[ Page 645 ]

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 10, 1971

The House met at 2: 00 p.m.

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

The committee rose, reported Resolutions 48 to 57, inclusive, Estimates of the Department of Education, and asked leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister of Finance.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (South Okanagan): I move that we proceed, being Private Members' Day, to public bills in the hands of private Members. If the Opposition is ready to proceed, I'll take their advice on Bill 8.

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 9, An Act for the Regulation of Cigarette Advertising. The Honourable the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

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

Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce this bill, which is number 9, N-1-N-E, in your bill book. I'd ask all honourable Members to open their bill books. It's an act dealing with the regulation of cigarette advertising, Mr. Speaker.

I think everyone will concur that smokers do have rights in society but so do health authorities. It's very much, Mr. Speaker, the function of Government to do whatever it can to protect…Dr. D.D. Rutstein has, not too long ago, said that, in the six years since his first report which called smoking a hazard to health, the percentage of adult male smokers has dropped from 52.9 per cent to 42.0 per cent, whereas for the female smokers the decrease has only been from 33.8 per cent to 31.0 per cent. It's obvious, Mr. Speaker, that a great deal more can be done and, dealing with this, all honourable Members will recall the words of Dr. Johnson, in his well-known saying, "If you're going to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates the mind wonderfully."

I'm asking each and every Member to concentrate their mind wonderfully on this particular bill in this measure. It's this type of public concentration and public awareness that I want to emphasize in British Columbia, insofar as the deleterious and harmful effects of smoking are concerned. I do not think, Mr. Speaker, that cigarette companies or tobacco companies, perhaps, using the word in a broader sense, should be given carte blanche rights to advertise the weed. As this doctor stated in the United States, Dr. Rutstein, who is the head of Preventative Medicine at Harvard Medical School, he says you're faced with a decision, and the decision that the general public is faced with is this, whether you'll give the cigarette industry and its advertisers a permanent and unrestricted hunting license with an open season of twelve months to hook our youngsters into a lifetime of addiction which will lead to increased disease, disability and very untimely death for them and for their young ones. I think that, in British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, we, as a Province, and the Members of this Legislative Assembly, are prepared to meet the decision. I think that B.C. should take the lead in Canada and ban all advertising of cigarettes. Furthermore, all packages must contain an appropriate health hazard warning. The health hazard warning that is proposed in this bill is very short. "Warning — this product has a nicotine and tar content that is harmful to human health."

I think everyone will agree that the dangers that can be faced more than justify the curbs. All of this most vigorous advertising that each and every one of us is subjected to when you open a paper — very, very attractive young ladies and handsome men, and fine horses, and mountain ranges, and these great crystal clear lakes — pretty well their only job is to push a fag and I think that's a lot of nonsense. There's absolutely no health in the very things that are portraying good health and it boils down to, really, a phoney message. Smoking is a harmful and stupid habit and if cigarettes and cigars should be called anything and should be regarded as anything, Mr. Speaker, I think they should be called cancer sticks or emphysema popsicles. It's hoped that this bill will eliminate cigarette advertising in B.C. and any person who would contravene its provisions would be subject to restraining orders and an injunction in an injunctive process, without proof of damage, at the suit of any British Columbian in the Supreme Court of British Columbia. 1, therefore, move second reading. I do hope that this measure will be warmly endorsed.

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

HON. R.R. LOFFMARK (Vancouver South): Mr. Speaker, I was delighted to see the reaction to some of the statements made by the honourable mover of this bill. I think it was of particular significance that a number of the people who applauded most enthusiastically were people who, at one time or another, had smoked. I think the only thing you can say is that there's no one so zealous as a convert.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.

MR. LOFFMARK: Now there are many, many considerations that are involved in this act and, particularly, we should take into account the fact that we have national advertising in magazines and so on. There are constitutional questions and, without considering further some of the difficulties of administering laws which cut across activities which in some respects are Federal in their administration and others that are Provincial, it might be appropriate, I think, in the circumstances, that we let this matter stand over for the time being to give us an opportunity to consider it further. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would move adjournment of this debate to the next sitting of the House.

Motion agreed to.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 10, An Act to Amend the Supreme Court Act. The Honourable the First

[ Page 646 ]

Member for Vancouver East (interruption).

MR. G.H. DOWDING (Burnaby-Edmonds): Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 10 on behalf of the Honourable Member for Vancouver East whose name is on the bill. In this particular bill, the purpose of it is quite simple, really, and that is to try to give effect in British Columbia to a judgement that was handed down recently where it became clear that, since in this Province we have not made any provision to comply with section 11 of the Official Languages Act of Canada, it would not be possible for the Courts in this Province, the Supreme Court, particularly, to have discretion to conduct a trial in the French language.

Now, I want at the outset to say that this, in no way, imposes any obligation on any Court in British Columbia to conduct trials in the French language. What it does do is leave it to the discretion of the Court — where there is no discretion today. This, therefore, in no way, can be said to impose any obligation but I think it would be one of the finest gestures this Province could make towards the further cementing of the relations between English- and French-speaking Canadians to let them know, in the East, in this Province, that the discretion exists that is provided in section 11 of the Official Languages Act of Canada. It was, really, in a particular case that was before the Bar, a matter of distress that that trial could not have been conducted in the French language. It was one where everyone was eminently suited to conduct it in the French language. Since the report has been handed down by the Bilingual and Bicultural Commission, it has been very evident that British Columbia is, really, not involved in the main problem of bringing about a wider understanding between French Canada and the rest of Canada. That's why I urge the support, in principle, of this bill because, as I say, it places no obligation on us, but it makes it clear that the Court has discretion in matters where the persons concerned can all speak French.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Attorney-General.

HON. L.R. PETERSON (Vancouver–Little Mountain): Mr. Speaker, this bill may appear as a simple amendment but I want to suggest to the House that it does have some ramifications, which I don't think have been considered by the honourable Member. Now, there may be Members of the judiciary, who consider themselves sufficiently fluent in the French language to be bilingual. They may pronounce some of the words of the language better than those of us who took our training in French on the Prairies, Mr. Speaker. Nevertheless, the fact must be considered that it is more than the judge who must be bilingual. It would involve full supporting staff, clerical staff, court reporters to be able to record the testimony in French, counsel on both sides fluent in French. I think even the honourable Member who just moved second reading of this bill would have great difficulty in giving me the names of one team who could do this. Then, assuming the trial at the original level could be heard in French, what about the rights of appeal and the production of the Appeal Books, etc. to the Higher Courts — to the Court of Appeal'? How many members of that Bench and their supporting staff could deal with it in the French language? However, I think it's important that we consider the full implication of this bill. So that we can have a little more time to do so, I move adjournment of the debate.

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

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, it's the Government calling these bills. I wonder, if the Premier and the Government Members are not prepared to discuss them, we might find it better to have them called on a day when they would be prepared to discuss the bills.

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

Motion agreed to.

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

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

MR. H.P. CAPOZZI (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, it's with great pleasure that I rise to discuss and propose this bill. It is a very simple bill as it is written but, within the intent of the bill, are some of the frustrating problems that I think are the cause of a great number of the problems in modern day life.

When the computer first appeared on the scene, it came on with such a tremendous impact. It could do such fantastic and marvellous things and it was predicted to be so accurate and capable of providing answers to such complicated problems almost instantaneously. It's only after several years of having been living with the computer and the computer age that, suddenly, people are becoming aware of the fact that a computer is only as accurate as the people who surround it, in essence, and that it is not only subject to errors but, unlike the human individual, who may be subject to errors but is capable of correcting them, the computer, in most cases, while subject to error, finds itself incapable of correcting them. Time after time, throughout modern day, today, we have watched giant corporations and many businesses get on to the use of automated machinery and we have seen it in the question of banks, in the question of credit cards, in department stores and even in our own Government offices and the use of material being placed on computers, which is no doubt very quick, very accurate and, as a method of processing, a wonderful way of imparting, in essence, the amount of dollars involved or required from a customer. Suddenly, the bill is placed in front of him. No one touches it. It's unseen by human hands. This is a great product of our time. But, more and more often, people are finding that once an error is made by the computer, there is no further communication. There is absolutely no relationship. I can produce and air many letters which all start out, "Dear Sirs: I have received your bill for $45.40. I would call to your attention that I never was in that particular city on that date and there is no way that that could be my charge." Back comes the letter from the computer saying, "You have a bill outstanding of $45.40." Then the second letter goes from the individual saying, "I wrote to you on such and such a date and called to your attention that this is not my bill. I am not responsible for it." Back comes the computer saying, "You have 30 days to pay that bill." Another letter goes back saying, "but, dear sir, in reply to your letter of such and such a date, I would point out that the amount that you're asking is not my responsibility and I refuse to pay it." Back comes the computer saying, "As of this week, your letter will

[ Page 647 ]

be placed in front of an attorney and you will be subject to prosecution." Time after time, in every area, we are finding more and more of this with a tremendous sense of frustration building up on the part of the individual. He finds in many cases that his credit is destroyed as a result of the fact that, now, the computer advises all its computer friends that it has a charge which is outstanding on its books and that this particular individual is no longer able to charge.

Mr. Speaker, speaking slightly in jest on that phase of it recently, there was a gentleman speaking in Vancouver, who pointed out that it is only a matter of time until all credit cards in Canada will be placed on a single computer — on one single computer because of the economics of this. Let me put into possibility what could happen to an individual if that computer makes an error. Within five to ten years, it is very possible that the majority of transactions will be carried out by some form of magnetic card and when you go to buy gas, when you go to the grocery store, when you go to make any charges you will not do it with what we commonly, today, know as cash transactions, you will carry a personalized card which you will insert into whatever particular store or whatever area you're going to purchase from and it will automatically put the amounts, etc., on that card and from it, it will be transmitted into a central computer and will be processed through your bank account and put through it. This is already a matter which is being gradually brought into our economic circle, today (interruption). Well, the point though is this — that, once an error is made in this particular case, it is possible for a traveler to find himself without any means of finding dollars or finding support or purchasing groceries or purchasing any part of the necessities of life.

This bill is designed to begin the necessary legislation that is going to be required to protect the individual from computer transactions because, at the moment, we do not have anything that protects the individual from an error that can destroy his credit rating. This bill is designed to do this, Mr. Speaker. I'm suggesting that what is required by this bill is that, any time that any account is processed by a machine, automatic machine or computer, and an objection is raised by the individual, there is no liability on the individual until that claim has been satisfied, in writing, to that particular individual. I'm hopeful, Mr. Speaker, that this bill could liberate the human being from computer injustice. I move second reading of this bill.

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

MR. B.A. CLARK (North Vancouver–Seymour): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is an interesting bill, inasmuch as it, in fact, with all deference to my friend, the mover, is one section out of a bill, that comprises some 20 sections, that I introduced last year. It is, also, in fact, an attempt to deal with a very minute part of the real problem. The principle of protecting the individual from the computer is a most worthy one, but I fail to see how one's credit transaction is more important, for example, than an error made in one's criminal record, which, at the moment, can be transcribed to computer, as well, and transmitted throughout the world.

There are many ramifications to this particular piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, again, in matters of jurisdiction where, I would suggest, this information is crossing Provincial boundaries and indeed crossing the border between ourselves and the United States. I think it deserves a great deal of thought and I therefore, move adjournment until the next sitting of the House.

Motion agreed to.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill 40, An Act to Amend the Protection of Children Act. The Honourable Member for Delta.

MR. R. WENMAN (Delta): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise on this historic occasion. I wish to commend the Premier for the recognition of Private Members' Day, certainly, a very worthy democratic procedure.

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

MR. WENMAN: Yes, certainly. The four year old boy died from a large mass of clotted blood in the brain, increasing its weight by one and a half times, by burns on the hand consistent with those on the palm of the hand from a cigarette, of a three-inch tear in the liver, of extensive bleeding in the right lung, of injuries, possibly, inflicted from a link chain, a pinpoint rash on the buttock consistent with a beating from a sharp brush applied bristle down, from multiple bruises on the body. The young four-year-old child cried out to its mother, "Please, don't leave me alone again, mommy."

I understand that this type of thing happens constantly in our Province — the problem of young children, defenseless, being destroyed by their adult counterparts. Currently, we have a law in our Statute books, which allows for a fine of $100 or a gaol term of up to a year as if this, in some way, is going to bring that four-year-old child, be he your son, your grandson or your nephew, back to life, or will ever cure the…(interruption). The principle is very sound, Mr. Member. I'm discussing the principle of the destruction of children and that they should be protected. There is a penalty in the act that I am suggesting be amended — the fine of $100 and a jail term of up to a year. Both are wrong because neither the fine is going to cure the person who is involved nor will the gaol term. That's why the principle of this bill recognizes that the person responsible for the destruction of this child needs psychiatric care, first of all and, then, if psychiatric care proves to be unsatisfactory, as confirmed by a group of medical doctors, further action needs to be taken. Either that person cannot be released into our society or, if he is to be released into our society, surely, he should not be allowed to create another child to be beaten to death. It is for this reason that I have brought these amendments forward in order to protect future children from being beaten to death and in order to provide treatment to the person responsible in a humanitarian way. Because this exists in great prevalence in our society, I encourage this Government and all the Members of the Legislature to support this kind of an amendment to bring protection of our future generations and to the present generation. I, therefore, move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burnaby Edmonds.

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

[ Page 648 ]

30 years ago. If it is proposed that this Legislature say that, when a person is guilty of gross misconduct, whatever that is…it's not defined in the bill…

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, it is.

MR. DOWDING: No. It isn't. What it says means when a child dies, severely injured through abuse or neglect…Well, if you're driving along in a car and you were grossly negligent and a child died, you'd be guilty, under this definition, of gross misconduct. Well, my point is that it's extremely hazardous to put out bills of this kind that will give the idea abroad that this Government or any Member in it would support the idea that sterilization of a person, because of being guilty of gross misconduct, would be a result of a committee, and that commitment to a mental hospital could be a result of gross misconduct. Per se, it is a most disquieting idea to even put abroad. I'll point out the reasons. First, if someone were guilty of what is alleged in the definition, that is, if, as a result of someone, a child under the age of 19, dying or being severely injured through abuse or neglect…(interruption).

You see, my friend down the road is presuming that, somehow, we have some say over the criminal law of Canada and we don't. If this is supposed to be a criminal offense, then, we have no right legislating in this field at all. Alternatively, if this is to be a committal as a result of a finding in a Criminal Court, then, of course, the section of the Code that deals with committal of the insane takes over and only by that way, whether it be in a summary conviction offense under the Criminal Code or under an indictable offense, only by the Code can anyone be committed into the care of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council.

What is presumed here is that wide and sweeping powers shall be given to somebody, presumably the Government, it doesn't say how, through the Protection of Children Act, that, whenever a person who is under the age of 19 dies as a result of abuse or neglect, these consequences, beyond the criminal law, seem to flow. This would be absolutely beyond belief. In its present form, the bill could be subject to the most widespread abuse. Now, if someone is guilty of child-beating or child-abuse, the Protection of Children Act, today, gives the State the right through a superintendent of child welfare or through the Children's Aid to apprehend the child and make sure that that parent doesn't have children in his or her care or custody again. That right exists under the present act. The question of whether an adult should be sterilized as a further punishment or retaliation or the fact that, psychologically, he is unable to cope with children and treat them kindly, is a most disturbing idea. The only people who are sterilized, now, as unfit are ones who, by the very act of procreation, would create a child in the world that has no hope of being normal at all. Only in the most severe examples is that power used under the present Sterilization of the Unfit Act of British Columbia and it, really, deals with people whose IQ may be in the very lowest range and who could not give birth to anyone but a completely subnormal human being. But to extend it, as the honourable Member would do, would be a most hazardous proposal. Once, as we found in the history of this civilization, 30 years ago, when you start on that road, where do you stop and who decides? It's too dangerous to play around with this kind of bill. I would urge the Members to not support it.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Member for Alberni.

MR. H.R. McDIARMID (Alberni): Mr. Speaker, I share the concern of the Member for Delta in an attempt to protect children. I don't think that anybody in this House would be against this, in principle, but I would have to find myself in the unusual position of having to agree with the last Member who just spoke in indicating that the cure is almost as bad as what he's attempting to cure. We could have an incongruous situation of somebody doing exactly this same sort of thing to a child but not having care and control of him. I mean, he could be attacked on the street, even, and the remedy which was available to the parents, say, that had care and control, would not be available to this person. In any case, I would have to say, and from my experience and I'm sure any practicing physician who's had experience at all…. There's one instance that I had, personally, of a woman, driven to distraction, possibly temporarily insane, actually attacked her child, without the intention of hurting him, but threw him across the room. He struck his head and was very severely injured. This was a matter of grave concern to me and I reported this to the police. She was apprehended and, in fact, was sent for psychiatric examination. The circumstances around this were such that, while I didn't condone her actions, I could understand how she had come to do this. In this particular instance, she did not intend to do the harm that came about. You know, while the Member would probably say, in this instance, this lady would not be sterilized, still the possibility is open. I don't think, as legislators, this is something that we want to leave to somebody else to decide.

I'd like to say, Mr. Speaker, that subsequent to this, the particular crisis that this woman was going through resolved itself, reconciliation took place between her and her husband, they subsequently had three more children and now there isn't a better mother whom I know of, basically. It's this sort of case, to me, that, even if they're in the minority, I would say that we can't go along with this most severe of remedies which is proposed in this bill. Therefore, I would suggest that we vote against it and I move adjournment of this debate.

Motion agreed to.

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

The House adjourned at 5:55 p.m.

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

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

The House continued to sit until after midnight.

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

The House adjourned at 12:34 a.m.