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)

MONDAY, MARCH 22, 1971

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 731 ]

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

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

The following Bills were committed, reported complete without amendment, read a third time, and passed:

Bill (No. 1) intituled

An Act to Amend the Reciprocal Enforcement of Maintenance Orders Act.

Bill (No. 28) intituled

An Act to Amend the Civil Service Superannuation Act.

Bill (No. 3) intituled

An Act to Amend the Municipal Superannuation Act.

Bill (No. 5) intituled

An Act to Amend the School District and Regional Colleges (Pensions) Act.

Bill (No. 6) intituled

An Act to Amend the Members of the Legislative Assembly Superannuation Act.

Bill (No. 7) intituled

An Act to Amend the Public Services Group Insurance Act.

Bill (No. 11) intituled Special Funds Appropriation Act.

Bill (No. 12) intituled Accelerated Park Development Act.

Bill (No. 13) intituled

An Act to Amend the Provincial Home-owner Grant Act.

Bill (No. 14) intituled

An Act to Amend the Gasoline Tax Act, 1948.

Bill (No. 15) intituled

An Act to Amend the Gasoline Tax Act, 1958.

Bill (No. 16) intituled

An Act to Amend the Coloured Gasoline Tax Act.

Bill (No. 17) intituled

An Act to Amend the Motive-fuel Use Tax Act.

Bill (No. 18) intituled Cigarette and Tobacco Tax Act.

Bill (No. 19) intituled Hotel and Motel Room Tax Act.

Bill (No. 21) intituled

An Act to Amend the Taxation Act.

Bill (No. 23) intituled

An Act to Amend the Trespass Act.

Bill (No. 24) intituled

An Act to Amend the Fur-farm Act.

Bill (No. 25) intituled

An Act to Amend the Animals Act.

Bill (No. 27) intituled

An Act to Amend the Public Libraries Act was committed, reported complete with amendments. Bill as reported to be considered at the next sitting after today.

Bill (No. 29) intituled

An Act to Amend the Settled Estates Act.

Bill (No. 30) intituled

An Act to Amend the Variation of Trusts Act.

Bill (No. 31) intituled

An Act to Amend the Testator's Family Maintenance Act.

Bill (No. 32) intituled

An Act to Amend the Infants Act was committed, reported complete with amendments. Bill as reported to be considered at the next sitting after today.

The following Bills were committed, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed:

Bill (No. 33) intituled

An Act to Amend the Consumer Protection Act.

Bill (No. 35) intituled Hearing-Aid Regulation Act.

Bill (No. 36) intituled

An Act to Amend the Revised Statutes Act, 1966.

Bill (No. 45) intituled

An Act to Amend the Community Care Facilities Licensing Act.

Bill (No. 47) intituled

An Act to Amend the Public Schools Act was committed. The committee reported progress and asked leave to sit again.

On the motion of Mr. Bennett the House reverted to the Order "Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees."

MR. B. PRICE (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, your Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills begs leave to report as follows:

Report No. 2: that the

preamble to Bill No. 50 intituled

An Act to Incorporate the Vancouver School of Theology has been proved and the Bill Ordered to be reported with amendments.

The report was read and received.

By leave of the House, the rules were suspended and the report adopted.

Report No. 3: that the

preamble to Bill No. 51 intituled

An Act Respecting Central City Mission has been proved and the Bill Ordered to be reported without amendment.

The report was read and received.

By leave of the House, the rules were suspended and the report adopted.

Report No. 4: that the

preamble to Bill No. 52 intituled

An Act to Incorporate Canadian Institute of Management (British Columbia Branch) has not been proved to the satisfaction of your Committee, which recommends that the Bill not proceed further.

Your Committee's decision is based on the conclusion that the

principal aims and objects of the petitioners do not require private

legislation to be effectively accomplished.

And your Committee further recommends that the deposit paid by, the petitioners be refunded.

The report was read and received.

By leave of the House, the rules were suspended and the report adopted.

Report No. 5: that the

preamble to Bill No. 53 intituled

An Act to Amend the Vancouver Charter has been proved and the Bill Ordered to be reported with amendments.

The report was read and received.

On the motion of Mr. Price that the Rules be suspended and the report adopted, leave to suspend the Rules was not granted.

MR. PRICE: Report No. 6, that the

preamble to Bill No. 54 intituled

An Act to Amend the Seaboard Assurance Company Act, 1953 has been proved and the Bill Ordered to be reported with amendments.

The report was read and received.

By leave of the House, the rules were suspended and the report adopted.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the

thirty-second Annual Report of the Public Utilities Commission for the

year ended December 31, 1970, and a Report of Activities pursuant to

the Cemeteries Act and the Prearranged Funeral Services Act.

[ Page 732 ]

The House adjourned at 5:57 p.m.

The House met at 8: 00 p.m.

The Honourable W.K. Kiernan presented to Mr. Speaker a Message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

On the motion of Mr. W.K. Kiernan, Bill (No. 88) intitaled

An Act to Amend the Regional Parks Act was introduced, read a first time, and Ordered to be placed on the Orders of the Day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

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

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (South Okanagan): Second reading of Bill 66, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill 66, All-terrain Vehicles Act. The Honourable the Minister of Recreation and Conservation.

HON. W.K. KIERNAN (Chilliwack): Mr. Speaker, this is what

might be termed enabling legislation. I think the bill is quite

self-explanatory within itself. I would simply point out that the

objective of this legislation is to provide legislative authority for

registering, identifying and regulating those classes of vehicles that

are not normally operated on the public highways and, therefore, are

not subject to the existing motor-vehicle registration and licensing

procedures.

While we know there are several thousand snowmobiles, or Skidoos,

whichever you wish to call them, within the Province, and while we know

these vehicles are here, we have no way of knowing how many there are,

precisely. We have no way of identifying their ownership and, since

there is a growing measure of concern being expressed, and rightly so,

that these vehicles are, for example, invading wilderness areas that

were previously fairly inviolate and are tending, on occasion, to get

themselves into difficulties with private property owners, and for a

variety of other very valid reasons, we believe it has now come to the

time when we should provide the legislative vehicle to register them,

and identify them by number in a manner comparable to that used for

boats. In other words, a number issued for the life of the vehicle is

to be painted or stencilled on the hull of the vehicle and be that

vehicle's permanent registration number, regardless of who may own it,

so that it can be identified at a distance and, of course, by reference

to the registration documents which will be maintained by the

Motor-vehicle Branch, since there is no necessity to set up a separate

registration system. With that kind of identification of the vehicles,

both as to ownership and as to the particular vehicle, we will be in a

position, I think, to offer some reasonable measure of control, not

only for the benefit of the people who might be offended by the use of

these vehicles, not only for the protection of wildlife which is,

unfortunately, on occasion, being harassed by these vehicles, but also

for the protection of the operators of the vehicles themselves, and for

the further necessity of separating skiers, snowmobilers and similar

lines of activity, simply for the general public safety.

It is not proposed at this time that, under this Statute at least,

they will be in any way licensed to operate on the public highways. If

they are going to operate on the public highways, that becomes a matter

for the Motor-vehicle Act and will, I believe, require full compliance

with the Motor vehicle Act. We know there are thousands of these

vehicles operating over all sorts of unoccupied Crown land and, in some

cases, over private land, and we ought to be able to properly identify

them.

You will notice, as you go through the bill, that the responsibility

for what is done with one of these vehicles is placed, in the first

instance, on the owner. We also have a requirement that those people

who, as a business, lease or rent out these vehicles, shall be covered

by public liability insurance. There is no requirement for general

public liability insurance but the first onus of responsibility is

placed upon the owner of the vehicle. There is no general limitation

within the Statute on the age of the operator. The onus, in this case

again comes back to the owner of the vehicle. I think that, basically,

Mr. Speaker, the series of principles embodied in this bill are

directed to bringing some necessary measure of regulation to this type

of vehicle on the basis of not necessarily regulation, but regulation,

if necessary. I move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kootenay.

MR. L.T. NIMSICK (Kootenay): I move the adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion agreed to.

MR. BENNETT: Second reading of Bill 67, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill 67,

An Act to Amend the Wildlife Act. The Honourable the Minister of Recreation and Conservation.

MR. KIERNAN: Bill 67, Mr. Speaker, contains two or three new

policy matters. The rest of it is fundamentally directed to what we

might term housekeeping legislation or clarification of some of the

terms in the existing Statute.

You will notice, throughout the bill, the term "game or big game" is

eliminated and replaced by the term "wildlife" which has become the

accepted method of identifying all of the wild animals of the Province.

There is a provision in these amendments to provide for a firearms

license for those people who carry firearms for purposes other than

hunting. As you know, the recreational use of firearms, not only

encompasses the field of hunting for game but, today, there is a

substantial number of people who use firearms for trap-shooting or just

going down to the gravel pit for an afternoon of target plunking and

that sort of thing.

Prior to 1966, you were required to have a hunting license, if you

were carrying a firearm. It was, at that time, described as a hunting

and firearm license. When we brought in the Wildlife Act,

in 1966, because we were completely out of line with any jurisdiction

in Canada, we eliminated the requirement of having a hunting license in

order to carry a firearm, if, in fact, you were not going hunting.

Since 1966, because of general public demand and broad public support,

we have developed a system of hunter safety training. While it is

referred to as hunter safety, or firearms safety training, the training

programme encompasses perhaps the whole range of necessary and

desirable skills, if you are going to go out into the wilderness in

search of game, or even if you were just

[ Page 733 ]

going out into the true wilderness. Emerging from

this programme is the requirement that those people applying for their

first hunting license in 1972, will not be issued a hunting license,

until they have obtained a certificate of competency from one of our

five or six hundred qualified examination officers throughout the

Province. I say five or six hundred because the number of qualified

examination officers is increasing every month and certainly by 1972,

there will be virtually no comer in this Province where a person

wishing to take the training for the safe handling of firearms and take

his examination will have any difficulty in finding a person who has

been qualified by our safety training officers and certified to give

inspections and training for the safe handling of firearms.

I think if you examine the bill rather carefully, we have tried to

exempt from the term "carry" those things relating to the

transportation of firearms that could not be by themselves construed to

be carrying a gun for the purposes of target shooting or any related

matter. In other words, we have tried to avoid interference with people

who are simply with their household goods in transit through the

Province. We have tried to avoid any requirement for a person who

simply keeps a firearm on his own property, or a person who has his

dad's old 38.55 above the mantelpiece and never has any intention of

going out and firing the thing, anyway. If the Member from

Cowichan-Malahat's old mother….

MR. STRACHAN: Muzzle. (Laughter.)

MR. KIERNAN: Oh, I thought you said your old mother…Well,

if his old mother has an old shooting iron that she keeps above the

fireplace…Oh, that was his mother-in-law. That's another story, Mr.

Speaker. I don't think we ought to get into that tonight. It would be

unfair, especially to the Member from Cowichan-Malahat (interruption). Stop bragging, or we'll open the season on you. There is a further… (interruption). The trouble is I've never issued a game tag for you.

There is another basic provision in the amending bill in that we can

declare a species to be an endangered species and, by having declared

it, an endangered species… (interruption).

No, I assure you that this amendment is not directed against either of

the Opposition Parties. Having declared a species to be an endangered

species, raptors…on Vancouver Island, for example, the wolverine is

virtually extinct, we may have to declare it an endangered

species…The basic idea is that many of the animals, such as the

cougars, the wolves, the coyotes, if they are in any way suspected even

of molesting livestock, they can be shot. If we declare a particular

species in a particular area an endangered species and somebody shoots

one the onus will be on them to prove that it was, in fact, a menace to

livestock or people. In other words, if a person has shot a wolverine

attacking some of his domestic animals, then, the evidence is fairly

obvious, because the wolverine probably didn't wander into the chicken

pen to ask the chickens the time of day. That's a reasonable

assumption. It's a reasonable assumption of guilt when you catch the

wolverine in the chicken pen. The simple fact of sighting and shooting

an animal of an endangered species will not, in itself, relieve you of

being charged with having shot the animal and you will have to prove

that there was some necessary reason for you shooting. Now, this, of

course, will apply only to a very limited number of species and only in

limited areas. We did not have that provision in the previous act — the

authority to declare a species an endangered species and give it

special protection. So this amending bill also makes this provision.

Mr. Speaker, that covers the principles. There are some details but

they are more details of administration. With that, I move that the

bill be read a second time.

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

MR. W.L. HARTLEY (Yale-Lillooet): Mr. Speaker, on the

principle of this bill, we will support it in principle. We would like

to discuss certain sections more at that time.

I'm pleased to see the changes with regard to the carrying and

licensing of firearms. This puts our conservation officers — the change

in the legislation back in 1967 or 1968, whenever it was made, put the

law enforcement officers in a very difficult position. They could go

off into the hills and meet someone with a rifle, obviously hunting,

but as long as he didn't have game and they could even hear him

shooting, he could say he was target practising. I found, in chatting

with different law enforcement agencies, that it put them in a very

difficult position, when they couldn't give a man a ticket for carrying

a rifle even in the woods. I believe that we should tighten up on the

legislation so that, where firearms are found in cars, reasonable

action can be taken to control situations like this.

I would like to commend the department for its hunter training

programme. I think this is very worthwhile. I believe all too many of

us grew up to take a rifle and possibly go out with a parent or an

older hunter and we learned by doing and are fortunate that we didn't

meet up with an accident. I believe the hunter training programme, that

is being given full support by the various wildlife groups throughout

the Province — I know the Hope wildlife group, the Princeton and

Merritt have schools and many of the members have passed the exam and

will be working with the department.

In the endangered species, I believe we have to watch very closely

game birds. I was visiting with a friend in Clayburn over the weekend

and he tells me that, now that the season has closed, the pheasants are

staging a comeback — the first comeback in years. If there is an open

season, I hope it will only be for cocks, cocks only and possibly for

one weekend, so that a few of these cock birds maybe could be taken. I

think we have to watch the pheasant, the partridge and the bobwhite — the partridge and the bobwhite are pretty well extinct in most parts of

B.C. I would like to see a programme of restoration of pheasant,

partridge, bobwhite and prairie chicken because, with our wide use of

pesticides and the controlling of grasshoppers which the prairie

chicken feed on, we've pretty well wiped out the prairie chicken in

many parts of the Province. If they could be reintroduced…and with

our programme of control of DDT, pesticides and insecticides…As we

control these pesticides more and more, I believe both the game animals

and the wildlife will have a better chance, particularly the game birds

such as pheasants, prairie chicken, partridge, will have a better

chance to come back. I hope there will be a very limited season on hen

birds and doe animals.

As far as certain other species, I think probably we should consider

putting a bounty…there is some talk of having a bounty on cougar.

Other people feel there should be quite a large bounty on the

roadrunners. We support this in principle. We'll have certain

amendments in the sections.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kootenay.

[ Page 734 ]

MR. NIMSICK: There are quite a few good points in this bill.

Some of them I'm not quite certain about. I think that the Honourable

the Minister, when he dealt with firearms, in regards to carrying them

without going hunting, I mean, not for hunting purposes, that it should

have been taken out of the Firearms Act. I think we scatter these things through too many acts. The Firearms Act

is dealing with this principle of carrying firearms, without using them

for hunting purposes. I feel that this separate license should have

been dealt with under the Firearms Act.

Another point in this act that I would like to see the Minister deal

with and that is in regards to the trespassing. This is about the only

act and the only group of people where they have got a separate

trespass act, people who go hunting, or, in this act, anybody who

trespasses. We've got a Trespass Act and when somebody puts up a sign, "No Trespassing,"…. I think this could be handled under the Trespass Act. I don't think it should come under the Wildlife Act, because in the Wildlife Act, we

are dealing with a separate thing altogether. To say to the hunter, who

has got a legal license, that he is a different type of a citizen to

somebody else who trespasses, I don't think it's a proper way to look

at it. This is one of the things I think the Minister should take under

close consideration because I feel that, if a person is violating the Trespass Act,

he knows what act to go to. But, in this case, we've got them on both

points under two acts. I don't think that this is the proper place to

deal with trespassing.

There are some points here that are very good. I don't know in

regards to the hunter training. I say that this is good. I hope though

that in the outlying areas that are far away from places that you don't

put individuals and pioneers, people who have lived in an area for a

long time, to a lot of expense having to go maybe 100 miles, or 200

miles, to get to some place where they can take an exam. If that is the

case, then, you are going to put them to a lot of extra expense. I

think maybe that a written exam sometimes for some of these people

could be adopted. I mean by letter and have them fulfil…maybe

appoint somebody in their area that could take the exam. I am certain

that, in many areas in the Province, you are not going to have a

qualified examiner right at your fingertips for that person to be able

to get to him very quickly. I think that we've got to take all these

things into consideration when we are dealing with the whole Province.

We're not dealing with just one area. There are lots of areas where

there is no problem at all but I think in some areas you will have

problems in regards to this question. Most, of course, dealing with an

act such as this, a Wildlife Act, most of the controls are done by

regulation. We've got very little say in a bill like this. I intend to

say more about that when your estimates come up because I don't think

it really is involved in this bill — the regulations of governing the

different animals.

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

MR. D. BARRETT (Coquitlam): Mr. Speaker, just about three

brief comments on the bill…I don't feel that the gun registration

procedures outlined in the bill go far enough. In my opinion, I would

prefer to see all rifles registered. There are too many exceptions

under the section, here, that the Minister has. I would also like to

see the registration of firearms take place at the time of purchase and

the exam take place at the time of purchase. If the exam cannot be

given at the time of purchase, then the application for the purchase of

a firearm should be made through the department and a supervised exam

be given at an appropriate location and the exam be mailed in or marked

by the Government agent. But there is a presumption, here, that I don't

agree with, that the purchaser knows how to handle a gun and you wait

until the exam time before you prove it. I think that some preliminary

test should be made available. Also on the private sale of firearms, I

think that all such transactions should be registered the same way as

when an automobile is sold — a secondhand automobile is sold between

two persons — that gun should be registered and the registration of

sale should be kept.

The problem in the United States with firearms…I understand that

almost every home, or every household, in the United States has

firearms. They are for sale through magazine advertisements. I think

that, if we are going to ban cigarette advertisements and liquor

advertisements, it might not be a bad idea to ban the firearm

advertisements. But, in terms of controlling firearms, there is a

terribly powerful lobby in the United States by the National Rifle

Association. We don't suffer from that kind of lobby here. The Minister

is moving tenderly into areas where I think the public would accept far

more stringent regulations than you are proposing in this bill. I hope

that, during the committee stage, the Minister would consider far more

aggressive administrative procedures of handling the very serious

problem of controlling firearms.

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

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, I recall

a number of years ago, when I was working in the State of Delaware,

they opened up a hunting season for deer for the first time in many

years. That year in Delaware, there were more hunters killed than there

were deer. I think the record was 44 hunters killed and 42 deer. The

reason I mention that, now, is that I think we cannot go too far in

limiting firearms by making the regulations for their use at all as

strict as we possibly can, to commence now a programme of public

education aimed at eliminating hunting as a sport, and to try to make

this world a safer and a pleasanter place in which to live. I can see

nothing but harm coming from the promiscuous use of firearms and their

general availability.

The Honourable Members may recall, as well as I do, the day not too

long ago, when, just four blocks from my home in Vancouver, the family

of a former Member of this House, was slaughtered in their backyard by

a person of unsound mind who possessed unregistered firearms. He was a

former CCF Member, Mr. Arnold Webster, with his son, and their four

children, and his daughter-in-law. That's the kind of thing I think

legislators in this House should be taking very seriously. If we don't

take the first steps to try to limit the use of firearms, with the

ultimate objective of eliminating them entirely and discouraging

hunting, we are going to continue to invite the kind of senseless

carnage that goes on, both in the woods and outside the woods, as a

result of the private possession of dangerous weapons.

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

MR. G.H. DOWDING (Burnaby-Edmonds): Mr. Speaker, I imagine the guns I've got have got a lot of rust on them now.

[ Page 735 ]

I might as well forget about using them. I used to use them a lot

but…I might have to oil them up. I just want to say this. We don't

own the earth. We're just sort of passengers on it and I agree with the

Honourable the Minister, who is piloting this bill, who said that, at

one time or another, about ecology.

I like the idea that wildlife — no one has any property rights in

them. I think it's a tragedy — the older you get and the more you see

of the world — to see the destruction of the habitat of wildlife and

the destruction of game itself. The idea that it's game, of course,

really goes back to our primeval ancestors, who seemed to think that

game was theirs for food. We haven't got that excuse anymore, except

for those people in the North who need it for food. The idea of killing

an animal for sport just doesn't add up as sense. It really isn't sport

to kill anything. You do it if it's necessary because it does harm to

you, or harm to others. We talked about wild dogs running in packs and

the need to destroy them but would you have a contest for people to go

out and kill wild dogs for the fun of it? Would you have as a sport and

a competition, people going out on icefloes with clubs to beat baby

seals on the head as a sport? Yet people do that and some people do it

as sport.

I think it's time we started to use the provisions of this bill — I

see the start of it in the bill — to limit by regulation those species

that can be termed as game. Mr. Speaker, how does a person, in their

own mind, designate what is sport and what isn't sport? Killing baby

seals for the fur, that's a business and you are not supposed to enjoy

that — that's a business.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member is trespassing on another matter before the House.

MR. DOWDING: I didn't think baby seals were before the House.

I'm sorry. I used it as an example of using a business reason for

killing life on this planet. Yet, on the other hand, there are people,

without the excuse even of making a living out of it, who go out and

kill for what they call sport. I don't know how they make this

distinction, the more I think about it. I particularly think it's wrong

for us to permit people to collect wild animals for furs by use of

traps. Traps are very cruel. For years, we've had a lot of people in

our society who have written us letters about the use of certain traps.

We have never solved this problem. We let people go ahead trapping wild

animals without regard to the torture that they go through for years.

Year after year, animals are being tortured in traps, their legs

broken. They often have to chew their legs off to get out of a trap and

we seem to think nothing of this. Yet the more you take your children

out in the wilds, the more you begin to appreciate the need of

preserving the wonderful environment that we have in British Columbia.

One of the things that disappoints me more than anything, as you travel

around this Province, you are seeing fewer and fewer animals in their

wild state. You used to be able to travel around…go down to Grand

Forks, or up in the Kootenays or up in the Okanagan. There wasn't a

time that you wouldn't see a deer crossing the road or wild animals

beside the road. You could see practically every kind of wildlife along

the road as you went. That's not true any longer in British Columbia.

We are losing these rare sights that we used to enjoy.

I think it's time we took a different attitude on the whole question

of the preservation of wildlife. I think the way we go about this is a

gradual restriction of the area in which there is permission to take

wildlife so that we can gradually wean these people with bloodlust out

of it and educate them away from it. You know, the tiger is a

dangerous beast, of course, in India, but it's nearly extinct. Wild

elephants in Africa are becoming extinct. In many regions they have had

to preserve them. There is going to come a time in this world when

we'll only be looking in books to find out what wild animals were all

about, if we don't watch what we're doing. When you consider the

numbers of animals that are being destroyed by the flooding of the

Peace River, the Peace River Dam, Williston Lake, or at Duncan Dam, the

destruction of wild animals that results from that…When you realize

the destruction of game birds that took place…

MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Member must confine his remarks to the principle of this bill.

MR. DOWDING: Well, I am trying to talk about the extent of

this bill and its effect on wildlife, but I wonder what this bill is

really all about. Is it to preserve wildlife or is it just to make the

rules for people to kill them? Well, you know, I can always oil that

gun up, my friend.

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

MR. R.M. STRACHAN (Cowichan-Malahat): Thank you very much,

Mr. Speaker. This is a bill that affects every person in a different

way. We're all human beings…( interruption ). Well, I think we are.

Yes, I would like to believe that. People go hunting for a variety of

reasons. I have never been a hunter. I just don't happen to like

firearms. I don't happen to like the whole process of violence but,

nevertheless, man, in his early beginnings, was a hunter. He had to

hunt to survive. This is why, still, today, many people still enjoy the

feel of the hunt. As I say, I don't happen to enjoy it but there are a

lot of young people today who want to return to nature, who are now

looking for land where they can settle and enjoy the spirit of the

pioneer. I think hunting was part of that and I would much rather that

the many people in the Province, who have an attraction toward guns,

who have an attraction toward hunting, would do it in a licensed,

regulated way. If it releases some personal animosity or creates some

personal satisfaction, that's fine. I would much rather they did it

that way than have to have it closed off completely and find it used

against some other area of society.

For that reason, I support the bill. We support the bill. Because of

the fact that it is part of human society, that everybody is different,

some people require this as an outlet to maintain their balance and, as

long as it's properly regulated, I agree with the Minister that this is

a step in the right direction. I agree with the Leader of the

Opposition when he said that every gun should be registered. I want

control of guns but I also agree with the right of the individual to

walk out in the bush and pursue a wild animal as he sees fit. He's

pitting his skill against that of the animal and, without the gun, he'd

be about fourth best. The gun gives him the advantage but I think

within our kind of society, it is a very necessary part of life. Even

though I don't like it and I don't do it myself, I think we have to go

along with the Minister and recognize the need for control, recognize

the need to allow this sort of thing to continue in British Columbia,

because we are that kind of Province, with wild game in abundance.

Because we've interfered with

[ Page 736 ]

nature in other ways, by cutting trees and creating areas of feed

for wild animals, then, we balance it somewhat by allowing the hunting

to bring a balance to the wild game that's available. For that reason

we support the bill.

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

MR. KIERNAN: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to clarify a

couple of points. The one raised in relation to the fact that perhaps

the recreational use of firearms belongs more adequately in the

Firearms Act. I wouldn't dispute that too seriously, except that we are

trying to deal, in a single Statute, with those things that relate to

the management and harvesting of wildlife, the Wildlife Act, so that we

have those matters relating to firearms for recreational use within the

act. We have those matters relating to trespass and the special

postings required if you are going to prohibit people hunting on your

land, so that as near as possible we have it all within the one act.

Now, I am not suggesting what, in the future, may happen to the

Firearms Act but I think what you will find here in this Wildlife Act,

as amended, is that we have those reasonable measures of control that

we ought properly to have in the Department of Recreation and

Conservation. What may or may not be done with the Firearms Act, per

se, in the future is not for me to suggest at this time. I simply say

that we have consolidated the recreational use of firearms within the

Wildlife Act in the same manner that we consolidated those features

specifically related to trespass in the harvesting of game that are

pertinent simply to the management within the Wildlife Act.

I think

many of us share the concern about this business of hunting but I would

point out to you that we harvest annually in this Province about 70,000

deer, which even at a dressed weight of only 100 lbs. a piece is

what? — 7 million pounds of venison. We harvest 25,000 moose, at a

dressed weight of 400 lbs., plus a few thousand elk and caribou, so it

is a substantial amount of food that is harvested. Bear in mind that,

if you didn't have a method of harvesting, if you didn't have a method

of holding these herd sizes within the range capacity, you would have

to, then, know that, at some point, they would die off at a very

substantial rate as a result of starvation. As the member from

Cowichan-Malahat mentioned, in many cases, we have reduced or

eliminated the normal predators. We couldn't tolerate the kind of wolf

population that would be needed even close into the settled areas to

hold the deer and moose population under control now. So it would

either be allow people to hunt under regulation or, alternately, send

out Government hunters or set up traps and reduce those populations.

What we are running into, in the Cariboo, right now, has simply been a

case a combination of weather conditions and population numbers

outstripping the available feed in those concentrated areas. So, in

game management, you have to keep the population in line with the

winter range carrying capacity.

I think this pretty well settles the points that were raised. I just

want to reiterate there is nothing dealing with firearm registration in

this legislation. It is not a part of the amendments before you. I move

second reading, Mr. Speaker.

Motion agreed to.

Bill 67 was read a second time and Ordered to be placed on the Orders of the Day for committal at the next sitting after today.

MR. BENNETT: Second reading of Bill 68, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The second reading of Bill 68, intituled

An Act to Amend the Forest Act. The Honourable the Minister of Lands and Forests.

HON. R.G. WILLISTON (Fort George): Mr. Speaker, there are one

or two main features in the amendments to the Forest Act and many of

them are merely housekeeping amendments. The housekeeping amendments

were occasioned by the fact that last year we amended the Land Act and

made certain specific references. There are certain specific references

in the Forest Act to the Land Act. With the changes in the Land Act

last year, the references were no longer accurate and those references

have been changed in this Statute. There actually are three of those.

In the payment of the forest protection tax, and this Statute makes

no change in the tax rate…the actual tax that has been paid has

been an occupation tax, based upon acreage. Now that we've moved to

timber sale harvesting licenses, somewhat similar to tree-farm

licenses, and because the people are cutting and the area of occupation

is determined by their permit, it's been found more equitable and more

advantageous to charge the forest protection tax on the basis of the

annual allowable cut contained in the license. The actual rate hasn't

been changed but it has been made the equivalent to the acreage cut

that was there before and it's been made applicable to timber sale

harvesting licenses, at the present time.

One or two other semi-major matters…as a matter of fact, the

most important change in the Statute, Mr. Speaker, concerns the

definition of refiner ground pulp, or mechanical pulp, as an item that

comes under export permit. In other words, it differentiates between

the mechanical pulps and the chemical pulps and it brings the

mechanical pulp under export permit. As I indicated in speaking before

in this House, it means that, once we have a volume of mechanical pulp

being manufactured in British Columbia, we can force the rolling of a

sheet from the mechanical pulp since it's the basic ingredient of

newsprint. We are just bringing on line now, our first RGP, refiner

ground pulp mill, at Mackenzie and it is anticipated that this will be

a success in the future and that we'll have more of this material

available for use.

During the closed fire season, each year, we have an automatic

requirement that, if machines and operations have been carried on

during the closed season, a watchman has to be retained at this

equipment for two hours after the close-down, in case there has been

any spark or that any fire might result from the activities. Now, this,

even in a closed area, has been regardless of weather. The rain may

have been pouring down and the watchman has had to be retained. We have

changed this

section to make it, by regulation, not mandatory by

Statute, and the regulation will take into consideration weather

conditions and, thus, make it a little more flexible in its operation.

The other

section dealt with in the act has to do with clarifying an

issue. As you know now, private roads are open for public use but the

owner of the private road, if it is being damaged, may close its use

for that period of time. When he closes it, of course, he has to close

it to his own use as well as to anybody else's. What was going on was

that we didn't mention "road." We just had the word "damaged" in the

Statute and it has come to be interpreted that, with some people going

down the road, damage took place to some of the equipment that was in

the area, and the road was closed

[ Page 737 ]

accordingly, but not because of any damage to the actual road. To

make sure what the change in the act means we have just added "to the

road" in the Statute and not allowed them to interpret this as damage

to anything besides the road which permits them to close the road that

is there.

Mr. Speaker, this covers the amendments that are placed in Bill 68. I move second reading.

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

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion agreed to.

MR. BENNETT: Second reading of Bill 69, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The second reading of Bill 69, intituled

An Act to Amend the Jury Act. The Honourable the Attorney — General.

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

besides the amendments which are contained in this bill, which might be

called housekeeping purposes, there are two particular provisions that

perhaps should be singled out. One is to enable the sheriff, either

before the trial or during the trial, to exempt people from jury duty.

This is really a clarification. The other provision is to relax the

requirement that the clerk of the Court call over the names of the

jurors on each day of the trial, only doing this when the panel is

required by the Court to attend. These amendments and the housekeeping

amendments contained in the bill result from the year's experience we

have had with the new Jury Act and the recommendations that have come

forward from the sheriff in the day-to-day administration of the act. I

move that the bill be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, I wonder why there is still not any provision in this bill for the payment of coroners.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Honourable Member for Burnaby-Edmonds.

MR. DOWDING: I welcome a couple of changes in the bill,

particularly what appears to have been an error the last time round — in the spelling. We endorse the bill in principle and will deal with it

in sections when it comes to committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill 69 read a second time and Ordered to be placed on the Orders of the Day for committal at the next sitting after today.

MR. BENNETT: Second reading of Bill 70, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill 70, intituled

An Act to Amend the Police and Prisons Regulations Act. The Honourable Attorney-General.

MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, the substance of this bill is to

make sure that all policemen throughout the Province have the capacity

to carry out their duties in any part of the Province, even though they

may be members of a municipal force, such as the City of Vancouver

Police Force. This particular amendment results from meetings that I've

had with the chiefs of police throughout the Province and will give

assistance in maintaining law and order in British Columbia. I move the

bill be now read a second time.

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

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

Motion agreed to.

MR. BENNETT: Second reading of Bill 72, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill 72, intituled

An Act to Amend the Land Act. The Honourable Minister of Lands and Forests.

MR. WILLISTON: Bill 72, the amendments to the Land Act, Mr. Speaker, encompasses just two or three simple amendments.

The first has to do with the width of a travelled roadway that has

been over Crown land, has been used for public access purposes, has not

been gazetted and has just been established through people use. When

that land, over which the road runs, is leased or may be sold, the road

itself is exempted in the title and does not pass with the land area.

We've never spelled it out before and they have just exempted by

Statute and exempted in the Crown grant or the lease provision, the

travelled road. Last year, we got into a Court case on this where the

travelled road was deemed to be the travelled road. Then a chap took

the fellow who went over the travelled road to Court because beyond the

wheelmarks on the road — he was moving a building down the road — he

had to cut a couple of trees down to get the building past. It was a 14

to 15 ft. building going down the road and so he charged the man in

Court with trespassing going down the road and charged him with cutting

down his private trees. When it came to the Court case, the judge ruled

that we should determine what the size of those roads should be. So,

we've taken the standard allowance for such roads which are 66 ft. or

33 ft. on each side of a centre line, and, unless otherwise designated,

in the Crown grant or in the lease document, for legal purposes, the

travelled road has a width of 66 ft. ( interruption ). I'm not sure, but

I know he cut some trees. Certainly he could have moved one way or the

other way. It was a rather simple thing but he had to keep on the road

or he was off the road completely.

However, another simple amendment just indicates that, where a

seizure is ordered for a trespass on Crown land and it's determined to

take action for a construction that has been placed there illegally, it

just spells out that the sheriff of the county may be designated to

make the seizure on behalf of the Crown, if action is to be taken. At

the present time, it has become one of these questions — "After you,

Alphonse." A seizure has to be made — who's going to make it? The

police say it's not their job, somebody else says it's not their job — so, it was determined to spell it out that it shall be the sheriff of

the county.

[ Page 738 ]

The only other matter of any importance is the form that is attached

to the act and this makes provision for the fact that the same form can

be used in making application for land, whether the land is being

applied for and has previously been surveyed, or whether the land is

being applied for on the basis of a metes and bonds description in the

initial application. This is just an administrative matter in the

number of forms — it lessens the number of forms that have to be kept

on hand at any given time. That is all that is contained in these

provisions, Mr. Speaker. I move second reading.

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

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. I can understand the desirability of having our roads

established to a determined width. That is a very wise move; however, I

hope that the Minister, when he is closing the debate, will deal with

the repeal of

section 84. For him to say that the act just deals with

the width of road and the establishment of sheriff as a person with a

right to seize, is somewhat of an oversight of the appeal of the

provision of the act we passed last year which established the Land Use

Committee. Members on all sides of this House looked forward to having

this Land Use Committee function and carry out its responsibilities in

accordance with requests that have been made to the Government

certainly for as long as I have been in this House. When this Session

opened, Mr. Speaker, we were advised that the Land Use Committee was

going to become extended by the inclusion of another Minister of the

Crown.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think that the Member is aware

of Bill 82 on the Order Paper, which deals with the matter to which he

is referring. The Honourable Member for Kootenay.

MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, in listening to the Honourable the

Minister outline this bill, we move rather slowly. I remember about ten

years ago we had an Access Committee dealing with this very problem.

The Minister, at that time, said that they were going to place in

conveyance of land, Crown land and that if there were any roads that

the roads would be left out. I want to congratulate him on it. Although

it took ten years to come around to it, he's finally got it on the

Statutes. In my area this means a great deal of…if I understood it in

the proper way. Where there has been much logging in years gone by,

there is quite a number of roads that are used as trespass roads quite

frequently and especially by people going fishing, out to a lake, or

hunting. They have used these roads year after year and, then, somebody

comes along and purchases the land and the road is closed off to them.

I'd like to ask the Minister, when he is closing, if this would

apply in those cases as well — where Crown land is sold in the interior

that have former logging roads on them that are not gazetted.

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

MR. W.L. HARTLEY (Yale-Lillooet): Mr. Speaker, I have a

similar question as the Member from Kootenay. Mt. Speaker, will this be

an access road? Do there have to be two ruts or could it be a skid road

trail, or a riding trail? What sort of definition do you use? Quite

recently, a party who bought a sizable piece of land, I think something

like 40 acres, found that he had no access and, yet, on some of the old

maps you can see a trail marked across the neighbour's acreage and so

on. He is having a very difficult time establishing and getting access

to his property now. What is your definition of what would constitute a

previous trail or road?

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

MR. WILLISTON: An ordinary forest road, in temporary use to

open up a timber sale, and which became cancellable when the sale was

cancelled, and did not require access to a given piece of property in

which a person had ownership, is not declared to be a road which was

determined for use, unless the Forest Service has determined that it

shall be retained as a protection road, which they have done in many,

many cases. Unless the specific road has been used, has a basic access

to a holding, or to a specific lake, or something of this nature, that

has been used for that purpose, and the public have used it as an

access to that area, then, it has not official designation, because

there are forest roads, as everyone knows, all over the country for

every single timber sale. But, if it had a specific use, and the public

was using it for a specific purpose, then, it's considered to have had,

and should be retained for, continuing public use. I move second

reading.

Motion agreed to.

Bill 72 was read a second time and Ordered to be placed on the Orders of the Day for committal at the next sitting after today.

MR. BENNETT: Second reading of Bill 73, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 73, intituled

An Act to Amend the Wive's and Children s' Maintenance Act. The Honourable the Attorney-General.

MR. PETERSON: The amendments proposed in this bill, Mr.

Speaker, are the result of some studies undertaken by my colleague, the

Second Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain, and also incorporate

particular recommendations that stem from a number of family division

judges, who have specialized in adult work in the Wive's and Childrens'

Maintenance Act.

One of the major new features involves a change in placing the

responsibility for maintenance of children on both parents. In

addition, a man, under the new provision, will be held responsible for

those children of his wife born or conceived before his marriage to

her. There are also provisions relating to the matters that should be

taken into account in determining maintenance, such as the means of the

wife as well as the other obligations of the husband. There is also a

recognition in terms of maintenance of the common-law relationship, the

details of which are spelled out in the bill.

An important provision is giving the Family Court the authority to

determine matters of custody and access. This is one of the particular

problems that has arisen in determining the amount of maintenance, as

to whether maintenance will

[ Page 739 ]

be given, the reluctance on the part of husbands to pay maintenance if they are not given access to children as well.

The one important provision, of course, relates to the collection of

maintenance and there are several provisions in the bill dealing with

that. A number of the amendments repeal the garnishee provisions which

obtained in this act heretofore, and bring them under the one act, The

Attachment of Debts Act, which is the next bill we will be considering.

I might mention, in this connection, that I am going to propose,

following second reading, that this bill and the following two bills,

which also relate to attachment of debts, No. 74 and No. 75, I am going

to propose that all of these bills be referred to the Select Standing

Committee on Welfare and Education for detailed consideration. That

will apply to this bill, The Wive's and Children s'Maintenance Act, as

well as The Attachment of Debts Act, and the…

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. PETERSON: Certainly at this Session. I would think it

would be a relatively easy chore to handle these particular bills but

it would be useful for the committee to go through them,

section by

section. I, therefore, now move, Mr. Speaker, that the bill be read a

second time.

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

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, while I welcome the suggestion of

the Attorney-General, I regret that the decision was not made earlier

to bring the bills into the House and get them into committee. The

problem is, with the committee at this late stage, and I am very much

in favour of committees doing exactly what the Attorney-General says,

but I would just make this one point that we are now sitting every

night and it means the Members coming…( interruption ). I know they are

all meeting, if convened. If we sit until one o'clock or two o'clock,

then, we can't go on.

This is just a general comment, Mr. Speaker, on the questions of

custody and access, since I am no longer a member of that committee.

The questions of custody and access are very, very difficult matters to

decide on. It has always been my opinion that when a Court orders a

study as to the custody and access to a child, I feel that all

documents prepared by a social worker, or psychologist, or anyone else

that the case was referred to, should be made available to everybody in

the case. I don't believe that anything should be left out of the hands

of either side. In a case disputing access to a child, or custody of a

child, I believe that, if the social worker has something to say about

one parent or the other, then, their opinions should be made right

available to the parents. I feel that, in many instances, when a Court

makes a decision about access and the party that has been refused

access has not been bluntly confronted with the reasons why they

haven't been given rights of access to that child, the parent, who has

been denied access begins to use the Court as an excuse why he or she

isn't a good parent, rather than being faced with the fact of their

neglect or their lack of parental ability of that child. If there is a

case to be made, if somebody is either a drunk or mentally incompetent,

or any other reason why they shouldn't see their child, they must be

confronted with those reasons. Otherwise, the child…( interruption ).

Not always, and, as a result, the child is sometimes used as a pawn by

that parent and the child is used in a way that one parent or the other

says, "Your mummy won't let me see you," or, "your daddy won't let me

see you,"…because they have told the Court x, y or z. There is no

substance in that and the child is used in a conflict. I think it's

incumbent on the State, once it makes a responsible decision as you

have to make, you have to decide — if one parent is not good enough for

that child, you have to decide that that parent not see the child. But,

for the protection of the child, you should tell that parent, bluntly,

eyeball-to-eyeball, why you think he should not see that child, so that

the parent is not given the opportunity to rationalize.

On the question of pursuit of nonpayment of maintenance, who has got

the answer? I really don't know. You are really in a dilemma, and I

have great sympathy with the Attorney-General. We were besieged, some

years ago, by single mothers who wanted to pursue their husbands for

the payment of maintenance orders and when you talk to them — terrific

case — "Let's go get the husband." But, then, when you talk to the

husband — he's got a terrific case, too. What frequently happens, in

instances like this, is that the husband abandons wife number one with

three children and the Court orders a maintenance order. Meanwhile the

husband has selected wife number two, who has been abandoned by another

husband, and he begins to make… (interruption). Mr. Speaker, when

the king does it, you don't have the problem of a maintenance order.

When the ordinary people do it, you've got problems there. Well, I hope

that you and I never get involved in those kind of problems.

Here's a situation, where husband leaves wife number one, with three

children. He goes and lives with wife number two, who may have been

deserted herself and she has two or three children. She, maybe, is on

welfare. He enters the situation, provides an income for the new family

that he has picked up and that family goes off welfare. But family

number one is on welfare waiting for the husband to pay the maintenance

for his original family. Do you follow me? O.K. Then, if there is a

maintenance order made, husband is confronted, while he is supporting

family number two, with a maintenance order and he says, "I ain't gonna

pay her a dime." Rather than pay wife number one, he quits the job. We

end up with a situation of the maintenance order not being paid for

family number one, and family number two goes on welfare

(interruption). It doesn't happen very often! Oh, oh.

Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you, the Minister without Portfolio, the

Second Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain, I want to tell the

Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, that if you spend just five minutes

with the Minister, the Second Member from Vancouver–Little Mountain,

she'll straighten you out on that in a hurry. She's spent enough time

in the Family Courts to know what a mess this is. She's probably got

more information on this than any other Member in the House. Mr.

Speaker, it happens very, very often. As a matter of fact, I'll take

the Member aside and show him cases where husband number one, is the

father to family number two, number three and number four, spread

across different Provinces, through you, Mr. Speaker. It's the A plus B

theorem. You can't blame it on Social Credit… (laughter). The problem,

here, Mr. Speaker, is… (interruption). I'm not on a committee. I could

go before the committee? All right. My last comment is that flexibility

is the key. I just don't know how we are going to handle

this… (interruption). I don't know. I said that, at the beginning.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Honourable Member for Burnaby-Edmonds.

[ Page 740 ]

MR. DOWDING: I am not on the committee either, so I would

like one word on this. I think it is wrong to say that a Provincial

Court judge, or a Family Court judge, should deal with the question of

custody or access only when the matter of maintenance is before them.

One of the great problems is that, if you leave it, as you are

proposing here, for the committee to consider, it means under the

present proposal, without any change, that the Family Court judge could

only deal with the matter of custody when he is also dealing with this

question of maintenance. That's not good enough. He should have that

right even though maintenance may not be in question… (interruption).

It's not in here. Well, don't leave it at that. If you think it's a

good start, endorse the proposal that these matters be taken out of

Supreme Court when the parties wish to deal with them in Family Court,

whether it be custody, access or maintenance, separately. Any one of

them, separately, not the way you are proposing, here, in

section 5. So

I urge, when it comes to committee, that that be considered because the

cost is terrible for most ordinary families. The ones that are usually

fighting haven't got enough money to be fighting these things in

Supreme Court anyway. I suggest that they should be resolved because,

if you resolve the questions of custody and access, very often the

problem of maintenance disappears. They are fighting over the

maintenance because they are burning up with anger over custody matters

or access matters and these get in the way and the child becomes the

plaything or a pawn between the parties. The excuse of nonaccess, or

noncustody, becomes the excuse for nonpayment and, then, you get the

welfare to look after the children, or having to pay for the support of

the mother, because the father is using the excuse that he doesn't get

to see the kids. or the mother is being difficult about access, as his

excuse for not paying. The taxpayers have to bear the load. So, if you

are sensible, you'll add the complete freedom for the judge to deal

with access and custody, as separate matters. It may eliminate the

problem of maintenance in many cases.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. GARDOM: I equally would like to make just one comment on

this bill, because I'm not going to be in the committee either. I think

that the person who summed up the situation best of all was the Leader

of the Opposition because this bill has a more dramatic shift and

change in family law. In fact, this bill, I'd say, is "the" bill of the

Session, insofar as changes in established law are concerned. The

Attorney-General is nodding his head and I agree with him and, with

every respect, Mr. Attorney-General, there is absolutely no way that

this bill has just come into incubation today. You have spent an awful

lot of time thinking about this bill, which you are agreeing with. My

question to you is why didn't we have this bill coming in around Bill 3

or 4 instead, of Bill 73?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! If the Member wants to debate the principle of this bill, he has the Floor. Otherwise his speech is over.

MR. GARDOM: I'm far from finished, Mr. Speaker (interruption). That is a very valid point too, a very valid point, too.

Now, I'll give you a couple of illustrations here, just a couple of

illustrations. Under certain sections of this bill, you have a

common-law relationship put into equal priority with a marital

relationship. Now, this is a pretty marked departure from older and

accepted standards. It may be a good move. It may not be a good move.

I'm not too sure. It is the type of thing that I think should have a

little more deliberation on it than about the two or three weeks

remaining.

We also have the situation under this bill, wherein a man may be

married, with a wife. They have five children. He leaves his wife,

moves in with somebody else and has a common-law relationship, may have

two or three children, as a result of that common-law relationship.

According to this bill, wife number one and the five children and the

common-law wife and the three children would have an equal claim to a

man's income earning capacity. It's a devil of a problem. Then, again,

you'd also have the… (interruption).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GARDOM: I didn't hear the Honourable the Minister….

MR. SPEAKER: I'm happy that you didn't. Would you proceed, please?

MR. GARDOM: She's being quite pleasant, Mr. Speaker, I am

sure. You could also have the situation, Mr. Speaker, where we have

wife number one, with five children. There is a divorce. He is

responsible, therefore, for the first wife and the five children. He

marries wife number two. He, then, inherits three or four children by

the next marriage so that he has got eight children. Then, he walks

away from both of them. Then, again, you still find these twelve people

claiming a portion of the thing. I'm afraid you are going to get the

pie into so many pieces, it's going to be unable to be cut. That's my

great concern about the legislation but I do say, Mr. Speaker, that it

is extremely dramatic legislation. It's a terrific shift in the field

of family law and there is no end to the provisions of this bill that I

think are first class.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister without Portfolio.

HON. G. McCARTHY (Vancouver–Little Mountain): Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. The Attorney-General has stated that this bill is the result

of many consultations with people who have worked in Family Courts,

judges, probation officers, lawyers, administrative staffs and I was

very privileged, indeed, to ask questions of these people and to visit

Family Courts in order to bring some of these suggested changes in.

I would like to thank the Attorney-General and members of his staff,

as a matter of fact, for letting me become involved in this particular

bill. I also was pleased to be able to talk to many single parents — the subject that has been raised by the two Members, the Honourable

Leader of the Opposition and the Honourable Member for Point Grey. The

points they raised are valid, very valid, indeed. But, the points they

raised are situations that cannot be covered by any amount of

legislation, Mr. Speaker.

This bill does not have the intent of covering those kinds of cases,

which really are the result of a human development, within our human

relationships, within this Province, and all throughout the world as

far as that goes. I would like to just caution the Honourable Member

from Point Grey that if you

[ Page 741 ]

think the gentlemen or the Courts are going to have any problem in

forcing payment to several wives, common-law wives, could I just pose

this question? Just imagine the difficulty the common-law wife

deserted, or wife deserted, with the children, has. This is a far

greater problem to these people and, having spoken to very many single

parents, who are trying to raise children in this day and age, believe

me, that is a far greater burden of responsibility. This bill is trying

to recognize the children in that particular circumstance. It really

gives more enforcement of payment to the results of these common-law

unions, that is, the children.

I would like to say that, having had a very free reign in redrafting

this act, I have been consulting with very many people, who have been

in the position of being left and not being able to collect an account

for the very reason that the Honourable Member of North Burnaby and

also the Leader of the Opposition has suggested because the husband is

denied access and rights to see the children and there is so much

animosity between the two, the husband and the wife, that the husband

is denied completely the right, which is his right, to see his own

children. Only this morning, in speaking to members of the Family Court

in Surrey, a Court which handles very many of these particular cases,

one of the gentlemen who is responsible for enforcing maintenance

orders said that two men had phoned, just this morning, to ask whether

this new act meant that they could see their children, at long last.

One said he hadn't seen his children for two and a half years because

he had not been able to keep up his payments and his wife had made him

stay away from the home and kept the children from him on every

occasion — for two and a half years. This is repeated over and over and

over again.

The new part, where a woman has the same responsibility to provide

for the children as does the husband is something new and perhaps can

be attributed to the Women's Lib movement. It is traditional that

mothers share the moral responsibility but, up to now, it has not been

traditional nor been expected that they bear the burden of the

financial responsibility. However, there is such a change in our

economic situation, where women are owners of businesses, executives in

different industrial and business concerns that, in fact, they,

sometimes, earn more than their husbands do. In one case, in

Pennsylvania, just recently, a judge in the county court, there, noted

that fathers bear the primary responsibility of child support but said

that mothers also share the responsibility. He ruled that Mary Polk

should help support their son and two daughters cared for by her

husband, David. Mr. Polk has not worked since November and is receiving

$60 per month unemployment compensation, on which he would not be able

to, of course, care for one son and two daughters. However, the wife is

fully employed and is making a good financial return to the household.

Therefore, even though she has left her husband with the three

children, she is now responsible for those children. I must say, Mr.

Speaker, that, in the four years that I have been connected with the

Government and with this kind of work, I have only found one case

where, indeed, the wife left the husband with the children. It is very

often the other way around. Very seldom does the woman… (interruption)

but, it is not really a frequent case. You win have to admit to that

(interruption).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Will the Honourable the Minister please proceed.

MRS. McCARTHY: However, Mr. Speaker, we should also legislate

for the unique case, as are these cases, where the woman leaves the

husband with the children. I think it's tremendously important that

that is included in the bill. I think, too, that the act fully protects

the child of the parents.

One significant change which hasn't been noticed, heretofore, in the

debate, is that children over 19 years who are handicapped for life, or

who are handicapped in any way for life, or a certain time after that

age of majority, are protected. In other words, they cannot be deserted

by the deserting parent. They will still be their responsibility. This

was brought to our attention as a result of a mother…it was a plea,

actually, on behalf of a brain-damaged child, where he will always be

in care and, thankfully, through this act, if the husband, or the

deserting husband, or the deserting wife, if you will, but, probably,

the deserting husband, will not undertake the full responsibility for

all the children, he will have to be responsible for this child, at

least, until he is out of care. In this case, he will never be out of

care.

It protects the common-law wife, which has been mentioned, and this

was perhaps the result of a significant decision made in the Supreme

Court, just this last year, of McKenzie v. McKenzie. Perhaps, the legal

minds in the House will remember this. Judge McFarlane made this point,

during the decision on this particular case. He says that, "If the

legislators of this Province wish to impose my ability on a man in the

position of the errant, they can readily enact clear legislation for

the purpose. It seems to me anomalous that the Court should be asked to

infer liability in a case involving maintenance of children from the

rather obscure provisions of Statutes enacted in former times in

England to meet entirely different social conditions from those which

exist in British Columbia today." The decision was going to be made on

the basis of the Poor Law Amendment Act, which was 1834, which is

pretty far outdated for such a decision, when it is involving a

decision to be made about children, and what maintenance and what

support they will have in British Columbia today. This was a case where

the husband was suggesting he would not be responsible for a child born

from another union. He, then, is leaving the present wife and she

wanted to make him responsible, since he had entered into an agreement

with her. He, then, entered into the agreement to look after her

children as well. It was set aside, but this particular act now

covers…this particular legislation will cover that particular

circumstance. I think it's a move in the right direction.

I would just like to say that the access and custody part of this

bill is particularly significant because, heretofore, any of these

orders for maintenance, custody and access have all been made by the

Supreme Court. The Family Court has not had the jurisdiction and, now,

they will have the authority to provide for just such decisions.

Actually, it is the place in which those decisions can be more

correctly made. It also provides that the wife and children in that

Court can now issue a summons for the arrest of the errant parent who

does not provide maintenance. Heretofore, there was a show-cause

summons but any further enactment of that was not made. Now, they may

issue a warrant for the arrest of the man, if he fails to pay for the

wife's maintenance and/or the childrens' maintenance. If the husband,

or the wife, is working out of town (interruption). Yes, I think it

works both ways. Can you believe that I don't think its going to be

needed in that regard?

I think too, that it is important to note that there is going to be a change in regard to if this bill is adopted in its

[ Page 742 ]

present form…that a man who is working in Prince George who does

not maintain his family, say, in the city of Vancouver, will not have

to be brought away from Prince George to the Court in Vancouver, where

the order was made in order to dispute the maintenance in order to give

his side of the story. The Court will be enacted in Prince George to

take that evidence which, in turn, will be sent to Vancouver and the

decision made without him having to lose his work, his time at work, or

travel away from his home. This should speed up the process and it will

put the least possible financial burden on an already strained budget,

which most of these cases, which as the Honourable Leader of the

Opposition has stated, is already very much strained.

I would just like to say that there are already a few minor things

that I would like to see and I hope that we will have, in terms of

discussion of the bill, in committee, other Members, other than the

Social Welfare Committee called on, or can make some representations to

the committee, in order to bring those points up. I certainly hope that

the whole House will support the bill and the meaning behind the bill

for the families within the Province that certainly have needed many

changes in this act, up to now, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Surrey.

MR. E. HALL (Surrey): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. For some three

years now I have made a point of discussing either in a formal debate

or in the Attorney-General's estimates this problem. I think that it

had got to the stage, Mr. Speaker, in my area, where almost any change

was going to be better than what we've got at the moment. However, a

cursory examination of Bill 73, right off the bat, indicates there is a

change much better than we have perhaps anticipated, jaundiced though

we may be after three years of speeches. As a Member of the committee

to which this bill is being referred, I welcome its reference, although

it means work. I will reserve my comments regarding the timing of the

bill to debate in committee, where I think they may be more

appropriately made.

I want to say that the principle in which the committee and myself

and others should operate is fairly simply. It won't be sufficient just

to have good legislation. What we are going to need, within our

systems, is the kind of qualified people, the kind of advice, and the

kind of restoration of dignity that, unfortunately, is so often

lacking in the courtroom procedure that these people get locked into. I

think that, if we can come out of that committee, Mr. Speaker, with

this bill, with whatever wisdom is applied to it, so that deserted

parents, either male or female, can really sense that they are going to

get a fair deal, that justice is available to them and that their case

will be heard in the most de-escalated situation possible, then, this

Legislature will certainly have enacted something in this Session that

it can be proud of. As I say, coming from Surrey which has certainly

amongst the highest per capita rate of single-family parents, I can

only welcome the legislation and anticipate enjoying the work of the

committee and taking the lessons I have learned from meeting with

literally dozens of both deserted wives and separated husbands over the

last five years.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kootenay.

MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, I'm just going to say one thing. I

think that the point in this bill, where a man has got to accept

responsibility when he is with a common-law wife is good because, too

long, have many of them evaded their responsibility with their legal

wives and got a free ride with the common-law wife.

Motion agreed to.

Bill 73 was read a second time and Ordered referred to the Select Standing Committee on Social Welfare and Education.

Bill 47 intituled

An Act to Amend the Public Schools Act was

committed, reported complete with amendments. During the debate, a

division occurred on

section 48. The committee asked leave of the House

to have the division recorded. Leave was not granted. Bill, as

reported, to be considered at the next sitting after today.

The House adjourned at 11:04 p.m.