1971 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 29th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 10, 1971

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 645 ]

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 10, 1971

The House met at 2: 00 p.m.

Pursuant to Order, the House again resolved itself into the Committee of Supply.

The committee rose, reported Resolutions 48 to 57, inclusive,

Estimates of the Department of Education, and asked leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister of Finance.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (South Okanagan): I move that we proceed,

being Private Members' Day, to public bills in the hands of private

Members. If the Opposition is ready to proceed, I'll take their advice

on Bill 8.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): Mr. Premier, in respect to Mr. Barrett, who presented this bill, we would prefer to wait and adjourn it until he is here.

MR. BENNETT: Second reading of Bill 9, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 9,

An Act for the Regulation of Cigarette Advertising. The Honourable the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): I'm overwhelmed. This is a banner day (interruption). We'll do our best, Mr. Premier. I've got a copy of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce this

bill, which is number 9, N-1-N-E, in your bill book. I'd ask all

honourable Members to open their bill books. It's

an act dealing with

the regulation of cigarette advertising, Mr. Speaker.

I think everyone will concur that smokers do have rights in society

but so do health authorities. It's very much, Mr. Speaker, the function

of Government to do whatever it can to protect…Dr. D.D. Rutstein has,

not too long ago, said that, in the six years since his first report

which called smoking a hazard to health, the percentage of adult male

smokers has dropped from 52.9 per cent to 42.0 per cent,

whereas for

the female smokers the decrease has only been from 33.8 per cent to

31.0 per cent. It's obvious, Mr. Speaker, that a great deal more can be

done and, dealing with this, all honourable Members will recall the

words of Dr. Johnson, in his well-known saying, "If you're going to be

hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates the mind wonderfully."

I'm asking each and every Member to concentrate their mind

wonderfully on this particular bill in this measure. It's this type of

public concentration and public awareness that I want to emphasize in

British Columbia, insofar as the deleterious and harmful effects of

smoking are concerned. I do not think, Mr. Speaker, that cigarette

companies or tobacco companies, perhaps, using the word in a broader

sense, should be given carte blanche

rights to advertise the weed. As this doctor stated in the United

States, Dr. Rutstein, who is the head of Preventative Medicine at

Harvard Medical School, he says you're faced with a decision, and the

decision that the general public is faced with is this, whether you'll

give the cigarette industry and its advertisers a permanent and

unrestricted hunting license with an open season of twelve months to

hook our youngsters into a lifetime of addiction which will lead to

increased disease, disability and very untimely death for them and for

their young ones. I think that, in British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, we,

as a Province, and the Members of this Legislative Assembly, are

prepared to meet the decision. I think that B.C. should take the lead

in Canada and ban all advertising of cigarettes. Furthermore, all

packages must contain an appropriate health hazard warning. The health

hazard warning that is proposed in this bill is very short. "Warning —

this product has a nicotine and tar content that is harmful to human

health."

I think everyone will agree that the dangers that can be faced more

than justify the curbs. All of this most vigorous advertising that each

and every one of us is subjected to when you open a paper — very, very

attractive young ladies and handsome men, and fine horses, and mountain

ranges, and these great crystal clear lakes — pretty well their only

job is to push a fag and I think that's a lot of nonsense. There's

absolutely no health in the very things that are portraying good health

and it boils down to, really, a phoney message. Smoking is a harmful

and stupid habit and if cigarettes and cigars should be called anything

and should be regarded as anything, Mr. Speaker, I think they should be

called cancer sticks or emphysema popsicles. It's hoped that this bill

will eliminate cigarette advertising in B.C. and any person who would

contravene its provisions would be subject to restraining orders and an

injunction in an injunctive process, without proof of damage, at the

suit of any British Columbian in the Supreme Court of British Columbia.

1, therefore, move second reading. I do hope that this measure will be

warmly endorsed.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister of Health Services.

HON. R.R. LOFFMARK (Vancouver South): Mr. Speaker, I was

delighted to see the reaction to some of the statements made by the

honourable mover of this bill. I think it was of particular

significance that a number of the people who applauded most

enthusiastically were people who, at one time or another, had smoked. I

think the only thing you can say is that there's no one so zealous as a

convert.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.

MR. LOFFMARK: Now there are many, many considerations that

are involved in this act and, particularly, we should take into account

the fact that we have national advertising in magazines and so on.

There are constitutional questions and, without considering further

some of the difficulties of administering laws which cut across

activities which in some respects are Federal in their administration

and others that are Provincial, it might be appropriate, I think, in

the circumstances, that we let this matter stand over for the time

being to give us an opportunity to consider it further. Therefore, Mr.

Speaker, I would move adjournment of this debate to the next sitting of

the House.

Motion agreed to.

MR. BENNETT: Second reading of Bill 10, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 10,

An Act to Amend the Supreme Court Act. The Honourable the First

[ Page 646 ]

Member for Vancouver East (interruption) .

MR. G.H. DOWDING (Burnaby-Edmonds): Mr. Speaker, I move

second reading of Bill 10 on behalf of the Honourable Member for

Vancouver East whose name is on the bill. In this particular bill, the

purpose of it is quite simple, really, and that is to try to give

effect in British Columbia to a judgement that was handed down recently

where it became clear that, since in this Province we have not made any

provision to comply with

section 11 of the Official Languages Act of

Canada, it would not be possible for the Courts in this Province, the

Supreme Court, particularly, to have discretion to conduct a trial in

the French language.

Now, I want at the outset to say that this, in no way, imposes any

obligation on any Court in British Columbia to conduct trials in the

French language. What it does do is leave it to the discretion of the

Court — where there is no discretion today. This, therefore, in no way,

can be said to impose any obligation but I think it would be one of the

finest gestures this Province could make towards the further cementing

them know, in the East, in this Province, that the discretion exists

that is provided in

section 11 of the Official Languages Act of Canada.

It was, really, in a particular case that was before the Bar, a matter

of distress that that trial could not have been conducted in the French

language. It was one where everyone was eminently suited to conduct it

in the French language. Since the report has been handed down by the

Bilingual and Bicultural Commission, it has been very evident that

British Columbia is, really, not involved in the main problem of

bringing about a wider understanding between French Canada and the rest

of Canada. That's why I urge the support, in principle, of this bill

because, as I say, it places no obligation on us, but it makes it clear

that the Court has discretion in matters where the persons concerned

can all speak French.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Attorney-General.

HON. L.R. PETERSON (Vancouver–Little Mountain): Mr. Speaker,

this bill may appear as a simple amendment but I want to suggest to the

House that it does have some ramifications, which I don't think have

been considered by the honourable Member. Now, there may be Members of

the judiciary, who consider themselves sufficiently fluent in the

French language to be bilingual. They may pronounce some of the words

of the language better than those of us who took our training in French

on the Prairies, Mr. Speaker. Nevertheless, the fact must be considered

that it is more than the judge who must be bilingual. It would involve

full supporting staff, clerical staff, court reporters to be able to

record the testimony in French, counsel on both sides fluent in French.

I think even the honourable Member who just moved second reading of

this bill would have great difficulty in giving me the names of one

team who could do this. Then, assuming the trial at the original level

could be heard in French, what about the rights of appeal and the

production of the Appeal Books, etc. to the Higher Courts — to the

Court of Appeal'? How many members of that Bench and their supporting

staff could deal with it in the French language? However, I think it's

important that we consider the full implication of this bill. So that

we can have a little more time to do so, I move adjournment of the

debate.

MR. SPEAKER: Just one moment, please. The Member has a Point of Order.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, it's the

Government calling these bills. I wonder, if the Premier and the

Government Members are not prepared to discuss them, we might find it

better to have them called on a day when they would be prepared to

discuss the bills.

MR. SPEAKER: That is not a Point of Order, I'm afraid.

Motion agreed to.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill 34.

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill 34, Protection from Computers Act. The Honourable the First Member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. H.P. CAPOZZI (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, it's with

great pleasure that I rise to discuss and propose this bill. It is a

very simple bill as it is written but, within the intent of the bill,

are some of the frustrating problems that I think are the cause of a

great number of the problems in modern day life.

When the computer first appeared on the scene, it came on with such

a tremendous impact. It could do such fantastic and marvellous things

and it was predicted to be so accurate and capable of providing answers

to such complicated problems almost instantaneously. It's only after

several years of having been living with the computer and the computer

age that, suddenly, people are becoming aware of the fact that a

computer is only as accurate as the people who surround it, in essence,

and that it is not only subject to errors but, unlike the human

individual, who may be subject to errors but is capable of correcting

them, the computer, in most cases, while subject to error, finds itself

incapable of correcting them. Time after time, throughout modern day,

today, we have watched giant corporations and many businesses get on to

the use of automated machinery and we have seen it in the question of

banks, in the question of credit cards, in department stores and even

in our own Government offices and the use of material being placed on

computers, which is no doubt very quick, very accurate and, as a method

of processing, a wonderful way of imparting, in essence, the amount of

dollars involved or required from a customer. Suddenly, the bill is

placed in front of him. No one touches it. It's unseen by human hands.

This is a great product of our time. But, more and more often, people

are finding that once an error is made by the computer, there is no

further communication. There is absolutely no relationship. I can

produce and air many letters which all start out, "Dear Sirs: I have

received your bill for $45.40. I would call to your attention that I

never was in that particular city on that date and there is no way that

that could be my charge." Back comes the letter from the computer

saying, "You have a bill outstanding of $45.40." Then the second letter

goes from the individual saying, "I wrote to you on such and such a

date and called to your attention that this is not my bill. I am not

responsible for it." Back comes the computer saying, "You have 30 days

to pay that bill." Another letter goes back saying, "but, dear sir, in

reply to your letter of such and such a date, I would point out that

the amount that you're asking is not my responsibility and I refuse to

pay it." Back comes the computer saying, "As of this week, your letter

will

[ Page 647 ]

be placed in front of an attorney and you will be

subject to prosecution." Time after time, in every area, we are finding

more and more of this with a tremendous sense of frustration building

up on the part of the individual. He finds in many cases that his

credit is destroyed as a result of the fact that, now, the computer

advises all its computer friends that it has a charge which is

outstanding on its books and that this particular individual is no

longer able to charge.

Mr. Speaker, speaking slightly in jest on that phase of it recently,

there was a gentleman speaking in Vancouver, who pointed out that it is

only a matter of time until all credit cards in Canada will be placed

on a single computer — on one single computer because of the economics

of this. Let me put into possibility what could happen to an individual

if that computer makes an error. Within five to ten years, it is very

possible that the majority of transactions will be carried out by some

form of magnetic card and when you go to buy gas, when you go to the

grocery store, when you go to make any charges you will not do it with

what we commonly, today, know as cash transactions, you will carry a

personalized card which you will insert into whatever particular store

or whatever area you're going to purchase from and it will

automatically put the amounts, etc., on that card and from it, it will

be transmitted into a central computer and will be processed through

your bank account and put through it. This is already a matter which is

being gradually brought into our economic circle, today (interruption).

Well, the point though is this — that, once an error is made in this

particular case, it is possible for a traveler to find himself without

any means of finding dollars or finding support or purchasing groceries

or purchasing any part of the necessities of life.

This bill is designed to begin the necessary legislation that is

going to be required to protect the individual from computer

transactions because, at the moment, we do not have anything that

protects the individual from an error that can destroy his credit

rating. This bill is designed to do this, Mr. Speaker. I'm suggesting

that what is required by this bill is that, any time that any account

is processed by a machine, automatic machine or computer, and an

objection is raised by the individual, there is no liability on the

individual until that claim has been satisfied, in writing, to that

particular individual. I'm hopeful, Mr. Speaker, that this bill could

liberate the human being from computer injustice. I move second reading

of this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Member for North Vancouver–Seymour.

MR. B.A. CLARK (North Vancouver–Seymour): Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. This is an interesting bill, inasmuch as it, in fact, with all

deference to my friend, the mover, is one

section out of a bill, that

comprises some 20 sections, that I introduced last year. It is, also,

in fact, an attempt to deal with a very minute part of the real

problem. The principle of protecting the individual from the computer

is a most worthy one, but I fail to see how one's credit transaction is

more important, for example, than an error made in one's criminal

record, which, at the moment, can be transcribed to computer, as well,

and transmitted throughout the world.

There are many ramifications to this particular piece of

legislation, Mr. Speaker, again, in matters of jurisdiction where, I

would suggest, this information is crossing Provincial boundaries and

indeed crossing the border between ourselves and the United States. I

think it deserves a great deal of thought and I therefore, move

adjournment until the next sitting of the House.

Motion agreed to.

MR. BENNETT: Second reading of Bill 40, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill 40,

An Act to Amend the Protection of Children Act. The Honourable Member for Delta.

MR. R. WENMAN (Delta): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise

on this historic occasion. I wish to commend the Premier for the

recognition of Private Members' Day, certainly, a very worthy

democratic procedure.

MR. SPEAKER: Could we proceed with the second reading of this bill, please?

MR. WENMAN: Yes, certainly. The four year old boy died from a

large mass of clotted blood in the brain, increasing its weight by one

and a half times, by burns on the hand consistent with those on the

palm of the hand from a cigarette, of a three-inch tear in the liver,

of extensive bleeding in the right lung, of injuries, possibly,

inflicted from a link chain, a pinpoint rash on the buttock consistent

with a beating from a sharp brush applied bristle down, from multiple

bruises on the body. The young four-year-old child cried out to its

mother, "Please, don't leave me alone again, mommy."

I understand that this type of thing happens constantly in our

Province — the problem of young children, defenseless, being destroyed

by their adult counterparts. Currently, we have a law in our Statute

books, which allows for a fine of $100 or a gaol term of up to a year

as if this, in some way, is going to bring that four-year-old child, be

he your son, your grandson or your nephew, back to life, or will ever

cure the…(interruption). The principle is very sound, Mr. Member. I'm

discussing the principle of the destruction of children and that they

should be protected. There is a penalty in the act that I am suggesting

be amended — the fine of $100 and a jail term of up to a year. Both are

wrong because neither the fine is going to cure the person who is

involved nor will the gaol term. That's why the principle of this bill

recognizes that the person responsible for the destruction of this

child needs psychiatric care, first of all and, then, if psychiatric

care proves to be unsatisfactory, as confirmed by a group of medical

doctors, further action needs to be taken. Either that person cannot be

released into our society or, if he is to be released into our society,

surely, he should not be allowed to create another child to be beaten

to death. It is for this reason that I have brought these amendments

forward in order to protect future children from being beaten to death

and in order to provide treatment to the person responsible in a

humanitarian way. Because this exists in great prevalence in our

society, I encourage this Government and all the Members of the

Legislature to support this kind of an amendment to bring protection of

our future generations and to the present generation. I, therefore,

move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burnaby Edmonds.

MR. DOWDING: Mr. Speaker, this might well be compared to the Nuremburg laws that were passed more than

[ Page 648 ]

30 years ago. If it is proposed that this

Legislature say that, when a person is guilty of gross misconduct,

whatever that is…it's not defined in the bill…

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, it is.

MR. DOWDING: No. It isn't. What it says means when a child

dies, severely injured through abuse or neglect…Well, if you're

driving along in a car and you were grossly negligent and a child died,

you'd be guilty, under this definition, of gross misconduct. Well, my

point is that it's extremely hazardous to put out bills of this kind

that will give the idea abroad that this Government or any Member in it

would support the idea that sterilization of a person, because of being

guilty of gross misconduct, would be a result of a committee, and that

commitment to a mental hospital could be a result of gross misconduct. Per se ,

it is a most disquieting idea to even put abroad. I'll point out the

reasons. First, if someone were guilty of what is alleged in the

definition, that is, if, as a result of someone, a child under the age

of 19, dying or being severely injured through abuse or neglect… (interruption) .

You see, my friend down the road is presuming that, somehow, we have

some say over the criminal law of Canada and we don't. If this is

supposed to be a criminal offense, then, we have no right legislating

in this field at all. Alternatively, if this is to be a committal as a

result of a finding in a Criminal Court, then, of course, the

section

of the Code that deals with committal of the insane takes over and only

by that way, whether it be in a

summary conviction offense under the

Criminal Code or under an indictable offense, only by the Code can

anyone be committed into the care of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council.

What is presumed here is that wide

and sweeping powers shall be given to somebody, presumably the

Government, it doesn't say how, through the Protection of Children Act,

that, whenever a person who is under the age of 19 dies as a result of

abuse or neglect, these consequences, beyond the criminal law, seem to

flow. This would be absolutely beyond belief. In its present form, the

bill could be subject to the most widespread abuse. Now, if someone is

guilty of child-beating or child-abuse, the Protection of Children Act,

today, gives the State the right through a superintendent of child

welfare or through the Children's Aid to apprehend the child and make

sure that that parent doesn't have children in his or her care or

custody again. That right exists under the present act. The question of

whether an adult should be sterilized as a further punishment or

retaliation or the fact that, psychologically, he is unable to cope

with children and treat them kindly, is a most disturbing idea. The

only people who are sterilized, now, as unfit are ones who, by the very

act of procreation, would create a child in the world that has no hope

of being normal at all. Only in the most severe examples is that power

used under the present Sterilization of the Unfit Act of British

Columbia and it, really, deals with people whose IQ may be in the very

lowest range and who could not give birth to anyone but a completely

subnormal human being. But to extend it, as the honourable Member would

do, would be a most hazardous proposal. Once, as we found in the

history of this civilization, 30 years ago, when you start on that

road, where do you stop and who decides? It's too dangerous to play

around with this kind of bill. I would urge the Members to not support

it.

M R. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Member for Alberni.

MR. H.R. McDIARMID (Alberni): Mr. Speaker, I share the

concern of the Member for Delta in an attempt to protect children. I

don't think that anybody in this House would be against this, in

principle, but I would have to find myself in the unusual position of

having to agree with the last Member who just spoke in indicating that

the cure is almost as bad as what he's attempting to cure. We could

have an incongruous situation of somebody doing exactly this same sort

of thing to a child but not having care and control of him. I mean, he

could be attacked on the street, even, and the remedy which was

available to the parents, say, that had care and control, would not be

available to this person. In any case, I would have to say, and from my

experience and I'm sure any practicing physician who's had experience

at all…. There's one instance that I had, personally, of a woman,

driven to distraction, possibly temporarily insane, actually attacked

her child, without the intention of hurting him, but threw him across

the room. He struck his head and was very severely injured. This was a

matter of grave concern to me and I reported this to the police. She

was apprehended and, in fact, was sent for psychiatric examination. The

circumstances around this were such that, while I didn't condone her

actions, I could understand how she had come to do this. In this

particular instance, she did not intend to do the harm that came about.

You know, while the Member would probably say, in this instance, this

lady would not be sterilized, still the possibility is open. I don't

think, as legislators, this is something that we want to leave to

somebody else to decide.

I'd like to say, Mr. Speaker, that subsequent to this, the

particular crisis that this woman was going through resolved itself,

reconciliation took place between her and her husband, they

subsequently had three more children and now there isn't a better

mother whom I know of, basically. It's this sort of case, to me, that,

even if they're in the minority, I would say that we can't go along

with this most severe of remedies which is proposed in this bill.

Therefore, I would suggest that we vote against it and I move

adjournment of this debate.

Motion agreed to.

The Honourable W.D. Black, Minister of Highways, presented the British Columbia Government Aircraft Passenger Log for 1970.

The House adjourned at 5:55 p.m.

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

Pursuant to Order, the House again resolved itself into the Committee of Supply.

The House continued to sit until after midnight.

The committee rose, reported Resolution 105, Estimates of the Department of Highways, and asked leave to sit again.

The House adjourned at 12:34 a.m.