[ Page 4973 ]

CONTENTS

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

Introduction and first reading — 4973

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

Committee stage.

On section 1.

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 4973

Amendment to section 1.

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 4974

Mr. Gardom — 4974

Mr. Smith — 4975

Mr. Wallace — 4975

Hon. Mr. Lea — 4976

Amendment to section 2.

Hon. Mr. Hall — 4977

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4977

Hon. Mr. Hall — 4977

On section 3.

Mr. Smith — 4978

Hon. Mr. Hall — 4978

Mr. Smith — 4978

Mr. Gardom — 4978

Hon. Mr. Hall — 4978

On section 4.

Mr. Wallace — 4978

Hon. Mr. Hall — 4979

On section 5.

Mr. Gibson — 4979

Hon. R.A. Williams — 4979

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4979

Hon. R.A. Williams — 4979

Mr. Gibson — 4980

On section 6.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4980

Mr. Wallace — 4980

Hon. Mr. King — 4981

Mr. Smith — 4981

Hon. Mr. King — 4981

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4981

Hon. Mr. King — 4982

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4982

Hon. Mr. Hall — 4982

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4982

Hon. Mr. Hall — 4983

On section 8.

Mr. Gibson — 4983

Hon. Mr. Hall — 4983

Mr. Gibson — 4983

Mr. Phillips — 4983

Hon. Mr. Hall — 4983

On section 9.

Mr. Wallace — 4984

Hon. Mr. Hall — 4985

Mr. Curtis — 4985

Mr. McClelland — 4986

Division on section 9 — 4986

On section 10.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4987

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 4987

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4987

Mr. McClelland — 4987

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 4988

Mr. McClelland — 4988

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4988

Mr. Wallace — 4989

Mr. Phillips — 4989

Mr. McClelland — 4991

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4991

Mr. Gardom — 4992

Mr. McClelland — 4994

Mr. Bennett — 4995

Mr. Phillips — 4995

Mr. Chabot — 4995

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4996

Mr. Phillips — 4997

Mr. McClelland — 5000

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

Introduction of bills.

THE GOVERNMENT COMPUTER
PRIVACY ACT

On a motion by Mr. Curtis, Bill 179, The Government Computer Privacy Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Orders of the day.

Hon. E.E. Dailly (Minister of Education): Public bills and orders. Committee on Bill 178.

STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1974 (NO. 2)

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

On section 1.

Hon. Mr. Strachan (Minister of Transport and Communications): This section, for some reason or another, is being delayed in its passage through the House.

The ICBC has a directors meeting set for Monday. It had been my hope that I would be able to activate this legislation at that directors meeting next Monday. This government, and I as the Minister, want to help these people. I want to be in a position to send out these cheques to these people. The mere fact that the private insurance industry of this province has welched on its contract with the people of the province will not prevent this government from seeing that justice is done. We will not sit idly by and see innocent victims of the machinations of the private insurance industry go without help.

I want to remind this House that over the years from the citizens of this province that private insurance industry has built up massive reserves out of the insurance premiums of every citizen of this province. Yet, at a time of need, with 125 suffering people — as the Member said: paraplegics, wheelchair cases — that private sector of the industry is proving that it has no conscience.

An Hon. Member: Hear, hear!

Hon. Mr. Strachan: These people can sit in their head offices in New York and London and Hartford, Connecticut, and say that these 125 suffering people in British Columbia are no concern of theirs, despite the fact that they had a contract and collected premiums right up to the last day of February of this year.

As that Member said, a percentage of every premium went in to guarantee that no person in this province, because of an insured driver or being a victim of a hit-and-run accident, would go unpaid and his claim unmet.

These same private insurance companies overcharged the people of this province long before we were elected in order to make payments back. The record shows that there are still another $14 million that they should have paid back to the citizens of this province under that same authorization.

I outlined to this House the reasons why I didn't want to accept that amendment yesterday; it would jeopardize the right of the people of this province to recover from these conscienceless insurance companies the money that we are prepared and want to give to these suffering citizens of this province.

But, Mr. Chairman, rather than see this intransigent opposition keep these cheques from these people, I'm going to amend this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I was tempted to take a procedure that would show these Members as shallow, cheap politicians….

Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh!

Hon. Mr. Strachan: …and stick to it. Then, within a week, prove they were wrong by handing out the cheques. I want to give those cheques. You've delayed it. I'm not going to allow you to stand in my way.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Strachan: Oh, go on. Go on. Look, the record of this party shows very clearly that we're for the people and you're for the insurance companies, all the time. That's why the Member wanted that amendment: to protect the insurance companies.

Interjections.

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

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

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please!

[ Page 4974 ]

Hon. Mr. Strachan: I want to thank you for your gracious acceptance of this proposal.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Strachan: I can't help it if you want to play politics with human lives. I can't help it.

Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh!

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Strachan: I am not.

An Hon. Member: So you backed up. We realized you were playing politics.

Hon. Mr. Strachan: Mr. Chairman, I will not allow the opposition to delay my right to issue cheques to these people. I will not allow the people of this province to suffer because of the political attitude of the opposition. I think they've displayed themselves in their worst in this debate.

Here's a government that brought in legislation to allow us to meet the needs of the people, and they went nit-picking through that legislation.

An Hon. Member: Oh, oh!

Hon. Mr. Strachan: They don't believe that this should be done. However, Mr. Chairman…

Mr. D.M. Phillips (South Peace River): I'm glad you've seen the light. We pointed it out for you.

Hon. Mr. Strachan: …I move, in subsection (1) of section 1 of this bill, to strike out the proposed section 46B(l) — the whole thing — and substitute the following:

"The corporation shall discharge and perform any duty or obligation and exercise any right or power imposed or conferred upon the Traffic Victims Indemnity Fund by or under any Act necessary to settle or litigate any claim or action arising as a result of injury, death or loss of or damage to property occasioned by a motor vehicle, or occasioned by or arising out of the ownership, maintenance, operation or use of a motor vehicle in the province; and to pay or recover any moneys required to be paid as a result of a settlement or a judgment in the action from the Traffic Victims Indemnity Fund, its group 2 members and its successors or assignees, as if the provisions of section 106L of the Motor-Vehicle Act have not been implemented."

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

Mr. G.B. Gardom (Vancouver–Point Grey): Speaking in support of the amendment, Mr. Chairman, we're very glad to see that light as come to the Minister. I think all Members of the opposition…and this is not a political thing, as I said yesterday. These 125 people, I think, would very much like to thank the backbench of the New Democratic Party for prevailing upon this Minister to do the right thing, because he was an exceptionally reluctant Minister as we all know. He's come up with his fifth posture today in under about five weeks — he seems to have a different posture every week, because I note his posture on October 8, when he said this:

"It is hoped that some resolution of the present difficulties will soon be achieved, and in the event that there is some assumption of liabilities by the Attorney-General's department…."

So on October 8 he tended to try to shelve it into the department of the Attorney-General.

Then on November 8, The Province newspaper said that he suggested that persons caught in the situation should consult a lawyer to see what action could be taken to recover claims legally due. So November 8, his posture was that these poor injured people should just have to go and see their lawyer and go through the courts.

Then yesterday afternoon his posture was: "It'll force us to accept any claim without adjudication, and I'm not prepared to accept that responsibility." That, of course, was a completely fallacious posture.

Then he made a great deal of the point this morning about the right of recovery through subrogation, which is already in the bill that was presented to us initially, and he strengthened that by his amendment to subsection (1) of the amendment.

Then, of course, the last posture of all today is to blame the opposition for delays.

Interjection.

Mr. Gardom: The Hon. Minister says that is correct. That, Hon. Minister, is totally false: it's totally incorrect; it's totally spurious; it's totally fallacious. You know, Mr. Minister, I think you're starting to suffer from credibility problems. Your performance this morning is certainly rapid, up to that point.

Mr. Chairman: Order! I would point out to the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey that the discussion is to be strictly relevant to the amendment, and there's not to be a rehash of arguments already covered.

[ Page 4975 ]

Interjections.

Mr. Gardom: Well, Mr. Chairman….

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please!

Mr. Gardom: As I said yesterday the….

Mr. Chairman: Order! I just want to repeat in silence what I said before. I would ask that the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey keep his remarks strictly relevant to the amendment, and not rehash arguments that have already been presented a number of times in this debate.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Would the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey continue?

Mr. Gardom: Well, if you'd just keep your hand off your gavel a little bit here, Mr. Chairman, I perhaps could continue.

I would like to say, as I said yesterday, this is not a political situation at all; this is a situation of doing the right thing for some people who have been seriously and tragically injured. The Minister was unable to recognize the fact that he had to do the right thing until today.

I don't care when repentance comes, as long as it comes. I thank the government Members, and I even thank the Minister for having the courage this morning to reverse an intransigent and stupid stand and come up with an amendment that will do the proper thing for these injured people.

I certainly hope that everybody in the House will — I know they will — support the measure.

Mr. D.E. Smith (North Peace River): Mr. Chairman, I think it does show, when we have a few things to say about a bill and a section of the bill, which we offered in good faith, that the Minister did listen, not because he wanted to, but because he knew it was the proper thing to do in relation to the people who are involved and may be victims of accidents over which they had no control.

They, as I said before, were the people caught in the middle. And if there are any court cases involved, or if there's a way to recover, that is between the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia and the Traffic Victims Indemnity Fund, not between the little people who were involved in an unfortunate situation.

The Minister said that the private insurance industry welched on the Province of British Columbia; they copped out. What private insurance industry in the province? They're not here, Mr. Minister.

They are not in existence in the Province of British Columbia because of legislation that went through this House. You know that. So why use that for an excuse for not fulfilling the liability that ICBC should rightfully take on, and will take on, with this amendment?

Let it be abundantly clear that what we heard this morning, in the introduction of this amendment by the Minister, was nothing but a rehash of threats and cheap theatrics trying to cover up an obligation which he knows full well really belongs now between the industry — the ICBC, which is the industry now — and the Traffic Victims Indemnity Fund.

But thank goodness, the small people who are involved in situations which they could not control themselves, who require finance because of accidents, will be looked after….

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

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

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Smith: There was no such thing. That's fallacious; that's fallacious and you know it, Mr. Minister.

The thing is that the people now will realize that the government must come through and they say so by this amendment. Certainly we're happy to support it.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

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

Mr. Chairman: I'm not….

Mr. Wallace: I thought you were anticipating events, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: I would like the House to hear what the Hon. Member is going to say.

Mr. Wallace: Mr. Chairman, I certainly will support this amendment for the reasons I stated yesterday.

I think both sides of the House realize that regardless of the technicalities that were involved, and the fact that over a period of 20 years, I think…. Did the government of 20 years ever accept any amendments from the opposition?

[ Page 4976 ]

An Hon. Member: No way.

Mr. Wallace: So, while each side in this political arena that we all scramble around in is trying to make points on this issue, it means two things to me, at least.

One is that, whatever all the machinations and who scored which points off whom, the right thing has been done in this case.

The second thing is that although I have some tremendous reservations about this NDP government, there is evidence that it does listen and it's willing to accept amendments from the opposition and act upon these amendments. If we've made no other progress than that, I think that's quite a step forward for this Legislature.

Hon. G.R. Lea (Minister of Highways): Mr. Chairman, I stand to support this amendment.

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Lea: Whether I stay or I go isn't as important to me, personally, as it is to you, obviously.

There are people here in this party who support the party policy — we're not here for our own individual game. That's different.

An Hon. Member: Hear, hear!

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Would the Hon. Minister address himself to the amendment, please?

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

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

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Order!

Hon. Mr. Lea: Mr. Chairman, I'm used to not a very complicated kind of politics where I come from up north. All parties are like that up there a little bit. But, you know, I have never in my life witnessed anything like I've seen here. It was obvious to me what the government intended, and I think it was obvious to the opposition that what the government intended to do was to pay those people — at the same time, Mr. Chairman, trying to protect the people of British Columbia so they could go back and get what is rightly theirs from those insurance companies who did welch. That seems to be the case to me.

What has become very obvious to me since I've been in politics, which hasn't been too long, is that you have to pay back the people who pay for your campaign. That's the first rule of politics. It's called pragmatist politics. In this party we have to pay back the people who supported us: the working people in this province and the little people in this province who paid for our campaign. If we don't do that we will not survive as a political party, and that's what we are.

It's the same for every political party in this House. I saw it in this House in the last few days — those people paying for their campaign. They plan to get money from those insurance companies to try and defeat us next time, and they had to do it. They had to do it, even though deep down they knew very well that those people were going to be paid. They made a political circus out of this chamber in order to make political points, and so they can get campaign funds when they run next time.

Believe me, the little people in this province have never supported you and they won't ever. So you may as well forget it.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Would the Hon. Minister address himself to the merits of the amendment?

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Lea: You tried that. You tried that. You put this whole thing on the floor of this House to try and get money from the insurance companies for your next election. Baloney!

Interjection.

Mr. Chairman: Would the Hon. Member state the words that were offensive to him, please?

Mr. D.A. Anderson (Victoria): I was referring to the statement by the Minister that this was motivated by a desire to get funds for political purposes. That statement was made on a number of occasions. If it's not withdrawn, I'll ask that the liar leave as well. It's untrue and that thing should be apologized for, and you know it.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Would the Hon. Members please allow the Chair to deal with this matter?

I was about to say before I was interrupted….

[ Page 4977 ]

There has been no courtesy shown to the Chair whatsoever this morning. I think that it's proper that the Chair show a certain amount of courtesy to the Members. However, I would ask that the Hon. Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) withdraw any imputations of any wrong motives on the part of the Hon. Members of the Liberal Party, in terms of their motivation for raising this matter. I would ask him to withdraw unconditionally that imputation.

Hon. Mr. Lea: I withdraw unconditionally, because it's unparliamentary.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Minister of Highways to withdraw it without comment. Simply withdraw it unconditionally.

Hon. Mr. Lea: I withdraw without comment.

Mr. Chairman: Now I would ask the Hon. Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) to extend the same courtesy to whichever Member he referred to as liar.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Mr. Chairman, I would like to apologize for any words I may have used in the heat of the moment which were unparliamentary or uncalled for.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I would just ask the Hon. Member, as tile Minister of Highways did, to say that you withdraw unconditionally the imputation of a person being a liar.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Mr. Chairman, I will certainly do it as the Minister of Highways has done.

Amendment approved.

Section 1 as amended approved.

On section 2.

Hon. E. Hall (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in the name of the Hon. Attorney-General on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Mr. D.A. Anderson: I have a general question, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps it could come up after the amendment is dealt with, but perhaps it would be better to deal with it now.

Is this designed to allow credit union agencies and credit union members to become Autoplan agents? If not, could I ask the Minister why the amendment, and why the section is being brought in? Is there any reasoning behind it which we are unaware of?

Hon. Mr. Hall: That's the section of the bill…. Which one should we discuss, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Chairman: The amendment to section 2.

Hon. Mr. Hall: Is it the amendment we're bringing in regarding the credit union reserve board and the approval of the Minster to alter the formula, or the one where the credit union may act as an agent for its members? Which one do you want to discuss?

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Here we have credit unions making their members agents. I wondered under what….

Hon. Mr. Hall: Okay, that's fine. That's the one that's not in the bill: "A credit union may act as agent for its members and for such other persons as may be designated by the Lieu ten ant-Governor-in-Council." The credit unions have requested that they keep in step with the banks in the provision of services that 20 years ago were never thought of by banks or credit unions — for instance: travel agents, powers of attorney, paying B.C. Telephone bills, paying B.C. Hydro bills, and those general family financial matters. The Member is right that we are also hoping that they will be able, if they want, to provide ICBC service to their members.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: I realize this question is somewhat general. Could I ask the Minister whether there have been discussions with a view to having credit union offices used for ICBC agency purposes?

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

Mr. D.A. Anderson: May I again ask the Minister whether or not the amendment, if brought in, would lead to this in the near future? Is a government plan fairly well advanced along this line with the credit union…?

Hon. Mr. Hall: As we said to the House when the matter was being debated, or questioned in question period, it's our hope to improve the service of ICBC to the public generally. I think all Members are interested in doing that. This will be part of that improvement.

Amendment approved.

Section 2 as amended approved.

On section 3.

[ Page 4978 ]

Mr. Smith: Actually, I think what the Crown is trying to do in this particular section is make it a little easier for people who have established a right to sue the Crown to do it through one central city in the Province of British Columbia.

It would seem to me that if — in the Attorney-General's words — we were to "let a little sunshine into the Province of British Columbia" and that we now have a right to sue the Crown, that right should not be jeopardized by the fact that the writ must be issued in the City of Victoria. It would seem to me that you have to go through the costly process of having a process served….

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

Mr. Smith: It has to be served in the City of Victoria, which is an expense on anybody in the province. It's an inconvenience at least. It would seem to me that if the government is as concerned about people in parts of the province like Atlin, or wherever they might be, as they are with easy access to the City of Victoria, then they would accept the amendment which I proposed and put on the desk of the Clerk some days ago when we were in debate.

The amendment reads: "by deleting all words after the phrase 'the words in line 2,' and substituting therefore 'or at the office of the court clerk in any provincial court anywhere in British Columbia.'

The Minister laughs.

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

Mrs. Jordan: What a sense of humour.

Mr. Smith: Is it not the wish of the government that everyone in the Province of British Columbia be given equal opportunity without any inconvenience or stumbling block placed in their way, if and when they have established a right to sue the Crown and by opening it up so that any court in the Province of British Columbia could be used, and that you'll make the access easier for every person in the Province of British Columbia? That is the reason for the amendment. It would seem to me that if the A-G's department is concerned that people have a right to sue, they would open it up. It's not a major amendment, but it would give the public the understanding….

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

Interjection.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The Member for North Peace River has the floor.

Mr. Smith: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's our feeling that the amendment does nothing more than set up for the people in the Province of British Columbia a more workable system than we presently would have with the section 3 as it now reads in this particular bill.

Mr. Gardom: With every respect to the Hon. Member who just spoke, we don't have any intention whatsoever of supporting the amendment. He's indicated a procedure that would be absolutely unwieldy, unnecessary and silly, to say the very least.

The procedure that is suggested by the government's amendment is one that is consistent with practice that has been carried on in this province pretty well since confederation, and it is one that has worked effectively and well. Suits against the Crown are not matters to be treated lightly. The action may be commenced anywhere in the province, and the next step of magnitude is merely to put the material into an envelope and mail it to the office of the Attorney-General, who may accept service.

I think if the Hon. Member or his adviser who suggested the amendment would perhaps take a look at that, they would know that we do have some degree of postal service in Canada at the present time. That would be the continuing and most effective manner to deal with this.

Hon. Mr. Hall: The amendment is not acceptable. It is improper as well, because if you want to serve a notice on the parties, you serve it on the parties. You don't serve it on an officer of the court.

Amendment negatived.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

Mr. Wallace: Very briefly, Mr. Chairman, I see the intent of this amendment and, while it is not part of the legislation, it mentions that the purpose of this is to ensure that persons who are fined and don't pay the fine can go to jail where the defaulting party has sufficient means to pay the arrears. I'm just wondering what the general standard will be in deciding who has sufficient means to pay arrears and what kind of mechanism will be used to determine the person who appears to have enough money to pay a fine and should not be in arrears.

Secondly, I approve the principle, and I wonder to what degree there would be some value in showing the new approach of that kind of person serving his or her sentence at weekends. I notice that somebody got 30 days the other day to serve by a mechanism of 15 weekends. This kind of person who willfully denies a sound judgment and who has the money to pay and

[ Page 4979 ]

who subsequently is sentenced…. I presume that this is at the discretion of the judge only as to whether or not it is 30 straight days or 15 weekends.

Hon. Mr. Hall: The genesis of the amendment is found in two areas, Mr. Member. One is that when we amended the Summary Convictions Act last session, it left a little unclear what happens to those people who are in arrears in terms of maintenance orders. The second part of its origin lies in the Berger commission on family law, who are slowly moving towards getting these things out of the courts and into the family…to de-escalate the situation where those kinds of questions, those kinds of studies, those kinds of value judgments can be made without the tensions and the bric-à-brac of the superior levels of justice.

Section 4 approved.

On section 5.

Mr. G.F. Gibson (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could ask either the Minister having charge of this bill or the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) to explain to the House the need for these two changes to the Forest Act.

Hon. R.A. Williams (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources): I think that the present statute means that improvements might be exempt in tree farm licences. That's obviously inequitable in relation to other property. So this statutory amendment would see to it that that would not be the case. They will be treated like other property owners, even though they are in the TFL tenure. I think that is simply a move towards equity, and the other part provides some flexibility with respect to the other tenures.

Mr. Gibson: On the two sections then, Mr. Chairman: it is a little confusing dealing with the two of them at once, but I would ask the Minister a couple of further questions.

With respect to the ending of the tax exemption, I wonder if the Minister has any idea of the amount of increased revenue, whether to the Crown provincial or to the municipalities, that might be generated as a result of this.

With respect to the second, I understand that the power to renew for less than 21 years is a flexibility compared to the existing Act, which relates to an exact 21 years. Is the Minister, in effect, suggesting by this that he will be using this in cases where — how would I put it — where long-term planning horizons are not necessary because capital facilities are already in place?

Hon. R.A. Williams: Yes, I think that that would be a factor, and you could have management relate to whatever the forestry programmes were in the area. That would definitely be a factor.

In terms of the dollar amount, I'm afraid we don't have figures, but there are a range of industrial establishments on the TFLs of a considerable scale, and it isn't really equitable between people in the industry.

Mr. Gibson: I'll just say, Mr. Chairman, that I don't think tax measures should be passed without having some idea of the impact.

Mr. D.A. Anderson (Victoria): On the same section, this allows variation, as the Minister mentioned, of the 21-year provision. I wonder whether he could inform the House as to what he has in mind. It is all very well to say that this provides a certain amount of flexibility, but — I hate to use these words — it provides absolute total flexibility for him to vary.

It seems to me that in the situation we are dealing with a certain amount of security of tenure is necessary to get the companies involved to act in accordance with good public policy. It would seem to me that this variation and uncertainty might well work against companies acting in the public interest. They will act in a short-run interest rather than in an interest of the public over more than 21 years.

I wonder if the Minister would comment on what he has in mind so that perhaps we get a better idea than these few words indicate.

Hon. R.A. Williams: I would just like to reconfirm, with respect to the other section, that this is simply a move toward equity, like other taxation bills in this area. I think it gives more comparability. In that sense a move toward equity is generally considered more just.

The thought here is that these tenures have already been in place for some time and management has proceeded on them. Now the question really is what the reasonable length of time might be in relation to practice in the area. That's the situation as we see it.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Well, that's the point, Mr. Minister, I was questioning you on. What would be considered a reasonable length of time? Would it be 10 years with an extension to 21 under certain remote circumstances, or would 21 be the normal, but reduced to 10 under certain incredible or very unusual certain circumstances? What does he really have in mind with this variation that he is introducing in this particular amendment?

Hon. R.A. Williams: I think it would vary with forest management proposals on a specific site basis.

[ Page 4980 ]

Mr. Gibson: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate what the Minister says, that this may well be a move towards equity in matters of property taxation, but I still think it is improper for this House to agree to a measure which may make tax changes of $100,000, $1 million, $10,000, $10 million; we just don't know by a factor of 10 or 10,000. I think we should know that before being asked to agree to it.

Section 5 approved.

On section 6.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Section 6, Mr. Chairman, is the Human Rights Code and it, in fact, seems to deal with a number of things. The first one is, of course, (a): "in section 3(2)(b) by adding after the word 'decency,' the words 'or to the determination of premiums or benefits under contracts of insurance.' "

If we read that back into the Human Rights Code, it appears to me that we are introducing another sexual distinction here, which I think at least should be commented upon probably by some of the ladies present as well as by myself.

It's a sexist provision which provides an advantage to one sex over the other, and it is the type of thing which comes up in the Human Rights Code which we should look at very closely. The section as it presently reads, section 3: "No person shall" - et cetera, et cetera — "discriminate against any person without reasonable cause, and for the purpose of section 1, the race, religion, colour, ancestry or place of origin of any person or class of person shall not constitute reasonable cause, and (b) the sex of any person shall not constitute reasonable cause unless it relates to the maintenance of public decency."

Well, now we are adding in not only public decency, but in the "determination of premiums or benefits under contracts of insurance." Now it is a known fact that woman might well be penalized or men could be penalized under this provision.

The other fact that comes up, and it is one that I think should be discussed by the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King), who is here, is that of course in insurance you will find that certain categories of people have different life expectancies, different death expectancies in certain age groups, and this variation might parallel, for example, racial groups. It does, indeed. It may parallel some other factor which is listed here: the place of origin, the colour or ancestry.

Once we open the door to allowing insurance premiums to be varied on the basis of sex, the logic of the argument being put forward by the government in this amendment could lead to similar amendments to allow insurance companies to treat separate categories of people differently on the basis of their actuarial tables, which indicate that certain people of different ancestry, different race, different colour, or whatever, might well be entitled to different types of insurance policies.

Now, if we are to accept the thin edge of the wedge with respect to the female sex, or the male sex in this instance, are we also going to find that the insurance companies will then have a ground for saying, "Look, actuarially, David Anderson, bachelor, of particular age and particular racial background, is a much worse or much better risk than the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) with his background and what have you."

If we're going to accept this amendment the government is putting forward, I would like some comment from the government as to whether or not they're accepting the principle of allowing insurance companies to adjust premiums and policies in accordance with risk and based on what might be considered discriminatory provisions. If we accept this amendment, I fear we're opening the door to all sorts of discrimination of that type.

Mr. Wallace: Well, Mr. Chairman, I'll run the terrible risk of being considered racist after the comments that I want to make. If the amendment is recognizing that in the insurance business the basic principle on which they function is to assess risk in relation to certain factors, whether we like it or not, women live a lot longer than men by several years on the average and, presumably, women should pay a smaller premium for the lesser risk or for the fact that their chances of dying at age 65 are considerably less than the chance of a man dying by the age of 65.

I see the Hon. Liberal leader's concern that this amendment might be opening the door to the recognition of racial, age or sex factors. But in the insurance business — and certainly as a medical factor — there are substantial differences in the potential mortality from lung cancer depending on whether you're a male or a female. The most typical one at the present time is breast cancer incidence in women which is almost negligible in men.

It seems to me that this amendment is trying to permit reference to specific differences which relate in the insurance industry. Now, not for one moment would I agree to differences, say, in employment in an industry, or many of the other factors where we feel women are discriminated against, but it seems to me in the insurance business, if they were all treated equally with men, the women would definitely be penalized.

In many areas, the women in society have a much better prognosis in terms of survival and liability to many of the diseases and disabilities of modern life. As I say, the very basic fact of survival shows that the life expectancy of men — I don't know the exact figures, Mr. Chairman — is one or two years less than

[ Page 4981 ]

the life expectancy of women. If you treated everyone completely equally in this insurance field, women would be paying the same premium as men on life insurance when, in fact, they should get it cheaper because they live longer and they're less of a risk to the insurance companies.

If I've misunderstood it, perhaps the Minister can correct me, but I think in this exceptional situation there has to be recognition given to the fact that there is a difference between the sexes.

Hon. W.S. King (Minister of Labour): In response to the leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. D.A. Anderson) and the Member for Oak Bay, the leader of the Conservative Party (Mr. Wallace), I'd just like to make a few comments on this particular section. I think that both Members have outlined the problem and recognized it, the problem being that traditionally and historically insurance companies have developed their whole rating system on the basis of the sex factor to some extent. There is a different ratio for females and males.

Without getting into the argument as to whether or not that's a justifiable basis to set up different ratings, the fact of the matter is that it's physically impossible to break that system down without a great deal of study and without a great deal of lead time for the companies involved.

Quite frankly, off the record…. (Laughter.) As an aside, I would disagree with the remarks of the Member for Oak Bay that it is an equitable basis to discriminate on the life expectancy of females as against males. One can identify many groups in society where it is statistically possible to set up discriminatory rates. Certainly, the race factor could be one, the age factor, the sex factor, a whole variety of premises. I reject that approach.

This amendment is simply a recognition that this has traditionally been the basis upon which insurance rates were set in the province, It's a recognition that it's going to take some time to find a new approach. It's a recognition that in many other jurisdictions, both in this nation and in the USA, studies are presently underway to find out how we may change the rating system to comply with the modern concepts of human rights. There is such a study underway in Ontario and Manitoba also, I believe.

It's our intention to address ourselves to that same problem here, not simply make this as a blanket, all-time exemption but simply to ensure that the problem is not going to be the subject of any litigation under the Human Rights Commission before we have a chance to take a broad, comprehensive look at it and find out just what the answers are in this very, very complex area.

Mr. Smith: It would seem to me, Mr. Chairman, that what the Minister is trying to accommodate in this particular amendment is a situation that has long existed in the insurance industry. If you want to call it discrimination, I guess you could, but it's in favour of the female sex in the setting of insurance premiums. It has long been a tradition that females, because of their longer life expectancy, receive rates more preferential than a male. That extends right through the whole category of insurance policies offered, particularly life-insurance contracts.

But the only type of differential that I am aware of is the premium rate itself. I wonder why the amendment includes the word "benefits" under a contract. I am of the opinion that the only discrimination made in insurance contracts is the lesser premium that is charged to people of equal age, one being a female who receives a lesser rate per thousand of insurance than a male. I am not aware of any other contractual problems that you would have to cover by including the word "benefits" under contract. I believe the only discrimination is with respect to actuarial setting of rates.

Hon. Mr. King: No, there are two things basically affected in the insurance industry. One is the premiums, as you have identified, Mr. Member. The other is with respect to pension plans that are sponsored under insurance companies. That's the reason.

It's true that, as it stands, there is a benefit to females in the rating system. I don't think it's for the Legislature, and certainly not from my office, to pass comment on that. The fact of the matter is that if this issue was tested before the Human Rights Commission, then we may well have a decision which found that this was improper under the existing legislation and we could have a great hiatus in the whole industry. So we want to provide the lead time to study the whole matter.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Mr. Chairman, just for the record, I'd like to thank the Minister for his courteous attempt to explain this. I agree with him that we do need to look at the whole area in much greater detail.

I would like to put on record our reservations of cutting back on equal rights provisions for women, which essentially is what this amendment does. It may give them a benefit in this case, but essentially we're cutting that back from what is now the only grounds to discriminate under 3(2)(b), namely public decency, and we're adding in insurance as another area. It might well discriminate against a man as well. Exactly.

But we are now cutting back from the non-discriminatory area. I would like to accept his assurance that this will be looked at further. The more we cut back from this, the less happy I am.

[ Page 4982 ]

Hon. Mr. King: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to give the Member assurance that this is in no way a retreat. We do intend to pursue the issue.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Mr. Chairman, (a) and (b) are fine; we've dealt with those. But (c) deals with another provision, cutting back on civil rights or human rights, namely something that the Attorney-General and I discussed…. Not the Attorney-General, the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall). I keep mixing those two up; they sit too close to one another.

Anyway, back in November of '73, the Provincial Secretary and I had a lengthy discussion on an article in The Provincial, which was dated September of '73, dealing with the very question of nationality, because this is a nationalist provision which is discriminatory — the one that the government is bringing in at this time.

At that time I was told that there was no problem involved, and that there was no need for discussion of this particular thing, Now we find that the government is bringing in a specific provision respecting Canadian citizenship.

What I would like to ask again is based upon that question I raised on November 7, 1973: what happens when you have people who are currently employed who are not Canadian citizens, who are within the civil service, who may well have had 20 years service, 30 years service, but who, for one reason or another, had not taken out Canadian citizenship?

I, personally, think they should take out Canadian citizenship, but I don't know whether we should affect their civil liberties by forcing them to, and that's the point I made at that time, and the point I make now.

Just for the record, Mr. Chairman, to remind people who may have forgotten that debate of a year ago, the article in The Provincial had the headline: "Sorry, Canadians Only Need Apply", and the body of the article went: "Provincial employees who aren't Canadian citizens have two months to obtain citizenship or face dismissal from the government service." And there have been instances during last year of people in the Highways department having been released because they were not Canadian citizens.

It goes on to say:

"That's the word from the civil service commission in its September 7 letter to the union. It says that the commission's policy with respect to non-citizens already employed is that they be given two-months notice to obtain citizenship and if they have not obtained in that time, they are released."

I remember speaking up in this House with respect to the government inconsistency in this area, because at that time they themselves had hired some Americans as assistants — indeed, one was an assistant to the Premier — and I suggested there should be consistency.

The question I put to the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) at this stage is: what will happen to those who are currently members of the provincial service who are not Canadian citizens, and whether in the past year there were cases which came up which showed that the previous law was being applied incorrectly by the civil service commission, because of their requirements to get Canadian citizenship?

Hon. Mr. Hall: Mr. Chairman, I am asked to explain and be responsible for an article that appeared in a journal: it's not my journal; I'm not responsible for it. You can quote all you like; it's not my biscuit.

An Hon. Member: What is your biscuit?

Hon. Mr. Hall: What is my biscuit is the Public Service Act, and the Public Service Act, section 49 says:

"The commission, in appointing a person to any position in the public service shall appoint a Canadian citizen; but, if no qualified Canadian citizen applies for a position, the commission may appoint another person as a temporary appointment."

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

Now, what we're saying is: just in case anybody is not paying any attention to the Human Rights Code or this Act, we're now making sure that the provision respecting Canadian citizenship, which occurs in 200 references in our statutes — as we've been able to find to date — is not an offence. It does, in fact, constitute reasonable cause. I say now, as I said then, that if Canadian citizenship means anything at all, surely it means a preference for working in the government service.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: I agree that the Minister is not responsible for a trade union magazine or journal; it's just that the information is there which I think he's sidestepping. Was it, or was it not, incorrect? The fact is, if the union is misinforming 30,000 provincial civil servants, the Provincial Secretary should at least pay a little attention to it.

Could I ask what happens in the case of landed immigrants? Could I also ask whether or not cases have occurred since we debated this in November of 1973, where would-be civil servants, or existing civil servants, have attempted to use the…?

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I think we're going beyond the parameters of the discussion that

[ Page 4983 ]

we should be having in relation to this section.

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

Mr. Chairman, what I'm trying to get across to the Minister is whether or not this section is being introduced to restrict the wide extent of civil liberties in the province; whether it is being introduced because there have been cases of people using the Human Rights Code of British Columbia to get around the 200 references in the statutes to Canadian citizenship. Has that occurred in the last year?

Hon. Mr. Hall: The purpose of this section is to clarify for everybody in the province that where the words "Canadian citizenship" are mentioned in Acts of this Legislature, that does constitute reasonable cause for preference or discrimination.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: I understand the intent, Mr. Minister, but my question is whether the Human Rights Code of British Columbia has been used to circumvent, or get around those 200 references which you made mention of.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

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

Hon. Mr. Hall: Well, I don't know of any specific problems. The Human Rights Code is another Minister's responsibility, but this is policy and we're not asleep at the switch, contrary to some of your statements. We know that there's likely to be an area that would be investigated, would be raised, that you yourself would raise. I think at one time you and I used the word "threatened", in a nice sense…or promised to raise the question at some future date. So we're alert, we see what's happening and we say that as far as government policy is concerned, Canadian citizenship means something.

Sections 6 and 7 approved.

On section 8.

Mr. Gibson: Mr. Chairman, I would take it that this has something to do with registration and citizenship provisions in the Land Registry Act which we passed into law last spring. I would ask the Provincial Secretary if he could explain briefly the need for the section.

Hon. Mr. Hall: To simplify the procedures; to just make a statement instead of a statutory declaration.

Mr. Gibson: Is the Provincial Secretary of the opinion that this will provide as valid a registration? Does he think there might be any evasion of the registration provisions because of this? Or are there abundant?

Hon. Mr. Hall: At the moment it's an informational task we're on. We're trying to get information.

The Member is asking if the information we get is going to be true, or is it going to be diluted or falsified because we're not making a statutory declaration. I don't think so. I think there are more good people than bad people….

Mr. Gibson: There's certainly no question about that, but one of the things I am concerned about is hiding behind trusts, and that sort of thing. I'll just leave it as a representation, at the moment, to the Provincial Secretary.

Mr. Phillips: Would the Provincial Secretary explain to me who he is going to make this statement to?

I certainly appreciate this amendment because there are many cases now, particularly in the remote areas of the province, where a person buys a piece of property and merely has to deposit his money with the real estate agent. Then he takes off up in the boondocks or somewhere, or there are cases where people are in hospital. Now either a notary public has to go to them….

I have a case in my own constituency now where a person is in an extended-care hospital, and wants to transfer the property to her son. The son has to go to a notary…the documents…it's very, very difficult to work.

Now, who is the person purchasing the property going to make the statement to? Is he going to make it to the real estate agent, or does he have to make a statement to a notary? Can the statement be taken at the time the person actually makes the deal with the real estate agent?

Hon. Mr. Hall: This person you're talking about must involve himself at some time during the transaction with somebody who's got a bit of expertise — either a solicitor or a notary public. This is no longer a statutory declaration, but now a simple statement, and must find its weary way to the Registrar of Titles.

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

Can that statement be made to the real estate agent? It doesn't have to be with the notary public. Is there going to be a form that a real estate agent can have so that if I go in to buy a piece of property from a real estate agent?

[ Page 4984 ]

Hon. Mr. Hall: The answer is yes. The regulations flowing from this have not been written yet, and there will be new forms designed.

Mr. Phillips: When will this come into effect? I've got several cases right now where….

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

Section 8 approved.

On section 9.

Mr. Wallace: Mr. Chairman, section 9 seems to me to be the most devastating part of this whole bill. I would like to know whether I read the section 9 correctly, but anyone reading plain English would gather from section 9 that, in fact, the government of this province is excluding itself completely and totally from any obligation to meet all the very important and serious pieces of legislation we've put through this House in relation to the use and development of land.

Now, if there's one subject which has been contentious above all others, since this government took office, it is its policy and its belief in the use and development of land. Of course, in subsection (b) it goes far beyond that and talks about improvements as defined in the Assessment Act, and that any enactment does not bind or affect the Crown.

This section, Mr. Chairman, seems to exclude this government completely from all the provisions, for example, of Bill 42. We don't have to recount the tremendous upheaval right across this province when Bill 42 was introduced.

The general, wide language which is used in subsections (a) and (b) would seem to me to also make a mockery of all the municipal legislation we have in this province. As I read section 9 it would give this government the power to completely ignore or overrule any piece of municipal legislation in any of our municipalities, regarding the use or development of land. The planning, construction, alteration, servicing, maintenance or use of improvements, as found in the Assessment Act, do not bind or affect the Crown.

Now I understand that already this kind of provision is enjoyed — if that is the word — by B.C. Hydro, and that there are many painful experiences where B.C. Hydro goes its own way in contradiction and against the wishes of municipalities simply because this power is already extended to that particular Crown corporation. Now it would seem to me that in section 9 we are facing a situation where the door is…. I wouldn't even say the door is open wide; the door is taken away. There is absolutely no impediment whatever, if we pass section 9, to prevent the government, through any of his departments or Crown corporations or Ministers or commissions, doing exactly as it pleases with land and improvements.

First of all, I would like to know if my interpretation of the completely unencumbered nature of this amendment…have I read it correctly? Does it in fact mean that this government is giving itself total and complete authority to take unto itself power in the use of land and improvements which does not extend to any other citizen or group or corporation or association of individuals in this province? If that is the case, then this has to be the most shocking and impertinent approach that this government has made since it became government.

Not only that, Mr. Chairman, if my interpretation is correct, it is an additional insult to try and slip that kind of far-reaching and dictatorial legislation through as part of a Statute Law Amendment Act. After all the words and argument we have heard about how vital it is in our modern society to use land intelligently — and I agree that it is — it is just an insult beyond belief that this government in a section in the Statute Law Amendment Act should try to exempt itself from the extremely detailed, complicated laws which it has already passed, affecting every individual citizen in this province.

So if my interpretation is correct, perhaps the Minister could tell us why this government sets itself above the individuals in society that it is elected to represent, sets special privilege for itself in the use of land and improvements.

Secondly, I would like to know, if that is the purpose of this section, whether the Minister could tell us — and I can't possibly see what justification there would be to take this particular highly privileged, undemocratic right unto the government which is not extended unto citizens individually — why government feels that it requires this very special privilege position. Is it due to the kind of situations which arose when ICBC bought some agricultural land in the Lower Fraser Valley and then found they couldn't build a claims centre because the land was zoned for agricultural purposes?

Is section 9 meant to get this government off the hook when it spends public funds buying land for a purpose which it cannot use? It would seem to me that the phraseology and the terminology in this very small section indeed gives the government just that amount of power to use land for specific government purposes which no other individual or corporation or business or group of citizens would ever have any hope of using. If that's the case, this has to be the most insulting bill this House has ever had to consider since this government came to power.

The other question that arises, of course, is to what kind of use this bill will be put by the enlarging

[ Page 4985 ]

number of commissions and boards and government agencies and Crown corporations which seem to be increasing at a steady pace in this province. It would, I think, demolish the confidence which many people in the province have as to the motivation of all the legislation we've passed in relation to land and assessments. Goodness only knows, if there are two subjects which have caused the most heated of debate in this House, they have been in relation to land and in relation to assessment of improvements.

It just seems such a total and complete contradiction of everything which this government says it espouses, a total contradiction of what it considers every honest and honourable citizen should try and uphold — the law. Yet this government apparently wants to exempt itself totally from these very vital legislative restrictions on the individual in relation to land and improvements.

So I wonder if the Minister could answer, first, whether I have interpreted this correctly; secondly, whether this is to cover specific instances such as the one I mentioned in the Lower Fraser Valley, where agricultural land was bought for an ICBC centre; thirdly, to what degree this extends that privilege I've mentioned to agencies of the government. Or, at least, at what level of government administration can this exemption be sought?

In other words, how far down the line do we go in having some subsidiary agency of the government wanting to build an office building in the middle of a residential area, for example, or, worse still, put up some industrial or commercial project right in the middle of an area in which the people in that community have decided should be retained for parks or residential property or some other totally different purpose?

It seems to me that this section 1s devastating in its potential for government and government agencies to completely disregard the existing law which applies to every other citizen. Worse than that, it is again just a complete slap in the face to municipalities. As I read section 9, the municipalities might as well not spend five minutes on their various rezoning or zoning committee meetings, when at any time government can simply come along and do as it chooses with its won property and its own plans.

So I think this section 9, being slipped in here as part of the Statute Law Amendment Act, with all the consequences that I can foresee…. The very least we should have had was a separate bill at least to determine whether or not this House feels that the government should take this amount of privileged position unto itself, which is completely contradictory to the position as it applies to every citizen in this province.

Hon. Mr. Hall: Mr. Chairman, I want to make just one simple statement about this section — which is all that is required. This section puts the government in exactly the same position that the previous government was in for 20 years — exactly the same position that this government was in in 1972, exactly the same position that this government was in in 1973, exactly the same position the government was in until the passage of the Statute Law Amendment Act in the spring session of this year, when, under the Interpretation Act, a similar statute such as this…. The Interpretation Act was a section. That power went. No point in….

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Hall: The things that you said are available to this government have been available to the government of British Columbia for at least the last 20 years. What we are doing is saying that in this section those powers should be restored to the Crown.

Mr. H.A. Curtis (Saanich and the Islands): The comment by the Provincial Secretary doesn't make us feel any easier. Whether the right or the actions have been available to government over 20 or 40 years doesn't make it any more fair for the people of British Columbia.

I think, Mr. Chairman, that it is an affront to this Legislature to have this slipped through in the Statute Law Amendment Act, particularly with an explanatory note which ways: "This amendment is self-explanatory."

Now, Mr. Chairman, I recall as one not sitting in this House prior to 1972, that it was this very kind of section in this particular kind of bill which was of concern to the present government party when it sat in opposition: the hooker, the sleeper, the little note in an omnibus bill, or an all-purpose bill, or a catch-all bill. I remember Members who are sitting in this House and others who are not, who were then in opposition, who repeatedly pointed out that this kind of legislation — around the back door — was simply not acceptable and it was not fair.

Let this committee not be confused, Mr. Chairman, what we have here is double-standard legislation — double-standard legislation. The citizen, the group, the company, the corporation — whatever it may be — must follow certain regulations, but the government exempts itself — and I reject that principle at all levels of government. I reject it here; I reject it at the federal level; and I have on many occasions rejected it at the municipal or regional district level. Because it is comparable precisely, Mr. Chairman, to a municipality with an older municipal hall not bothering to zone the property on which it stands, or to exempt the setback regulations, or to somehow skirt and pass by the building code of the municipality. It is not acceptable at any level of

[ Page 4986 ]

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

I think that it is — again, as I said earlier — it is an affront in six or eight lines — section 9 of the Statute Law Amendment Act — in the dying hours or days of this session, for this government to undertake precisely what it opposed strenuously time after time after time when it was in opposition — double standard, double-think.

Mr. R.H. McClelland (Langley): Mr. Chairman, just a brief comment about section 9.

I've seen, since I've been in this Legislature, a couple of these Statute Law Amendment Acts, and in each of them there always seems to be a kicker — one section which has been sort of slipped into the middle, but which is much more important than the government seems to think it is.

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

Mr. McClelland: Mr. Chairman, the Provincial Secretary destroys his own argument when he says that this is law which just perpetuates what has gone on for 20 years. This province has a long history, Mr. Chairman, to the Provincial Secretary, of land planning, beginning 20 or 30 years ago with the start of the lower mainland regional planning board, and then, even going into that bill that the government brought in — the Land Commission Act — and this simple little statute destroys the concept — makes a mockery, Mr. Chairman — of the Land Commission Act, because it overrules everything that the Land Commission Act could do.

The Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) mentioned that the government will overrule municipal planning. Well, it already did that with the Land Commission Act, but now it's taking unto itself the kind of powers that will overrule the Land Commission Act itself.

We see the prospect of ICBC offices, of motor vehicle branches, of salvage yards, of body shops, of parts depots, stuck in the middle of residential sections or in the middle of town centres, the middle of planned communities — it doesn't matter. The government will be able to come along and just dump them on a local community without any reference to any kind of planning that might have gone on before. And that's wrong, Mr. Chairman, because this government must get it into its head that it must cooperate with the local planning authorities, and it must take part in the kind of planning that is going on at the local level; it can't just ride roughshod over local officials as it intends to do in this law.

In section B, Mr. Chairman, the government goes against what is happening all over Canada. Provincial governments are recognizing, Mr. Chairman, that local governments must have a share, for assessment and taxation purposes, of government and public buildings and facilities. Three, or four, or five of the provincial governments, Mr. Chairman, have recognized this and now make certain that all public facilities are taxed at the full level, the same as private facilities.

The provincial government can't continue, Mr. Chairman, to ride on the backs of local taxpayers — and that's what this section allows it to do again. Public facilities which will go in — whether they're ICBC offices, or whether they're salvage yards, or whether they're body shops, or whether they're parts depots, or whatever they happen to be — will ride on the backs of the local taxpayers, and ultimately the local taxpayer will end up paying more for his share of the public facilities in that community — and that's not right either, Mr. Chairman.

I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that this section of this Act should be withdrawn, and the government should take another look at it and should go back and decide, first of all, that it will not place itself above the powers of local planning authorities — or, in fact, above the powers of the Land Commission Act — and secondly, that it will cease from riding on the backs of local taxpayers and start to pay its own share. This bill only perpetuates that problem.

Section 9 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 27

NAYS — 16

Mr. Curtis: When reporting to the Speaker, would you indicate that a division took place and ask that it be recorded in the Journals of the House?

Mr. Chairman: Agreed.

On section 10.

[ Page 4987 ]

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Mr. Chairman, section 10 — at least the first part; it's in two parts — permits the government, or permits the Motor Vehicle Branch, to take away the licence of someone because they are in default of a debate to a private bank. The money may have been loaned originally to pay the insurance premiums, but it seems curious that we should be taking away a driver's licence to enforce a private debt. It would seem curious even if it were a Crown corporation that we were doing this for; but when you do it for a third party, it raises some very interesting questions.

Why is this debt considered so special? What about people who owe money to Crown corporations — Can-Cel? What about people who owe money to Hydro? Will they get their licences suspended as well? Why is there this denial of the right to drive and the money that has been paid for the licence. Why is that extended into this private debt area?

Now I can see that for administrative purposes the bank would like that. They're probably suffering very much from a rather incautious decision on their part to loan money to anyone who wanted to pay ICBC premiums. But it seems a quite unnecessary thing for this Legislature to do: to bail them out by going in and taking way their licence.

If there's a claim of the bank against that individual, let them deal with it in the normal way. Banks loan money to all sorts of people for all sorts of purposes. Once we put this in, the next thing they'll say is: "Look, if we lend money for someone to pay any other government debt that he might have, well, surely we should be able to have the same type of provisions we're slipping in here." I just think it's a principle which is wrong, and I think that it would be much better if this section were defeated.

Hon. Mr. Strachan: Mr. Chairman, this right to cancel a licence for the non-payment of a sum of money owed a part of the private sector is exactly the same privilege that was enjoyed by the private insurance companies through the Traffic Victims Indemnity Fund right through.

Interjection.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Well, I'll defer to the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) if he wishes, but I think we should follow this up.

I can see no connection, Mr. Minister, between a section that we are introducing, which would have the government cancel a government-issue licence to help a private company, a private bank, reclaim money which is owed to them for default on a bank loan…. I just fail to see that that has a connection with the Traffic Victims Indemnity Fund. Maybe the Minister can explain how it does. I think it doesn't have anything to do with the TVIF. But if I can go back to the point: why are we doing this?

Is the next step to have Crown corporations protected? I can see that the bank that, got involved in this has probably discovered that there are far more people defaulting than they ever expected. Fair enough. Tough lines for them. They're in there to make money and they fail to make money — tough. It doesn't worry me; they're making money elsewhere.

I fail to see why we should have the government cancel licences which it grants to citizens simply because of a private debt. The next thing we know, we'll have the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford) canceling hunting licences because somebody has defaulted on some other debt to a private company. There are many other licences we hold in society as individuals. It just seems that this is the wrong principle to introduce, that governments will cancel licences which it issues to citizens simply to help private corporations collect debts.

Mr. McClelland: Mr. Chairman, I'm amazed at the response we got from that Minister. I wish that I'd had the time to research Hansard because, Mr. Chairman, that Minister made a statement which is in direct contradiction to a statement that he made earlier this year. It was in response to a case I brought before this Legislature of a person who was 10 years after the fact assessed a certain amount of money — in fact, a lot of money, $30,000 or $40,000 — by the Traffic Victims Indemnity Fund to repay a claim that they had paid that person, who was 16 years old at the time.

That Minister stood in this House and told me across the floor that there wasn't any necessity to have any amendment to this Act because no one would ever have their licence suspended again for a debt of that kind.

That person, Mr. Chairman, had lost his job because his licence had been suspended because of the terms of the Act. That person was in dire straights and was faced with a lifetime debt which would never be repaid, because all he would ever be able to repay would be the interest. With a young family — he was about 26 years old with several young children — he was faced for the rest of his life paying off the interest on that debt. He would never, ever get out from under it.

That Minister, Mr. Chairman, stood in this House and said that no one will ever lose his licence again because of a debt of that kind. Here we see this Minister putting in the same kind of provision again where they'll bail out a private company to which a person owes a debt, and they'll cancel his licence.

[Mr. Gabelmann in the chair.]

[ Page 4988 ]

In fact, the Consumer Services Minister, (Hon. Ms. Young) who just left the House, should be looking into this kind of legislation, Mr. Chairman, because it's vicious. No one should have the opportunity to have that kind of hold on a person. No one should have that kind of opportunity — certainly not the government. But here's the government allowing people not only to have the kind of hammer they have anyway, but they're allowing them to have that additional hammer by canceling their licence to collect the debt. That's not right, that's not fair and that's certainly not democracy.

I would urgently plead with the government to withdraw this section from the Act, because it goes against everything that Minister said and stood up and promised in this House.

Hon. Mr. Strachan: As everyone knows, a requirement of the laws of this province is that you have valid insurance. There are many cases within the ICBC files where people received their insurance policy and their decals by writing an NSF cheque, knowing full well that they were actually obtaining their insurance and their licence plate in a fraudulent manner.

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

Hon. Mr. Strachan: Therefore, because they were obtained in a fraudulent manner, they weren't entitled to get that licence plate.

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

Hon. Mr. Strachan: No, no. The other thing is, we were requested by citizens all over the province to implement some form of budgetary payment. We canvassed all of the organizations, the banking organizations, and one company said that they would do it. They said that it would probably cost them a great deal, but they did it. It's not a large sum of money; it's quite different from the $40,000 thing. It's quite different. It's $100, $150, $200 or $300. I think that it's fair enough.

Mr. McClelland: Mr. Chairman, the dollars don't matter. It doesn't matter whether it's $30,000 or $28; it doesn't make any difference. It's the concept of the whole idea of being able to have that additional… If I go out and buy a refrigerator and I pay for it with an NSF cheque, then there are certain legal methods by which that company from which I've purchased the refrigerator can get back at me. But they certainly can't cancel my driver's licence, which may be my means of livelihood.

For you to say, when I issue you a cheque to buy my insurance, that I'm defrauding the ICBC — you don't have any right to say that until you go through legal channels. You certainly don't have the right to cancel my driver's licence, which may take away the means of my livelihood and may affect my family for the rest of my life. You don't have that right, and you shouldn't be allowed that right.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: The Minister, if he looked at this, he would see the lack of fairness in it and, I think, the bad principle involved here.

The Royal Bank apparently went out and made a whole pile of loans without doing any proper investigation of the people to whom they….

Interjection.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: That's a point. They made a great number of loans without the proper vetting of the people to whom they lent money. It's their problem if they're now caught with a lot of people defaulting. It's not mine; it's not the public of British Columbia's. It's theirs. They were stupid, and that's apparently what has taken place. They were stupid to get involved in a scheme where they didn't check people out and simply went ahead and lent money right, left and centre. Now, it's their problem.

The banks are making money elsewhere. They have the odd area where they get into trouble, fair enough. They may want to get out of this scheme. They may well want to. Perhaps they should, and again I don't know. But I fail to see why we should go ahead and have a person's licence taken away simply because they have not paid their payments to the Royal Bank.

That person may well have abandoned that particular vehicle, or given it up, or no longer interested in driving it. The fact is, if they allow this to go forward, they won't be able to drive another vehicle simply because of the default on payments to the bank to cover the insurance of a totally separate and distinct vehicle.

The Minister has indicated that if they are in default to ICBC under the present section 78(7) of the Motor vehicle Act, they can have their licence taken away. And apparently it did occur under certain circumstances before, as the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) has pointed out to us.

But why should we do this for a private corporation which is an independent third party? We already have the superintendent of insurance with the power,

"to take away registration, licence, of any motor vehicle registered in that person's name, and his driver's licence or permit, and shall refuse to licence…."

et cetera, et cetera.

We already have that in the case of indebtedness to the Crown. But we're dealing with a bank which got

[ Page 4989 ]

involved in a poor programme and there's utterly no reason in the world for us to come to that bank's defence. It's their tough lines. For us to suggest that the government, ourselves as legislators, and the public shall all get behind and help the banks in this instance doesn't make any sense at all.

There are, as has been mentioned by the Member for Langley, legal avenues open to the bank to recover that money. If they've made debts using bad judgment, they should follow the normal legal procedure. They should not come to the Legislature or have the Minister come to the Legislature with a piece of legislation which is extremely poor in principle and which, in practice, will be equally bad.

Mr. Wallace: I just want to support the arguments that have been presented. I think we're confusing a problem with a principle here.

The fact is that if someone issues an NSF cheque, it shouldn't be the problem of ICBC or the Motor Vehicle Branch or any arm of government to cancel the licence, which is not contingent upon whether or not the person is honest in the cheques he issues or whether he can afford to issue them. The Minister didn't refer to what happens in the case where a person loses his job for a month or two and, income-wise, isn't able to make the monthly payment.

I thought this government was dedicated not to penalize people because of poverty. I thought that was the general trend these days. Certainly, in terms of going to jail, we've had the bail reform Act nationally. The general thrust of the recent family commission hearings has been that people should not be penalized unfairly because they're poor. If they can't pay, they go to jail. Somebody who can pay doesn't go to jail.

I think it's very confusing here to penalize someone by the loss of a right — a driving right — which the person has proved by passing a driving test and his capacity to drive a car safely. That right is being taken away because of a completely different factor, namely the fact that he has defaulted on a certain payment.

I think if you extend that kind of principle, then our society could really get some pretty serious problems. One can foresee that you could lose certain other rights because of your incapacity to pay or your willingness to break the law by issuing a….

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Hon. Members, please allow the Hon. Member to continue.

Mr. Wallace: Well, let me just take a quick example. I think we all have the right to education. But supposing my parents or some child's parents don't pay their share of the education fraction of property tax. Are you going to suggest that the children can't go to school for education?

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

Mr. Wallace: Well, that's just the point. The Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) has just made the point. You've just made the point plainly from Shuswap: you lose your property if you don't pay your property tax. All I'm saying is that if you issue an NSF cheque to pay a premium, you should be penalized within the law for that offence. But you shouldn't have your privilege or right or whatever it is to drive your car taken away because of the default of paying a certain premium.

As I say, it would seem to me just as feasible to move off in the direction of denying children the right to go to school for their education because their parents haven't paid the education fraction of property tax. But that would never happen — at least I hope it never would. The parents concerned would either be charged interest on the outstanding taxes or they would, in time, lose the property. If they issued an NSF cheque to pay their property taxes they would be penalized under the law.

I just can't understand how we're tying together two elements which really, in principle, aren't related at all. I just can't possibly connect the, two. If we were to approve this first precedent, I can see us coming back to this Legislature as the years go by with another expanding plethora of legislation where you would be taking away certain rights or privileges — call them what you like — for unrelated reasons. If one of these unrelated reasons is either poverty or breach of the criminal law, then I think we're really off on a most dangerous path.

I can't oppose this section strongly enough. I think it is completely wrong.

Mr. D.M. Phillips (South Peace River): This section really sort of makes me chuckle. The reason it makes me chuckle is because some of the laws that this government has passed, particularly with respect to consumer protection and the whole department, and debt assistance Act, has really, in essence, come back to haunt the government. This is what this is all about.

We have laws which are so lenient today that, if a, person wants to create a debt and really doesn't want to pay it, I know as an independent businessman that there's really not much you can do about it. If you harass them, you could be called into court on character assassination. We've made it so easy for people in society to create a debt with really no teeth in the law to make them pay it that the government has finally found that here they're stuck in their own

[ Page 4990 ]

glue. They're really stuck in their own glue.

Interjection.

Mr. Phillips: I'm quite well aware what my position is, Mr. leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. D.A. Anderson). I don't need your assistance.

So the government is really stuck in their own glue, in essence, because they have gone to a private lending institution and said: "We want you to finance our insurance premiums."

The ironic thing about it is that they give this particular institution the full rate of interest. They're making their profit. I think they should take their burnps and their grinds. If there had been a special low rate of interest or something offered to ensure these insurance premiums, we might have had a different situation. But this bank is making its full rate of profit, it's full rate of interest. Now only that, if was really handed a plum because it's the only bank — unless you did it privately — that this set-up was through.

Now, after passing this particular lending institution this plum, as it were, whereby they're set up to finance all the insurance premiums, they come along and say: "Not only do you make your full profit on this deal but we're going to ensure that you're going to get paid. If you don't get paid, we're going to back you up. We're not going to seize the fridge or stove or property, or we're not going to allow you to take your normal burnps and grinds by going through the full course of the law" — which is available but which, as I said, really hasn't got that much teeth in it anyway. "No, we are going to back you up in your business of loaning money and making the full rate of interest. We're going to back you up by canceling your privilege to drive an automobile."

Now, I want to tell you this: most of the people who are not in a position to pay are probably going to be those where it is most necessary to earn their livelihood by providing their own transportation. So what you're really doing is hitting those people who are down. This government is really taking another swipe at the little people.

Maybe the person is trying to get a job to earn the money. All of this has to be taken into consideration by an independent businessman. If somebody owes him money, they have to say, "Well, if you're trying to get a job, we'll just back off."

I've said it many times myself. I've said that if you show a sincere interest — if you've got a bill of $500, if you pay us $5 a month, we'll never bother you as long as you are sincere. And we've written off thousands and thousands of dollars. Every businessman in this province does the same thing. You can't harass a person today. But the government's going to harass them; they're going to do worse.

Mr. McClelland: They've got a hammer over their heads.

Mr. Phillips: A hammer and a sickle. They're going to suspend, in many cases, the very means of their livelihood.

It's amazing to me that the Minister of Consumer Affairs (Hon. Ms. Young), who is the great protector of every consumer in this province, has left the Legislature. She's even set up a department — open storefronts. We had the Member for Esquimalt (Mr. Gorst) bearing the scissors last night in the big TV performance. Storefront protection for all of the people who were in problems, who have either bought something that didn't stand up…you know, if you bought a fridge and it happens to conk out…it's the same deal.

We have consumer protection; we have debt assistance. We've hired thousands — maybe not thousands — but we've certainly hired a large bureaucracy to protect these people from harassment, to help them when somebody's trying to collect their debt. But along comes the government and says, "You pay the Royal Bank of Canada, or else we'll take your licence away."

Do you think. Mr. Chairman, that that is fair? It seems to me that this government, again, is talking out of both sides of its mouth at once.

I would suspect, and I know — and the Minister just said it here a little while ago — that people are basically good. Anybody who is in a position to pay his debt, nine times out of 10 will pay it. If a person is unable to pay his insurance premium…. . It's only about 1 per cent of the time he could afford to pay it, the rest of the time it's because he's in financial difficulties.

The government has even said that — that people are basically good. I believe that. People are basically good.

If a person who is indebted to the Royal Bank of Canada, and is in a financial position or has assets and can pay, then you should proceed to the limits of the laws available to you. If the laws you have on the statute have not got enough teeth in them to allow the Royal Bank to collect its debt from that person, then I suggest that you change the statutes and put some teeth into them so that not only the Royal Bank, but every other business institution of the Province of British Columbia has enough teeth in the law to collect their debt. This is where we're falling down.

We talk about protection for consumers. There isn't that much protection for the merchant any more. Many small merchants…and these are the most vulnerable merchants because nine times out of 10 they're new in the business world, they haven't

[ Page 4991 ]

got that much experience, they're trying to build up their capital, they're trying to build up their business. Then some smoothie comes along and incurs large debts. This is what kills more small aspiring businessmen than anything else in this province — large debt incurred by people who really don't intend to pay.

These new businessmen are vulnerable because they're after business and they're not — I'll use the word "hard-nosed" — enough yet to say no to these people. So what they do is incur a large amount of debt, then look at their books, look at the business they've done, look at the profit they've made — but where is it? It's on the books, and they can't collect it.

If the laws of this province are not strong enough now to allow the Royal Bank, who has access to lawyers, who has access to accountants, who can….

Interjection.

Mr. Phillips: Well, certainly. If there's not enough teeth in the law so that the Royal Bank can collect the debt for the insurance, then I say to you, Mr. Chairman, the laws should be changed. Not only would it protect the Royal Bank, it would protect all other types of businessmen.

To take a complete about-flip here and say that you pay the Royal Bank of Canada, even though they've made their normal rate of interest, or we're going to suspend your drivers licence, I think is just not acceptable to the people of British Columbia today.

When people were buying their insurance from private agents, many times the private agents had to carry that premium on the books. I know agents who did carry premiums on the books. Sometimes many of the agents had to write them off, but that was the risk those agents took.

Interjection.

Mr. Phillips: Many agents had to write-off premiums for insurance which was in effect because they trusted the guy, and maybe the guy didn't pay. I know agents who have had to write it off, so I don't care what you say you can put it through.

I wish the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) would realize the complete effects of this, because you are suspending a privilege. Just as the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) said, it's a privilege to get an education — it's on the statute books. And there are other privileges that you can't, in this day, take away because of debts. We've already established that fact; that's why there's really no teeth.

You don't put people in jail today because they don't pay their debts. Any other businessman writes them off. If that's the case with insurance, then the Royal Bank, the one who has made the profit, should be the people to write it off.

I am certainly completely opposed to this. I don't know how the government who in the past has said they are so much for the protection of the consumers, with their special departments to assist in debts, can even think of passing this legislative measure through this Legislature.

Mr. McClelland: Mr. Chairman, I really wish that the government would take a second look at this. I don't know what the procedure might be, but surely they could, with leave of the House, withdraw this section, because I really think the government is operating on a basically false premise.

The Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) mentioned across the floor of the House that they weren't canceling the licence for a debt, they were canceling the licence because the driver had no insurance. But that's not correct. They are canceling a licence because of a debt. That's the concept that's wrong.

If you were taking away a person's licence because they had no insurance, that's a normal legal procedure which is already in effect.

The Member for South Peace River mentioned that private agents, in the past, have carried bad debts. If that debt wasn't repaid, that person's insurance was cancelled because he didn't pay for it — so he hadn't purchased it. Then because it was against the law to drive without insurance, if that person got picked up by the police then he went through the motions of going through all the due process of law, and perhaps his licence might have been cancelled. That isn't even sure, but a court might have cancelled his licence for that infraction of the law. But certainly the government shouldn't have the right to do this through statute.

We shouldn't be asked in this House to come before the House and approve this kind of legislation. It's basically wrong; it goes against everything this government has attempted to do in its consumer services legislation.

The government should take that piece of legislation back and look at it again, because it's wrong morally and legally, Mr. Chairman.

I'd just like to ask that Minister if he will stand in this House today and tell this House whether or not he didn't stand here and promise earlier this year that no one would ever have his or her licence cancelled again because of a bad debt. That Minister stood in this House and said that. Now he's shepherding through legislation which goes against that very concept, Mr. Chairman. I'd like the Minister to reply to that question.

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

[ Page 4992 ]

have mentioned, and I mentioned the fact that this is a very poor principle which, if applied elsewhere, could be onerous upon the Province of British Columbia.

Could I give a couple of examples to the Minister? Say, for example, the insurance on my boat is in default; is my fishing licence to be taken away by the Minister of Recreation and Conservation? Surely, if I'm in default of my boat insurance it's up to the ICBC, or whichever other company I deal with, to collect the money from me.

Say a hunter who has a hunting licence hasn't paid for the insurance that he has taken out. Is his hunting licence to be taken away by the Minister of Recreation and Conservation?

If the government gets in the business of using these licences and the cancellation of these licences as a club or threat to guarantee repayment of private corporation loans, we are entering into an absolutely weird area.

I can see in the case of ICBC — and I must say I have my doubts there, where you have a Crown corporation, but when you go into the business of enforcing loans — "The Enforcers, " I guess we should call that crowd over there — enforcing loans of private corporations by depriving people of privileges, which are enjoyed by the general bulk of the population, whether or not they're in default in other areas, is wrong.

Another point I'd like to make to the Minister is that we all know that ICBC lives in the same building in Vancouver as the company concerned. We all know there has been the odd little computer error — not more than $400,000. What happens if mistakes are made?

I remember those great ads, as was mentioned by the Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) the ads about that sweet little girl — what was it? — Mary of the Royal Bank.

Mr. Wallace: Just phone Mary.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Just phone Mary and she'll fix things up. (Laughter.) But I don't know whether we could phone Eileen in this case and ask her to fix this one up, because it's really ridiculous provision. (Laughter.)

I'm going to get on the phone to Mary right away. We're certainly not getting any success at all with the government. Why have they suddenly taken it upon themselves to add the extra enforcement, the….

Interjection.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Well, they've suddenly become enforcer for one of the most private corporations in the land — namely a private bank. I just don't understand it. What is behind it? What was said when the Royal Bank got that contract to handle the loans for ICBC? What was said when that space was leased? Because it's a very, very, very strange to bring in. It's totally unlike anything else; it's totally out of character with the government, which pretends to represent small people, and now is out to help the banks collect $50 or $60 or $40 from people who simply can't afford to pay.

Mr. Wallace: We know how the Premier loves your bank.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: It's…yes, I wonder if the Premier, were he here, would vote for this iniquitous proposition of giving the Royal Bank, specifically, powers of enforcement so far beyond any other private business in the province.

I think that if the Ministers, and in particular if the backbench take this one back to a caucus meeting, they will probably get it changed there as well.

Interjection.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Well, that's what you said yesterday, Mr. Member.

An Hon. Member: Oh, there's a chicken plucker.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: He's the one; he's the hard-liner. It's help the banks; down on the small people. We would like the Hon. House Leader (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) and the Hon. Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall)…. It's the Provincial Secretary who's responsible for piloting this bill through. Could we not have this section simply stood over until you can have another caucus meeting, because it really doesn't make any sense?

Mr. Gardom: Mr. Chairman, I think the speakers have well illustrated the point to the House of the ludicrous nature of this proposed amendment on the part of the government. The bank — there's no question of a doubt — has the responsibility to collect and it has the legal competence to collect.

If an individual does not pay his bank loan, the bank can go to the courts of the land, which are established for that purpose, and it can recover a judgment against the individual. If the individual still refuses to pay, the bank can take out a process known as judgment summons whereby the individual could be ordered to pay a certain sum per month. The bank could initiate proceedings known as a warrant of execution, wherein the sheriff could seize the goods of the judgment debtor in order to satisfy the loan. The bank would be entitled to garnishee any funds that the individual might have for his failure to pay. The bank would be entitled to register its

[ Page 4993 ]

judgment against any lands the individual might have, and recover that way.

So the bank has four ways within which it can take proceedings, according to law, to collect the just debt that is owing to it. There is another proceeding, and this is one that is followed by banks. The banks keep a list of those people who don't pay, and when those people go to banks to secure loans other banks are aware of that fact. There is a certain — I don't know if you'd call it a harmonious relationship between banks — but there certainly is a relationship between banks when it comes to lending money to people. They've got an awful lot of muscle in the community — perhaps far, far too much.

There's another element that I think the government is not giving consideration to, and that is the element of error. The element of error is one that has crept in or I would say crept is perhaps the wrong word has swept into the administrative processes of the Insurance Corporation of the Province of British Columbia ever since it started — one error after another. It's chock full of errors. We find computers not doing the job; we find people not receiving the certificates they're entitled to, Mr. Chairman. At the present time in B.C., Mr. Chairman, I understand an individual still has to have four pieces of paper before that individual is in a position to make a claim to the insurance corporation for loss or damage.

If the individual does not have those four pieces of paper, the claim can be denied, and is being denied, Mr. Chairman. I'm talking about the registration certificate, an owner's insurance certificate, a driver's certificate, and a driver's license. And if an individual, Mr. Chairman, doesn't have those four pieces of paper today — and the computer is preventing a lot of them getting it — they are not entitled to make a claim, and that is an illustration of the example of error.

Another illustration of the example of error, Mr. Chairman, is the bank mucks up its books — and I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that banks make no end of errors. So we're going to find an individual in this province denied the privilege to be on the road because a bank makes a mistake. And you're supporting them. Why are you bringing down this kind of a guillotine? Don't you think the banks can stand on their own feet?

An Hon. Member: They should do.

Mr. Gardom: And they should do. It's their responsibility to do that.

I haven't heard a logic argument from any government Member. If what I'm saying is incorrect, please tell me so. Please tell me so, and tell me exactly how. I'm happy to sit down.

Mr. Chabot: Get up on your hind feet.

Mr. Gardom: I don't see anybody wishing to spring to their feet and define the necessity to help little old Mary at the Royal Bank. Why is this? This is a funny session, Mr. Chairman, it really is. It's turning into a funny farm sort of a place.

Let's have some reasons for these things. If we're going to start imposing these kinds of strictures on the public of B.C. — over $1 million people driving cars — let's have a reason. Let's have a reason. I'm not too concerned about the bank's problem. They're strong enough to take care of themselves.

Mr. Phillips: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This government, we used to say, robbed from the rich and gave to the poor. I think the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) robs from the poor and gives to the lazy. But now we have the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) robbing the poor to give to the rich; a complete reversal — robbing from the poor to give to the rich.

The Premier of this province (Hon. Mr. Barrett), if he were here today and not in China, no way would this legislative measure go forward, because he has attacked the banks for their usury methods. He attacks the banks, continually attacks the banks, but here the Minister of Transport and Communications jumps in their back pocket.

Interjections.

Mr. Phillips: Well, I have to question, Mr. Chairman, just what commitment did the Minister of Transport and Communications make? What side deal? What under-the-table deal did he make with the Royal Bank?

Mr. Chairman: Order, order! Mr. Member, order! I think you were ascribing some improper motives, and I would ask you to withdraw that.

Mr. Phillips: No, I was asking questions.

Mr. Chairman: Well, the manner in which it was said ….

Mr. Phillips: I certainly wouldn't want to say that….

An Hon. Member: Just deny that there's no such deal.

Mr. Phillips: I certainly don't want to impugn the character of the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams). If I indicated that he made an under-the-table deal with the Royal Bank, then I'll withdraw it. But what commitment did he make over the table, behind closed doors, to

[ Page 4994 ]

the Royal Bank?

Why was the Royal Bank given this deal? Is it because Icky Bicky rents their premises from the Royal Bank — and how much profit do they make on that? Not only are they making thousands of dollars profit from renting the premises from the Royal Bank, now he's going to back them up and really put some teeth in it so they can collect their debts. What's going to be next? I'll tell you if the Premier was here and not in China, this legislative measure would never go through. Because what we're doing here, as I said before, Mr. Chairman, is we're really working a hardship.

Let's take the case of John Doe. John Doe has an old 1967 Chevrolet car that he uses it to transport his family around. But John Doe is employed driving a truck for A & B construction company.

All right, now what's the Minister going to do? If he wants to collect that debt, if he wants to put some teeth into it, why doesn't he say, "Okay, we'll cancel the insurance on the Chevrolet car"? But what he is doing by canceling that man's driver's license is saying, "We're going to penalize you not only for not paying your debt; we're going to take away your right to earn a livelihood. We're going to create another member for the Department of Human Resources." And that's exactly what will happen, because there are many people, maybe driving truck as their livelihood, maybe driving bus, maybe not using the vehicle that the insurance debt is against.

I want the Minister to really take a second look at this, because there are many people who earn their livelihood, and maybe some of them aren't the best paying jobs, and maybe that's why they haven't been able to pay the Royal Bank for the insurance on the family car. But what we're doing here is denying that person the right to earn his livelihood if he uses his driver's licence to do so.

I'll tell you, all we're going to do is add more to the roles of the Department of Human Resources because, as I said before, people are basically sound and honest. If they were in a position to pay, they would pay. If they can't pay, let the Royal Bank take the burnps and the grinds, the same as every other private businessman has to do in this province.

So, Mr. Minister, this is diametrically opposed to the position — the stand — that this government has taken in two-and-a-half years; it's diametrically opposed to the position that the Premier (Hon. Mr. Barrett) has taken when he attacks the banking system.

But here we have a case — and I don't know what grip the Royal Bank has…. Maybe they're going to threaten to cancel the contract where they rent the building in Vancouver. Maybe that's the grip the bank has got over the Minister. I don't know what the grip is.

But here he is renting and paying out millions of dollars of rent every year to this bank; he gave them the deal in the first place, and must have made some kind of a commitment that we will guarantee that all these debts are paid, or else he wouldn't be putting this legislative measure through.

I plead with the Minister, I beg the Minister, to be the humanist that he proposes to be and not take the right of livelihood away from those people by guaranteeing a debt to the Royal Bank.

Mr. Gardom: Mr. Chairman, if this measure is accepted by the House today, will it mean that tomorrow the Royal Bank will be changing its name from the Royal Bank to the Red Bank?

Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh!

Mr. McClelland: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to ask again, through you to the Minister of Transport and Communications, if he won't agree that he stood in this House and promised that no one would ever have his or her driver's licence lifted again because of a bad debt. Will the Minister confirm that, the Minister of Transport and Communications? I haven't had a chance to look at Hansard yet, but it's my recollection that that Minister did stand in this House and say that no one in British Columbia would ever have a driver's licence lifted again because of a bad debt.

The Minister recognized at that time, Mr. Chairman — I don't know whether the other Ministers in the House have ever recognized it — that that was a hammer that the government shouldn't be allowed to have, that the government, if they're going to be in the marketplace, should be in the marketplace with the same legal restrictions as everybody else.

As the other Members have pointed out most clearly — there are many legal methods by which a government or an ICBC or the Royal Bank or anyone else can collect bad debts. They should be subject to the consumer laws of this province; they should be subject certainly, to all of the legal ramifications in the province and of the statutes of the government of Canada.

They have a portfolio — the Minister is sitting in her place now…. The Minister should stand up. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to plead now that the Minister is back in the House, the Minister for Consumer Services (Hon. Ms. Young), to have her stand up and plead with this government to take away this kind of power to collect bad debts, because no one else has it and no one else deserves it. Certainly the government doesn't deserve it.

But I'd like to ask those two Ministers, Mr. Chairman — the Minister of Consumer Services and the Minister of Transport and Communications — to stand up and clarify their positions with regard to this, because someone was certainly misleading this

[ Page 4995 ]

House earlier when that Minister stood up and said that no one in this province would ever have a driver's licence cancelled because of a bad debt against him.

Mr. Bennett: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to question the Minister again on this because, in effect, what he's done to everyone who buys a driver's licence through the Royal Bank is to give the Royal Bank a mortgage on their driver's licence.

He has granted the Royal Bank the chance to have an unregistered lien or an unregistered mortgage, through legislation, on the driver's licence to the people in British Columbia. A mortgage on their driver's licence.

Now if this Minister is experiencing now, because he's never….

Mr. Phillips: They don't even have to have the mortgage registered.

Mr. Bennett: That's right. If he's never understood the difficulty of collecting a bad debt, if he's never been on that side that has its difficulty with collections, why not put some heat in the collection Act? Why not pass a law that's fair for all, and just doesn't deal with the commitment he made to the mortgage bank?

Mr. Chairman, let's get it clear that what this Minister is trying to do is give the Royal Bank a lien, a mortgage, a charge against the people of B.C.'s drivers' licences — an unregistered lien, an unregistered mortgage — something that he doesn't have the right to do by legislation.

Interjections.

Mr. \ Bennett: Why doesn't he deal with this in the manner it should be dealt with, by providing some legislation or putting some teeth in the collection Act? It's difficult now for — many people of British Columbia to collect from people who don't pay, but you don't have the right by legislation to give the Royal Bank this type of power and give them a lien or a mortgage or a charge against anyone's driver's licence.

I'd ask the Minister, Mr. Chairman, if he'll comment on this.

Mr. Phillips: Mr. Chairman, it's hardly conceivable that the Minister would not stand up in this Legislature and explain, after some of the comments made from the opposition benches, why this is necessary.

Now we brought up a very, very important point, a point that is maybe…. I don't know how many people are involved here, but let's have the Minister tell us: how many people are involved? How many haven't paid for their insurance? How many people are involved? We certainly deserve some explanation, Mr. Chairman.

Let the Minister stand on his feet in this Legislature and tell us how many people are involved, and give some justification for this very dictatorial Act he's trying to force through today, an Act that, as I said before, will affect the livelihood of I don't know how many people. Even if it affects the livelihood of half-a-dozen, that's half-a-dozen more people that that Minister will be responsible for putting on the welfare rolls in this province. It will rest on his shoulders and on his conscience, simply because he's trying to protect that small, little private enterprise group known as the Royal Bank of Canada.

Now the Minister can make a change with this. If he does, he's showing that he's got heart, that he's interested. I'd like the Minister, Mr. Chairman, before we vote on this, to give us some indication of what his thoughts are now in view of the points we've brought up.

Mr. Chabot: Mr. Chairman, I never thought I'd see the day when that Minister would just turn his back to the people of British Columbia, turn his back like he's turning his back here in this Legislature, be unwilling to face up to his responsibilities as a Minister, be unwilling to give consideration to the people of British Columbia relative to the driver's licence.

The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) indicated very clearly that what the bank has is a first mortgage on the driver's licence. Is the Minister going to introduce further legislation giving other people the right to get a second mortgage or a third mortgage on the driver's licence? Is that what he's telling us now, that he's made that first step down the road allowing a first mortgage against a driver's licence, and the next move of that government that indicates it cares about people will be to prepare a second mortgage and a third mortgage on drivers' licences?

What kind of callousness is this, Mr. Chairman? The waffling Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) indicated this morning that that government over there were the only representatives in this Legislature that cared about the little people. Now we see the action of a Minister who's unwilling to give any consideration when we're pleading with him on behalf of these people whose livelihood is being jeopardized by the action and the silence of that Minister over there. That's not good enough, Mr. Chairman; that's not good enough.

Yesterday we say the spectacle — we saw a picture, in fact, in the newspaper, the Colonist of the Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Ms. Young) opening a storefront office in Victoria, along with the official ribbon-cutter ding-dong from Esquimalt. Mr. Chairman, that's not good enough.

[ Page 4996 ]

Interjections.

Mr. Chabot: Mr. Chairman, here is the government that indicates it cares because it set up a Department of Consumer Services. Why haven't we heard from that Minister who's out there getting her publicity in the newspapers…

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order!

Mr. Chabot: …and pictures when there's a serious conflict with her responsibilities and the action being taken by that Minister? AD we get is silence and the back of the head of that Minister in this House, Mr. Chairman. That's not good enough.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The Hon. Member should confine his remarks to the section before us.

An Hon. Member: He is.

Mr. Chabot: Mr. Chairman, all I ask is that the Minister take this section back, remove this section or withdraw the bill, go to some other legislation if there's any other legislation to go to, go back in caucus with his silent backbench. I'm sure that after the statements that have been made in this House they are prepared to tell that Minister to change this section — to back up, as we've seen so many other back-ups from him and his colleagues in that cabinet.

That's all we ask, that the caucus have an opportunity…

Mr. Chairman: Order, please!

Mr. Chabot: …to reassess that government's lack of direction.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Mr. Chairman, I think that this debate on the Royal Bank benevolent provision which we've got here before us should be put in the proper perspective.

First of all, as we know, the Royal Bank happens to be the bank for ICBC. The Royal Bank seems to be not only their bank but their landlord as well.

I was out of the House checking a few of the debates we had at the startup of ICBC, Mr. Chairman, and I discovered at that time — I looked at a few press releases — that the Royal Bank, when they got the agency, thought they would be doing a substantial amount of the business. But, of course, this didn't happen quite that way. Prior to the Royal Bank coming in with their special scheme to pick up anybody, no matter what his credit rating, other banks went in and loaned money to people as well. And that is something I think we should bear in mind.

Anyway, the Royal Bank didn't get the business they expected. Instead of getting 40, they got about 5 per cent. They got about 62,000 policies on which they may have lost $750,000. Of the 62,000 policies, about 3,500 only made the down payment and no more. And what did the Royal Bank do? They sent every one of those things out to collection agencies — what they should do, in other words.

Now, what we come in with here is a special provision to assist the Royal Bank so they don't even have to go to collection agencies. They can lift the licence and muscle people that way. Now, back to the Royal Bank.

At that time, the Royal Bank became the official ICBC bank, and at the same time the agents across the province, as we all know from those older banks, had to open accounts in the Royal Bank. Well, some didn't, and those are the ones who had to phone Atlanta, Georgia, Mr. Minister. If you phoned Atlanta, Georgia, every time you made a deposit, okay, you can get away from opening an account. And you agree with me.

Interjection.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: That's exactly what I've done and you're not denying it.

If you didn't want to open with that specific bank, you could phone Atlanta, Georgia, whenever you made a deposit. Well, that's a great way to run it.

Now, the situation with the Royal Bank was that they got in this position, being the landlord, being the banker, being loan agent, and they just felt, "Well, this is great. The government, apparently, is on our side. Let's go a little further and ask them to get powers to give us rights to have licences suspended," which is not available to any other creditor in British Columbia except ICBC itself.

I just find it extremely difficult to understand. We had the Premier not so long ago talking about banks. He had a Colonist article on October 8, not so long ago, about usury at the banks. That's the headline: "Usurious chartered banks."

"Premier David Barrett has taken off again in his favourite corporate charter. He renewed his attack on the banks for their having earned profits of 23 per cent last year."

And he went on and on and on denouncing the banks. Yet, just as soon as he goes off to China, what do we have come into the Legislature? We have this Minister who has these special deals with the Royal Bank and ICBC; he has a whole series of them from landlord to banker to loan bank for the people who didn't have the money to pay up in the first instance. He brings in a provision which is essentially a provision to give that bank the most enormous powers over those delinquent people.

[ Page 4997 ]

We know they lost money on this thing. We know they lost a pile of money. We know why. They lost it because those who could get a loan elsewhere went to their ordinary bank. Those who couldn't and didn't have an account, who had been promised simply for political reasons that they would have no difficulty finding the premium, went to the Royal Bank under a scheme which was a poor scheme and which the Royal Bank should never have gone into. It got into it because of its special relationship with the government. And we say stick it to the Royal Bank if they are dumb enough to get involved with you in that way. We say no to this amendment because this amendment puts those people of the Province of British Columbia who defaulted in their payments to the Royal Bank, in a preferred position, in a position which they would not be in were they in default in any other bank or any other creditor in the province.

So the amendment is clear. It has come in while the Premier was away. It has come in to add to those usurious profits which the Premier talked about. And where is it going to come from? It is going to come from the few thousand people who have met with adversity and who are in the worst possible position to contribute to excessive bank profits. When the Premier is in China, the former leader of the NDP (Hon. Mr. Strachan) has seen an opportunity to put in an amendment which, of course, is the utter reverse to what the Premier has been telling us as recently as October 8.

We say to the government, we say to the backbench: take this back, look at it again and have a caucus on it. Come in with amendments or changes which do not give or will not give this special advantage to the Royal Bank.

The Royal Bank, in terms of branches, is, I believe, the world's largest bank in the number of branches that they have. It is a very, very big and powerful corporation.

There are 3,500 people who apparently were unable to make even one payment. There are some other thousands, maybe tens of thousands of people who could only afford a few payments. Sure, they should be checked upon. As the Hon. Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) mentioned, a normal collection should take place. But denying these people their licence to drive is going too far to protect what the Premier calls the usurious profits of one of the world's largest corporations and, apparently, the world's largest bank in terms of the number of branches.

Why has it been brought in now? Why has this come forward when the Premier is away in China? I really suspect, Mr. Chairman, it has come in because there is no way that he could have voted for a provision such as this. It is so poor in principle and wrong in practice.

Mr. Phillips: I am afraid that the Minister here, with his pet project, ICBC, has buried all of his principles to make that corporation work at any cost to anybody. To use strong-arm….

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member to confine his remarks to the section.

Mr. Phillips: Exactly. The Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, Mr. Chairman, is going to force people who haven't paid for their insurance premiums, force them off the road and deny them that right. This Minister used strong-arm tactics against the insurance agents of this province; he used strong-arm tactics against the poor little independent body shops in this province. Now he is using strong-arm, dictatorial tactics against individual drivers in this province, and jeopardizing their employment. What we need in this province, Mr. Chairman, is a bill of rights. Where is the bill of rights that this government was going to bring up?

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Phillips: Where is this bill of rights?

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member stick to the point?

Mr. Phillips: The point is that this Minister has taken away a right and a privilege in this province to drive because of a debt incurred to that little bank, the Royal Bank.

The Minister must believe very much in advertising, because the Royal Bank puts out an ad, "You can make it happen at the Royal." Well, you can make it happen at the Royal. You might lose your driver's licence, but you'll make it happen. And the Minister goes around the province and spends $140,000 on big ads: "Your insurance company." Mind you, by buying insurance from your insurance company you just might end up losing your driver's licence. But it's your insurance company. "Ask us." Full-page ads all over the province. "Ask us. You're the boss."

I wonder if those people whom he calls the boss of this insurance company would be happy with this if they knew that if they were a little late in paying their premiums, they were going to lose their driver's licence — their right to drive.

For the first time in the history of the province, never did this happen. Never was anybody allowed to have a mortgage on your driver's licence in this province. No one ever had a mortgage on your driver's licence. After it went through the courts and so forth, and a person was proven right, certainly. But nobody had a mortgage on it. No way.

[ Page 4998 ]

Interjections.

Mr. Phillips: Well, get up and make your speech, then. We've certainly given you the opportunity. You've buried your principles on this one, Mr. Minister. You've buried your principles for the sake of making ICBC work. You've buried your principles, and you know it.

Mr. Chairman rises.

Mr. Chairman: I was going to ask the Hon. Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) to confine his remarks to the section and not to engage in personal remarks against the Minister, and also for the Minister not to interrupt the Hon. Member's speech.

Can we have the next speaker, or is the Hon. Member for South Peace River going to continue?

Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.

Mr. Phillips: I have just a couple more points I want to make before the Minister speaks. This Government of British Columbia with taxpayers' money is going to subsidize the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. I'm just wondering if the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia is going to have some lien on the province if the cheques aren't good. When the subsidization cheques go in and they happen to bounce, is the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia going to cancel the driver's licences of all the civil servants in the Province of British Columbia?

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. That is not part of this section.

Mr. Phillips: Well, it certainly is. It's a third party. It's a premium. The taxpayers of this province are subsidizing ICBC every day of life with every gallon of gasoline, which is directly opposite to the statement made by that very Minister.

But as I said before, he's determined to make ICBC right. It doesn't matter whose toes he steps on or what principles he throws away, he's going to make ICBC right so that when he brings in that report next year it'll be in good, glowing terms: "I told you so." It doesn't matter how many principles he throws away or how many times he backs down on his own words. That's the truth, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman rises.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please!

Would the Hon. Member be seated, please? Order, please.

I just want to point out to the Hon. Member that it's wrong to impute an improper motive to any Member of the House. I would ask him to withdraw any such imputation. He accused the Hon. Member of acting in an unprincipled manner. I would ask him to withdraw that.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please! The Chair interprets the Hon. Member's remarks as stating that the Minister had thrown away his principles, or, in other words, was acting in an unprincipled manner. I would ask him to withdraw this imputation.

Mr. Chairman resumes, his seat.

Mr. Phillips: He wouldn't tell me what I actually said that imputed….

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Just to be sure, I just want to….

Mr. Phillips: I don't know which part of it.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please! I just want to….

Mr. Phillips: Oh, why don't you be…. Bring that Minister to order.

Mr. Chairman rises.

Mr. Chairman: Again, the Chair has made a ruling. I have interpreted the Hon. Member's remarks as stating that the Hon. Minister had thrown his principles out the window, namely that he was acting in an unprincipled manner. I would just ask him to withdraw this imputation.

Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.

Mr. Phillips: What I was saying, Mr. Chairman, is that the Minister threw his principles out the window to make ICBC work, Now, if that imputes improper principles, I'll withdraw it. Oh, I'll withdraw it.

Mr. Chairman rises.

Mr. Chairman: I've made a ruling from the chair and requested that the Hon. Member unconditionally withdraw the imputation that the Minister is acting in an unprincipled manner. I would just ask you to do that without any comment.

Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.

Mr. Phillips: Well, certainly, I don't want

[ Page 4999 ]

to….

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Phillips: I'm going to. What are you so jumpy about?

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The Chair….

Mr. Phillips: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I will withdraw any imputation I made that the Minister is unprincipled. Yes. Okay?

Mr. Chairman: Okay. Would the Hon. Member proceed, then, with his remarks?

Mr. Phillips: But we have seen occasions in the last 2½ years where principles have been thrown out the window.

Mr. Chairman: Is the Hon. Member…?

Mr. Phillips: The principle here involved….

Mr. Chairman: I would just ask the Hon. Member whether he is repeating his imputation against this Minister.

Mr. Phillips: Oh, no. I'm talking about political principles or business principles, any kind of…. We have seen occasions since the inauguration or the start up of ICBC where principles have been thrown out the window for the expediency of getting the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia into a profitable position. We had the principle where there would be no subsidies; we had the principle where dealings would be in good faith.

All we're asking today is for that Minister to take a second look and to come to the assistance of those individuals in this province, many of them, Mr. Chairman, who through no fault of their own are in a financial position where they are unable to pay the insurance premium on the family car.

What I'm pleading for, Mr. Chairman, is that these individuals not be allowed to lose their right by having this large corporation come in with a mortgage on their driver's licence. The well-being of many innocent victims, many women, many children, whose husbands are driving trucks as their means of livelihood — I'm pleading for these people. Through no fault of theirs, they are the innocent bystanders.

Take away the insurance on the family car, if you have to. If you want to let the Royal Bank ground the family car, yes, that's okay. Insurance policies were sometimes cancelled in the past for non-payment of premiums, but never in the history of any province or any jurisdiction…

Hon. Mr. Strachan: That's not true.

Mr. Phillips: …has the right to drive been cancelled because of a debt incurred through a bank. That's exactly where it sits.

Now, what's going to happen to the families of these people? What's going to happen to all of the innocent mothers and the innocent children of this man who is going to…

Mr. Chabot: Go see Levi.

Mr. Phillips: …lose his driver's licence?

This Minister, in giving this mortgage to the bank — not a driver's licence — is taking away the means of livelihood of that man, his wife, his family. The innocent victims are the ones who will suffer strictly because principles have been thrown aside to ensure that this great Crown corporation known as the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia shows a profit.

Now, if the premium isn't paid this year, he could say, "Okay, we will not insure him for next year." There are other means. And as I said before, Mr. Chairman, if there are no teeth in the laws that allow people to collect their money, then change the law. But don't penalize innocent victims; don't penalize innocent wives; don't penalize innocent children by taking away the livelihood from those who are completely innocent victims just to make the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, just to build up the power and the glory of the Minister.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Phillips: He'd do anything to build up his own Insurance Corporation.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please!

I think the Hon. Member is departing from this section. He's entering into a personal attack on the Minister. I would ask the Hon. Member to discuss this section.

Mr. Phillips: I'm discussing not a personal attack on the Minister; I'm discussing the policies of this government and the Minister, not the Minister, personally. It is a policy of the Minister to allow the Royal Bank to have a mortgage on the individual driver's licence.

I don't like his policy and that's why I'm asking him to change it, Mr. Chairman. I know you don't like it because you agree with me, Mr. Chairman, but you're not in a position to say so. You don't want those hundreds, maybe thousands of innocent children hurt by this policy that this Minister is bringing in. You don't want that.

[ Page 5000 ]

An Hon. Member: How can they ever pay it?

Mr. Phillips: How can they ever pay it?

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

The Hon. Member is tending to become a bit repetitious. Would he please introduce a new point?

Mr. Phillips: The responsibility of maybe sending hundreds of people to the welfare department because he has taken away their right and their privilege to earn their livelihood is going to rest squarely on the shoulders and the policies of that Minister.

Where is his backbench? Where is his silent NDP backbench? They've got to stand up for the rights of the small people in this province. Where are they?

Oh, during the election campaign they were going to stand. Oh, they were going to fight for the rights of individuals in this province. They were going to meet with the downtrodden. Where are they? They're hiding.

Mr. Chairman rises.

Mr. Chairman: The Hon. Member was tending to repetition. He's also departing from the section. If he has any further remarks, would he continue? Otherwise, I recognize the Member for Langley.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please! The Hon. Member has been requested….

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.

Mr. Chairman: I asked the Hon. Member to proceed with his remarks and exercise his right of free speech within the rules of the House.

Would the Hon. Member proceed, please?

I recognize the Hon. Member for Langley.

Mr. McClelland: I would like just again to make an urgent request for the government to pull this bill, at least until the Attorney-General returns. The Attorney-General would never allow this kind of bill to go through this House.

The Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Ms. Young), while she champions the rights of the people of British Columbia, may allow this kind of legislation to go through.

The Minister of Transport and Communications, who promised us earlier this year that he'd never allow this type of legislation to go through, may now have backtracked again and changed his mind and allowed this bill to go through.

The Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall), who has the responsibility for piloting this bill through the Legislature today, may allow this kind of vicious legislation to go through, but I know that the Attorney-General would never allow it, because he said in the House in March, 1974, that this kind of thing could never happen again in British Columbia — as did the Minister of Transport and Communications.

We were asked to trust the government at that time, Mr. Chairman. We suggested that the law should be changed in British Columbia so that no one ever again would have to face the prospect of having his or her driver's licence suspended because of a debt they owed to a private company. The Minister of Transport and Communications stood in this House and said: "That will never happen again in this province, Mr. Member, never happen again." The Attorney-General stood in this House and said: "That will never happen again in this province, Mr. Member, never happen again."

Now we see this government bringing in legislation which only perpetuates that same kind of a problem. I have to refer to the Hansard of March 13, 1974, when I brought forward a case to this House in which a 29-year-old person, who had been in an accident when he was 16 years old, was now being charged with a repayment of a debt owned to the Traffic Victims Indemnity Fund of some $18,000, which would never, ever be paid off, because all that person could afford to repay would be the interest.

There is a 29-year-old man with a young family, two children — truck driver by profession — who had his licence suspended because of this same kind of legislation. That person was faced with a debt for the rest of his life. It will never be repaid.

I'd hate to be in that kind of a family situation, Mr. Chairman, because I couldn't live with it, I don't think, and I'm sure that that person's family would find that they could never live with it either. Yet there they were, because of the laws of this province, faced with that kind of an imponderable debt for the rest of their lives.

Interjection.

Mr. McClelland: That's right, Mr. Chairman, debt is one of the major causes of family breakdowns, and certainly the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) should know that better than anyone else in this House. But he'll sit there and vote for this section and this bill. I don't know how his conscience will allow him to do it, but I'm sure he will, Mr. Chairman.

Do you know that another of the problems I brought up at that time in March of 1974, Mr. Chairman, was that most individuals who are faced

[ Page 5001 ]

with a debt have the opportunity to go into personal bankruptcy? That's their right through law. Yet a person faced with this kind of a situation, while he might have the right to go into personal bankruptcy, has another lever imposed upon him by government; he has the added burden of losing his licence. So he doesn't have the chance to take the same channels that other people do.

Mr. Chairman, perhaps over the weekend the government will have another look at this and pull it until the Attorney-General has a chance to have a look at it, because I know the Attorney-General will never allow this bill to go through.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports progress and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Division, ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly files answer to question 238. (See appendix.)

Hon. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:59 p.m.

APPENDIX

238 Mr. McClelland asked the Hon. the Minister of Education the following questions:

1. Has the Department of Education hired one, Ken Novakowski?

2. If the answer to No. 1 is yes, what is Mr. Novakowski's salary?

3. If the answer to No. 1 is yes, what is the term of reference of his position within the Department?

The Hon. Eileen E. Dailly replied as follows:

"1. Yes, Public Service Competition 74:1441.

"2. Salary of Administrative Officer 6, Step 1, $1,293 per month (1973 salary).

"3. Mr. Novakowski was hired to work on research and development activities to be undertaken by the Department of Education."