1977 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 31st Parliament

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)

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 24, 1977

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 4877 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Mortgage foreclosures. Mr. Levi — 4877

Possibility of producing pipe for proposed Alcan pipeline. Mr. Lauk — 4877

Conflict-of-interest legislation. Mr. Gibson — 4877

Alleged damage by the Sea-Bus. Mr. Wallace — 4878

Land Registry Act. Mr. Lea — 4879

"Machine-Gun Martinoff" firearm registration. Mr. Macdonald — 4879

Sinking of land in Nakusp. Mr. King — 4879

Rumour of new B.C. Hydro tower. Mr. Lauk — 4879

Sales tax on medical supplies. Hon. Mr. Wolfe answers — 4880

Motor Dealers Licensing Act (Bill 39). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Mair — 4880

Mr. Levi — 4881

Mr. Macdonald — 4886

Mr. Wallace — 4887

Hon. Mr. Mair — 4888

Motor Dealers Licensing Act (Bill 39). Committee stage

section 1 amendment

Mr. Levi — 4888

Hon. Mr. Mair — 4889

section 23.

Mr. Levi — 4889

Hon. Mr. Mair — 4889

Report and third reading — 4889

Provincial Court Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 54). Committee stage.

Report and third reading — 4890

Strata Titles Amendment Act, 1977, No. 2 (Bill 75). Committee stage.

section 1 amendment

Hon. Mr. Curtis — 4890

Mr. Barber — 4890

section 3.

Mr. Barber — 4891

Hon. Mr. Curtis — 4891

Report and third reading — 4892

Municipal Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 42). Committee stage.

section 13 amendments

Mr. Barber — 4892

Hon. Mr. Curtis — 4893

section 20.

Mr. Barber — 4893

Hon. Mr. Curtis — 4894

Mr. Lloyd — 4895

Division on

Section 20 — 4897

section 28.

Mr. Barber — 4897

Mr. Barrett — 4898

Hon. Mr. Curtis — 4900

Mr. Wallace — 4903

Hon. Mr. Curtis — 4903

Mr. Lloyd — 4904

Mr. Gibson — 4905

Mr. Lauk — 4906

Mr. King — 4908

Mr. Gibson — 4910

Hon. Mr. Curtis — 4910

Mr. King — 4911

Mr. Barber — 4911

Appendix — 4913

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer and

Corporate Affairs): Mr. Speaker, about three weeks

ago, while having the privilege of opening a baseball

tournament in Kamloops, I had the distinct pleasure

of meeting an attractive young 18-year-old woman

whose name is Sandy Blackburn and is now Miss

PNE. I would like the House to acknowledge that the

great city of Kamloops has produced such a lovely

lady. I'm sure all sides of the House will he happy to

know that she plans to become an airline stewardess.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce that

Kamloops has Miss PNE and, in the future, one of the

most attractive companions that all members of the

House will be able to have on airline trips.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, a couple of days ago I had the

opportunity of introducing my favourite nephew,

Jason Ward. Today in the gallery is another visitor

from West Vancouver, a very good friend of my

nephew, l2-yearold Kim Anderson. I ask the House

to welcome her.

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): Seated in the gallery

today is my niece from Edmonton, Wendi Marr, and

her husband, Gordon. I would like the House to make

them welcome.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today is an actor from

Hollywood, California, who is competing with this

Legislative Assembly, as the Leader of the Opposition

says, but I don't think the Leader of the Opposition

will win an academy award.

Mr. John Doucette is well known on television and

movie audiences throughout the world. He is here to

introduce his movie "The Charge of the Model T"

and is accompanied by Mrs. Kathy Doucette arid sons

Matthew and Michael.

What is rather important to us, I think, is the fact

that he is also here with his son-in-law, Robert Heggie

and his wife, Christina. Robert Heggie was our official

piper on the Royal Hudson tour of California,

Washington and Oregon and it was said by those who

counted that over 30,000 home photographs were

taken of piper Heggie on that trip.

I would also like to say that Mr. Richter, our new

film co-ordinator, is accompanying the party. I know

that all members of the House would like to give

them a royal welcome.

Oral questions.

MORTGAGE FORECLOSURES

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): To the

Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. About

two weeks ago I asked him a question regarding the

very serious problem with mortgage foreclosures; he

took the question as notice. Does he have a reply he

HON. MR. MAIR: No, I do not have a reply yet,

Mr. Speaker, but I am working on it. I might tell the

member that one problem has occurred to our

ministry. That is the constitutionality of doing

anything about it, even if a problem does exist to the

extent that he has indicated. In any event, I will bring

POSSIBILITY OF PRODUCING PIPE OR PROPOSED ALCAN PIPELINE

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): A question

to the Premier, Mr. Speaker. Now that the Alcan

proposal is the front-runner in terms of the pipeline

debates and thousands of miles of expensive pipe will

have to be purchased, will the government now

re-establish the government partnership with NKK,

with a view to immediate construction of a steel mill

and pipe-manufacturing facility, to prevent the loss of

valuable jobs created by the project going to

Edmonton and Regina?

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I

know of no plans for a pipe-rolling mill in British

Columbia, but I'll be pleased to take the member's

question as notice.

CONFLlCT-OF-INTEREST LEGISLATION

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier as well.

In the opening speech last January, the

Lieutenant-Governor informed us: "A more adequate

conflict-of-interest statute for public officials will be

placed before you for consideration and approval at

this session." Will the government be living up to that

promise?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'll just point out to the

member that the session has a capability of going a

long time yet.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Bad news. What's

the good news? (Laughter.)

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, it's not really a

supplementary; it's a request for an answer. Will the

[ Page 4878 ]

Premier say whether or not such a statute will be

introduced? If not, I would give the Premier leave to

take over my private member's bill that's on the order

paper. Will he tell us whether it's going to be

introduced or not?

HON. MR. BENNETT: With all deference, it's the

very fact of dealing with conflict of interest, the fact

that poorly drafted bills would not be acceptable in

such a sensitive area and the fact that the first

attempts made by the last government in what they

called the disclosure Act have been so inadequate that

it is giving some difficulty in the drafting. I can't

assure the member when those charged with the

responsibility of dealing with this sensitive area will

make the legislation available to the government or

deal with what has been a problem for the

government.

I would say that the session can be a very....

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Is the answer no?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I would say that the

session will not prorogue, and even when the very

important legislation, which will all be passed before

we adjourn, is dealt with, we will still be in what is

considered session for many months to come yet.

MR. LAUK: I have a supplementary question to

the Premier, Mr. Speaker. The Premier indicated that

the disclosure Act was inadequate. Could the Premier

indicate to the House what loopholes he has found in

the Act?

HON. MR. BENNETT: No, but I'm sure some

lawyers have probably tried to find loopholes both

inside and outside the House.

HON. MR. MAIR: Loophole, Loophole and Lauk.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Was that a supplementary

question? It seems that the first member for

Vancouver Centre was, I think, soliciting my business.

I wanted to publicly let him know that, no, I have no

intention of retaining him. (Laughter.)

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr.

Speaker, if the Premier was answering yes, would he

consider making the Act retroactive to August 18,

1976?

ALLEGED DAMAGE CAUSED BY SEA-BUS

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, this question is to

the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing with

regard to alleged property. damage resulting from the

operation of Sea-Bus ferries and a report that claims

have been lodged against B.C. Hydro. Could I ask the

minister whether his Ministry of Municipal Affairs or

the Ministry of Transport is responsible for dealing

with these claims for damage resulting from the

operation of the Burrard Inlet ferry?

HON. R.A. CURTIS (Minister of Municipal Affairs

and Housing): Mr. Speaker, to the hon. member for

Oak Bay, in effect it is a joint responsibility. The

Ministry of Municipal Affairs was responsible for the

implementation of the system and yet another

ministry has responsibility for B.C. Hydro. Both

ministries are consulting on these claims of alleged

damage.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, since there seems to

be a substantial number of individuals alleging that

property damage has been caused, could the minister

tell us what investigations either his ministry or the

Ministry of Transport is currently involved in to try

and determine the precise facts of the situation,

which is not new? It has apparently been happening

since the inception of this system.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I cannot speak for another

ministry, but with respect to the Ministry of

Municipal Affairs and Housing, it is important, I

think, for the member to understand and

acknowledge in asking the question that there have

been claims of alleged damage. It would be a matter

for determination elsewhere as to whether the claims

are valid or not. Certainly those which have reached

our attention are under intensive review by the

ministry, and by the Burrard Ferry System

management.

MR. WALLACE: . Perhaps I would direct a

supplementary to the other minister, whose ministry

is quoted as having received the alleged claims. Could

the Minister of Energy, Transport and

Communications tell the House what. number of

alleged claims have been lodged against B.C. Hydro,

and the financial total of the alleged damage that has

been caused? In other words, I'm trying to determine

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Energy, Transport

and Communications): I'd first like to reiterate

something the Minister of Municipal Affairs and

Housing has said — namely, that these are alleged

claims. There are a number, but nothing like the large

number referred to in yesterday's issue of The

Vancouver Sun. I don't have the precise number, but

I'll endeavour to get it. Certainly, I don't have any

idea of the total dollar value of these alleged claims;

MR. WALLACE: A final supplementary, Mr.

[ Page 4879 ]

Speaker. Recognizing the complexity of the situation

and the fact that these claims are far from having

been validated — and perhaps I could ask this of

either minister — are any corrective actions being

taken which might at least cut down the possibility of

ongoing damage being caused? Is the speed of, the

ferries to be reduced, for example, or the particular

access to the terminals to be altered?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Yes, the speed of the ferries

has been reduced pending a closer examination of

whether or not, in fact, the damage is being done by

the ferries.

LAND REGISTRY ACT

MR. LEA: A question to the hon. Minister of

Highways. On July 17, 1975, a regulation was passed

by order-in-council to the Land Registry Act. It read

as follows: "The approving officer for unorganized

territory may refuse to approve a plan of subdivision

if the plan does not have the prior consent in writing

of the Minister of Highways, whose consent shall be

limited to considering the likely contribution of the

subdivision to urban :sprawl in relation to any nearby

established community, and the cost of providing

services."

On July 7,1977, that regulation was rescinded by

order-in-council, and signed by the Attorney-General

and the presiding member of the executive council.

The question to the minister is: did he personally, or

did anyone from his ministry. appeal to the

Attorney-General to have this regulation changed, as

the Land Registry Act comes under his jurisdiction?

HON. A.V. FRASER (Minister of Highways and

Public Works): Mr. Speaker, I'll take that question as

notice.

MACHINE GUN MARTINOFF

FIREARM REGISTRATION

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): I have

a question for the Attorney-General. Mr. Speaker.

Someone who calls himself "Machine Gun

"...

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): That's

your friend!

MR. MACDONALD: ... has received a certificate

of registration from the RCMP as a result of a county

court decision to use a submachine gun and a German

automatic rifle. It is a serious matter. Mr. Speaker,

and I'm asking whether the Attorney-General would

not see that that decision is appealed. I think it's very

dangerous.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I was being very serious.

He's your locker roommate. You should ask him the

current condition of the matter. Mr. Member. We'll

certainly look into it.

SINKING OF LAND

INNAKUSP

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): I have a

question to the Minister of the Environment. I

presume the minister is aware that a serious problem

has developed in the village of Nakusp with respect to

the sinking of a significant portion of land there for

some inexplicable reason that mayor may not be

associated with Hydro's reservoir development. I

wonder if the Minister of the Environment has

dispatched any staff from the water rights branch or

the lands branch to examine the dilemma and to give

a report on what a remedy might be.

HON. J.A. NIELSEN (Minister of the

Environment): We have had water investigations

people in and they are unable to explain this

phenomenon. We have today dispatched a specialist

in that particular engineering field who is attempting

to determine precisely what may have caused the

sinking. We have a number of persons on site trying

to determine first what has caused the sinking, and

then what remedial action may be taken.

RUMOUR OF NEW

B.C. HYDRO TOWER

MR. LAUK: This question is to the Minister of

Transport and Communications, who is in charge of

Hydro. It's been rumoured that B.C. Hydro is

intending to build another tower a la the Bennett

Tower that was proposed many years ago for Hydro

on the Dawson School site, flying in the face of the

GVRD recommendations and the livable region plan

and everything else, flying in the face of the desire of

New Westminster and Delta and other places to have

decentralization of downtown type facilities. The

question is: can the minister confirm this ugly

rumour?'

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, I can confirm

that it is in fact an ugly rumour starting right now,

and it should be killed right now as such.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted, if I

understand the minister correctly. Is he saying that

there is no such plan by B.C. Hydro to build a tower

on that site?

HON. MR. BENNETT: He said: "Don't start

rumours."

[ Page 4880 ]

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, I agree that we

shouldn't start ugly rumours in this way.

MR. LAUK: Can the minister respond to my

question? Has B.C. Hydro any plan to build a tower

or office building on this site?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. minister

has responded twice.

MR. LAUK: He has not responded to that

question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister respond to

that question?

MR. SPEAKER: It may be that you do not wish

to accept the manner in which he has responded, but

he has responded, hon. member.

MR. LAUK: He has not responded, Mr. Speaker.

Will the minister... ?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. minister

responded to your initial question in exactly the same

manner as he responded to your supplemental. It's

not for, the Chair to determined whether you are

satisfied with the answer or not.

MR. LAUK: Well, may I ask this question of the

minister? Can the minister confirm or deny that RC.

Hydro is intending to build an office tower on the

Dawson School site?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, there is no truth

to the hon. member's rumour. There are no such

plans.

SALES TAX ON

MEDICAL SUPPLIES

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): Mr.

Speaker, last week in oral question period the hon.

member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) asked a question

regarding sales taxes on medical supplies — laxatives

and so on. I, ask leave to table the reply to that

question.

Leave granted.

Orders of the day.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 39.

MOTOR DEALERS LICENSING ACT

HON. MR. MAIR: The Motor Dealers Licensing

Act is one of several pieces of legislation which have

come from my ministry of late that are dedicated to

improve upon a system that is already in effect. This

is a move, I'm sure, that the House in its wisdom will

support, and a measure, I might say, Mr. Speaker,

which most motor dealers will applaud for its giant

strides forward towards greater efficiency in their

industry.

In essence, the Motor Dealers Licensing Act

updates and modernizes the present system of motor

dealer registration, which is found in the motor dealer

Act which until October. 1975, was administered by

the Motor Vehicle branch of the Ministry of

Transport and Communications as it then was. This

new Act brings the registration provisions into line

with comparable statutes such as the Personal

Information Reporting Act, and the Debt Collection

Act.

Motor dealers will find that this new Act for the

first time provides for an applicant dealer to have a

right to registration unless the registrar can point to

specific reasons why the applicant should not be

registered. The Act also ensures that an adequate

appeal is available from the decision of the registrar

to the Corporate and Financial Services Commission

and to the court. This right of appeal, of course, did

not exist hitherto. In fact the new Motor Dealers

Licensing Act offers new clearly defined boundaries

within which the registrar can move freely. At present

his powers are open-ended and badly spelled out,

with the result that conscientious officials limit the

exercise of their power, and reputable dealers

complain that licensing provisions are not being

adequately enforced. Let me assure the House that in

a situation such as this, nobody — neither the motor

vehicle dealer nor the public nor anyone else comes

out a winner.

In addition, the clearer definition of powers will

enable the registrar to keep dishonest or financially

irresponsible applicants or people of that sort from

being registered.

In order to obtain registration under this Act, a

motor dealer must have a specific business location; a

residential dwelling will not be acceptable in these

circumstances. What the Act does here is head off the

practice by some dealers who sell cars from a

residence and pass off their transactions as private

deals.

Further, motor dealers must either have repair

facilities or a service contract acceptable to the

registrar. Another point to note is that the registrar

has the power to freeze the assets of a motor dealer

for the protection of individuals dealing with that

firm or individual. I might say in passing that we

would have welcomed such a power last year in a very

unfortunate incident in North Vancouver. In part, the

new Act is an outgrowth of requests from the two

major trade associations, the Motor Dealers

Association and the Automobile Dealers Association,

for changes which will bring about improvement in

the licensing law. One major change likely would be

[ Page 4881 ]

a reduction in the number of businesses which are

subjected to licensing, since some marginal or

part-time dealers may not qualify for registration.

Also on the plus side of the ledger for my staff is

that the current system of annual renewal of licenses

by March 1 will be changed over to a staggered annual

renewal system, so that the work load can be more

easily distributed throughout the year.

Finally, the licensing approach will be replaced by

a more permanent form of registration of each dealer

with provision for streamlined renewal procedures.

About 1,500 dealers will be affected by these

licensing changes.

I would like, if I may, to depart briefly from the

subject of the Motor Dealers Licensing Act, and

announce to the House that a second major

publication on the subject of advertising has

originated with my staff. I think it's appropriate that

I should introduce it at this juncture, since it deals

basically with advertising as practiced by the motor

dealer industry, and is in fact called Motor Dealer

Guidelines. Sorry, Mr. Attorney....

HON. MR. GARDOM: As long as it doesn't take too long.

HON. MR. MAIR: No, it won't take too long. You

may recall that the first publication on advertising,

called General Advertising Guidelines, had wide

distribution throughout the province and copies were

requested by the advertising industry and special

interest groups across Canada. The impact of that

publication on advertising initiated in this province,

, and on advertising coming into British Columbia from

other area, has been nothing short of tremendous,

with beneficial results flowing both to the consumer

and to the advertising industry. These new motor

dealer guidelines which I will table, Mr. Speaker, and

make copies available to all members, are not unlike

the General Advertising Guidelines in that they

emphasize that they are not law, but departmental

interpretations. They are not to be taken in any way

as being etched in stone, but as

interpretations by

which my ministry guides itself in making decisions.

My ministry, Mr. Speaker, sought and received

input from the motor dealer industry in the

production of these guidelines. I might say also that

we are deeply indebted to the industry for the input

which they gave us with respect to this bill. I think

it's safe to say that both business and the consumers

themselves will benefit from the consistent standards

of conduct and fair competition that will result

amongst all dealers in the marketplace.

Mr. Speaker, it is also my pleasure to introduce

and table a trade bulletin published by my ministry,

which deals in part with a topic that has wide interest

for all members of this House, namely the repair and

sale of motor vehicles which have been written off by the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. The

bulletin is self-explanatory and was designed to

educate the industry further with respect to my

ministry's policies, legislation and enforcement

stance. This trade bulletin is to be distributed in the

same package as the motor dealer guidelines.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I return to the

reason for being on my feet at this time, namely the

Motor Dealers Licensing Act. I would like to say in

conclusion that only the over-zealous official or

dishonest dealer need fear this legislation. It's good

legislation, and I urge it upon the House. I move that

the bill be read a second time.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Speaker, this bill is really a

used-car dealer's delight, because it really doesn't ask

him to do anything other than to get his registration

in order. It's a pity, because there have been over the

years a number of very serious representations,both

from the British Columbia Automobile Association

and various consumer groups, that something be done

in a very real way to protect the consumer. All we

have in the bill that really is going to have some

impact, hopefully, on the rights of the consumer

relates to the sections which deal with the

requirements to have repair facilities, and that there

be a freezing of the assets. I think they are two

positive things; one is that they have the repair

facilities. But what concerns me is that the minister

appears to have completely disregarded the

recommendations that were made 'by the automobile

association.

He went on to say that the two people who

pushed this issue were the automobile dealers and the

motor dealers, who were interested in having such

legislation. That legislation really only deals with the

question of registration, the type of individuals, that

are in the industry. and those who, really should not

be in the industry. Okay, that's desirable.

If this is the thin end of the wedge and there is

more to come in terms of the protection of the

consumer in respect to the motor dealers and the sale

of new and used cars, fine; we are going to support

this because this is the thin end of the wedge. I do

want to point out that there ate some very serious

problems that still go on in this province and have not

been looked at.

Last November the B.C. Automobile Association

went to see the cabinet committee and presented a

brief. Almost instantaneously, if I'm not mistaken let's

remember that the minister was new in that area

— he said there really didn't need to be any changes,

that everything was okay in the new and used-car

business. Well. it may have been that he was Just

waiting so that they could look at some good

legislation.

What this legislation lacks in terms of the

consumer was well documented, I think, in the brief

[ Page 4882 ]

that was presented to the cabinet by the British

Columbia Automobile Association on November 9.

The association was a little put off because the

cabinet was rather offhand with them. In the brief

itself they make particular reference to the South

Australian state government legislation. I just want to

quote from the brief and comment as I go along, Mr.

Speaker, because here they are recommending a

number of very specific changes that would really

assist the consumers and the industry itself. It should

be borne in mind that the recommendations to the

South Australian government had the full endorsation

"The association recommends that

legislation similar to that enacted by individual

Australian states should be examined by the

government with the object of assessing its

value to motorists of this province. Briefly, the

legislation known variously as the Second-hand

Motor Vehicles Act; Motor Vehicle Dealers Act,

et cetera, prescribes certain warranties that

must be given, by law, according to the value

placed on a particular vehicle."

Let's bear in mind that in the bill there are

requirements that there be workshops, garage

facilities or some contractual arrangement the dealers

have with somebody who does this work. In the brief

they are looking at the issue of warranty and they go

on to say:

"Under the Act in South Australia, for

instance, a red sticker known as the 'first

schedule' must be attached to the windshield of

all used cars offered for sale. The

schedule gives

details of price, registration number, model,

year of registration, odometer reading at the

time of the purchase by the dealer and the

name of the last owner of the vehicle. Posting

of this 'first schedule' requires the dealer to

warrant the vehicle in direct relationship with

the price asked. A car selling in South Australia

for more than $1,000 Australian is subject to a

5,000-kilometer or three-month warranty.

Another selling for somewhere between $500

and $1,000 takes with it a 3,000-kilometer or

two-month warranty."

We have a very serious problem in this province

and have had for years, particularly in the used-car

industry, where people have been very badly ripped

off. In the minister's own ministry in terms of the

consumer area, 30 per cent of the complaints received

relate in some way to sales and purchases of

automobiles. We hoped that in this legislation we

would move to that kind of warranty situation.

Again, I will say this: if the minister, in

introducing the bill, indicates that dealers are going to

be required to have repair facilities and that in some

way those. repair facilities will be evaluated, then

hopefully the next step in another piece of legislation

will be the whole issue of warranty.

In another

section of the ministry under the Trade

Practices Act, the reports on the agreements for

voluntary compliance are replete with some

scandalous rip-offs that go on even today. This bill

does not in any way make any inroads into those

kinds of companies. It is suggested that certain

companies or operations that shouldn't be registered

will not be registered.

When you read the enforcement report which is

put out by the minister and you look at the AVCs, the

agreements for voluntary compliance — you find

that some of the better-known car dealers, are

involved in deceptive practices. During the minister's

estimates I went into some detail regarding a

scandalous operation which took place within

Docksteader Motors. We have in the June 25, 1976,

enforcement report regarding Baywood Motors.

We've got Belmont Sales Ltd., which is operating as

Belmont Motors. Now all of these people — and these

are well-known companies — have been operating in

misrepresenting various sales to people.

Now I'm not about to tear down the industry, but

it is important to point out that these practices are

still going on and nothing in this Act is going to

prevent that. The only approach you could take is to

put some of the better-known businesses out of

business by failing to register them, and I doubt that's

going to happen.

It's true that in the minister's ministry there is a

trade practices section. As I said in his estimates, Mr.

Speaker, I was less than happy with what appeared to

be a trend in that division of a failure to adequately

proceed towards court proceedings. In the case of

Docksteader Motors, which in my opinion, and the

opinion of lawyers that I consulted with, was a clear

case of fraud, that case was not allowed to proceed to

a judicial determination, which was necessary. It is

necessary for the industry to have that. It is necessary

for the consumer in that where you have a judicial

determination, that becomes a warning. That's part of

the whole principle of the deterrent effect. There is

nothing in this Act that is before us today, Mr.

Speaker, that talks about any kinds of deterrents. All

right, maybe they're trying to get the ship in order

first. In the trade practices division they have got to

be much more aggressive about going after some of

the very serious malpractices in that particular

industry.

I am looking now, Mr. Speaker, at the member for

Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem), and I'm sure he's going to

get up and speak. We need his input — he is a widely

experienced individual in this. I think at last count we

had something like eight members on the other side

of the House who were either new car or used car

dealers. I'm sure that they have something to say. I

don't want anyone to characterize my speech as an

attack on the used car industry. I'm attacking

[ Page 4883 ]

particularly those people who have made a practice of

ripping people off. I hope that when the registrar

does his work in this Act, he's going to be hard-nosed

about it and he's going to exclude some people so

Kingsway doesn't become a giant trap for people, but

assumes the fair market practices and procedures that

should go on. It is important because the minister

knows that a lot of people are complaining about

these things. As I said earlier, and I must emphasize,

there is nothing in this bill at the moment that is

going to assist people.

Now turning to the brief from the B.C.

Automobile Association, they. went on to talk about

the confidence of the car buyer. I want to quote from

the brief:

"When enacted, the South. Australian

legislation caused some less reputable dealers to

cease operation and gave a needed boost to the

used car industry and increased the confidence

of the buying public. The immediate effect of

the legislation when proclaimed in 1973 was to

cause a redistribution of prices asked for many

used cars, in many cases reducing the price to

remove the vehicle from the warranty

programme, or increasing it to cover any

potential warranty claims."

They can go both ways. If they didn't want to get

covered, they simply dropped the price and sold the

lemon anyway. Now carrying on from the report:

"Where a dealer refused to carry out what

was obviously a warranty repair, and where

consumer and dealer disagreed on whether a

defect was subject to warranty, the Act gave

the Commissioner of Consumer Affairs the

power to arbitrate and, if necessary, order the

dealer to carry out the repairs. The motoring

public was extremely pleased with the

legislation as they felt they could buy with

confidence from any dealer. The South

Australian legislation was the first of its type in

that country and was quickly followed by

legislation in other Australian states."

The important thing here, Mr. Speaker, is that an

atmosphere of good will was created, and that's what

we need to have created in this province, particularly

in this industry. This bill will not do it. Hopefully, a

succeeding bill will, but this bill will not. It's just the

thin end of the wedge. The brief goes on:

"In respect. to dealer support, similar

legislation was enacted in New Zealand in 1975,

and will come into effect in stages during 1976

and '77. It is interesting to note that it was first

proposed as a submission from the motor trade

to Parliament in 1971, to not only protect

buyers' interests, but also to restore confidence

in dealers. The New Zealand motor trade said

the image of the car salesman as a glib,

untrustworthy huckster was unfair to the majority of reputable dealers."

Now that sounds very familiar. Certainly nobody

would characterize the member for Dewdney (Mr.

Mussallem) as a glib, untrustworthy huckster. I mean,

he doesn't even look like that.

The thing is that out there among the public, in

relation to the car industry, there are those feelings.

They are there because nearly everyone whom you

meet in our society — your friends, your neighbours,

even your family — have all had a bad experience at

one time or another. Some of them are incredible

stories and I'm sure, Mr. Speaker, that you know

about them.

We have the case of a person who goes to a

used-car dealer and the used-car dealer gives them a

heavy pitch, Then the client, in all of his honesty,

says: "I'd just like to take the thing for a run." The

car salesman says, "Well, what do you want to do that

for? The car is in good shape; we have a seven-day,

money-back guarantee. Youdon't want to do that."

And the rather innocent ones don't do it. Then they

drive it home and they find, as in one particular case,

that the thing went okay when it was going forward

but it didn't go in reverse at all. He couldn't get it out

of his driveway.

Now that goes on. It's a hard-nosed industry.

That's how you got to make a buck. It is interesting

— and I think it is what is intended ...

MR. WALLACE: I wouldn't mind having a party that could only go forward. (Laughter.)

MR. LEVI: The party that we've got over on the

other side is going sideways. They have a pretty bent

chassis. Instead of pulling the chassis off the market,

they have just kind of repaired it and they are

keeping it going.

The thing is that in the bill there is a

section which

assists the legitimate motor dealer. I think it relates to

what I have known for some years as curbing. That's

a classical, internal ripoff system which salesmen

have. They are working for some company and they

want to make a few bucks on the side. They go

outside of the lot or they make some quiet

arrangement with somebody and they see a car off

the lot. I think that's called curbing. I gather in here,

of course, that that will stop, because you certainly

are not going to license a curber, even though he may

sell more than five cars a year. So buried somewhere

in this is some protection, even for the industry itself.

I'll just return to the brief, because it's an

excellent brief, Mr. Speaker. It's well written; it's well

documented. They went there to see the cabinet with

a great. deal of ardour, and they did feel, I think, that

at that time they kind of got slapped in the face. I

have been in touch with the industry to ask them for

their views on the legislation but unfortunately they

haven't seen fit to respond. I was rather curious as to

[ Page 4884 ]

how they saw the legislation and what impact it

would have. But just in the final statement from the

brief regarding the legislation:

"In calling for the legislation, the motor

trade sought to eliminate the, unethical

operators and bad practices that contribute to

the poor image, and to upgrade the reputation

of car salesmen with customers. This

association contends that similar legislation

drafted for British Columbia— conditions and

price range of vehicles— would give much needed

protection to the used-car purchaser. It

is prepared to use its good offices with the

Australian and New Zealand Automobile

Association, with whom it is affiliated, to seek

information for the government should it be

requested. Meanwhile, the British Columbia

Automobile Association submits a copy of the

South Australia legislation study by the

government, which is an appendix to this

brief."

They lay it out and it has all the implications of a

model Act. It really lays out for the

minister or for his department the blueprint for the

future.

I'm sure the minister knows that this is a serious

area of concern for consumers. We will continue for

many years to come to be a car-oriented society. As

such, large amounts of disposable income are going to

continue to be spent on all manner of vehicles,

whether they are used or new.

In September, 1975, in a brief to the cabinet, the

Consumers' Association of Canada, B.C. branch,

covered a number of issues respecting consumer

protection.

In item 3 on page 2 of their brief they refer to

"Consumer Products Warranties Act:' I will quote

from what they say: "Our experience in dealing with

unsatisfactory or defective consumer goods clearly

indicates a pressing need for legislation to ensure that

consumers have effective redress through warranty to

the manufacturer and/or to the supplier.

The minister has already indicated in other

statements that we are looking in this province at the

house warranty, and that's a good move. Probably as

important in the daily lives of the people in this

province, next to housing, are automobiles. In the

brief, they state:

"New cars. The largest area of consumer

complaint deals with automobile purchase.

Although there are new car warranties now,

many are inadequate and unenforcable.

Hopefully, British Columbia warranty

legislation will include new car warranties

which are more comprehensive and more

enforcable."

In the second

section they talk about used cars:

"As there are many unethical and dishonest practices in the used car business, we urge that this government

include a mandatory comprehensive warranty system

in consumer product warranties legislation." Then

they go on to quote in that

section of their brief from

the Australian legislation which I have just alluded to

in my previous remarks.

Now, we know that the Ministry of Consumer and

Corporate Affairs is concerned about the issue of car

sales. In May, I976, they issued a bulletin for the

motor vehicle trades, called "Six Problem Areas for

Car Sales." I just want to read from it and then cite a

couple of examples:

If you are a motor dealer or an employee

of a dealer, here are some problems you could

run into. It is hoped that this review of

potential trouble will give you a better

understanding of the way certain British

Columbia laws affect your industry. These six

potential problem areas are based on actual

legal proceedings which followed certain

allegedly deceptive practices by motor dealers."

Let's note that in there they say "allegedly

deceptive practices." I want to repeat this. I've been

over it once before, and I want to go over it again: I

hope that we can get from the minister some very

specific statement about what they're going to do in

the trade practices area. The assurances of voluntary

compliance which are constantly cited are tending to

get in the way of necessary judicial determinations.

I'll go so far as to say that the AVCs are taking

people off the hook from, in some cases, criminal

charges. That's not good enough. It's certainly not

good enough. We all know of very serious rip-off

practices which have taken place, and yet there is the

use of the assurance of voluntary compliance. A

problem with the AVCs is that it takes a great deal of

time to get such an agreement consummated. In the

meanwhile the same practice is going on by the same

company, and even when an AVC is signed, other

companies are doing the same thing anyway, so we

have to go after them. I don't disagree that there's a

role, a very necessary function, for AVCs, but there

are some very serious problems with them, even, as I

quoted from the report, the "allegedly deceptive

practices" by motor dealers. I want to go to quote

from what he says here.

"This bulletin describes these practices and gives

some details of the voluntary agreements that ended

them." We just make a comment: It's not true that it

ended them. We can cite examples where people have

signed AVCs not to roll back odometers, and we have

other cases of other companies doing exactly the

same thing. So it has only ended that practice,

hopefully, within the company that signed the AVC.

I want to go back to the bulletin: "Motor dealers are

encouraged to review these cases to avoid similar

problems in the future. The voluntary agreements or

assurance of voluntary compliance, the AVCs, that

[ Page 4885 ]

resolve these particular problems are discussed in

general on the last page of the bulletin.

Now, they have six problem areas. One example,

problem number three which relates to advertising,

presumably is going to be resolved in the

announcement that the minister made during his

remarks in second reading of the bill. That's a good

move.

It's true that it's far better to get the advertising

industry, or any industry, for-that matter, to agree to

do the self regulation than to have to come in there

with a big hammer and pass the law and say: "You've

got to do this." That's not always possible to enforce

anyway. You get into incredible bureaucracies; you

have to go through the courts sometimes. The end

result is that the consumer is not protected. It's true.

As the minister said, this is part of a series of

legislation he's been introducing. Travel agencies we

had that one. That came in because they couldn't

police themselves. This legislation, which simply in

the main deals with legislation, is again inadequate,

and they are not policing themselves. Yet they

should.

The important thing in terms of legislation is that

we have to have in mind the two parts of the

community. I'm not one to believe that you should

only have protection for the consumer and not for

the people that do the selling. That's important too.

But there is an onus on the people who are the

vendors to see that their practices are above dispute

when it has been the tendency for people in the

business area not generally to want to regulate

themselves. If anything, this bill will give an

indication, as other consumer legislation has given

indications to various people in the business area, that

either you clean up your own house or you'll have it

done for you. This bill hasn't done that yet. But if it's

the thin edge of the wedge, then that's important.

I would like to have the minister, when he's

summing up— although we can get more specifically

into the question-and-answer in the committee stage

— to tell us what lies down the road. I don't want him

to tell us that it's a question of policy, and therefore

he can't discuss it. He can and should give some

indication to the consumers and to the people in the

industry that down the road is other legislation,

hopefully, dealing with the issues of a warranty in

terms of used cats. He's already indicated that

without legislation we will have something in relation

to advertising.

I'd like him to tell us specifically about what he's

going to do about the problem of the signing of

assurances of voluntary compliance. Then once it is

signed you have somebody else doing exactly the

same thing and it's not having the desired effect.

Perhaps the minister would indicate to me just how

broadly the AVCs are broadcast in respect to the

motor dealer industry. I think I raised in his estimates

the necessity for there to be a wide publication.

We did get into some discussion, Mr. Speaker,

about the cost of advertising in this country. But

there is the issue of adequate notification of what's

going on to a particular industry. The minister has the

powers as a minister of the Crown to recommend to

the government certain legislation. From time to time

it is necessary for a minister to sound off in a very

practical way and say to the particular industry:

"These are the kinds of practices that are going on in

your industry that are not acceptable." Where he

feels comfortable about citing particular facts

regarding certain practices, he should do that as a

warning. "If you do not get your act together, we're

going to bring in legislation." There isn't a great deal

of that going on.

I don't think the AVCs are that widely distributed,

and I think that the money is not that large in terms

of the cost to see that these people have these kinds

of bulletins. Because we do have to have a continuing

reminder to this particular industry that practices are

going on— and not just by fly-by-night operations

either — in respect to people who are being ripped

off. You know, it's not just the issue of some

salesman misrepresenting a particular vehicle. In the

Docksteader case, where there was an AVC signed, I

pointed out that people were under the impression in

this particular case that they were buying a new car.

It was only really by a coincidence that they

happened to run into somebody that had actually had

the car previously. They were advised that it was not

new, it had been in an accident, and it had been fixed

up. Also, what happened in one of the two instances

in which the AVC was involved was that the

odometer was rolled back.

It took these people almost a year to get back

their money. I met them and discussed with them the

kind of problems they had, the kind of abuse that

they took and the incredible amount of time that it

took them — the loss of work time on behalf of both

of them — going down to see the owner and asking

for redress and then being involved with the

minister's department, and certainly they did a good

job.

What's worrying you, Mr. Minister of Human

Resources? What is upsetting you? Is he worried or

something, Mr. Minister? Mr. Speaker, what is he

worried about?

Interjection

MR. LEVI: Bill, slop chuntering: read your letters.

The thing is, they went to the ministry and they

were able to get assistance, but it was a long, long

process. The upshot of that case was that it was on

it's way into the supreme court. In fact, it was in the

supreme court. Then the lawyers got together and

[ Page 4886 ]

all washed off.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Listen, I can remember the time,

buddy-:boy, when you used to stand over here and I

was sitting over there. I never went to sleep when you

spoke, because your heightened "anglophilic" accent

used to keep me awake.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: I'm only one of the few people in here

who can say that. I'm the only one who can say this

— "anglophilic." Or is it "anglophallic"? I can't

remember.

Just to sum up, Mr. Speaker: there are some

serious shortcomings with the bill. It does not in

any way set out any protection for the consumers. It

really starts to re-organize the industry in terms of

registration. Okay. It's going to depend on the

registrar — how hard-nosed he is going to be in

respect to who's going to be registered. That's

important, but down the road somewhere there has

to be some better legislation than we have today.

This is not an industry that has shown in the past

that it's prepared to keep its own house in order. It's

a highly competitive industry. I am not of the

opinion that even though fewer people will seek to be

registered of those who are practising" now — about

500 different businesses — there won't be more

people who will want to come into it. It's that kind

of an industry.

The key to the legislation — at least I would like

to see it as the key — is that it just now opens the

door and indicates to the industry that there is more

to come. It says to the consumer that we are serious

about seeing that they are protected and that we will

bring in more legislation. It seems to me that you are

going to have to legislate the issue of warranties, and

it is important. If we do that, then we are on the way

to matching what is going on in Australia and having

worthwhile, practical, industry-supported legislation.

It is industry-supported in Australia, and we want to

get the support of that industry here, so that the

veracity of the industry is upheld and the rights of

the consumer are upheld. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, just a few

remarks in addition to what was said by the second

member for Burrard. The warranty problem shouldn't

be hard to solve in this province. Bill Neilson had a

good draft and he wrote a report on it, as I recall. I

think Ontario is legislating in the realm of warranties,

based on that report — maybe they haven't yet but it

shouldn't be too hard. There is a good report on the

question of warranties and if the minister will rifle

the desks around his department he will find it.

The second point I want to make is, there should

be a requirement in this legislation that in the case of

repairs, the dealer or the repair shop give a proper

estimate of the costs to the member of the public

who brings the car in. That shouldn't be too difficult,

but it should be enforced. Too often, somebody takes

in a used car into a repair shop and at first there is

carburetor trouble. But by the time you go to pick up

the car, the chassis was bent and the transmission had

been stolen — as it was in the Surrey Dodge case, by

somebody who didn't steal the car but stole the

transmission and had to ... but that is the kind of

thing. Then you find that you are faced with a

huge repair bill. You should have been given an

estimate, as a matter of course, after examination by

the dealer, of the cost of the repair job. You should

be able to rely on that, but you can't rely on it today.

The consumer is ripped off time after time by

unnecessary work being done on a car and then

charged up to the consumer who is subject to a lien.

He doesn't want to go to court — the car can be

seized — so he pays and he is ripped off.

The next suggestion I have for the minister, Mr.

Speaker, is that when you buy a used car the

purchaser should be handed a statement about the

car. That shouldn't be difficult. If a salesman is going

out to sell a house, he should give full particulars

about that house to the purchaser. They don't always

do that either, but they should. The car dealer should

take the time to acquire a little, history of the car.

Was it in a bad accident? Has it been used as a taxi?

He shouldn't be concerned with just the mileage on it

and the odometer thing. That's fine, but what were

the repairs that have gone into that car? What was the

previous use of the car? A statement of that kind

shouldn't be too hard to compile and there should be

a duty on car dealers to compile that statement and

hand it to the purchaser who then has some

protection. If the statement is in error or the car is

found to be something else entirely.... The

provision of information to the consuming public is

the way to check most of these abuses. That should

be written into the Act.

The final point I want to bring up with the

minister is that I am not sold on all these federal

consumer offices. I think it's needless duplication. I

passing a law with regard to consumer practices that

extends from coast to coast, but the administration

and the enforcement of those laws shouldn't be in the

hands of a provincial department here and the federal

department down the street. That's needlessly

spending the taxpayer's dollar and confusing the

public. We see that all through Confederation today.

We've gone crazy with excessive government and

overlapping agencies, even in the case of labour

relations where you have got a good B.C. Labour

Relations Board.

[ Page 4887 ]

Am I on the bill, Mr. Speaker?

HON. MR. GARDOM: You're going to be on the porch.

MR. MACDONALD: You know, let them have a

federal Labour Code, but in enforcing it why not

have it then devolved to the H.C. Labour Relations

Board to conduct labour relations in the province?

Why two? God, you go into that B.C. branch of the

federal Labour Ministry and you could fire a shotgun

through there and not hit a soul. It's a waste of

money.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to

support this bill I don't have the detailed

appreciation of the bill that the second member for

Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Levi) has outlined but it

seems to me that insofar as the registering of motor

dealers is concerned, I like the positive approach that

anyone has the right to seek to be registered and the

registrar must show reasons why not. This seems to

me to be a very fair and reasonable approach and

really is the approach we have in the professional

fields of medicine, law, dentistry, and all the others.

The person who wishes to offer a service demonstrates

that he has the qualifications and the registrar has to

show reason why he shall not be registered. For that

reason, I think this particular part of the bill is very

sound.

I'm just wondering about one respect, and I would

appreciate the Speaker's comment on this. In his

introductory remarks, .the minister mentioned that

one major change would be a reduction in the

number of businesses which are subjected to licensing

since some of the marginal or part-time dealers may

not qualify for registration. On that basis, I

wonder.... I say this in all seriousness .since we've

got problems with the Constitution Act all around

this place. This Act, in my view, provides members of

this House who are car dealers with a direct pecuniary

interest in this bill inasmuch as the minister has stated

that the bill will reduce competition by reducing the

number of registered dealers. This means that other

persons selling vehicles have less competition. I'm not

raising this point frivolously. I think that some of the

arguments we have gotten into over other

matters....

HON. MR. GARDOM: What about the tax bills

you vote on? Are you going to extend the argument

to that?

MR. WALLACE: No, Mr. Speaker, I'm just trying

to make the point that under standing order 18 it

relates to the words "direct pecuniary interest." This

issue has been: gone over many different times in this

House. While we all debate the budget and obviously have a financial interest, the phrase that is important

is "direct pecuniary interest," in my view. I don't

mean to make a big issue of this, but I don't suggest

that it is frivolous either. I'm simply saying that the

minister himself, in introducing second reading, has

made it plain that the bill may well eliminate some of

the competition in the business. If that is the case,

then I would think the point I am raising at least

deserves mention by the minister, and perhaps

comment by the Speaker.

Otherwise I think 'the bill, in principle, moves very

much in the right direction of trying to upgrade and

improve the business of selling, servicing and repairing

cars. While it may not provide all the improvements

that members of the official opposition have asked

for, it would seem to me that it is very much a step in

the right direction. I can certainly support this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, just before we

proceed further in closing second reading on this bill,

I have a quick observation' on the point raised by the

hon. member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace). In order for

an hon. member to be concerned about the

implications of standing order 18, I observe that it

must be a situation with conditions that are not in

common with all other people and all other subjects

within the provincial jurisdiction. So I fail to see

immediately why a person whose business happens to

be the selling of cars, either new or used, would be

disqualified from speaking to or voting' on the bill

that is presently before us.

HON. MR. MAIR: I think that also in answer to

the member for Oak Bay I might mention the only

Latin phrase I learned at law school: de minimis non

curat lex — the law does not concern itself with

trifles.

I really don't think that anybody is going to make

any substantial amount of money in the car industry

by reason of putting curbers out of business. It would

be very difficult to trace any amount of money

demonstrably to one car dealer or another by reason

of putting them out of business.

MR. LAUK: The maximum refers only to your

fee.

HON. MR. MAIR: As a matter of fact, I used that

at all times in order to justify fees that were as

outrageous as yours, Mr. Member.

Mr. Speaker, I was delighted to hear the questions

that I heard during my estimates 'posed to me again

during this bill. May I just remind the members that

the name of the Act is Motor Dealers Licensing Act?

It really has got nothing whatever to do with

standards of practice after they've got their licence;

we deal 'with that under the Trade Practices Act. I

might say, Mr. Speaker, in the event that some

[ Page 4888 ]

members are not aware of this, we also take civil

actions and pursue remedies on behalf of consumers.

The member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Levi)

placed a great deal of weight on a submission made to

us by the B.C. Automobile Association. I might say,

Mr. Speaker, that submission did not come to our

attention until the cabinet meeting in question and

we were not given any advance copy of it. I'm sure

the member would agree that only a very small part

of it dealt with this particular problem.

In commenting upon it afterwards, I made remarks

which I make again today. It's not really fair to look

at areas like Australia, New Zealand or, indeed,

Europe in talking about used car warranties where

they, not in all cases hut by and large, have a logbook

system

Secondly, they have an entirely different attitude

toward the automobile than we do in North America.

They don't have the six- or seven-year obsolescence

thinking that we do — run them into the ground and

buy a new one after three or four years. The whole

situation, therefore, is much more conducive to a

used-car warranty system.

That is not to say we're not looking at it, Mr.

Speaker, through you to the members opposite. We

are; we're considering it very carefully. However, we

would not put it in this bill, we would put it in

another bill that more appropriately would deal with

that subject.

Once again, although this is perhaps not apropos

to the bill, the second member for Vancouver-Burrard

(Mr. Levi) raised the question of assurances of

voluntary compliance. I did have a strong feeling of

deja vu, because I heard the same questions during

my estimates and I gave the same answer I'm giving

now: we have radically changed the enforcement

procedure over the last few months. As far as we're

concerned, if there is a clear breach of the Trade

Practices Act, we prosecute. If we use the AVC at all,

it is as a legitimate settlement document, not as

something to be negotiated as a right from the

beginning. The AVC is going to be rarely used and

only in those extraordinary circumstances.

Once again, it's difficult to relate to a licensing

bill, but the member does talk about 30 per cent of

our complaints dealing with motor dealers. The

question really is a little unfair because that also

includes repairs, Mr. Member, so it's not entirely due

to the dealings of the motor dealers themselves.

There is no question about it, however, that we are

dealing here with a very large, complicated piece of

machinery that is often sold, resold and resold again,

and it does create by that reason a number of

difficulties that the member has alluded to, and quite

correctly.

Regarding the question raised by the member for

Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) concerning

statements on the condition of a vehicle, I've made

remarks in this connection with regard to the real

estate industry, and I quite agree that we should

move in this direction. I think it is important that we

encourage, if not by legislation then certainly by

persuasion, dealers, whether they be dealers of houses

or cars, to give some sort of warranty in advance of

people buying.

Mr. Speaker, I think I have answered more than

the questions raised dealing with the bill; in fact I've

dealt with other areas of my ministry. Accordingly, I

move now that the bill be read a second time.

AN HON. MEMBER: Division!

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, before taking the

division I wish to refer to May , 18th edition, at page

398, with respect to personal pecuniary interests. "In

the Commons it is a rule that no member who has a

direct pecuniary interest in a question shall be

allowed to vote upon it, but in order to operate as a

disqualification, this interest must be immediate and

personal, and not of a general or remote character."

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of

the House.

MR. LAUK: In addition to recording, I request

that all the names of those voting "yea" be recorded

Journals of the House.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to refer

Bill 39 to Committee of the Whole House for

consideration forthwith.

Leave granted.

Bill 39, Motor Dealers Licensing Act, read a

second time and referred to Committee of the Whole

House forthwith.

MOTOR DEALERS LICENSING ACT

The House in committee on Bill 39; Mr. Veitch in

the chair.

section 1.

HON. MR. MAIR: I move the first amendment

standing under my name on the order paper. (See

appendix.)

On the amendment.

MR. LEVI: Could the minister just tell me why it

is that in the definition of motor vehicles, they've

excluded a number of operations including electrical

[ Page 4889 ]

trolley bus, farm tractor or other self-propelled

machinery? The reason I'm asking this, Mr. Chairman,

is that I'm not aware that any of these exclusions are

covered by any other kind of regulatory body in

which there would be, for instance, a requirement to

have an adequate kind of workshop and that kind of

thing. So why are they excluded? Can the minister

tell me that?

HON. MR. MAIR: To the second member for

Vancouver-Burrard, it's the intention of this Act to

register dealers who sell vehicles for personal use

only, rather than go the wider spectrum of getting

vehicles that are used in the logging industry, the

mining industry, and so on and so forth. It may very

well be that sometime the registration of those people

will become necessary or desirable, but it is not the

ministry's feeling that it is desirable at this stage.

Amendment approved.

HON. MR. MAIR: I move the second amendment

standing under my name on the order paper. (See

appendix.)

Amendment approved.

HON. MR. MAIR: I move the third amendment

standing under my name on the order paper. (See

appendix.)

Amendment approved.

HON. MR. MAIR: I move the fourth amendment

standing under my name on the order paper. (See

appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 1 as amended approved.

Sections 2 to 13 inclusive approved.

section 14.

HON. MR. MAIR: I move the amendment

standing in my name on the order paper. (See

appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 14 as amended approved.

Sections 15 to 22 inclusive approved.

Section 23.

MR. LEVI: What exceptions are there to the

odometer...? It says "except as permitted by

regulation a person shall...." What particular regulation allows one to interfere with it?

HON. MR. MAIR: The one that comes

immediately to mind, Mr. Member, is in the case

where an odometer might have broken and was not

a known fact at the time. There may be other such

exceptions, but they would be of that order.

Sections 23 to 30 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. MAIR: I move that the committee rise,

and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 39, Motor Dealers Licensing Act, reported

complete as amended.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be considered

as reported?

HON. MR. MAIR: With leave of the House, now,

Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 39, Motor Dealers Licensing Act, read a third

tune and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, committee on

Bill 54.

PROVINCIAL COURT AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

The House in committee on Bill 54; Mr. Veitch in

the chair.

Sections 1 to 8 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I move that the committee

rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 54, Provincial Court Amendment Act, 1977,

reported complete without amendment, read a third

time and passed.

[ Page 4890 ]

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, committee on

Bill 75.

STRATA TITLES

AMENDMENT ACT, 1977, NO. 2

The House in committee on Bill 75; Mr. Veitch in

the chair.

section 1.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, with respect

to Bill 75, I move the amendment standing in my

name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

On the amendment.

MR. BARBER: Well I'm not sure if this is

specifically on the amendment because I haven't got

it out of the book yet.

HON. MR. CURTIS: It's on the order

paper.

MR. BARBER: Yes, I know. I don't have it. This

bill is something of a surprise. I understood there's

another one coming through. Could you give me one

second to look it up? Thank you very much.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the amendment

is

section l(e), line 2, dealing with the definition of

charge by deleting "estate" and substituting the word"

"interest."

MR. BARBER: Can you tell me on what page of

today's orders that appears, Mr. Speaker?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Page 16, for the member.

MR. BARBER: Thank you very much, Mr.

Minister. According to my notes, we have no

particular objection to this. When we get to the main

section I do, after amended, or if you will now, as

amended. I should like to repeat, if I may, the couple

of questions I raised yesterday on second reading.

Amendment approved.

section 1 as amended.

MR. BARBER: If the minister is agreeable, I did

raise a couple of questions yesterday, and he said he

would answer when in committee. I would appreciate

his comments now.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Yes, the hon. second member

for Victoria (Mr. Barber) indicated yesterday three

matters which were of concern to him, and I

undertook to attempt to deal with them in

committee stage. With respect to

section I(a), Bill 75

does remove the concept of separate locally

appointed approving officers for strata title

subdivisions. The definition of approving officer was

amended so that it would be consistent with the

definition in the Land Registry Act. There will be

guidelines established by regulation for approving

officers carrying out this function to follow when

dealing with bare land strata plans.

In this way the interests of regional districts will

be protected and served. Further explanations will

follow in sequence, I think, on other sections.

MR. BARBER: Apart from consistency with the

Land Registry Act, and I appreciate that argument,

could the minister inform me regarding the taking

from the regional districts — at least one of which is

particularly concerned about this aspect, and I raised

that yesterday — this particular authority. That being

taken from them, what assurance might they have

that their continued legitimate interests in being able

to prevent improper bare land subdivisions will not be

denied by this new provision in the bill?

HON. MR. CURTlS: As I indicated, they will be

dealt with in regulations. Nothing is being taken

away: We're looking for consistency in this Act and in

land registry.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Mr.

Chairman, the Land Registry Act is to be repealed

under

section I of another bill. Under

section 321 of

the new Land Titles Act, the Land Registry Act is to

be repealed, so where will this leave the definition of

approving officer?

HON. MR. CURTlS: Mr. Chairman, I don't think

that I can discuss another bill, but it is consistent

with what is already in the Land Registry Act and

what is contemplated in another bill before this

House.

Section 1 as amended approved.

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

MR. BARBER: This is the

section which contains,

as we read it, a legal error.

Section 3 is amended, if

the minister will look on page 2 of the Act, down at

the bottom, looking at (f).

Section 3(

f) is amended

by repealing subsection 4(b), et cetera. It proceeds on

to (i), and here is where the apparent problem is. As

we read it,

section 3(

i) of the amendment Act has a

[ Page 4891 ]

technical slip. It amends

section 3(i)(f)(iii) of the

Strata Titles Act to refer to a certificate of approval

under

section (f)(5) of this amending bill itself;

however,

section 5 of this Act repeals

section 5(5).

Basically what you have done is create a situation

where in an active part of this bill, as you propose it

via this amendment, you refer to another part of the

same bill which, in fact,. is repealed. I draw your

specific attention, if I may, to page 3. Mr. Minister,

under (i). I will read it out to show you what

happens. It says, "by repealing subsection (5)(f)",

and then you take a look on page 4 at 5(f). It reads:

"(iii) a conversion into strata lots of a previously

occupied building by an owner-developer other than

the Crown, be accompanied by a certificate of

approval under

section 5(5)." Then you turn to

section 5(5) and it says: "(

b) by repealing subsections

(4) and (5)" — i.e., it's repealed.

Section 5 is amended

by repealing, in part, subsection (5); however,

section

3 makes active reference to

section 5(5)by requiring

a certificate of approval. As we read this. it is a

contradiction. It's just a technical amendment, but I

wonder if it would be....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I believe there is

an amendment on the order paper that will delete

that.

MR. BARBER: With this one?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Yes, 5(5).

MR. BARBER: Is it here? I better take a look at

those amendments a little more closely. Not having

done so. can the minister tell me whether or not it

refers to this apparent improbability?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, with your

indulgence, I think it might help members to realize

that the amendments which are on the order paper and

I feel it is necessary to explain — are correcting

some technical inaccuracies in the former Act as well

as clarifying certain sections of this bill. The

amendment, as was pointed out by the Chair, which

is coming up in just a few moments, I expect, will

resolve the difficulty the hon. member has identified.

With reference to this particular section, the

approval requirements for strata plans are now dealt

with under sections 4 and 5 of the Act.

Section

3(5)(

f) is only amended, Mr. Chairman, to include the

appropriate cross references. We can deal with this in

detail, I would expect, in sections 4 and 5, if

members wish.

Section 3 approved.

section 4.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move the

amendment standing under my name on the order

paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 4 as amended approved.

section 5.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move the

amendment standing under my name on the order

paper. (See appendix.)

On the amendment.

MR. BARBER: If I understand properly, this

amendment corrects the apparent anomaly, which my

researcher indicated, where one bill referred to

another that is now appealed.

HON. MR. CURTIS: That is correct, Mr.

Chairman.

Amendment approved.

Section 5 as amended approved.

Sections 6 to 8 inclusive approved.

section 9.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move the

amendment standing under my name on the order

paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 9 as amended approved.

Sections 10 to 12 inclusive approved.

section 13.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move the

amendment standing under my name on the order

paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 13 as amended approved.

Sections 14 to 17 inclusive approved.

section 18.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move the

amendment standing under my name on the order

[ Page 4892 ]

paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 18 as amended approved.

Sections 19 to 25 inclusive approved.

section 26.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I move the amendment

standing under my name on the order paper. (See

appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 26 as amended approved.

Sections 27 to 51 inclusive approved.

section 52.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I move the first amendment

standing under my name on the order paper. (See

appendix.)

Amendment approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I move the second amendment

standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 52 as amended approved.

Sections 53 to 58 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 75, Strata Titles Amendment Act, 1977 (No.

2), reported complete with amendments.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be read a third

time?

HON. MR. CURTIS: With leave, now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 75, Strata Titles Amendment Act, 1977 (No.

2), read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker,

committee on Bill 42.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

The House in committee on Bill 42; Mr. Veitch in

the chair.

Sections 1 to 12 inclusive approved.

section 13.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I move the first amendment

standing under my name on the order paper. (See

appendix.)

Amendment approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I move the second

amendment standing under

my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

On the amendment.

MR. BARBER: I actually rose on the first

amendment, but I expect this will do as it certainly

covers the intent of it.

The minister has indicated that as a result of

presentations from municipal government, in effect,

the operating principle of this

section was expanded

to allow municipalities at their own initiative to take

advantage-of the development permit process. I have

contacted some people in municipal government who

are pleased indeed that it was so expanded. Some of

the amendments that are on the order paper here

today on page 12 appear to take that into

consideration. I wonder, though, if the minister could

indicate to the House whether he's prepared to give

any further undertakings to local government that by

amendment, if it turns out they don't have the

power.... Some of them fear they still might not

have to initiate development permits as actively and

as progressively and imaginatively as they might have.

I wonder if the minister will undertake today, by

telling them so in this House, to give them that

authority and that assurance in the near future.

I realize that it's a somewhat unusual request to

make of the minister, but I continue to hear from the

people with whom I consult in municipal government

that indeed amendments, both on the order paper

and in the form of the bill itself, still don't absolutely

reassure them that the initiative they want to take

and the leadership they want to show, given the

context and the history of some abuses of land-use

contracts, will really be open to them. Technically, it

[ Page 4893 ]

would appear that this would allow most of such

initiative to be taken. But they and I would

appreciate an assurance from the minister that should

that prove faulty. the principle will be followed

through with. Should it prove inadequate, the

minister will continue to consider such amendments

as may be required in the future to allow them that

freedom and that dexterity and that imagination, if

they wish to exercise it, in their own municipalities.

HON. MR. CURTlS: It would be difficult to give

an undertaking which might take the ministry beyond

the limits of the legislation which is being discussed

and which, hopefully, will pass at some point and be

given royal assent. I indicated at the outset of second

reading that the amendments contained in Bill 42

were the most significant, the most far-reaching. in

terms of local government in British Columbia. in

many years.

It might be appropriate at this point to respond to

the member and other members of the committee

that we are clearly going to have to send out

explanatory information and answer a variety of

questions which will flow from local government as

this becomes law. Again, no one can indicate when

this particular session of the Legislature will

terminate, but we are" not that far from a 1978

session. This will give the municipalities some months

in which to consider the amendments, to use them, to

become familiar with them. and to point out if. in

their view. there are deficiencies. Or, indeed, there

may not be deficiencies.

So we see the Municipal Act, Mr. Chairman — and

particularly this land-use control and planning area as

a continually evolving document. I can't guarantee,

but I would expect there would be further

refinements or amendments in 1978 in 1979 and in

successive years. So the undertaking, to the best of

my ability, is given in response to the point raised by

the member.

Amendment approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I move the third amendment

standing under my name on the order paper. (See

appendix.)

Amendment approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I move the fourth amendment

standing under my name on the order paper. (See

appendix.)

On the amendment.

MR. BARBER: This is one that, in effect, adds six

months to the startup period. I wonder if the minister

could tell us very briefly what persuaded him that the extra six months were required.

HON. MR. CURTIS: The first considerations to

these sections were given last fall. The bill was

introduced at the beginning of April, and it was

anticipated that it might become law before August

24 or 25. Therefore we saw some time ago, since we

were not running on what had been a

schedule that

seemed logical at the time, that it was appropriate to

extend the transition time by a further six months.

It's as simple as that.

Amendment approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I move the fifth amendment

standing under my name on the order paper. (See

appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 13 as amended approved.

Section 14 approved.

section 15.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move the

amendment standing under my name on the order

paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 15 as amended approved.

Sections 16 and 17 approved.

section 18.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move the

amendment standing under my name on the order

paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 18 as amended approved.

Section 19 approved.

section 20.

MR. BARBER: The

section allows the minister to

alter boundaries of regional districts. It allows the

minister. having given six months' notice to the

regional districts, to recommend to the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Counci1that two districts be

merged if they should be adjoining, or that

boundaries should be altered if it appears worthwhile.

This is a

section which, as the minister knows, and we

[ Page 4894 ]

most certainly know, is of some concern to local

government. Nowhere in the explanatory notes or, to

the best of my knowledge, in any of the minister's

statements to date, has he illustrated the need, such

as he sees it, for these provisions. Indeed, it has been

the expressed fear of some people in local

government — again, those with whom I regularly

consult — that this might be a kind of enforced

amalgamation about which the voters will have no say

at all. It might be an opportunity for amalgamation

of districts to be forced without it ever being tested

by the voters themselves to see whether or not they

like the idea. Without doubt, regional districts are in

some considerable difficulty these days. They're

being challenged and criticized by their own

constituents and, indeed, often by their own

directors.

What concerns me here is that perhaps in partial

answer to those criticisms, the minister has proposed

a remedy which may create a great many more

criticisms. This could, in effect, be forced

amalgamation without it ever being tested at a vote at

a local level. I wonder why the minister feels this

necessary. I ask him whether or not he can illustrate

such case histories and give such examples as may

defend it, at least in his mind.

Thirdly, I ask whether or not he is willing to give

consideration to putting these kinds of choices to the

voters for popular decision. At the moment

amalgamation can, of course, be forced — and it has

been — in this province, and we know it. But often,

and wisely, provincial governments, regardless of the

party they happen to represent at the time, have

chosen' to test such possible amalgamation with the

voters before anything should ever be forced on

them. In

section 20, there is no provision whatever

for testing. It allows this minister, or any other

minister, to decide personally whether or not to alter

the boundaries of regional districts and, indeed,

whether or not to combine them in a real

amalgamation, which has not been previously

provided for in this Act. I would appreciate the

minister's answers to those three questions.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, the member I

think not deliberately, but perhaps inadvertently is

incorrectly using a term which is not dealt with,

intended, implied or in fact, existing in

section 20.

That is "amalgamation." My understanding of

amalgamation is to take a municipality and combine

it with something else to amalgamate into a larger

local government jurisdiction — another larger

municipality. Yes, it was possible, under the NDP, to

enforce amalgamations. That existed.. in this Act for

some time, hence the Kamloops and Kelowna

situations, which we've had to work pretty hard to

clear up, as a matter of fact, in the intervening years.

This is an adjustment of regional district

boundaries, Mr. Chairman. In other words, it would

'permit the minister, as spelled out — in consultation,

with six months' notice to the regional districts

concerned — to adjust boundaries, but if an electoral

area is such in one regional district, it could not

become incorporated, under this section, in another

regional district. It would simply become an electoral

area in another regional district. It provides for the

adjustment of regional district boundaries only, not

municipal boundaries or the expansion of municipal

boundaries. The reason is that the boundaries were

drawn somewhat arbitrarily 12 years ago and there

are clear instances where an adjustment of boundaries

should at least be examined. We have no specific

adjustments which are in mind at this moment and

which will happen immediately after royal assent. I

do caution the member that amalgamations are not

seen in this in any respect.

MR. BARBER: With respect, Mr. Chairman, to the

minister, sections (

e) and (

f) indicate that the

boundaries of two or more adjoining regional districts

may be altered, or a present regional district may be

divided into two or more regional districts. I am not

raising that particular point, I am raising (d). Now my

use of the word "amalgamation" is perhaps too

coloured by the conventional use of it in this

province, which would perhaps restrict that definition

to municipalities only.

Section (

d) reads simply:

"After six months' notice to the regional districts

affected," the minister may "recommend to the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council that two or more

adjoining regional districts be merged." Well, for me,

Mr. Chairman, that means amalgamation.

The minister might not like the particular

connotation of that word, but the power is clearly

implicit here, and it was never there before, that

wholesale merging of two or more — it could be three

or four or five, if they had contiguous boundaries presently

distinct, separate and autonomous regional

districts may be forced or, in the language of the bill,

merged. Well, to me, if you can alter the boundaries

so as to create a merged, single identity where two or

more previously existed, that indeed is a form of

amalgamation.

Again, some cases but not all, are freely conceived

in this province. Such amalgamation at a municipal

level has been tested with the voters first. It occurs to

me that it would be wise and prudent if there should

be an opportunity for the voters in these regional

districts — I appreciate the distinction between

electoral districts and regional districts in this sense to

have their voices heard on this too.

Indeed, there are some regional districts in this

province which perform really quite admirably. They

have a wide variety of functions and handle those

functions in a very prudent, cautious and effective

way. There may be a number of citizens presently

[ Page 4895 ]

within that kind of regional district who would find it

abhorrent to be merged with the regional district next

door, whose services may riot be anywhere near as

good, whose tax base may not be anywhere near as

strong and whose leadership ,may not be anywhere

near as respected. There may be a number of people

in this province, Mr. Chairman, who presently enjoy

their status within the regional district in which they

live and as they presently know it, who would not

appreciate being merged with another, perhaps less

effective, less well-respected, less financially able

district next door.

I feel, and our party feels, that this should be

tested in some manner or another. Perhaps a direct

vote is not the only way to do it. Perhaps there are

other tests that come to mind. But as I read it, this

clearly provides for the forced merging, as the bill

puts it, or amalgamation, as most people would call

it, of regional districts — two or more which were

previously distinct — into one. We're concerned about

that.

MR. H.J. LLOYD (Fort George): I'd like a little

clarification on this one too. I think it is a very

worthy

section of the bill. In the Regional District of

Fraser-Fort George, for example, we have the

McBride-Valemount area that is part of the regional

district. McBride, the closer community, is something

like 130 miles from Prince George, and Valemount's

another 50 miles beyond there. It's pretty difficult

for all the directors on the regional district to have a

very thorough knowledge of the background or

what's going on in that community when it's that

remote. Again, it's pretty difficult for the directors

from that area to attend .. meetings in the Prince

George area.

I just wondered, Mr. Minister: what population

base would be necessary for. an individual regional

district, or what would be an assessment base that

would be considered? Would they be better off

looking at the form of a district municipality;and still

stay in the same regional district? Or would all these

be considered on the individual merits? I think that

probably would be a case. They would have a lot

more local control if they had a smaller, more

compact, regional district, but the population. base is

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I share the concern

of other members about this section. The regional

districts in British Columbia, as far as I'm concerned,

were a superb innovation when they came in, and the

regional district governments have, generally

speaking, been doing a good job. I don't think that

any change in their boundaries ought to be

undertaken at all lightly, and in particular, I don't

think that this Legislature ought to confer the power

on the cabinet to change any regional district boundaries simply by cabinet order. That is exactly

what, this

section would do.

The territorial integrity of any governmental unit

is fundamental to the ability of that unit not only to

function on a day-by-day basis, but to plan for the

future — for growth and expansion and the needs of

its people. If regional districts come to have some

uncertainty — even simple theoretical uncertainty of

the kind that would be created by this

section — as to

what their boundaries might be over the next two

years, their ability to plan and to know which citizens

for whom they will be planning will be seriously

compromised, in my view.

Therefore there should, at a minimum, be some

restriction on the power which would be conferred

by this section, in terms of local approval by vote of

the electors in the areas to be affected, generally

speaking. There should be some kind of approval of

whatever scheme the minister of the day might want

to put forward — to either consolidate or divide or

rearrange regional district boundaries, in whatever

way it might be.

I appreciate that a case can be made for the change

in some regional district boundaries.

I appreciate, too,

that I believe the minister has underway or is about

to commission a study into the general function of

regional district governments. I am concerned that at

this point, we should be so easily and almost

offhandedly conceding power to change the

boundaries of regional districts in a way that the

minister would not, I think, wish to lightly exercise in

terms of, let's say, municipal boundaries. I don't think

that any more of that power should be available in

terms of regional districts. As a matter of fact, I think

the minister does have certain powers now in terms of

municipal boundaries that perhaps go almost as far as

that. But that doesn't make this right.

It seems to me that the territorial integrity of

regional districts should at least be protected by the

right of the people in the, area affected to vote on it.

For that reason I oppose this

section as it is currently

drafted.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, with respect

to the remarks by the second member for Victoria

(Mr. Barber) and the member for North

Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson), we agree to

disagree, and we have a means to resolve that in

MR. WALLACE: Like what?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I will come back to that

point in just a moment.

The hon. member for Fort George (Mr. Lloyd)

indicated a question with respect to what should

happen to a particular unit within a regional district

electoral area boundary. He's quite right — the

[ Page 4896 ]

criteria vary tremendously and some electoral areas

and some municipalities have very low assessment. We

would have to examine each one on its merits and

would attempt, with the area concerned, to

determine what is most desirable.

That brings me back to the comments made by the

two opposition members with respect to

section 20. I

believe that it's a good move; I'm satisfied with it.

We've looked at it very carefully. There is six months'

notice of intended change. Once again, a great deal of

public discussion, exchange of ideas and opposition,

can take place in six months. Or, in some instances,

there might be nothing more than silent agreement

that a particular change is required.

It's strange for the critic of the New Democratic

Party to speak about voting rights. He is a member of

a party now. He was not a member of this Legislature

when two municipalities and adjacent areas in the

interior, Kamloops and Kelowna, were amalgamated

— just like that, presto. He may not agree with that.

The fact of the matter is that his party put it into

this legislation and enforced amalgamation of two

very large communities in British Columbia, so don't

talk to me about voting rights for individuals. If you

disagree with what we propose here in terms of

adjusting regional district boundaries only, then you

cannot agree with what your colleagues did in the

former government and you should not be sitting

with that party; you should be sitting down there.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know how the former

Minister of Municipal Affairs felt about local

government. I suspect that he had something just

above contempt for local government. I respect local

government.

This

section will permit us to sit down and give

notice to a regional district or regional districts and

say: "For obvious reasons, because of this

development here, that low assessment there and

because of the growth of a community over the last

10 or 12 years, it makes sense to change the

regional district boundaries — to use your word — "to

merge two regional districts or electoral areas. Here is

six months' notice. First of all, do you think we

should do it? How do you regional districts feel about

it?" They'll say: "No, we don't want anything to do

with it."

All right, then we may not proceed. But if we still

believe that it's in the best interests of the area

concerned, we will give the six months' notice. It will

follow that there will be great public debate and

discussion and then the cabinet will or will not agree

to proceed with the proposed change.

So, Mr. Chairman, it's here. It has not been here

but, with respect, to hear that this, which deals only

with regional district boundaries and does not move

someone from an unorganized area into an organized

area, is objectionable to the official opposition, is a

little bit difficult to take after we had the enforced

amalgamation by the former government of two

communities in this province.

MR. BARBER: As it happens, I wasn't a member

of any party, much less of this Legislature, at the

time this came in, and it's hardly any secret that I am

in occasional disagreement with my own party.

One of the things that does concern me is the fact

that neither here nor, as I freely conceded in the

previous forced amalgamations, in the New

Democratic government and the prior Social Credit

government, were there always opportunities to test

public opinion in advance of such a move. If I'm in

disagreement with my own party, well, so be it.

That's happened before.

I do recall that voting was indeed permitted in

Nanaimo when that occurred during our

administration and in one other city. There was

another city where a vote took place, wasn't there?

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: That was forced. That was greater

AN HON. MEMBER: Brocklehurst.

MR. BARBER: Brocklehurst.

The point remains, for myself" an important

philosophic one. I think that though public hearing,

through testing and through the six-month notice

that the minister has given — and I think that's very

good — opportunities be provided to test and

examine public opinion. Simply providing six months

isn't necessarily adequate to the job. There is no

provision in here for, shall we say, public hearings or

even meetings sponsored by the ministry.

I would appreciate it if the minister would give an

undertaking that during the six months, if he does

announce that he is considering the recommendation

of a merger or a change in boundaries, his ministry

would be willing to sponsor such public meetings and

to test public opinion in that kind of way. I think

that's an important philosophic commitment and I

would appreciate hearing from the minister about it.

I personally feel that those citizens have a right to

be heard and to be consulted very literally, very

personally and very immediately before these kinds

of decisions are taken. I find at the moment no

immediate provision for that, save the grant of six

months. I'm glad it's not six weeks, and that's

certainly good. But I think that a further

commitment could be made to test that opinion.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I would like to give

the minister an analogy as to the kind of authority

that this would be giving the cabinet. This would be

similar to Ottawa being able to say to the provinces:

[ Page 4897 ]

"We don't think that the boundaries between the

provinces are quite right. We'd like to straighten them

out a little bit." For example, they might say: "Well,

the Peace River block really does fit more naturally

into Alberta. We'll cut off British Columbia, continue

on up the Rocky Mountain chain to the Yukon, and

so on." That might make sense to Ottawa. Under the

minister's philosophy with this particular legislation,

he would seem to give them the power to do that.

I reject that kind of argument. To me, what the

minister has told us is that he will tell the regional

districts what he is proposing to do. They will have

six months to tell him whether they agree or disagree.

If they disagree, and if he still thinks it's best,

Victoria will go ahead and do what it thinks best in

any case.

I don't think that is proper. I don't think that is a

belief in the philosophy of local control. Local

control includes the power to make your own

mistakes and to carry on with local boundaries that

are as the local people choose them to be. If local

people, whether through their regional district

councils, Or through an election, or through some

kind of a referendum on a change in the boundaries — which

there should be — express their opposition to

Victoria's proposed move, Victoria should not

attempt to impose such a change in regional district

boundaries.

So I say that on the principle of local control, this

section is wrong. I repeat to the minister that if he

supports this kind of section, then presumably he has

to support the right of Ottawa to change provincial

boundaries. How wrong that would be! It is clearly

wrong for a senior level of government to have the

arbitrary power particularly by cabinet order to so

simply change the boundaries of a local government

unit. I oppose it very much.

Section 20 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 22

Waterland

Davis

Williams

Mair

Bawlf

Nielsen

Vander Zalm

Haddad

Kahl

Kempf

Kerster

Lloyd

McCarthy

Gardom

Bennett

Wolfe

Chabot

Curtis

Fraser

Calder

Jordan

Mussallem

NAYS — 13

Wallace, G.S.

Gibson

Lauk

Lea

Dailly

King

Barrett

Macdonald

Levi

Sanford

Lockstead

Barnes

Barber

Mr. Gibson requests that leave be asked to record

the division in the Journals of the House.

section 21.

HON. MR. CURTlS: I move the amendment

standing under my name on the order paper. (See

appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 21 as amended approved.

Sections 22 to 27 inclusive approved.

section 28.

MR. BARBER: Had you forgotten about

section

28, Mr. Chairman? Didn't you think that we wanted

to talk about this one? Sure we do. This is the

section

that allows the minister personally, with only the

appeal to cabinet, of which he is a member, to rewrite

any municipal or regional bylaw in the province.

It is not just us who have been talking about this

bill. Our research office has been on the phone this

afternoon to the officers' of the executive of the

UBCM. There is considerable disagreement there. I

wish to read into the record some direct quotes from

various members of that executive taken between

roughly 2 p.m. and 4 p.m. today. I'm informed that

there will be a meeting of the table officers of the

HON. MR. CURTlS: Yes, a regular meeting on

Friday.

MR. BARBER: Yes, that's right. At that meeting,

I am further informed that this subject will be raised.

HON. MR. CURTlS: They may be meeting to

condemn the NDP's actions in this regard.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BARBER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We

doubt it very much, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. CURTlS: It's possible.

MR. BARBER: That's certainly not the impression

we picked up this afternoon.

HON. MR. CURTlS: Are you sure we are talking

to the same executive?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Only one

member can speak at a time.

[ Page 4898 ]

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): As the minister is

aware, the mayor of Vancouver has sent a letter to

him raising strenuous objection to

section 28 of Bill

AN HON. MEMBER: It's pornographic.

MR. BARBER: The mayor is a member of the

executive of the Union of B.C. Municipalities. The

chairman of the regional district of Nanaimo has

raised objection to the bill, and Mr. Smith has made

that a matter of public record. The chairman of the

Capital Regional District has raised strenuous

objection to this

section of the bill. He calls it "a

danger to democracy and a massive conceit." Mr.

Campbell is considerably opposed to this

section of

the bill.

HON. MR. CURTIS: What day did he say that?

MR. BARBER: Mr. Campbell? He said it when the

announcement was made, when the bill first came

down in April. I'm not aware that his opinion of the

section has changed or, indeed, that his famous

opinion of the minister has altered either. So I would

be surprised if there was any change.

AN HON. MEMBER: They're not the best of

friends.

MR. BARBER: They're not very good friends.

HON. MR. CURTIS: You'd be surprised.

MR. BARBER: However, it should be pointed out

as well that another member of the executive, Mayor

Harold Moffat of Prince George, has described this

section of the bill as "real fascism."

This afternoon, we were on the phone to Mayor

Shaw, who is the village representative on the

executive of the Union of RC. Municipalities. He

says, and I quote directly from him, this afternoon

when interviewed by one of our research officers: "I

have my reservations about that kind of authority.

There is no need to put that kind of authority in the

hands of the minister." This hardly seems to me like

strong support for the position that the minister has

taken or, indeed, for the suggestion that this has

received anything like the blessing of the Union of

B.C. Municipalities.

How does Mayor Ferguson, the treasurer of the

Union of B.C. Municipalities and the mayor. of the

district of Abbotsford, describe the bill?

At 3:05 p.m., today, he simply said: "This is

too much power to the minister." He is opposed

to it.

Mayor Muni Evers, I am informed by my colleague

from New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), although I have

not spoken to him personally, has also raised

objection to this

section of this bill on, I understand,

the same ground as Mayor Ferguson, Mayor Shaw,

Mayor Moffat, Chairman Campbell, Mayor Volrich

and Chairman Smith have already raised.

It seems to us, Mr. Chairman, that what we

suggested when this bill came forward for debate

originally and what we suggested when we came to

the second part of second reading just a few days ago

is turning out to be absolutely correct. There is rising

in local government in this province a tide of

resentment and criticism of a very powerful sort

against this provision in the bill. It's my expectation,

based on information I've received from people who

will be attending it, that at the Union of B.C.

Municipalities convention, scheduled for the third

week in September, there may well be motions

presented against this particular section, asking that it

be rescinded altogether.

I am informed that there is a considerable quantity

of opinion, representing all political parties and

ideologies of the Union of B.C. Municipalities,

indicating that this particular

section will come under

extremely heavy attack at the convention. It should

be noted that Resolution 15, presently on the books

to be discussed at the Union of B.C. Municipalities

convention, sponsored by the council of Burnaby,

asks that

section 28 be removed altogether. The

council of Burnaby, in the absence of only one of its

members, unanimously condemns this

section and

unanimously condemns the philosophy behind it. We

believe that this

section has, little support from

municipal government, little support from regional

government, and deserves no support at all from this

Legislature.

We don't think that this minister deserves this

power. No minister of ours ever asked for it. No

Municipal Affairs minister in this province has ever

had it, and in my personal and strong view, no

minister deserves it. We condemn this section. We ask

once again that the minister refuse it. We ask once

again that he withdraw it altogether from the bill. We

ask once again that the Union of B.C. Municipalities

at its convention have an opportunity to question this

kind of power, be it in this

section or in any other in

the Municipal Act. They have a right to be heard and

as we hear them, as recently as just an hour ago, they

are increasing and growing in their opposition to this

section. We oppose this

section and ask the minister

to withdraw it.

MR. BARRETT: There seems to be a conflict of

evidence here. The minister left the impression with

this House, perhaps unwittingly, that he had great

support from municipal leaders and municipal

officials. Perhaps the minister could get up in the

House and file letters with the House from any mayor

or executive member of the UBCM who supports this.

[ Page 4899 ]

Have you got any letters from anybody?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Are you participating in the

debate or are you playing court?

MR. BARRETT: I'm asking you a question. We're

in committee; we're asking questions. I'm asking you

a question. Would you like me to give you the

answer? I can't do that. No, you've got to do your

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please address the Chair.

MR. BARRETT: That's right, Mr. Chairman. He

was asking me a question and I was asking him a

question. Now we have traded questions.

I asked the minister: has he any correspondence

from any leading municipal official or member of the

UBCM who supports this

section of the bill? Does the

minister have any correspondence from anybody?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Only one member can speak at

a time, hon. member. You're on your feet.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Up or down.

MR. BARRETT: Are you prepared to answer?

HON. MR. CURTIS: This particular member, the

Leader of the Opposition. plays this game when he

has nothing better to do in his office, I suppose.

MR. BARRETT: I ask you a question....

HON. MR. CURTlS: If he has points to make in

debate, let him make the points.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, I do. That is, I've made the

points. Don't tell me what to do. This is committee.

HON. MR. CURTlS: If he has specific points to

bring forward, do so, but don't play they "are you

going to answer, are you going to give me the answer

now. are you going to stand up?" That's very

tiresome. You have been doing that for 16 years and I

was tired of it after the first few years.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Back to

section

MR. BARRETT: I want to humbly thank the

minister for lecturing me on how to behave in

committee. I appreciate that genteel know-it-all

lecture and I now accept the slap on the wrist.

Now back to the section. If I may humbly beseech

the minister, as we are permitted to ask in committee,

would he please answer this question: has he ever

received a letter from any municipal official, mayor or executive member of the UBCM who supports this

section of the bill? Yes or no. All the smokescreen

from the minister won't cover up the fact that he

tried to leave the impression with this House that he

had the blessing of those municipal leaders, which he

does not have. All of his nice blandishments about

how we should all behave and not be naughty,

naughty in committee, won't cover the fact that he's

trying to take dictatorial powers under this section.

He tried to leave the impression with this House that

he had the sanction from municipal officials who

were democratically elected, and he does not have

that.

He has come close to lying in this House. I'm not

saying he has; he has come close to it. He has left the

impression that he had the okay from people at the

UBCM, and from mayors and councils, and he does

not have it. He does not have one whit of evidence,

not one letter, not one thing to show this House that

he has had any support for this

section from any

mayor, or any council, or any executive member of

the UBCM. If you did, you would have filed it in the

House.

I enjoy the minister's little deflective move. After

all, he's good at deflecting moves. He used to do it

when he was a Liberal, he used to do it when he was a

Tory, and now he's doing it as a Socred. The Tory

leader knows what kind of story he used to get. Do

you remember that, Mr. Tory Leader? You used to

think when he said he supported the Tory party that he meant it, remember that?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, back to

section

28, please.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, I'm back to the

section and

dealing with the minister's non-answer.

MR. LAUK: That was his only backbencher you

were attacking.

AN HON. MEMBER: They're hard to come by,

David.

MR. BARRETT: It's pretty hard to come by.

AN HON. MEMBER: Harder to keep.

MR. BARRETT: Harder to keep. At least you

could have a meeting, the old meetings in the

phone booth bit. or meet him around a corner and

say: "Psst, are you still with me, Hugh? What's the

line today?"

MR. CHAIRMAN: I believe it's

section 28, hon.

member.

MR. BARRETT: The minister has been asked

[ Page 4900 ]

point blank, and I would ask with all the humility

that I can muster to his high office, and with esteem

for him, does he or does he not have a letter from a

mayor or an executive member of the UBCM

supporting this

section of the bill? Yes or no? Thank

you very much.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Unlike the NDP government,

we don't deal in letters as such, with local

government, but rather in consultation on an eyeball

to eyeball basis. I admitted the other day in second

reading debate, perhaps the Leader of the Opposition

was not in the House at that time....

MR. BARRETT: I heard you.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I don't know if he was or

not, but he may have forgotten the comment that

was made. When we first discussed Bill 42,

section 28,

we discussed all of the sections" obviously, with the

executive of the UBCM, with the Municipal Officers

Association and representatives of the Planning

Institute of British Columbia, the municipal

section

of the B.C. Bar Society, and others involved in, or

interested in, local government. We discussed this

section at great length with a number of people and

they were not happy with it. But when we explained

it to them and pointed out very key words which

seem to be overlooked by the speakers for the

opposition in committee debate — as was the case in

second reading debate — that this

section comes into

play only where something of genuine public

provincial interest is concerned. So don't read

something into it that is not there. We have been

receiving letters in the last little while, one of them

an unsolicited letter from the mayor of the city of

Duncan. I'm sorry she's not here to participate in the

committee debate. I think it's important to indicate

that the letter came in disclaiming remarks attributed

to the mayor of the city of Duncan by the member

for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) in an earlier

portion of second reading debate.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you mean the Socred

candidate?

HON. MR. CURTIS: If the member is interested,

the closing paragraph:

"Please be assured I would retain the right to

be critical of the provincial government and

your ministry should the occasion arise.

However, in this specific instance over the last

several months I have not found it necessary to

do so."

So much for letters referred to by members of the

official opposition, and comments attributed to

individuals who do not even serve on Vancouver

Island.

In second reading debate, I had to help the

member for Cowichan-Malahat recall the name of

someone who is associated with Vancouver Island

municipalities. She wrongly attributed a remark to

the executive director of the Union of B.C.

Municipalities.

That party did not like local government when it

was in government; it does not like local government

now. Mr. Chairman, we can disagree on

section 28

with some years of experience. I believe that

section

28 will fall into perspective, a perspective which the

opposition spokesman refused to recognize in debate

today and on previous occasions.

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, Mr.

Chairman, it is a rule of this House that when a

member quotes from a document, that document

should be filed. I would ask that the minister indicate

MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't believe it is a rule in

committee, hon. member.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I give the undertaking to the

committee that I would be happy to table the entire

one-page letter when it is appropriate to do so.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you very much.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to say to the minister

that what I asked was: "Have you had specific

endorsation from the UBCM, or anyone on the

UBCM, or any mayor on this

section 28?" That's

what it's all about. Do you have someone at the

UBCM executive level who endorses this particular

section? That's what I'm asking. I would ask the

minister to quietly reflect in a moment of cautious

thought that the question is asked in terms of the

frame of reference the minister himself gives. He is

the only one whom I know of who defines his good

relationships with the municipality as being better

than any other government. I accept your definition

as being your own. You're entitled to your definition,

but I'm entitled to a bit more than your definition.

I want to know whether or not, on this specific

section, you have heard from anybody at the UBCM

or their executive who expresses agreement that

whether it's you, sir, who, as a minister.... Perhaps a

socialist may become a minister again someday, or goodness

forbid! — a Conservative may become a

minister someday, or even worse — goodness,

goodness forbid! — a Social Crediter may become a

minister some day. That might happen, but not as

long as that minister's around.

But since, Mr. Chairman, the minister is there, I

ask him: have you a letter from any executive

member of the UBCM saying: "We agree with

section

28 whether you're the minister or not"? Have you

that? Please let us know, and the whole debate will be

[ Page 4901 ]

over.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, the answer is

no. We have no letters. We did not solicit any and

none were forthcoming. I see quite clearly as the

responsibility of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs to

occasionally do those things which we believe to be in

the provincial interest and not necessarily simply to

meet all the requirements of local government.

The former Premier and Leader of the Opposition,

if he has spent any time at all with local government

in this province, would know that the Union of B.C.

Municipalities deals with something in excess of 100

or 110 resolutions at its annual conference each year.

A number of them are forwarded to the provincial

government through the Ministry of Municipal

Affairs, to my colleague the Minister of Finance

(Hon. Mr. Wolfe), to the Ministry of Health, and

other ministries, and they're not accepted. We agree

to disagree on many instances.

In this particular case, the Union of RC.

Municipalities, some 18 members strong, give or take

one or two, on the executive.... The second member

for Victoria (Mr. Barber) cited today.... I believe he

indicated his research people had been in touch with

four, five, six.... Well, you know, that was this

afternoon. I assume you've also been calling on

previous occasions. But again, perspective should be

maintained. There are 17 or 18 — I'm subject to

correction on the final number — members of the

Union of RC. Municipalities executive, a much larger

number than the table officers, obviously.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the

statements of the minister. Actually. it's a very good

debate. I think the point is that what we're getting

from the minister is that he is saying to us that when

he deems it to be in the best interest, and after

considering all the facts, he's ultimately going to

make the decision that he thinks is in the best

interests of that municipality or of the province.

Okay, that's fair enough. That's not the argument in

terms of whether or not you think it is the best thing.

The question is one of democratic power.

I find it somewhat ironic that this minister would

stand in this House representing that coalition group

over there, and say in very, very quiet tones that

there may be occasions when he thinks local

democracy will make a bad decision. Rather than let

local democracy, through the voting process, correct

itself, he will clean it up to his satisfaction.

There's a dangerous precedent here, Mr. Chairman

— the power of veto, a precedent that was clearly

spelled out as a major issue of the last election

campaign. This particular minister joined another

party because he felt that freedoms were being lost in

this province. Does the minister not find it ironic that

after having campaigned on the mythical loss of freedom, he is part and parcel of a real loss of

freedom in this section? Does the minister not find

that a little bit ironic, if not uncomfortable or

embarrassing? What we're dealing with here is the fact

that under the Social Credit administration, the

minister has taken unto himself in this

section the

power to determine whether or not, at occasions that

he deems, a council has made a decision he agrees

with. He will decide whether or not he likes their

decision.

But whether he likes it or not is not what's at

stake. What is at stake is the very thing that they

mouthed when they were in opposition — but that

obviously they don't believe when they're in

government — and that is the freedom to make

mistakes at the local level through the democratic

process. What you're really saying through this

section is that people should not bother to go and

vote for mayors and councils. People shouldn't listen

to debates on the basis of philosophy or approaches,

because finally and ultimately, regardless of whom

you elect to the municipal council, the minister is

reserving for himself the power to change the

decisions after you've gone through the whole process

of voting.

Now that's dictatorship. It may be benevolent and

considering this minister's actions, it will

probably be benign, mainly on the basis of fear of

making any kind of decision — but that's not good

enough. I happen to like the minister, but I don't like

his decision.

HON. MR. CURTlS: Please don't.

MR. BARRETT: Well, if you don't want my

fawning adoration, Mr. Minister, it's too bad. I love

you anyway. You're stuck with it.

MR. WALLACE: The odd couple!