[ Page 651 ]

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

By leave of the House, on the motion of the Honourable L.R. Peterson, Bill (No. 26) intituled An Act to Amend the Sale of Goods Act was withdrawn.

The following bills were introduced, read a first time, and Ordered to be placed on the Orders of the Day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

On the motion of the Honourable W.D. Black, Bill (No. 71) intituled An Act to Amend the Controlled Access Highways Act.

On the motion of the Honourable R.G. Williston, Bill (No. 61) intituled An Act to Amend the Soldiers' Land Act.

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 23, An Act to Amend the Trespass Act. The Honourable the Minister of Agriculture.

HON. C.M. SHELFORD (Omineca): Mr. Speaker, the purpose of Bill 23 is to repeal the Line Fences Act, which provided that the owners of adjoining lands in unorganized territory shall make, keep up and repair the fences that mark the boundaries between them and each shall pay half the cost. This act also provided for the appointment of fence viewers. This procedure has been found unsatisfactory as it is impossible, nowadays, to obtain the services of people to act in this capacity. The provision requires owners of adjoining land to make, keep up and repair the fence that marks the boundaries between them and will be included, now, under the Trespass Act. Any disputes regarding the same, if desired, can be referred to the Court. This is a normal procedure. What happens now is that each property owner is required to keep up half the fence and if there's any dispute it will go to the Court. It's so difficult to get fence viewers. I don't blame anyone for not taking the job because all you do is end up with a poor neighbour or a black eye. I move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Yale Lillooet.

MR. W.L. HARTLEY (Yale-Lillooet): I agree with the Minister, Mr. Speaker. This sort of situation has caused bad friends, particularly amongst the ranchers whose range covers a large area. I believe this change will be a move for the better but, to me, it should be a simple matter to check the lines, get back to an original iron post and strike a proper fence. Then, there's no argument. So long as it was handled the way it was previously, where it was left to a group of fence viewers, all of whom wished to be fence sitters, there were problems. We'll support this.

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

MR. R.M. STRACHAN (Cowichan-Malahat): Well, I know that, in my years as an M.L.A., there have been a number of occasions in which I was involved with arguments between neighbours as to where the fence was and where it shouldn't be. The appointment of the fence viewers, themselves, and the way in which they can be appointed and as things now stand if one person so wishes three fence viewers can be appointed without reference to the second party at all, the second party finds that he is faced with a bill of some $60, because I think they charge about $40 a day for fence viewing, without any knowledge that it was even going to happen. There have been cases of this kind. I don't know if this bill will correct that situation but I just don't know how you could find any perfect solution to arguments between neighbours as to land. Except that I know this, that, in the Province of Ontario, there is a section of the Provincial Government which accepts the responsibility of determining where line fences are because, after all, we go by the records that are within the Department of Lands, differ with what the fence viewers find and with what the particular neighbours think is the true line. I checked on this, a couple of years ago, because of a particularly bad case in my constituency, and I was informed then that there was no responsibility on the Crown, here, to participate but that in the Province of Ontario there is this responsibility.

I feel that a line is a line and the government which originally established the lines really should have this responsibility rather than allowing this situation to develop between neighbours. Certainly, even this law will not prevent that from happening. I ask the Minister if he would consider checking other legislation in other jurisdictions, because it's my understanding that in the Province of Ontario, the Government accepts the responsibility. They go out and say the line is here and that's it.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Shuswap.

MR. W.F. JEFCOAT (Shuswap): Mr. Speaker, I'm a little bit confused and a little reluctant to let this bill go, because I have made use of this Fence Viewers Act on quite a number of occasions. It's not just to resolve who pays for which part of the fence but, on two or three occasions, there was controversy over as to just where the line was. In other words, was the fence on the proper line? I have helped go and measure up and, on a number of occasions, we have resolved controversies that might have landed up in the Courts, and have resolved them on an amiable basis and have made very good use of the fence viewers in the area. Now, I realize that it could be very hard to get someone who would put themselves on the line and are willing to go and negotiate on behalf of two farmers or two ranchers who might be at outs over a fence. But, in my area, this has worked very, very successfully and so I'm a little bit reluctant to just step aside from this Fence Viewers Act, at this time.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kootenay.

MR. L.T. NIMSICK (Kootenay): Mr. Speaker, I had an occasion in my area, too, where there was a dispute and they appointed fence viewers. It sounds rather odd when you call them fence viewers, it's nothing more nor less than really an arbitration board to settle a dispute between two people. Now, to shunt this off into the Courts might be quite an expensive deal and it would create quite a problem. I feel that there should be something in there allowing the farmers, maybe, a neutral committee to arbitrate the case between two neighbours. It wouldn't create near the problems that it would if you go to Court. Probably, it would be good for the lawyers, of course, but you've got to go to Court and they

[ Page 652 ]

might appeal it. They might appeal it again. It's a fine thing for lawyers but I don't think it's going to do the farmers too much good. You might create quite a problem. I think that the Minister should reconsider this question and maybe find that, if he turned it over to the Agriculture Committee to come up with a report on it, it might do some good. I don't think that to place the farmers in this deal of going to a lot of expense, I don't think that you're improving the act any.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burnaby Edmonds.

MR. G.H. DOWDING (Burnaby-Edmonds): Mr. Speaker, I'm probably speaking against the interest of lawyers when I suggest to the Minister that this bill is really not quite as good as what he is replacing. The Line Fences Act did, after all, provide, in advance, for a settlement between the parties where they couldn't complain if they had an arbitration on the quality, the nature and the location of a fence, or whether it needed repair or it didn't. Under this proposal, it's obvious that one neighbour, quite unilaterally, could set up what he considers to be a reasonable fence, hire surveyors at what he considers a reasonable expense, and build the kind of fence he thinks is aesthetic, whether it be 10 miles long or 200 feet long, and his neighbour's going to get stuck in Court with a unilateral decision made by one party which may be to the detriment of the other. At least, the other way you could iron it out. This way you're going to end up in Court a lot more often with a lot more fights because, you see, the provision you suggest would make one party liable to the other for one half of any cost reasonably incurred for such purpose. Who has to decide that? The judge after the fact — after the fact. Then he has to decide, "Well, I'm going to tell the guy who put this up to tear it down." Well, the odds are against it, aren't they? It wouldn't be very practical for a judge to say, "Tear down that six foot fence, start from scratch." It's going to cost a lot of money for a few ranchers before you're finished and you're at the mercy of the other fellow.

If you have some way or arbitrating, in advance, where they can sit down around a table and iron it out without going to Court and say, "We'll agree on the cost of the surveyor if a surveyor is needed," or "We'll agree on what kind of fence we're going to have," then, after they have failed to agree, they could have a provision that they can, if they elect to do so, bring it to arbitration, maybe appoint one arbitrator. After all, you do that in most of the Expropriation Highways Act provisions. You know, you give it a chance to sort itself out. But this business, here, invites law suits, invites litigation and invites lawyers. We don't want to do that, do we?

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

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Speaker, I join with the concern that has been expressed to the Minister by the other Members who have spoken in this debate and, in particular, I am concerned about the suggestion in this legislation that the cost of keeping up and repairing natural boundaries can be forced upon either or both of the parties to such a boundary division. That's the way it is now, but, at least now, Mr. Speaker, we have the opportunity for serious discussion and resolution of differences before the problem arises. But, now, you are leaving it only to the circumstances if it's otherwise agreed. No method is provided for the resolution of disagreements before the expenses are incurred. It's quite obvious that, in some circumstances, where lands are divided by natural boundaries, such as creeks and rivers, that the expense that may be incurred by one of the owners may be completely unreasonable, completely onerous and, yet, these could have been resolved if there had been prior discussion. Nothing in the Trespass Act makes provision for this and you're taking away, by repealing the Line Fences Act, this opportunity.

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

MR. SHELFORD: In closing, I would only like to say that the Honourable Member from Yale-Lillooet, I think, had it summed up pretty well. I think it's a step in the right direction. To my legal friends across the Floor, I would only point out to them that if there were any real dispute, in the past, they would appeal from the fence viewers, through the Courts, anyway. So it doesn't change one bit. All of these major disputes, finally, ended up in the Courts. This doesn't stop two farmers, and it doesn't need to be farmers, it could be two industries, for instance, or summer home people, or anything else, it's not necessarily just farmers, but it doesn't stop them from getting together and saying, "Now, what type of a fence do we want?" Now, if they can't agree, of course, it will go to Court and it will be as the law says is required in that particular area. I don't think there's, really, any problem at all.

Motion agreed to.

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill 24, An Act to Amend the Fur-farm Act. The Honourable the Minister of Agriculture.

MR. SHELFORD: Mr. Speaker, this is an extremely minor bill. The purpose of the act is to place the administration of the Fur-farm Act under the supervision of the Provincial Veterinarian, instead of under the Livestock Commissioner. It was necessary due to the reorganization in the Department of Agriculture.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Yale Lillooet.

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

Motion agreed to.

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

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

[ Page 653 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill 25, An Act to Amend the Animals Act. The Honourable Minister of Agriculture.

MR. SHELFORD: Mr. Speaker, in moving second reading of Bill 25, the purpose of this act is to empower a Bull Control Committee to prescribe the periods of time within which bulls may be permitted to run at large within the boundaries of a bull control area, which is another provision of the Animal Act. It provides also that a person may kill a dog in unorganized territory, that is attacking or savagely pursuing human beings, or in the act of pursuing, worrying and wounding or destroying a domestic animal as defined by the act. The bill also provides that a peace officer in unorganized territory may kill a dog, running in a pack, and provides that the peace officer may apply to a judge of the Provincial Court for authority to destroy a dog, where there are reasonable grounds to believe the dog is likely to cause injury to human beings.

There's been a problem in some rural areas, especially up in my friend from Atlin's area, where there was a large number of dogs, running in packs, and there didn't seem to be any clear authority where this situation could be taken care of. I'd like to move second reading of this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member from Atlin.

MR. F.A. CALDER (Atlin): Mr. Speaker, for a great many years we've had problems up in my part of the country and also in the part of the country that lies adjacent to the Alaska Highway. We haven't been able to solve this problem. For the last two years, I've corresponded, I believe, my last one was with the Department of the Attorney-General… We've had correspondence on this and, of course, we couldn't do very much up there because a lot of these small towns are not incorporated and, therefore, there are no by-laws. In this respect, the hands of the RCMP are tied. We can't make a move and, yet, we have these serious problems of vicious dogs that continually attack adults and, particularly, school children. It's a very serious situation. We've had some recent cases where families up there have been so riled up over this that, in some localities, a next door neighbour wouldn't speak to the next household on account of, maybe, that person owns that dog. So, now, with this bill…(interruption). I think it was your letter, Mr. Attorney-General, that indicated that something may be done. I'm very glad that this bill has come in. I'm very hopeful that it will be supported on behalf of the people involved and the northerners who face this as a real problem. On their behalf, I support this bill.

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

MR. DOWDING: My honourable colleague didn't mention another important part of the bill. The Cabinet apparently has decided, and I think it's long overdue, to restrict the bull in the periods that the bull can be released. That's the first section of the bill. I'm willing to place self-restriction on myself, if the Cabinet is prepared to go that far, themselves. I think it's about time they did. The other thing that does, however, concern me, and all animal lovers, particularly those who love dogs, will be concerned if this provision applies arbitrarily in certain areas of the Province. I can understand and sympathize very much with those who live in unorganized territory and, particularly, where my friend comes from in Atlin, where wild dogs can be a very serious problem with young people and children who may be borne down by a pack of dogs and killed. That's all very well, but you know, the provisions we have in the law in organized areas are bad enough, when it comes to this sort of execution without trial of dogs. A very friendly, household pet… A good example I had in Surrey, where there was a very beautiful collie dog which was accused and tried in Court and was about to be sentenced to death on the grounds it had bitten a child. This dog was a household favourite and a friend of all the children in the block. Two little children thought it was smart to try to push the dog into a ditch filled with water and it tried to resist them. One child started to slap this very nice dog over the head. What nobody realized, until the veterinarian entered the picture, was that the dog had a tick on its head and, of course, when the children were slapping it and trying to push it into the ditch, the dog reacted, as any human being would react, to protect itself. This could have lead to the dog's death in that Court. Fortunately, the evidence was such that the magistrate made a decision in favour of the dog. The dog isn't able to speak for itself, so it's a pretty tough trial. It's pretty rough on the lawyer trying to get his client to give his evidence. I'm asking the Minister how can a dog get a decent trial into this bill? There's no way.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kootenay.

MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Chairman, in speaking to this bill, I sympathize with the Member for Atlin and the unorganized area up there. I don't know, when you speak of organized or unorganized areas, whether you include those portions of the regional districts that are outside the municipalities or not. But it seems to me that you're giving very wide powers to the public to take the law into their own hands when you go out into the area. In this case, you state that they can kill a dog in the act of pursuing, worrying or wounding animals. Prior to this, you would have to report the dog. A game warden, of course, had that power, I think, before to kill dogs. When a dog attacks people, I don't think any law in the land would argue, if he did shoot the dog without this wide range of powers. Nevertheless, here, you could have an abuse in many cases and valuable dogs could be killed and all the person needs to say is, "Well he was chasing an animal." What Proof have you got, how can you prove that he wasn't chasing an animal? It's something that, I think, you're allowing people, in this respect, to take the law into their own hands. Now, if you wanted to divide the Province, like in the northern areas where it's very little settled, this may be different but, in many of the areas, today, you can't go very many miles, any place, without finding settlers and farmers and, to me, you're liable to run into some difficulties in regard to this by giving this wide open power to everybody. Young kids, maybe, out with a gun, can do anything they like.

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

MR. J.D. TISDALLE (Saanich and the Islands): I just wonder if the Minister had heard from the female section of the Women's Liberation for cows. I don't see anything in here protecting their rights, but in the second section it says that…I suppose we'd better not deal in detail — no. I wonder if we could have a clarification of what constitutes a

[ Page 654 ]

pack. Two dogs belonging to one man, running together, and one of them is shot. There is no longer a pack, there's one left. Do you shoot that one, too? (Interruption.) Yes, that's right. Is it four or more, or two?

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

MR. D. BARRETT (Coquitlam): Mr. Speaker, I wish to break my five day silence in this House, to…after my absence, I find the place going to the dogs. Mr. Speaker, I want to announce to the House that our Party will be taking a free vote on this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Member for Langley.

MR. H.B. VOGEL (Langley): Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister will tidy up the factors of misunderstanding and dissention quite well, but I think it's important to bear in mind that the sections of the communities where the disputes and the damage arises are not, necessarily, in the unorganized areas. In the Fraser Valley, the matter of destruction of domestic animals, sheep and so on, particularly by roaming dogs, is a cause of constant dissent. I think the important section of this bill has not been referred to and that is, the provision that the summary action may only be taken when the dog is straying on land other than the land of the owner of the animal or the person who has given consent for the animal to be present. In the Fraser Valley, this is a matter of great concern. I think this is a very sensible bill and I support it.

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

MR. SHELFORD: I might just say, Mr. Speaker, that farmers have always had the right to shoot dogs that were molesting their livestock. I would also point out, and in support of what the Member from Atlin said, we do have evidence of cases, especially in rural areas, and this doesn't apply to municipalities, anyway, where children would not leave school because they were scared of dogpacks, running at large close by. We may want to get into discussions, section by section, later on, but I think it's certainly a good bill.

Motion agreed to.

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill 27, An Act to Amend the Public Libraries Act. The Honourable the Provincial Secretary.

HON. W.D. BLACK (Nelson-Creston): Mr. Speaker, in speaking to the second reading of the Act to Amend the Public Libraries Act, this is purely and simply a housekeeping piece of legislation, which is brought about by the fact that this Legislature, over the last few years, has made amendments to the Municipal Act. Since this act was last amended, we've had regional districts. Since this act was last amended, we have had the Age of Majority Act, which, obviously, changes the modus operandi of the Provincial Libraries Act. There's only one section that will be changed and that's 16. I've put in notice and that will be found on the Orders of the Day, next day, and already for discussion, if and when this bill is considered for committee stage. I have no more remarks to make other than that, Mr. Speaker, because it is, in.fact, strictly a housekeeping bill. I move second reading.

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

MR. DOWDING: It seems to me I don't think there's much we can quarrel with in the bill at this stage, in principle, except when it comes to several sections. I, certainly, would like to debate them in detail. I think that, although some municipalities may quarrel with the idea that once they put the assets of the municipality into a regional district board, they should have the right to withdraw it if they wish to withdraw from that association at a later date, that their assets come out as well as go in.

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

MR. DOWDING: Yes, I'm not going to go into the merits of that point, except to say that that is one thing that will be a matter of discussion, no doubt. The other aspect, since you have an amendment on it, I'll have to study that in more detail. Otherwise, in principle, we agree with the bill.

Motion agreed to.

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill 29, An Act to Amend the Settled Estates Act. The Honourable the Attorney-General.

HON. L.R. PETERSON (Vancouver–Little Mountain): Mr. Speaker, Bill No. 29, An Act to Amend the Settled Estates Act. The Settled Estates Act, Mr. Speaker, makes provision for the leasing, mortgaging and the preservation of property which is dealt with by will or other like instrument. It does contain some elaborate provisions for application to the Supreme Court of British Columbia and there are included, as well, some safeguards as far as infants are concerned under that Statute. However, the purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the public trustee receives notice of every such application. Then, upon receipt of the notice, he will be able to appear before the court to protect the interests of any infant or mentally disordered person. I might say that, not only does this principle find itself in this Bill 29, but the same principle, to prevent a lot of discussion in each of the bills, Mr. Speaker, is found in Bills 30, 31 and 32. I move the bill be now read a second time.

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

[ Page 655 ]

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, what the Attorney-General has said is quite clear from the bill. But I would like the Attorney-General, in closing the debate, to indicate what the experience has been, not only in connection with this particular amendment, but with the others to which he referred, which would lead the Attorney-General to involve the public trustee in this and the other circumstances. In my experience, the rights of infants have always been adequately protected by the Courts of this Province, and I know of no circumstance when matters involving infants have not received the greatest degree of concern from the judges in the Supreme Court and other courts of this Province. Indeed, in matters regarding settled estates and other similar situations, the Court is at great pains to ensure that the infant is independently advised and represented in matters which affect the property rights of infants. Now, if the Attorney-General has indications that, heretofore, the actions of the Supreme Court have left infants exposed to dangers to which they should not be exposed, if their affairs have not been properly handled before our Courts, then, I think we're entitled to know.

What we have here, Mr. Speaker, is the big hand of Government reaching down into what are really the private and personal affairs of our citizens because we are, now, in this bill and in others like it, invoking representation by the public trustee, who is an officer under the control of this Government and responsible to the Attorney-General. It is interesting to notice that his costs are always very carefully taken care of in this and the other bills. Truly, minors and persons who may be suffering from some mental disorder and, therefore, not competent to look after their affairs, must be protected and no one quarrels with that. But I do not believe that there is any basis for suggesting that the laws of the land, today, do not protect those people and that the people who are responsible to ensure that that protection is afforded have failed in their responsibility.

We have had in the speeches in this House, from the Honourable Member from North Vancouver–Capilano, an instance related to the Attorney-General which raises very serious doubts as to the ability of the person or persons who may be placed in the role of the public trustee or obliged to discharge those responsibilities. In making that remark, I do not wish to suggest that there are not highly qualified people fulfilling responsibilities in various areas of the Province under the public trustee. But, Mr. Speaker, I just wonder what kind of interference this is in the resolution of the affairs of the citizens. Unless there have been some glaring breaches of responsibility, I would be loath to vote for this bill.

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

MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, my only comment in reply to the honourable Member is that I wouldn't want the content of this bill to reflect in any way on the actions of the Court. That's not the purpose of the bill. The purpose of this bill is to see that the notice is given where there are infants involved, prior to any matters being heard before the Court, so that it can be sure that the interests of the infant are protected. It's not to be taken as any reflection on the Courts, as such, but I think there are circumstances that arise where counsel may be engaged and the interests of the infant may not, necessarily, be identical with the interests of his parents, perhaps, if that is the case in a particular case. So that, in any event, we feel in all of these instances it would be useful that the public trustee, at least, be given notice of these applications, whether or not the second step is necessarily taken of actually appearing in the Court on behalf of the infant.

Motion agreed to.

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill 30, An Act to Amend the Variation of Trusts Act. The Honourable the Attorney-General.

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

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

MR. J.G. LORIMER (Burnaby-Willingdon): Mr. Speaker, I'd just like to point out that I say that we will support this bill. I think it will assist the Courts, in fact, to be more prepared to change the trusts, such as necessary. I think it will be of benefit to the infant and to the other people receptive of the trust.

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

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, it's not my intention to repeat the statements I made in the earlier debate but, in response to the propositions that I posed to the Attorney-General, he did not give the answers which I think this House is expected to have. The Attorney-General should well know that, when matters involving infants or people who are mentally disordered and, therefore, incompetent, come before the Courts, the Court is at very great pains to ask the question who represents these people and, if they are unrepresented, to ensure that they are represented in the proceedings, not by people who are representing others who may be opposed in interest, but separately represented. This is the kind of power which we have always had in our Courts and under our laws. I just don't understand the reason why the Government is now suggesting that this long-standing procedure is being done away with and the public trustee is now being inserted in its place. I would like to know from the Attorney-General are there instances which have come to the Attorney-General's attention, when the rights of minor citizens or of mentally disordered people have not been attended to by our Courts, in this way?

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

MR. DOWDING: One thing does occur to me that could be a problem. If a Government employee is employed as a trustee to protect the rights of an infant who is mentally disordered and the infant is being kept in a Provincial

[ Page 656 ]

institution and if the trust that is to be protected by the intervention of the public trustee happens to involve how much of the estate goes to the Government in terms of his care, then, there is almost a problem there of conflict between the Government agency versus Government agency. The trustee is in the position of having to protect the interests of the infant. When the Court is involved and the Court appoints someone to guard the rights of the infant in a case where there's a proposal for say a variation of the trust…people want to vary the trust because it's sound or economical or there's been a change in circumstances from the time the trust was established…the Court is zealous to see that the interest of the beneficiaries of the trust are adequately and separately protected. Is this always true if the Government, by law, has a public trustee acting, as it were, as a next friend of the beneficiary, who is an infant or minor, mentally disordered? It poses problems, if this legislation is meant to take away or derogate from the duty undertaken by the Courts to protect the rights of beneficiaries and infants. I don't know of any Supreme Court judge in Chambers, who would permit the interests of a mentally disordered infant to be represented by someone who has a separate interest in that estate and who wanted the estate varied so that it might affect the mentally disordered infant. The Court would see that someone who was quite apart and had no self-interest in the matter was appointed. I wonder whether the Attorney-General, perhaps, appreciates the extent to which this legislation goes in altering the additional protections and safeguards that presently exist in law.

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

MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear that neither this bill, nor the previous one, will in any way, restrict the obligation of the Courts to protect the interests of the infant, nor does it abrogate in any way the privileges in this respect of appointing counsel. This bill doesn't necessarily mean that the public trustee will be the counsel for the infant in each of these cases. All it does mean is that, at the outset, there will be notice of the application now given to the public trustee, so that the public trustee can look into it and see that the interests of the infant are protected. If that's OK then, I would expect your support of the bill because what happens, now, is that the Courts don't have an opportunity in this respect until the matter is before them, which may involve adjournments, appointment of counsel and this sort of thing. We think this would be an improvement, recognizing that it will impose additional burdens on the public trustee but, nevertheless, I think it will assist in my department's fields in adjudicating matters relating to infants.

Motion agreed to.

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill 31, An Act to Amend the Testator's Family Maintenance Act. The Honourable the Attorney-General.

MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, this particular Statute is used frequently in our Courts. It empowers the Supreme Court of this Province to make provisions for the wife, husband, or children of a deceased person, where it is determined that inadequate provision has been made in the will of that deceased person.

The object of the amendment before you is to empower the Court, when there is such an application made and the matter comes on before the Court, to empower the Court to receive and examine evidence which is, now, in some cases, excluded or which the Courts are, now, loath to receive. The provision that is proposed here would allow the Court to accept any evidence that it considers proper but mentions, particularly, any statement in writing signed by the testator. The object, of course, is to ensure, as far as possible, that the Courts have all the necessary evidence in making any determination under this Statute. The other provisions have been explained in the previous two bills that have been given second reading this afternoon. Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of this bill.

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

MR. DOWDING: We support the bill, in principle, and, in fact, I welcome it because one of the intransigent rules of evidence has been that the statements of a deceased person were not admissible unless they could be shown to fall within certain categories of acceptable evidence. But it didn't take into account this problem, that many lawyers are quite aware of, that there were very good reasons why the testator made certain provisions for his family that might not be accepted by some members of the family. One good example, I can give you just as a hypothetical case, is where the husband and wife are separated and the husband dies and he leaves a statement indicating all the reasons why they separated and why his wife is not deserving of his support. But this may not be received in evidence, if it doesn't comply with the rules of evidence. There's no way that you could bring it to the attention of the Court for whatever value it might serve. Now, it might not be true and there's no way of cross-examining the testator after he's dead but, on the other hand, if it is acceptable for what it's worth, then it allows the contestants to contradict it, if they can. At least, it speaks after the death, as it were, of the testator in a way that presently cannot be done. For that reason, it should have some value but only some value and, of course, you have that safeguard in the bill and that's why we would support it.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister without Portfolio.

HON. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to enter this debate because, as is so often the case, it gets on a highly legal and technical plane and I'm not a lawyer. However, I would agree very much with and support the bill and agree with what the Attorney-General said and also with what the Honourable Member for Burnaby-Edmonds said. In putting it from a layman's point of view, I think that one of the concerns of the public is that, while the original act was in order to ensure proper maintenance of blood relatives — wife, children or husband — that, in fact, because they couldn't bring in the wishes or the reasons of the testator, there were times when a hardship was being worked upon a benefactor because of the rulings of the Court. A second wife might have been left a home, the

[ Page 657 ]

children were excluded from the will and the Court ruled that a certain cash settlement should be made to the children, which caused the wife to have to sell her home, which was her only benefit from the will. People in the public area have been concerned as to whether or not, in fact, their wills are valid. I think it brings into question in the public mind how valid is a will and, certainly, this amendment will help contribute to it. I think, also, in the way that I understand the Courts have been ruling, there has been a grave danger in, perhaps, Courts rewriting wills. In today's society, where there may be very good reasons for people wishing to treat their children or their husband or wife in a different manner, it was not previously admissible to the Court. I think that, in supporting this amendment, we will find that it will greatly enhance the ability of the Court to not rewrite wills and to make a just decision, to have the wishes of the testator, in fact, carried out for their reasons and, also, bring into proper focus whether or not, when one dies, if they have paid their just monetary debts to society in the form of taxes and other financial obligations, are they not, in fact, quite within their rights to dispose of their material assets as they see fit. I hope that this will help bring this about. I support this amendment.

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

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, the act wants to tidy up the rules of evidence to give better effect to the wishes of the deceased but the real vices in this Testator's Family Maintenance Act have not been attacked. The first one is it doesn't deal at all with the case where there's no will. Then, the Administration Act applies and that might be very unfair and something that a Court should correct but it can't do it, notwithstanding the fine language of this bill.

The even worse case is that, under this act, the common-law wife, Mr. Speaker, cannot apply. I think this Government has always been against the common-law wife in the taxation Statutes of this Province, the succession duty legislation, the testator's family maintenance legislation. You've been against the common-law wife. Now, in many cases, she's given succour and comfort and assistance to her husband over many, many years but she's treated as a nonperson in B.C., able, possibly, under the Administration Act to get up to 10 per cent of an estate, and that's all, notwithstanding her devotion to the man who is now deceased. I say that that is a flaw in the act and that you are tinkering with the rules of evidence. That's fine, as my friend has said, but the real vices in this act and legislation have not been met.

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

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the Member who has just taken his place. I'm surprised at the Honourable the Minister without Portfolio who spoke, because it indicates not uncommon lack of knowledge of what this legislation is designed to do. The Testator's Family Maintenance Act is designed to protect the proper beneficiaries of a deceased person who, for any number of reasons, may have been forgotten at the time that the will was prepared. It is a proper move on the part of Government to ensure that people have not been improperly left out of the class of beneficiaries in a person's estate. But, Mr. Speaker, there is a much more serious concern. If you have a will, the Court, now, has the right to look at the will and look at all the circumstances surrounding it, including other statements which may be made by the deceased, in order to determine whether or not the wife or any member of the immediate family has received the proper benefit. But, if there's no will, we're left with the rigid rules under the Administration Act and the Court has no power to step in and take into consideration those other circumstances where, perhaps, the wife or a member of the family should be entitled to something of some greater benefit than is provided under the rigid rules of the Administration Act. If we're going to have equity, and I agree with this proposed amendment, if we're going to have equity, in this instance, when there is a will, then, the Government should be moving as well to provide that there is equitable consideration of the proper claims of members of the family in cases when there is no will.

Motion agreed to.

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill 32, An Act to Amend the Infants Act. The Honourable the Attorney-General.

MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, in addition to the repeal of two obsolete provisions that are now contained in the Infants Act, this bill involves two major principles, one of which has already been discussed in terms of the previous bills this afternoon. The other principle is in the sections 3 and 4 of the bill. These would enact new provisions whereunder the public trustee will be enabled to direct that money standing to the credit of an infant in Court be paid out for the benefit of that infant. The bill provides an appeal against such a direction or, indeed, if the public trustee refuses to make such a direction, there's an appeal on that score, as well. This appeal can be taken either by the infant or some person on his or her behalf. This, I think, will assist in terms of where money has been paid into Court for the benefit of infants. Now, it's a more cumbersome procedure and expensive procedure as far as the infant is concerned, in engaging solicitors to obtain any payment out of Court for emergency expenses, or for education, or what have you. I move second reading of this bill.

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

MR. LORIMER: Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to endorse this bill. I would like to point out an interesting feature of it which is the fact that we're repealing a section which dates back some 150 years to William IV and George IV. I think, maybe, this is a sign of progress.

Motion agreed to.

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

[ Page 658 ]

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

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill 33, An Act to Amend the Consumer Protection Act. The Honourable the Attorney-General.

AN HON. MEMBER: This bill was withdrawn.

MR. PETERSON: No, this is not the one. It was 26 that was withdrawn, Mr. Speaker. Bill 33 is An Act to Amend the Consumer Protection Act. As the Members are aware, this legislation, which is of comparatively recent origin, provides a bundle of rights for consumers in the Province of British Columbia.

In recent years we have been enlarging these rights. Last year, we made some significant amendments to the act, relating to unsolicited goods, unsolicited credit cards and several other provisions, as well, such as referral selling. Now, we propose to extend the rights of consumers somewhat further.

The first significant amendment has to do with an assignee's obligations. The normal rule is that when a person becomes an assignee under a contract then he not only takes the rights and privileges of the assignor, under the contract, but he also assumes the obligations, liabilities and duties. The practice has grown up over the years, whereby a provision is written into the contract to the effect that if the seller of the goods under the contract should, at any time in the future, assign his interest to another person, then, that other person, although accepting all the benefits of the seller, assumes none of the obligations and this is where the problem arises. This is generally written in the contract in the small print and the consumer really is not, in all cases, at least, aware of it when he purchases goods. The result of this is that the consumer, then, is obliged to continue the payments, generally, say, to a finance company when the contract is assigned to a finance company. The goods are defective or something of this nature but, nevertheless, he is obliged to continue the payments, even though the seller is not living up to the terms of the original contract. So this amendment would make ineffective these so-called cut-off clauses in contracts and it would restore the usual contractual relationship that would exist whereby, when you assign the contract, you take not only the benefits but also the obligation of the contract. I should point out that the Federal Government has introduced amendments to the Bills of Exchange Act of Canada, a Federal Statute, and these amendments, as a matter of fact, are in force at the moment, and affect the related practice where promissory notes and bills of exchange are involved. We feel that to complete the picture we should take this additional step, Provincially, so that it applies to the normal contracts. It would be another example, Mr. Speaker, of coooperative Federalism, in terms of Provinces cooperating with the Federal Government, recognizing as well that this area of consumer affairs has been the subject of considerable study of Royal Commissions and other jurisdictions, legislative committees. All the reports are unanimous in this one respect that this kind of action that we're proposing here should be taken.

The other significant part of the bill is to rewrite the provisions which relate to contract relief. These provisions, prior to this amendment, permitted a judge to rewrite the terms and conditions of a contract if it could be shown that the interest charges under the contract were excessive and the transaction harsh and unconscionable. Recent judicial pronouncements by the Court of Appeal of this Province have indicated the need for some statutory amendment to these provisions if they are to be effective so as to permit the Courts to exercise this jurisdiction if the interest costs are excessive and the transaction is harsh and unconscionable or the transaction is otherwise inequitable. There is a new provision in this bill, which is designed to bring this about.

The other principle in the bill is another contract relief provision, Mr. Speaker. It permits a judge to lessen the severity of a contractual provision in the event of default. This is the time when you say such and such happens and the whole balance shall become due and payable forthwith. We have a new section to include loan transactions in this respect, giving the judge the discretion to intervene in circumstances of this nature. I move second reading of this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burnaby North.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We certainly intend to endorse this bill in principle. It's obviously an added protection for the consumers of British Columbia, for which we're all most pleased. Any further detailed questions we'll reserve for committee. Thank you.

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

MR. HARTLEY: Through you, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the Attorney-General if this would protect the type of door-to-door sale or any sale, where a small firm goes about the countryside, say, in selling roofing or aluminum siding and, then, after they have signed up contracts, they go and sell these contracts to a finance company, prior to going bankrupt. Then, when they go bankrupt, the householders who have paid to have a roof installed or the home covered with siding find that they are bound to keep their commitment with the finance company, even though the firm that they made the agreement with doesn't have and the home-owners do not receive the goods they are still paying for. Now, I realize this is a little different situation in this legislation. Is there any way that this can be extended, or can we do something with bonding so that any firm that goes out and holds itself out to provide this type of service would have to put up a bond before it was licensed to do business in this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Dewdney.

MR. G. MUSSALLEM (Dewdney): Mr. Speaker, I have a little point. I must commend the Attorney-General for presentation of this act and for others that have protected the consumer. It's a good track we're on and it's an excellent thing to be doing.

I'd like to mention one thing that, when he makes the suggestion that the fine print, as a merchant as with other merchants in this House, we are much maligned sometimes by the fact of the fine print on the contract… I'd just like to tell the Attorney-General that there's only one reason there's fine print in the contract and that's because the lawyers have got it so complicated it takes so much paper to get it in. That's the problem.

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

[ Page 659 ]

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Is that not important, too? We're holding the consumer's hand that buys on time but forget the man who wants to pay his way in paying cash. I think we should be considering this as well. There are so many facets of this thing that these bills, good as they are, forget a large segment of our society, the segment of people that support the economy the greatest and that's the man with the cash in his pocket. We should not forget him. I think that, perhaps, a great deal could be said for the bill and, of course, we all agree with the bill. We all agree with the protection, but let us protect all of the society or let us not be too particular about the man who goes out and buys more than he can afford and tries to pay for it on time.

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

MR. STRACHAN: The Member from Dewdney made a few comments and I tend, generally, to agree with his comments. The man who pays cash doesn't have this kind of protection. He doesn't really need that kind of protection, except… Pardon? No, he's already received the goods. It's then a straight fight between him and the man from whom he bought the goods.

With regard to the fine print, which the previous Member referred to, I remember taking a case to the former Attorney-General, and it's related to the part of this act which exempts purchases made by a retailer who intends to use the goods or goods and services in his business but not for resale. I have in mind a situation, where someone who is in business for himself could go out and buy a truck for use in his business. The case I'm thinking of was a case where a man in my constituency with eight children was in business for himself, a small trucking business. He had an opportunity to expand the business. It required a larger truck. He went out and he bought this truck with a dump. It was a dump truck and week after week, month after month, that truck just wouldn't operate the dumping procedure the way it was supposed to, with the result that he was unable to fulfill the contract he had taken on before he bought the truck. He went back to the original company time after time to get this thing corrected. It was finally found to be in a little valve in the hydraulic portion of the truck itself. The company, it was an automobile supply company, said, "Well, this was not part of the guarantee because it was not installed in the factory — it had been installed when he bought it as a going truck." That man finished up by losing the truck because he couldn't meet the payments, despite the fact it was faulty goods that he had been sold. He finished up, as a matter of fact, on social welfare because of the fact that there was no way of enforcing the agreement and he had to keep up the payments even though the goods were faulty. He lost the whole thing and, you see, that particular section just cuts a man like that out, because he was tied right into his commitment to make these payments even though the goods he had received were faulty. He was in business for himself. He wasn't an individual just going out and buying it. So I would ask the Attorney-General to sort of think about that before it gets into committee, because this exempts a retailer who intends to use the good or goods for use within the business. In that case, a truck would be exempt, you see and it could be faulty. He was buying it on time and, yet, there's just no redress of any kind for that small businessman, because he's cut right out from the protection of this act.

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

MR. DOWDING: I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, that the Honourable the Member for Dewdney would know that the contracts that the public have most trouble with are the ones that the dealers draw up through their lawyers with all the small print. The poor consumer goes into a place that has a contract that's about three pages long. You need a microscope to read it and it's full of every type of restriction and reservation on the rights of the buyer. They even say that, if you sign this contract, you waive all your rights for misrepresentation, for conditions or warranties. Practically, you waive your right to even go to Court about anything on a direct deal.

Now, I haven't examined the contracts that are familiar to the Member for Dewdney but I'm getting interested. I think I'll look at them because there's no problem. I don't like those crocodile tears about the poor consumer who buys a car for cash because he can always go right to the dealer and sue him but, if he buys it on terms, the dealer whips around and assigns the contract and, up until now, in the law, the buyer couldn't go after the person who now has the contract or stop his payments because it was assigned.

I welcome this move by the Government because this is the thing that, year after year, we've pleaded with the Government to do something about. The fact that, where there's an assignment of a contract on conditional payment terms in any conditional sales agreement, the buyer has no recourse if the goods turn out to be defective or there's misrepresentation or fraud, so far as his obligation to pay off the contract. This, in effect, I hope, if this is the intention, affixes on the assignee a similar responsibility to live up to the rights and obligations of the contract just as if he were in the shoes of the original seller. If that is the purpose, and it seems to be, I hope that the Courts deal kindly with it because it's sadly needed in this society.

Motion agreed to.

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

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

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

HON. I.P. DAWSON (Mackenzie): Mr. Speaker, for the last two and a half years a complete study, as far as possible, into the problems of the hard-of-hearing in this Province has been carried on and you will recall that, last year, I introduced a bill to this House entitled An Act Respecting Hearing-aid Dealers and Consultants. The bill was No. 66, but was not proceeded with, pending study of a report being prepared by the Consumer Affairs Department of Ottawa. The report was expected to be released in February but, in fact, was not available until May. During the past year, following the study of the Consumer Affairs Department

[ Page 660 ]

report, which, incidentally, recommends that the Provincial Governments pass legislation of this kind, I have met with individuals, with professional groups and groups that are interested in and concerned with matters regarding hearing.

As a result of these studies and discussions, I've introduced again to this House, this Session, a new bill entitled Hearing-aid Regulations Act. As with Bill No. 66, last year, the purpose of this new bill is to regulate individuals engaged in the hearing-aid industry. It is designed to control and raise standards in the industry so that anyone needing the aid of a hearing device will have the reassurance that either he or she is dealing with a firm or an individual properly qualified in the lines and terms of this legislation. Members will note that the act will be administered by a board and, while this board will bring to the industry the knowledge, the backgrounds and the skills which are necessary to provide and maintain a proficient hearing-aid service, provision is also provided for representation from the community at large. It is my first consideration and must be our first consideration that the public interest must be observed.

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

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

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, the subject matter of this bill is very important and I think it rather draws a division line between the other side of the House and this side of the House. Because we have…

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Any time. But the division line is pretty sharp in this case because, frankly, we think you should move in an entirely different direction. We think, here, you are regulating an industry but, really, you are setting up a board, which will be largely the industry, which will have power to stifle competition in the provision of hearing-aids to the people of this Province.

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

MR. MACDONALD: You're professionalizing the industry. Now, the background of this is that there are, of course, a great many people involved. The figures are sad. One child in ten will become hard-of-hearing. One senior citizen out of four needs a hearing device, today. The prices that are being paid today are exorbitantly high and, in many cases, rigged and tied into the provision of repair services, so that the hard-of-hearing person has to come back to the same business for expensive repair fixtures to his hearing device. I don't need to quote, possibly, more than the Minister herself without Portfolio, who said, in 1970… When? I think it's May 7 in the Colonist. The report said… Oh, this is the Ottawa report. "A proliferation of hearing-aid dealers in Canada has resulted in a retail mark-up of 100 to 230 per cent." This is the Ron Basford report in Ottawa, referring to great mark-ups in the industry. "Mrs. Dawson, Minister without Portfolio, when the last Bill was introduced, who had studied the high cost of hearing-aids on behalf of the Government, said the Bill is the first step in an effort to improve standards and service and to reduce costs of hearing-aids which she said have been excessive in many cases." Yet, the House should know that this bill will not, in any way, reduce the cost of hearing-aids but will increase those costs because you're steering out of the way competitors, you're going to have an industry group and we know pretty well who it will be.

AN HON. MEMBER: Self-interest group.

MR. MACDONALD: The existing industry, the Western Hearing-aid Alliance, or whatever they call themselves, will be the core of this thing, as they have in other industries, and I refer to optics and I refer to drugs, they will, and they will have the power under this act to prohibit advertising of prices to protect their price structure. Sure, that will follow. It has followed in the other industries. You give a private group, dealing commercially, the right to regulate its competitors and it regulates them out of business. They can't practice without coming to this new association and this new board.

AN HON. MEMBER: And then they rig everything.

MR. MACDONALD: And that's not going to reduce prices. That's going to maintain high, monopoly-fixed prices in the Province of British Columbia. You say you'll have clean advertising and fair advertising but, really, you're going to do the same thing that's true in the drug stores, today, prevent the advertising of prices and stifle competition in the industry. There's been the report, which supports what I've said, that was prepared for the Department of Industrial Development, Trade, and Commerce, in 1967, which supports the abuses in the industry, the poor service to the hard-of-hearing and the need for action. It points that out but, instead of moving the restriction of competition and placing control in the hands of a cosy trade association, even though you appoint the board, it's going to be a cosy trade association that runs this thing.

The other way to handle matters is so easy and that is to make provision for the provision of hearing-aids under your B.C. Medical Plan without charge. Break the high, monopoly fixed prices in this area. Examples I've given in this House, before, are just as true as they were, then. In Japan you can get a fine hearing-aid for $35 but you can't shop in Vancouver for the same thing under $400. Binoral hearing aids…

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

MR. MACDONALD: This wasn't nonsense in 1966. Now, there have been some changes but the mark-ups are still high and excessive. The Government's own report… I see my friend has his mike up and he's got his aid turned on and I think he's going to speak and he has knowledge in this field. But let me say this that the Government's own report, in 1968, said, "A Government report tabled in the Legislature, Wednesday, says the retail mark-ups on conventional hearing-aids sold in Victoria and Vancouver are as much as 306 per cent of the wholesale price." And lots of people with high pressure advertising are paying just that kind of a fancy price and having to come back for repairs and be whipped again. The Kefauver probe in the United States showed how the manufacturers rigged prices and dealer mark-ups, with mark-ups running from 186 per cent to 304 per cent. So we say

[ Page 661 ]

that you should move in the other direction, that some of these necessary devices for good and helpful living should be provided under our medical services as part of our medical plans, that we can import serviceable, cheap, the best equipment at a fraction of the cost that the private industry is charging the victims of hard hearing at the present time, that we can, in Vancouver, as part of our secondary industry, manufacture these devices and make them freely available as part of medicare. For that reason, I oppose the bill because I think you're moving the wrong way. You're restricting competition and we say that you should move toward the provision of this kind of a service to people, without charge, as part of our social security, as part of our medical plans.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Skeena.

MR. D.G. LITTLE (Skeena): Mr. Speaker, I was interested in the remarks that were made by the last speaker. This is a logical conclusion I suppose to draw when you don't know what you're talking about. The trouble with hearing-aids, and I've worn one now for several years, is that this is a very specialized deficiency that a person has. We have our five senses and, if you need glasses, you go to an optometrist. If you have a sore throat or there's something wrong with your taste, you go to a doctor and so on. But, for some unknown reason, the sense of hearing — anyone can sell you a hearing-aid.

I have seen hearing-aids sold to people who are over 85 years old and they were sold by Eaton's at that time. They weren't even fitted to the ear. The person who bought the aid was so nervous that she couldn't even turn the aid on. The controls were too small for her to be able to handle and she was charged $276 and never, at any time, did this fit her ear or were the tubes even cut so she could put it on her ear properly because these have to be fitted to the ear. I took this to Eaton's and told them how ridiculous it was. I'm happy to say that I pointed out to them, "Satisfaction guaranteed or money refunded," and they never hesitated. They paid back $276 for that aid that was sold which was never right at any time.

Now, we talk about restricting competition and this is the thing that has to be done. The thing that's wrong with hearing-aids and, in Victoria, I could name two…You have two specialists here in Victoria on hearing-aids who are as fine as you will find anywhere in Canada. There are two but how many have you got selling hearing-aids? You have about 20. The trouble is that the cream is siphoned off by the people who don't get service and don't know what they're doing until these other people have a difficulty making a living. If the hearing-aids were handled by audiologists, who know what they're doing, they would have a larger volume and consequently people would be able to buy their aids for much less than they're paying at the present time. Also, you would have skilled and trained people who were fitting these aids, which would be able to give service to the public that they should have.

Now, let's not get carried away that competition is going to be the solution for cheap aids. The poorest thing that you could do for a person and the worst thing that could happen is to sell him a cheap aid that doesn't work. This is no answer. I've just gone through a special deal, because I was a sawyer in a saw mill and for ten years stood listening to the whistling and high hum of saws, my ears expel the high notes. So, I have an odd circumstance in hearing insofar as that the noises in my ear are killed on high notes. So, with a man's normal voice I can speak and carry on a conversation without a hearing-aid but when I get into the higher tones, which the women usually have, then I have difficulty in hearing, and the nerves…(laughter). You can always make signs, you know. There's a way. You can make signs. However, they have discovered that the nerves in my ears are dead on the high notes so, consequently, I have to have an aid that will pick up the higher notes and not boost the lower ones. This is where the specialist comes in. This is the man who can fit the audiogram, decide on where your deficiency is and the type of aid that you should use. There is no way that the average person selling hearing-aids is able to do this. He doesn't know enough about it. He doesn't even have the proper aid to do this.

Mr. Speaker, I had a Vicon hearing-aid that I've had satisfaction with for a few years. Now, the hearing-aid that's one of the very popular hearing aids is Philips which is made in Holland, as you know, and I've recently tried it. Every two years I have two hearing-aids and I update them so I've been getting two aids while I'm down here this time. Neither of the former aids that I had, or the Philips, is giving the satisfaction that I want. Now I find that a Unitron hearing-aid, that is made here in Canada, is suiting me better than either of the other aids that I've used. This is something that I've been working on for two months while I've been here and just now, for the first time, I feel that I have the aid that I need and how, then, when it takes me two months and I know my problem and a specialist knows my problem and it takes two months to fit an aid, how, then, can the Opposition say we need more competition where anybody can sell aids and you can go in and buy them at a reduced rate all over town. Let us remember and keep one thing in mind. If we are going to give satisfaction to elderly people, or whoever it is, we must go to an audiologist who knows what the score is, we must support him, we must allow him to sell hearing-aids in volume so that he, too, can make a proper living.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Oak Bay.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to amplify a few of the points made by the previous speaker. I strongly support this bill, its basic aim being to elevate standards of investigation of hearing difficulties and providing the appropriate type of treatment, if such type of treatment is, in fact, available. By and large, human beings are subject to two types of deafness: one type can be helped by a hearing-aid and the other cannot. The main purpose of this bill is to eliminate the unscrupulous individual who will sell a hearing-aid, very often, to an elderly person who does not understand anything about it and, consequently, gains little benefit and has to go to considerable expense. It is my conviction that, while this bill like any other first bill in a new area is breaking new ground, it may not have all the answers. Time will tell on that account. But I think the very important point which this House should understand and which the people of British Columbia should understand is that the question of hearing difficulty is a very complicated one which requires highly skilled investigation before anyone can even tell you whether a hearing-aid is indicated. There are, unfortunately, many people with deafness, where a hearing-aid is no more use to them than is a kite. On the other hand, of the classification of people who can benefit

[ Page 662 ]

from a hearing-aid, as the former speaker has just pointed out, there are many variations and many changes in their hearing deficit, which vary from person to person. The matter of defining these requires a great deal of skill and training on the part of either the specialist and the so-called otolaryngologist, which is a big, long confusing word, but this is a doctor who has taken further specialist training of four years in length to become a specialist in hearing problems. We've even gone further and this brings me back very quickly to some of the points I made last night. We now have otologists, doctors who not only specialize in ear, nose and throat but, having specialized in ear, nose and throat, go on to specialize still further in this very complicated and highly technical field of hearing deficits. We also now have surgical procedures which can help deafness, which I think I mentioned briefly last night and it's worth just mentioning again. Until the deaf person has had a proper investigation and evaluation by such a skilled and knowledgeable individual, it may be that a hearing-aid is no good but it may be amenable to surgery of one kind or another. It should be made plain that all these investigations, which I'm mentioning, are available under our medicare coverage, no matter whichever medical plan you have. If you go to your general practitioner, or family physician, with a hearing problem you can be referred to the specialist. All the tests and all the investigations that I've just mentioned are covered under medicare (interruption).

Well, wait a minute. I'll get to that in a big hurry. I feel that this bill, if it does nothing else…that's a poor way to put it…it will do a great deal more. But one of the things the bill, in itself, will do is to educate the public, I hope, inasmuch that, with no disrespect to anyone, the patient often comes to the office and because they're deaf they immediately think of a hearing-aid. I've even had patients where I've told them that, having had the tests, they cannot expect to benefit from a hearing-aid. To my amazement, they still go ahead and buy a hearing-aid and they come and complain to me because it doesn't help them. Now, I am not trying to debase anyone or to preach to them, I'm just saying that the human individual who has any defect or illness or deficiency, very naturally, seeks assistance. It is not always possible for the sick person to accept no for an answer. Therefore, any protection or additional protection which we can give, particularly elderly citizens, in the area of hearing aids is, in my opinion, very well worth while.

I would agree with the First Member from Vancouver East that one of the steps we must attempt to take is to finance, under some form of Government subsidy, and I don't know exactly how, or whether, in total, or in part, or by premium, or what have you, but I would agree with him that anything the Government can do to make the devices, the hearing-aids, readily available to, very often, elderly pensioners who have great difficulty in financing them at the present time, must surely be one of our aims. As I pointed out last night there is a diversity of other urgent medical needs in the population, which I must say, quite plainly, I consider have priority over the financing of hearing-aid needs at this time. But it must surely be one of the longer-term aims of this Government in providing a total spectrum of health coverage.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Yale-Lillooet.

MR. HARTLEY: It's very interesting, Mr. Speaker, to sit here and listen to some of the arguments being put up by the so-called, self-called, free enterprises but, really, they are corporate enterprises. I would challenge the Government, particularly the lady Member for Mackenzie, to give one example of where this sort of a closed-shop, pseudo-professional society has lowered the cost and improved the service to the consuming public of this Province. Now, it's a challenge. It's a challenge, when you conclude this, or at the next reading. If you can come forward with some evidence, then, maybe, we can review our thinking and our attitude on this.

Now, from our point of view, we have seen various groups come to us, all the way from the landscape gardeners, the dental mechanics, the opticians. They said that theirs was a specialized field and they wanted to provide greater competition. How do you provide competition when you build a great protective umbrella in this fashion? You form a professional or a trade combine, where you hide behind Provincial legislation. This is precisely what will happen. In reading certain consumer information, it would indicate that hearing-aids are available at a fraction, maybe, a tenth of the price that people are now paying in this Province. I have to agree, and with pleasure, with our Member from Oak Bay. I believe he is on the right track that we have National health. This is a health problem. Here, the people who do understand your health, your hearing problem, they decide whether there's something that can be assisted and remedied with a proper appliance and, through their paramedical assistance, have the appliance fitted. Many of the people who suffer from this are not all senior citizens but many of them are. We feel that the public service should be extended, not only to provide these appliances to the people who need them, as a health care, but a paramedical facility should work hand-in-glove with the doctors to see that a proper job is done and, through public service, a low-cost, efficient, proper appliance be made available and that they work with audiologists and so on. To me, this proposal, made by the Member from Mackenzie, impresses me that she's being led down the garden path to corporate enterprise, that it really isn't free enterprise at all. It's trying to build another Social Credit corporate enterprise for the corporate elite that we already have.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Alberni.

MR. H.R. McDIARMID (Alberni): Mr. Speaker, I never cease to be amazed at some of the postures that come from the Opposition. Here we are. They get up, time after time, in terms of talking about consumer protection and how the poor people are put upon by the manufacturers and by the free enterprise system and how they have no protection. You know, Mr. Speaker, from experience, and just to carry on a little bit with what the Member from Oak Bay had to say, there probably isn't any group of people with an affliction in the world that is any more desperate than the hard-of hearing. You know, they want to believe, against all odds, against all rationality, against all advice, that they can hear again. These people are suckers, like you would never believe, to a slick-talking salesman, who is telling them something that they want to hear. To hear those people get up and say that this is the sort of thing that they want to see perpetuated in the Province of British Columbia, to me, is absolutely incredulous. That's exactly, Mr. Speaker, what they're saying, because there isn't a group of people, anywhere, that needs to be more protected against

[ Page 663 ]

themselves. I say this in all sincerity, because they want to believe so badly that somebody can help them that they're ready to fall for any line. They're ready to follow anybody who is able to hold out any promise that they can be helped when, in fact, those people are ill-trained, in fact, may be con men of the worst sort, who, in fact, are (interruption). It's exactly what is happening in the Province today. If anybody should know it, you should. That's why I find your position so indefensible. You go on to say that what we should really do is to provide these free under our health system. I would have to agree with you that if there were enough funds that this, ideally, is exactly what we should do. We should provide glasses to everybody. Why should we provide hearing-aids to people, who are deaf, any more than we should provide glasses to people who cannot see, or teeth to people who cannot chew, or legs to people who cannot walk or whatever? The facts of the matter are that you got up just the other day under medical care costs, and said these things are going out of sight and we've got to get something done about it. If we still believe that some people are responsible for looking after their own responsibilities in terms of some afflictions that come to them, then, until such time as we are really able to look after people, in terms of our Gross National Product and the monies available, why should we selectively pick out the deaf any more than we should the blind or the halt or the lame or anybody else? The one thing really when you get right down to it, this is what I find… The First Member from Vancouver East, Mr. Speaker, usually, is a responsible Member of the House…

AN HON. MEMBER: You take that back.

MR. McDIARMID: That was a compliment. I don't know what happened to him today, Mr. Speaker, but I would have to say, in all honesty, in trying to be as non-partisan as I can, that there is no Member… Now, listen, and you might just agree with me, that there's no Member in this House, in terms of what she has done, who has rendered more help, comfort and assistance to the elderly people of British Columbia than the Minister who is sitting right there. For you to suggest that that Minister is going to turn around and betray the old people of this Province, I think, is a position that even you must have to look at and reconsider. You know, Mr. Speaker, from all sides, who else has gone around and visited every old age pensioners' group in this Province? What Member can stand up and say that he's done that? What I want to say is that this particular Minister, in fact, has gone around and has talked to the old people and they know what the problems are. This is the Member who's responsible for this bill. What I'm saying is that, under this bill, the Government, in fact, has the responsibility for appointing control as far as this board is concerned. I think you have to take some things on faith. Maybe, you think that we really have brought this in to try and make it more profitable for the manufacturers of hearing-aids. If that really is your cynical philosophy, I would have to say that you're, absolutely, not 100 per cent, but 200 per cent, or 300 per cent wrong, because I believe in the integrity of that Minister, not because of what she said but, in fact, what she does. It's not what you say, it's what you demonstrate or you're prepared to do on behalf of the old people of this Province. So, Mr. Speaker, without hesitation, as a medical person with some knowledge of this thing, I support this bill wholeheartedly.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, while I wipe away the tears from my eyes on behalf of the senior citizens of British Columbia, there is a vote. If you want to have a vote, call No. 8, Bill 8 on the Order Paper and we'll see how the Honourable Minister without Portfolio votes (interruption). We'll see how they all vote when the opportunity comes to provide $200 a month to the old age pensioners.

MR. SPEAKER: Can we get back to Bill 35?

MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Speaker, he was way off the bill. I thought I'd just debate what he was debating, without you calling him to order. But, since there's been enough dispute with other people not being able to stay in order, I'll go back to the bill, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as the years go by, we see the wonderful Member from Oak Bay mellow. He came into this House and on this kind of legislation would say, "You know, we've got to stop the monster of socialism that lifts its hand across the pale of British Columbia," and the Member would say, "Socialism is a dangerous device." Then, he said today, "Some day, we may have to pay for these hearing-aids." We say, "Some day is now, Mr. Speaker, now." When do you define illnesses on the basis of the ability to pay? We deal with total human beings, not with ear lobes or eyes or arms or legs. This kind of legislation is the kind of legislation to protect a small group of people, like many others, who make money out of human misery, Mr. Speaker, the kind of attitude that we separate, under legislation, prosthetic attachments and appliances or aids to people who are ill. All this should be covered under a comprehensive medical plan that's properly developed and available to people. To come into the House and say, on the one hand, that it's a valid argument that we should have hearing-aids but we don't have the money right now when $10,000 spent by the Minister of Trade and Industry, travelling around the world doing nothing, would have bought a lot of hearing-aids, Mr. Speaker, a lot of hearing-aids. The amount of money squandered by the various Cabinet junkets could have bought hearing-aids for the people who need it. To hear these grand statements about, "Oh, it's a step forward. We know what the old age pensioners need." They don't need tea and crumpets. They need some understanding and some action by this Government.

Now, the bill itself. Why are we opposed to the bill? Because we don't believe in building some kind of protective little group that still charges those exorbitant rates for hearing-aids that sell in Great Britain for one tenth of what they're selling for here. Those hearing-aids are available in Great Britain under a medical health scheme at one tenth the cost, and that Member over there…

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BARRETT: "I've revised this antisocialist feeling." I expect you'll be up waving on behalf of those people who manufacture. But we stand clear on this, Mr. Speaker. We do not believe in legislative protection for anybody who wants to make money out of human illness. It's the same thing we feel about Sandringham Hospital, the same thing we believe about that. Just to put this on the challenge, Mr. Speaker…sure, we'll get the chance, you bet your life. So will you, because the Honourable Member from Vancouver East will

[ Page 664 ]

be bringing in another bill and you will see that there's notice of it on the Order Paper for that bill already. We'll see how you vote when that time comes. In the meantime, we're not prepared to go along with the idea of protecting another group.

Certainly, there's a measure of progress in this bill. There's a move towards standards. Certainly, there's a move towards standards but, if it takes you that long to get to move to standards, how long is it going to take you to get to the point of providing appliances for people in need? Why don't you go all the way? Why don't you bring in a bill that says this and other appliances and needs will be put into legislation, as protection, as part of a total insurance plan. I'm getting sick and tired of seeing the human body being carved up and pieces being treated on the basis of their illness, rather than the total person receiving a total service on the basis of their need, not on the basis and needs of the legislation.

The medical profession itself has to re-examine, as the doctor said, its approach. They have specialists examining specialists, who might become specialists if they pass the other specialists' exams. The Member has made it very clear. The medical profession has divided itself into so many categories and it is looking upon medical plans as a means to guarantee their income, rather than their basic purpose of providing comprehensive medical schemes to the people in need. I praise the Member from Vancouver East. He first spoke of this some eight years ago in this House. Eight years ago he raised this matter in this House. He has been a man who has followed this problem right through his time here in this Legislature. I'll stand with him and I'll stand with him when he brings in his bill next week. We'll see where you stand, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

HON. D.R.J. CAMPBELL (Comox): Mr. Speaker, I hadn't intended to speak on this bill after the Honourable Member for Alberni had said most of the words that I wanted to say about my colleague from across the water in Mackenzie. But, after listening to the Leader, I couldn't resist myself. It's obvious, Mr. Speaker, that the rest did not do the Leader any good. He enunciated a very strange principle here this afternoon and that strange principle is not unusual for the Members opposite and that strange principle is that you get up and you say, at least, one or two nice things about a policy and, then, Mr. Speaker, you make this decision, in principle, to vote against it. Now, the exact words of the Leader were that this was a measure of progress.

AN HON. MEMBER: Policy.

MR. CAMPBELL: No, you didn't say that. "This was a measure of progress." Now, today, the NDP are going to be classified amongst those who will stand in their place being against a measure of progress. I know, Mr. Speaker, that the Liberal Party will not do that. This will be one vote when they will join with this side of the House. That's a prediction. I'm predicting that because I see a glimmer of intelligence over there this afternoon, just a glimmer.

Mr. Speaker, I had not assumed this afternoon that my colleague, the Minister without Portfolio, would have been inflicted or afflicted with, particularly, the speech by the Honourable the First Member from Vancouver East and the Member for Yale-Lillooet, because what are the facts of this case? The facts are that there was a great deal of silence in this House about this question of hearing-aids until the Member for Mackenzie came into this Legislature and the Member for Skeena came into this Legislature and, Mr. Speaker…(Interruption).

MR. SPEAKER: Order.

MR. CAMPBELL: I think it would be very proper to say that the Member for Mackenzie and the Member for Skeena represent both the mother and father position insofar as this legislation is concerned. But what happened here, Mr. Speaker, is that all of the information that the Member for Vancouver East talked about in this Legislature this afternoon — the costs, the crooked deals, the crooked dealers — all of these things were enunciated by this Minister whom, you suggest, is not going to apply the principles of regulation enunciated in this bill. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that that is a pretty low blow, a pretty low blow.

Mr. Speaker, it was this Minister who went around British Columbia and gave hope to the old age pensioner organizations. Not only did this Minister go around and give hope to the old age pensioner organizations, but this Minister was the first Minister in Canada to tell the old age pensioners, "Let us get together in the form of a co-operative." You never mentioned that. You didn't have the kindness to mention in this House that there's nothing within this bill that prevents the co-operative approach organized by the old age pensioners, themselves, a distribution company organized by the old age pensioners, themselves. You never mentioned that this Minister already has laid the groundwork for this. You keep talking about big industry and you keep talking about monopoly industry. Never once did you indicate, and I know that you know it, that the Minister has already taken this proposition down the road of co-operatives and the co-operative involved is the organization of the old age pensioners, themselves. But you didn't want to mention that. You didn't want to give that information to the people of the Province of British Columbia. You still wanted to mislead the people of the Province of British Columbia. That was the name of the game this afternoon. Well, that's not going to be the name of the game this afternoon. The name of the game, this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, is that you're going to stand up, in all your criticism, and you're going to have to vote against this progressive measure. That's what the name of the game is.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Well, Mr. Speaker, I hadn't been going to say anything at all until the Minister of Municipal Affairs insulted our Party by suggesting he detected a glimmer of intelligence. If we've got…(interruption). I certainly feel that it's kind of an insult from the Minister of Municipal Affairs…because our idea of intelligence and his has a very wide discrepancy indeed.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that we have come to a rather pathetic state in British Columbia if we have to set up a whole complicated board to deal with a very simple question, such as hearing-aids. If we have had a problem over the years, and I believe we have had a problem, surely, there are simpler solutions than this.

[ Page 665 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, there is a very simple solution and I wish the Government would seek it, namely, to bring in these instruments and make them available to the people who need them, not set up some complicated kind of board. It's just positively ridiculous and we can't accept this plethora of bureaucracy when the Government has adequate funds available and an enormous Treasury, made up of tax money and, simply, cannot move to provide the sort of prosthetic appliances that these older people in British Columbia require. It's no way to treat the senior citizens. It's poor government. It's bad bureaucracy and we're against it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burnaby-Edmonds.

MR. DOWDING: Mr. Speaker, for years in the Private Bills Committee, the Members of that committee, for the past 15 years that I can recall, have refused to set up these little commercial empires that are dignified by Statutes that they seek by private acts of the Legislature. Talk about inconsistency on that side of the House…the Minister who just spoke, time after time, in Private Bills Committee has come out against these private empires being established in favour of certain commercial groups.

MR. CAMPBELL: Point of Order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just one moment. What is your Point of Order?

MR. CAMPBELL: My Point of Order is that I find it disgraceful conduct that you talk about my position in camera on the Private Bills Committee (interruption).

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order.

MR. CAMPBELL: It's your usual disgraceful performance.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order. Will the honourable Minister be seated?

MR. DOWDING: The Honourable the Minister is now denying what the decisions of the Private Bills Committee have been over the years. He knows what the recommendation has been, year after year, by the Private Bills Committee. If he didn't agree with the Private Bills Committee on these little empires, then, he should have said so in the House when the reports came in, year after year. What was he doing? He was derelict in his duty, if he believed that these empires should be set up for private monopoly. It's obvious from his statements that he defends the idea of private monopoly that will reinforce, as if sprinkling with holy water, some of the crookedness that has gone on in the sale of hearing-aids. The reason I say that is simple. The hearing-aid mark-up is so disgraceful that, in effect, it becomes a racket. How do you cure the racket? You're going to set up a board that will, in effect, legitimize the prices!

How in the world, under this legislation, can you set the prices? There's nothing in here to regulate the racket, nothing to control the prices. What you're going to do is legitimize what has been an illegitimate operation for years. Other countries and this Government, both have, by their philosophy, adopted a contrary position to the bill, when it comes to other things that have to do with senior citizens. For example, the tendency, now, is to go for the dollar-a-day, chronic care programmes instead of private hospitals. Now, for years, this Government supported what could only be described as a racket, in some cases, in feeding off the senior citizens to private hospitals that exploited the situation, the illness and misery of elderly patients and charged exorbitant rates to keep them. The Government has come round to a wiser and more benevolent philosophy in this regard, believing that chronic care and the care of elderly citizens, who are chronically ill, should be a charge upon the public purse. Now, if you believe that philosophy, then, when you find a racket such as hearing-aids, where the mark-up can be anywhere from four to ten times the original wholesale price, God knows how far it is above the manufacturing price, then, you're prepared to do one thing to help senior citizens, but not in this very vital area of their hearing-aids are you prepared to intervene and make it into a benefit under the medical aid plan. I find this extraordinary because most of these prosthetics in Great Britain are covered, including spectacles. It's true they have a fee, in some cases, now, to discourage any abuse of the system but, in the main, they've eliminated the fraud, they've eliminated the racket. You're not prepared to do that. What you're doing is sprinkling holy water over the practice.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, it's been my privilege, over the years, to witness the performance of the lady Minister and I join with the other Members who have spoken so highly of her performance. It's because of that knowledge that I find it difficult that she would have brought this bill forward because the principle of this bill is one which follows the principles which this Government espouses, equality for everybody — unless you happen to be ill, mentally or physically, or have some affliction. Then, the equality ends. We find this in the attitudes of the Government towards hospital care and, now, we're finding it in this respect, as well, in regard to these appliances. In an attempt to resolve this strange, philosophical difficulty in which they find themselves, they are bringing in an act which will put the foxes in a chicken house. They are going to let these people, who are involved in all these serious problems, regulate their own affairs — they're going to be the board.

AN HON. MEMBER: And their prices.

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, and their prices. As a matter of fact, it's interesting when you look into the bill and find that the industry, apparently, is in such bad shape that they are all going to be bonded. Well, Mr. Speaker, if this is the state that this industry is in and, if it needs to be regulated at all, then, it should be regulated by the Government. The Government has never shirked from applying regulations in other fields. We've got it in real estate, we've got it in collection agents, we've got it, surely to come before us, in mortgage brokers, insurance, private detectives. All of these fields, which are of serious concern to the general public and where there is the possibility of harm being done if there are improper practices — in those areas the Government has stepped in, provided the regulations, provided for the bonding and provided for the controls. But, here, we find that, in a situation…the

[ Page 666 ]

honourable Members who are in the medical profession, the Member from Alberni and from Oak Bay, have spoken about this serious problem that exists and, particularly, for the older people in our community who are susceptible to the impositions of those who are in this business to make a buck. That's where we need regulations and it's the Government that should take this responsibility to regulate, if it is not prepared to take the responsibility of making these devices available under our medical care scheme.

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

MR. TISDALLE: The previous speaker endeavours to make some sense, but he mentioned the real estate people in respect to the act setting up their organization or a board from amongst themselves as being foxes in with the chickens. But, in the Real Estate Act, we have the people in the industry disciplining themselves and the regulations, and I don't see that that adds up at all. This man, who is a legal man, knows that the industry, the real estate industry, has done a good job of disciplining their members and have continued to do.

AN HON. MEMBER: You don't know what you're talking about.

MR. TISDALLE: Well, I don't think that you made yourself very plain, then, because that was what you were talking about — supervision. I think in an industry, whether it's the teaching profession, or whatever it might be, should be responsible and if we give them the authority, they must have responsibility. I think this is a good step in the right direction to get an industry that will be responsible for having the authority that is invested in it.

I don't buy this thread-bare argument of the socialists who come forth all the time wanting to recycle the wealth of the people through the Government and, then, back again and try to be an equalizing fact on their own. It only evaporates our purchasing power and bureaucracy of the administration. What we want to do is to create guidelines, set up the rules for the industry itself and, then, as it is capable of managing its own affairs, probably, Government can withdraw more and more. I believe that the policy and the programme of Government is the one who governs least, and the people, themselves, through their own agencies, whether privately controlled or not, are able to discipline themselves. I'm looking forward to the people involved to conduct themselves in a more proper manner, both in the financial charging for these things and also in the fitting and the approval for the person's benefit. I believe the bill will do that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kootenay.

MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, you know this Government moves around in mysterious ways. When it comes to the working people and trade unions or school teachers, you take the opposite direction completely and you try to disband them and have them fighting one another. But when it comes to big business, then, you move in and you give them absolute control, not of their own efforts but you give them a monopoly on selling some article. This is exactly what you're doing in this bill. I'm sure that the Honourable the Minister without Portfolio, had she heard this argument before this bill was brought to this House, that she wouldn't have brought it forward the way it was. In all the years that I've been here, Mr. Speaker, I've watched these little empires being built. They come in with bills and, in each and every case, when they come to the House, they come and they want to organize and they say that they're doing it for the benefit of the people. They want to protect the public. The accountants did it, the real estate men did it, the pharmacists did it, the doctors did it, the lawyers did it. Show me one of them where it has brought about a cheaper product to the people. It hasn't brought anything. I think that the Honourable the Minister has been led down the garden path by a group of self-interested people. They're interested in getting as much as they can but, in the first place, they've got to get their foot in the door. They've got to get this organization going where they can discipline themselves, where they can set their own prices, where they can say who can sell and who can't sell. The whole picture is right down their line, selling just their own product of their own hands…no, it isn't their own product. They don't manufacture hearing-aids. The Government can bring in hearing-aids and set up a committee to handle the hearing aids under the medical scheme, just as well as anybody else. All that these people do are selling the hearing-aids. They're selling the hearing-aids and, I say, that you're just building up another empire. If the Government wants to regulate the prices and regulate the hearing-aid business, they should do it but, I say, in everything. I don't think that a group of doctors should say that if somebody applies to them that they've got the say and they can keep the supply of doctors according to the demand, or the people who are selling hearing-aids they can keep in accordance with supply and demand. This is what they're worried about. They're not worried about giving the old people a hearing-aid at a cheaper price. If the Honourable the Minister without Portfolio was sold on this idea, if she were sold and I think she was then, I think she should think it over again, because the confidence people who go around the country can talk some people into almost anything. They can lead you down the garden path quite easily.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, it's happened.

MR. NIMSICK: When we look at all the empires we've got set up — this Province is full of them, and every one of them, you can't break into them. They're absolutely closed shops as far as business goes. You're just adding one more to the whole list of closed shops in business. Yet, you people say that you want free enterprise. You talk about free enterprise all the time. My goodness, this isn't free enterprise. I think the Government should move in with regulations on the hearing-aid business, that they should… These people who are selling the hearing-aids are the kingpins. They're the ones who are going to rule the roost and say who is going to sell hearing-aids and all the rest of it, and how much they're going to charge. The Government will have nothing to say about the prices.

AN HON. MEMBER: Have you read the bill?

MR. NIMSICK: Yes, I've read the bill. There's nothing to say about the prices. Have you read the bill? I doubt it very much because if you had read the bill you wouldn't have given the talk that you gave a few minutes ago. You wouldn't have given that talk a few minutes ago if you had understood

[ Page 667 ]

the bill. Instead of across the room, here, in this Legislative Chamber, Mr. Speaker, advise the Honourable Minister to come out in the room outside and I'll give him the facts of life about this bill. I say, Mr. Speaker, that this bill is, definitely, nothing more nor less than building an empire around another group of people who will have the say. While, at the first start, you may think that they're doing something, eventually, it will be an absolutely closed organization. They will have set their prices where they like and the older people, the elderly people, who need the service, are going to pay for it. This is one more case of this Government bleeding the elderly people.

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

MRS. DAWSON: Mr. Speaker, I must say I think we've enjoyed this debate this afternoon. It does surprise me, though, that this bill has lain on the table for a year. The members of the Opposition have been quite aware of this bill and expected it to be presented again this year. I'm surprised that, during all this time and all this year, I have never received one letter of protest from the Opposition. I have, however, Mr. Speaker, received letters from Silver Threads services and old age pensioner organizations throughout the Province. They are interested in it and they are all saying that they hope that this bill will go through because they want to…as one man said, "It should cover all the contingencies and prevent the fleecing of people, particularly elderly ones and pensioners." This is what this is going to do, Mr. Speaker, and so I say that, while the debate has been good, I would, at this time, move second reading.

The House divided.

Motion agreed to on the following division:

YEAS — 35

Messieurs

NAYS — 14

Messieurs

PAIR:

Messieurs

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

MR. BENNETT: Second reading of Bill No. 36, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Bill 36, An Act to Amend the Revised Statutes Act, 1966. The Honourable the Attorney-General.

MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, in 1966, the Revised Statutes Act was passed to provide for a revision of the Provincial Statutes. This revision was to include all legislation passed by this Assembly up to and including last year, the year 1970. The bill before you would now extend that revision up to and including the year 1973. The reason for the extension of time is that we want to take advantage of new methods. We want to take advantage of the computers now being introduced into the Legislative Counsel's Office. We've recently received a machine that produces current Statutes on tape. This is the first step. The next step is to place the text of all the present Statutes of the Province on tape and following this, then, the revision can be effected. Once this revision has been completed, that this bill refers to, in my view, there will not be a need for any further dicennial revisions as we've had in the past. There will not be a need for the expenditure of producing the revised Statutes every ten years or so, but we'll be able to keep them up to date as we move along. They'll be on computers and instead of this type of Statute we will have looseleaf, so your Statutes would always be up to date. This is the reason for the delay. We are at work on it, now, but we feel it will take this length of time to do all the Statutes and put them all on computers; hence, we want to bring up all the amendments to and including the 1973 Session. I move the bill be read a second time.

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

MR. DOWDING: You've diffused me completely. I was about to criticize the Attorney-General for the delay because we try to have these revisions every 12 years and we're going to be beyond that. It is becoming laborious for everyone who is not blessed by a looseleaf Statute, to try to find his way through all the revisions that have taken place in a period of 11 or 12 years. Both the Attorney-General and myself had the honour to serve on the committee that served on the last revisions, along with Mr. Bonner. It's rather a relief to realize that, possibly, the Statutes are going to go through on tapes. I hope they go through the Legislative Chamber on their way to being law. If you're going to use computers to make the revisions, I hope we'll be consulted before the computers get hold of the handiwork of some of the Ministers across the way. I was thinking in this regard to an amendment on the Public Schools Act, which is grossly in error, at the moment, but I hope it will be corrected before we get to that bill.

We support the proposal but I would urge the Attorney-General that he make available to the Members the method by which such a constant revision will be made available and

[ Page 668 ]

how the computer system will work so that we have some general idea about the efficiency of the system that is proposed, that will eliminate further revisions after 1973. I think we should know how this is going to come about so that we can understand that it will be a safe and sure method of continuing to keep our Statutes up to date from year to year, because errors can occur. As a matter of fact, I got tired of checking through the revisions the last time and was hopeful that my other committee members would do the rest of the Statutes from the M's onward. I got through to the M's and, then, what do you know? There was an error in the N's. I should have gone on to the Z's (interruption). Well, I trusted the Honourable the Attorney-General. I thought he was going to do from the N's to the Z's.

Motion agreed to.

Bill 36 read a second time and Ordered to be placed on the Orders of the Day for committal at the next sitting after today.

MR. BENNETT: Second reading of Bill No. 38, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Bill 38, Mortgage Brokers Act. The Honourable the Attorney-General.

MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, during the period of high interest rates that have persisted now for some time, there has been a marked increase in the number of people and companies that have been engaged in lending money on the security of mortgages. Members of this Chamber and members of the public, generally, have come forward with complaints of instances where they have been quoted a certain interest rate, with no reference to a bonus provision. Much to their amazement, they find that they're going to be faced with a bonus, as well as interest charges, or, in other cases, quoted different interest rates than those which obtain in the mortgage itself. So it is with this situation in mind that we have drafted and introduced this particular bill.

There are two major principles to the bill: one involves registration, the registration of those who are in the business, the mortgage broker, and the second important principle is the full disclosure of mortgage costs. Part one, which is the registration provision, requires registration of every person and company in the mortgage business. This register will be public, including the names and addresses. As well, you will have noticed that there are provisions relating to transfer of interest so that these require notice being given to the registrar. In addition, the registrar is given powers of investigation, rather elaborate provisions in the bill, relating to his powers of investigation. Depending on the results of the investigation, certain action can be taken, including the suspension or cancellation of the registration of the mortgage broker. From the action taken by the registrar, there are appeals. There are appeals to the Securities Commission of the Province. A further appeal lies from the Securities Commission to the Court of Appeal.

The other part of the bill, part two, makes provision for full disclosure of the cost of borrowing money, which is secured by mortgage. Briefly, Mr. Speaker, the rule will be that, before a mortgage is made or an agreement for mortgage is completed, all costs have to be disclosed on a form which the honourable Members will find identified as the schedule to the bill, a schedule which is subject to change by order of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council and already we think there can be certain areas where that form can be improved. But the part will apply to all mortgages, except those made under the National Housing Act and where the mortgage is a corporate body and there are no individual liabilities. I might say, in this respect, that I have introduced… I introduced them today or they will be if I haven't put them already in, Mr. Speaker, certain amendments to this part of the bill, which I would ask the honourable Members to consider when we are in the committee stage. As well, this part of the bill is also subject to proclamation and will give us an opportunity to canvass the views of those involved as to how it will, in fact, work in practice.

Part three of the bill merely provides for the making of regulations. This, of course, is really an extension of what we have been doing in the field of consumer affairs. Under the Consumers' Protection Act we've improved the lot of the consumers. That act does not apply, generally speaking, to mortgages on land. This is to fill that void and we intend, in this bill, to effect the same improvement in the mortgage lending field as we have in the other areas of consumer affairs. Mr. Speaker, I move the bill be now read a second time.

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

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, we support the bill but we reserve the right to be inconsistent in the interests of the Province of B.C. and our constituents. But this bill does not do all the Attorney-General says it will do (interruption).

Oh, I'm talking not about his statement, today, but about the statement the other day that this would help to keep the Mafia out of the Province of British Columbia. In a sense, it's a good thing because there's disclosure here. But there isn't disclosure really of who will own the true owners — the mortgage broking companies. Because that's one step this Government will not take. Now, the bill says, to be sure, that if somebody owns more than 5 per cent of a corporation that's engaged in mortgage broking, that person's name must be divulged. But supposing that person is a Panamanian corporation or a Bahamian corporation, divulging the name is not going to mean anything to the people of B.C. It will be no protection to them to say that organized crime is being kept at bay — we have this name and we don't know who they are. How can you protect yourself against an unknown enemy?

We say that, in this kind of a field, as in many other fields of law, this Government must come to the point of compelling the real owners to stand up so that we can see who they are. Only in that way will we be able to combat the incursions of organized crime which, believe me, are going to increase in the next ten years, in the years of this decade. They're not going to subside and fade away. They're going to increase and the invasion will be on in the Province of British Columbia. They will be attracted here, and I think the Attorney-General agrees with this, by the high, the usuriously high interest rates which prevail in this Province and which are a product of a lack of housing policy by this Government and high rents by landlords. Really, the only social answer to this kind of thing, where people, to put together their house and avoid paying an exorbitant rent, and try and build up some equity for themselves, have got to go into the market, and I admit they may be able to get the $2,500 second mortgage, that helps too, but a lot of them are still driven out

[ Page 669 ]

into that market, where they must pay an excessively high rate of interest and a bonus. What good is it going to do those people, if the thing is disclosed to them, except to make them feel sick. They still have to go ahead with the deal. I think we exaggerate the fact that people, who are now paying these huge bonuses and these high interest rates, are going to benefit from disclosure. I think they know, now, right from the beginning that they're being had. I regret that the other act, the Consumers' Protection Act the unconscionable sections of it, are not really sufficient to protect consumers from exorbitantly high interest rates. Maybe that case is going to Ottawa (interruption). Well, they will make that, yes. Well, I hope you can, because the only ruling to date is the Court of Appeal saying that an interest rate which sounded very high, I think it was 18 per cent or more, was not gross and unconscionable. I hope that that case will either be appealed or that you will bring in the necessary legislation. Maybe you have, but this bill does not… No, that's another bill that I haven't studied, not this one. This one I have studied and this one does nothing to protect people from high interest rates and high bonuses. It provides, in many pages, merely for registration, for disclosure and, if you don't disclose, you're knocked off the registration. That's about all the bill amounts to. A little more than that. Oh, yes, fraudulent practices — but they're illegal, anyway (interruption).

Oh, I don't know. If you commit a fraudulent act or you don't register you can have an investigation. But the bill does not protect people from high bonuses and high interest rates. It does not tell the people of B.C. who are the true owners of these big mortgage broking firms.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Nanaimo.

MR. FJ. NEY (Nanaimo): Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to criticize the bill because it's not tough enough. I'd like to say that some people in the mortgage business think this is too tough and I'm talking now of reputable companies. During the last two or three days, I have had discussions with representatives of two nationally known trust companies and also a nationally known mortgage corporation. These are very reputable companies. They're all in favour of the bill. They think it's excellent and just what we need but, in its present character, the way the forms have to be filled in, they have told me that, unless there are some amendments made to change the character of the bill to cover trust companies and proper mortgage companies, it will take up to three months to process a mortgage. At a time when new housing is so badly needed in this Province, I sincerely hope that we will have some assurance, today, that the amendments to this bill are going to take care of these problems that are going to be involved with the proper mortgage corporations, which are now putting cash into the housebuilding field at this time in the Province of British Columbia.

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

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I gather from what the Attorney-General has said that we've got amendments on the table or about to be introduced by him on the table. This is a bill of very far-reaching consequence and so far as the obvious principles, which were enunciated by the Honourable the Attorney-General, there can be no objection. But I'm afraid that, involved in this bill, are many aspects which he didn't deal with, today. This bill has been distributed and is being considered by people with large experience in this field and, as yet, it has not been possible to have responses from this group. Indeed, many of the responses which they might be encouraged to make may be affected by the amendments which are before the Attorney-General. Therefore, I would move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion agreed to.

MR. BENNETT: Second reading of Bill 42, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill 42, An Act to Amend the Mines Regulation Act. The Honourable the Minister of Mines.

HON. F.X. RICHTER (Boundary-Similkameen): Mr. Speaker, two years ago we brought in certain amendments to the Mines Regulation Act. In those amendments, there were certain provisions for reclamation work and periods of time in which representation could be made in relation to reclamation projects. We found through experience that, while there was a 60-day period, we propose to definitely set out a period of time in which a representation can be made so that the necessary permit can be processed within the relative number of days set out in the original legislation. Along with that, there are some areas of overlapping between the jurisdictions of other departments, municipalities and the Mines Regulation Act. We propose, in the legislation in the bill, to define the areas of responsibility and, along with that, there are some rule changes, which are merely housekeeping rules that have been discussed with the union and the management. I move second reading at this time.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Member for Kootenay.

MR. NIMSICK: I'd like to move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion agreed to.

MR. BENNETT: Second reading of Bill 43, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill 43, An Act to Amend the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act, 1960. The Honourable the Minister of Mines.

MR. RICHTER: Mr. Speaker, in moving second reading of the amendments to the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act, through the years, we have had a provision for an arbitration board. The amendments proposed at this time merely are a form of housekeeping to take care of situations as they develop in the case of arbitrations. Along with that, there are other amendments in relation to the leasing of lands. The amendments would provide greater flexibility in the selection of properties and permits and this would bring about more efficiency and more flexibility in the Government handling of these forms of leases, and provide more opportunity in relation to reserves and dispositions of rights. I move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Arlin.

[ Page 670 ]

MR. CALDER: Mr. Speaker, I move adjournment of the debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion agreed to.

MR. BENNETT: Second reading of Bill 44, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill 44, An Act to Amend the Marriage Act. The Honourable Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance.

HON. R.R. LOFFMARK (Vancouver South): Mr. Speaker, there are two main points to be noted in this act. The first one relates to the time within which applications for marriage certificates may be submitted. It should be noted that, prior to the introduction of this bill, the minimum time which must lapse before a marriage can be performed after a certificate has been issued is five days. The rule as it now applies is that the application is made on the first day, then, there must be the passage of three clear days and the marriage may be performed on the fifth day. This is a little out of line with most other Provinces where the waiting period is one day, two days, or three days. This, in effect, brings our legislation and practice in conformity with what seems to be common across the rest of the country.

The second major point to be observed is that, as the law now stands, there is a rather cumbersome requirement in respect of a marriage commissioner's certificate to be issued in connection with civil marriages. The effect of these amendments brings the civil marriage procedure into line, I think, almost identical with that which would apply where the ceremony is performed by a clergyman. The longer waiting period has been removed and, where a civil marriage is performed, the application for a marriage license and the performance of the ceremony is on exactly the same basis. The other point, which is referred to in the explanatory notes, refers to the matter of consent, which may be authorized by the public trustee where the parent is mentally disordered. I move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I have some personal comments about this bill, which I'll make before I ask for adjournment. I have some very strong feelings about the period of time waiting for marriage. I don't believe that the State, in North America, is fulfilling its full obligation in its role in regulating marriage contracts. The State, both Federally and Provincially, determines the legal aspect of a marriage and the State determines the legal aspect of a divorce. The State, in this bill, is going to alter its legal condition where it will accept a marriage and, of course, the State, Federally, is involved in the legal conditions of a divorce.

My point, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister is that, if the State presumes to interfere at either end of the marriage contract, then, it has a moral obligation, it's not a legal obligation, it has a moral obligation to get involved in the area of premarital counselling. That should be written into law, in my opinion. It's my feeling that this legislation may be a step back. I've felt for some time that we might consider a six-weeks delay before a marriage, within that period of time the State providing premarital counselling as a mandatory precondition to marriage, counselling available at the choice of the two young people, or two older people, or the two people who are entering the contract, either from the church or from the Department of Welfare or from professional services available from a doctor or even a lawyer. I have misgivings about cutting down the time, serious misgivings. Marriage can be an impetuous move and the contract…

AN HON. MEMBER: When isn't it?

MR. BARRETT: When isn't it? Well, I'll tell you when it isn't — when there's been a six weeks' delay.

AN HON. MEMBER: When is it not?

MR. BARRETT: When is it not? When there is time… Love is a great thing. I am not going to knock it. I've been happily married for 18 years and I've enjoyed every one of those years very, very much, but we spent two years going around together before we got married (interruption).

Right. Especially when she had money, we went around together. The point, Mr. Speaker, is that, sometimes, if there isn't a period where some frank discussion takes place led by a third person… Parents use to play this role but, unfortunately, we've lost that. There was a time when the mother and the father or both…(interruption).

Well, they're even interfering with that now — the role of parents in that regard. There was a time when the family circle was much larger than just the young married couple. There were aunts and uncles and mothers and fathers on both sides of the family and, when a marriage took place, there was premarital advice freely given and freely rejected — freely given and freely rejected — but it was available. Everybody has the right to turn down good advice. I've done it many times myself. But, when the State interferes by prescribing conditions, it is my personal feeling that the State does have an obligation to see that the opportunity for some very serious questioning should take place.

I don't think any Member in this House would have needed that kind of review but there are other people who suffer serious marriage difficulties that, if a skilled premarital counsellor had been available and the counselling had been properly applied, some of the marriages that now contribute to the divorce rate of one out of every three would not have taken place, in the first instance. I think that the bill itself…the Minister of Health has got to re-examine the rush of marriage. Of course, we will be giving the bill much greater study and, for that reason, Mr. Speaker, I will move adjournment. But I have serious reservations about shortening the time. I move adjournment of the debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion agreed to.

MR. BENNETT: Second reading of Bill 28, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill 28, An Act to Amend the Civil Service Superannuation Act. The Honourable the Provincial Secretary.

MR. BLACK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Bill No. 28, while I'm pretty well apt to confine my remarks to one bill, Mr. Speaker, let me say that the bill and the other pension bills that follow Bill 28 are the result of two years of intensive study by the Government and, for the most part, most people involved in the plan. They have involved the studies of

[ Page 671 ]

a great many people including the pension actuary, the employees that benefit under the plan and the employer. The employer, in one instance, differs in this package, if you will, Mr. Speaker, in that the employer, in one case, happens to be the municipal people.

However, Mr. Speaker, I want to say this, and in dealing with second reading of these bills, if you will, the general principles that cut across one bill cuts across them all, because the Government and, indeed, with the employer, in one case, and employees, the name of the game, if you will, was to give benefits to these particular pension plans — what was done for one would be done for all, in general terms. That's not 100 per cent when you deal with the finite but, generally speaking, the same principles cut across all these bills.

Mr. Speaker, I know perfectly well that these bills have lain on the Order Paper since the second day of this Session. Those people concerned with this responsibility in the Opposition have had the opportunity to study these bills. They've had the opportunity to discuss them with the people directly concerned with the bill. I know positively that that has been done. I don't want to make any long dissertation, Mr. Speaker, but I do want to outline some of the principles of these bills and this Bill 28 in particular.

I want to remark, Mr. Speaker, that this is Bill 28, which actually was number 2, in the first instance, but I was personally responsible for two omissions in that particular bill. As you know, Mr. Speaker, with the permission of the House, I withdrew the bill, put in the omissions and made one other correction. Consequently it comes in as Bill 28.

In general principles, Mr. Speaker, this cuts across several principles. First of all the contributory ceiling of $15,000 has been removed. The term, or the averaging term, in the plans that we are discussing, at this moment, really, have a ten-year averaging period. Throughout the various plans, that averaging period was reduced to seven years. There are, of course, several housekeeping amendments in this particular one. One amendment, that's not common to the others, is that people who work for the Provincial Government, be it in British Columbia House in London and the San Francisco people, who do not take part in Canada Pension plans, there are certain provisions to take care of them in this particular plan. There are significant changes in respect to retired civil servants and active civil servants. That's obvious because that's the general tenor of any of these particular bills. I want to say that, with this bill, the Government employees have negotiated with me and with the Pension Commissioner, Mr. Forrest, and, indeed, with our consulting actuary, Mr. Eckler, and we have come to the agreement, which is in this particular bill. I can assure the House that the Government employees have informed me that they are in favour of and support the negotiations that took place and that are in the body of this bill. I have a great deal of pleasure, Mr. Speaker, in moving second reading of Bill 28.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for New Westminster.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, to begin with Bill 28 did undergo a change from Bill 2 and I very much appreciate that change. The change, of course, the significant one, was the changing of the averaging of the number of years from ten to seven, putting it in line with the other bills. One point that amused me, however, was in the original bill, Bill 2, it identified the employers' bargaining unit as a union and that has since been deleted in Bill 28. It's amusing and I don't think particularly significant, however.

One thing, Mr. Speaker, that does concern me about this bill, as it concerns me about some of the other bills, and that is the fact that the Minister indicated that it's very satisfactory to those people who are now working. I would agree that it should be. There's a significant increase in pension. I'm delighted to see that and, on that basis, we're going to support this bill. I'd like to indicate to you that the people who are not represented by the unions are those people who are now retired and they don't fall into the category of those people in the bargaining unit any longer. So I'd like to draw that to the attention of the Government. I do feel that people who worked many long years as arduously as those people who are now working should deserve a little more recognition than what they're getting. However, I must confess that this kind of an arrangement has been made for some time with this particular bargaining unit. With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that we endorse the bill. There are one or two questions that we're going to ask, of course, when we go through the committee stage.

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

MR. BLACK: Mr. Speaker, in closing this debate, let me say to my honourable friend opposite, through you, Mr. Speaker, that I have a letter from the chairman of the negotiating committee for the retired civil servants and it reads, addressed to myself. "On behalf of our members, I wish again to thank you and, through you, to thank the Government for again bringing in legislation to increase the pensions of the retired Government employees." The second paragraph isn't germane to the pension plan. I might say to my honourable friend, who is the critic of the Opposition relative to pension, that you may notice, perhaps, a little disparity in the percentage. All this does, this year, if you will recall, when we discussed those pensions for retired people on the last occasion, it was 10 per cent, this time it just balances it out to make an even spread and, relatively, to have that same percentage throughout all the plans. I move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

Motion agreed to.

Bill 28 read a second time and Ordered to be placed on the Orders of the Day for committal at the next sitting after today.

MR. BENNETT: Second reading of Bill 3, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill 3, An Act to Amend the Municipal Superannuation Act. The Honourable the Provincial Secretary.

MR. BLACK: Bill 3 is a bill which has been before the Government for some time and this Legislature. I'm not blaming the Government because that wouldn't be fully true. The Government, along with other legislators in the Assembly have concerned themselves with this bill, mainly because of the attitude of the employees, presently active, and employers, relative to the pensioners. We made an expression of opinion, as you will recall last year. We passed a resolution making it mandatory upon these people to do something about their pensioners and, indeed, they did. It

[ Page 672 ]

wasn't necessary for us to proclaim certain sections in order to make them do it. They did it of their own free will. However, in this plan you know that, as far as the Government is concerned, it is trustee of the plan and, apart from retiring certificates of loan, which appeared in my estimates and are declining by $5,000 each year, we are trustees of that plan. I'll say that the employees, led by a Mr. Anderson of the Firemen's Union was the main negotiator as far as the employees are concerned and the employers through the Union of B.C. Municipalities. Now, in general terms, and in order to shorten the debate, at this particular time, these people worked assiduously for two years, by and with our help and of the people whom I mentioned before, Mr. Eckler, the actuary, and Mr. Forrest, the Superannuation Commissioner, and came to the unanimous conclusion that this is what they wanted. They did have negotiations and meetings with us and those people I've mentioned time without number.

I'm delighted that they have come forward with this. They knew what we were trying to do and they negotiated right clean through, all in good faith, and I again could produce letters on both sides saying that this is the type of bill they want. I again am delighted to move second reading of this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for New Westminster.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, on the same basis and with many of the same arguments and certainly we're going to go into more detail in committee stage on this Bill, recognizing that this was a negotiated contract but not negotiated, however, with the Government, but negotiated with the municipalities and the union involved, we will certainly recognize this bill. We'll support this bill and ask questions in committee stage.

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

MR. BLACK: I have no further motion, Mr. Speaker.

Motion agreed to.

Bill 3 read a second time and Ordered to be placed on the Orders of the Day for committal at the next sitting after today.

MR. BENNETT: Second reading of Bill 4, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill 4, An Act to Amend the Teachers' Pensions Act, 1961. The Honourable the Provincial Secretary.

MR. BLACK: Let me say, in the first instance, Mr. Speaker, in talking to the principles because, indeed, throughout all these acts, it is not the singular but rather the plural. The principles of this act are, by and large, the same as those of previous legislation with, of course, exceptions, because there's no such thing with these contributory plans of all the plans being exactly the same. The principles cut across this plan — reduce the averaging period from the high of ten years to the high of seven years earning, the removal of the ceiling on the contributory or pensionable earnings, the 2 per cent applies to all services to a maximum of 35 years, contributions after 35 years are discontinued, or refunded, and no reduction for early retirement for long-service teachers, an across-the-board increase for retired teachers, their widows and wives, that percentage as far as the retired people are concerned being 7 per cent. Now, I think perhaps, rather than say any more at this juncture, as I intend to close the debate, I am again happy to move second reading of this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for New Westminster.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, at this point I part company with the Provincial Secretary. You see, on the other bills he's talking about an established practice. On this bill, he's talking about something else again. We welcome the seven-year averaging, Mr. Speaker. We welcome the fact that the ceiling has been removed from income. We also welcome the 2 per cent formula, and the fact that contributions will be refunded for those now working, and let's bear that in mind, contributions will be refunded if, in fact, they are working and, in fact, paid over 35 years. All these are very fine points and it's a delightful bill up to that point. There is, however, according to the Minister, an across-the-board increase of 7 per cent. It's not really an across-the-board increase of, at most, $21. That's a pretty, paltry sum when you consider how long and how hard so many of these people have worked.

Mr. Speaker, the teachers have not agreed, as opposed to the other groups, the teachers have not agreed that this, in fact, is a good deal. The teachers are locked into a plan that is exactly the same as any other locked-in proposition. The only fact is, and we heard for the first time today that they are employees of the Government, because the Minister indicated that all but one group, which was the municipalities, were defined as employees. Therefore, it would seem to me that the teachers…

Then we will check the tapes, Mr. Speaker. I just wrote it down as he said it, the employer defined by the Minister, with the exception of the municipality. But, in any event, I don't think that's particularly significant. They're locked into a Government plan. They are prepared to participate in this plan, Mr. Speaker, those who are now working. Those that weren't before, participated in it, whether they liked it or not, and are going to suffer a great deal of hardship as a result of this plan. Now, they're going to suffer a hardship on the basis that they worked long years at low incomes. When they retired, and think in terms of the person who retired seven, eight, nine, ten years ago when even the top incomes were low compared to what they are now, it was on that basis that those incomes were averaged and, on that basis, they retired in those days. Then, they get a ridiculously low increase in income, across-the-board, 7 per cent which, really, isn't across-the-board at all.

Mr. Speaker, as I say, this bill has many good points and I can cite five or six without even batting an eye. But the points that I have against this bill are these: that the bill ignores the old people in this Province once again. This afternoon, for example, I heard people on that side get up and say, if you're against this hearing-aid thing, you're against the old people. The fact of the matter is, this is the kind of thing that is really against the old people in this Province. They have no power, they have no pressure. This Government, obviously, under these circumstances, is unprincipled in this regard.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that here are some

[ Page 673 ]

letters, just to give you an idea. Here are some letters from a group of people which was really concerned about this bill. Let me read one or two to you. "Dennis Cocke" — didn't quite know how to spell my name but that's all right — "Dear Sir: As a retired teacher and a member of your constituency, I appeal to you to do whatever you can to assist us in our fight to get a reasonable increase in our pension. We're not as much concerned with the readjustments of pensions for the future. I'm sure this will be worked out satisfactorily. What we are concerned with is the pension now being received by teachers who have been retired for some time." They go on, Mr. Speaker, and I'm certainly not going to go through them all. Here's another one. "Through you, to our British Columbia Government," and through you, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister in charge. "I protest most violently the proposed revision of the Teachers' Pension Act, which provides such paltry increases for teachers already retired. Up until now pension increases have been extended to them. On no grounds whatsoever is there justification for a change in this policy." Mr. Speaker, this has been the policy of this Government. This has been the policy, over the years, that the teachers' pension plan, that those people already retired would enjoy the increases and the safeguards that are rendered for those who continue to work and that those who are out of the plan, by virtue of retirement, are treated the same as those who are in. Here's another one, Mr. Speaker. "I am writing with regard to Bill No. 4, An Act to Amend the Teachers' Pension Act. I wish to protest vigorously the gross inadequacies in the Act regarding improvement in existing teachers' pensions. Pensioners are receiving approximately 30 per cent of their final average in salary as pension, whereas the National average is 70 per cent. In a thriving Province like British Columbia this is shocking. Our money, mine for 37 years, has been accumulated in the pension fund to the extent that it is actually sound to grant pensions at least equal to the National average. Should British Columbia do less? Why, then, the shocking lack of any action to improve existing pensions." Unfortunately, that was a letter prior… No, this is a letter written during the whole process.

Mr. Speaker, there are many others. Here's one, I think, that was addressed to the Honourable Minister. I'd like to read this because I'm not quite sure whether or not he would, under the circumstances. The hour is late. "Dear Sir: The proposed action of our Government to refuse to upgrade the pensions of retired teachers by the same formula that is proposed for the pensions of active teachers is a degradation of the principles for which this Government has so often been supported. Some time ago, Mr. Bennett was asked what he considered to be the best act his Government had passed and he replied that it was the home-owner grant because it had been so helpful to those who needed it most. In view of this, isn't it a disgrace that retired teachers should be offered a pittance of an increase of between $10 and $20? These teachers have served through several depression years, when conditions and salaries were poor. They have served through the war years and they retired on modest, or poor pensions, largely because of low average salaries and the inequities of the Pension Act. On the other hand, most of the active teachers have begun teaching after salaries had begun to rise. They are continuing to receive better salaries and, with this act, they have a prospect of receiving a good pension in the end. Why then should the retired teachers be abandoned? In the past, retired teachers' pensions were recalculated whenever a general increase was granted. By the proposed formula, this recalculation would be a small matter, but it would be a great help to them. I retired in June of 1969 on a pension of $244 after 41 years of service. By recalculating my pension, according to the proposed formula, I would be receiving in the order of $333, which would be very much appreciated help. I am sure the majority of pensioners have a similar story to tell. Since the number of retired teachers is relatively small, the modest increase would be an infinitesimal drain on the almost $200 million of the pension fund. Please continue to uphold your good principles of helping those who are down." Remember, this is to the Minister not to me. "Reconsider. Let your good sense of justice prevail," and he signs that letter.

Mr. Speaker, they go on and on like that. Certainly I am not going to bore you any longer with reading this group of letters. Mr. Speaker, I think the principle is this, that the money is there, that the Government is putting off. It's easy, you see. The present teachers are still working and you don't have to pay them a pension. The retired teachers would be a bit of a drain on this fund and I recognize that but, the fact of the matter is, it's time we began to drain that fund. The interest, of course, is going to look after it.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I reserve this… The Members know perfectly well what I mean. There's plenty of money there. Are you against it? (Interruption.) All right. The money belongs to the beneficiaries and should be employed for those beneficiaries, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, there was a person in New Westminster who was very interested in this. He's been retired for three years and he was very upset about this bill. He was so upset, as a matter of fact, he wrote a letter to the Premier of British Columbia and to all Members of the Legislature. He was a retired teacher but he was still working, Mr. Speaker, because he had to work. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, he was on his way to the institute where he was working to have this letter run off…let me read the letter to you first and, then, I'll tell you the remainder of what happened. "To the Premier of British Columbia and all Members of the Legislature: Ladies and Gentlemen: Teachers' Pension legislation is, I believe, to be amended at the present Session." Mr. Speaker, I might say that on his way to run this letter off this gentleman died. On his way to run off the letter, he died. This was his last message, the last single deed that he did and he died. As a matter of fact, it never was run off. It was spirit duplicated and we don't have a spirit duplicator so I had it duplicated on his behalf. I'll certainly have it go to all Members but just to be sure that they read it, Mr. Speaker, this is what he said: "The teachers' pension legislation, is, I believe, to be amended at the present Session and there are to be substantial improvements in future pensions but present pensioners are to be increased by from $10.50 to $21 only. This is rank discrimination against the teachers who are now on pension. The proposed legislation creates some very serious injustices. To illustrate this point, teachers A and B started teaching in equivalent positions in 1927 but, since A had outside experience, his salary was higher than B, until around 1945. A retired in 1967 and B will retire next June. Since no pension contributions are made after 40 years, it would be reasonable to say that his pension contributions are no more and possibly less than A's. However, B's pension next July will be very much better than A's for the following reasons. B will be based on seven-year average, but A was based on ten. When A retired the ceiling was $10,000, B gets $12,500." The ceiling is off as, you know, now. This is on the side. The ceiling is off altogether for anybody retiring this year and next, as you know. "A's pension was based on 2 per

[ Page 674 ]

cent since 1961, 1 1/4 per cent before 1961, plus an annuity of five sixths of the contributions before 1961 and 4 per cent interest. B, on the other hand, will receive 2 per cent per year up to 35 years. The deduction for the continuation of pension to this widow, for A, was 28 per cent, while for B, it will only be 25 per cent. In addition, B qualifies for old age pension on retirement, while A paid $25 from his pension for advance payments for himself and his wife. If this is not discrimination against the already retired who have no political voice, what is? Respectfully yours, E.L. Jenks."

Mr. Speaker, I need say no more. That's our position on this bill. We're endorsing the bill, in principle. We oppose this section. You'll certainly hear from us with regard to amendments.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister of Lands.

HON. R.G. WILLISTON (Fort George): Mr. Speaker, I just wish to say a few words on this legislation because there's little legislation that comes before the House with which I have more personal contact or longer experience. There's several things about this act and about the presentation which the last Member made, of which he may not be aware. I think, in debating this act, and in placing the words as he was doing to my colleague that these people were employees of the Government is, in fact, putting your finger on the weakness that's in the whole situation. It was never straightened out by the teachers, which has led to the difficulties we are in today. Many years ago, when the teachers' salaries were very low and when all money that could possibly be paid into teachers' pensions was taken, then, to raise their salaries, as an assist in that regard and differed from other pension plans and pension schemes, it was determined as a special assist at that time that the employers' share would be paid by Government. The teachers took that at the time as an assist, to allow them a higher actual salary on the day-to-day basis and to relieve the school boards of the task of paying their share and, subsequently, of paying their share as the years have gone on. As a consequence, in every other pension scheme, whether it's the Civil Service or the municipal employees, or any of the rest of them, when you come to your pension scheme and you get your payments and, each year, you arrive at your actual amounts that go into the fund, when you negotiate your salary, you're also automatically, in every other instance, negotiating the added amount which goes into the pension fund, but you do not do that insofar as teachers' pensions are concerned. The teacher pension contribution does not keep that solid relationship. It has never been negotiated. It's a proposition and if, at some time, it ever were, it would, of course, make a fairly large impact, in the particular year it was done, upon the various boards of school trustees. Because of the fact that you placed this back, the money that the people of the Province of British Columbia pay into the teachers' pension fund and the amount that they pay into their Civil Service fund and into the superannuation fund of the municipal employees, when you negotiate your present situation, that is one thing, and they've all done that and they're going up. When you're handling the retired situation, because the money that's going in and the added money is coming from the people of the Province of British Columbia, generally, from Government into this fund, on their behalf, to handle this part of it, then, there is a responsibility upon any who deal with pensions to see that those people, who have retired, are treated across-the-board in an equitable manner since the employers' share of it has gone in from the same basic source. At the present time, and if the honourable Member had taken time and I'm sure he hasn't done this — to go back and refer back to the Civil Service and the municipal superannuation and so on, and take a look at the basic retired situation insofar as those people are concerned, and move on from there, he would find, at the present time, that the basic teacher situation in retirement is actually, in most cases, in a preferable position to that which affects these other people. If, at the present time, you took that position out, without the teachers themselves taking some basic responsibility for the position of their own retired teachers, in some way, in making a presentation, in that regard, taking it apart from these other people so that they could be dealt with in this specific case, then, in all fairness, you cannot deal with that group in that way and not deal with the rest of the people in exactly the same manner. I just offer that, because I think everyone recognizes the plight of the retired person, insofar as pension funds are concerned. The money has to be there to be paid and, let's be frank, in the negotiation that took place everyone was looking ahead and not too much attention was placed on the plight of those who had already retired (interruption). That's right — if the money is there. That's right, Mr. Speaker, and they wave their hands and say, even without the impact of the changes at the present time and looking at the basic funds and what the funds can sustain across the retired business, they wave their hands and say, "Pay it." Somebody said, today, "Drain the funds." I've been through the draining of the funds once, my friend. I've been through the draining of the teachers' pension fund and all of us, who have been some years in the teachers' pension fund and have paid in, as a matter of fact, a year's contribution and left it in there to rebolster the fund after it has been taken out of circulation once. There are many in this. I say before you're going to tear down the fund a second time, make absolutely sure that, as you move, that you're doing so on an actuarially sound basis. Mr. Speaker, I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 5:35 p.m.