British Columbia Hansard — Thursday, June 10, 1976 — Afternoon Sitting (31st Parliament, 1st Session)
31p 01s 760610p
British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
1976 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 31st 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, JUNE 10, 1976
Afternoon Sitting
[ Page
2513 ]
CONTENTS
Routine proceedings
Members of the Legislative Assembly Superannuation Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill
72) Hon. Mrs. McCarthy
Introduction and first reading — 2513
Strata Titles Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 73) Hon. Mrs. McCarthy
Introduction and first reading — 2513
Statement
Gas export prices. Hon. Mr. Bennett — 2513
Mr. King — 2514
Mr. Gibson — 2514
Mr. Wallace — 2514
Mr. King — 2514
Routine proceedings
Oral questions
Education minister's trip to England. Mr. Lea — 2515
Educational services for communicatively impaired children. Mr. Gibson —
Habitat cost-sharing arrangement. Mr. Wallace 2517
Mount Stephen property. Mr. Barber — 2517
Lie detector tests for ICBC claimants.
Hon. Mr. McGeer answers — 2518
Motor-vehicle inspection notices. Hon. Mr. McGeer answers — 2518
Delays in ICBC refunds. Hon. Mr. McGeer answers — 2518
Appointment of Brian Palmer. Hon. Mrs. McCarthy answers — 2518
Government borrowing. Hon. Mr. Wolfe answers — 2518
New Opportunities volunteer group. Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm answers —
Attorney-General Statutes Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 75) . Hon. Mr. Gardom
Introduction and first reading — 2519
Statement
Law enforcement in Kitimat. Hon. Mr. Gardom — 2519
Mr. King — 2520
Mr. Gibson — 2520
Mr. Wallace — 2520
Routine proceedings
Motor-vehicle Act Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 32) Second reading.
Hon. Mr. Gardom moves adjournment — 2522
Freedom of Information Act (Bill 33) Second reading
Division on adjournment — 2522
Change of Name Act Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 34) Second reading
Division on adjournment — 2523
BikeWays Development Act (Bill 36) Second reading
Mr. Barber — 2523
Mr. Speaker rules out of order — 2524
Division on Mr. Speaker's ruling — 2525
Land Registry Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 37)
Second reading
Mr. Barber moves adjournment — 2525
Public Officials and Employees Disclosure Act Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 38) .
Second reading
Mr. Barber moves adjournment — 2525
Community of Property Act (Bill 39) Second reading
Ms. Brown — 2525
THURSDAY, JUNE 10, 1976
The House met at 2 p.m.
Prayers.
MR. G.H. KERSTER (Coquitlam): Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today are
three very good friends, Mr. Brian McLoughlin, a prominent Vancouver barrister,
Mr. Rick Hockey, a director of the Coquitlam Social Credit constituency association,
and Mr. Ken Hutchison, another hard-working Social Crediter. I ask the House
to join me in making them welcome today.
HON. W.N. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human Resources): Mr. Speaker, it
gives me great pleasure to introduce to the House a very dear friend from the
constituency of Coquitlam, Mrs. Ina Watson, Miss Jean MacKenzie, visiting here from Kincardine-on-Fife, Scotland, my daughter
Lucia, my nephew from Holland, Joss Van Haage, and my flower, my wife Lillian.
MR. W. DAVIDSON (Delta): Mr. Speaker, in the gallery this afternoon
are a group of students from Dellview Junior Secondary School in Delta and their
teacher, Mr. Bellamy. I would ask the House to make them welcome.
Introduction of bills.
MEMBERS OF THE
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY SUPERANNUATION
AMENDMENT ACT, 1976
Hon. Mrs. McCarthy presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:
a bill intituled Members of the Legislative Assembly Superannuation
Amendment Act, 1976.
Bill 72 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on
orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House
after today.
STRATA TITLES
AMENDMENT ACT, 1976
Hon. Mr. Curtis presents a message from the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled
Strata Titles Amendment Act, 1976.
Bill 73 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on
orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House
after today.
HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): I would like to make a statement
to the House regarding House business. I'd like to advise all members of
the House, Mr. Speaker, that the House will not be sitting tomorrow, Friday,
in order to accommodate a meeting of the NDP convention. I believe it is taking
place in Penticton.
Interjections.
HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I understand the member for
Burrard (Ms. Brown) hasn't been invited (laughter), but let me tell her
that there is an NDP convention tomorrow in Penticton and all members
of the House recognize that the NDP is very anxious to be there.
I would also like to say, Mr. Speaker, that I hope that all sides
and all parties in the House will recognize that, with the very heavy
legislative programme that we have before us, there is a responsibility
on each and every one of us to move the House business. In addressing
ourselves to the House business we hope that all of us can move it
along and do the people's business.
The few hours that we will miss tomorrow we hope we can make up in
good cooperation next week. I'm sure that the members of the NDP will
feel that that would be the best way to accommodate the House and the
best service to the citizens of the province.
MR. W.S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): I want to extend
the thanks of the official opposition to the government for their
benevolent gesture today. However, I want to indicate that in light of
the fact that the indication of the government's cooperation only came
at this hour of the day preceding our convention, many of us were
unable to make any advance plans under those circumstances. We're quite
prepared to do the people's business now and in the future. That is our
first obligation; we recognize that without question, and I trust that
the government will always provide adequate time for deliberation to
the opposition so the people's business can be conducted carefully,
with the proper scrutiny from he official opposition and, indeed, all
opposition members in the House.
GAS EXPORT PRICES
HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): After that gracious response, I'd like to make a statement to the House.
I'd like to advise the House that today the Hon. Alastair Gillespie
will be announcing the new export prices for gas at the border. These
prices affect British Columbia. As you know, our province, as part of
our policy of full value for energy, made representations to the
National Energy Board on the export price of gas. We had asked for a
price approximately $2 per mcf at the border, and today the minister
has announced, as a result of our submission before the
[ Page 2514 ]
National Energy Board, that the price, which is presently $1.60 per
mcf at the border, will rise to $1.80 on September 10, 1976, and to
$1.94 on January 1, 1977. These prices will reflect the two-stage
increase that the government has allowed for the domestic price.
I can only say that we're pleased that the arguments put forward by
the province were listened to so carefully by the National Energy Board
and we welcome the higher prices. I want to assure the House that the
full increase in price passes through to the Province of British
Columbia at this time, and none of the increase passes through to the
producer. Those prices will only change as recommendations come from
the B.C. energy board to reflect higher exploration costs or to reflect
greater exploration.
MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the member for Vancouver
East (Mr. Macdonald), had indicated on previous occasions that our
party opposes and finds reprehensible the government's solicitation to
increase the price of gas to the world price. We believe, and I want to
reiterate and re-emphasize, that this inevitably results in higher cost
to the consumers of British Columbia to the advantage and benefit alone
of the foreign corporations who are doing the oil development in this
province. I find it absolutely amazing, Mr. Speaker, that the Premier
takes any solace...
Interjection.
MR. KING: ...in announcing that...
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. Leader of the Opposition has the floor.
MR. KING: ...yet other cost burdens are going to be heaped on
the long-suffering consumers and citizens of this province. If the
Premier of this province expects any gracious responses in light of the
punitive measures that are constantly being taken against the citizens
of this province, then he's looking in the wrong direction if he's
viewing the official opposition.
Interjection.
MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): To the extent
that this announcement refers to export gas, certainly I would welcome
this increase in price, and I hope and trust that the government will
continue to get the best price for our gas at all times. I would assume
that in a good-neighbour fashion the Premier, during his talks with
Governor Evans, had advised him that this would be coming along, so it
won't be any surprise to our customers in Washington. The Premier noted
that all of the increases will adhere to the province at the moment and
none be passed through to the producers.
I think he will find that he should quickly seek recommendations
from the B.C. Energy Commission on this, because at the moment the
Alberta net-back, in terms of both old and new gas, is already 50 per
cent higher than in British Columbia. If we want to encourage the kind
of exploration that we need in this province, we are going to have to
increase the netback, so I hope that he will seek those recommendations
quickly and implement them quickly. In the meantime, I welcome this
announcement.
HON. MR. BENNETT: I'm glad someone understood over there.
MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I completely support
the concept of getting fair value for our resources which we export,
whatever these resources be — gas, oil, minerals or any other resource.
The Premier, when he spoke on television introducing the Clarkson
Gordon report, made it plain that too much revenue was coming from
people and not enough from resources. Although the budget contradicted
what he said on that occasion, I keep hoping that with this kind of
evidence we will derive more income and revenue from resources and that
perhaps the serious effects on the recent budget can be minimized.
I would be very interested to ask the Premier if any provision was
made in drawing up the budget for this kind of increase which he
anticipated, and presumably this brings in so many more millions of
dollars of revenue as of September 10, 1976. I would be very interested
to know if that sum of money was included and calculated as revenue for
the current fiscal year. If not, it means there is a little cushion
there which would again, in my view, provide for some of the money that
might create employment this summer.
So I think it's very encouraging that we are getting the best value
we can for our resources which we export and that we have federal
cooperation in this regard. But right here on our own doorstep, with
unemployment as it is, I would ask again, if this is an additional
source of revenue that was not included in the budget, that the Premier
reconsider the urgency of a supplementary budget.
MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, if I may, just for the purposes of
correction, I would offer my apologies to the Premier. I misunderstood
the gist of his comments. I thought he was referring to petroleum
products rather than natural gas, and I want to completely withdraw the
comments that I made and join with the other members of the House in
welcoming the news. I apologize for the
[ Page 2515 ]
misunderstanding.
HON. MR. BENNETT: With all graciousness, I accept your apology. (Laughter.)
MR. KING: A distinct change. (Laughter.)
MR. SPEAKER: With everyone in such a good mood, Hon. Members....
MR. WALLACE: It won't last!
Interjections.
Oral questions.
EDUCATION MINISTER'S TRIP TO ENGLAND
MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Mr. Speaker, I have a question
for the Minister of Education. Yesterday when I asked the minister
about his recent trip to Europe, he told the House that (1) he did not
take vacation time on the trip, and (2) he would be more than happy to
table correspondence showing the necessity for the trip.
He has now said outside the House that (1) he did take vacation time in Italy, and (2) he has no correspondence to table.
Question (1): can the minister now tell the House the truth about these two specific issues?
HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, I'd be delighted to table the correspondence between the insurance corporation and myself. (Laughter.)
MR. SPEAKER: The minister tables correspondence.
HON. MR. McGEER: With that correspondence, Mr. Speaker, is a
complete itinerary of my time away from the province of British
Columbia, which included not only visits by myself and three senior
members of the corporation to our reinsurers in London, but two
scientific conferences which I attended as a representative of Canada
and as a guest of the Italian government, the University of Cagliari,
Italy, and the Italian Brain Research Organization. It involved
extremely hard work on my part, Mr. Speaker — I would like to think
international scientific conferences — but it certainly didn't involve
any vacation.
MR. LEA: On a supplemental....
Interjections.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. member for Prince Rupert has the floor.
MR. LEA: I would assume that being a minister of the Crown in
the province of British Columbia is a full-time job and that it was not
part of that job to be in Italy.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. member for Prince Rupert has the floor.
MR. LEA: Under dictionary terms, the minister did take a
two-day vacation in Italy. Yesterday when I asked, he said that the
only vacation he took was to visit B.C. House and the Agent-General,
Mr. Strachan.
Interjections.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the ministers listen to their questions?
MR. LEA: I wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether the minister could
table in the House the expenses for that trip — the total cost and a
breakdown of the expenses, along with the itinerary.
HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, a list of the expenses has
already been tabled — that is, to how they were divided among the
various agencies. Naturally as a guest of the Italian Brain Research
Organization and the Italian government, the expenses of two trips from
London, one to Cagliari and the other to Milan, were paid for by the
Italian government.
Mr. Speaker, I might add that I may from time to time attend
scientific congresses at the invitation of people who want to know
what's going on in Canadian science in Canada. But never will I visit
the Great Wall of China at public expense, nor will I play rugby in
Japan at public expense.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.
MR. LEA: If I may, another supplemental during applause period? That took up more time than the question.
I wonder if the minister would also table with this House the
correspondence between the officers of ICBC and himself requesting that
he make the trip to London.
HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I have already done that. (Laughter.)
AN HON. MEMBER: That'll fix you, Graham.
[ Page 2516 ]
MR. LEA: I don't think so.
MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I wonder, if the Minister of Education
was the subject of brain research in Italy, if he could notify the
House of one abnormality the researchers found. (Laughter.)
MR. SPEAKER: That is not the type of a statement that's permissible.
Interjections.
MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please.
Interjections.
MR. SPEAKER: That is not an admissible question, hon. minister, and there's no need for you to reply to it.
Interjection.
MR. SPEAKER: Okay. Well, the hon. minister can do so if desired.
HON. MR. McGEER: I certainly wouldn't invite them to watch the antics
of the opposition, Mr. Speaker. (Laughter.)
EDUCATIONAL SERVICES FOR
COMMUNICATIVELY IMPAIRED CHILDREN
MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, another question to the Minister of
Education. In a recent statement regarding Jericho Hill School, the
minister stated that acting upon the best professional advice, and in
accordance with all available studies and needs of children, the
department is preparing a major thrust towards providing suitable
educational services for every communicatively impaired child in
British Columbia in the school district in which his parents reside.
My question is: in view of the fact that many of the parents are yet
to be convinced that this change is a in the best interest of their
children, can the minister inform the House as to which professionals
and which studies he is referring, and will he table with the House the
documents from which his officials took advice in making their
decisions?
HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I'd be delighted to table the
documents. I think I should tell the member that the leading person in
establishing s the ongoing policy with regard to decentralization of
the education of the communicatively impaired is Mr. John Walsh of the
Department of Education, himself a former superintendent of Jericho
School, and more knowledgeable on this subject than anyone else in
British Columbia.
We do have, in addition to this, two thorough reports on this matter, both
of which I will be pleased o table in the House, hopefully later on today, but
as soon as I can be supplied them by the Department of Education.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that for those parents who
wish to continue the education of their children at Jericho Hill School
we've made it clear from the very beginning that that school would
remain open and that those people would continue to be permitted to educate their children in that environment. The fact remains,
Mr. Speaker, that the majority of the deaf children in British Columbia are
now being educated in their own communities, and the results from that type of
education, in the opinion of all the experts that we've been able to marshal
to bear on this problem, are better. Now what we cannot guarantee is that jobs
will continue to exist for all of the staff members who are now at Jericho, in
view of the declining population of that school. I think the member must bear
that in mind.
MR. GIBSON: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate
that the minister quoted Mr. Walsh as a former superintendent of the
school, but he will realize as well that the most recent superintendent
has just resigned from that position on the basis of differing with the
government policy.
I would want to nail down something he just said. Will he guarantee
that any parent who wishes their child to continue in the Jericho Hill
School setting will be permitted to do so as a matter of right?
HON. MR. McGEER: I don't think as a matter of right. No, Mr. Speaker. But as a matter of preference — we've already made that indication.
MR. GIBSON: A further supplementary. Mr. Speaker, I'm afraid
I don't understand this distinction between a matter of right and a
matter of preference. Will a child who should, in the view of the
parent, continue in Jericho Hill school be permitted to do so, assuming
that the child remains eligible for the school in terms of being
communicatively impaired and of the proper age and requiring the
education and so on, as a matter of right?
HON. MR. McGEER: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker, not as a matter of right.
MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I have a final supplementary, if I
may, Mr. Speaker. Have the school districts received lists of students
from Jericho that they will be expected to absorb next year?
HON. MR. McGEER: I'll have to take that question as notice, Mr. Speaker.
[ Page 2517 ]
HABITAT COST-SHARING ARRANGEMENT
MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to welcome back the
Minister of Municipal Affairs from Habitat and ask him what
cost-sharing arrangements there were with the provincial government and
the city of Vancouver in meeting the costs of Habitat.
HON. H.A. CURTIS (Minister of Municipal Affairs): Mr.
Speaker, rather than take considerable time in question period to give
a detailed answer, I would be happy at a later date to provide members
of this House with a breakdown. The provincial involvement or costs did
involve a number of departments: the Attorney-General's department,
certainly the Department of Municipal Affairs, the Provincial
Secretary's department and so on. I have a ball-park figure, and I
would be happy to doublecheck that and provide it to the member who
asked the question and other members later.
MR. WALLACE: Supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could I ask
the Minister of Municipal Affairs whether, at a time when the
Attorney-General informed us that the federal government was providing
liquor at cost to visiting delegates, there were any specific
instructions which suggested that Canadian delegates should not avail
themselves of these bargain-basement prices?
HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, as a consumer of alcoholic
beverages, I simply transported myself to a nearby government liquor
outlet and — not at government expense but at personal expense —
brought in those provisions I felt were necessary for the conference.
I'm not aware of any arrangements that were made other than the fact
that duty-free liquor was available, and I heard in a very roundabout
way that it did not apply to Canadian residents who were attending the
conference. This may be, in fact, a pattern which is appropriate for
international conferences around the world. Inasmuch as this is the
first I've attended, I have no further information.
MR. WALLACE: Final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Could I
confirm the fact then that there was no specific instruction from the
Attorney-General of this province to any Canadian attending as a
delegate that they could not purchase these supplies at the cost price?
HON. MR. CURTIS: I'm not aware, Mr. Speaker, of any such
instruction. The question, perhaps, should be directed more properly to
the Attorney-General — and I realize that he's not in his seat at the
moment. But I have no knowledge of any specific instructions, written
or oral, with respect to the situation.
MOUNT STEPHEN PROPERTY
MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, my question is also to the Minister of Municipal Affairs.
In September of 1974, the city of Victoria sold to the Department of
Housing, for the sum of $190,000, 4.36 acres of land known as the Mount
Stephen property. Can the minister confirm that he wrote a letter on
May 18 to the Mount Stephen Housing cooperative withdrawing the use of
this land for cooperative housing development?
HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, to the hon. member, the
question suggests that the property has been withdrawn irrevocably and
that is not the case. I'll take the balance of the question as notice.
MR. BARBER: Mr. Speaker, I have the letter here. It is dated May 18....
Interjection.
MR. BARBER: In order to ask the next: can the minister
confirm that the Department of Housing now intends to sell the land,
which the city conveyed to the department for the express purpose of a
low-cost cooperative housing development, to private developers?
HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, we expect that the site, which
is an important one in the city of Victoria, will be made available for
affordable housing. I indicated earlier that I would take the balance
of the question as notice, and I think that is appropriate with respect
to the supplementary as well.
MR. BARBER: Mr. Speaker, the minister has taken part of the question as notice and has agreed to answer another part.
MR. SPEAKER: He's taken that as notice also.
AN HON. MEMBER: No, no.
MR. BARBER: Well, will you let me ask it, and perhaps the
minister might...? Can the minister confirm that the land purchased
from the city for $190,000, with the understanding that it be used for
low-cost cooperative housing development, will now be sold to private
interests for $600,000?
HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I take the question as notice.
Interjections.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.
[ Page 2518 ]
HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I took three questions as notice yesterday, and I would like to respond to them now.
LIE DETECTOR TESTS
FOR ICBC CLAIMANTS
One came from the member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) with
regard to lie-detector tests at ICBC. In mid-1975, Mr. Speaker,
approximately a year ago, at a time when the minister was part of
government, a lie-detector test was undertaken in Surrey by an adjuster
without authority who asked a claimant to take this test. As a result
of this situation, which took place under the NDP a year ago, a policy
on lie-detector tests was established, and the present policy is that
claimants are not requested to take a lie-detector test, and this is
not the basis upon which a claim is issued.
Now I'll just file a memorandum, without reading it in detail, with
the House. But that was a policy of the former government and not our
government.
MOTOR-VEHICLE INSPECTION NOTICES
Mr. Speaker, with regard to the vehicle inspection notice the member
for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) asked about yesterday, the
corporation....
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Where is she?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.
HON. MR. McGEER: I can't answer that question. (Laughter.)
But, Mr. Speaker, the insurance corporation does issue at weekly
intervals, as a service to the motor-vehicle inspection division,
notices to have their vehicles reinspected.
DELAYS IN ICBC REFUNDS
Now in regard to the question asked by the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) with regard to refunds.
MR. WALLACE: I'm here! (Laughter.)
HON. MR. McGEER: The corporation is behind in refunds, and,
Mr. Member, it's because the corporation has been behind in processing
the instalment plan so that they are not sure in some cases whether the
person who is claiming the refund is on the instalment plan or not.
They say that they will be up to date by the end of June. I apologize
for the delay.
This is the principal explanation. There may be some other reasons
why they are behind, but if the member knows of specific cases, they
can be processed manually immediately, and I would be prepared
personally to take those on and see that the refunds are given.
MR. WALLACE: Will you pay interest?
HON. MR. McGEER: We'll make no promise to pay interest, Mr. Member, because again it creates just another administrative nightmare....
MR. WALLACE: It's bad for the customer.
HON. MR. McGEER: I know it's bad for the customer, and I
quite agree, and I'm told that the situation will be cleared up by the
end of June, which is only two weeks away.
MR. SPEAKER: That terminates the question period, hon. members.
APPOINTMENT OF MR. BRIAN PALMER
HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to answer
a question that was given in the House yesterday, and it was a question
regarding order-in-council 1531, Mr. Brian Palmer, administrative
assistant to the Speaker's office.
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Palmer was appointed upon a recommendation of your
office. The position is provided for in vote 1. Mr. Speaker is
responsible for the assignment of Mr. Palmer's duties, which I am
informed will include duties in the North Peace constituency and in the
city of Victoria.
GOVERNMENT BORROWING
HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I would also like to respond to a question asked two days ago by the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) .
The question was: "Inasmuch as the government has been granted
borrowing authority up to an amount of $400 million, and inasmuch as
the House has been made aware that the government has borrowed $181
million, can the minister tell me whether or not any further borrowings
have been made to date?"
Mr. Speaker, the answer is no, there have not been any further borrowings to date by the provincial government.
HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, with leave I would like to
reply to an allegation which was made several times yesterday regarding
a programme sponsored by a company in Vancouver, called "The New
Opportunities Volunteer Group."
[ Page 2519 ]
Leave granted.
NEW OPPORTUNITIES VOLUNTEER GROUP
HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The allegations were, Mr. Speaker — and
I think perhaps in fairness they should be explained now — that in fact
this particular group was exploiting the handicapped, and these
allegations were made several times. The information has been provided
me by my deputy, upon the advice of the VRB — the Vancouver Resource
Board — and their manager.
This company has operated in Canada in Toronto and Edmonton and now
in Vancouver for the last 10 years. Its advent to Vancouver has been
within the past month. The operator of the Vancouver company is Mr.
Herb Matthews, who comes from Decatur, Georgia.
The purpose of the company is to sell Philips light bulbs, which are
the long-burning variety and carry a guarantee. The employees are
handicapped persons and are certified as such by their own doctor. The
VRB has made no referrals to the group but has contacted the firm on
June 9, 1976. The sales are by telephone and the pay is $3 per hour.
The remuneration is not on a commission basis.
As far as can be ascertained, an employee who was recently let
go.... Since the employee has been let go the company has received
inquiries from outside sources regarding its operation. The VRB and its
members feel that the company is giving an opportunity for work for
handicapped persons and that their labour practices, with rest periods,
et cetera, are quite in order.
HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a message from the Lieutenant-Governor.
MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please!
AN HON. MEMBER: It's a message bill.
Interjections.
MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): I would like to reply.
MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, you'll have to ask leave if....
Interjections.
MR. SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: No!
MR. SPEAKER: I hear a no, Hon. Member.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye! Aye!
MR. SPEAKER: I'll try it again.
Interjections.
MR. SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted?
Leave granted.
MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, just to clarify the minister's
remarks, I don't believe I made allegations. I was inquiring of the
minister if his department would look into the matter. I appreciate his
report back.
My other question at this time is: did he also check the spiel that
the handicapped people were giving over the telephone? In other words,
were they required to state as part of the job condition that they were
handicapped?
MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, I am sure that this is something that you can take up with the minister himself.
MR. BARNES: It was on the basis of the exploitation of the
fact that the person was handicapped that I raised it, because that was
a question of subjecting these people to subhuman conditions. They are
expecting them to exploit their physical handicap in order to have the
job. That's all I was asking the minister — if he would say whether or
not that was the case.
Interjections.
Introduction of bills.
ATTORNEY-GENERAL STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 1976
Hon. Mr. Gardom presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:
a bill intituled Attorney-General Statutes Amendment Act, 1976.
Bill 75 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on
orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House
after today.
LAW ENFORCEMENT IN KITIMAT
HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, with leave of the House I would like to make a statement.
Leave granted.
HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, the representatives in this
House are exactly what that name means — representatives of the people
of this province and all of the people of the province. The
[ Page 2520 ]
people of this province, whatever their faith,
race, sex or political direction may be, are law-abiding people and
peaceful people. They believe in and they subscribe to and lead a life
that is guided by and under the rule of law. Without such a rule, Mr.
Speaker, society cannot function, people cannot live together as
neighbours; without such a rule, retaliation and chaos can become the
order of the day.
Neither this government nor, I am sure, any other representatives of
the people in this House can sanction anything but observance of those
principles.
Some espouse that, depending upon the fervour of the cause, an
illegal means is a satisfactory method of arriving at an acceptable
end. But that, Mr. Speaker, is a denigration of the democratic process.
As the Hon. Bora Laskin, the Chief Justice of Canada, stated: "We must
not elevate demonstrations and protests above the law but rather have
them subservient to the law."
Kitimat, Mr. Speaker, is a potentially dangerous situation.
Officials from my department have had discussions with union leaders
and rank-and-file, and management and rank-and-file, with citizens and
with local leaders. Resolution of their problem is not by breaches of
the law, but hopefully by further discussion between the parties.
I am today requesting that a provincial court judge make his way to
Kitimat to be available for whatever processes may come before him — I
do, indeed, hope none.
I have instructed the law-enforcement authorities to ensure that
there are not any violations of the Criminal Code, and, if there are,
they will have to be dealt with at the scene.
This, Mr. Speaker, is what any citizen in British Columbia would
expect and is entitled to. I would indeed hope and expect that this
would also be a fair expression of the views of all the parties to that
unfortunate dispute in Kitimat. No one wishes damages to property or
person, and I would expect, Mr. Speaker, that all of the citizens of
Kitimat would agree with that, as any law-abiding citizen would, and
that they, indeed, are looking to and I hope are pressing forward for a
peaceful and lawful resolution of their present difficulty.
MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Attorney-General
for his statement to the House and I certainly want to join, as I'm
sure all the members in this assembly would, in an appeal to all of
those people involved in an industrial relations dispute at Kitimat to
take the legal course and to respect the law.
I do want to say, however, Mr. Speaker, that the Attorney-General, I
am sure, is cognizant of the fact that laws must seem to be equitable
before the complete support of the entire community can be available
for the observance of such laws. That's part and parcel, I think, of
the concepts of justice, which the Attorney-General knows a great deal
more about than I do. However, I think I am well experienced in human
relations, and I know that it's important that a law be perceived to be
equitable and fair if that law is to be strong and workable and
acceptable to the community. In other debates in the past and others to
come before this House, Mr. Speaker, we will unquestionably have more
to say about that proposition.
In the meantime, I certainly most sincerely hope that the parties
will perceive that their remedies are not through defiance of the law,
but rather through legislative action, or political action, or whatever
they consider to be necessary under the democratic rights that citizens
hold in this province in terms of finding laws and finding procedures
which are equitable and fair to them and their causes.
MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, certainly I would wish to associate
myself with the statement of the Attorney-General, which I think was
wisely circumspect and conciliatory. It sets out a high expectation and
at the same time notes that there is back-stop machinery if for any
unhappy reason those expectations aren't fulfilled. The maintenance of
law and order and the upholding of the Criminal Code are vital to our
society; there can be no question of that.
I'm glad that the Attorney-General mentioned his hope that some of
the underlying problems might be resolved by further discussion between
the parties, because I personally believe it is going to take that.
There are very understandable grievances and I think that the company
should take a very serious look at that.
The Attorney-General did not mention what steps, if any, he might
have to take in respect of the labour dispute now being before the
court, but perhaps it is as wise not to go into that at this time.
MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I completely support the
Attorney-General's statement and particularly his emphasis that our
whole society depends on respect and adherence to the law, regardless
of some of the inequities that may be seen to exist in the present law.
I had prepared some questions for the Attorney-General for question
period and they are not intended to be any negative approach, but I do
want to know and I would like to leave with the Attorney-General the
question that I'm sure many people are asking: for as long as this
present very sensitive and explosive situation exists, is the
Attorney-General satisfied that he has the police available to protect
life, limb and property if, in fact, his optimism of a peaceful
solution does not occur?
In particular, I was amazed to find that
[ Page 2521 ]
management are trapped inside the plant, even
having difficulty obtaining food supplies, and I was wondering if
either outside the House or in some other statement the
Attorney-General would answer some of these questions. It's quite
obvious that the longer that kind of situation is allowed to continue,
the more inflammatory and less responsible might be the subsequent
actions of the parties involved.
I very much appreciate the Attorney-General's initiatives, the speed
with which he has sent representatives to find out facts from the scene
of the problem and the speed with which he's reported back to this
House. In this instance, I think the Attorney-General has accomplished
a very creditable first.
HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): You're his friend, Scotty.
Orders of the day.
HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Second reading of Bill 58, by leave.
MR. SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted? Second reading of Bill 58.
MR. W.S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): I will have to save
no to that leave, Mr. Speaker. I would like to observe to the House
Leader of the government that this bill was only introduced late last
night. It's a profound bill, it's a lengthy one and it deals with
long-term implications affecting a large sector of the province's
citizens. We would like to have more time to study this bill before
going into debate on it.
MR. SPEAKER: Hon. House Leader of the Opposition, I must
apologize. I did not hear a "no", and that is why I proceeded to call
second reading of the bill. If you in fact said "no" that means that
unanimous leave has not been granted.
The Leader of the Opposition says he has said "no", Mr. Premier. It must be unanimous and leave is not granted.
HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, Committee of Supply.
The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Schroeder in the chair.
HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved on the following division:
YEAS — 30
McCarthy
Gardom
Bennett
Wolfe
McGeer
Phillips
Curtis
Calder
Shelford
Chabot
Jordan
Bawlf
Bawtree
Fraser
Davis
McClelland
Williams
Waterland
Mair
Nielsen
Vander Zalm
Davidson
Haddad
Hewitt
Kahl
Kerster
Lloyd
Loewen
Mussallem
Veitch
NAYS — 11
King
Lea
Nicolson
Levi
Skelly
Lockstead
Barnes
Brown
Barber
Gibson
Wallace, G.S.
Hon. Mr. Bennett requests that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports progress and
asks leave to sit again, and further reports that a division did occur
in committee, and asks leave to have it recorded in the Journals of the House.
Leave granted.
HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I would ask leave of the House to move to public bills and orders.
MR. SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: No!
MR. SPEAKER: I hear a "no", hon. members.
HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, would you call it again?
MR. SPEAKER: I do not think it's necessary to call again for leave. The Speaker did hear a "no".
HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I heard no "no" last time and
you had a member rise in his place and record a rather late "no". Can
we have the call again?
MR. KING: Quit trying to direct the Speaker!
[ Page 2522 ]
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I suggest to members from all
quarters of the House that it's not unusual to call a second time if
there's some discrepancy or if it's not clear or apparent that a "no"
is being issued by one of the hon. members, and it's not unusual for
someone to ask me to put the question again if they themselves did not
hear a "no". Now once more, shall leave be granted?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: No!
MR. SPEAKER: I hear a "no".
MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, was that unanimous?
HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I understand there is confusion as to whether there were "ayes". I'd like to tell Mr. Speaker that I said aye.
MR. SPEAKER: I think the matter has been settled, Hon.
Provincial Secretary, in that it only takes one, "no" to refuse
unanimous consent to move into other orders of business. That "no" was
heard distinctly by the Speaker.
HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to go into committee.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: On what?
HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I'll repeat, Mr. Speaker: I ask leave to go into committee on bills.
MR. SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted?
Interjections.
MR. SPEAKER: Hon. House Leader, I hear a no.
Interjections.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I am trying to ascertain what the hon. first member for Vancouver-Burrard wishes to say.
MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Well, Mr. Speaker, the
government seems to be in a state of confusion. I am wondering if they
could get their act together. They are confusing the House. They don't
know what they're doing over there!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS. BROWN: Inept!
HON. MR. BENNETT: Don't be so sanctimonious.
MS. BROWN: Withdraw!
MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members. Order, please!
[Mr. Speaker rises.]
MR. SPEAKER: There seems to be an increasing tendency for
members to try to gain the floor by no means other than to stand and
say "Mr. Speaker." It's customary to gain the floor if you have a point
of order to raise, and this is done by members on all sides of the
House. It's irregular to try to gain the floor or divert the attention
of the Speaker, the Chair or the House Leader by rising, just saying
"Mr. Speaker" and having no point of order to make in the House.
Now I would hope that all members will take that in the vein which
it is intended, and that is as advice to all members of the House,
because when you do these things it does impose an abuse on rules of
the House and all members of the House.
[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat. ]
HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 32.
MOTOR-VEHICLE ACT AMENDMENT ACT, 1976
(continued)
Hon. Mr. Gardom moves adjournment of the debate.
Motion approved.
HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 33.
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT
Hon. Mr. Gardom moves adjournment of the debate.
Motion approved on the following division:
YEAS — 30
McCarthy
Gardom
Bennett
Wolfe
McGeer
Phillips
Curtis
Calder
Shelford
Chabot
Jordan
Schroeder
Bawlf
Bawtree
Fraser
Davis
McClelland
Williams
Waterland
Mair
Nielsen
Vander Zalm
Haddad
Hewitt
Kahl
Kerster
Lloyd
[ Page 2523 ]
Loewen
Mussallem
Veitch
NAYS — 11
King
Lea
Nicolson
Levi
Skelly
Lockstead
Barnes
Brown
Barber
Gibson
Wallace, G.S.
Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.
HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Second reading of Bill 34, Mr. Speaker.
CHANGE OF NAME ACT
AMENDMENT ACT, 1976
Hon. Mr. McClelland moves adjournment of the debate.
Motion approved on the following division:
YEAS — 31
Fraser
Davis
McClelland
Williams
Waterland
Mair
Nielsen
Vander Zalm
Davidson
Haddad
Hewitt
Kahl
Kerster
Lloyd
McCarthy
Gardom
Bennett
Wolfe
McGeer
Phillips
Curtis
Calder
Shelford
Chabot
Jordan
Schroeder
Bawlf
Bawtree
Loewen
Mussallem
Veitch
NAYS — 11
King
Lea
Nicolson
Barber
Brown
Barnes
Lockstead
Skelly
Levi
Gibson
Wallace, G.S.
Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.
HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Second reading of Bill 36, Mr. Speaker.
BIKEWAYS DEVELOPMENT ACT
MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): Talking about bicycles in the presence of steamrollers might not be such a wise idea...
AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!
MR. BARBER: ...but I'm happy all the same for the opportunity to discuss this private member's bill.
Interjections.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. member for Victoria has the floor.
MR. BARBER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As you will observe from reading the bill, passage of this
legislation would require the government to exercise some initiative
and some imagination and to employ some new ideas and some new thinking
in the provision of transportation for the people of this province.
Many people on both sides of the House, Mr. Speaker, are persuaded
that in the great cities of North America the private automobile has no
longer any future at all and that, indeed, beyond the year 2000 in most
of those great cities the private automobile will be illegal. All we
will see in the place of it will be ambulances, fire trucks, other
emergency equipment and major trucking vehicles.
What this bill recognizes, Mr. Speaker, is what thousands upon
thousands of Canadians have recognized, and it is this: the bicycle as
a means of transport is cheap, it is efficient, it is healthy, and it's
an opportunity to abandon an unhealthy and a degrading way of life, a
way of life which, because of the presence of the automobile in its
extraordinary numbers, damages the environment, damages the land and
damages our own future as a species.
The Bikeways Development Act calls, Mr. Speaker, for acts of
leadership on the part of this government to examine opportunities to
provide alternatives to the automobile, to provide alternatives to the
kinds of transportation systems we have now which simply will not serve
us in the future.
As the Attorney-General himself noted one evening in debate in this
House, Mr. Speaker, in civilized nations in Europe, in civilized
nations around the world, the bicycle is a way of life.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. BARBER: It's used for transport; it's used for pleasure; it's used for recreation....
Interjection.
MR. BARBER: And there are bicycles built for two and three, and those are used for other things as well, all of which I support.
I think what we have here, Mr. Speaker, is an opportunity for this
government to show that imagination, to act on the advice, and I
presume the experience, of the Attorney-General, and to provide
opportunities throughout the province for the
[ Page 2524 ]
construction of bicycle paths, recreational and commuter.
I think what we see, Mr. Speaker, is that from the experience....
MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): Stifling debate!
MS. BROWN: Heavy hand!
MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, I was listening very
attentively to the second member for Victoria to see whether his bill
was in order. I just noticed he suggested that the government become
involved in the building of bicycle paths, which really incurs a
monetary obligation on the Crown and which, in turn, clearly makes his
bill out of order. On that basis, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that you
have a responsibility to examine the point I have raised and so rule.
MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, speaking to the point of order
which has been brought to my attention, the rules of debate and the
rules of bills, particularly private members' bills...one of the
paramount rules, hon. member, is that you cannot create an impost on
the Crown. For that reason I must rule that your bill is out of order
in that it contemplates in
section 5 a grant from the consolidated
revenue funds of the Crown. That is an impost, clearly, on the Crown
and a prerogative of government and not of private members. So I must
therefore rule that the bill is out of order.
MR. BARBER: Mr. Speaker, if I may reply very briefly, would
you permit for purposes of debate on what I believe is a progressive
and far-sighted bill an amendment which would remove...
Interjections.
MR. BARBER: ...from the bill itself any thoughts of an impost against the Crown?
MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): You can't amend something that's out of order.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Interjections.
MR. SPEAKER: I am sorry, Hon. Member, the bill is clearly out
of order. It has been brought to my attention on a point of order. I
must rule that it is out of order.
Interjections.
MR. BARBER: We are well aware — we needn't trick one another
— that there is a larger debate going on here today. In view of it, I
must challenge the ruling of the Chair.
MS. BROWN: You don't have to hate bicycles because you sell cars.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Interjections.
MR. SPEAKER: The Chair's ruling has been challenged; there is no debate.
Interjections.
MR. SPEAKER: Order!
MR. BARBER: Don't try and push the bill through.
MR. SPEAKER: The ruling of the Chair has been challenged; there is no debate on the challenge. Shall the ruling of the Chair be sustained?
AN HON. MEMBER: Division.
Interjections.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Interjections.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
[Mr. Speaker rises.]
MR. SPEAKER: The Speaker has no intention of asking a Clerk
of this House to subject himself to the embarrassment of trying to read
a list of how the vote went when there is this continual chatter going
on back and forth across the floor. If everyone in this House wishes to
disrupt the business of the House and proceed with nothing, that's
exactly what will be accomplished this afternoon. But I have no
intention, as Speaker of this House, to ask one of the Clerks of this
assembly to read the list of the way that members voted until we have
the attention and the respect that the Clerks deserve.
[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]
Mr. Speaker's ruling sustained on the following division:
[ Page 2525 ]
YEAS — 33
Fraser
Davis
McClelland
Williams
Waterland
Mair
Nielsen
Vander Zalm
Davidson
Haddad
Hewitt
Kahl
Kerster
Lloyd
McCarthy
Gardom
Bennett
Wolfe
McGeer
Phillips
Curtis
Calder
Shelford
Chabot
Jordan
Schroeder
Bawlf
Bawtree
Loewen
Mussallem
Veitch
Wallace, G.S.
Gibson
NAYS — 9
King
Lea
Nicolson
Barber
Brown
Barnes
Lockstead
Skelly
Levi
Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.
MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, if I may indulge on the House, I would
suggest to the House Leader (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) that we have no
objection to going to public bills provided the House leader is willing
to give us time to study Bill 58. If the government has no intention of
introducing that bill for second reading this afternoon, we would be
prepared to move to public bills and orders.
HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Second reading of Bill 37.
LAND REGISTRY AMENDMENT ACT, 1976
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) .
MR. BARBER: The hon. member for Comox is absent, and I rise to move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.
Motion approved.
HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill 38.
PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES
DISCLOSURE ACT AMENDMENT ACT, 1976
Mr. Barber moves adjournment of the debate.
Motion approved.
HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Second reading of Bill 39.
COMMUNITY OF PROPERTY ACT
MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): I am very pleased to rise
in support of this legislation, and I would like to inform the House
that there is no impost on the Crown. It does not call for any
expenditure. I know the member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) is
checking this very carefully. This bill is completely and totally in
order, and it has to do with a philosophy and a concept which I
certainly hope every side of the House agrees with.
Mr. Speaker, the previous government, as you know, introduced the
royal commission — Mr. Justice Berger's commission on the family and
children's law — and at that time the commission looked very carefully
into the whole area of community of property as it is presently on the
books in this province. The commission sat a number of days,
submissions were made by individuals as well as by groups, and
precedents and the laws in other provinces as well as in other
countries around the world were taken into account before Mr. Justice
Berger brought down his recommendation.
This piece of legislation which I have drafted and which I certainly
hope is going to get the complete consent of the government and of all
members of the House was based on the recommendation of Mr. Justice
Berger and his commission.
Mr. Speaker, because I take this matter very, very seriously, I
consulted with a number of legal minds to ensure that when the bill is
introduced it would be completely and totally in order so that no
condition or no excuse could be used to rule it out of order, but that
in fact it would receive the attention of every member of this House,
and everyone in fact would participate in the debate to ensure that a
traditional and historical wrong which has existed in this province and
in this country since the beginning of time could be set right.
I'm very disappointed to see that the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr.
Gardom) is not in his seat, Mr. Speaker. Oh, the Attorney-General is
back. In fact it is the Attorney-General who would be responsible for
the implementation of this legislation. I would appreciate it also if
the Attorney-General would read this bill, Bill 39, very carefully and
find it within his jurisdiction and within his power to support it.
Mr. Speaker, I want to just give a couple of examples of things that
have happened to various people in the Canadian community as a result
of the fact that this kind of legislation is not presently in existence.
I am sure the whole House is familiar with the case of Murdoch v.
Murdoch. I know all of the legal minds certainly are, and I know all of
the women in the House certainly are because it was precedent-setting,
it was a historical decision which was brought
[ Page 2526 ]
down by the Supreme Court of Canada.
What that decision said, Mr. Speaker, was that the two people
involved in a marriage were not equal partners, that in fact any assets
accrued during the lifetime of that marriage, whether it was property
or whatever, was in the sole ownership of the husband, that in fact the
wife was not an equal partner despite the fact that she worked
continually throughout the duration of that marriage, and even if she
contributed money to the accumulation of assets in that marriage.
The story of Mrs. Murdoch, of course, is that when she married Mr.
Murdoch she took into the marriage a
section of land. She was the
person; it was her land that went into the marriage. During the more
than 25 years of that marriage she worked equally with him as a farm
wife, and all of the farmers in this House know that the wife of the
farmer is not an appendage; she is a hard-working equal partner in the
marriage. For more than 25 years Mrs. Murdoch worked as an equal
partner in this marriage.
She did more than that, Mr. Speaker, because it was not a farm that
was self-sustaining, and to ensure that there was sufficient income for
the family to live on, Mr. Murdoch had to leave the farm every summer
and go into the city to work.
During that period, the busiest time on the farm, Mrs. Murdoch
remained and was solely responsible for the running of that farm.
During the summer months, which again all the farmers will agree is the
busiest time on the farm, the person who remained on the farm and who
worked on the farm, was not Mr. Murdoch; it was Mrs. Murdoch.
After more than 25 years of marriage the marriage came to an end.
It's not necessary for me, Mr. Speaker, to go into the details except
to say that on one occasion after she had been severely beaten by Mr.
Murdoch and thrown out of the house she decided to file for divorce.
The settlement which she was allowed by the courts was $200 a month.
After 25 years of marriage, after going into the marriage with a
section of land, after working full time on the farm to the point where
at the end of the marriage there were now three sections of land, the
courts of this land, Mr. Speaker, awarded her support payments of $200
a month; and she also had a spoon which, at the time she was thrown out
of the House by Mr. Murdoch, she had in her hand. She was allowed to
keep the spoon — $200 a month and a spoon, after more than 25 years of
marriage, rearing the children, working full time on the farm and,
again I repeat, going into the marriage initially with a
section of
land which was hers.
This decision was appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada because
this was a decision which was brought down by a court in Alberta. This
decision was appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada, and the Supreme
Court of Canada, Mr. Speaker, upheld this decision. The Supreme Court
upheld this decision on the grounds that what Mrs. Murdoch had done
during those more than 25 years of marriage was no more or no less than
is expected of any wife in this country during the duration of a
marriage. So the Supreme Court of Canada upheld that her settlement
should be $200 a month, and again they agreed that she should be
allowed to keep the spoon.
There was, Mr. Speaker, a dissenting opinion. Let the record show to
his credit that Mr. Bora Laskin, our Chief Justice of Canada,
registered a dissenting opinion to that judgment. Nonetheless, that was
not sufficient to overrule the decision, and to this day, Mr. Speaker,
Mrs. Murdoch still is receiving $200 a month in support payments from
her husband. He has complete and total and unchallenged ownership of
the three sections of land which she worked so hard to make possible
for both of them to acquire.
Mr. Speaker, everyone agreed at the time when that decision was
brought down that it was unjust and that it was unfair, but everyone
agreed that it was legal. In fact, as the law is now written, as the
law now stands on the books, the decision was legal because in this
country, and indeed in this province, a wife is not deemed to be an
equal partner in a marriage. A wife is not deemed to be an equal
partner in a marriage, and it makes absolutely no difference how long
she may work or how hard she may work. As the law is presently written
she is without any rights except those awarded her through the
generosity of the courts.
There is a further injustice, Mr. Speaker, if I can quote another
case, and that is of another marriage which lasted more than 30 years.
During the period of that time, Mr. Speaker, the wife involved in that
marriage built up a savings account. But she had never worked. When the
decision was made at her divorce hearing that, in fact, the divorce
should be allowed, the husband petitioned for the assets in her savings
account on the grounds that he had transferred these funds to her
account, that it was his money which he had transferred to her account
as a tax shelter.
The courts accepted his statement because, as the law now stands,
for a woman in this country who has never worked at any time during the
duration of a marriage, everything that she has is deemed to be a gift
from her husband and as such can be taken back by him at any time.
Everyone agrees that this is unfair and unjust. There is no question
about that, Mr. Speaker. But everyone also says that that is the law.
Mr. Attorney-General, that is the law as it now stands on the books.
I wouldn't like to create the impression that every time a marriage
is dissolved the fault is entirely either on one partner or another
because, in fact, it takes two people to make a marriage work, and it
often takes two people to make it not work — most often. So really what
we're talking about is taking the
[ Page 2527 ]
concept of adversary out of the dissolution of
marriage. I see the Attorney-General listening intently, and I know
that he knows Judge Bowker and the work that she has been doing in
Edmonton in terms of this whole concept of no fault being placed either
at the steps of one partner or the other when the marriage comes into
account.
Now if we're going to accept the concept of no fault, if we are
going to take the adversary concept out of marriage, then we certainly
have to start out by assuming that both partners involved are equal.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that you are not overworking yourself in an
attempt to find that this little bill is out of order, because I can
assure you that it is not. I have worked very hard to ensure that this
bill is in order, and I would appreciate it, Mr. Speaker, if you would
stop working so hard to try and find that it is out of order, because
it is not out of order.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, Hon. Member. Because I happen to be
conferring with the rules of the House does not mean that I am looking
to try and find a way of ruling your bill out of order.
MS. BROWN: Oh, thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: It just might be that I am looking at some of the other bills that may come up this afternoon.
MS. BROWN: I stand reassured, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: I am sure you do.
MS. BROWN: I stand reassured.
AN HON. MEMBER: You're a little oversensitive.
MS. BROWN: Yes, but I'm not oversensitive about the Speaker.
I know that the Speaker can see the injustice in the law as it
presently stands, and really most of my remarks are directed almost
exclusively, though not entirely, to the Attorney-General, who has been
Attorney-General of this province for five months and has permitted
this injustice to go on for that length of time.
HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): Oh! (Laughter.)
MS. BROWN: Shame, Mr. Attorney-General!
HON. MR. GARDOM: Please put the laugh in.
MS. BROWN: Sure, let the record show that the Attorney-General smiled — that I chuckled and he smiled.
Interjections.
MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I guess it must have been in 1971
that the Law Reform Commission of British Columbia was first given the
responsibility to look at the whole concept of community of property in
the province. Now the Attorney-General can correct me if I'm wrong, but
I think it was either 1970 or 1971.
At that time, members of the Vancouver Status of Women council, and
other women's groups in Vancouver and around the province, met with Mr.
Richard Goss, who was then the chairperson of the Law Reform
Commission. A couple of issues were raised in terms of the fairness of
making community of property equal in a union. The concern was that
some poor, unsuspecting male with a lot of property could be swept off
his feet by some scheming female with a lot of brain but no property,
and then....
Interjection.
MS. BROWN: Right. Happy the day — true. And then, Mr.
Speaker, the marriage would be dissolved within 24 hours, or, as with
Bill 58, within 16 hours, and then she would be entitled to half of all
of the property.
Now we took that into account and we agreed that would have been as
unfair as the bill is as it now stands, namely that absolutely nothing
that she does is considered as part of the assets accrued. So the
recommendation we made at that time to the Law Reform Commission was
that only what was accrued after the marriage should be considered as
equal property between the two members. In other words, if she went —
as Mrs. Murdoch did — into the marriage with a
section of land, and she
wanted to share that equally, fine, she had the right to do that. If,
on the other hand, she wanted not to share it....
MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): How about equal earnings?
MS. BROWN: Just a minute — I'll get around to that. I'm
designated speaker, so I've got a few hours to go. I'll get around to
all the questions.
AN HON. MEMBER: How about the lady who sleeps every afternoon?
MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, the member is heckling me.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, hon. members. The hon. first member for Vancouver-Burrard has the floor.
MS. BROWN: As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, before I was being attacked, any property brought into the
[ Page 2528 ]
marriage by either of the members of the union —
whether it be the male involved or the female — that partner would have
the right to decide whether that property should be designated as
common property, or if it should be retained as being solely owned by
one partner in the marriage. However, any property accrued after the
marriage would have to be designated as common property.
The member for Burnaby asked what about the wife who sleeps every
afternoon. Mr. Speaker, a study was done in one of the universities in
the United States. This study tried to measure the work ability and the
work capacity of various men. It compared the work capacity of single
men with that of married men; it compared that of single women with
that of married women. In each instance the report showed that of the
married people involved, the work level was higher. In fact, marriage
enhanced the ability of both the female and the male to accrue
property, or to indulge themselves in the form of work they happened to
be involved in at that time.
As a result of this, Mr. Speaker, it must be very clear, even to the member for Burnaby....
Interjection.
MS. BROWN: I'm going to get around to your wife who sleeps every afternoon, Mr. Member.
What I'm trying to say, Mr. Speaker, if that member would just allow
me to get my position across, is that in fact it takes two people to
work together in terms of whatever is accrued after the marriage.
Interjection.
MS. BROWN: It's much more enjoyable, I agree. Nonetheless, we're talking about marriage, Mr. Member.
But in fact, Mr. Speaker, what we're also talking about is the fact
that both people work together in a marriage to acquire whatever is
acquired by them in every way. Both people work together, Mr. Speaker,
in a marriage in terms of parenting. It is not the responsibility of
either one partner or the other but both. Both people work together to
turn a house into a home. It takes both people to do that, and when the
law says, as it presently does, that only that work which is done
outside of the home is deemed to be valuable, then the law is wrong.
The law is very clearly wrong, Mr. Attorney-General.
All the bill is asking is that the law should recognize as work of
equal value that work done within the home as well as that work done
outside of the home. What the bill is saying is that it should not even
be necessary for the partner who chooses to remain at home, whether the
partner is female or the partner is male, to have done some work
outside of the home, that in fact the work that's done in the home is
as valuable to society as a whole, and cannot even be measured in
dollars and cents.
Surely the Minister of Health, who stood on his feet and spoke about
the cost to the community of delinquency and alcoholism, agrees that
the role of the partner who remains at home is as valuable to society
as the role of the partner who works outside of the home. How then can
you as a government tolerate legislation which very clearly penalizes
the partner who remains at home? How then can you as a government
tolerate legislation that very clearly says that the partner who
remains at home is making no contribution whatsoever to any assets
being accrued by that particular union? This is what this bill is going
to give the government an opportunity to set right, Mr. Speaker. What
this bill addresses itself to is the concept of the importance of the
partner who remains at home.
I want to digress here for a minute to point out that it's becoming
increasingly true that often the partner who remains at home is the
male. More and more men, Mr. Speaker, are opting for the homemaker
role. It's true. The member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) shakes his
head, but it's an incredible phenomenon which, Mr. Speaker, is
happening all over North America — that more and more men are opting
for the role of homemaker and full-time parent in the home, even on a
temporary basis. We are finding more and more unions where they take
turns while the children are small, Mr. Speaker, working outside of the
home, and both parents take turns being at home, dealing with the
parenting.
Despite this, the law still very clearly shows a bias which states
that the work done by the partner who remains at home is deemed not to
be of value, and any assets accrued within that union go to one partner
only, unless that person hires a lawyer who goes through the courts and
fights for that person's rights.
This brings me to my other point, Mr. Speaker, and that is the bias
which so often is displayed by the legal profession in dealing with the
division of property at the dissolution of a marriage. I can quote
again the case of a woman which was brought to me no more than three
days ago. At the age of 55 she now finds that her husband has decided
to trade her in on a newer model, Mr. Speaker. The children are grown
and they've left home, and he's decided that it's time...and his exact
words to her were "you go and do your thing, and I'll go and do mine" —
not taking into account that her thing is staying at home and
continuing to be the wife and mother, which she had been for nearly 30
years.
She went to her lawyer, Mr. Speaker — an excellent lawyer who was
recommended to her by a friend — and said to the lawyer that she would
like to
[ Page 2529 ]
retain ownership of the family home, that at 55 she
did not want to pull up roots. They had lived in this home since their
marriage, her three children had been born there — and this is very
unusual in this very transient day and age of ours. They had grown and
gone to university, and the last one had married and left home. She did
not want to leave this home.
However, Mr. Speaker, over the years they had mortgaged and
remortgaged and remortgaged the home. At this time, the home still has
a mortgage on it which calls for payments of nearly $300 a month. When
she went to her lawyer she said: "Rather than maintenance, I would like
to retain possession of this home if my husband, or ex-husband as he
will be, will continue to meet the mortgage payments of nearly $300 a
month." What she was suggesting doing at age 55 was that she could
probably go out and do babysitting or whatever until she was old enough
to become eligible for Mincome, because she anticipated that Mincome
would still be in existence at the time.
Her lawyer said to her — this is her lawyer, Mr. Speaker, who is
going to be paid to go through the courts and file her divorce for her
— that he thought that she was being unreasonable, that in fact she had
been kept by this husband for nearly 30 years and that to ask him to
continue to keep her in this house and meet the mortgage payments was
unreasonable. He absolutely denigrated the nearly 30 years of work that
that woman had put into this union, and did not and would not support
her case that she should be at least allowed to keep the family home
and that the mortgage payments should be made on the home so that that
would be possible and that she would try to support herself in other
ways.
His suggestion was that she should get $300 a month and that was it,
that in fact the home had been bought by the husband, which is true.
There is no question that the initial down payment on the house had
been made by the husband. His argument was that that being the case,
the husband should have the home and she should settle for $300 a month
and try to pick up some money in other ways and continue until she was
eligible either for Mincome or died or whatever it is that happens.
The first point is, Mr. Speaker, that at 55 years of age, male or
female, there are very few jobs open to you to try and get into the
labour market. The truth also is that it is more difficult for a woman
to find a job at 55 years of age than at other times. The fact is that
the only thing that she was equipped to do, and the only experience
which this woman had to take into the labour market, were her
home-making experiences. She had been a full-time wife and mother for
nearly 30 years. She was a complete and total expert at parenting; she
was an expert at being a wife; she was an expert at taking care of the
family home and all the kinds of skills that that calls for — skills in
accounting, skills in budgeting, skills in decision-making — the kinds
of skills that go with keeping the family home running smoothly and
getting everyone in it to where they have to be successfully on time.
[Mr. Schroeder in the chair.]
These skills are not appreciated outside of the some. If at age 55,
Mr. Speaker, you should find yourself as a woman going out onto the
labour market and saying, "I am looking for a job and I have early 30
years of home-making skills, " you will find at it is a very, very
difficult thing indeed to secure employment at that time.
On my recommendation, this woman went to see the ombudservice of the
Vancouver Status of Women council. Now one of the really valuable
services that the Status of Women council delivers is that it keeps in
hand a roster of lawyers who are competent and skilled in the area of
family law, because there aren't many lawyers around who are competent
and skilled in the area of family law. I am really pleased that the
Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) is sitting here, Mr. Speaker,
because you realize that the Vancouver Status of Women council depends
on the generosity of the Provincial Secretary for their continued
funding.
However, the ombudservice of the Vancouver Status of Women council
took this woman's case into account and referred her to another lawyer
who did not demonstrate the bias of her first lawyer. She is going to
be represented by someone who is more sympathetic and, indeed, more
understanding of the whole area of family law.
Despite this, Mr. Speaker, because of the law as it presently is on
the books, there is a very good chance hat this woman is not going to
be permitted to keep the family home, that the mortgage payments are
not going to be paid and that, in fact, Mrs. Murdoch may end up with
support payments of $200 a month or $250 a month, depending on the
decision of the courts at the time and that is all.
If this bill, Bill 39 which I am introducing to the House today in
second reading, was accepted by the government and made law, women like
that woman would be protected, Mr. Speaker, from the very sure poverty
which is her lot. She is going to end up having nothing or very close
to nothing. She is going to end up spending the last years of her life,
be they 10, 15 or 20, as close to poverty as it is possible to be after
investing willingly nearly 30 years of her time and her energy.
She did it willingly. Nobody is forced into a marriage in this
country. So, Mr. Speaker, please don't get me wrong. She did it
willingly. But after nearly 30 years of that, because of the injustice
in the law as it applies to matrimonial property — in this province and
in this country, this woman and many
[ Page 2530 ]
other women like her will end up in their senior years in poverty — in poverty, Mr. Speaker.
The government is interested in saving money. Does the government
have any idea what it would save in terms of its Mincome payments and
its s payments to women over the age of 60 and 65 if there was a just
community of property law enforced in this province? Have you any idea
how many women there are collecting welfare? Now I am not speaking
about our senior citizens. I am speaking about younger women in their
40s. How many younger women are there — in their 30s? There are even
younger women with small children who are collecting welfare but who
would not need to if we had a fair community of property law enforced
in this province.
What are the reasons, Mr. Speaker, aside from the traditional and
historical ones that go back to the beginning of time when laws said
that married women were incompetent and therefore should not be allowed
to make any sort of decisions, that they needed to be cared for, first
of all, by their fathers and that they went from their father's house
into their husband's house and that they needed to be cared for by
their husbands and if they had no husband, a guardian was assigned to
them — a brother, cousin or whatever? There were laws made in the
1800s, 1700s and 1600s that clearly stated that married women were
incompetent. In fact, it's on the books.
Interjections.
MS. BROWN: Some of those laws are still on the books. There
are still laws on the books, federal laws on the books, brought down
Because what that law presumes, first of all, is that no woman in her right mind would get married. Therefore
she has to be classed with lunatics. No mature woman would get married.
Therefore she must be classed with kids. If an immature, mad woman got
married, then it made sense that she must be considered incompetent.
Hundreds of years have gone by and that concept of the married woman
still stands. Is it going to stand through until the 21st century and
the 22nd century and the 23rd century, Mr. Speaker? When is that
historical and traditional stereotype going to be confronted and
changed? When?
Okay. The previous government got it started, Mr. Speaker, when it established
the Berger commission on family law. The present government inherited a very
comprehensive report — report No. 6 on matrimonial property. I am sure that
there are members in the government who have read this report from cover to cover
and have seen the learned words of
Mr. Justice Berger, have read the recommendations, have read the
petitions put forward and agree that there is a way to deal with this
iniquitous legislation that is presently on the books, to set the
record straight, to clean up and remove this terrible stereotype that
has followed married women down through the ages, this terrible scar
that depicts us as being lunatics, incompetents and childlike.
This is the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, which this bill, Bill 39,
offers to the government. Again, I must say, and with regret, that I'm
sorry the Attorney-General is not here because in fact the
Attorney-General holds the fate of all married women in this province
in his hand.
AN HON. MEMBER: God help them!
MS. BROWN: Did somebody say "God help them"? Yes. Let the record show.
AN HON. MEMBER: God help him.
MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, the Attorney-General holds in his
hand the fate of all married women in this province. He has it within
his reach to undo hundreds of years of injustice. He has it within his
reach to set right a wrong that has lived with us for too long. He also
has it within his reach to save the government money, as I pointed out
to you earlier.
I notice that the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), under
his jurisdiction, is going to establish a bureau which is going to go and seek
out husbands who are not paying their maintenance, and collect their maintenance
for them, that he's establishing a bureau that will have relationships with
other provinces and other parts of the world so that, indeed, husbands who leave
the province and go to other provinces, or husbands who go to other countries,
can be tracked down and their maintenance payments be collected.
That would not be necessary if the law did not hold that the male
and the female in a marriage were not equal. If the law established
right at the very beginning that the marriage is between two equal
partners throughout the duration of the marriage, through to the
dissolution of that marriage, then at the time the marriage is
dissolved or terminated, instead of talking about one partner
maintaining another, or one partner being maintained by another, what
we would deal with is an equal division of assets accrued during the
duration of that marriage.
There's another point too, Mr. Speaker. Did you realize that many of
the insults and injustices which married women face when they try to
get loans from banks or financial institutions, when they try to
acquire credit cards of credit in their own name, when they try to get
mortgages, or whatever...do you realize that the difficulties married
women have
[ Page 2531 ]
in those areas can be traced back to the fact that
within the marriage they are not considered to have anything — to have
any property, to have any collateral?
When you go into the bank to negotiate a loan, if you are a married women,
the bank demands that your husband come in and co-sign for your loan because
the banks recognize that according to the laws of this land everything you have
you are really just holding in trust for your husband, and he can say that it
was a gift which was given to you and he has now decided he would like to
recapture that gift.
Therefore you cannot put it up as collateral because the husband has
first call on that gift. Therefore they cannot do business with you;
they cannot negotiate a loan with you because they do not have first
call on any collateral you might put up.
Do you realize that this is the same thinking that goes into the
refusal of many large department stores to give a women a credit card
in her own name?
True, pressure has been put on a lot of the department stores; they
recognize that it makes no difference who earns the money, that in fact
it's usually the woman who spends it. So as a PR gesture, nowadays when
you apply for a credit card in your name, most of the larger department
stores will give you that credit card in your name. But when you look
at the form that you have to fill out, it is very clearly stated there
that the person who is going to be held responsible for any other debts
that you accrue under that credit card is not going to be you, the
married woman; it's going to be the husband, because again the
department stores recognize the law as it stands on the books, namely
that you are an appendage. You are owned and operated by your husband;
you have what he deems you should have, and at any time you can be
traded in or be disenfranchised, or whatever, at his whim and at his
fancy.
Do you realize, Mr. Speaker, that that is also at the root of the
difficulty of some women to be able to negotiate mortgages in their own
name, despite the fact that the money being used to purchase the
property, or whatever, may be money which that woman herself owns?
Do you realize that when the decision is made to give her the
mortgage, that a percentage — only a percentage — of her income is
taken into account, that the entire income is never taken into account,
again for these very basic reasons?
In fact, Mr. Speaker, the reality of the situation is s that the
concept of property is at the base of all financial and economic
negotiations that go on in this I country. Property is at the basis of
it. When a women is denied the right to share in the property accrued
in t her marriage, you have removed from her a very basic right
indeed.
I can't speak too strongly in support of this bill, Mr. Speaker. I can't
go into too much detail on it, because I really believe that if we could set
the record straight in this one particular issue, we would have gone more than
halfway to dealing with so many of he basic inequities in our society that entrap
women in poverty and keep them poor for all the days of their lives.
That's what poverty's all about — it's not having anything. It's not
only not having anything but never even having the option to have
anything. Because the law very clearly states that during those 25 or
30 years or 35 or 40 years or whatever that you remain at home
discharging your duties as wife and mother, what you do is not
considered to be of value. It's not counted in the GNP anywhere in the
world.
In this province, Mr. Speaker, when I wanted to speak on the debate
on the budget which was brought down, I contacted the Minister of
Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), and I said to him — not
directly but through someone in his department — I would like in round
figures some indication of the financial worth in terms of the economy
of married women in this province. Have you ever measured it in terms
of even if they are paid the minimum wage?
I was told by that department that it was not possible for them to
give me that figure and that I should try the bureau of statistics in
Ottawa. Because surely if anyone had it, Ottawa would have it.
So I contacted Ottawa, Mr. Speaker. It just happened that I was on
my way to Ottawa to a meeting which was to establish the setting up of
a national research on women, you know, the national research on women.
While I was there I met with some people from the bureau of statistics,
and they didn't have it. They'd never done any research or any study on
it, because it had never been considered important.
AN HON. MEMBER: Research on what?
MS. BROWN: The input of women into the GNP — and I'm
referring to not women who work outside of the home but women who work
within the home.
Interjection.
MS. BROWN: Oh, yes. But, you know, I'm not going to do that
member's research for him because, I know that as a backbencher he's
got a lot of time on his hands, Mr. Speaker. You know, I'm part of a
very small opposition, and we work very hard over here. If that member
needs information, he's got lots of time.
I think he should get his research done himself. But what he's
never been interested in our input, the input of women who remain in
the home into the GNP.
They're not unusual in this, because when I
[ Page 2532 ]
tried.... When I wrote letters off to the United States to see if I could get
information from them about the input of the American women who remain in
the home into the GNP, it wasn't measured there either. Nobody measures
it, because nobody has ever considered it to be that important. It's never
been considered to be important.
Yet you will agree, Mr. Speaker, because I know I you are a gentleman of many
years of marriage, that in terms of the work done in the home, the women who
work in the home would never meet any of the Labour Code regulations.
You know, the member for Burnaby talks about the wife who sleeps in
the afternoon. He doesn't mention the wife who gets up in the morning
and gets the house warm and the food ready so when he gets out of bed,
he says, "Good morning, darling," and he sits down and it's all there
on the table, you know, a little rosebud in the vase and everything.
All he has to do is eat it, get up and say "Thank you, darling, " and
he's gone. You know, and the work is all there.
MR. CHABOT: Does he eat the rosebud?
MS. BROWN: He eats the rosebud, yes.
You know, Mr. Speaker, he complains about the wife who sleeps in the afternoon. He doesn't tell you about the....
MR. R.L. LOEWEN (Burnaby-Willingdon): Objection!
Interjections.
MS. BROWN: Oh, I'm sorry. Didn't you complain about your wife sleeping in the afternoons?
AN HON. MEMBER: No!
MS. BROWN: Oh, someone else's wife sleeps in the afternoon? (Laughter.)
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Would you please address the Chair?
MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry. I mean, I wouldn't want
one word to get out that the member was referring to his wife sleeping
in the afternoon if he meant it was someone else's wife he was talking
about.
AN HON. MEMBER: Name names!
MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, it's interesting that the hon. member
never talks about the wife who will sit up all night with a sick child,
with sick children, or with a sick husband, or a sick neighbour, or a
sick friend, or whatever. The hon. member never talks bout the fact
that the average woman who works in the home puts in a 17-hour day in
many instances.
MR. LOEWEN: Mine does — 18 hours.
MS. BROWN: His wife puts in 18 hours. Let the record show
that that member works his wife 18 hours a day, Mr. Speaker. He said it
himself, the member for Burnaby — 18 hours a day. Yet the law is very
clear that there is no value attached to that work. Neither during the
duration of that marriage nor at the time of its dissolution is the
concept of the value of that work ever taken into account.
What we hear about when the marriage is over is maintenance —
maintenance. That is an insulting word, maintenance. That's very
insulting, to talk about maintaining a person who has put in a number
of years, who has earned her share — her equal share, and sometimes
more than her share — and then to be told that she's being maintained
by her husband at the time that the marriage is over.
This is what this legislation deals with, and I think that it is of
value for us to see.... Oh, someone pointed out to me, Mr. Speaker,
that women do laundry and change the beds. I'm not quite sure.
AN HON. MEMBER: In hotel operations.
MS. BROWN: Oh, in hotel operations and business ventures, Mr.
Speaker. Well, that's true, but I think it would do well to read into
the record, certainly, Mr. Justice Berger's introduction. He says that
what he is doing is proposing "a significant change" — and I think that
that's the crucial word there that we're dealing with — "a significant
change in the law affecting the property rights of married couples,"
and he takes both partners into account.
I have been speaking specifically on behalf of the women as the ones
who are deprived under the existing legislation, but Mr. Justice Berger
said both people involved. He said: "While this proposed change to
community of property may be seen as a fundamental departure from the
existing law of separate property, it is felt that the notion of
community of property more adequately reflects the way both partners
intend their married life to be ordered."
As a minister of the church, Mr. Speaker, I know that you agree that
when both people come before you — if you still marry people; I'm not
sure whether you do or not — but when both partners come before you,
certainly in the eye of the church anyway, they come as equals. They
stand before you as equals, I hope. Do they stand before you as equals?
Yes, they stand before you as equals.
MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): They don't leave that way. (Laughter.)
[ Page 2533 ]
MS. BROWN: In fact, Mr. Speaker, the law of the church sees
them as equals, and what I'm suggesting in this legislation is that
maybe the law of the land, Mr. Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot),
maybe the law of the land should see them as equal too. By accepting
this legislation you are doing what Mr. Justice Berger suggested, and
that is allowing both of the partners to participate in their
relationship as equals.
Mr. Speaker, I'm really glad to be able to talk on this community of
property legislation because, for one thing, aside from fighting for
the rights of married women in this province, it gives the members of
the opposition an opportunity to read Bill 58 so that we will be able
to discuss it more intelligently when the time comes.
MR. KAHL: I thought you were talking on behalf of the women, not your people who didn't do their research.
MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I really hope that one of these days
that member for Esquimalt will stand on his feet in this House and say
something of value instead of sitting in his chair and just heckling
across the floor. Esquimalt deserves better than that, believe me, and
Esquimalt used to have better than that. It really saddens me, because
one of the people....
Interjections.
MS. BROWN: That's right. One of the people, Mr. Speaker, who
supported this concept of community of property was the former member
for Esquimalt (Mr. Gorst). That's right — the former member for
Esquimalt.
I stand before you, Mr. Speaker, dealing with a very serious matter
affecting more than 50 per cent of the people who live in his riding,
and instead of listening and making a commitment to them, he's heckling
me.
I guess this is a Victoria phenomenon, because now the first member for Victoria (Mr. Bawlf) is heckling me too.
AN HON. MEMBER: Answer my question then. How come you didn't bring it in?
Interjections.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.
MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I'm going to start from the beginning
again and explain it to the first member for Victoria because he was
not in his seat when I said that in the interest of doing the job
properly and thoroughly, the previous government started out by
constituting a family law commission under Mr. Justice Berger — I made
it very clear, Mr. First Member for Victoria (Mr. Bawlf) — and that the
report was brought down and the present government now has at its
disposal all of the recommendations.
If you will notice, Mr. Speaker, he asks a question and then he
doesn't listen, and so he's going to ask the question again and force
me to explain again to him. You know, Victoria deserves better than
that.
DEPUTY SPEAKER: Back to the principle of the bill.
MS. BROWN: Back to the principle of the bill, Mr. Speaker.
The basic principle of the bill is that all people in this province
should be considered as equals under the law, and as the law is
presently constituted, this is not so.
In fact, married women in this province are not considered as equals
under the law, and that really is the basic principle of this bill.
We have legislation — the Human Rights Act — which says everybody in
this province should be treated equally regardless of their race, sex,
creed, or whatever, yet we still have on the books a bill which defies
Bill 100, our human rights legislation. The property laws of this
province actually go against the human rights legislation of this
province. In fact, if married women wanted to be frivolous — I don't
know whether it's true because I'm not a legal person — they could
challenge, using the Human Rights Code, Bill 100, discrimination of
their right to equal property. I don't know if that's possible, but it
should be.
We should be able to file with the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr.
Williams) under Bill 100 for discrimination on the grounds of our right
to equal property in the marriage. Nobody's ever done it, and I don't
think it should be necessary, because we have right here a report that
lays it out very clearly.
It practically writes the legislation, Mr. Speaker. All that the
Attorney-General's department has to do is accept the concept of
equality before the law of all people, including married women. All
that the Attorney-General has to do is to deny the traditional law, the
historical law which says that married women are not equal, that
married women are incompetent, that they should be in the same category
as children and lunatics.
Really, after 2,000 years of having lived on this earth, Mr.
Speaker, surely we have demonstrated that we are equal. We have
demonstrated our right to equal treatment under the law, yet we find
today, in the year 1976, that on the books of this province...and I'm
not blaming the province alone, because it's on the books of Canada,
too. The national government discriminates against married women. But
we have the opportunity here in this
[ Page 2534 ]
province, in this Legislature, to do something about it. We have that opportunity.
I'm a firm believer in changing things where you are. Charity begins
at home. You start where you are. Before you go rushing off to change
things somewhere else, you make sure your own house is in order. Our
house is not in order. Your government, Mr. Speaker — this province's
government, because you're a member of this province — is permitting to
sit on the books legislation that very clearly penalizes us and
penalizes all women who dare to marry. It's as simple as that. It's a
penalty that you have to pay. At the same time that we are being
honoured on Mother's Day, at the same time that songs are being written
about the wonders of our role as mothers and parents, at the same time
when we are continually being told — and we believe — that the most
valuable contribution that we can make to society is in the home, we're
being penalized for this.
Does that make any sense to you? It doesn't make any sense to me. It
makes sense to the lawyers, but then a lot of things make sense to the
lawyers that don't make sense to anyone else. I withdraw that. That was
unkind, but it's true nonetheless.
When I introduced this legislation, Mr. Speaker, I did it in all
sincerity, because I thought that the Attorney-General would have
requested that I withdraw Bill 39 so that he could introduce
community-of-property legislation.
Yesterday when I sat in this House, Mr. Speaker, and witnessed 16
bills, 16 messages from the Lieutenant-Governor.... Surely the
Lieutenant-Governor could have taken the time to write one more
message, maybe one more message dealing with the community of property.
Surely the Lieutenant-Governor could have done that, Mr. Member for
Columbia River (Mr. Chabot), who I know agrees with every word I'm
saying at this time.
It's a very basic principle. It's a very basic concept which
everyone agrees with yet nobody does anything about. Nobody does
anything about it, Mr. Speaker. How long are we going to have to wait?
Isn't 2,000 years long enough, Mr. Member for Delta, (Mr. Davidson),
through you, Mr. Speaker? We've been waiting 2,000 years for married
women to be treated as equals before the law, in the same way that
other people are. How much longer do we have to wait?
It should have been the first piece of legislation dealt with by
that government, which is so concerned about the rights of the
individual that it has brought down some really good pieces of
legislation — the ombudsperson. It has a sexist title. They call it an
ombudsman but I know they mean ombudsperson. I'm going to move an
amendment when the time comes, because I'm sure that they're not
suggesting that only men should apply for that $52,000-a-year job. I'm
sure that that is not what they are saying when they call the bill an
ombudsman bill. I'm sure they recognize that on this earth, walking the
face of this earth, there are others than men, right?
There is the auditor-general bill which we supported, basic
legislation dealing with the rights of individuals. Why haven't the
rights of the married women of this province been taken into account?
How do you explain that, Mr. Speaker? And I'm using the "you"
collectively because, of course, you represent all of the people of
this province as you sit in that chair, not just as the representative
of Chilliwack, or even of yourself as a person, but you represent all
of us when you sit in that chair. So when I put a question to you, Mr.
Speaker, I'm putting it to our government, to your government, to the
government of this entire province.
Why was this bill permitted to sit on the books as a private
member's bill when everyone knows full well that the tradition of the
land is that private member's bills are not allowed to become law? Why?
Why didn't the Attorney-General introduce legislation dealing with the
whole area of community of property as an indication that, during his
tenure of office anyway, all people in this province were going to be
deemed to be equal before the law? Can you answer that question, Mr.
Speaker? You can't. Neither can I and neither can any of the women
married or unmarried, in this province who have failed to understand
why, despite all of their protestations, their submissions, all of the
contributions that they've made to this province and to this country,
they're still being penalized.
Tell me something, Mr. Speaker. Is marriage legal or is it illegal?
When a woman gets married, does she commit an illegal act? It's legal.
Then if it is legal, why is she punished for it?
This is why I hoped the Attorney-General would have been here, so he
could have explained to the House and to us why it is that after Mr.
Justice Berger has carried through his deliberations, has accepted
briefs and submissions from individuals as well as groups, including
some of the churches, including some legal bodies, why when the bar
association of B.C. has come out in support of his recommendations, why
when various groups, including all the women's groups in this province,
have written to him, individually and collectively, why it is when he
was lobbied on March 22 by representatives from the women's groups
around the province, all in support of this piece of legislation, he
has still made no attempt, no effort to introduce into this province,
to put on the books of this province, a law that would right this
historical and traditional wrong.
You see, Mr. Justice Berger says that he believes it is possible
that in recommending the adoption of full and immediate community of
property as a system of matrimonial property for this province...that
in doing this he is acknowledging the equality of men
[ Page 2535 ]
and women within the institution of marriage. That's Mr. Justice Berger.
Then he says: "Finally, it is a system which, upon the breakdown,
divides the community of property on the basis that it was in fact
shared equally while the marriage was intact." In fact we accept that;
you accepted it when I told you the story about Mrs. Murdoch — that
during the duration of that marriage she shared and worked equally
within it. Why is it then that the law will accept that during the
marriage things are shared equally, but at the dissolution of the
marriage suddenly they all belong to just one partner, and none of it
belongs to the other?
We go back to this whole adversary system where she has to hire a
lawyer, he has to hire a lawyer and then the battle is joined over who
shall get what, who acquired what, who contributed what and why. Again,
I repeat that it accepts the concept of the system which, upon the
breakdown, divides the community of property on the basis that it was
in fact shared equally while the marriage was intact; therefore it is
just and equitable that the division be made final when the marriage
dissolves.
Now there isn't anyone in this House who can question the fairness
of Mr. Justice Berger. He is surely a member of the bench, like so many
members of our bench, of whom we are all very proud. There isn't anyone
who has ever questioned the makeup of the family law commission; no one
has ever questioned that. There is no one who questions the way in
which the commission conducted itself. In fact the hearings were all
held in a way to ensure that everyone who wanted to participate could
participate. Why then are we questioning, or why have we failed to act
on the recommendations?
You know, Mr. Speaker, the recommendations are so fair they even
take into account that one party to the marriage may win the Western
Lottery, or the $1 million lottery, and that it wouldn't be fair if one
partner invested $10 and won $1 million that then both partners should
say that half a million of that is mine. The recommendation even takes
into account that windfalls, inheritances and other things that may
acquire to one member of the marriage during the duration of the
marriage need not be considered community of property.
It really has been very well researched; it has been very well
studied. He has looked at California, he has looked at Washington, he
has looked at Great Britain and a number of places around the world.
AN HON. MEMBER: And it's been very well ignored, too.
MS. BROWN: And it's been very well ignored. He's looked at Alberta,
Ontario, Quebec, Saskatchewan, the federal government, Great Britain — and I
said the United States, including Washington, California and other areas.
Think of a possibility that could happen, Mr. Speaker. He talks
about capital gains for those people who play the stock market. He
talks about pensions, because it is still possible in this province
that as a married man you can take out a pension on your life that
stops the day you die. Do you know that? There have been instances —
and it is still possible — that two people who have been sharing a
pension, his pension, and that has been their means of support, can
suddenly find that on the death of the husband that woman has nothing.
Do you realize, Mr. Speaker, that there are still men in this
province who will contribute to that kind of pension scheme, and that
it's okay? It's the law; it's legal. You can be supported one day by
your husband's pension — the two of you — and then he dies and you wake
up the following morning and not only have you lost him; you've lost
the pension too.
How can we permit those kinds of injustices? We can do it as long as
we can say that we didn't know, that we had no idea these kinds of
things were happening. But we can't say that now. We can't say that any
more, because Mr. Justice Berger's report has exposed to the entire
world these injustices — the world including the government. The
government now knows about those unjust pension and superannuation
schemes; the government now knows about the laws on the books that
penalize a woman the moment she becomes married, about those unjust
insurance schemes and everything else. The government has even had an
opportunity to compare the way in which it has been handled in other
parts of the world with the way in which it has been handling it to
date. The facts are there.
Mr. Speaker, if this is too thick and it is too long, an abridged
version has been put out by the commission — a very short one for
people who haven't got the time to read the whole thing — which has the
preamble and the recommendations. It covers the contracting out of
community of property, the transition, the taxation, what happens to
the matrimonial home, pensions, everything. It's right here.
Oh, the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) is back. I am so pleased, Mr. Speaker, that the Attorney-General is back.
Interjection.
MS. BROWN: Before you leave, Mr. Attorney-General, I pointed
out to the House in your absence that the fate of all the married women
in this province is in your hands.
AN HON. MEMBER: And God help them! (Laughter.)
[ Page 2536 ]
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
MS. BROWN: Yes. I hope you have big hands, Mr.
Attorney-General; I hope you have big hands. But most of all, I hope
you have a very open mind on this issue of the....
HON. MR. GARDOM: What about all the married men?
MS. BROWN: No, the married men, Mr. Speaker, have been taken
care of by the laws of this land. The married men have been very well
taken care of by the laws of this land.
Interjections.
MS. BROWN: Oh, I am glad that the Minister of Human Resources
(Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) is back because I was talking about the office
you have set up....
Interjection.
MS. BROWN: No, no, I was speaking about the member for
Burnaby's (Mr. Loewen'
s) wife. There was some misunderstanding about
her sleeping every afternoon.
Interjections.
MS. BROWN: That's right; that's true. Your wife is a married woman, in which event I am fighting her case too, certainly.
Interjection.
MS. BROWN: In a sense, Mr. Speaker.... Are you caught up in
this strange thing that is going on here — that I am trying to get the
members of the government to bring in legislation which will benefit
their own wives? It is strange, isn't it? You are not fighting for your
wives; I am fighting for your wives.
Interjection.
MS. BROWN: Yes. You haven't got a wife. Let the record show that the member for Delta (Mr. Davidson) has no wife, Mr. Speaker.
HON. H.A. CURTIS (Minister of Municipal Affairs): My wife doesn't want you fighting for her.
Interjections.
MS. BROWN: Okay, the member for Saanich and the Islands (Hon.
Mr. Curtis), his wife does not want me to fight for her. She doesn't
want her share of his property.
Interjections.
MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I want to make my position absolutely clear, that the....
Interjections.
MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I want to make my position clear that
I am certainly not speaking on behalf of the wives of any of the
members who would prefer that I not, quite frankly. If the member for
Saanich and the Islands has been delegated by his wife the right to
stand in this House and make speeches on her behalf...
Interjection.
MS. BROWN: Delegated, not designated.
...to say that she is not interested in community of property, I
accept that. Certainly I wouldn't say that the law should be compulsory
and that any wife, who doesn't want to avail herself of the bill should
be forced to do so.
But, Mr. Speaker, I think there is something very ironic, quite
frankly, about the fact that all of the members, with the exception of
the member for Delta, have wives who are being penalized under this law
— penalized under the law as it presently stands on the books — and yet
they have been strangely silent.
MR. SPEAKER: May I suggest to you, Hon. Member, that the laws
that are on the books are not the subject of the principle? It is the
subject of the principle that we are supposed to be debating, the
Community of Property Act, which is now before the House.
MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, thank you very much. I appreciate your statement.
MR. CHABOT: Can I speak on it now?
MS. BROWN: Sure, as soon as I am through, you will have your turn. But I want to point out to the Speaker....
MR. CHABOT: You said we were strangely silent. I want to speak on the bill. Are you going to give me a chance?
MR. LEA: You're stranger when you're not silent.
Interjections.
MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker...
[ Page 2537 ]
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard has the floor.
MS. BROWN: ...he is trying to muzzle me! The member for
Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) is challenging my democratic right to stand
on the floor of this House.
Interjections.
MS. BROWN: You are trying to muzzle me. You are trying to
muzzle me, Mr. Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) . Please defend
me, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: I am sure, Hon. Member, that if that appears to be occurring the Chair will protect you.
MS. BROWN: Thank you. I feel good when the Chair protects me.
I appreciate it. I know I am really being protected when the Chair is
protecting me, Mr. Speaker.
But what I wanted to point out to you is that, in fact, in speaking
to the principle of this Community of Property Act, Bill 39, one has to
recognize that the principle of the bill is dealing with historical and
traditional wrongs of bills presently in existence in the province of
British Columbia. So it's not possible to talk about introducing this
kind of legislation without some reflection on the bills which have
been in existence for such a very long time — ever since our inception,
quite frankly, as a province — which penalize and punish those women
who dare to marry in this province.
Mr. Speaker, the other area which is of great concern to a number of
people has to do with damages for personal injury, damages for medical
expenses, lost earnings and all of these things. Again the
recommendation included in the sixth report on matrimonial property
brought down by Mr. Justice Berger deals with this. He says that where
damages are paid for permanent disability, the court in the winding up
of the community will have power to restore all or part of the damages
to the disabled spouse. I really don't think it's possible for us to
think of anything that hasn't been covered in this very excellent
report or any area that hasn't been covered by Mr. Justice Berger and
his commission in looking into the whole area of matrimonial property.
I also want to point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that this is just the
end of a very long and arduous task which was began many years ago. In
fact, in 1967 when the Royal Commission on the Status of Women was
tabled in the federal House, recommendation 105 of that report asked
for the concept of equality of both partners in marriage — in 1967.
Now we are well on our way to being 10 years since that report was
tabled in the House and it is to our shame, quite frankly, and to our
disgrace that the recommendation has not been implemented. No attempt
has been made on the part of the federal government to deal with
recommendation 105. The previous government tried. The previous
government tried to deal with it in a learned and scholarly way to be
sure that it was absolutely fair and that no one was penalized as a
result of it.
I do not believe in the concept and my government did not believe in
the concept of substituting one wrong with another. You don't stop
penalizing married women by penalizing married men. But in fact what we
were talking about was treating them both as equals before the law.
Now, we are just as concerned about protecting the rights of men in
marriage as we are concerned about protecting the rights of women. This
is the reason why — and the first member for Victoria (Mr. Bawlf) who
asked the question is not here — the decision was made that rather than
introduce a piece of legislation into the House, everyone could be
heard who was concerned about this issue. Everyone could have input who
was interested in this issue. Finally, Mr. Speaker, that commission
submitted its recommendations to this House.
Now I recognize that it's quite possible that the present government
may not agree with all of the recommendations. That's not the point. I
accept that, certainly, the government has the right to interpret the
recommendations as it sees fit and I realize that they may not agree
with all the recommendations. But if they did not agree with all the
recommendations, at least the Attorney-General could have referred the
recommendations, or indeed the entire report, either to a special
committee, as is being done in terms of looking for an auditor-general,
or to one of the legislative committees which have been duly
constituted in this House. Some indication should have been made or
could have been made that the government took the recommendations
seriously and was seriously concerned about them and wanted to move in
a direction, one way or the other, on this issue.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, nothing has happened, and when the women's
rally took place on March 22, a number of women who lobbied the
Attorney-General, who, I am very happy to see, is back in the House,
discussed with him the possibility of the government introducing
legislation which would deal with the concept of community of property.
I waited to see what the Attorney-General would do. I waited to see
what impact that lobby had on him. I waited to see what would result
from the fact that a large number of letters had been written to the
Attorney-General about this particular report No. 6 of the Family and
Children's Law Commission, and nothing happened.
[ Page 2538 ]
It wasn't until I realized that the government was not about to move
on those recommendations. It wasn't until I realized that the
government had no intention either of introducing legislation on
community of poverty, or of setting up a special committee to look into
Mr. Justice Berger's recommendation, or indeed of referring it to one
of the legislative committees — either the one on health, education and
human resources or the committee on labour and justice, or any
committee of his choosing. It was not until I realized that that the
decision was made by me to introduce a private member's bill.
I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I recognized at the time of the
introduction of this bill that it would not be accepted as law, because
tradition stands. I respect tradition when it doesn't penalize people.
I respect tradition. Tradition stands that private members' bills are
not accepted as law. I know it's possible to break tradition and it's
possible to do things differently, but what I had really hoped was, as
a last resort, that seeing this bill on the books the Attorney-General
would have been exercised and would have been moved to take seriously
and to start doing something about the report No. 6 of the Berger
commission and the recommendations enclosed therein.
I had hoped that the Attorney-General would have asked me to
withdraw Bill 39 and would have himself, on behalf of his government,
introduced legislation dealing with this very, very vital matter to all
of us as people in this province.
Surely it has been as important as the other pieces of legislation
brought down by the government. I cannot accept, Mr. Speaker, that the
minister has not had enough time. As I brought to your attention,
yesterday 16 pieces of legislation were introduced into this House.
Today there were an additional three or four pieces of legislation. We
have to date — I don't know — 30 or 40 bills brought into this House.
Surely, Mr. Speaker, a very basic principle such as equality of
human beings before the law is as important as some of the other bills
introduced by that government. Surely it is as important. That is
really the crux of this debate and that is the principle involved in
this bill: that all persons — it didn't say all men, and it didn't say
all women, but all persons — shall have equal protection under the law.
I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that married women in this province do
not have equal protection under the law. The Attorney-General agrees
with that. He admits that. He accepts that. He knows that to be true.
If no one else in his government does, he certainly knows that to be
true. Isn't that as important as a cigarette and tobacco tax amendment
Act, Mr. Speaker? Isn't the question of equality before the law as
important as a cigarette and tobacco tax amendment Act? Isn't it, Mr.
Speaker?
MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, to discuss principles of other bills before the House when we're not on those bills is improper in debate.
MS. BROWN: Sure.
MR. SPEAKER: So I would suggest to you that you return to the principle of the bill which is presently under discussion.
MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry — there's a
misunderstanding. I was not discussing the principle of the Cigarette
and Tobacco Tax Amendment Act. I was merely using the name and saying
that surely the concept of equality before the law is a more basic
concept to this province and this country than one involved in a
tobacco and cigarette amendment act.
As one of my colleagues just pointed out to me, 58 government bills
have been introduced since the beginning of this session — 58
government bills. As I've pointed out, those included some very
important bills dealing with equality and justice before the law, such
as the ornbudsperson legislation and the auditor-general one, if I may
be permitted to call those by name without discussing the principle.
But