I'm

sorry that I am having difficulty making myself understood. The example

I gave was simply the problems associated with using a formula. I said

it may be that more are required in one area and less in another, based

upon the formula. That would result in the problem that the member for

Cowichan-Malahat has just indicated. You would be treating this as a

fixed number, and that's not the intention.

I'd better make

it perfectly clear that if the demands for material services increase,

if new communities are formed and populations expand, then we will

expect the notaries' society to come to the government or the public

and make representations either to permit on the basis of need the

granting of seals or the inclusion of additional numbers in

[ Page 6462 ]

existing

notarial districts, or changing or increasing the number of notarial

districts, and thereby solving the problem, because it's a matter of

service to the public, and that's to be the guide.

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Chairman, just to give you an example. I look at Penticton for an

example of two approvals in this bill. We know that Penticton is a very

rapidly growing community. Beyond that there are a lot of land

transfers going on in a rapidly growing community. Then I compare that,

for example, to Kelowna, which has a traditional number of seven.

Therefore it appears to me that we're dealing far more with tradition

and far less with actual needs. I also refer to the district of Delta,

a huge district which has become, I guess, as big as or bigger than

many of the lower mainland municipalities — and they have two. Then I

go to New Westminster, which has ten with a population of, say, 40,000

compared to a population of some 100,000 in Delta. So I worry that what

we're looking at here is far more tradition than need. Naturally, when

I think in terms of what the future holds, I suspect that the districts

have had it, unless they can make some very strong representation. When

I look across at that government bench and think in terms of the number

of lawyers over there, it worries me that there aren't going to be very

many significant changes.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr.

Chairman, I don't want to allow this

section to pass without responding

to what has just been said. That is not the purpose at all. And it may

be that in the establishment of this particular

schedule the notaries

society did pay attention to tradition; they certainly had to pay

attention to those members of their society who hold seals and who have

practised for many years, and where they practise has been established

for many years. This has been the first opportunity to move in this

direction, and as I indicated, henceforward it's not going to be

tradition; it will be based upon identified need for the service which

notaries can provide, and it will result in the adjustments. You

mentioned the Delta area. Yes, there is a large population and that's

one area that maybe has to be looked at. But this

schedule is one which

the notaries society themselves devised, and if it is based upon

tradition, it is so because it is the first time a

schedule was put

forward.

MS. BROWN: I'm really nervous about this,

Mr. Chairman. Does a notary have to die or retire, for example, before

another notary can be appointed? In other words, is what we have here

the list of existing notary seals and where they are? Was there any

give or take built into this schedule? Is it possible for any new

notaries to come on stream now, or do we now have existing already in

the province something in the area of 350 notaries? Is this it? Is the

minister saying that before any other notary seals are going to be

invested or introduced— whatever one does — the existing notaries have

to retire or die, as the case may be, or an amendment has to be brought

back to this House based on some kind of census study? How was this

schedule put together in the first place? How were these figures

arrived at? Maybe we should start by getting that information.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Mr. Chairman, as I indicated earlier, the notaries presented a private

bill for consideration, and they established the schedule. I'm advised

that the

schedule includes more positions than there are presently

notaries practising in the province. As a matter of fact, one of the

reasons that we're anxious to proceed with this bill is that there are,

I believe, some 20 applicants for notary seals, for which positions are

made available in this schedule, who can't be considered until this

bill is passed. So there are new positions presently pending. Once the

legislation is passed, yes, in any particular district a notary seal

will have to become vacant in order that it be filled, unless the

schedule 1s increased.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Chairman,

there is something lacking in the bill that I want to draw to the

attention of the Attorney-General. That is, there is no provision for a

lay member....

Interjection.

MR. LEGGATT: Is it in?

MR. CHAIRMAN: We're on

section 5, hon. member.

MR. LEGGATT:

I think I can squeeze this in if I look at

section

Section 5 deals

with enrolment limited by district. I've got to make a quick point, and

we'll see if it's in order.

There is no provision with

respect to a lay person sitting as a member of the board of directors

of the society. The notaries presumably operate under the Society Act

with this enabling legislation. I know that the Attorney-General is

sympathetic to governing bodies of professional associations having lay

persons sit on the boards of those associations to provide some public

input in terms of the management and discipline of the members of any

particular society. The Law Society has decided that is a good way to

go. It seems to me that we should have made some provision in this act

with respect to that.

Otherwise, I think the act is very

sound. It's a good piece of legislation, which in effect gives the

existing arrangement between the notaries' society and the Law Society

some statutory authority. I think that's a desirable thing. In our

concern expressed here....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order,

please. The debate that the member is now entering upon would have been

appropriate in second reading. The Chair has allowed considerable

latitude. The member has made a point, and it's certainly not on

section 5. The Attorney-General may or may not wish to respond.

Sections 5 to 7 inclusive approved.

section 8. MR. COCKE:

"The Attorney-General shall appoint a board of examiners consisting of

three persons to conduct the examinations of applicants for enrolment."

What input does the society have in terms of the creation of this

board? Right here it sounds a little bit arbitrary. I would have

thought it would be in consultation, and that that would be written

into the act. Instead of that, it's just: "The Attorney-General shall

appoint...." We all know that....

Interjections.

[ Page 6463 ]

MR. COCKE:

The member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Ree) says it will be all

doctors. Anyway, I'd like to hear from the Attorney-General.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Mr. Chairman, the present legislation provides for the board of

examiners to be appointed by the chief justice. In order to facilitate

the appointment of boards, the responsibility has been given to the

Attorney General. It will be established in consultation with the board

of directors of the society.

Sections 8 to 45 inclusive approved.

Schedule approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 28, Notaries Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

MR. SKELLY: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. SKELLY:

I would ask the House to welcome Marguarita Sandbom, a representative

of the Democratic Revolutionary Front of El Salvador, who is in the

galleries today visiting with members of the New Democratic Party

caucus in this Legislature. I would ask all members of the Legislature

to make her welcome to British Columbia. Miss Sandborn is the

representative for the FDR in Montreal.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 31, Mr. Speaker.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1981

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: This miscellaneous bill on the government's position is best dealt with in committee. I move second reading.

Mr. Howard moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 30, Mr. Speaker.

ATTORNEY GENERAL STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 1981

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Each year

there are a number of amendments to statutes which fall within the

jurisdiction of the Attorney-General. These are housekeeping

amendments, and they are included in this statute. Accordingly I move

second reading. I'll be prepared to deal with specific items in the

bill during committee stage.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to refer Bill 30 to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Leave granted.

Bill

30, Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 198 1, read a second time

and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration

forthwith.

ATTORNEY GENERAL STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 1981

The House in committee on Bill 30; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Sections 1 to 21 inclusive approved.

section 22.

MS. BROWN: I wonder if the Attorney-General would explain the significance of

section 22. HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

This deals with the question of what we refer to as non-expiring

judgments. The member will recall that when the Land Title Act was

introduced in 1979 it was provided that instead of judgments being

recorded in the judgment register— as had been the practice up until

that time — judgments are now recorded against the specific title to

property. The previous practice was to register judgments in the Land

Title Act in a judgment register. Now the practice is to register the

judgments against the specific title to property. That legislation

provided that the previous practice of using a judgment register would

expire two years after the enactment of that legislation. Therefore you

will find, not only with respect to the Family Relations Act but in a

couple of other statutes as well, that we are simply correcting a

clerical error. We referred to

section 76, and now we refer to

section

76(l), which clarifies that non-expiring judgments filed in a land

title office before October 31, 1979, must be renewed by October 31

this year.

I can advise the member that following the

enactment of the Land Title Act, the process of reregistering of

judgments commenced. There are now only a few hundred still remaining

in the judgment registers. Whether any of them touch upon Family

Relations Act matters is highly doubtful. In order to ensure that there

is no difficulty, we are sending out to every lawyer, notary public and

registrar specific notices advising them that judgments must be

reregistered by the end of October this year. Additionally, we are

notifying each individual judgment creditor — the person who holds the

judgment— personally with a form letter advising him or her that the

judgment must he reregistered against a specific title to property,

rather than being in the general old judgment register by the end of

October. Against the possibility that someone, through oversight, may

not do this, I also want to assure the member that there is provision

in the law for an application to be made in the case of inadvertent

oversight, so that no one is going to lose as a consequence. We want to

clean up the old judgment register system. It will be done by the end

of October. There are only a few hundred judgments left. We're sending

out these special notices to get everybody to reregister. As I say,

against the possibility that inadver-

[ Page 6464 ]

tently somebody misses the deadline, there is still the opportunity for relief.

MS. BROWN:

I want to thank the Attorney-General. I assume that that's what's going

to happen with

section 18 too, because they're both.... Okay.

MR. LEGGATT:

I wanted to ask a couple of questions about this. The Attorney-General

has indicated that there is provision where an oversight takes place.

But where property is transferred, subsequent to an oversight, I don't

know what the remedy could be in that case. It seems to me that the

property itself would be gone. Therefore how would there be any remedy

available to the judgment creditor? That was my first question.

The

second one is: under the old land titles system when you registered a

judgment generally and the judgment debtor didn't own any property, if

he subsequently acquired property it would come under that judgment

registration. It would mean that when he subsequently acquired

property, he would then be prevented from retransferring it, because

the judgment in fact, being generally registered, would automatically

attach to that property. Now that the law has changed and we must

judgment creditor must conduct a name search in the registry in order

to determine if there is any property in the name of the judgment

debtor and thereafter register, so that he doesn't have the old

opportunity of simply registering generally and hoping that the

judgment debtor will make the mistake of allowing property to come into

his name?

I wonder if the Attorney-General would deal with those two aspects.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

The matters raised by the hon. member are correct. That was the

decision that was taken in 1979 in amending the Land Title Act and

moving from the old judgment register system to registration against

specific property. It is now the responsibility of the judgment

creditor to register. When his judgment debtor acquires property, he

doesn't have to pursue the registration technique and his remedy.

With

regard to the problem that arises following an inadvertent error to

reregister and then the property is sold, that is one of the problems

that gives us concern. There is no remedy for that. That's why we're

going to the rather extensive length of again notifying the entire

legal profession, the notarial profession and all the registrars and

sending a special notice to each person whose name appears in the

judgment register, drawing to their attention their need to register

non-expiring judgments. There aren't that many of those.

MR. LEGGATT:

I want to point out to the Attorney General that in fact what we've

done is made it more difficult for those people who have orders under

the Family Relations Act to enforce those orders. Under the old system

the order could simply be registered in the land titles office

generally. Therefore in this case if the husband or the wife judgment

debtor happens to acquire property, the spouse with the order would

have the opportunity of trying to execute their order. Now we've

weakened that, and we've weakened the Family Relations Act. Now what

happens is that if a spouse has an order against him, he will certainly

make arrangements not to acquire property or have property in his own

name. Therefore it's more difficult for those people who happen to be

judgment creditors under a family court order to levy execution or to

put pressure on their spouses to pay the order. In the process of

trying to make things more efficient in the land titles office, we in

fact have weakened the capacity of people who hold orders under the

Family Relations Act — or judgment creditors generally — to recover

their debts.

MS. BROWN: I wonder whether the

Attorney-General was aware of this fact when he was introducing this

amendment. Heaven knows, the Family Relations Act is weak enough as it

is. The last thing that we need is anything to weaken it further; it

will expire and die. Was my learned colleague incorrect?

HON. MR. GARDOM: He's not a notary.

MS. BROWN:

I need the assurance of the Attorney General that the Family Relations

Act is not at risk, because this is a serious matter. I think the

Attorney-General is checking his law books.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

I have the answer to the concern of the member. I would ask the member

to consider the provisions of subsection 76(

l) of the Court Order

Enforcement Act, to which we're making this apply. It provides that:

"Every judgment, except non-expiring judgment including a

renewal...registered under this part, at the expiration of two years

after the registration or last renewal...ceases to form a lien o ' r

charge...."

What we are doing is ensuring that that does not apply to

an order made under the Family Relations Act. If you look at

section 64

of the Family Relations Act, it presently says the whole

section 76 of

the Court Order Enforcement Act does not apply to an order registered

under subsection (1) of the Family Relations Act. We're just changing

it to make sure that it's perfectly clear that the expiry after two

years does not apply to orders made under the Family Relations Act.

MR. LEGGATT:

That is certainly a more satisfactory explanation than the one we

received earlier. That sounds as though we are enshrining the

non-expiring element in a family relations order, which is a very

desirable thing.

Perhaps I could get a final clarification.

Can we assume that a Family Relations Act order will not be an order

that expires in terms of the land registry office? Is it also true that

we still have to register that order against a specific property....

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes.

MR. LEGGATT: ...or can that order be registered generally in the land registry office against the name of the judgment debtor?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

The property is registered.... An order made under sections 56 to 62 of

the Family Relations Act, when certified by a proper officer of the

court that made the order, may be registered in any land title office

of the province, and shall charge the land of the person against whom

the order is made, and shall be deemed to be a judgment defined in

section 74 of the Court Order Enforcement Act.

Sections 22 to 29 inclusive approved.

[ Page 6465 ]

section 30. MR. MACDONALD:

Mr. Chairman, I think the discount rate is around 3.5 percent now. It's

a calculation on future losses of wages and costs of future care. They

might be figures of $100,000 or $150,000 in some cases. It's fine to

have a standard rate that changes from time to time set by the chief

justice, but the vice remains. That is that the court is asked to look

in a crystal ball and assess loss of future wages and costs of future

care for somebody who has been badly injured, making very much of a

guesstimate in both cases. The person may need greater care; the person

may recover; the person may or may not be able to work.

What

I'm saying is that these lump-sum judgments — as was pointed out by the

Supreme Court of Canada in the Andrel's case — are really the wrong way

to go. The legislatures must look at some provision for time-payments

when future care is involved — depending on the needs of the

individual, the medical expenses, the kind of accommodation that's

necessary — and time-payments in the case of future wage loss, so that

it can be adjusted in some realistic fashion. I don't know whether the

Attorney-General can tell us how that discount rate is calculated. It's

rather complicated. I think if you have $ 100,000 in future loss of

wages — if that's the judgment — you just take 3.5 percent off that.

It's trying to assess receiving $100,000 in cash right now as compared

to getting it over a period of time, as if you were earning the wages.

Anyway, I think this whole matter of damages has to be looked at.

That's my point.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I agree with the

general position taken by the member with regard to the difficulty of

trying to provide for future losses through lump-sum damage awards,

because the circumstances can change drastically one way or the other.

Sometimes judges make it much too large for what is needed. I think

what is required is some better assurance that care will be provided to

meet the needs.

I wouldn't presume, Mr. Member, to tell you

how the discount rate is established, but this is one of the reasons

for the change. What is happening is that every time we have a trial of

this kind a group of experts comes in and testifies as to what the rate

is. The concern we have is that different cases are producing different

rates, and therefore you're getting one rate applied in this damage

award and a different one applied in the next damage award, based on

the kind of evidence that's been brought. So it is proposed to give the

chief justice the authority to establish the rate. The technique will

be that the chief justice and other members of his court will

periodically, with the assistance of qualified actuaries, sit down and

review what the changes have been and establish a new rate.

MR. LEGGATT:

Mr. Chairman, I want to point out something else to the

Attorney-General under this section. At the present time, in

establishing the discount rate, the courts are also required to deduct

from any lump-sum award the value of no-fault insurance that the

claimant, who may be very seriously injured, receives under his

contract. The difficulty with that is that the claimant then loses the

capacity to manage his own money. In effect, the present law provides

that, for example, if you're entitled to certain care under your ICBC

insurance, the courts take that into consideration and reduce the

award. The difficulty there is that the claimant to some extent loses

control of his own funds. The funds in fact become allocated. Serious

consideration should be given to the ability of a seriously injured

person like a paraplegic to rehabilitate himself by investing his own

money and having a good deal to do with managing his own affairs. My

experience has been that while from time to time we've gone out of our

way through insurance provisions to help a claimant, sometimes giving

the claimant his own funds to manage and disburse is very good for that

particular claimant. I think that somewhere along the line the

Attorney-General should give consideration to reviewing that particular

provision where a deduction of the no-fault provision is made from the

award.

The second thing I wanted to raise with the Attorney

General is that there's now a case in front of the Supreme Court of

Canada dealing with the famous trilogy of cases which dealt with the

limit that can be awarded for pain and suffering. Depending on the

outcome of that particular case — in the event that the Supreme Court

of Canada finds it won't reverse itself or won't give effect to the

judgment of Mr. Justice Bouck in considering inflation on the basis of

pain and suffering — I'm asking the Attorney-General....

Interjection.

MR. LEGGATT:

Has the decision come down? In the event the decision is unfavourable

to the claimants, I'm asking the Attorney-General to give serious

consideration to intervening in the law in this case and opening up the

question of pain and suffering as a matter that should be determined by

a judge or judge and jury, as the case may be, so that the standards of

the community can be applied and not the standards of some supreme

court judges in Ottawa, who may be quite out of touch with the reality

of what is an appropriate award for pain and suffering.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

With respect to the first point, the no-fault damage provision, I'd be

very appreciative if the member would drop me a note about that, so

that we can examine that problem. It is a serious one, and if we can

rectify it, we will.

With regard to this matter of setting

damages, I agree with the member. We are anxiously awaiting the

decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, because since the earlier

decision I think it's clear the courts have not been acting in

accordance with that decision, and I hope the Supreme Court of Canada

will clear it up. If they don't, then we'll have to consider techniques

such as that recommended by the member.

Sections 30 to 37 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 30, Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 1981, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

[ Page 6466 ]

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 16, Mr. Speaker.

MEDICAL SERVICE PLAN ACT, 1981

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 16, Mr. Davidson in the chair.

On the amendment to

section 6. MR. COCKE:

We are on an amendment I moved pursuant to

section 6. Having listened

to a gremlin or two, and finding that the government intends to

significantly change the direction of this particular aspect of the

bill, I would therefore ask the committee that I be given general

assent to withdraw my amendment.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: With the general assent of the assembly, I move that

section 6 be deleted.

Motion approved.

Section 7 approved.

section 8.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

On the amendment.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, we agree with the amendment to

section 8.

Amendment approved.

Section 8 as amended approved.

section 9.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 9 as amended approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 16, Medical Services Plan Act, 1981, reported complete with amendments.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be considered as reported?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: With leave, now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 16, Medical Services Plan Act, 1981, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 14, Mr. Speaker.

PROVINCIAL DEBT REPAYMENT ACT

(continued)

MR. MUSSALLEM:

I think I have said all that needs to have been said before the

adjournment of the debate. There are a couple of matters that I want to

bring to the attention of the House supporting my contention regarding

the bill. It must be remembered that back when the bill to borrow was

brought forward in 1976.... I want to quote from Hansard

of that day. The Minister of Finance of that day was speaking to the

bill to borrow $400 million. He said this: "Thus, Mr. Speaker and hon.

members, you can readily see the dilemma of the Minister of Finance. On

the one hand he is faced with a $400 million deficit or cash shortfall,

and on the other hand he was faced with having no borrowing authority.

Obviously the situation must be quickly corrected, so the purpose of

this bill, therefore, is to provide the government with the authority

to borrow money to cover these deficits."

What I'm saying is

that there was no doubt, when this government took office, that the

financial situation was in deficit, but how much no one knew. In due

course it was estimated to be $261 million. This government said that

never again would we go into debt for general expenses of this

government; we'd pay our way every year.

I want to give you

an example of what debt can do to a province. The provinces of Ontario

and Quebec are two good examples. At the end of this session of their

Legislature they have already budgeted for a deficit of $3 billion,

having already a budget deficit of $23 billion. Ontario's budgeting a

deficit of $1 billion. There's a total of $30 billion of debt in these

two provinces. The interest on that debt is a dead weight on the future

of the people of those provinces. If we take that at an interest rate

today of 20 percent, we'll quickly come out with a figure of $6

billion. The people of Ontario and Quebec are bearing a load equal to

the entire budget of British Columbia. That is why we will not allow

debt in our province. That is why I say that we must never again allow

our province to go into debt.

There have been many arguments

saying that there was no debt. If anyone wants to read the financial

statements, it's obvious. There was a debt of $261 million, although

the bill authorized borrowing up to $400 million. That was covered.

That was the reason we moved this bill for repayment of a portion of

this debt according to law.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the second member for Surrey wish to speak?

MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, I was trying to find my notes. I thought I had spoken on this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: On Bill 14 the speakers in order are without mentioning the names — Mr. Curtis, Mr. Stupich and Mr. Cocke.

[ Page 6467 ]

MR. HALL:

There's no quarrel, Mr. Speaker. We did adjourn the bill a couple of

times, and the on again, off again problem of legislating means that

sometimes we forget whether we've spoken. My notes didn't indicate

whether I made this speech.

MR. SPEAKER: Please proceed.

MR. HALL:

The fact of the matter is that we have maintained all along, Mr.

Speaker, that this debt is a manufactured one. The member for New

Westminster (Mr. Cocke) and the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich)

pointed out exactly what happened in the spring of 1976. The events

that transpired were well canvassed by those two members in their

speeches in second reading. However, the fact of the matter is that

money did pass, transfer payments were made, debt was produced — we

maintain — incorrectly and unfairly; we maintain it was an

administered, deliberate, political debt. In so doing, moneys were

borrowed from our pension funds to transfer money away from the general

revenue of this province; moneys were borrowed to create this spurious

debt, and they were borrowed at 9 1/8 percent, as Public Accounts

indicate. It was money to support this alleged, punitive debt that

exists only in Social Credit imagination and in the books administered

by Social Credit politicians, checked by Social Credit chartered

accountants.

This debt, Mr. Speaker, was borrowed at 9 1/8

percent out of the pension funds of this province. How are we paying it

back? We're paying it back, slowly but surely, by these pieces of paper

that come drifting through the Legislative Assembly, while this

minister — the member for Saanich and the Islands, the ebullient

Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) — sits on term deposits which are

probably $1 billion today, earning 18 percent. So while he's sitting on

18 percent earning money, he robbed — if I may use that expression —

pension funds by only paying 9 1/8 percent in this purely political

exercise. That was a speech, Mr. Speaker, that I wish to make sure was

on the record to answer once again — I wasn't here in 1976 and 1977 —

and make sure the minister knew that I was aware of his machinations in

terms of money that's represented by this political piece of

legislation. This really isn't good enough; this isn't the kind of

financial legerdemain that he should want to go down in history for;

this isn't the kind of financial wizardry for which he would want his

photograph placed on the walls of this legislative precinct.

understand we're going to see the pictures of everybody who's ever been

anything at all placed on all the walls of this building. We're

starting down the corridor: every Attorney General there ever was,

every Provincial Secretary there ever was, every Minister of

Intergovernmental Relations there ever was or is ever likely to be....

HON. MR. GARDOM: Hey, I want to get out of here sometime!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. HALL:

Mr. Speaker, I want to make it abundantly clear that while in order to

process and fulfil the political purposes of all those transfer

payments made in the springtime of 1976 when we manufactured this debt

— when we took money out of the pension funds at 9 1/8 percent — we are

today sitting on deposits that are earning 18 percent. What a mockery

of bookkeeping, Mr. Speaker!

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr.

Speaker, I spoke at length earlier in this session with respect to Bill

14 and outlined, as my predecessor did in the years following 1976, the

situation in which we found ourselves. The second member for Surrey

(Mr. Hall), who has just taken his place, has, I think, overstated a

number of aspects of the matter. The fact remains that the debt was

determined to exist, and many words have been spoken about it in the

years since 1976. I would refer interested members to the remarks which

I offered at the commencement of this debate, as I said just a short

while ago. With that, Mr. Speaker, I now move second reading of Bill 14.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 29

Waterland

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Richmond

Ree

Davidson

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

Brummet

NAYS — 16

Barrett

Howard

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Hall

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

Skelly

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Mitchell

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

Bill

14, Provincial Debt Repayment Act, read a second time and referred to a

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

the House after today.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee of Supply, Mr. Speaker.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF LABOUR

(continued)

On vote 140: minister's office, $147,796.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Prior to recognizing the member for Burnaby-Edmonds, hon. members,

yesterday the Chair undertook to review the Blues on a point of order

raised by the hon. the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk).

Having reviewed the Blues, the Chair is of the opinion that the opinion

rendered by the Chair at the time was a proper one.

[ Page 6468 ]

MS. BROWN: That's a surprise, Mr. Chairman.

Yesterday, in discussing the estimates, a number of people raised the

issue of health and safety. I just want to touch very briefly on one area that

has to do with health hazards to the children of people who work in areas where

they are exposed to radiation or various toxic substances. One of the recommendations

made by a committee was the fact that although the Workers' Compensation

Board and workmen's compensation boards around the world deal with the workers

who are disabled or injured as a result of their jobs, there is no compensation

for the children of these workers — that is, the ones who are born with a disability

as a result of the expectant mother being exposed, as I said, either to radiation

or to toxic substances. Certainly there is no compensation for the children

of those parents who work in industries where they bring home some of that substance

on their clothes. We were given the statistics by the second member for Victoria

(Mr. Hanson) about the high incidence of cancer and that sort of thing in these

families.

want to ask the Minister of Labour whether there is any thought being

given to amending the Workers' Compensation Act so it would cover this

particular area. I'm speaking specifically of the damage done to the

fetuses as a result of the work of the parents. Children are then born

disabled. There is no compensation in this instance or the instance

where the family develops an illness as a result of the parents' job

related exposure to toxic substances.

I also want to ask the

minister why it is that the ad for a program development officer to

deal with the employment opportunities program branch, which was

published in March of this year, is for an auxiliary position. It seems

to me that an auxiliary position is a very tenuous one. It does not

demonstrate an ongoing commitment to this particular program on the

part of the minister, and, of course, the person hired has no benefits.

I'm wondering if the minister has changed this, and whether the person

they are seeking for the employment opportunities program of the

women's office could be hired as a regular person rather than as an

auxiliary.

My third question to the minister has to do with

the impact of technological change on the workforce. The reason I'm

raising this specifically is because all the research that has been

done shows that certainly one segment of the work community which is

going to be really hard hit is the clerical component. It's the people

who make their living by using typewriters, dictaphones and other

machinery, which are fast becoming obsolete, who are going to feel the

real brunt of technological change in this area. I'm wondering whether

the government has any overall plan or strategy to deal with this. If I

can use some European statistics, the member for Dewdney (Mr.

Mussallem) not being here — I know he doesn't approve of any statistics

that are not B.C. statistics....

We are told that in France

they anticipate that 800,000 secretaries are going to become obsolete

as a result of the advances in word processing and automatic

typewriters. Germany anticipates that by 1990, 40 percent of its office

work is going to be carried out by a computerized system. In the United

States there is a bank in Boston, Massachusetts, which is beginning to

replace its tellers with machines. It's not simply a matter of

suggesting that these workers should start looking elsewhere for jobs,

or be retrained. We have to have some kind of comprehensive industrial

strategy on the part of the government to deal with the problems which

arise from technological change in this area.

I was speaking

to a teacher from the North Okanagan. He was telling me that they are

now introducing some of these computers into the school system, and

they're enrolling students to learn how to program them. What they're

finding is that boys want to learn how to program the computers,

whereas the young women are still signing up for typing, shorthand and

all these machines which we know — and the minister is aware of this —

are becoming obsolete.

When the machines take over, the

people working on those machines will not be women who have been

retrained to work on them. They are going to be young male graduates

from high school and business school who had the foresight to learn how

to program computers. Women are going to find themselves being phased

out of the job market. Because of the fact that women make up such a

large segment of the work community, I'm sure that the minister has to

take this into account. I don't believe that the developments in

training in non-traditional areas for women are meeting that need.

Certainly the apprenticeship program is not meeting that need.

What

we need from the minister is a definitive statement of the overall

strategy for those women presently in the workforce. I would imagine

that it would include women aged 20 and over; they are going to find

this revolution happening so fast that the change is going to come

while they are still in the workforce. The people who are going to be

hardest hit, of course, are those women over the age of 30, 40 and 50,

who as I said before, are not at this point being retrained in using

these new machines and new computers, and are going to find themselves

phased out.

The fourth issue that I wanted to raise with the

minister has to do with the whole business of sexual harassment. I

notice that the human rights branch puts out a little pamphlet talking

about ways in which the Human Rights Code applies itself to or can deal

with this particular complaint, which certainly is on the increase.

However, I have heard from.a number of sources, and I find it

impossible to see how

section 8 of the code really addresses itself to

this particular problem. I attended one of the public hearings of the

Human Rights Commission when it sat in Vancouver and was chaired by the

chairperson, Mrs. Strongitharm.

One of the issues raised at

that hearing was the issue of sexual harassment. I just want to read

into the record the recommendation which came down from the commission

at that time. It said: "There need to be substantive changes to

section

8 of the Human Rights Code. Protection against sexual harassment has to

be made explicit in the Human Rights Code." It goes on to say that this

is a problem which is increasing. It refers to "harassment,

intimidation, coercion or threats to suspend or impose a penalty on or

discriminate against any person because of that person's refusal to

engage in sexually related interaction while applying for work, during

work or after work." It says: "Presently complaints of this type are

being accepted under

section 8 of the code." However, the conclusion of

the board was that

section 8 was not able to deal with this in a

satisfactory manner, despite the pamphlet that says that it can. Their

recommendation was for substantive changes in the code.

The Ontario Human Rights Code does in fact have these substantive changes and is very explicit.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I must remind you...

MS. BROWN: I mustn't discuss legislation.

[ Page 6469 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: ...that

legislation or the need for legislation cannot be discussed in

Committee of Supply. While the member has been allowed some latitude up

to this point, I must advise the member that we must deal with the

administrative responsibility under the estimates presently before the

committee.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I'm certainly not

going to discuss the need for legislation. If the minister can think of

any other way of addressing himself to this particular problem, I would

be fascinated to hear it. I would be interested. He would have my

undivided attention. I'm just bringing to his attention that in other

jurisdictions where they have not had the imagination of the minister

they have been forced to use legislation. I'm certainly not suggesting

to the minister that there is need at this time for legislation but

there is need for something, because as Mrs. Strongitharm, and the

Human Rights Commission themselves pointed out, there is an increase in

complaints lodged with the human rights branch about this particular

area.

I am concerned with the fact that it is not just in

the workplace that women have to contend with sexual harassment. I

think that the minister knows of the case of those students of the

school of journalism at Carleton University in Ottawa who raised this

issue. As a result they are being sued by two professors on the faculty

of the school of journalism. I think that is intimidation. What that

does is to discourage other women who would like to bring a matter to

the attention of the law or the Human Rights Commission, because they

would be afraid of being sued in this way. I'm not sure how the

minister can address himself to this, but I would certainly be

interested in hearing from the minister how sexual harassment can be

discouraged. Is there any way in which these complaints can be dealt

with? Is there any way, in dealing with these complaints, that it can

be expanded beyond the workplace? Because obviously sexual harassment

does not take place only in the workplace.

As a matter of

fact, in Ontario, that jurisdiction which lacks our imagination and was

forced to use legislation, at that time it even included sexual

harassment in housing. Certainly there isn't any question that that

occurs too. I'm wondering whether the minister would like to address

himself to that particular point.

The Ministry of Human

Resources also funds certain groups in our community that deal with

women. I'm wondering what sort of commitment we're getting from the

ministry in terms of the funding for those groups which are dependent

on the ministry at that time.

If the minister wants to

make a note of it, this is my final point. I want to raise the question

of women in nontraditional jobs, specifically in the area of mining and

in development in the north. I was concerned that the Tumbler Ridge

financial study, which was done by some consultants for the Ministry of

Industry and Small Business Development, reported that the town of

Tumbler Ridge is planned on the assumption that the labour force will

be 80 percent male after 1983. One has to conclude that most of the

women in the town are not going to be included in the job development

end of it. This doesn't seem to tally with what the minister is telling

us about encouraging women to get into nontraditional jobs and to make

use of the apprenticeship programs that make it possible for them to

get into nontraditional jobs.

All the studies that have been

done on these single resource towns indicate that one of the major

problems facing women in these towns is lack of employment. As long as

they're confined to the traditional "female ghetto" jobs, there's

always going to be a problem of lack of employment for women. If we

want to encourage families to move into this town — and the studies all

indicate that the stability of the town depends on there being families

there rather than transient males moving in and out — the Minister of

Labour certainly has to address himself to having some input into any

development that goes on, to ensuring that there are sufficient jobs

there open for the women who move into the town, that the

apprenticeship programs and training of women in nontraditional jobs

that are going to be available is encouraged, and that we do not have

towns being developed based on the assumption that 80 percent of the

workforce is going to be male. The minister is asking for trouble, Mr.

Chairman, if this is the assumption on which the town is developed. All

of the problems that we talk about — alcoholism, violence in the

family, juvenile delinquency, desertions and the high divorce rates —

can be traced to the fact that we continue to develop towns which are

designed around male workers. No thought is really given to the fact

that when the entire family's needs are met in the town, the town is

more stable, and everyone benefits from that. So I would like to have

some comments from the minister on the issue of non-traditional jobs

and apprenticeship training, for Tumbler Ridge specifically.

MR. HALL:

I was going to ask the minister a very long series of questions about

the ICBC strike and make a number of proposals. However, I think that

in view of the time, I'm going to move that the committee rise, report

progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Mr.

Strachan, Chairman of the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders

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

read as follows and received.

"Report No. 6, Legislative Committee, June 26, 1981. "Mr. Speaker,

your Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills

begs leave to report as follows: "The

preamble of Bill PR403, intituled

An Act to Amend the Vancouver Charter, has not been proved, as the

assertions in the petition are not substantiated. The committee

recommends that one-half the fees paid by petitioners be returned to

them in accordance with standing order 98." All of which is

respectfully submitted. W.B. Strachan, Chairman.

MR. LEGGATT: I wanted your guidance on this, Mr. Speaker. I

wonder whether it is in order to ask the Chairman of the committee a

question about the report?

MR. SPEAKER: We do not

have a question before us right now; therefore it would be impossible

to enter debate. There is no debate on the report or the reading of

that report.

[ Page 6470 ]

If there is a further motion and that motion is debatable, then, of course debate could be entertained.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Speaker, I would then move that we debate the report.

MR. SPEAKER:

Perhaps the easiest way is to learn whether there is a motion to be

entertained. Is there any further motion? In the absence of any

question before the House, the Chair would remind the House that if

there were to be a motion to adopt the report, it would have to be

either by leave or by notice. In any event it would be difficult to

entertain debate on that particular motion at this time.

MR. LEGGATT:

On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I take it that since the

report is tabled and there is no motion before the House, a motion must

be made in order to have the report adopted by the House. That's still

to come.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair cannot possibly anticipate it, but it would be the normal step.

MR. HALL:

My point of order concerns standing order 115, which says: "When the

committee on any private bill reports to the House that the

preamble of

such bill has not been proved to its satisfaction, or otherwise reports

unfavourably on the bill, the committee must also state the grounds

upon which it arrived at such decision. No bill so reported upon shall

be placed upon the Orders of the Day...."

Mr. Speaker, what would the grounds be on which the committee reported unfavourably? Were they contained in the report?

MR. SPEAKER:

Hon. member, that would be a matter of debate when the motion to adopt

the report is put. The Chair cannot possibly anticipate when that might

be. The motion is not before the House just now.

MS. BROWN:

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, is it necessary for there to be a

motion for the report to be adopted? If there is no such motion, does

that mean it's not compulsory that there be a motion to adopt the

report?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, it's not compulsory

for any motion to be moved. The Chair can only acquaint the House with

what would be a normal, anticipated procedure. The House can't move in

the absence of a question.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, on

the same point of order, is it traditional — is that the word that I'm

looking for? — that there will be a motion to adopt this report?

MR. SPEAKER: That would be the wish of the House. The Chair can't possibly anticipate that.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 1:01 p.m.

Appendix

AMENDMENTS TO BILLS

7 The Hon. J. R. Chabot to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 7)

intituled Motor Vehicle (All Terrain) Amendment Act, 1981 to amend as follows:

Section 6 (

f) is amended,

(

a) by deleting paragraph (r), and

(

b) by renumbering paragraphs (s), (

t) and (

u) as paragraphs (r), (

s) and (

t) respectively.

Section 10 is deleted and the following substituted:

"10.

section 9 (3) is amended,

(

a) by striking out '237 (3) or 239', and

(

b) by adding '219' after '204'."

Section 11 is amended by deleting ", 238 (3) ".

Section 12 (

b) is amended by deleting the proposed

section 4

(

a) and renumbering paragraphs (

b) to (

f) as paragraphs (

a) to (

e) respectively.

16 The Hon. J. A. Nielsen to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 16)

intituled Medical Service Plan Act, 1981 , to amend as follows:

Section 8: In subsection (2) by deleting paragraphs (a), (b),

(

c) and (d), and by renumbering paragraphs (e), (f), (

g) and (

h) as (a), (b),

(

c) and (

d) respectively.

Section 9: By deleting "This Act comes" and substituting

"This Act shall be deemed to have come".

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	32p 03s 810626a
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	32p 03s 810626a
Language	en
Format	htm
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	5df52053dbc7aa95cee6cb9174dadaefc5330969

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (htm).

British Columbia Hansard — Friday, June 26, 1981 — Morning Sitting (32nd Parliament, 3rd Session)

HANSARD

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

FRIDAY, JUNE 26, 1981

CONTENTS

section 5 –– 6455

section 5 –– 6461

section 8 –– 6462

section 22 –– 6463

section 30 –– 6465

section 6 –– 6466

section 8 –– 6466

Division on second reading –– 6467

FRIDAY, JUNE 26, 1981

MR. BARRETT:

HON. MR. GARDOM:

MR. RICHMOND:

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

MULTICULTURAL EDUCATION

HON. MR. SMITH:

MR. LAUK:

THE VANCOUVER ELECTORAL REFORM ACT

MR. SPEAKER:

MR. LAUK:

MR. LAUK:

MR. SPEAKER:

PROVINCIAL COURT AMENDMENT ACT, 1981

GAS AMENDMENT ACT, 1981

BUILDING SAFETY STANDARDS ACT

MOTOR VEHICLE (ALL TERRAIN)

AMENDMENT ACT, 1981

section 6.

Section 6 as amended approved.

section 10.

Section 10 as amended approved.

section 11.

Section 11 as amended approved.

section 12.

Section 12 as amended approved.

MR. NICOLSON:

REAL ESTATE AMENDMENT ACT, 1981

section 5.

MR. LEVI:

HON. MR. HYNDMAN:

section 28(c), as proposed in the amendment. The phrase is: "...in the

MR. LEVI:

NOTARIES ACT

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

MR. HOWARD:

MR. REE:

MR. HALL:

MR. COCKE:

MR. REE:

MS. BROWN:

MS. BROWN:

MRS. WALLACE:

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

section 7 whereby, based upon need,

NOTARIES ACT

section 5.

MS. BROWN:

section 5 of the bill says that we are

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

MR. COCKE:

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

section 5, hon. member.

MR. LEGGATT:

Section 5 deals

section 5. The Attorney-General may or may not wish to respond.

section 8.

MR. COCKE:

MR. COCKE:

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Schedule approved.

MR. SKELLY:

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

ATTORNEY GENERAL STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 1981

ATTORNEY GENERAL STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 1981