Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 3, 1992

Volume 4, Number 2

[ Page 2167 ]

The House met at 6:15 p.m.

The Speaker: In accordance with our sessional orders related to resolution in Committee A, I will now call on a member from the third party for a five-minute summation of the debate.

Interjection.

The Speaker: I would then call on the official opposition House leader for a five-minute summary of debate.

D. Mitchell: I'm pleased to be able to rise today to summarize and conclude the debate at the reporting stage for the review of the spending estimates for 1992-93 of the Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology.

I'd like to take this opportunity to first congratulate the Minister of Advanced Education in defending his spending estimates. This is the first time that he, as a member of the executive council of British Columbia, has engaged in this exercise. I'd like to thank him for his cooperation during the process of two and a half days of interesting discussion and debate on his spending estimates for this fiscal year.

The minister did defend the budget, but it's interesting to note, for the benefit of the members of the House, that his defence wasn't always convincing. In fact, the minister demonstrated that in some respects he was embarrassed about the budget. He demonstrated that the budget does not begin to satisfy the increasing demand for spaces in the post-secondary system. That's the major concern that we have. It's a question of access, access to post-secondary education and training in our province.

The minister has acknowledged that the budget doesn't go as far as he would like it to. We'll be looking in future years for better things from this minister. We'll be looking in future years for a demonstrated, real, tangible commitment to Advanced Education, Training and Technology, which is not in this budget.

It's not just a question of dollars. The argument and the debate that we had in the committee, for the benefit for those members who weren't present, did not revolve around dollars per se; it revolved around priorities. We discussed priorities in the estimates for that ministry. There's a difference between what this budget does and what the government says it does. We talked a lot about the differences between rhetoric and reality. There's nothing more important than spending money on Advanced Education, Training and Technology in this province. It's got to be one of the highest priorities for us as British Columbians. It's got to be a higher priority for the government, higher than is demonstrated by this budget, because if you take a look at the dollars that are spent in this area, every one of those dollars has a high rate of return.

One of the things that we discussed in the committee is the fact that if you take a look at academic research, every dollar spent on academic research generates a return, based on economic studies, of some 28 percent on an annual basis. So the return is there. It's a high return, and the payback is very short. I think we can justify the money that is spent in this budget on advanced education, but we can question some of the priorities.

We have to think a little about whether or not there is honesty taking place in this budget, especially with the rhetoric that takes place by members of the government. We hear ad nauseam, to the point of tedious and dull repetition, that all their problems with advanced education were the problems of the previous government.

When the members who are in government now -- including the minister -- were in opposition, they used to criticize the former government for taking a penny-pinching approach to education, and to advanced education in particular. Now that they're in government, they criticize the previous government for overspending and for being too generous when it comes to advanced education. That's the kind of hypocrisy we would like to strip away from the system. We would like to strip away the rhetoric and talk about the reality. If the government would simply acknowledge that it cannot maintain the advanced education system to the level that we would like, then why not show some honesty and admit that? Why not 'fess up?

If we had to give the government and the minister a grade for the budget, I would have to say that he did very well in attempting to defend this budget. Sometimes it was a half-hearted defence, but I would have to give him a B grade, because I think it's not bad. I'm an easy grader; I'm very generous in my grading. But if we had to take a look at the actual budget itself and what it does -- again, I'm a generous grader -- I would have to give it a C at best or maybe a C minus. The minister should be on notice that if he doesn't do better next year, he will get a failing grade. We hope that he does better at Treasury Board, in particular with his colleagues the Minister of Finance and others. He might need some help at Treasury Board. We have offered him all the assistance of the official opposition to do better when it comes to the needs of students and of all the participants and partners in the advanced education system that we're trying to build in this province.

So with those few words, I look forward to the minister's concluding remarks.

Hon. T. Perry: I'm pleased that I've rated a B from the official opposition critic, even if he admits he's an easy marker.

Interjection.

Hon. T. Perry: He says he's not an easy mark, but I'm not quite sure of that, judging from the estimates debate recently. I suspect that despite getting only a B from the opposition House Leader, I'll be expected by the public and the Premier to do better than that. And if I don't get an A from the Premier on my performance, probably the Premier can find among my esteemed colleagues somebody else who can. So I am aiming for a slightly higher standard than that. I hope that in due 

[ Page 2168 ]

course the hon. member will improve his evaluation of me, but I certainly expect to earn it. In return, I've been offered a grade by the hon. member for Okanagan-Boundary, but I'm not sure whether it was meant to be read this way, hon. Speaker, or this way. It's not immediately clear which grade was intended.

The Speaker: Minister, I'm sure the hon. member is aware that props are not allowed in the House. He will get back to summarizing the debates in this Legislature.

Hon. T. Perry: Hon. Speaker, particularly in this form this could hardly be described as a prop, since turned on its edge it's a D.

Let me just tell you, the debate was exhaustive. It was very interesting. Many good questions were raised by opposition members and members of the government side. We can report to the House that we covered very carefully issues of access in advanced education, specifically the government's attempt to get the maximum possible mileage we could for the taxpayers' dollars this year. We've achieved over 3,100 new spaces in the post-secondary system, a significant increase at a time of a major budget crisis. We have achieved major steps forward towards the planning of a new job-training and skills-development policy for the province in response to the Strand Task Force on Employment and Training, which many hon. members are aware of. In science and technology policy we continue to make major strides in moving towards a status for British Columbia as the premier province in science and technology in this country.

I must say that members opposite and on the government side raised concerns about federal government commitments in some of these areas. We did discuss the betrayal by the federal government of students in the 3 percent grab-back on student loans, the failure to address income ceilings for parents since 1984, the failure to adjust the monthly allowances by the federal government, and I indicated to hon. members that I, along with other provincial members, continue to pursue these issues vigorously at the federal level. We similarly discussed our concerns about federal contributions towards B.C. in research and technology where we get far less than our share compared to other provinces, and similarly in respect of the difficult job situation in the ship-building sector.

I think the record will show that we demonstrated a very vigorous commitment in our ministry to post-secondary education, to job training and skills development and to science and technology, and it's one with which I'm very proud to be associated. It's a very good chance for me now to thank not only the women and men in the Ministry of Advanced Education and Technology who are doing excellent work, highly regarded by the public and by the institutions they work with, but also the real core of our post-secondary education and training system, the institutions and the people who work there.

The fundamental strength of our system are the bright, keen students we have. These days there are more of them than we are able to serve right now, but we hope to move to alleviate that problem, and frankly I would much rather there be more students than too few to fill the available spaces. It's a very good sign of faith in the future of our province, and one that we intend to pursue as a government.

The teachers are among the brightest and most dedicated in the country. Our scientists are among the best and most innovative, and our entire post-secondary system is beginning to be integrated as undoubtedly the best of its kind in the country. So it's one I'm very proud to be associated with.

I want to touch very briefly, hon. Speaker, on one other issue that I've not yet mentioned: the particular responsibilities that my ministry shares with certain others -- that of the hon. Minister of Government Services, the Minister of Social Services and the Minister of Housing, my colleague -- which is the responsibility to people with disabilities. I believe we have made some significant strides in our ministry in addressing issues for people with disabilities. We have a long way to go yet, but we have put this sector of our population, relatively underserviced historically, relatively unknown to the broad public, at the absolute top of our agenda, and we will continue to do so, and I'm proud to say that.

I want to add one last word of thanks in recognition of people who serve in voluntary capacities in our system, particularly on the boards of governors of institutions of advanced education. We have made efforts in recent months to improve the representation of women, visible minorities, people with disabilities and aboriginal people on those boards. While we have continued many of the existing board members, some have taken retirement. All of those people have done their bit for British Columbia; they served in a voluntary capacity in an extremely tough job. Before I sit down, I want to thank all of them on behalf of all members and the people of B.C.

Hon. G. Clark: I call second reading of Bill 47.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1992

Hon. R. Blencoe: Bill 47 represents a modernization of the legislation affecting the management of local government in British Columbia. The more than 90 amendments in this bill are reforms that apply to the Municipal Act. The majority of changes reflect resolutions developed over time by the Union of British Columbia Municipalities. They are minor statutory changes, but they add up to a major updating of local government legislation. The changes remove annoyances that have been frustrating local administrations and elected officials in areas such as the setting of various fee schedules and unclear notice requirements. As a result of the changes, local governments will have new powers. For example, they will be able to set their own fee schedules for a variety of administrative services, instead of being tied to a fixed rate set by the provincial government. Clearly local governments should be able to direct many of 

[ Page 2169 ]

their own affairs without the provincial government looking over their shoulder.

[6:30]

Several sections of this modernization package make the language of local government legislation gender neutral -- for instance, by changing the word alderman to councillor. Another amendment recognizes the effects of inflation on the cost of local government by increasing the limit on a municipality's short-term capital borrowing authority to $50 per capita. Other changes will assist the public in their dealings with local government, such as clarifying procedures for petitioning against a proposed regional district service. As you know, the former government introduced changes in that area. The government of the day, to its credit, said there might need to be changes when we have tested the procedure in terms of counter-petition. We are now doing that, having experienced some examples of where changes were required.

There are no surprises for local government in this package of changes. Most of the reforms are responses by this government to problems that local government representatives have been pointing out for many years. In general terms, these changes provide for the further empowerment of local government to eliminate unnecessary provincial government supervision. I want to put it on notice to this Legislature that over the next period of time there will be other pieces of legislation similar to this that begin to really reflect that local government has the capacity to make many decisions on its own without the supervision of the provincial government.

I would point out that this government is committed to meeting the needs of local government and to fostering a greater level of independence for municipal decision-makers, at the same time making sure that initiatives in this direction really do meet the needs of the public being served by local government. In this context I'm proud to say that this package of reforms is put forward as a concrete expression of that commitment. I look forward to the debate in second reading.

A. Cowie: We've reviewed this bill in great depth, trying to find something wrong with it, and quite frankly, we couldn't find anything wrong with it. We think it's a good bill, and we agree with the minister that it's long overdue. We are in total agreement.

I do have a couple of questions relating to a couple of sections, however, which we will deal with in committee. I think that will be the best time to do it, since we will not be moving an amendment. I would like the minister to move on this as soon as possible so that we can go elsewhere tonight.

L. Fox: Finally, a minister in this government has tabled what is, in my view, a good-news bill. I am aware, from the five years that I served on the UBCM executive that the amendments contained within this bill have been the result of several years of consultation between the UBCM and the ministry staff, as well as involvement with the Municipal Officers' Association of B.C. I congratulate the staff for their cooperation with the UBCM, as well as the minister, for completing the process.

We all know that in many respects the act was outdated; however, this amendment only overhauls part of it. While there still needs to be significant change, this is a step in the right direction. I think the question, however, is more to what is not included in the bill than what is included in the bill. The minister suggests that the municipalities now have the opportunity to set fees, but there are still some limitations within certain sections of the act where they do not have that opportunity. That has to be a concern.

I won't bother to read them all out. There have been several recommendations made through those joint discussions over the years that are not included in this amendment act. I would hope that in future legislation you suggest that we would consider those areas which have not been given consideration with this bill.

I guess the thing to note in this bill is perhaps the history that is going to be lost with respect to the term "alderman." That term has been around and dates back to the Celtic days before 1066, the Norman conquest, and, in fact, has a lot of history to it. It is some nostalgia that we're going to lose with respect to how we call ourselves and how we identify our new councillors. I'm sure it's going to take some adjustment by all segments of the community to relate to that change.

I look forward to the committee stage. We do not have a lot of concern, as I suggested. I have been part of the building of this process through my involvement in the UBCM executive, and I'm appreciative that the act has in fact come forward.

Hon. R. Blencoe: Very briefly, I appreciate the comments from my colleagues across the way. The only note I make is that yes, this is incremental and we are building the blocks. I think that in time, as the president of UBCM wrote to me -- I'm sure she wrote to you because I recognize the quote -- we will want to move on the entire Municipal Act. We will be doing that. I've asked UBCM for suggestions on procedure to do a fairly exhaustive look at the entire Municipal Act and regional districts and at how we govern local government. But this is a start, and hopefully there will be some other changes in this session to add to those we're making today. I appreciate the comments, and I now move second reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Bill 47, Municipal Amendment Act, 1992, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1992

The House in committee on Bill 47; M. Farnworth in the chair.

On section 1.

C. Tanner: Mr. Chairman, just before we get to the clause-by-clause study, there are two comments I 

[ Page 2170 ]

wanted to make when we were in second reading. The minister jumped up before I could get up and make them, and I feel it's my privilege to make them now.

Interjection.

C. Tanner: Thank you very much.

When the minister and his staff are considering what they're going to do with the Municipal Act in the next three and a half years, they should, in my view, be considering the Alberta method that they're thinking of bringing in now, where you draw up an act that doesn't say what they can do -- because there are too many things they can do -- but what they can't do.

Interjection.

C. Tanner: Of course you can't. Mr. Chairman, I think they should be considering those few things that they can't do, and assume the municipalities are responsible enough to do those things that they need to do to perform and bring local government to the citizenry.

I'm disappointed that this bill does not address something that's even more important, and that's some form of regionalization in government. While the minister briefly touched on it, in the view of those people in municipal government I speak to, there is an urgent need for this government to address that matter. I would hope that we can look forward to that legislation in the very near future, and that we can debate it in full sometime in this House within the next year.

Sections 1 to 18 inclusive approved.

On section 19.

A. Cowie: We know that a number of municipalities have in fact sued their own board of variance because of the loose arrangements or definition of board of variance, and their rather broad scope that they have at the present time. Would this still be applicable? Would they still pay for the legal services, or pay indemnity to those people they are suing?

Hon. R. Blencoe: I will do my utmost to answer these questions. I do not have staff here tonight, so I will do the best I can in terms of the technical issues. My understanding is that this section corrects a legislative oversight. It adds the reference to section 755 of the Municipal Act to allow a municipality to indemnify members of its board of variance where legal actions are brought against them in relation to their duties. It was supposed to be done in former changes. This is an oversight.

Currently municipalities may indemnify all members of their boards and commissions who are exempt from personal liability under section 755.1(2), except members of the board of variance. We are bringing them under that general section so if the council, in its wisdom, wishes to cover their board of variance members, they may do so.

Sections 19 to 82 inclusive approved.

On section 83.

A. Cowie: This is a minor item, and probably it's quite obvious that this section is put in here, I take it, because it's draconian to have a curfew on children. But I also note that it is necessary in some municipalities to have some control at times of minors, and it's quite a problem for the police. Is there a replacement for this? Is it just because of the word "children?"

[6:45]

Hon. R. Blencoe: Good question. This is one section where I took a little longer in terms of discussion with staff. I'm not going to use pejorative language in terms of curfews. There are lots of opinions on all sides in terms of curfews for children. Basically what this does is remove the municipalities' authority to establish curfews for children on the premise that legal opinions now indicate that authority would be found now contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and that few municipalities use the authority.

Quite frankly, I think communities are trying to find some other ways than curfews to deal with their problems with children. I recognize, though, that it is controversial. Some people believe we should have curfews, but now it is the opinion that it would be contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

[L. Krog in the chair.]

Sections 83 to 94 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. R. Blencoe: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; M. Farnworth in the chair.

Bill 47, Municipal Amendment Act, 1992, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. G Clark: I call second reading of Bill 41.

MISCELLANEOUS REGISTRATIONS ACT, 1992

Hon. L. Boone: The Miscellaneous Registrations Act is a new statute that helps to provide the public with greater access to information by authorizing registrations of certain types of claims at the personal property registry. The personal property registry is an on-line remote registry which already registers most interests in personal property. The Miscellaneous Registrations Act will benefit the public by allowing a notice of certain types of claims on personal property, such as restraint orders on personal property from the proceeds 

[ Page 2171 ]

of crime, to be registered at the personal property registry.

The types of claims that are authorized for registration will be set in the regulations to maximize the flexibility of this bill. The registration will not affect the legal rights of any party. Whether a claim is registered will usually not affect the legal position of the claim, as in most cases there will not be a legal duty to register. Similarly, the public will not be considered to have a duty to check the personal property registry. However, registration will provide a practical warning of a claim against personal property and will help the public to avoid hidden liens and charges.

The registrations under the Miscellaneous Registrations Act will be consistent with other statutes that provide for registration at the personal property registry. Many of the administrative provisions of the Personal Property Security Act are adopted. The Miscellaneous Registrations Act adopts a method of requiring unwarranted registrations to be discharged, which is similar to other personal property registry statutes.

Finally, the liability of the province under this bill for mistakes made in either registering a claim or searching for a claim is very similar to the responsibilities of the province in other statutes.

Hon. Speaker, I now move second reading.

J. Weisgerber: We don't have a lot of difficulty with the intent of this legislation. I am certainly curious -- and all of us are curious -- as to why it simply didn't come forward as an amendment to the Personal Property Security Act. I don't see any rationale in the legislation for it being a separate act. We would have been happier had all of those items been condensed into existing legislation.

We're also somewhat concerned that the registries will be common registries. I'm not certain from this legislation that there will be one registry, one place, to which you make inquiries. We'll pursue that, I suppose, as we get into the individual sections of the act.

I'm interested to know whether this legislation anticipates a broader range of property items on which a lien or an interest could be registered. There appears to be no indication in the legislation of the kinds of personal property on which an encumbrance or a lien could be registered under this act. I'm hoping that either in her summation or in third reading the minister can give us an indication of the kinds of personal property that this act applies to, whether it be the same as the items affected by the Personal Property Security Act or whether it anticipates a broader or narrow range of properties. The bill doesn't seem very clear about these items. Beyond those, we recognize the importance of there being a method of registering restraint orders and those kinds of interests that might evolve.

I also have a concern, as I do with the other bits of legislation, that the parties involved have an obligation and must make a conscious effort to remove liens when the interest or the reason for the registration has been removed. Too often you find that when you check liens on property or on other pieces of property -- not necessarily real property; for example, automobiles may have five or six liens filed against them, most of which have been discharged -- it then falls on the purchaser to clear with each of those registered liens and satisfy himself that the lien no longer exists. I think that's an abuse of the system.

When someone who places a lien on a piece of property, whether it be an automobile or a piece of equipment, no longer has an interest in the property, there should be an equal obligation on them to remove the lien. That has not traditionally been the case in the vehicle registry, for example. It then becomes a genuine disservice to the person against whom a lien was registered, if they go to sell the property and the purchaser checks and finds that the province, the Ministry of Social Services or somebody else, has registered a lien. I think it's inappropriate for the owner of that property to have the obligation of discharging. It's also inappropriate for the person who placed the lien to leave it there, even though the reason for its existence has expired.

I hope that this legislation will require the Crown, or anyone else who would file under it, to remove any lien or other document at such time as that would be appropriate. Other than that, and the concern we have about the need for a separate piece of legislation -- because it seems to me that we in this House are too often willing to create new legislation and not nearly willing enough to get rid of legislation when it no longer has any relevance -- we would, I think, allow this to pass.

Hon. G. Clark: I have some interest in this bill, as it comes out of my ministry and has my name on it. But it is, at least temporarily, assigned to a different minister.

If I could speak just briefly in second reading, it is a positive initiative. If I can just address the member's specific concern, the Personal Property Security Act was brought in by the previous administration and was a very positive initiative by the Ministry of Finance and by the then-minister, Mr. Couvelier. In fact, it was pioneering work that led the country -- and still does.

One of the principal motivations behind it was....

Interjection.

Hon. G. Clark: One of the very few initiatives, hon. Speaker.

This and the financial institutions legislation are two very positive initiatives. We had a very complex system that was very cumbersome and antiquated, and it was modernized dramatically with the PPSA. It is now working, and working well, although it always requires amendments, because it's a new and very complex bill.

As I said, it is a complex bill, and it has real legal ramifications. When you file a lien with the PPSA, it triggers all kinds of significant legal ramifications. It's complex, although less complex and more streamlined than ever before. It's all computerized now and has on-line access, which is a very positive initiative in that respect.

A lot of the concerns you have actually have been addressed, and are being addressed, by the advent and evolution of the PPSA. In terms of the concerns you 

[ Page 2172 ]

mentioned earlier -- which probably came from your previous life dealing with cars; I understand that -- a lot of those have been rectified. The reason it is a separate bill is because it's much simpler and does not cause all kinds of legal ramifications. To require these kinds of miscellaneous registries to register with PPSA by way of an amendment bill would have been very difficult to do, without giving these liens the same force and effect as all of the other liens.

We're doing a different thing here. We're looking at proceeds of crime, Crown liens and a few other things which are not as significant, arguably, for purchasers of property and some of the other things that are accommodated by PPSA. It's significant, but it doesn't require all the same hoops, bells, whistles and the like. It was thought that we could keep this separate -- as you can see -- in a very small bill.

It's very positive in terms of giving more access. Because of the advent of computerization, on-line and the like, it can be easily accessible for a lien search or the like. You can simply tap into that lien registry at the same time. It is a relatively modest initiative and a positive initiative. It essentially builds upon the PPSA. It builds upon the very capable people who are administering that and working through the administration of the PPSA. In many respects it's a consumer protection initiative, and I commend it to the House.

A. Cowie: I'll be very brief. As the other two speakers have mentioned, this is a good bill. It's equally as good as the original bill put through in 1989, which consolidated a number of statutes. We find nothing wrong with this bill at all. We think it would be helpful, however, to those people first getting into it to have a little definition of what personal property is, or to have some examples. That was difficult for us to grasp, and that means it will probably be difficult for other people to grasp. I will say nothing more, other than that we will be supporting this bill.

Hon. L. Boone: I move second reading of Bill 41.

Motion approved.

Bill 41, Miscellaneous Registrations Act, 1992, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

MISCELLANEOUS REGISTRATIONS ACT, 1992

The House in committee on Bill 41; D. Streifel in the chair.

On section 1.

Hon. L. Boone: I move the amendment to section 1, notice of which has been given to the Chair.

Amendment approved.

Section 1 as amended approved.

[7:00]

On section 2.

J. Weisgerber: As I indicated in second reading, I have some concern about the range of property against which liens or claims may be filed under this act, and wonder whether or not.... They obviously are not defined in the act, so I'm curious to know whether they would be similar to the items against which a claim could be filed under the Personal Property Securities Act. What I'm curious about particularly is that it seems to me that items easily and positively identifiable present no problem -- an automobile, a television set, a bicycle, anything that has a serial number -- but if it's the intent of this legislation to apply to items against which there is no real property location or no positive way of identifying, I see there being all kinds of areas for error, for confusion, and I would hope that that's not going to be the case.

Hon. L. Boone: Further to the question, the leader of the third party has indicated some concerns about the types of properties. I think it's important to note that those properties can be claimed anyway, and what we are trying to do is make it more recognizable and easily recognizable. But I think you're right; there's not going to be a registration number on a sofa or something like that. But it can still be claimed -- you can still put a claim against it.

J. Weisgerber: If I understand, then, a claim might be filed against the household effects of an individual, or perhaps household effects at a location. I'm not sure, if you don't have any way of identifying. What I'm concerned about is the purchaser of one of these properties -- unidentifiable -- knowing how to search in order to find whether or not there might be some kind of a restriction to its sale or some lien or other encumbrance against a property. I think it's going to be difficult to deal with that if you go beyond those items which are readily identifiable.

Hon. L. Boone: The actual identification would be set out in the regulations, so you'd have to identify it by stating the name and some kind of identification of the item being registered.

Hon. G. Clark: I think it's also important that you recognize you have to register a financing statement, and then you have to comply with the regulations of the Personal Property Security Act, which are numerous. So it is true that you register a financing statement, and you say what is being financed, and what the terms are, and what, of course, the property is -- and there you have to describe it. I appreciate the concerns you have, but at the same time what happens now is -- as I understand it, anyway -- that you can do that now. This regularizes and codifies it and makes you list all the things which you are applying your lien against. I appreciate your concern and I'm sympathetic to it. This is in some way an attempt actually to deal with that concern. Rather than your suggestion that your concern is heightened by this, I think it's the opposite.

[ Page 2173 ]

J. Weisgerber: I'm trying to grasp the responsibility and obligation that a purchaser would have. The suggestion has been that the Crown may wish to file some kind of a restraining order against a drug dealer's property. If you are going to go and buy property, perhaps from that individual or from a third party, how would you have any way of knowing? Would you check the identifiable items by serial number, by the name of the person against whom a restraining order was laid? If you failed in some way to identify those.... I'm perhaps jumping out. What obligation would there be then against the purchaser? That's what I'm trying to figure out. What are a purchaser's obligations to identify property?

Hon. L. Boone: I understand what you're saying. You're right. The bill doesn't do everything, and it doesn't protect the purchaser against everything out there. You are no worse off than you were prior to the bill, and you certainly are a little better off. At least there is something that you can register and look at. It's by no means perfection, but it is better than what we had before.

J. Weisgerber: I don't want to beat this to death, but on the other hand, I think it is fair for people to understand what their obligations will be. If I were going to buy a piece of property, I would normally look at the identification. If it were a television set, I would look at the serial number. I would expect to check and see whether a lien exists against it. If it did, I would then deal with that. If there was no lien, I would assume that it was free and clear. I'm wondering whether in a property that is not identifiable, there is some other mechanism that I'm forced to check by name or location. How would we do that? Most importantly, I'm wondering what consequence I would suffer if I somehow failed to ask the right questions and didn't get the answer.

Hon. L. Boone: It is by name that you would be checking. I guess the situation prior to this, before this act, was that there was no registration. There can still be a lien out there against it, the same as there is right now. Now that lien will be registered. You will be able to find out if it's there. You have some protection there. Without this act there is no registration whatsoever of any of the liens that are out there.

J. Weisgerber: Just so I can understand this, if I purchased an item unidentifiable by serial number, such as a sofa from a third party, not the person against whom the lien was registered, what obligations would I, as the purchaser, have?

Hon. G. Clark: You have no obligation as a purchaser. You don't have to do a search. If there is a lien against the sofa today, without this bill, then you have to pay it. Now there is an opportunity for it to be registered. You might be able to capture it by doing a lien search with respect to miscellaneous registries. That's the point. You will certainly be better off than you are today with the passage of this bill. There is certainly no obligation on the part of the purchaser to do a search, just as there is no obligation on the part of the purchaser when they buy a car privately. There is no obligation to do a search. It is obviously wise to do that, but I don't believe there is any obligation.

J. Weisgerber: I'm not as certain as the minister is that if I bought an unidentified piece of property from someone and it turned out that there was a lien against it as it applied to a third party, that I would in fact be obligated to pay for a share of the lien. I know that if I buy an automobile and I fail to check and there is a lien against it, I'm going to be.... What I'm afraid of is that this bill will, by implication, put a greater responsibility on a purchaser for something that they couldn't possibly identify.

Sections 2 to 4 inclusive approved.

On section 5.

Hon. G. Clark: My understanding of what the member across the way is saying is dealt with by this section. This section is titled "registration has no effect," and so that's precisely to capture the point you're making that there is no implication on the part of the purchaser, and there is no further consequence. This is intended to be a positive step and not to increase the onus on the part of the purchaser.

Sections 5 to 10 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. L. Boone: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 41, Miscellaneous Registrations Act, 1992, reported complete with amendment.

The Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as reported?

Hon. G. Clark: By leave, now.

Leave granted.

Bill 41, Miscellaneous Registrations Act, 1992, read a third time and passed.

Hon. G. Clark: We've made tremendous progress in the last few days -- such progress that we can adjourn early.

Hon. G. Clark moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 7:13 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1992, 2001: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada