1970 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 29th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, MARCH 17, 1970

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 665 ]

TUESDAY, MARCH 17, 1970

The House met at 2 p.m.

The following Bills were introduced, read a first time, and Ordered to be placed on the Orders of the Day

for second reading at the next sitting after today:

On the motion of

Mr. E. Wolfe, Bill (No. 75) intituled

An Act Respecting Greater

Vancouver Regional District Transportation Authority.

On the motion of the Hon. Isabel Dawson, Bill (No. 66) intituled

An Act Respecting Hearing-aid Dealers and Consultants.

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

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT: Second Reading of Bill No. 28, Mr. Speaker. (An Act to Amend the Land Surveyors Act).

MR. SPEAKER: Second Reading of Bill No. 28. The Honourable the Minister of Lands and Forests.

HON. R.G. WILLISTON: Mr. Speaker, this is a very small

amendment, Bill 28,

An Act to Amend the Land Surveyors Act. Last year

when this Act was before the House for major revision, quite frankly an

error at the time was made. It was the purpose at the time the main Act

went through that the prescribed fees of membership, which is true for

all professional organizations in the Province, their by-laws, be

subject to ratification by Order-in-Council, and through some

misinterpretation, it was placed in the Act that the tariff of all fees

for professional service payable under this Act would be reported to

and passed on by the by-laws through Executive Council.

This is contrary to all fees charged by all professional groups in

the Province and was clearly an error…. It might be a good idea, yes, but

it is rather unfair just to put it to the surveyors, and not the

lawyers, the doctors, the dentists, and all the rest of them. If you

are going to do it for all of them they were quite willing, but they

didn't like to be singled out as the sole profession. Mr. Speaker, I

move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Member for New Westminster.

MR. D.G. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the Bill itself, as we interpret

it and as we understand the changes, that it is to take away the

necessity of approaching the Executive Council for changes in fees. But

then on the other hand, in reading the Act, it would seem that this

aspect was put in, in the first place, to protect the public from

exorbitant fees that could possibly be charged by virtue of the fact

that there is a very grave shortage of surveyors. On that basis, we

were wanting to ask the question that, is this a fact, and if it is a

fact we feel that this is not being particularly generous to the public

that are so dependent upon the services of surveyors. Another thing,

too, that is, does this place the surveyors in a privileged position

above lawyers, doctors and others of that class?

On the principal aspects of the Bill, we are prepared to go along on

that basis, but we certainly want this answered, if the Minister will

in his summing up, so that we can prepare ourselves for the Bill in

Committee.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Member for Burnaby-Edmonds.

MR. G.H. DOWDING: I would like to say that the practice so

far as the Pharmaceutical Act, was that the Lieutenant-Governor in

Council had to approve by-laws passed by that particular professional

group, and it was not a bad idea. Because particularly where a

professional group is limited in its number and there is no way that

you can get lands subdivided without the services of a land surveyor,

for example, and where there is a short supply of that particular

profession, then the public interest is supreme, and should be supreme.

It seems to me with respect, Mr. Speaker, that this particular

amendment should not be proclaimed at this time until the Government

and the Corporation of Land Surveyors has remedied the rather severe

shortage that now exists.

There is the public interest involved. The Lieutenant-Governor in

Council is charged throughout the year with protecting the public

interest, and I would like to see it remain that way, during this

period of shortage of surveyors, and if this is removed it means that

they can take advantage of an existing situation, but if it is not

removed and this Bill did not proceed, they would have to come to the

Lieutenant-Governor in Council to justify any changes. I think in view

of that shortage, in view of that shortage, in view of the public

interest, in protecting the public and seeing that the public obtains

the services of surveyors on a fair basis, so that some people don't

have to wait for six months or eight months to get a subdivision

completed, that this Government should continue to require that they

have their by-laws approved, particularly in regards to tariffs or

fees, before those tariffs are changed.

I would urge that the Government give further consideration to this

while the shortage of surveyors causes considerable public disruption

in the Land Registry Offices and subdivision developments throughout

British Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Honourable the Minister will close the debate.

HON. R.G. WILLISTON: Mr. Speaker, I thought I covered that

Act when I introduced the Bill in the first instance. That

section has

never been operative. It was put in last year, and it was not, in fact,

made operative, and I don't see how it is going to create the changes

such as the honourable members have mentioned. But if they will bring

in a Bill with the lawyers, the dentists, the doctors, everyone else,

that we can control all their fees here, and place these people in the

same categories Mr. Speaker, I move the second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is that Bill No. 28 be read a

second time now. All those in favour say Aye. Contrary minded, No. The

motion is carried.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT: Second reading of Bill No. 29, Mr. Speaker. (Age of Majority Act).

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 29. The Honourable the Attorney-General.

HON. L.R. PETERSON: Bill No. 29, Mr. Speaker, the Age of

Majority Act. The purpose of this Bill is to give recognition to the

many mature young men and women in the Province of British Columbia.

Many of the members of this House have extolled the virtues of our

youth. Sometimes we hear them subject to criticism but I must say, to

the

[ Page 666 ]

credit of this Assembly, it occurs very infrequently here. I think

too, that of all the members, and there are many, who have been

advocating greater freedom, greater responsibility for the youth, I

think the youngest member of this Assembly, the honourable member for

Delta, should be singled out in this respect.

I think, regardless of our personal point of view, there is ample

evidence to demonstrate that young people today are more mature than in

past generations, mature in body and mind than they were in years gone

by. We will be recognizing this fact by this Bill, changing the age of

majority, giving people at an earlier age a greater sense of freedom, a

greater sense of responsibility in our modern society.

In trying to determine when this age of majority of 21 first

became established, it appears that it goes back to the Norman Conquest

in England in the year 1066 or thereabouts. Earlier, in Roman times,

the age of adulthood was considered to be age 15, and then with the

knights and the business of these heavy suits of armour coming into

play, they felt that to don this suit of armour you had to be of age

21. This, in turn, became tied in with knights holding land, land

tenure, and this, apparently, is where it was first established at age

21, and this has continued to this day, not only in British Columbia,

but in most parts of the world, although in more recent times there

had been some changes.

I think, too, that in presenting this Bill at this particular time,

and there have been other Bills presented here as well as in other

parts of Canada, although I would hope that this would, be the first

Bill that will be enacted in Canada to reduce the age of majority, that

of the many advances that have been made in this twentieth century,

much of the :progress, I suggest, has to be credited to the able young

men and women who are making a contribution to our society at an early

age. And I think as adults, the greatest tribute we can give to them is

lowering the age of majority as has been done in some other

countries of the world. There are reports that the members are

interested on the subject in England, the Ontario Law Reform

Commission, as well, and a study in the Province of Alberta, which was

not in any sense a conclusive study, or one that made any

recommendations.

But in implementing the age of 19 in this Bill, we are doing it for

all purposes. It cuts across all the statutes in the Province, giving

them full responsibilities at age 19 where heretofore they have not had that responsibility or that freedom

until attaining the age of 21. The Bill provides the recognition of an

individual reaching the age of majority of 19, as being the

commencement of the relevant anniversary of the date of his or her

birth.

In passing this Bill, Mr. Speaker, British Columbia will, I suggest,

be setting a precedent in Canada, although I understand that a Bill has

been presented before the House in the Province of Saskatchewan in this

respect. But in any event, whatever the situation may be in the future

in the rest of Canada, this will certainly be one of the precedents

giving our young people new freedom and new responsibility, and I take

great pleasure in moving it be read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burnaby North.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, we in the Official Opposition

are, of course, most pleased to endorse this Bill, because as the

Attorney-General stated, we too feel that the young people today are

certainly worthy of having this age dropped to 19. We also feel, of

course, as the honourable Attorney-General stated, that there are added

responsibilities, of course, with a Bill such as this, and I think it

points up two things that will be necessary, and I hope that the

Government will follow along with such a Bill.

One thing that does concern us is the status of Government wards. I

am thinking of the young people who perhaps are in foster homes today

and attending higher education facilities. Now, once the age of

majority, of course, is lowered to 19, they are no longer a ward of the

Government, and we on this side are concerned over what will happen to

these young people. Now we realize at that age they can apply for

social welfare, but this is, of course, not what they are going to need

at this age. They are going to need assistance from the Government to

continue with their education. We think it is most important that as

the Government has brought in this Bill which we, of course, approve

of, but as Government it is your responsibility to see that this gap

you are placing now for educational needs for these young people is

filled. We hope that the honourable the Attorney-General, in closing

the debate, will give us some idea of what your plans are for these

young people who are in foster homes, and I understand there are

approximately 600 in the Province today who would fit into this

category.

I think it also points out as young people now at 19 may sign all

legal contracts in the Province, and many of our young people are just

leaving high school at that age, I think it points up the fact that our

educational institutions must provide for young people some knowledge

of the problems of life when it comes to the signing of contracts in

all aspects. So I do hope that the Attorney-General will point out to

us how his Government hopes or will intend to fill these gaps. I also

feel that it points out here a great responsibility, on the whole, for

the Government to take a far greater interest in youth programmes for

the adult teenager. Thank you.

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

MR. G.B. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, this is new legislation to the

Government, but not necessarily new legislation to this House, and we

are most delighted to see that the Government has seen its way clear to

bring in an amendment to reduce the age to 19, where it has been at 21

since the days of Charles II.

The honourable the Attorney-General spoke very, very briefly about

the history of the age of infancy but, with every respect to the

Attorney-General, he didn't go into it either completely, correctly, or

in sufficient depth. It is rather interesting to know, Mr. Speaker,

that the Romans actually had three classifications of age. One for

children under seven, secondly to 12 for girls, and to 14 for boys, and

actually the age of majority for the Romans was not 21 years, but it

was 25 years.

It wasn't until the ninth and the eleventh centuries when the

barbarians came in with somewhat of a more fierce practicality, and

they reached the conclusion that a 15-year old had enough tum-tum in

him to carry arms, so if he was strong enough to carry arms they

decided that would be the age of majority, so 15 was proclaimed as the

age of majority at that time. But the armour grew a bit heavier, and as

the armour grew heavier they decided that these people had to have a

little bit more muscle, so they then increased the age to 21. But they

restricted it to one extent, which is quite interesting, and that is

that they had a little bit of problem in the labour market, and in

order to ensure the stability of the

[ Page 667 ]

labour market they considered the agricultural tillers didn't quite

perhaps have the necessary Latin, or what have you, and they kept them

at an age of 15. So the agricultural society rides at an age of 15,

whereas those who could bear arms and go to war, 21 was the age. Well,

that carried on until the days of Charles II, and in the days of

Charles II, he quickly plugged that loop-hole and he decided that the

military age or the knightly age of 21 was the correct age, and it has

been that ever since.

I think the situation of the age of infancy has given legal

historians a great deal of difficulty over the years, and Holdsworth,

who was the most notable and eminent of them, said this, "It is a

grotesque situation that the weight of armour in the eleventh century

should govern the age at which a person today can contract, own land,

or marry." There's obviously nothing God-given about this age, and

things do change, and the question that we've been asking ourselves

over the years, has the law been doing the job? Has it been kept up to

date with changing times and changing circumstances? And obviously the

answer to that is no.

The Honourable the Attorney-General talked about the situation of

the responsibility of youth, and I thoroughly concur with the

statements he made in the House today about that, because absolutely,

and there is never occasion in this House of plaguing the.youth with

the standards of the lowest common denominator. We all know that

problem people, Mr. Speaker, are problem people and chronological age

has really very little to do with it. I think the Bill itself reflects

a consistency and a conformity to a trend that has not only been

established but, as a matter of fact, that those of us who are of our

majority, if we can say we've been of our majority since the days of

Charles II, have really seen fit to bring about.

The Bill helps to end the double standard. It does recognize, Mr.

Speaker, that the youth of today have the right to ask, say, for the

home-owners grant in this Province, they're driving, they're buying and

selling, they're employed, they're covered by no end of permissive

legislation, they can vote, they can fight and die for their country,

many marry, many have children, and no end of them enjoy good

livelihoods. I think we have been johnny-out-of-step, really, for too

long. This is contemporizing the law. We've got in this Bill not only a

change in law but a change in philosophy, and it's a contemporizing

attitude.

With the hope and the conviction, Mr. Speaker, that the Government

is able to muster enough strength in its own forces and over here to

see that this Bill will pass, should that occasion arise I will be most

delighted to withdraw my own Bill, which I entered much earlier in the

Session.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Second Member for Vancouver-Burrard.

MR. B. PRICE: Mr. Speaker, on this Bill which I support

wholeheartedly, I only have reservation on one particular point. I

think it's quite an important feature, because for a long time, many

generations, it's been noted that wealth being left by a family seldom

reaches the third generation. It's quite often the case that this

doesn't reach into the grandsons because it's dissipated by a son or

daughter.

I think that in respect to this Bill, the Age of Majority Act, that

consideration might be given to youths, where their parents die

intestate, I think that perhaps it might be in favour of the young

people if you could retain the estate until they reach the age of 21,

because if they're going to acquire wealth at the age of 19 it is very

doubtful whether they'll have it by the time they're 25.

We recognize the ability of youth today in respect to what they were

at my own age, when I was 19 or 21, and no doubt the young people today

are much better educated and I think they have a much wider knowledge

of dollars and cents, although they may not have to work so hard for

it. But at the same time I feel that in the case where a parent dies

intestate, that this estate should be kept intact until the youth or

daughter reaches 21, and I would just leave that observation.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Delta.

MR. R. WENMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wish that there was

some way I could express how pleased I am with the introduction of this

Bill and the discussion of this Bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: You could vote for it.

MR. WENMAN: Certainly. I think that there's an outside chance

that I might vote for this Bill, yes. During the past years since I've

been here I've spoken each year extensively on youth and tried to

present a positive viewpoint about the majority of youth and that we

should recognize them and their responsibility, and I'm sure this

receives support not just from one side of the House but from all sides

of the House and all parts of our society.

The age of majority is a question, certainly, that is discussed with

every society, with every century. I know that 1, too, have prepared

the same material about the armour and so forth, so I won't repeat it

for the third time, except to agree with my colleagues that this seems

to be where the history seemed to develop. I would like to go back just

a little bit further, though, and quote a different philosopher and a

different society, a traditional viewpoint that has been developed.

Aristotle cautioned in his day that there are child prodigies in music

and mathematics but never in morals or politics, which take the

experience of life to master. I would submit that while this still

carries some weight, this is again a different kind of society. This is

the society that we have, and we must examine the age of majority in

relationship to our own age, and in our own age we have changed because

we have moved into the position of universal education, and with this

universal education, we hope, comes an enlightenment, an enlightenment

that will lead to a responsibility.

I often think, as I am sure do all the members here, that as we have

young people visiting from our high schools throughout the Province, as

they sit and ask us questions, I'm sure that their questions are as

intelligent, I am sure that they are as aware as many or at least most

of the adult society that we find around us in our community.

I think, also, that we should look at this legislation. You know,

when it first came out the first cheer that seemed to go up was,

"Hooray, the drinking age will be lowered!" But we must remember that

this is not the most important part of this legislation. In fact I

would say that, while many people are talking about this, the really

important thing that is featured here is that we are recognizing young

people, their rights and their responsibility. I think we must

remember, also, that this isn't a Bill just for young people. This

isn't the sentiment I found as I went back to my community in White

Rock which has 35 per cent of the population over 65, and I talked to

some of the older people. I sort of wondered if they would go along

with my support of this Bill, and I'm pleased

[ Page 668 ]

to say that there's as much encouragement from the older people of

our society, from our senior citizens, that we should recognize young

people as there is from the young people in our society.

I would say that, just in conclusion, that we have as a Government

attempted to and have built a solid foundation for the future of our

youth. The future for our youth in the Province of British Columbia

and, indeed, in our entire country is indeed promising, and it is

fitting that we should show our faith in our young people and recognize

the large majority of responsible young people in our society through

the smooth and easy passage of this very, very fine legislation.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kootenay.

MR. L.T. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, it seems that this Bill is

quite a popular Bill and there is one point that the honourable the

Minister said in second reading, he said that they're more mature today

than they were years ago. I don't know whether this is the case, but I

think this Bill is probably long overdue. About five years ago I

brought a Bill in in regards to marriage in regards to the same issue,

but it was turned down by this Government at that time.

But back in the days when some of us were young we were considered

it then, when you were 18, I mean you had to go out and work, and there

was no case of saying that they were not as mature years ago as they

are today. I think that 21 was held over for years, it was a custom

almost, and while it may have been set arbitrarily at 21, it probably

could have been set at 19, many, many years ago.

I think that it's okay except that I'd like to know, when the

Minister closes the debate, whether, as the honourable member for

Burnaby North asked, whether this will have an over-riding effect on

all those other Acts where a person is covered until they're 21.

The Workmen's Compensation Act, for instance, allows a child

compensation until they're 21 if they're attending school. Now would

this carry on, or would we have to change this whole set-up, because

today, not like it was 40 and 50 years ago, most young people are going

to school till they're 21 or 22. It means quite a bit to them,

especially in cases of need where their family is on compensation, if

they're going to be cut off at 19 now. The Family Court Order, what are

we going to put in the place of this, if this Bill means that all these

Acts automatically change to 19?

While I agree with the Act, I think these other questions should be

considered in view of this reducing the age, because I don't think it

would be wise to do it and penalize a large group of people by so doing.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Esquimalt.

MR. H.J. BRUCH: Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to state

that I think the one thing that the young people need today is to be

challenged with responsibility, and this will be done by this Bill. I

disagree with the honourable second member from Burrard, that in the

matter of estates perhaps this could work the wrong way. Certainly some

of them are going to abuse it, but I believe one of the most pressing

needs has been in the field, particularly where estates are under

trusteeship and the young person growing up, very often being cared for

by a step-father, needs the money for university purposes to train

themselves for their future in education, and I believe that it is a

good thing to see this at this time.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Honourable the Attorney-General will close the debate.

HON. L.R. PETERSON: Just in reply to a few of the items that

have been raised, Mr. Speaker. First of all, the honourable member from

Kootenay's remarks in respect to the age of maturity, I think he will

find that there is not only personal opinion that our young people are

more mature today, but you can find medical opinions to that effect, a

study done in England in this respect, and if you want to consider

maturity of mind and the knowledge that our young people have today, I

think you only have to consider the impact of television, for good or

bad. Nevertheless they are much more knowledgeable at an earlier age

and more mature in mind today at an earlier age than ever before in our

history, so I don't think there can be any argument on that score,

notwithstanding the age of which the honourable member went to work.

MR. NIMSICK: I challenge you on that.

MR. PETERSON: In regard to the member for Vancouver-Burrard's

comments in respect to estates, of course, if you want your children to

inherit at a later age, the way to do that is by drawing a Will so that

you do not die intestate. I would think that if we're going to have an

age of majority, we can't just pick and choose in this Bill at least,

and say that you're going to be an adult for this purpose but not for

this purpose because this involves the handling of money.

Now, there are difficult areas. There is the area which I had been

considering, also mentioned by the member from Kootenay, of Workmen's

Compensation, because here is an area where the payments increase as

the child gets older, between 19 and 21 the payments are the highest,

when they're going to school. Of course the key there is, I suggest,

education rather than simply age. I think any age could be selected in

terms of compensation when a person is killed.

I would suggest with respect, however, that that is a matter, as the

member for Burnaby North raised with other children, if these are to be

attacked, then it should be under different legislation, not under the

Age of Majority Bill. I'd suggest that if we're going to move, as I

recommend we do, then it should cut across all statutes as far as age

of majority is concerned, both for the freedom and the responsibility

and not one without the other, and if we're going to make distinctions

as far as assisting people with their education where the breadwinner

has been killed in an industrial accident, we should do that under

other legislation, but not the Age of Majority Bill. I move second

reading, Mr. Speaker. (applause)

MR. SPEAKER: The question is that Bill No. 29, Age of

Majority Act, be read a second time now. All those in favour say Aye.

Contrary minded, No. The motion is carried.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT: Second reading of Bill No. 30, Mr. Speaker. (Professional Corporations Act).

MR. SPEAKER: Bill No. 30. The Honourable the Attorney-General.

HON. L.R. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, Bill No. 30 is the Professional Corporations Act. The main purpose of this Bill

[ Page 669 ]

is to extend the benefits of incorporation to professional people,

although they do not, through this legislation, have the benefits of

limited liability if they should choose to incorporate, but they would

have all of the other benefits, without in any way affecting their

legal liability or their ethical responsibility, which normally is

associated with a professional person. They will be able to

incorporate, they will still have the guidance under the jurisdiction

of the professional association to which they belong, but it will

enable them to use the corporate practice to carry on their profession,

without in any way hiding behind the corporate veil that exists in the

case of an ordinary corporation where you do get the benefits of

limited liability.

The framework of this Bill was adopted by the Bar Association and

the Law Society in June of last year, and is generally recommended,

perhaps not in every detail but in principle, by the Medical

Association as well as the Bar Association, and I move that the Bill be

now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kootenay.

MR. L.T.

NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, the explanation that the honourable the

Attorney-General gave was a little bit meagre, to my mind, because it

doesn't tell you exactly what the purpose of allowing the professional

groups to form corporations means. The professional groups today are

quite a privileged group of people, groups of people, who set up their

own laws. They've got a privilege that very few other groups have, and

they've got a right today, as far as I can see, to band together into a

corporation without

an Act, if they wish to form. Well, anybody else

could form together and form a corporation, and you've got one man here

can form a corporation, one professional can form a corporation, he can

be the director and president and all the rest.

The purpose of it I don't know, and I'd like a better explanation,

because we've watched these little empires grow through the Province

and I'm not too sure that they are all in the best interests of the

people. In this case there may be a case argued for tax purposes or

something like that, but as far as I can see, these professional groups

have already got their Associations by statutes. They've got far more

privileges than anybody else, and why do we want to set up, allowing

them to form now, to give them

an Act so that they can form

corporations? Your explanation did not suffice to give me a good idea

of what it all means, and as far as I am concerned I am opposed to the

Bill.

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

MR. G.H. DOWDING: Mr. Speaker, I can see no reason, providing

the professionals, whether they be in any recognized profession listed,

or any one of them, should not, as a business, be entitled to do what

the rest of the community does in the community of businessmen, except

this — that there must at all times be preserved the individual

professional responsibility to serve the public, and if that is

departed from in any way, of course, then I say that the very meaning

of professionalism has been changed and that should not happen.

I believe that a professional is granted a position and a

responsibility that must be a prior consideration in making a living,

not merely making a business out of that dedication to his work, and I

hope that this Bill doesn't cause some of them who are engaged in

professions to regard themselves really as corporate businesses. That

is what I feel this step may lead to. So it depends, really, on the

individuals who wish to associate in a corporate entity. It may have

advantages, I suppose. One of the reasons some of the larger law firms

want it, or other professionals, architects firms, engineering firms,

is because of the size of their business, and also the difficulties of

extricating themselves from their association in a firm. It might help

them in that respect. I am sure probably some of the experts in the

accounting field have been considering some of the tax advantages that

might stem from this.

But I point out something in the Bill that I think needs further

thought, and that is there seems to be silence on the question of the

names of these firms. I don't know if the Attorney-General is familiar

with it in that particular, I couldn't note anywhere….

MR. PETERSON: The governing body of the professional association….

MR. DOWDING: I was just thinking of what could happen if we

don't have some restriction on the names of these professional firms.

We could end up with the lawyers calling themselves, one company would

be called The Ambulance Chasers Limited, and the one that called itself

The Speedy Legal Services Limited would probably get all the business.

Then you could have the chiropractors setting up a company called The

Backbreaker Treatments Limited, Straight Line Services Limited, or Hot

and Cold Running Nurses, Limited. There are the possibilities if you

don't get some kind of rules in regard to the names of these new

professional corporations.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Member for Vancouver East.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, the member for Kootenay was

quite right, because the Attorney-General gave a

summary of the things

that the Bill wouldn't do and wouldn't interfere with, but he didn't

say what the purpose of the Bill might be. I would assume that it is

for tax purposes, and I would assume that it would buy for me a

company, that professional groups would get some tax advantage.

Now if we had Benson's White Paper, which the members don't like on

that side of the House, so that there was some equity between wage

earners and salary earners and professional people and small

businessmen with a company of their own, that would be all right. And

if we had the Carter Report, it would be even more all right, but we

haven't got those things. So I must say that for myself — I am not

speaking because I am a professional, I am speaking the very opposite

right now — I think there should be equal tax treatment for everybody,

whether they earn a salary or professional fee, and that is the reason

I am opposed to the Bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Attorney-General will close the debate.

HON. L.R. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, I didn't think it would be

necessary in this Assembly to explain to the honourable members the

advantages of incorporation from a business point of view, from an

administration point of view,

[ Page 670 ]

especially to those lawyers who have been advising clients over a

number of years as to the benefits of incorporation. I thought it was

sufficient merely to point out one of the major benefits of

incorporation, which would not apply in this case, and that is by

professional people getting together and incorporating, would not give

them limited liability, you couldn't hide behind a corporate veil.

You'd still have to carry on the high standards, professional standards

in this respect, and be individually responsible in respect to a breach

of those standards.

But, obviously, taxation is one advantage of incorporation. As to

whether that's going to continue to be an advantage or not is not for

this body to say, because there are recommendations in this respect in

the White Paper, as the honourable member hag pointed out. So whatever

is contained in the White Paper, whether they agree that it will come

to pass or not, certainly should not detract from whether or not we are

going to give professional people, whether we are going to give

non-professional people as well that are referred to in this Bill, the

right to incorporate for convenience and ease of carrying on their

business.

As far as the name is concerned, the honourable member, on a close

reading of the Bill, will find that they have to have a certificate

from their governing associations approving of the name, so those

situations that you referred to cannot arise.

In brief, professional people have been prohibited by their

organizations from incorporating in the past, because incorporating

under the Companies Act of this Province gives them such rights as

limited liability, which is not consistent with the ideas of

professionalism associated with most of our professions, and the

standard of care that is required of them in performing their duties. I

move the Bill be read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is that Bill No. 30, Professional

Corporations Act be read a second time now. All those in favour say

Aye. Contrary minded, No. The motion is carried.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT: Second reading of Bill No. 33, Mr. Speaker. (Litter Act).

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 33. The Honourable Minister of Recreation and Conservation.

HON. W.K.KIERNAN: Mr. Speaker, in moving second reading of

this Bill, I think it is best understood if we recognize that there are

two basic principles incorporated into the Bill.

First of all, it is an expression of Government policy and part of

our overall programme to protect and preserve a high quality

environment, and this is only one of the m any aspects related to the

preservation of a high quality environment. I think, also, the Bill

comes to grips with specific factors affecting environment quality, and

these factors are becoming of progressively greater importance, due to

not only increased populations, but increased mobility of populations.

We have the ability to get around so much more quickly today than we

had in years gone by.

We are attempting to reduce the burden of litter control in our

parks, wilderness areas, and on Crown land by making it mandatory that

certain types of beverage containers shall be refundable if returned to

the place of sale. We further require that all types of containers and

other materials that can be classified as litter shall not be dumped or

abandoned, but must be disposed of consistent with this Act. In short,

we are asking the citizens not only to accept their full responsibility

both in litter and sanitary control, but also to spread the message to

visitors as well.

We have no illusions that this Bill, by itself, will solve all of

our problems in the fields it deals with. I am led to believe, however,

there is strong general support for the policy concepts incorporated

into the Bill, and with public support we can make this a definite step

forward in the broad public quest for protection of our environment.

The objectives defined will not be accomplished without some costs,

changes in methods of merchandising, and some improvements in the

attitudes of some of our people. Concern has b een expressed that

commodities of general household use, other than soft drinks, beer, and

ale, will be required to be packaged in refundable containers. It is

not the intention of the Government certainly at this time, that the

refund requirements should apply more broadly than necessary, and for

greater certainty

section 9 (

b) makes provision for spelling out the

commodities and containers as set out in

section 3.

The operative sections of this Bill will come into force of law by

Proclamation. A reasonable period of time will be provided for those

who may be affected by the Bill to make the necessary arrangements. I

would suggest, however, that no undue delay ought to be contemplated,

for the Bill will likely be Proclaimed before mid-summer, at least in

part.

It could also be observed that for those who go camping in the

wilderness, a shovel will become the most important piece of equipment

in their camping gear. On the part of the Government there will be a

determined effort to reduce the incidence of both pollution and litter.

We are already spending hundreds of thousands of dollars a year

providing facilities for litter and waste control in the Park systems,

and we will increase our efforts in this field.

Should actual operation require a further broadening of the Act, I

will have no hesitation in recommending further action to this

Legislative Assembly next time we meet. Despite any inconvenience that

may emerge as a result of the actual application of this Bill as law, I

am convinced that it is a measure in the best interests of the public

and have no hesitation in recommending it to you.

I might also say that underlying the Bill is a concept of a change

in philosophy — a philosophy that pays more attention, not only to the

protection of our environment, but recognizes that we all, as

individuals, have a responsibility and the best place to begin is with

the individual because that's where you get the results. Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Surrey.

MR. E. HALL: Mr. Speaker, the Bill before us is, of course, a

popular one. It takes the question of litter that we are all concerned

about and legislates simply under

section 4, under the general heading

Thou Shalt Not Litter. It also takes a whipping boy and whips him

around, too. The Minister was quite honest with us when he said that

this Bill is a warning, it is a warning for us all to get with it, it

is a warning to industry and a warning to packages and so on and so

forth. There can be some argument put forward certain sections are

redundant, if you take the basic principles of the Bill.

But certainly I can tell the Minister that he is going to receive,

as indeed we all are, many deputations from all sorts of industries and

all sorts of people, just as they did in the

[ Page 671 ]

Government of Vermont when they introduced a similar Bill some years ago, and then rescinded the Bill two years later.

I think the Minister's comments about philosophy and the general

question of pollution and waste are really less than adequate, and I

was going to spend some time talking about that on this Bill. However,

the Minister's colleague has now produced another Bill entitled

Pollution Control which will restrict me somewhat, Mr. Speaker. I want

to say this, that we have not seen any evidence to date of a real

change in philosophy about controlling our environment, and I don't

think, Mr. Speaker, that whipping motherhood Bills around like this is

going to persuade us, on this side of the House, that there has been

much change in philosophy, but as I say, I don't want to beg the

question on the Bill that is presented by the Minister of Lands and

Forests.

I think the Bill is a good one if it can be enforced. I think the

Minister is fair in saying that he is announcing this Bill, he is going

to proclaim it in sections to see how things go over the next 12

months. I predict, Mr. Speaker, we will be looking at this Bill again

in 12 months time.

I think that the

section on litter is much more important than the

non-returnable dog that appears to be wagging that litter tail, and I

wonder if, indeed, in view of the dislocation of industry — I

understand the Premier is going to, if he has not done already, open up

a wonderful glass bottle plant at Lavington, and whether or not he has

had any conversation or indeed — have you opened that plant yet, Mr.

Speaker? The glass plant at Lavington? He may get some comments about

the Bill when he gets there, and I would like to know what they said to

him. Maybe he can share that experience when he comes back.

Certainly I agree the Bill deserves our support as a step forward. I

have got some doubts in my mind about the enforcement of it, and in

looking at the Bill again I see that word Peace Officer, and on

previous occasions in this House I have made some comments about the

duties that we are putting on the police force. The police force is

already bedevilled in trying to prosecute the Motor-vehicle Act. Now

we've got another example where another social responsibility and a

social cost is going to find its way into the police force and I am

wondering if, indeed, there is any way we can really handle that. There

was a debate the other day, Mr. Speaker, if I may, where people were

trying to spend money that was allocated to Civil Defence on various

projects, and I think perhaps the money on Civil Defence could have

been spent on pollution police, rather than what did happen.

However, I do think the Bill commends our support. It commends our

observation, it commends, I think, us to work this coming year to see

how it goes on.

The one thing I want to finish up by saying, is that all the

evidence I have read up to now shows that the question of the

returnable container is not quite as bad as the Minister would have us

believe. Whilst it is bad, and I think that it is good to state policy

from time to time in these Bills, research indicates that it is not

quite such a problem as we would think, and that there are far more,

far more dangerous, far more examples of litter that we should be

looking at. There have been some research investigations done, I know

the Minister has seen them. I realize, too, that sometimes we may fly

in the face of the facts in order to do a public job, in order to make

a public stand and make a public statement. So that is why I think we

will support even that section, although we have some misgivings about

it.

Lastly, Mr. Speaker, may I say, that as far as the total concept of

cleaning up our environment, whether it is returnable bottles, whether

it is the various things in the legal definition

section of this Bill

which, I might add, may lead some lawyers to profit, — may lead some

lawyers to profit the legal definition

section — we've got all that,

and now we are faced with the Pollution Control Act. I think that we on

this side of the House will do our best to persuade the Government to

make even more aggressive steps, and to show the Government that they

have not been tackling this problem the way they should have been doing

in the past.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Vancouver-Capilano.

MR. D.M. BROUSSON: Mr. Speaker, that's North Vancouver–Capilano.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sorry.

MR. BROUSSON: Mr. Speaker, we will certainly support this

Bill. But I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that perhaps it could be a bit

of a Pandora's Box, and I hope that when we find the box open,

disposable or not, that we won't find we have created more problems

than we have solved.

First of all, I would like to ask the Minister if he would perhaps

expand a little bit on his comment about regulation with reference to

the definition of the word "drinks." I think at this time the public and

industry is entitled to hear, perhaps in more detail, what the Minister

has in mind in this regard. The word "drinks," in my view, could cover

not only beer and ale and soft drinks, it could cover milk, it could

cover apple juice, it could cover wine, it could cover liquor and so

on, and while obviously this can be done by regulation, by

Order-in-Council, I think it would be useful if the Minister could

expand at further length on what the Government has in mind in this

regard.

Quite obviously, Mr. Speaker, the Bill is going to cause

considerable disruption to certain industries, certain firms involved

in the manufacture of throw-away bottles and cans, particularly perhaps

for those firms that specialize, perhaps do nothing else than can soft

drinks. So I would like to ask the Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker,

if he has or if he is going to meet with the members of the industry,

and discuss this with them and get their views, and do everything he

can to at least aid them in the problems they are going to face as the

months go ahead and this Bill is implemented.

I think especially we should have as definite a time set for

implementation of the Bill, particularly in

section 3, I suppose it is,

where I think a definite time with adequate notice should be set out

clearly, so that the industry can do what it can to meet the problems

it has to face.

I'd also like to ask the Minister, Mr. Speaker, if the Government

plans to carry out in the future any surveys of litter around the

Province to determine effectively and accurately just how effective

this Bill is in stopping the distribution of litter, or the litter and

bottles and cans being left around in different parts of the Province.

I would hope that he would do this in the future to determine if the

Bill is effective, and if it's not, presumably some action will have to

be proposed to take its place.

Another part of the Bill also causes some concern, Mr. Speaker. Many

of the lakes and other camping areas of the Province, such as the

Skagit Valley, are not developed at present as campsites, but they are

used very widely by many thousands of people for camping. I think with

this Bill he is

[ Page 672 ]

trying to get at some of the problems of that kind, such as arose

last year in some of the lakes near Williams Lake and those kind of

problems. But I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that the regulations for

disposal of garbage and sewage and litter in these areas, burying them

under 12 inches of dirt or whatever it is, I hope that these

regulations will not in any way be allowed to become a substitute in

the Minister's mind for proper development of these areas with

campsites, with proper facilities, and that kind of thing, because very

quickly in those areas that are being actively used, I can see a lot of

little holes dug, covered up with 12 inches of soil, perhaps hundreds

of these in a relatively small area, so eventually we will have a

pretty thoroughly polluted area in some very beautiful parts of British

Columbia. Now, the regulations are fine when you move far into the

wilderness area, but in the popular camping areas that are not yet

developed, they're certainly going to create problems very, very soon.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the Government's already indicated it likes to

give away prizes. Two or three years ago we offered a prize, I believe

gave away a prize for development of a house plan. This year the

Premier announced a prize of a quarter million dollars for development

of an odour-free pulping process. Now, I'm not especially in favour of

this kind of a policy, Mr. Speaker, and I've spoken against it. But

seeing it is a policy of the Government to do this, kind of thing, I am

wondering if you would like to consider the offering of a prize for

development of a truly disposable container for beer or soft drinks,

one that would simply disintegrate by weather, one that would return to

nature in a short time. This is really the ultimate in this kind of

thing. This is the answer that would really solve the litter problem.,

So I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, to the Government, that they consider

a prize of $50,000 for someone to develop a truly disposable container

of this kind, and I hope, and I hope that this might inspire the answer.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the First Member for Vancouver Centre. .

MR. H.P. CAPOZZI: Mr. Speaker, to comment on the Bill,

certainly the Bill has the approval of myself and I know the colleagues

on this side. I know I can speak very well for the member for Columbia

also, for he wants to speak on the Bill.

I am concerned, however, with certain aspects of the Bill and am not

going to go over in full detail the ground that has already been

covered. Pointing out, however, that within particularly

section 3, as

we solve one problem we may build another, the fact that by

implementing this

section which allows for a refund on bottles, tins,

cans, etc., actually if the tins which at the present time are

non-usable, we could in essence be moving people out of tins into

glass, and it's a question of whether we consider safety as part of the

factor.

Personally, I am far.more concerned with a broken glass, whether

it's returnable or non-returnable, on a beach than I am perhaps in a

tin on the beach. I am concerned that by putting a two cent return on

tins, glasses, etc., we may force the industry, because they are not

able to use the tins over again, into glass containers which they will

use over again. But this factor does present, again, the type of

problem that in solving one, we only find ourselves getting into

another.

I am concerned, also, at the moment — these figures are available — that about 90 to 92 per cent of most of the non-returnables and tins

find their way, quite normally, into. the family garbage tin, and from

there into the dump at the garbage plant. I am a little bit concerned

that some enterprising youngster now on the ability to make himself two

cents per tin, can then proceed out to the dump, pick up all the tins

that somebody has very carefully dumped there, bring them back in, the

persons who gets them takes them back out to the dump again. There is

nothing in here, for example, that says that they have to be destroyed

or even if marked, even if crushed, a tin is still a tin, a container

is still a container.

I am concerned that certain of these aspects, Mr. Minister, could

evolve from this particular section. I think, somehow, we are creating

a particularly large strawman only in the concern of that small

percentage, when I must go back and go along with the member from

Surrey, that the main concern itself is litter. I hope that this is one

section that is considered very carefully before implementation.

I think you've given a good warning to industry, pointing out, for

example, that even in the park, even in the park where you would go in

to get a cup of coffee and buy it from the stand in the park, and it's

poured into a paper container, that the person takes out and then

drinks, that according to this they can now go back and demand two

cents back on that particular container. To me the responsibility of

the individual should be more to put that into the proper litter box

that is in the park, rather than to add an additional two cents to

everybody, when at the present moment a good 90 per cent of the, people

automatically do this in most of our parks, and I'm talking about parks

like Stanley Park.

I am also concerned that those people who may drive off even from

drive-ins, carrying in their car the container that was given to them

for coffee, store it up and then bring it back and allow a refund, so

what we are doing in essence, we may be adding on a complete two cents

value to everything that is produced.

I would also suggest, Mr. Minister, that there are problems

concerned, in that having placed a two cent value on the returnable

bottle and on the returnable can, that if the cans are all returned and

the two cents that is charged to industry who then charges it to the

consumer, the tin comes back, now whoever has them is faced with

looking at these tins. Who pays for the cost of taking those tins and

doing something with them? So we are not talking about an additional

two cent charge for all their property, we're talking about adding

maybe three, four, and even five cents on every particular type of

container, that we have to solve a problem that is only about four per

cent of the total problem at this stage. I think, Mr. Minister, that

before that is implemented, that many of these aspects will have to be

examined in considerable detail.

I am, of course, pleased to see the

section where people are not

allowed to discharge, dump, discard etc., on land or fresh water. I

would ask the Minister what steps have been taken to put in the

pumping stations that should be on all our major lakes at this time? I

am concerned that, for example, in the Okanagan Lake and any of the

areas there is no pumping station that a person who does have a boat of

this nature can actually go to get a tank pumped out. I would think one

of the responsibilities under this

section is the establishment of

pumping stations, not only along fresh water but maybe we should be

concerned about the establishment of pumping stations along our salt

water areas.

I point out, of course, and I'm sure you are aware, that the major

problem which you are talking about is not in the fresh water lakes

where very few boats do have containers or are involved with toilet

facilities in the boat, but it is a much greater problem in salt water.

It is in this area that we should have a plan of constructing pumping

stations or, if not this,

[ Page 673 ]

perhaps a requirement that every service station that supplies fuel

oil or gasoline must have a pumping station where an individual can

have the tanks pumped out at that particular stage along the coast,

that one of the requirements of doing business in selling fuel oil or

gasoline could be the installation of a pumping plant in which such

refuse could be applied.

I do hope, Mr. Minister, that there will be an extension of this

shortly into the salt water areas, because one of the major concerns

still has to be the small bays, inlets, particularly in our inland

coast, where during the summer months you have huge collections of

pleasure boats gathered (

a) because of the natural harbour, (

b) because

of certain attractions of the area, (

c) because of the fact that others

are there and you get a huge concentration of these particular craft in

that one area, and at this stage, in certain of those bays the refuse

problem and the litter problem in that bay or that particular limited

area becomes absolutely unbearable.

I say, I think the Act is certainly a tremendous step along the way

in making people more aware and more conscious of litter, but I would

ask very special consideration, Mr. Minister, of the implementation of

those areas which may be creating much larger problems by their

implementation than we are going to be able to eliminate.

There has been pointed out, and figures are available, that the

number of returnable bottles even at two cents in most areas is

equivalent to the number of non-returnables that we find. It does not

seem at the present moment that the additional two cents will, in

essence, eliminate the problem.

I was rather pleased to see that the Minister was saying that he

wasn't opposed to the idea of adding even five cents, that was

necessary, or additional funds, and that no Bill, as he pointed out

very clearly in a telecast recently, is forever. But it would seem that

if we reach a stage where we are adding five, six and even ten cents on

the sale of a bottle of pop, that we may, by eliminating litter, be

actually eliminating the sale of either soda pop or any of these things

which I think many of our people would miss, Mr. Minister.

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

MR. R.M. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, as usual, the member from

Vancouver Centre was more than a little confused. He talked about the

danger of adding cost under one

section of this Bill in the sale of

soft drinks, then he had no compunction about advocating compulsory

pumping stations at all places where they sold gasoline or fuel oil,

which of course would be a cost item which could only be served to the

consumer.

I think what we have to recognize, and we might as well face up to

it now in this piece of legislation, that pollution control and litter

control is something that is going to have to be paid for. There is

just no other way, and we may as well face up to it now.

I think, too, the member may not have read the Bill adequately,

because

section 1 and

section 11 are the only two sections that come

into effect on Royal assent, the rest are by Proclamation. And within

the Bill itself there are two contradictory sections. There is one

principle which says no person shall do certain things, then there is

another

section later on where, by regulation, the Cabinet may exempt

anyone they please or any group they please from that

section which

says no person shall. So, it's a pretty merry-go-round Bill and a….

AN HON. MEMBER: But you're going to support it.

MR. STRACHAN: Oh yes, yes, yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're going to clean up your desk. It's covered with litter.

MR. STRACHAN: Well now, my desk has on top of it the Bill you

are now discussing, and a number of other Bills, most of them

Government Bills, and if you want to refer to your Government's

legislative programme as litter then, on occasion, I'll go along with

you.

However, Mr. Speaker, it does give the Government and the Government

agencies the power to move in the field of litter and pollution control

in many areas. I hope the power will be used. I recognize it has to be

paid for, and I'm quite willing to back the law and the regulations

that recognize that fact, and help keep British Columbia beautiful.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Oak Bay.

MR. G.S. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I'm glad to support a Bill

dealing with rubbish, (laughter) and I would like to stress the point

that the member from Cowichan-Malahat has made that we are all talking

and paying lip service to the control of pollution, but if we are not

prepared to face the fact that it costs money by one means or another,

then we might as well save our wind and not even discuss it. So that

this is point number one, and I think we should remember this in any

discussion on pollution, whether it's land, sea or air.

A point has been brought to my attention about this Bill which

certainly concerns the distributors greatly, and this appears to be

related to the fact that unless this Bill is clearly applied in such a

manner that the container must be redeemed at the point of purchase,

there is indeed a danger that we create more problems than we solve. It

took me a little while to understand what the bottlers were getting at,

but it seems to go this way, that if Safeway, for example, choose not

to accept the containers at their store and refer the customer to a

collecting depot, that if there is a limited number of depots and

they're not close to the store, experience has shown that the customer

is just as likely to take the containers and throw them away elsewhere.

Since some of these containers are in fact returnables, which cost a

certain amount of money to the distributor, the end result may well be,

or could be, that the distributor, in turn, would go over entirely to

non-returnable production of containers, since he would be losing a

considerable amount of his investment in the returnable bottles.

I don't know if I've made that clear, but there does seem to be the

danger that if the retailer has an easy option in regard to the

collecting depot, if in fact as

section 3, subsection 2 states, that "a

person may make arrangements with an agent or a wholesaler or a

distributor to provide a depot," the danger seems to be that if this

arrangement is rather lax, and if there are relatively few depots, and

if the retailer is not obligated in some way to redeem the two cents at

the point of purchase when the container is returned, that the

distributors may find that fewer and fewer of their returnable

containers get back to them. Apparently, on a single economic basis,

each returnable bottle has to make an average of eight trips, otherwise

the distributor is losing money on his returnable bottle.

I wouldn't profess for a moment to be an expert on the economics of distributing pop, but from the numerous

[ Page 674 ]

contacts that the bottlers have made with myself, and the

information they've put in my way, I would say that it does seem a

reasonable thought that if someone of the size of the Safeway grocery

chain were in any position just to refuse bottles or containers which

they had sold, and tell the customer to take them to a depot, that in

fact, judging from human nature, these containers might in fact not go

to the depot but be scattered far and wide. The end result of this

would be that the distributors would cease using returnables

altogether, and go over to a complete system of nonreturnables, which

would only make the litter situation worse. While this is a point that

they claim is not so valid, that it would correct the difficulty, they

feel that two things would be a tragedy. They could go out of business

if they're no longer in the business of bottling returnable containers,

and secondly, they feel that the litter situation might be worse rather

than better.

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

MR. P.L. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, the Anti-Litter Bill deals

chiefly with one aspect of litter, that being returnable bottles.

Dealing with just that, first of all, Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment

the Minister and the Government. I feel that they deserve the strong

support from our party and indeed everybody in British Columbia for

starting to take definite moves to keep British Columbia beautiful. In

their final years they're showing a deathbed repentance in this regard.

But I don't think, Mr. Speaker, that the two cents is enough. It

used to be two cents when I was a boy, and if we're going to, in this

affluent….

Mr. Speaker, the Government will reach it's nineteenth birthday

before long, and we hope they show appropriate maturity when that time

comes. They're showing a little semblance of it with this Bill, Mr.

Speaker, and I mean my compliments very sincerely. But we do have the

good life — and I've forgotten all the other Clancey phrases, but he's

great on the blarney, that Irishman, and he's always got a new one from

the Government — and we're doing so well in British Columbia that I

don't think two cents is enough, and I would like to recommend to the

Minister that he make that four cents or even a nickel. Let's make it

worth while for the youngsters of today to clean those bottles up and

return them, if our affluent adults just cast them aside.

Mr. Speaker, I don't think we should fool ourselves into thinking

that even an airtight system of returning disposable drink containers

will, by itself, make substantial inroads into our litter problem in

British Columbia. There was a study done in the United States of

highways, each two-tenths of a mile long, to find out exactly how much

litter lies alongside the highway. The research showed that

approximately one cubic yard of litter was accumulated per month for

each mile of primary highway, and 60 per cent of that litter — and Mr.

Speaker, that's a tremendous amount of litter — was paper, 16 per cent

was cans, 6 per cent was plastic and in some ways the plastic is the

greatest nuisance of all, and only 6 per cent were glass bottles and

jars. So you see, the non-returnable bottles only make up a small

minority of the total litter alongside our highways. Put in another

way, Mr. Speaker, just taking one average mile of highway litter there

were 1,600 items of paper, that's about one per yard, 929 cans, that's

about a can every two yards, plastic items 155, that's one item of

plastic litter every ten yards, and old tires and various unclassified

items about one every five yards. But beer bottles only amounted to

about one every fifteen yards.

This is a

summary of some research done, nobody wrote it, Mr.

Minister, it was a report from the Highway Research Board of the

Division of Engineering, National Research Council, the National

Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, done in

October of 1969. Mr. Speaker, I think this is the kind of thing that

the Minister of Municipal Affairs should be up on, and I think this is

the sort of information the Cabinet should be up on. I think I'm

wasting time with the Minister of Municipal Affairs, yes, but I would

hope'I'm not wasting time with the Minister of Recreation and

Conservation. Because what all of this adds up to, Mr. Speaker, is we

have to have containers for litter at regular intervals along highways,

in parks, in camping sites, before we're going to make real progress in

keeping British Columbia beautiful. And this is the basic problem,

really, why we have litter. There are very few people who won't walk a

step or two to put litter into a container.

How many times has every member of this House been in a place where

there was no litter can or where litter cans in Government parks were

seeping over with garbage that had not been collected? Mr. Speaker, I

would like to have seen in this Act some regulations stating how many

containers were to be supplied for litter and cleaned out regularly in

our parks and along our highways, because I think this would really

convince us that we were going to make progress. I want to say that the

member from North Vancouver–Capilano had a thought about a prize for a

truly disposable container. But I am wondering if we mightn't look in

other directions, because I'm thinking of the very imaginative devices

that the Department of Highways have — and I wish the Minister of

Highways were here, or the former Minister of Highways — is to put

these garbage gobblers alongside the road, because it's got that little

light touch, they're attractive looking containers, and you like to

stop and put something in the garbage gobbler.

AN HON. MEMBER: And they work.

MR. McGEER: Yeah, they work, but there are too few of them,

and that's the problem, Mr. Speaker, because if there's no garbage

gobbler well, you know, somebody is tempted to throw that can or that

piece of paper outside, and so it collects. A piece of paper every yard

along the highway, and a bottle every ten yards. These are the sorts of

things, if you really mean it seriously about getting after pollution,

that you pay priority attention to, and as you look at the litter,

where it is, and you look at the kind of litter that's there, and you

say here's what we have to clean up and these are the measures that will succeed in that.

But instead, with this Bill, we've given priority to non-returnable

bottles. I admit that's something that's pretty exposed, you can take a

good cuff at it, and perhaps that'll help getting people thinking about

putting litter away, but give them the containers. Take only those

measures that Government can take to see that progress is made, because

you can't expect the soft drink manufacturers to put up garbage

gobblers along the highways, you can't expect the beer manufacturers to

put up the litter cans in the parks.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why not?

MR. McGEER: Because that's Government's job to do.

[ Page 675 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Not ours.

MR. McGEER: Not Government's job to look after the parks.

Well, that's our basic problem, Mr. Speaker, we can't get across what

Government responsibility in this is…. I don't want to spend

everybody's money, Madam Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, I want to

see British Columbia cleaned up, and I think that the Minister is

making progress and we shouldn't be too critical. He is making

progress, but I'd just like to see priorities well established, a

balance of thinking and action.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the First Member for Vancouver-Burrard.

MR. H.J. MERILEES: Mr. Speaker, through you to the Minister,

I'd like to speak in support of the most popular Bill No. 33 that this

Government has ever introduced. I think it's high time we stopped

pussy-footing on this subject of litter. This Act is a positive step

forward, along with other litter control Acts and pollution Acts that

the Government has introduced in the past, and is introducing during

this Session.

I think it's high time we declared all out and total war on the

garbage-mongers, I call them, not litter-bugs, they're garbage-mongers,

and I think we ought to crack down with enforcement to follow up

excellent legislation such as that which is contained in this Bill No.

33. I think this direction has to come from the top, it's from the

Provincial authority. It should be made known clearly and unequivocally

throughout the Province, through every law enforcement agency, through

the cities and municipalities, and through our Royal Canadian Mounted

Police, no matter how busy they may be on matters of urgency to do with

crime, that at least a part of one working day per month be devoted to

tracking down the garbage-mongers and those who pollute the highways

and the parks throughout the Province of British Columbia. I don't

think anybody's too busy that they can't afford at least one hour a

week or one hour a month in this pursuit, and this is what is required

to back up the legislation, as well as education.

I would suggest that we adopt a slogan and set aside one day per

year to be named by the Minister or the Government, a clean-up day

throughout the Province of British Columbia, and the slogan to be used

would be to "Keep British Columbia Clean."

Now there are a number of organizations, commercial organizations,

many of them, and I won't attempt to mention them, and they should be

commended, as all people and all organizations and schools who have

programmes of clean-up should be commended. One medal I would like to

hand out would be to our B.C. Ferries System for their policy of not

selling chewing gum on the ferries. Now, in my opinion, chewing gum is

just about as bad as a broken bottle. The White Spot and Radio Station

CKWX, and Macdonald's Hamburgers have a policy of cleaning up within

about 100 yards of any of their locations, and these people should be

encouraged all the way by this Government and the Department.

Finally, those who have been concerned with broken glass and the

non-returnable bottles, I think the Minister, along with the Minister

of Highways, might do well to follow the continuing study and

experiments of the Illinois Glass Company, who are conducting an

experiment on highway servicing by using the crushed waste glass that

is available in North America today, and the experiments so far have

proven to be very interesting and economical indeed.

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

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd just like to

say, Mr. Speaker, that it's obvious that the whole House is going to

endorse this Bill, but it does disturb me to see this kind of

bubble-gum, Chamber of Commerce approach to the environment, and that's

really what we've been getting. I think that's a bit of a blind, and I

think it confuses the issue, and I think it's just utter nonsense for

the Minister of Recreation and Conservation to say this is a great new

philosophy, a great new departure, we're going to rely on the

responsibility of the individual, and so on, and this is really going

to come to grips with solving the problems of the environment in this

decade. That's utter nonsense.

The environmental problems are so complex and so tied to major

industrial polluters, and so on, it's almost a major dis-service to the

public of British Columbia to suggest that dealing with litter and beer

bottles and the like is dealing with the major problems of pollution in

British Columbia today. I suggest, you know, as one of the members of

this House that attended the day-long teach-in on the environment at

the University of Victoria about a week and a half ago, at which some

2,000 people attended, it's clear that these people that are broadly

concerned about the environment know that this isn't where the action

is, this isn't where the action is really necessary. It's a much deeper

problem, and I'm afraid that it's a dis-service on the part of the

Minister to suggest that this is a major departure, this is really

coming to grips with the problem of the environment, because it simply

is not so.

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

MR. G.H. DOWDING: Mr. Chairman, one of the basic self-help

ideas implicit in the Bill is that no person shall offer any beer, ale,

soft drink or any other type of container for consumption off his

premises without undertaking to refund to the purchaser, on delivering

up of the container, the sum of not less than two cents. Well, of

course, right here there is a flaw, what can be termed a fatal flaw, in

a Bill unless something is done to correct that particular flaw.

It says, "undertakes to refund to the purchaser." Well, you know,

and I know from previous experience that with returnable containers,

they have an intrinsic value and an intrinsic use. That's why they are

returned, that's why they pay a deposit so they will get them back.

When a retailer or the original supplier sends them out he does so with

the intention they will be returned because they have intrinsic value.

A tin can that's punched open has no value, and I don't see the

manufacturers turning over to the intrinsic value containers

necessarily. They will rely on the fact that the public, when they

purchase a container, will not come back and they will have made two

cents thereby on each container.

You know, one of the most infuriating experiences is to have a back

seat full of used pop bottles from the Salmon Arm area and try to trade

them in in Kamloops. Different containers, they won't return them so

you've got to put them in the garbage can, because who's going back to

Salmon Arm to trade them in to the vendor from whom you purchased, so

the problem is not solved in that particular provision.

[ Page 676 ]

You have got to somehow widen it. For instance, what store owner is

going to take your bottles or cans unless he knows he sold them to you,

and if it has a brand name, that isn't proof. It says, "shall undertake

to refund to the purchaser," and that means the person who sold it to

him, nobody else. So it is ridiculous in the terms here. Every company

can get around that particular idea implicit in this Act, because you

have got to prove you got the container from him. You can't under the

wording that the Minister has proposed to the House, unless each of the

vendors puts a special signature on the bottle or container, he has no

obligation to return the two cents. So he is going to get rich at that

rate if he keeps selling them at two cents extra on each bottle, and

you can't prove you got it from him. What are you going, to do, sue him

for two cents? The way the wording is there, the essence is not the

intrinsic value of the container, and the payment of the deposit that

you get back and where you go.

You've got to go back to the store that you purchased it from, so it

is a bit of a headache. You go to Salmon Arm and you can't trade them

in at Kamloops, as I pointed out, so you can't get mad at the store

owner in Kamloops, you might be annoyed about the one at Salmon Arm, or

vice versa…. You mean that the member for Shuswap is getting

restive, but I have a suspicion that he has some information on the

subject about how to change the bottles at Salmon Arm.

But I do point out that the vital point is missed in this

section of

how you make a general common currency that works wherever you go, and

whether you go to the same store again or not. That's the beauty of

those containers of famous brands that are all uniform, they have a

currency value of. their own, like money, and that's why the kids pick

them up, that's why you can take them to any particular place and you

don't need depots. Any place that sells coke will take the coke bottle,

no doubt about it. They don't care if they get 50 bottles back and sold

only 25, they know that they have got value in currency. That's what

this Bill does not provide.

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

MR. W.L. HARTLEY: The greatest value in this legislation is

that it is a start, and for that reason I will support it. I believe,

starting in this fashion, if we have an educational campaign amongst

the schools it will develop a social consciousness, and I think this is

very, very necessary if we are going to make any sort of a start on

tackling the over-all problem of pollution.

Now in this start, and I have reason to believe the Minister will be

doing something through Parks, or Recreation and Conservation, if we

could have a borrow-pit dug in the area of any of the lakes, and I am

thinking particularly in the Nicola Valley, there are some 60 odd

lakes. Some people will go in with jeeps and in some cases you have to

walk in. Well, where you walk in there is not too much of a litter

problem, but if systematically we could cover the lakes in B.C. and

have a borrow-pit dug, have proper signs put up so that people will

know that this is a pit for garbage disposal. Then in the fall, after

the camping and hunting and fishing season is all over, if the same

crew that had built these pits would go in and with their equipment

push the garbage into a pile, cover it and, if necessary, open another

portion of the pit, so that it would be there for next year.

Now in connection with the educational campaign in the schools, I

believe in the Centennial year, if we had a contest, a Miss Clean and

tied in with this, an over-all programme of education in pollution

control. We could have a Provincewide Queen contest in all the schools.

This would start the young people thinking. When they think, maybe some

of us oldsters would do a little thinking too. Now along with Miss

Clean, along with the Queen campaign Miss Clean, just to go over the

years, we've had Smokey the Bear to prevent forest fires. Smokey the

Bear has become international. I believe we could also have Whitey the

Bear. Have a Polar Bear designed something after Smokey the Bear, and

have the slogan "With Whitey the Bear, Help Keep B.C. Clean." This all

helps develop the social consciousness….

HON. L.R. PETERSON: It would be a bad reflection on Smokey the Bear.

MR. HARTLEY: ….I thought you were going to say that we were

trying to sabotage you politically, Mr. Attorney-General, I thought you

were going to say that we'll probably clean up in politics, too.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! I have allowed an extremely wide

range of debate on this particular Bill, but I think we are ranging a

little farther than even I intended. Will you come back now to the

principle of this particular Bill.

MR. HARTLEY: I do believe that by having slogans, poster

contests and so on it would help encourage everyone to be more tidy.

Like the second member from Vancouver East, I attended the teach-in on

pollution, and after you have listened all day to different speakers,

you think twice before you drop a gum wrapper, or a candy wrapper, and

I think this is part of the social consciousness that we do need to

develop, and I look on this Bill as the first step in that direction.

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

MR. E. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I don't intend to prolong this

debate. I think all members support the Government's intention to do

something more than we are now doing about litter, but I am somewhat

concerned, as others are, about the implications of the non-refundable

bottle sections, and only to add a couple of points. I think what we

are doing here is attacking a matter of public convenience, and the

fact that some 50 per cent of containers now sold in the beverage

industry are represented by non-fundable containers, and of course part

of these in the Act suggest that, including the metal containers,

there will be a two cent refund involved, and I can see tremendous

administrative problems in trying to enforce this particular section.

I think what is more important, as others have said, is that we have

an educational programme and more enforcement involved. So what I would

just like to suggest, is that we think twice before proclaiming the

section covering the non-refundable container.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for New Westminster.

MR. D.G. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, one or two very brief remarks on

this Bill. But you know, the highlight, a Freudian slip this afternoon,

Mr. Speaker, a Freudian slip. You know

[ Page 677 ]

we were told by the Minister that we are looking for a high-quality

environment, a high-quality environment, and this is a concept of the

change of philosophy. In other words, the Government's philosophy has

not been up to now for a clean environment, but we are changing our

philosophy, thank goodness for that, and thank goodness for the fact we

are changing, but I am afraid that we are not going far enough, Mr.

Speaker.

The problem, of course, has always been that the massive doses of

pollution that we are getting from some of the great polluters of our

day, and some of these great polluters of our day….

MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member will have the opportunity

to discuss pollution under another Bill. We are presently discussing

the Litter Act.

MR. COCKE: Well, as far as I am concerned, litter is

pollution, Mr. Speaker, and just to get down on to this particular type

of pollution then, I would wonder what kind of enforcement we could

envisage under this Bill. Are we really going to be changing our

philosophy, or are we just window-dressing, Mr. Speaker? I just wonder,

Mr. Speaker, where those depots for the bottles are going to be. Are

they going to be scattered throughout the whole countryside, or are

people going to have to set up depots? What hours are they going to

have? Are they going to be convenient? I think we are kidding ourselves

when we think that all is right in this matter. I think that we have to

have something pretty fundamental to go by.

Two cents, I agree with some of the members in the past who spoke

about this two cent business, two cents is not really the amount that

is going to really attract bottles to the depots. Two cents was paid 20

years ago, two cents was probably paid 30 or 40 years ago for bottles,

and certainly with inflation the way it is, kids are going to be

thinking of some other kind of job to do, rather than going picking up

bottles, and particularly if they have to take them to some depot

that's miles and miles away.

Now there is a half a dozen things here that have to be really

tightened up, in my view, and I do hope that we can go a great deal

further than this Bill is taking us at the present time. A far more

reaching Bill and far more reaching way of implementing these ideas.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Member for Kootenay.

MR. L.T. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, I've got a few remarks to make

in regards to this Bill. I think there's some very good items in it.

One of them is making the people that litter responsible for their

litter, but I don't think that we can pay them for cleaning up their

litter. I think they should have to clean up their litter. The one in

regard to sewage into lakes from campers, and I am very pleased that

that is in this Bill. I had an occasion where two American campers with

two outfits came up and stopped alongside of a lake, run their hoses

right into the lake and run their sewage into it. We got the police,

but the police didn't seem to be able to do anything about it, and I

hope that this

section is proclaimed very quickly, because I think

those are the kind of sections that can be proclaimed without any

difficulty at all.

But I am dubious about the idea of paying two cents for a smashed-up

can, or a returnable can. You are discriminating against the soft-drink

group, and yet we've got thousands of people who have pork and beans

out camping, and every other thing, and there is nothing said about

these cans. I don't think that you will be able to enforce a two cent

price, because your Act states definitely that the seller guarantees to

pay the buyer two cents if he returns the can. Now some people think

that this is going to give children a great chance to make a little

pin-money by going around collecting cans, but I don't see anything in

this Bill where a store-keeper — he could refuse to accept the can at

any time.

To me it's as the honourable member for Burnaby Edmonds said, that

the returnable bottles now have an intrinsic value, but things that

have no value and we are going to force people to pay two cents to the

people to bring their cans in to see that they keep the litter cleaned

up, we're going to force them to pay two cents for that. The fellow

that is handling these cans will have to raise the price at least five

cents in order to handle the whole deal, if he wants to break even on

it. So I am going to make a prediction;

section 3 will never be

proclaimed.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Delta.

MR. R. WENMAN: Just very briefly on this Bill. I wanted to be

sure to bring it to your attention that the Provincial Council of

Women, the President of whom lives in my constituency, has asked me to

bring words of commendation to the Minister for bringing this Bill

forward, and it is their intention to make this known further to you.

I think this is an excellent Bill, because it is going to bring home

the facts to every individual that the great "they" is actually "we."

Everyone I have talked about pollution to have talked about "they," but

there isn't one person, really, in our society who doesn't drink a

beverage in one form or another, and so therefore everybody is

affected. This Bill, in itself, will be an educational programme, just

through the enactment of the Bill.

There is going to be lots of problems, certainly, and I would

disagree with the member for Vancouver Centre, I don't think that we

should delay, because no matter, it's a step that we must take, and I

don't want the bottles littering our beaches in White Rock and Crescent

Beach and Delta. They are coming from all over, they come in from all

over the lower mainland. They are coming from even outside of the

Province and the country. But at any rate, no matter when you do it, we

must come to this point, somehow that litter has to be picked up, and I

don't think it is the taxpayers that should be subsidizing this as a

whole, it should be by the person who actually drinks that beverage and

discards that bottle.

I was going to say that we could have an educational programme. I am

all for an educational programme. I think that's just tremendous, and

when our education programme takes us to the point where you and I and

our children and everybody else will reach down and pick up that bottle

and deposit it in the can, then we won't have a need for this Act. At

that point we can redo the Act.

I think it is very good that we have given incentives in many ways,

incentives and decentives. We are going to give a reward for the return

of the bottles, and if you don't return the bottles we are going to

provide a penalty, but one way or another we are going to try to force

that litter to be picked up. I think it is very good that the

enforcement is broadened, because certainly we couldn't expect this to

be carried out entirely by the R.C.M.P. alone.

[ Page 678 ]

I would suggest also, just a first step, and I would hope that we

wouldn't have to go to some sort of further incentive of increasing the

incentive to say five cents a bottle or can. I don't want to have to do

that, and so I feel confident that all of the companies that are

sponsoring these litter programmes are going to continue to sponsor

them, and they are going to solve the problem both at that level and

also at the level of enforcement. I look forward to the day that we can

educate every individual and that is the point, we must get back to

every individual. It is fine for everybody to cry pollution, but let's

get back to the individual and let them realize that they are the

polluters.

I'll look forward, just as I am going to look forward to voting for

this Bill, I also look forward to the day when I can vote to repeal

this Bill, because we no longer have the problem.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister without Portfolio.

MRS. GRACE McCARTHY: Well, Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief.

I wanted to just mention three things in regard to this Bill, and it is

in regard to some of the statements that have been made today as to

what really is litter and where the problem is in our neighbourhoods

and in our communities. In the Canadian Research Services that made a

count project in Ontario, of all the material that was counted in a

five mile stretch of highway in that Province, 76.3 per cent of it was

paper, and in glass and returnable bottles, non-returnable bottles and

other, only 1.5 per cent of the total was litter caused by bottles or

any kind of container made of glass. It is true that the most dramatic

example of litter comes in the cut glass and the broken bottle which we

see on our beaches, and I have spoken in the House during the debate on

the Throne Speech in regard to this particular problem, and I am

delighted to support the Bill because I believe it is indeed a step in

the right direction.

But I join with other members in our side of the House who have said

that this Bill truly is initiating an awareness of a litter problem

that we have in many other areas, and not just bottles. It will focus

attention on the problem, and I think that this is tremendously

important. I do believe, too, Mr. Speaker, that it is important enough

that it will initiate a lot of attention in the municipalities and in

our communities where the onus must be placed on the municipalities to

provide receptacles and containers for the litter that we, the people

of our Province, make, and I believe that it is important that our

Government leads and encourages this kind of cleanliness.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say, in concluding my remarks on

the Bill, that I think it is very imaginative, forward legislation that

is going to help fight a problem that is a very large one in each of

our communities, and will lead to cleanliness in British Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Shuswap.

MR. W.F. JEFCOAT: I hear everybody groaning, Mr. Speaker, but I don't know why. I won't take up much time of this House.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. JEFCOAT: But I would just like to say at this time,

coming from the Shuswap area where there is a large tourist potential,

that I am very happy to see a Bill of this nature come in.

I have heard it said here today that two cents is not enough. Maybe

this is so but I can tell you, resort operators in my area last year

who, on their own, on their own, without the manufacturing companies

assisting or anything else, gave five cents for any bottles etc., that

the children brought in to them. I know one large resort gave five

cents for any bottles and they had no trouble whatsoever keeping their

grounds clean. There is nothing in this Bill that says that we must pay

two cents. It is a minimum of two cents, so there is nothing to stop

any operator, if they wish to help with this programme, and I am sure

that they all will, in giving five cents, if necessary, for any

returnable or any empty container that is returned by the children.

I am sure that this is a step in the right direction, and the part

that I like about this is that it says no person shall discharge, dump,

or discard any of this, and there are penalties for this. I think that

if we — it is up to you and I - we are all responsible for pollution,

and we all are, so each one of us is responsible for helping to clean

this situation up, and I think that with a little education that

perhaps added money will not be necessary, but there will be ways and

means.

I have no hesitation, in fact I've had letters of praise to the

Minister for coming forward with such straightforward legislation as

this, and I am sure it is a step in the right direction and that we,

too, will get along very well, and that before long we will have a

different Province to live in.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Recreation and Conservation will close the debate.

HON. W.K. KIERNAN: Well, Mr. Speaker, we have had a very

interesting discussion on this subject. That little Bill generated

substantially more discussion than I had anticipated it would.

I think also, however, that there is some little misunderstanding

about the change of philosophy that I was recommending to this

Province. The change of philosophy is simply this, "Buster, it's your

litter — if you packed it in there, you pack it out!" That is the

change of philosophy I'm talking about. And until we have that kind of

a change of philosophy there is no Government, there is no

organization, that is going to be able to provide enough garbage cans

that we won't have the country strewn with the discards of various

sorts of packages. So we've got to come back to the individual.

"Buster, it's your litter, it's your material. You packed it in there,

you pack it out." Now, of course, there are other matters dealt with in

the Bill, matters that are of some importance. But really, that is the

basic underlying proposition.

Now, on the question of merchandising, it simply says that you, as a

merchant, offer this commodity in this kind of a container for sale. By

the act of offering it for sale, you have committed yourself to refund

that type of container. If you don't wish to refund that type of

container, just don't offer it for sale. It may not be an entirely

satisfactory arrangement to the keen legal mind, but to the average

person that makes sense, I think. If you sell it you are responsible to

refund it. If you don't sell it, you are not responsible to refund it.

Now, on the question of enforcement, we are not expecting the peace

officers or constables to carry the whole load. Our Conservation

Officers, our Park Officers, our Forest Rangers, will have the

authority to issue tickets or

[ Page 679 ]

issue summonses for offences, and we are not expecting a massive

programme of prosecution, but rather a steady educational programme

combined with the fact that if you commit these offences, you are

liable to be ticketed when apprehended.

As far as a prize for a fully disposable container is concerned, I

would think that the prize that would be available to anyone who could

come up with that kind of a container, either a fully edible one or one

that would disintegrate after a short period of time and go back to

humus, he would undoubtedly reap a tremendous prize because he would

have a patent there almost beyond price.

Now, on the question of whether it ought to be two cents or five

cents per bottle or container, the two cents is the minimum. There is

nothing to prevent any bottler from offering as large a refund on his

bottles as he feels is necessary to assure getting them back, and if he

wishes to offer a nickel that is quite all right, but they must have a

minimum of two cents. Redeem at point of purchase, well, I have already

covered that.

Litter along the highways is not primarily bottles and cans, as one

person noted. That may be true, but nevertheless the bottles and the

cans represent one of the most hazardous forms of litter, and while it

was noted by the leader of the Liberal group that the Act deals

primarily with bottles and cans, in fact that is only a comparatively

minor portion of the Act. The Act deals with the broad question of

litter generally, and the individual's responsibility for its disposal.

I think, however, that throughout the debate this afternoon it

became very apparent that there are no simple solutions to these

problems. We talked about public education. We've talked about

enforcement of litter regulations, and it will have to be a combined

programme of public education, enforcement, provision of additional

facilities, and I'll only say to you, Mr. Speaker, that I feel this

Bill is a step in the right direction, and move it be read a second

time now.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The motion is that Bill No. 33 be now read a

second time. All those in favour signify by saying Aye. Contrary

minded, No. So ordered.

HON. L.R. PETERSON: Second reading of Bill No. 35, Mr. Speaker. (An Act to Amend the Adoption Act).

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Bill No. 35. The Honourable the Minister of Welfare.

HON. P.A. GAGLARDI: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the Bill is

to amend the Adoption Act to allow a person to adopt another person

over the age of — 21 years, but only under certain circumstances. The

person in question has to be brought up by the ones who wish to adopt

him, and this is for a number of reasons. There are not, perhaps, too

numerous cases that would fit, but yet it is a Bill that has been

requested for some period of time.

Then it also permits an official or a social agency outside the

Province to give valid consent to the adoption of a child in the

Province under certain circumstances, and it also empowers the Court,

in dispensing with the consent to an adoption, to accept the written

report of the Superintendent about the facts required under the

sub-section (6) of

section 8. I move the second reading of this Bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition.

MR. D. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I don't intend to adopt anybody

in this House excepting the Honourable the Minister of Highways!

That'll cost you, my friend, that'll cost you!

Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of amendments in this proposed Bill

that we approve of. We still have some question about the absolute

statements of the Superintendent of Child Welfare. Mr. Speaker, I

suggest to the honourable Minister that when these kind of rare

adoption arguments take place, that he routinely ask his Department to

keep him informed, so that just in case any kind of situation boils up

monthly or yearly, that the Minister knew ahead of time. Because he can

find that the Superintendent may move, in all good faith, only to have

made a move into an adoption where all the information might not have

been available. I am not suggesting that the Department didn't get all

the information, just that it wasn't available at that time and there

can be disputes afterwards.

I would like to share with the Minister a concept towards adoption

that could be incorporated in a Bill like this. I am suggesting to the

Minister that with the shortage of adoption homes and the delay that

takes place in placing a child in adoption, that new approaches be

innovated by the Department toward adoption. I would like to see the

Department, under this Bill, go on a Province-wide recruitment campaign

for good adoption homes.

There are many people, Mr. Speaker, out there who want to adopt

children but do not have the financial wherewithal to adopt. In the

past, when this Act has been amended in the House, I suggested to the

Government that the legal fees for adoption be absorbed by the

Government. This suggestion was taken by the Minister's predecessor and

is now, in case, the fact. The Provincial Government will pay the

adoption fees.

I would like to now extend to the Minister even a further concept.

Out there, Mr. Minister, there are literally hundreds of homes that

have good family life, good stable situation, that could easily handle

another child except for the limiting factor of not having enough

funds. I suggest to the Minister that approaching the idea of

purchasing a loving home on a permanent basis and broadening the

adoption plan on that concept. What I mean simply is this, Mr. Speaker,

is that when you go out to recruit an adoption home, suggest to people

that the home that they have to offer the child is worth $60, $70 or

$50 a month, even after the child is adopted, because a family that is

on a marginal income may want to adopt a child, but find that the

income is not sufficient enough to handle that child.

I believe further, Mr. Speaker, to suggest to the Minister the

concept of purchasing home life, placing with two or three children….

(not recorded at this point)….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, the Honourable Minister.

HON. GRACE McCARTHY: I would just like to suggest that the

Honourable Leader of the Opposition is straying from the purpose of the

Bill. I believe, although his points are very interesting and well

taken, I am very interested in what he has to say on this problem, but

I think they could be well taken up under the Estimates of the Minister

of Social Welfare.

MR. BARRETT: Well, I appreciate the point of order raised by

the honourable the lady Minister without Portfolio, but I would point

out to her that this is

an Act to Amend the Adoption Act. The Adoption

Act deals with the placement on a permanent basis of children in

adoption homes, and I

[ Page 680 ]

am suggesting that there….

AN HON. MEMBER: This Bill deals with those over 21.

MR. BARRETT: I know that. I am suggesting there may be people

over 21 that need a permanent home, too, I know a lot of them around.

But if the Minister would just prevail, or wait a few moments, I will

finish anyway, and I am within the Act.

I am suggesting that the expansion of adoption should include the

recruitment of adoptive homes with the idea of purchasing the service

of that home, even after the adoption takes place. There are working

families, men and women, working families who don't have enough money,

they would like to adopt a child. If the Government would subsidize,

under the Adoption Act, rather than under foster care, we could make

the permanent kind of adoptions on a broader base under an expanded Act

that is necessary with the surplus of children and a shortage of homes.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think the Minister's point was well taken that we are debating Bill No. 35. The Honourable Minister closes the debate.

HON. P.A. GAGLARDI: Mr. Speaker, the points that have been

raised have been well taken, and I'm sure the Leader of the Opposition

has had some experience in this field, but I'd like to move now that

the Bill be referred to a Committee of the whole House for

consideration….

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just one moment, we haven't passed it on second reading.

MR. GAGLARDI: I move the Bill now be read a second time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that Bill No. 35 be now read

a second time. All those in favour signify by saying Aye. Contrary

minded, No. So ordered.

HON. L.R. PETERSON: Second reading of Bill No. 36, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Bill No. 36,

An Act to Amend the Protection of Children Act. The Honourable Minister of Social Welfare.

HON. P.A. GAGLARDI: This Bill, and there are these amendments, merely give the child or the person in question more protection.

There are a couple of things that are considered under this Bill.

These amendments provide for a swearing out of a complaint within seven

days, a period of time has been set, and then, (

b) to clarify the

grounds upon which the Judge is to act. This is giving him further

guidelines. Then to provide a review of an order of committal under the

Juvenile Delinquent Act of Canada, and then to provide for a notice

being given before a hearing under another

section of the Bill, and

this is more protection, and more guidance to the Judge, more

protection for the child, and I would move second reading.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition.

MR. D. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I have amendments on the Order

Paper which I will not refer to other than to suggest that members of

the House would be well advised to read those amendments on page 17 of

the Orders of the Day .

Avoiding the specific amendments that I have suggested, I'd like to

point out to the Minister that the amendments herein deal with the

simple matter, or the not so simple matter, of a child welfare worker

going into a home and removing that child because the child has either

been abused or neglected by the parents.

Mr. Speaker, the removal of a child from a home, no matter how bad

that home is, is a traumatic experience for that child, and if it is

handled properly there will be a minimum of emotional scars left from

that experience, but if it is handled badly, the removal of a child can

create a particular incident in that child's life that will mar his

development towards a mature person throughout most of his life.

The Minister has announced that the complaints will be spelled out,

and that's good, Mr. Speaker, but in the past I have asked the

Department of Welfare to consider, that when the complaints are spelled

out to a Judge, that the parents or parent or guardian of that child

should have a copy of that complaint as a matter of routine, Mr.

Speaker. Let me say this in defence of the Department. It is a very,

very rare thing that a child is apprehended, and the Department does

not move unless they are absolutely sure they must move.

But what happens is the parent, in rationalizing his own neglect or

failure with that child, oft times visits the child and does not tell

the child the details which led to the withdrawal of that child from

the home. Because the parent himself is never confronted in writing

with the reasons why the child was removed, and I think that's a

mistake, Mr. Speaker. If the Department is going to prepare a report

for the Judge, a copy of that report should go to the parent, so the

parent is confronted with the real reasons why the child was withdrawn.

If the child then is being played with as some kind of game by a parent

who is trying to overcome his or her fault, the parent will at least be

able to be brought back to reality by the social worker in terms of

having the same report that the Judge has, in front of that parent.

Now, the other thing, Mr. Speaker, is that there must be a process

of appeal written in this Act, to you the Minister of Welfare. The

parent should be given a system of appealing the Welfare Department's

decision, and because most of the children who are brought in to care

by the Government are from families of marginal incomes, the Government

should provide an independent lawyer for those parents.

Every avenue should be blocked off that would permit the neglecting

parent the opportunity of rationalizing to the child that the — Government is a big bad Government out to separate the child from its

parent, because I know — the Minister has been told by his staff, I am

sure — that there are children who have been in foster homes for six,

seven, and eight years, and who still resent the fact that the

Government is caring for them, simply because at the time they were

brought into care there was not a proper handling of the parent to

stifle all of the misinterpreted ideas of why the child was brought

under care. So I am suggesting that there should be a system of appeal

and that the Government itself should provide the lawyer for the appeal.

In the other

section relating to the swearing out of complaints and

the complaint being sent in writing to the Court, let me suggest that

the complaint should also go again

[ Page 681 ]

here to the parents. I'd like to point out to the House that the

section as it stands now is one that was advocated in Committee some

years ago in this House, and I regret the delay that it took this long

to catch up.

Without going into any more detail, I'll have the greater debate

during the time of the sections, Mr. Speaker, but let me point out that

again an opportunity presents itself to this House to move forward, by

amending this Bill, to suggest that every child coming into Court

should have a complete physical and psychological examination. I don't

want that opportunity missed and I will say no more because the

amendment that I propose covers that. But let's not pass up these

opportunities to really do some basic child care and child protection.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, let me say this. The Minister has a very

tough job. His Department goes far beyond just the matter of social

assistance, and I am sure he's finding out that it's not an easy

Department to carry. The Minister and those who have preceded him know

full well that the most difficult part of all is administering the

Child Protection Act. Through no fault of your predecessors, Mr.

Speaker, this Act will now be affecting 13,000 children in the Province

of British Columbia. We have the highest number per capita of children

in care in all of Canada, a statistic that not even Social Credit wants

to brag about. But because of the rapid deterioration of family life in

North America and the emphasis on that deterioration here in British

Columbia, we must examine this Act even more fully, 13,000 children's

lives depend upon this Act, and I ask the members to read the

amendments that I am proposing.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister closes the debate.

HON. P.A. GAGLARDI: I move that the Bill be now read a second time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that Bill No. 36 be now read

a second time. All those in favour signify by saying Aye. Contrary

minded, No. So ordered.

HON. L.R. PETERSON: Second reading of Bill No. 34, Mr. Speaker.(An Act to Amend the Veterinary Medical Act) .

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Bill No. 34. The Honourable Minister of Agriculture.

HON. C.M. SHELFORD: Mr. Speaker, it's a very minor amendment,

and I think the explanatory notes pretty well make it very clear. All

it does is allow groups to establish animal hospitals, etc., and to

hire veterinarian help. Then the other principle involved is that

action against veterinarians would be limited to one year, that is,

proceedings would have to start within one year, which is in line with

Ontario and Alberta and most other professional Acts. With that I would

move second reading.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burnaby North.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY: On behalf of the member from Yale-Lillooet, I move adjournment of this until the next sitting of the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The motion is that we adjourn debate. All those in favour signify by saying Aye. Contrary minded, No. So ordered.

HON. L.R. PETERSON: Second reading of Bill No. 37, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Bill No. 37,

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

HON. R.G. WILLISTON: Mr. Speaker, this is a relatively minor

amendment to the Forest Act. It involves only two or three sections

therein. The first clarifies a situation wherein individuals engaged in

research activities in the forest and Crown lands are exempted from

reservations and restrictions which happen to be attached thereto.

There is reference made to a changed situation when a farm is sold,

with the status of its associated wood-lot, and when this Bill is in

Committee an amendment will be introduced at that time to bring

clarification of the matter. There was confusion concerning a portion

of the farm or what portion would constitute continuation of the farm,

and that reference is being eliminated in the amendments which will be

brought forward. In all matters of dispute in timber areas, at the

moment where malpractice or some dispute may exist and the person is

ordered to stop operation, the Act has allowed a period of three months

or approximately 90 days, and it's felt that 30 days is adequate for

such notification in future.

For many years now we have been scaling wood in the cubic and in the

foot board measure, and it has been at the discretion of the operator

which scale would be used. Now we are on almost universally a close

utilization management scheme. The cubic scale measurement, along with

weight scaling, has become almost universal in practice, and we are

removing the opportunity for the operator to determine the type of

scale, and the Minister shall determine, in certain instances where we

still have obligations going back to the foot board measure situation,

wherein that may be continued in the future.

The major item in the change, Mr. Speaker, reflects to a management

section in the Forest Act concerning the setting aside of specific

recreational areas within sustained yield managed units. This is in

total in keeping with the land use committee, the designation of the

best use of certain areas of land. There are many areas within our

forest lands which are opened up, through access roads and things of

that nature.

Whereas they may not be park areas as such, but if given

proper treatment, particularly around lakeshore areas and when access

has been provided, that by prescribing the type of activity which will

take place thereto, the recreational amenities of these designated

areas may be preserved for all time. In the Forest Service we have

placed, also, a recreational officer whose job it is to co-ordinate the

various recreational potentials within the different forest areas and

to co-ordinate this work with the rangers and the people in the various

forest districts.

These are the only matters, Mr. Speaker, that are dealt with in this

relatively minor amendment to the Forest Act, and I move second reading.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Second Member for Vancouver East.

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I agree the bulk of

[ Page 682 ]

the changes are reasonable, and a form of housekeeping that should be done.

The question of farm wood-lots and various Crown land arrangements

with holders of land in fee simple is something that maybe deserves

more detailed attention at some other stage. People that have the use

of Crown range lands and so on are really in much the same category.

What happens often is that the public's asset is traded with the

private asset and is capitalized, in fact, in the value of the private

asset. The statute at least makes it clear that it still is a public

asset, but in fact it gets traded privately like most of the Crown

resources of this Province.

As to the business of establishing recreation uses within the

Provincial forests and within the sustained yield units, I think, in

principle, one would have to agree that that's a reasonable idea. But

often what one would agree with in principle turns out to be very

different in practice, and that really should be a reason to pause for

a few moments, at least, in relation to this proposed amendment.

Because, Mr. Speaker, the Parks branch of this Province used to be

apart of the Forest Service and they just had forestry officers

essentially handling the parks function. Until the establishment of the

Department of Recreation and Conservation, that was the situation, this

was a branch of the Forest Service.

I feel, you know, to some extent there is still interdepartmental

rivalry between the Forest Service and the Parks and Recreation

Department, and one can't help but wonder, while this is reasonable in

principle, will it end up being used, in fact, to abuse the parks'

recreation-conservation function further in the Province of British

Columbia, because the history of the Government is really none too

happy with respect to recreation and parks. It's clear that if there's

an officer within the Forest Service that is concerned about

recreation, that he's going to have to be dealing in a line department

with Forestry Officers, not Recreation Officers at all. So it seems

clear that the first sway in these huge forest reserves is clearly

going to be with the industry at bat, because the Department really,

primarily, works closely with the private forest industry of British

Columbia.

So we probably face the prospect in the future in British Columbia,

Mr. Speaker, of probably no major Provincial parks ever being declared,

because the argument will be that we have this aspect of the Forest

Act, and that within the forest we can have a multiplicity of uses

including recreation, but in that kind of situation, Mr. Speaker, there

is no question about who is going to be the loser. The recreational

user in all of our forests is presently the loser, and even with the

recreational officer, I'm afraid he will probably continue to be the

loser. So one can endorse the principle, but the facts of life in terms

of the administrations and the different points of view within each

administration are such that there's little prospect of major progress,

even though one could endorse the principle.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that Bill No. 37 be now read a

second time. All those in favour signify by saying Aye. Contrary

minded, No. So ordered.

HON. L.R. PETERSON: Second reading of Bill No.