1973 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 30th 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)

THURSDAY, APRIL 5, 1973

Morning Sitting

[ Page

2221 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Cattle Industry Development Act. (Bill No. 32). Second

reading.

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 2221

Mr. Richter — 2221

Mr. Williams — 2221

Mr. Gardom — 2222

Mr. Lewis — 2222

Mr. McGeer — 2222

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 2223

An Act to Amend the Securities Act, 1967. (Bill No. 18).

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2224

Mr. Smith — 2224

Mr. Morrison — 2224

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2224

An Act to Amend the Infants Act. (Bill No. 37). Second

reading.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2225

Mr. Wallace — 2225

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 2226

Mr. Gardom — 2226

Mrs. Jordan — 2226

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2228

Mr. Morrison — 2228

Mr. Smith — 2229

Mr. Lauk — 2229

Mr. McGeer — 2230

Mr. Williams — 2231

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2232

An Act to Amend the Equal Guardianship of Infants Act. (Bill

No. 41). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2232

Mr. Smith — 2233

Mr. Williams — 2233

Mr. Gardom — 2233

An Act to Amend the Coroner's Act. (Bill No. 46). Second

reading.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2233

Mr. Gardom — 2234

Mr. Wallace — 2234

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2234

Debt Collection Act. (Bill No. 48). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2234

Mr. Smith — 2235

An Act to Amend the Small Claims Act. (Bill No. 49). Second

reading.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2235

Mr. Smith — 2236

Mr. Gardom — 2236

Mr. Williams — 2236

Mrs. Jordan — 2236

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2238

THURSDAY, APRIL 5, 1973

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

Orders of the day.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I move we proceed to

public bills and orders.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, as the Attorney General (Hon.

Mr. Macdonald) is not here I would ask the House to go to

second reading of Bill 32.

CATTLE INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT ACT

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Agriculture.

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker,

this is legislation change that was asked for by the Beef

Cattlemen's Association. I believe there was some explanation

of it previously.

If this is passed, there will be a cattle industry

development board established which will be composed of beef

and dairy cattlemen and one ex officio member from the B.C.

Department of Agriculture. This board will have the authority

to collect a levy. The amount of the levy may be set from time

to time by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. It will be

transferred from one owner to another by a cattle sale.

At the present time it's anticipated that the levy will be

55 cents per animal, which would go into the Cattle Development

Fund, to provide financing for the B.C. Cattlemen's Association

to operate. It would also provide an allocation to the dairy

cattleman, which would be handled through the B.C. Federation

of Agriculture.

Under the present Beef Cattle Producers Assistance

Act , approximately $50,000 is collected by the brands

division each year at 30 cents per head consigned for slaughter

or out of the province. Under the Cattle Industry

Development Act , it is anticipated that the board will

collect about $90,000 per year. They've found that $50,000 has

not been adequate for the work they've been doing. They do want

an increase but this changes more than that.

The board that will be established will administer this Act.

They'll release the B.C. Department of Agriculture from the

responsibility that they have had in the past of collecting the

levy. They've had to collect it and administer the fund. Under

the proposal, the board would be responsible for all of that.

Of course, the board will be required to provide the Minister

of Agriculture with an annual report.

I now move second reading of Bill 32.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Boundary-Similkameen.

MR. FX RICHTER (Boundary-Similkameen): Mr. Speaker, in

speaking to second reading of this bill, as the Minister has

stated, this will eventually be handled by the cattle industry

themselves.

I've wondered about the fact of collections or the agencies

that will do the collecting. Previously, under the Beef

Cattle Producers Assistance Act , the brand inspectors did

the collecting, which proved to be very efficient. Along with

that, brand inspection had to take place anyway. This proved to

be a saving to the producers. Also, the administration was done

by the department.

I'm not disposed to oppose the bill in any way. I thoroughly

understand that this is something that the industry has asked

for. In my experience in administering the Department of

Agriculture, I sometimes found that the association got carried

away on expenditures. It appeared that they were running very,

very close and sometimes exceeding their income. To the

Minister, I would hope that under this new bill, a very close

scrutiny will be made of the organization's expenditures and

some attempt will be made to control them.

While the association represents the growers of cattle,

whether they're dairy cattle or beef cattle, the fact remains

that sometimes a restraining hand has to be evident so that the

individual producers don't find themselves with a continuing

spiral of deductions. This is where the previous Act gave a

considerable amount of discretion to the Minister. I think it

was appreciated by the growers themselves, even though their

executive sometimes got carried away on questionable areas of

expenditure.

I would hope that with the operation, collection,

administration and eventual handing over to the growers

themselves, the Minister will watch this area very closely. The

official Opposition will be supporting the bill in the

interests of the cattle industry.

I particularly want to say that while there may not have

been equitable distribution before, this bill does provide for

it. In particular, those areas in the lower mainland where a

great number of cattle are traded through the various markets

should certainly receive their fair share of this sort of

collection. The trend today is that more and more people are

going into the raising of beef cattle, also on the lower

mainland. I think that this piece of legislation was very

necessary years ago and is equally necessary today.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe

Sound.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe

[ Page 2222 ]

Sound): Mr. Speaker, I'm sure that the intention of this legislation

is a very laudable one, as the Member for Boundary-Similkameen has pointed out.

However, I would hope that when the Hon. Minister closes the debate he would

deal with the matter of whether or not this legislation is constitutional.

Some question has been raised that the levy referred to in

the legislation constitutes an indirect tax and therefore is

beyond the legislative competence of this Legislature. This

question having been raised, I think that this problem, if

there is a problem, should be resolved with the federal

government before we deal much further with this bill and

certainly before we establish the board and begin to collect

any moneys. It would be unfortunate to embark upon the

programme only to find that somehow or other it had to be

seriously altered or perhaps that the moneys had to be directed

to some other purpose.

There is one other matter. I appreciate that we are not

entitled to deal specifically with sections of the bill. But

there is that opportunity in the legislation for a person

having paid the levy to have it refunded to him or her. The

designation of such a person seems to be a little obscure. It

speaks of a member being entitled to have moneys refunded and

yet in no place is there any definition of what a member might

be. The levy is paid by a purchaser of cattle and I assume it

must be the purchaser who's entitled to be refunded. It is

perhaps because in earlier drafts of this legislation some

other scheme was in mind.

There is no question that the improvement and promotion of

all segments of the agricultural industry in this province must

be of concern to us — the cattle association no less than the

others.

I would also like to have the Minister indicate whether he contemplates that

there could be more than one cattlemen's association involved in the administration

of any fund. Certainly we have these associations falling into two classes —

beef growers and dairy cattlemen. I wonder whether the Minister has something

specific in mind in this regard.

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

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, I just

wonder whether or not we are going to hear at all this morning

from the Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) concerning this

particular bill, because last night he made a great point when

he was introducing his Bill No. 1 of the fact that formerly

people could be jailed as a result of a violation. He was

somewhat running headlong into the legal principle that

ignorance of the law is no excuse and that everyone is presumed

to know the law.

We do have to find, Mr. Speaker, consistency in legislation and, more specifically,

we have to find some kind of consistency and general

yardstick concerning penalties.

One of the items that troubles me in this bill, and I do

hope the Minister will be prepared to introduce an amendment to

cure it, is one

section on which I'll be speaking now rather

than when I get to the section. Under

section 8, Mr. Speaker,

we find that if there happens to be a breach a corporation can

face a penalty up to $500, but an individual can face a penalty

of up to $200 or imprisonment for 90 days. Well, I really and

truly think that this is a pretty disproportionate kind of a

situation. I note that I'm receiving at least a nod of

acquiescence from my good friend the Member for Vancouver

Centre, and he's in accord, too.

You've got something here that's just a little too tough —

fining a company $500 and sending a poor fellow to jail for 90

days. Maybe we'd better take another look at that because you

fellows are for open government and you want to make sure that

the little man has his day in court but not necessarily his 90

days in jail.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Shuswap.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): Well, I'd like to ask the Minister

a question or two in regard to this, Mr. Speaker.

Often, especially in the dairy industry, calves are turned

over at a day to three days old, and this levy is to apply to

the young calves. This calf is then fed heavily for a period of

nine weeks and then is turned over again as veal. Would this

levy be charged again on the second turnover of this calf?

I, for one, am in favour of promoting the cattle industry

but I think that we must be careful that there is something

left for the cattleman at the time that the sale has handled

his animal. We have levies in regard to horned animals, there's

inspection fees and this type of thing, and I think we have to

be very careful that the farmer has something left at the end

of the day when the sale is over. It concerns me if the levy is

to be on animal first as a small calf and again at the time it

goes back as a vealer.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point

Grey.

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

reading over this Act, we notice that in one

section it says

that the Minister under this Act is required to prescribe

anything and he may prescribe it by order. But nowhere do we

have in the Act any definition of the purposes and objectives

of this board that's to be established or of the fund which is

to be established.

What we have been given is a piece of rather vague

legislation. We don't know how large the board is to

[ Page 2223 ]

be; we don't know what its purposes are; we don't know what

kind of funds it's to have. But we do have one

section under

regulations and orders suggesting that the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may do virtually anything to

carry out the purposes and intent of the Act.

I would think, Mr. Speaker, in the interests of good

legislation, that if we are going to give those kinds of

sweeping powers to the Lieutenant Governor-in-Council, the very

least we should have somewhere in the Act is an indication of

what the purposes of the board are to be, and therefore what

the confines of the Minister might be under the Act.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Agriculture closes the

debate.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the rather

detailed questions in second reading, it is true, as the House

Leader of the official Opposition (Mr. Richter) said, that this

has formerly been collected by the brand inspectors and there

has been this ever-watchful eye of the Department of

Agriculture on what they have been doing.

However, when we look at the figures, the amount they have

been raising, as I said, has been in the neighbourhood of

$50,000 and it's been at that level for quite a number of

years. They've had to come sort of cap-in-hand to the

Department of Agriculture every time they wanted to spend

anything for the purposes of developing the industry as they

saw it. And they've had to make explanations. They've made

representations, of course, and we agree that it is their own

money that they're spending. However, we also have in mind what

the Member said, and for that reason there will be someone from

the Department of Agriculture on that board keeping a watchful

eye on what is going on. And, of course, the Cattlemen's

Association itself will be subject to the pressures from its

own membership.

But in moving from $50,000 up to $90,000 in view of the

tremendous growth in this industry, we feel that this is not

out of line at all. As long as it doesn't start escalating

rapidly we'll not be concerned. So I think it is a good move.

It's making them responsible for collecting the money

themselves as opposed to having us collect it, and it is giving

them the responsibility and the authority to spend their own

money, at the same time saying that we are going to keep a

watch on it.

The question of constitutionality raised by the Hon. Member

from West Vancouver–Howe Sound. I think he knows the answer

himself. It is an indirect tax — that is true. It's one that

has been accepted by the members of the Cattlemen's Association

and the Dairymen's Association. I think he knew this when

he asked the question.

However, it's a thing that has been accepted in the

past. The previous Act itself was just as unconstitutional as the present one.

Now, we know that if anybody wanted to take this to court they could upset it

and get their levy back, but on the other hand, as you say,

section 6 allows

for them to simply ask for it in any case. So it seems to be the only way of

collecting a levy of some kind from this particular group of people, based on

production.

We don't know of any constitutional way of doing this. The

Cattlemen's Association itself has got its members to accept

this idea with very few exceptions — a few individuals annually

ask for the return of their levy, and the Cattlemen's

Association lives with this. So it is something that could be

challenged in court; the cheaper way is simply to ask for it

and it works. Now if there were another way of doing it I would

prefer to do it the other way, but personally I don't know the

other way. This situation has been going on for decades.

The other question, more than one association: the beef

association and the dairy association have worked this out and

are in agreement on it. I hope there would never be more than

the one association, but they are in agreement on this. Of

course, the dairyman himself, if he chose, could ask for the

levy back. I don't know whether any dairymen are asking. I know

the occasional beef producer does ask for the return of the

levy.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well, they might organize, but because

it's this easy for each individual to get it back, I think the

risk of that developing is not very great. Now they might feel

that the association or, if you like, the board might start

spending too widely. In that case there might be a rebellion in

the ranks against the Cattlemen's Association. That's something

they would have to deal with at that time. But the membership

on the board will be chosen by the beef producers and by the

dairy producers, and there will be a member from the Department

of Agriculture. It has worked, we think.

MR. SMITH: How large a board?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Three, but they might decide that they

want more representation than that. But at the present time we

are thinking in that range.

Section 8 — I know its details, and it's something that we

should talk about now. When the Hon. First Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) was talking about it being

too severe, I just wasn't sure which he meant was being treated

too roughly. But as he got to the end of his remarks I realized

that he was thinking about the poor individual. Of course, the

situation we're dealing with is that most of the

[ Page 2224 ]

corporations involved are family corporations, so really

there isn't all that much difference except the difference in

organization. However, maybe we should look at that. Maybe

there should be a different way.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. STUPICH: How would you send a corporation to jail?

I just don't know. Maybe that should be removed altogether. But

there is this difference and I don't know how to make it

equitable.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well, as I say, that might be the way. To

remove the jail term, yes. That's O.K. Yes, I did get that

remark.

The levy at every stage of the sale: the levy is on mature

animals, this particular levy, going to slaughterhouses or

going out of the province for that purpose, so I think that's

no problem.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. STUPICH: I'll take that question as notice. I move

second reading.

Motion approved; second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 32 ordered to be placed on the orders of the day

for committal at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill No. 18.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE SECURITIES ACT, 1967.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): This is

An Act to

Amend the Securities Act , 1967, but it is not of course the

widespread revision of the Securities Act that we envisaged,

which is of course going to take some time. It is basically

changing the

definitions throughout the Securities Act to bring

them into conformity with the new Companies Act which was

discussed yesterday. The only matter of substance in Bill 18,

apart from those changes, is the provision that the Attorney

General must now consent to prosecutions for a number of things

from insider trading against the Securities Act , to takeover

bids that are not made in compliance with the Act, and offences

of that kind.

This bill provides that henceforth, the written consent of the Attorney General

will not be necessary for such prosecutions. They'll be treated as ordinary

infractions of the law and they'll be left within the jurisdiction of

the local prosecutor subject, of course, to such consultation as they may wish

with the office in Victoria. I move second reading of the bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for North Peace River.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Speaker, any time we

get a bill with a very short explanation, such as this one has,

indicating it's a companion bill to a previous bill known as

No. 16, the Companies Act I almost have a feeling that

something is going by us that I should be watching very

closely. In looking over the definition, it would appear that

while the

definitions have been changed, they've been changed

not only to accommodate the Companies Act , which we debated

last evening, but also

definitions to accommodate another bill

which will be debated at some future date in this House,

regarding the matter of disclosure of assets by public

employees, or employees in public life. I would suppose that

that was one of the intents of the bill when…

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. SMITH: No?

AN HON. MEMBER: I wouldn't think so.

MR. SMITH: Well you have a provision in the bill regarding

the definition of a spouse, a son, a daughter or some other

person living within the same household. Does that not in any

way have any reference to another bill that's going to come

before us at some time during the session?

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. First Member for Victoria.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to refer

to this bill concerning insider trading. It is my understanding

that the department of the Attorney General has employed 12

additional people in his staff and I'd like to ask one or two

questions concerning this bill which I think might be reflected

in that piece of information.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, possibly if the Member asks

at the committee stage, but really this is not the principle of

the bill, which is merely a change in

definitions plus the one

thing about prosecutions that I mentioned. Question on the

motion, Mr. Speaker.

Motion approved; second reading of the bill.

[ Page 2225 ]

Bill No. 18 ordered to be placed on orders of the day for

committal at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill No. 37, Mr.

Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE INFANTS ACT

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, this is a short bill which

will enable young people who are without parents and often

without guardians, and many of whom are wandering throughout

the country and suffer illnesses, diseases, accidents and

require medical or dental treatment. Under the law as it

stands, of course, they are under the age of 19 — the age of

majority — and the doctor or the dentist may very well say, and

does say, "I cannot treat this child, because that child cannot

give his consent to the treatment, and I am therefore

committing assault."

That may sound a rather strange thing in an emergency

situation, that anyone should take that point of view, but that

is the law. We provide therefore, that in circumstances where

the child needs care and has no parents or guardians, or in the

other case where the child has parents or guardians, but

because of the nature of the disease or something of that kind

or because narcotics are involved, the child will not reveal

who and where his parents or guardians may be. So in these

circumstances, the proposal is that the child should be able to

consent to the necessary treatment to himself or herself from

the age of 16 years on. I move second reading of the bill.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, that's right because there are many

cases where the youngster won't say where they are.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, this is a very

far-ranging bill, perhaps going a way beyond what might appear

on the surface. I'm thinking particularly in terms of the

permissive society that we live in. In particular in young

people, I'm considering the whole question of the

responsibility of a doctor in prescribing such things as birth

control pills to a teenage girl, where the doctor is well aware

of the total family situation.

Mr. Speaker, I'm not trying to in any way moralize, I just want to have some

debate on the degree to which this bill intends to throw the whole issue wide

open to any doctor to treat or advise any person 16 and over to any degree that

he considers necessary in a medical or surgical sense.

There's a tremendous increase, even in the years that I've

been in practice, in such problems as venereal disease, drug

abuse, and as I say, the whole field of contraception. It is a

very frequent occasion where the physician who knows the whole

family is confronted with the daughter in the family seeking

birth control pills. When the physician asks the patient

whether or not she's discussed it with her parents, quite

frequently the answer is no. When you ask the daughter does she

think it would not be a reasonable thing to discuss this with

her parents, again the answer is usually no.

As I say, I'm not taking sides on whether this is a moral

issue or not; I'm asking the questions from a purely legal

point of view from the practicing physician.

A physician in England was recently put through a great deal

of distress. He was temporarily suspended and the whole thing

went to court and went to appeal court. I can't remember just

how long it all took. I think he was finally vindicated or

forgiven his offence. But, it was based exactly on this point;

he had prescribed contraceptive measures for this young lady

without the consent of her parents. Her parents found out and

were very angry and took the doctor to court, or at least had

him brought before the college or the medical council in the

United Kingdom. It caused a tremendous furore.

Now if this Legislature feels that this bill is well worth

while and fulfilling a purpose which is in keeping with our

modern society, then this is fine. I certainly wouldn't for a

moment even question the bill in terms of emergency treatment

such as the Attorney General mentioned. It makes obvious sense

that if there is a measure of emergency, the medical person has

to put the need of the patient first. If you can't find the

parents or there is a real pressure of time to get the

treatment carried out, then I think society recognizes

that.

But in my reading of the principle of the bill, Mr. Speaker,

this really opens the door wide open to a doctor to treat or

advise any person over 16 without in any way consulting the

parents.

One could talk at great length on this but I do feel that in

the particular areas that I've mentioned of drug abuse and

venereal disease and contraception…is this — and when the

Attorney General winds up the debate — is this in fact the

intent of this bill? Is it to open the situation wide open so

that for any purpose with which a teenager comes to the doctor

the doctor is not legally open to civil or criminal action by

parents if he in his judgment advises, prescribes or treats

that over-16- years-old patient as he sees fit?

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Health Services and

Hospital Insurance.

[ Page 2226 ]

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance):

Mr. Speaker, I certainly recognize the feelings of the Hon. Member across the

way with respect to this bill. This bill has been suggested for a number of

years and has been really called for by the College of Physicians and Surgeons.

The fact of the matter is that whether we like it or not — and we have to live

in today and this is reality — that there are any number of young people on

their own under the age of 18.

Now I think that the responsible doctor naturally is going

to be in touch with those parents where there's a normal family

connection with the doctor's office; But the doctors today are

working in a position — and the hospitals…and I've been

around the province a good deal since this bill has been on the

order paper and I've heard nothing but praise for the Attorney

General for bringing forward this bill, because of the fact

that now they can deal with problems as they're confronted with

problems.

I can remember a case not long ago in the Okanagan Valley

where a hospital was confronted with a situation of a child —

that is under the age of majority — where they couldn't treat

this person and there was no family within miles. We're living

in very dangerous times — it's dangerous for the doctors if

they treat them and it's dangerous for the patient if they

don't.

I think that this is the age when we must make these kinds

of decisions and not become reactionary about them. I'm not

indicating that anybody here would, but I am indicating that

it's much-needed legislation, endorsed by every responsible

medical health group in the province that I know of, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point

Grey.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, concerning the remarks of the last

speaker on the danger to the doctors, we haven't had any

illustration in front of the House today of what dangers the

doctors have experienced. The thing that troubles me about this

bill is that it's a total elimination of parental consent. That

may not be the intent of the bill but that's what it says.

There could indeed be parental refusal to a particular measure

taking place, and the 16-year-old infant's consent would

completely override the parental refusal. We're not dealing

with a situation of emergency, because in situations of

emergency the doctors and the hospitals act in any event.

There's another item that I note within the bill. There's

not even any requirement upon the medical people and the dental

people to even seek parental consent to deal with any infant

between the ages of 16 and 18. I just wonder why that's not in

there. At least that would be some kind of check and

balance.

If the parental consent could not be obtained, fine and

dandy. Maybe you could even have a safeguard of perhaps going

to the public trustee. We're not dealing with emergency

situations here. That's no stumbling block. This was carried on

quite successfully over the years by the very, very effective

job and the most conscientious job that has been done by the

professions.

Within here there's one other item that similarly may be disturbing,

maybe not. I'd like to hear the views of the Minister when he closes

the debate on it.

We find under

section 4 that there's not even a responsibility to furnish the

parents with responsibility to do that. He — i.e., the doctors — "may"

do it if he wishes to. It's totally discretionary.

Well, it's not discretionary under the laws as it stands

today. I think this is an "Open Sesame" bill. I think that it's

not a question of being reactionary at all; it's a question of

maintaining some of the checks and balances instead of throwing

them all out.

What is this great, great emergency and this terrible,

terrible problem that the medical people are experiencing?

We've not been informed at all about about that.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for North Okanagan.

MRS. JORDAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Hon. Second Member

for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) I think has said very

eloquently, as he always does, some of the points that I would

have liked to have made.

I am speaking for myself, Mr. Speaker, on this bill: not the

views of the caucus, Because I in principle agree with the

objectives that the Attorney General is trying to get at in

many instances; but what isn't laid before this House is that

there are two kickers in this bill, one of which I personally

cannot support.

The first kicker is this whole matter of a physician having

the right to save a life of a young person, a juvenile, when in

fact that action is not compatible with the views of the

parents for religious reasons and, perhaps in this modern day

society, for trendy reasons.

I think that the Attorney General would have been more

worthy of support in this bill if he had made this very clear:

that this will allow a physician to use his own discretion in

trying to save the life of a child whose parents would not

agree to that type of medical practice such as blood

transfusions, when this is opposed to the religious view of the

family.

I think this can be accepted, because this is a matter of

saving a life. All medicine is dedicated and predicated on the

concept of saving life to all extent. But in this instance this

section is in conflict with the other kicker that's in the

bill; and that is that the bill

[ Page 2227 ]

will allow a 16-year-old girl to seek an abortion without

her parents' consent as I understand it and, as the Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey said, without any effort on the part of

the doctor to discuss this matter with the parents.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That's left up to the doctor.

MRS. JORDAN: Yes, Mr. Minister, I know it's left up to the

doctor. But I suggest that the Minister of Health Services and

Hospital Insurance is not correct in giving the impression that

the medical society and the doctors of this province approve of

this practice in whole. There's a great division within the

medical profession itself about this.

What is in danger of happening is that a young girl, for her

own reasons, may well pressure doctors into performing or try

to pressure doctors into performing a medical treatment that

they do not agree with. There's much controversy today,

medically and morally, as to whether or not an abortion after a

certain period of time is in fact beneficial to the mother and

society or, in fact, destroying life. This, Mr. Minister, is

where the kicker comes in.

In your presentation and in your thoughts about this bill

you suggest that it's to improve health — and to a large degree

this can't be argued with — and that it is compatible with the

medical dedication of saving life. But included in this,

intentionally or unintentionally, Mr. Minister, is the

potential of destroying life. I suggest that if this is a

matter of which the Attorney General is aware, then he must

make a statement about this in the House.

Mr. Minister, through Mr. Speaker, there is still much

controversy on a scientific basis as to whether abortions, even

though done under the most modern medical techniques and under

the most proper medical conditions, do not leave residual

medical problems. Certainly on a repetitive basis there is much

evidence to suggest it does; such things as cervical

incompetency at later years when a woman is married and wants

to have children and is then, because of cervical incompetency,

subject to repeated miscarriages, as they are then delicately

called.

I think, Mr. Minister, this is a medical opinion that must

be weighed very carefully. Is a 16-year-old girl — regardless of

why she's pregnant, this is not the point — in discussion with

a doctor capable of making this decision: (1) the destruction

of life, and (2) the possibility of involving herself in future

medical complications which would bring her great tragedy?

One of the things that's never discussed on the subject of abortion or miscarriages

is the psychological effect on the mother. At 16 they're pretty resilient. Probably

up to 18 and 20 they're very resilient. But when one gets older and wants children

and has lost children through miscarriage, has anybody ever talked to

those mothers and seen how they feel?

I suggest that there is a very strong psychological trauma

and that this can be enhanced if the child or fetus is lost

through abortion. It may well not show up until the later years

of their life.

Anyone who has dealt in the field of mental health knows

that many problems appear in a woman's life when she's in her

late 30's and 40's and 50's. Some tend to revert back to

feelings of guilt because of activities they involved

themselves in when they were teenagers. Some tend to reflect

back to incidents that happened in their life.

As a society today we are moving very strongly towards a

problem that has existed for years in the life of a woman in

her mid-forties, in the so-called menopausal years. When the

family is gone and when by nature men become more attractive

and women perhaps don't age as gracefully, there's a tremendous

human reaction of a feeling of not being needed and the ensuing

complications.

Mr. Minister, through you Mr. Speaker, psychiatric review

will make you aware that this is not something that has come

and gone with the ages. It's an inherent human reaction. It's a

stress reaction and we're in an age of increasing stress. With

reasonable review of the situation, Mr. Minister, I suggest

that the danger of an older woman — today's teenager —

suffering in her late 40's and 50's a severe emotional reaction

over abortion, is very much a thing to be contended with in the

future. It's very much a matter to be dealt with by medicine

and by society.

I think that if you look at this, Mr. Speaker, you'll

recognize that where there has been consultation with the

parents and perhaps with other people, even though it was

painful at the time, and if the abortion were performed under

sound medical conditions and a reasonable, emotionally mature

approach, if there are guilt reactions in later life, these

would be less of a problem on the basis of the circumstances of

the abortion.

But that emotional problem later in life may be compounded

with the guilt feelings that may well come if this were done

without the parents' consent and knowledge and without — as the

Hon. Member said — any other checks and balances. To pass this

type of legislation in this particular instance would leave us

abdicating our responsibilities as legislators.

Mr. Speaker, I would say that in trying to present a bill

for which there is much need in many instances and which I

would support, he has brought in a bill with a general emphasis

on saving life. But it's too wide open. There's a real

conflict. I don't consider myself a radical person and I don't

think many doctors consider themselves radical people. But

you've brought in a very serious emotional conflict and a moral

question. That is, is this bill so wide open

[ Page 2228 ]

that it leads to taking of a life at the discretion of a

16-year-old, without the proper checks and balances?

And, Mr. Minister, through you Mr. Speaker, I think you must

have some type of a review board within the medical profession

when some of the more extreme treatments allowed under this

bill are undertaken. That goes back to the Hon. Member's views

on checks and balances.

While I would like to support 90 per cent of this bill, I

regret to say that I personally cannot support the

section

which refers to the matter that I've just discussed.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Thank you, Mr. Speaker, both

Ministers who have spoken in this debate have referred to young

people travelling. One used the words "young people on the

road." The other used the words "youngsters travelling." The

fact is that the bill will apply not only to the small

proportion of people in that age group who are travelling at

any one time but to all young people, whether it is at the

height of summer when they are travelling, or whether it is at

other times of the year when most of them will be at home or at

least within some distance of their parents or guardian.

We feel that while the government may be definitely trying

to do something for the young people travelling but in the

process we're also doing a great deal for the others who are

not on the road. Therefore it appears that in going after this

one specific group of travelers, we are taking in a very large

class of citizens indeed.

The bill worries me in that on the one hand it seems to

completely override at any stage and any place the question of

parental control or consent. The explanatory note which says,

"The purpose of this bill is to amend the Infants Act to

allow an infant…. ." should really read "any infant." That's

essentially what is being done. Any infant, any person between

16 and 19, can take advantage of it.

The principles of this are complicated by

section 3. Of

course we're not in the detailed reading. But it gives me the

impression that there could be a situation where, if the parent

were nearby and parental consent were given, the Act might

become completely meaningless. There is this confusion with the

wording of that

section which could, I think, make ineffective

any provision whatsoever of the Act.

The question comes up of what would happen if the parent

gave consent and the child refused it? I don't know and I don't

think that it's very clear in this Act. Perhaps it might

reverse the situation. I'm simply not sure.

There's another aspect which again is a question of principle with some fairly

substantial implications. That relates to the child outside a province, the

travelling child to whom this Act was specifically meant to apply. What

happens then, in the case of British Columbia children out of the province?

I'm not exactly sure of this. Or, as my Hon. friend on my left mentions, what

happens to Alberta youngsters who are in British Columbia? Presumably, the British

Columbia law would apply but there seems to be some complication here.

AN HON. MEMBER: The B.C. law would have to apply.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: There is a question, though, of

extra-provincial effects of the legislation.

In any event, we know that there have been calls for the

bill. At the same time we know that it's quite possible for

medical practitioners to insure themselves against the

possibilities which the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke)

spoke about. I believe the premium is a very small one on an

annual basis. It's something around $1 a week for such

protection. It doesn't appear to be the major problem that some

have mentioned.

We think that there are enough problems of principle in

dealing with the question of age of consent and the question of

permission which young people could give for treatment that we

would move at this time that this second reading debate be

adjourned until the next sitting.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SPEAKER: There's a motion that must be dealt with first,

a motion to adjourn the debate made by the Hon. Second Member

for Victoria.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Highways): This bill has

been before the House for enough time.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I've got to put the question. Are you

ready for the question?

Motion negatived.

MR. MORRISON: I'd like to speak about parents whose children

are still at home and who are struggling with parental

responsibility and who want to know what their family health

is.

I do agree that there should be some arrangement for those

children who have left home, who are no longer in any way under

the care and control of the parents, so they can have medical

treatment if they need it. But I strongly believe that the

parents who do have their children at home and who are still

trying to do the best thing they can for them should not have

this taken away from them.

[ Page 2229 ]

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for North Peace River.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just a few brief comments

because I think a number of Members have already canvassed some

of the real problems that beset parents and members of the

medical profession today.

It would seem to me that in presenting this bill we have

overreacted to what is really a frustrating problem to the

medical profession. That is the matter of rendering treatment

to minors between the ages of 16 and 19.

I know it must be frustrating to people who are practicing

medicine to have young people come in to them for what the

young person might suggest is emergency treatment. They

canvassed the problem very carefully, but if that young person

says that they cannot reach their guardians or they refuse to

give the names of their guardians, it's pretty difficult for a

member of the medical profession to really know whether in fact

a guardian was available or not. It could very well be that the

child being treated lives no more than 10 blocks from the

doctor, because in a large city how are you to know.

It seems to me that in an attempt to relieve the medical

profession from taking upon their shoulders some very serious

responsibility for making decisions in the treatment of young

people, that we have gone overboard with this bill. There's no

question that people will object to it on moral and religious

grounds. There's no question that we get involved in young

people the age of 16 seeking advice from doctors concerning

matters they do not wish to discuss with their parents and will

not reveal their parents' name for that reason.

In bringing this bill before the House, I must say that I

believe the Attorney General has attempted to be guided by the

wishes of the medical profession and their association. But I

would also suspect that even within the profession itself there

are strongly held views, both for this type of legislation and

against it. It may be that the majority of people who made

their views known have spoken in favour of it at a meeting of

the association and therefore that resolution, in one form or

another, came before the Attorney General, as it has in past

years, and he was asked to act upon it.

I feel that because of the wide-scale ramifications of a

bill of this type we will probably become inundated by

youngsters from other parts of Canada who realize what this

type of legislation can mean. That's true. It can happen and it

will happen, Mr. Attorney General. Rather than reveal to their

parents a particular condition, especially a condition of

pregnancy, they'll soon migrate to the west coast for treatment — and you and I know the type of treatment that they'll be

looking for.

Certainly it's a matter that has deep psychological

ramifications. I believe that in preparing this bill we have

brought before this House one that over-reacts to a situation

and therefore it is not good legislation and should not be

passed.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for Vancouver

Centre.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just responding briefly to some of the comments made on the

other side of the House, I just wanted to say that in my view,

in answer to the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) the civil

responsibility will be largely the same, but that civil

responsibility on the part of the doctor must be viewed by a

court taking this new

section 23 into consideration. That does

not mean, however, that doctors are to abdicate any

responsibility with respect to consulting parents or with

respect to responsibility to investigate fully what the child —

16 years or over — wishes in the way of medical treatment and

is advisable vis-à-vis that person's health, having in

mind what comments the Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan)

made about the future effect this may have.

In dealing with the Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A.

Anderson), Mr. Speaker, I can say that there's no complication

involved in

section 23 as proposed under Bill 37. British

Columbia law applies to any person in this province. I think

that I've dealt with the civil responsibility, He raises an interesting point with respect to consent or

refusal by parents. What if the child refuses? That is one of

the most unlikely situations that probably wasn't foreseen at

the time of the drafting of this Act. I don't know of a

situation that would arise that would be similar.

Dealing substantively with the bill, Mr. Speaker, there was

the issue raised by the Member for Oak Bay with respect to

birth control. This can be linked up with what was mentioned by

the Member for North Okanagan with respect to abortion.

Yes, there are situations where persons who receive

abortions at a young age suffer far-reaching effects

emotionally that demonstrate themselves in later years.

However, what we are talking about here is the consent of a

child.

There are other aspects which go into abortion, under the

Criminal Code and there is the Code of Ethics by the College of

Physicians and Surgeons and so on. We cannot talk in a vacuum

and this

section does not appear in a vacuum. There is a

responsibility of physicians to consult with one another, to

consult with parents, according to their own ethics.

Secondly, there is a board of review, a panel which permits

or does not permit abortions in this country. Under those

circumstances this board, I take it — and I must understand

this to be the case — will review

[ Page 2230 ]

clearly those matters which the Hon. Member for North

Okanagan raised.

You see what I am worried about, and what this

section

solves, is that in the past I have seen many situations where

parents are imposing their will upon a child to the physical

and mental detriment of that child — not necessarily for

religious reasons. In modern times I would suggest that that's

one of the minor reasons that this damage to the child of 16

years of age and older is done.

I am thinking, for example, of a parent and child who are

not so close as to — I'll rephrase that. You see, if there is a

parent, or two parents and a child, who are close and have an

understanding between them, then we can expect that there will

be consultation before any medical treatment goes on and that

the parents will in fact act within the interests of the better

health, both mental and physical, of that child.

Where the damage is done is where the parents who are

irresponsible or who are ignorant impose their will upon the

child to that child's detriment. And this is why

section 23 is

as wide as it is and as essential as it is.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point

Grey.

MR. McGEER: We're doing an "After you, Alphonse" act

here.

Mr. Speaker, I recognize what the Minister of Health said in

speaking to this bill, and I am sure that he's correct, that

the majority of medical practitioners would prefer to see an

Act of this kind. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, the Attorney

General did not make a very strong case in favour of the Act at

the time he introduced it. I dare say that the Act itself would

not be accepted by the more conservative members of the medical

profession.

The reason being, of course, that the current law requires

the practitioner to make some effort to contact the parents —

except in instances of dire emergency where they're going to go

ahead and give medical treatment if somebody's injured in an

accident. They're not going to try and get to eastern Canada

before they give a pint of blood. If somebody walks in with an

acute abdomen, they're going to go up to surgery and they'll

get hold of the parent later. So that in emergency situations

the individual is going to receive treatment regardless.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It's still assault.

MR. McGEER: Of course. But, Mr. Speaker, we have dealt with

this for centuries. The Attorney General may say it's assault,

but he knows perfectly well that neither he nor any other

lawyer could hope to win a case in court of that kind. I think

that's why you don't have cases of that kind going to

court.

Mr. Speaker, you have to see the other side of the coin. The

other side of the coin is that it relieves the physician of one

of his important responsibilities, which is to look after

things that go beyond the immediate complaint of the patient.

He has to consider the family situation of every patient who

comes in, even if it's only for a hangnail. Because that is

part of his responsibility as a physician.

This Act relieves the medical practitioner of that

responsibility and makes it east for the underlying cause of a

person to become a wanderer, to go completely unattended. It is

time-consuming. It is inconvenient. But at the same time, Mr.

Speaker, it does constitute the best medical treatment.

What this bill is inclined to do, I'm afraid, is to

encourage second-rate medical treatment.

I quite understand the points which the Member for North

Okanagan raised, and there's little doubt that abortion will be

one of the major questions that will come up as a result of

this bill. Many physicians feel that the current requirement

for parental consent leads to reluctance on the part of a

teenager to seek an abortion, making what is a fairly simple

procedure during the earliest stages of pregnancy into one

that's considerably more complicated the stage of a

hysterectomy.

So, Mr. Speaker, there are two sides to this bill: one where

early and easy intervention on the part of a physician may be

helpful, but some, other situations where the removal of

responsibility on the part of the physician will act against

the best interests of the patient.

I really think this subject should be canvassed more

thoroughly, Mr. Speaker. I was astonished that the Government

would not consider an adjournment on this particular bill so

that some of the Members could supply data for themselves that

the Attorney General should have presented at the time of the

discussion of the bill.

I didn't think…

AN HON. MEMBER: That's been on the order paper for

weeks.

MR. McGEER: Well, Mr. Speaker, the bill may have been on the

order paper for weeks, but I think the Attorney General and the

Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan) and all those people

who objected to ramrod legislation, should consider that one of

the important responsibilities of the Minister in bringing in a

bill is to explain his case for the need.

And, Mr. Speaker, the Attorney General in this particular

case has not done a good job. He hasn't built the case for the

bill. While the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) did manage

to convey to us the general support of the medical profession,

it is not unanimous as the Minister of Health suggested.

[ Page 2231 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: It never is.

MR. McGEER: Of course it never is. But I nevertheless think

that there are many facets to this particular legislation that

have not been adequately canvassed by the Members. This is not

an important measure of Government policy. It is a mistake to

rush the bill through under these circumstances. For these

reasons I would move adjournment of this debate until the next

sitting of the House.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Is there any further debate on the question?

There has already been one motion of adjournment in this debate

and there's been no intervening proceedings, so I must call on

the next Member who wishes to debate.

The Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I don't intend to be

long. I had hoped that the Second Member for Vancouver Centre

(Mr. Lauk) might have continued a little longer. The direction

in which he was going would have taken him into a position of

direct opposition to this bill. I'm sure that that's why he

very quickly took his seat.

Mr. Speaker, I don't think there is any Member of the House

who doesn't understand the concern that the Attorney General

raised in opening this debate. There are many occasions, quite

properly, when young people away from home, unable to obtain

parental consent, do require medical treatment, and there is a

difficulty for the medical practitioner in affording that

treatment in those circumstances.

Now the medical practitioner can always refuse but he may

not wish to. Under the law as it presently stands he may be

obliged to refuse in order to protect himself from some

liability. The comments the Attorney General has made across

the floor indicate quite clearly that his concern is with

regard to the trespass and the assault that there is to the

infant if these services…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WILLIAMS: You said you'd explain yourself when you

closed the debate, Mr. Attorney General. It really is not An

Act to Amend the Infants Act . It is

an Act for the

protection of the medical and dental practitioners. Mr.

Speaker, I have no objection if the Minister wishes to bring in

legislation for that purpose because there are many ways in

which it can be obtained.

If you want to protect the medical and dental practitioner in circumstances

such as this, spell out quite clearly that where the consent of the parent

cannot be obtained due to the absence of the child from his home, then

upon the confirming opinion of one additional medical practitioner — or maybe

two if you want to make it — a doctor can proceed to render the treatment without

constituting a trespass and being liable for a charge of assault or any other

civil consequences that there may be.

If that's the aim of the Attorney General, that's fine; we

have no objection. But the legislation should say so. It is not

good enough to bring in

An Act to Amend the Infants Act

and say that the purpose of it is this, when the words in the

amendment go much, much further than what the Hon. Attorney

General has said. When we pass legislation in this House we

must fully recognize that the subsequent

interpretation will

depend upon the clear meaning of the words, and the clear

meaning of the words do not restrict in any way the implication

of this amendment in the way that the Attorney General

indicated when he opened this debate.

I would think in those circumstances that the Hon. Attorney

General would have seen fit to accept the adjournment. It may

be that he will see fit to make some significant amendments,

but these matters obviously have not been clearly

considered.

Now I don't want to get into the question of birth control

pills and abortions and so on, but I do want to say one thing,

and that's the extra-provincial effect of this legislation.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WILLIAMS: That's right. There'll be children travelling

from Alberta, Saskatchewan and Ontario to British Columbia.

Those children will come from homes where the parents are

entitled to believe that no medical services will be rendered

for their child without their consent. And suddenly they arrive

in the Province of British Columbia on a summer tour of some

kind, and then something takes place that that parent in

Alberta or Saskatchewan or wherever would never have consented

to.

Yet the child at the age of 16 or 17, not recognizing the

implications of the treatment which is to be rendered, allows

it to go ahead and the doctor is free of any obligation — even

free of the obligation to try to get the consent, to pick up

the phone, to send a telegram, whatever the case may be, and

ask the parents. There is not this responsibility except as the

conscience or the ethics of the profession may dictate.

The Attorney General says "of course." Is the Hon. Attorney

General suggesting that there have never been medical

practitioners in this province who have not seen fit to go

beyond their oath?

MR. GARDOM: A third of a million a year.

[ Page 2232 ]

MR. WILLIAMS: A third of a million a year running some

abortion clinic against the law.

MR. LAUK: They would do this against the law anyway. What

are you talking about?

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. WILLIAMS: Have you never heard of situations that have

existed in the dental fraternity?

Mr. Speaker, I say to the Attorney General: bring in

legislation which will clearly protect the medical practitioner

if that is your wish…

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That's not the intent of the bill.

MR. WILLIAMS: It is the intent of the bill and you said so

when you opened the debate. It's exactly what you said:

Children who are travelling around and need medical attention

and can't get the consent. That's right. And it's to protect

the doctor, not the child.

MR. SPEAKER: Is there any other debate before the Hon.

Attorney General closes the debate?

The Hon. Attorney General.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, let me just deal with that

last point. I think that the Hon. Member for West

Vancouver–Howe Sound, in trying to construe this and entitle

this bill

an Act for the protection of the medical and dental

profession, is doing a grave disservice to the medical and

dental profession and to the obvious intent of this bill. It is

a most unworthy

interpretation to put upon it. It's the

Infants Act and it shouldn't be twisted from that

purpose by that Member or any other Member. It's to protect

children in the circumstances I mentioned.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're taking away the parents' consent.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: …where there may be no parents at

all. That's point one. Where the parents cannot be found,

that's point two. Where there's no guardian, that's point

three. Where the child…

After all, we're dealing with a child who might be 16 years

of age in a fairly emergency situation. That's today… If

that party would get out of the past and live in the modern

world, they would understand what this bill is all about.

You're living in the past. Asking for adjournments — the Hon.

First Member for Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) can't make up his mind

about this bill after six or seven months and wants another

adjournment. Really.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: This bill is intended to enable children

in the kind of case I've described, subject to the ethics of

the doctor or dentist or psychiatrist, to receive care in

circumstances which may mean life or death for that child.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, that's an extreme. But in another

case it might mean the mental welfare and health of that

child.

The Liberal Party of British Columbia says, "Put it off.

Rely on the old common law." Let the doctor be frightened by

the old common law, which says that if he lays a hand on that

child of 16, it's battery and trespass. The Liberal Party says,

"Let's retain that old law." Don't let the healing physician

reach out to help a child in need, but let the law of battery

and assault prevail. That's what they're saying.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: In simple terms, the Act is merely

saying that it shall not be necessary for the doctor to obtain

the consent. In most cases, I would expect that there will be

not only consent but consultation and anxious consultation. I

would think that the ethics of both the dental and medical

professions would provide, as a matter of course, that there

would be parental consultation wherever possible. That's

already part of the ethics of the professions concerned and it

doesn't have to be a

part in this bill.

All this bill is doing is saying that there are other cases

out there where young people need help and that the old common

law of England should not stand in the way of those emergency

case. I move second reading.

Motion approved; second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 37 ordered to be placed on orders of the day for

committal at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill No. 41, Mr.

Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE EQUAL

GUARDIANSHIP OF INFANTS ACT

HON. MR. MACDONALD: In moving second reading of Bill No. 41,

this is a simple Act and one which I hope the Liberal Party has

read. (Laughter).

At the present time, upon the death of a father and mother,

where no guardian is appointed by will

[ Page 2233 ]

or something of that kind, an infant is made the guardian of

the Public Trustee. The bill proposes that in respect of the

guardianship of the infant as a person, the guardian should be

the Superintendent of Child Welfare, who deals with children

and people. But if the child happened to be left assets by the

deceased parents, that should be handled by the Public

Trustee.

So it's a simple thing in those terms. I think it allots the

proper functions to the two functions of government: children

to the Superintendent of Child Welfare; property and estate

matters to the Public Trustee. I move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for North Peace River.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I believe that the intent

of this bill is good and will provide a means by which the

courts can deal effectively with children left without

parents.

Certainly the person in the province most qualified to look

after them physically is the Superintendent of Child Welfare or

someone within his department, where they become involved in

that unfortunate situation. In the matter of estate property to

which they may eventually become entitled, the Public Trustee

will act on their behalf.

There is, though, one thing that I think the legal

profession should do through their association in the Province

of British Columbia. This is to somehow get across to parents

the importance of having a will and providing a guardian for

infant children. They should try to impress the importance of

this upon people generally, regardless of how large or small

the estate might be.

Too often today there are cases of a man and his wife being

wiped out unexpectedly in accidents involving cars or some

means of public conveyance. In those situations, it's

surprising the number of times we become involved with people

with minor children, dying in-testate. There is no proper

provision or will for the courts to refer to.

So I believe the Bar association and perhaps even the

Attorney General's department would be doing a great service if

they were to prepare a brief or some sort of release that would

go out periodically to advise people of the position in which

their minor children might be placed if they don't take the

time to draft even a simple will. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe

Sound.

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is a positive

improvement to the Equal Guardianship of Infants Act .

We'll support it.

It's interesting that we should be debating Bill 41 immediately following the

Infants Act amendment. It's quite obvious that in the case of the death of both

father and mother, where there's no guardian at all, the Government feels it

important that the person of the infant be under the protection of the Superintendent

of Child Welfare, and that the infants estate — all that money and property

— should be looked after by the Public Trustee. There's all kinds of checks

and balances there.

But under the previous legislation, the consent of the

infant is good enough. Why don't you let the infant run his or

her own affairs if they happen to be over the age of 16? This

is schizophrenic legislation that we have from this

Government.

I would have thought that the draftsman of this bill would

have talked with the draftsman of the other bill. Maybe they

could have gotten together and seen how much the Superintendent

of Child Welfare or any of the superintendent's officers or

officials might have been able to assist in the other

legislation.

The Government seems to understand the propriety of this in

some circumstances, certainly insofar as estates are concerned.

This party has so much concern about property, but not with

respect to anything like medical attention.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point

Grey.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, this is a logical bill. It's clear,

concise and certain. It fills a need and it's a very useful

measure. I'd like to know how it came about. Maybe the Attorney

General should defend his position. (Laughter).

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Attorney General.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker…

MR. SPEAKER: Excuse me. It's my duty to warn you that he

closes the debate.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I call for the question.

Motion approved; second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 41 ordered to be placed on orders of the day for

committal at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, with all dispatch, second

reading of Bill 46.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE CORONER'S ACT

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, Bill 46,

An Act to Amend

the Coroner's Act , does three things in terms of its principles.

[ Page 2234 ]

It first takes the fees, charges and allowances that can be

made under the Coroner's Act out of the statutory

schedule and makes them subject to regulation.

In the second place, it proposes the deletion of certain

provisions of the old Coroner's Act which now deal with

charges of murder and manslaughter arising out of impositions.

The provisions conflict with two sections of the Criminal Code

of Canada. It is proposed that they be deleted.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, there are areas of the province, for

example New Westminster, where coroners' services are supplied

by the City of New Westminster partly on behalf of other

municipalities. It becomes necessary, therefore, where use is

made of the services by outside municipalities, that there

should be some sharing of the costs. This bill, under

section

6, provides that there can be set up coroners' districts to

provide for equitable cost sharing in the situation where

deaths may take place in considerable numbers in other

municipalities but the coroner's court in one municipality is

involved in most of the expense. It will provide for equitable

sharing of that cost.

I move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point

Grey.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I've been hounding governments in

this province for six years to see that there be some adequate

compensation for coroners' jurors. Jury duty is exactly what it

means, Mr. Speaker. It is a duty and it's one of the

responsibilities emanating from the privileges of citizenship.

People are expected to perform that responsibility of

citizenship but I say, Mr. Speaker, that they should certainly

perform it on the same basis as do all other jurors in B.C. The

job is not pleasant, it's often onerous and it's often

time-consuming. Coroners' jurors should be entitled to just the

same remuneration as all other jurors in the province. Today

they are entitled to absolutely nothing.

I have been introducing bills along this point for years. I

see under

section 2, if you take a very liberal and broad.

attitude to its terminology there, it would be within the

competence of the Attorney General to see that coroners jurors

do get paid. But I believe that he was of the impression before

that they were being paid and it came to him somewhat of a

surprise that they are not. But they are continuing not to be

paid. These people should be entitled to just the same jury pay

as other people.

Secondly, I think that the return that is given to a juryman in the Province

of B.C. today is just abysmally low. It is $10 per day for the first 10 days

and $20 thereafter. In many cases it can constitute a very, very severe economic

hardship upon the juror — even more so upon coroners' jurors, who are not entitled

at the present time under the laws of the Province of British Columbia to a

thin red cent.

I'd like the Attorney General to say when he closes the

debate that yes, he will agree that coroners' jurors shall

receive jury pay.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I would simply support that

concept already stated by the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey

(Mr. Gardom) that coroners' jurors are serving a very important

public function. It does often involve loss of time from work

and dislocation of their daily lives. I think it's only fair

that they should have some remuneration.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Attorney General close the

debate?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, it's quite true that this

does not deal with a per diem rate for a coroners' jury as

such. What the Hon. Members have said should be borne in mind.

I am not saying that I disagree with it. It's a matter of

Government policy but not contained within the four corners of

this bill.

The bill does allow far more flexibility in terms of

expenses with respect to coroners' juries than we've had in the

past. Expenses are important, too. Although the other point I

recognize is something that still remains to be considered —

coroners' jury pay as such. I move second reading, Mr.

Speaker.

Motion approved; second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 46 ordered to be placed on orders of the day for

committal at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill No. 48, Mr.

Speaker.

DEBT COLLECTION ACT

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I want to pay tribute to

the work of the Law Reform Commission, which in this case

brought in a very good report, particularly in the area of

harassment of debtors by collection agencies and by different

kinds of businesses which pursue their debtors with most

unscrupulous means in some cases.

The modern credit system is involving far more people than

used to be the case. The old law of England was placed upon

fairly simple relationships between business and individuals

and the vast majority of the people of the country had no

credit. The result was that this kind of law simply didn't

apply to them.

[ Page 2235 ]

Even the people in Charles Dickens' novels who were in

somewhat comfortable circumstances but were nevertheless sent

to jail for debt were not really England's working class poor,

who really did not run into that kind of debt situation because

they never had any credit.

Today all of society is involved in the receiving of credit

and they therefore have to be concerned with the means whereby

credit is collected.

This bill re-enacts some of the existing portions of the old

Collection Agents Act, 1967 . But it goes on and

legislates to curb some of the more objectionable and hurtful

practices and methods employed by collection agents. These

practices, as I have said, Mr. Speaker, now affect very large

segments of the public and are used against people who are

often quite unfamiliar about their rights and with business

practices.

In proposing this legislation I am not attempting to place

unnecessary obstacles in the way of creditors collecting their

debts. But we are providing a code of conduct whereby the

harassment of debtors that has continued and unethical

practices that have occasionally crept into the debt-collection

business will be abolished. The Act, therefore, sets out in

detail a number of prohibited, unreasonable tactics and unfair

pressures and influences that are brought to bear upon

debtors.

It will, for example, make unlawful a practice which has

been very common: the creditor or his debt collection agency

calls up an employee and threatens that man with loss of his

job, or he calls the man and says, "I'm going to be in touch

with your employer and you're going to lose your job unless you

pay this debt." That's a very common kind of unfair harassment

of debtors that has been going on in the Province of British

Columbia.

It will be unlawful, therefore, to communicate with the

debtor's employer, except for the purpose of verifying his

employment. And all of that without the consent of the

debtor.

There are other things in terms of harassment that are set

out in the bill and which will be referred to no doubt in

detail, particularly in committee. But I would say also that

the bill has other sections which prohibit any person, whether

he is a licensed bailiff or not, from removing chattels claimed

under seizure, distress or repossession from the home of the

debtor in the absence of the debtor or his spouse. It will

prohibit the seizing of a chattel that is not specifically

charged or mortgaged. Finally, it will prohibit the removal of

chattels during a day or during the hours of a day when the

removal is prohibited by regulations. And it will be the

intention of this Government to propose that regulations be

made so that this will effectively stop seizures and

repossessions taking place at unreasonable times of the day or

night.

There are other provisions in the bill which may be

considered more matters of detail and preferable for a later

stage, Mr. Speaker. I take pleasure in moving second

reading.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for North Peace River.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I don't think that we

disagree with the principle of the bill but I have prepared

some information myself. I am also in the process of receiving

some more information, hopefully in the next day or two, from

some other sources which have wanted to make comments pertinent

to the Debt Collection Act. I would therefore ask if the

Attorney General would accept an adjournment on second reading

to the next sitting of the House.

I move that we adjourn second reading to the next sitting of

the House.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill No. 49, Mr.

Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE SMALL CLAIMS ACT

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, this is

An Act to Amend

the Small Claims Act . The small claims courts are the

people's courts, where 90 per cent of the legal business of the

province is really transacted, in terms of the people who ever

have any court experience.

We want to upgrade those courts. We're doing it first in a

monetary way by increasing their jurisdiction at this time from

$500 to $1,000. Secondly, we're taking some steps to simplify

the procedure in the small claims court.

In particular, we're providing that where a warrant is out

for the arrest of a person — and it may be for breach of a

judge's order in that court or it may be for failure to pay a

sum of money following a judgment summons proceeding — the

person under the warrant will not be taken to jail, but will be

taken forthwith back to the court. If he has some explanation,

he can give it to the judge. Perhaps there'll be no jail

involved at all.

The main thing is that at this time we're increasing the

jurisdiction of the courts. We're also looking for a thorough

review of the small claims courts to make them as simple and

expeditious and inexpensive as we possibly can, in view of the

vast number of disputes out there in the community, many of

which should be settled in an informal and inexpensive way, if

we can possibly work out the means, I move second reading.

[ Page 2236 ]

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. member for North Peace River.

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We agree with the

principle of the bill and the idea that the jurisdiction of the

small debts court should be increased from $500 to $ 1,000. We

would hope that this is the first step in a direction that will

eventually see that limit increased even further, after the

Attorney General has had the benefit of watching the process

within the courts.

We do feel that there is a problem with regard to the

payment of fees by people involved in actions before the small

debts court. Some people are reluctant to become involved in

any type of action because of the requirement of a solicitor.

Although they could go in themselves, they don't feel competent

to appear before the court without a solicitor.

It seems to us that the Attorney General might proceed in

this direction, in conjunction with the other provisions

contained in this bill — that every person should have equal

rights before the courts, regardless of their financial means,

and that nothing should impede them from presenting their side

of the case.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SMITH: Yes, they can go to legal aid if this is a

requirement. But the situation is that quite often, rather than

get involved in court, people will reluctantly allow a debt to

go unchallenged or unpaid and as a result they are the losers

from that process.

We would, though, support the principle of the bill. We

think it is a step in the right direction.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point

Grey.

MR. GARDOM: This is a measure that has been proposed in this

side of the House for years, Mr. Speaker, and we are delighted

to see that the Government is bringing in the amendment to the

Act. We would hope that they would similarly view the

jurisdiction of the county court and increase its jurisdiction

from $3,000 to $5,000 which would cut down in the great period

of time that litigants have to wait to get into the supreme

court, and would certainly fill the desires and needs of

society in that regard.

Dealing with this bill, though, and I've been seeing some statements in the

Press — and I've forgotten, to tell you the truth, whether they are attributable

to the Attorney General or not — but it's a mighty good thing in conjunction

with this kind of assistance that maybe we should have a roaming ombudsman in

the hall. In many cases if you can break down the frost-line

between litigants and get them just to have a little chat together before they

get into court, no end of trials could be avoided. Rather than find people sitting

in a small debts court for the better part of three or four or five hours before

they can get on for their hearing, if there could just be a court liaison approach

to the thing whereby the individuals could have, say a 'without prejudice' discussion

out in the hall as to their respective points of view and the merits of their

cases, and thus I think you would find an infinitely large number of cases settled.

It would certainly cut down on the load of the court.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe

Sound.

MR. WILLIAMS: I've just got a word, Mr. Speaker. I agree

with what the Second Member for Point Grey has just said. It

would seem to me that if a court officer could see whether the

parties had even taken the first step towards settlement

discussion, much of the time used up in the courts could be

overcome. If he could just make that simple inquiry, and out of

that simple inquiry he might be able to recommend to the

parties that there was a simpler solution than by going before

the judge.

The judges in the small claims division work pretty hard and

I'm sure that they receive before them many, many people who

are contesting claims who just haven't taken that first

approach towards settlement which might have resolved a lot of

the difficulties.

I was pleased to hear what the Attorney General had to say

about the matter of exercising warrants of committal. I think

that this is a positive step. This legislation following upon

the bill just adjourned indicates that the government is moving

farther and farther away from the historic approach to debt

when debtors' prison was the way in which everything was

handled. I think we should even move more quickly in that

direction and that other legislation dealing with the powers of

execution and so on should be amended.

I think that surely we have come in this day and age far

enough that we don't throw someone in jail because he hasn't

paid his debt, or can't. There may be those people who will be

trying to abuse the credit opportunities which are created in

our society today. Well, that's one of the risks that the

people who extend credit must take. But I just don't believe

that we should be putting delinquent debtors into jail for any

circumstances.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for North Okanagan.

MRS. JORDAN: I'm not a lawyer, as the Attorney General

obviously knows, but he mentioned in his

[ Page 2237 ]

statements reviewing the whole structure contained in this

bill and the legal system…and this bill confines things

very definitely, as I understand it, to debts…

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Not just debts any case up to $

1,000.

MRS. JORDAN: Oh, yes. Well, I was just trying to figure out

if I was going to be in order. As a lay person, Mr. Speaker, I

think one of the problems we have in society today is where you

get simple neighbourhood disputes over property lines or a roof

hanging over a fence; or a new property line is discovered when

a new road goes in, and feelings run very high in the

beginning.

This is quite natural in human reaction. So the next thing

you know — I have nothing against lawyers — you have two

lawyers involved. One runs to a lawyer and then the other has

to get a lawyer. Then you get two people in a situation where

two or three months later they sort of calm down and they feel

well, you know, what did we start all of this about, but they

can't discuss it because the two lawyers are involved and one

lawyer says, "Well, you mustn't meet. If you want something,

I'll talk to his lawyer."

The next thing you know you've got everybody embroiled; two

neighbours aren't speaking; the lawyers are speaking through

letters; the costs are rising, and eventually there is a

settlement in which the two lawyers are battling it out, or

else it goes to court. You may only be involved in a simple

amount of money, $1,000, $2,000, $3,000 and yet you end up with

costs to the winner and certainly a prohibitive cost to the

loser.

It seems to me, Mr. Attorney General, that there should be

an avenue whereby people can go before a responsible person,

whether it's a judge or not, and he can look at it very

objectively and say, "Well, you know you could go to court. It

looks as if A has a slight edge, but then the court may say

this or that. Or you could settle now, and this would be a

realistic approach." If the two parties don't choose to accept

it then they have the right to go to their lawyers or go to

court, but too many people in British Columbia…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, that's just the point, Mr. Member. I

don't think you understand and I'm probably not saying it…

Too many people in British Columbia or anywhere get into a

dispute, Mr. Speaker, through a quick emotional reaction and

then — I hate to say it — they get into the hands…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member address the

Chair and not get into a dispute.

MRS. JORDAN: …get into the hands of the lawyers and the

lawyers are practicing law. There's no question about it. That

is their right. But it is a person they are supposed to be

serving who unintentionally becomes an innocent victim in the

process of law, and in the cost of that process of law.

I'm sure there isn't an MLA in this House who hasn't been

involved in cases when everybody sits down and says, "you know,

if only Abe Lincoln had been here there would have been no

costs, or very low costs; there wouldn't have been the months

of bad feeling, years of anxiety. Some of these simple little

cases go on for two or three years. I know, Mr. Speaker. All we

would have to do…I don't want to upset the process of law,

but it's a democratic society and sometimes just a little

common sense and a rational approach is much more effective

than adhering to the whole legal process.

I would ask, Mr. Speaker, the Attorney General in his review — whether this is the place for it, the small claims court, I

don't know — but go back, make an avenue for, for want of a

better name, for the "Abe Lincoln" approach to some of these

smaller problems that evolve.

You're going to save the crown money. You're going to save

the individual money. You're going to save the lawyers a lot of

harassment. You'll save them money because they won't make as

much income from handling all these little cases, and they

won't have to pay such high taxes.

You're going to save, Mr. Speaker, an awful lot of people an

awful lot of ulcerating, anxiety — creating time, because

there's no question today, as with teachers, there is still an

emotional block against lawyers. If they've got to go to a

lawyer's office, people get uptight, or they don't realize what

fine gentlemen and gentle ladies they are. Mr. Speaker,

everybody's laughing but I couldn't be more serious. Bring in an avenue for a common sense, rational,

unemotional, Abe Lincoln approach.

AN HON. MEMBER: More rights for the experienced…

MRS. JORDAN: The Attorney General and all the lawyers, and I

think most people, are pleased about a legal aid system. But,

Mr. Speaker, that legal aid system will falter if the demands

on it are too great; and it should be used where it's needed.

Every taxpayer will support it if it's used where it's needed.

But it shouldn't be used for areas where common sense can

prevail or before you've given an opportunity for common sense

to prevail. So on with Abe Lincoln, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Attorney General

[ Page 2238 ]

closes the debate.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, there have been some

valuable suggestions that had nothing to do with the principle

of the bill. Nevertheless, they were valuable suggestions,

including the interesting one that the Member for West

Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams) has mentioned — and it's of

great concern to me — whether or not at the door of the small

claims court there can't be some informal procedure by way of

conciliation, advice, refereeing, umpiring, so that a litigant

could know whether or not to push that case through and save a

lot of time. That's the kind of thing we are working on. I move

second reading.

Motion approved; second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 49 ordered to be placed on orders of the day for

committal at the next sitting of the House after today.

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

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might have leave of

the House at this time to introduce a group of students who are

in the gallery from Irwin Park School in West Vancouver

together with their chaperon.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon will be

private Member's day from 2 p.m. to 6 p.m., and we expect great

progress.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I think they'll be in order, some of

them.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved, The House adjourned at 12:03 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1973, 2001, 2013: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada