[ Page 731 ]

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

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

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

Bill (No. 1) intituled An Act to Amend the Reciprocal Enforcement of Maintenance Orders Act.

Bill (No. 28) intituled An Act to Amend the Civil Service Superannuation Act.

Bill (No. 3) intituled An Act to Amend the Municipal Superannuation Act.

Bill (No. 5) intituled An Act to Amend the School District and Regional Colleges (Pensions) Act.

Bill (No. 6) intituled An Act to Amend the Members of the Legislative Assembly Superannuation Act.

Bill (No. 7) intituled An Act to Amend the Public Services Group Insurance Act.

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

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

Bill (No. 13) intituled An Act to Amend the Provincial Home-owner Grant Act.

Bill (No. 14) intituled An Act to Amend the Gasoline Tax Act, 1948.

Bill (No. 15) intituled An Act to Amend the Gasoline Tax Act, 1958.

Bill (No. 16) intituled An Act to Amend the Coloured Gasoline Tax Act.

Bill (No. 17) intituled An Act to Amend the Motive-fuel Use Tax Act.

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

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

Bill (No. 21) intituled An Act to Amend the Taxation Act.

Bill (No. 23) intituled An Act to Amend the Trespass Act.

Bill (No. 24) intituled An Act to Amend the Fur-farm Act.

Bill (No. 25) intituled An Act to Amend the Animals Act.

Bill (No. 27) intituled An Act to Amend the Public Libraries Act was committed, reported complete with amendments. Bill as reported to be considered at the next sitting after today.

Bill (No. 29) intituled An Act to Amend the Settled Estates Act.

Bill (No. 30) intituled An Act to Amend the Variation of Trusts Act.

Bill (No. 31) intituled An Act to Amend the Testator's Family Maintenance Act.

Bill (No. 32) intituled An Act to Amend the Infants Act was committed, reported complete with amendments. Bill as reported to be considered at the next sitting after today.

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

Bill (No. 33) intituled An Act to Amend the Consumer Protection Act.

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

Bill (No. 36) intituled An Act to Amend the Revised Statutes Act, 1966.

Bill (No. 45) intituled An Act to Amend the Community Care Facilities Licensing Act.

Bill (No. 47) intituled An Act to Amend the Public Schools Act was committed. The committee reported progress and asked leave to sit again.

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

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

Report No. 2: that the preamble to Bill No. 50 intituled An Act to Incorporate the Vancouver School of Theology has been proved and the Bill Ordered to be reported with amendments.

The report was read and received.

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

Report No. 3: that the preamble to Bill No. 51 intituled An Act Respecting Central City Mission has been proved and the Bill Ordered to be reported without amendment.

The report was read and received.

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

Report No. 4: that the preamble to Bill No. 52 intituled An Act to Incorporate Canadian Institute of Management (British Columbia Branch) has not been proved to the satisfaction of your Committee, which recommends that the Bill not proceed further.

Your Committee's decision is based on the conclusion that the principal aims and objects of the petitioners do not require private legislation to be effectively accomplished.

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

The report was read and received.

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

Report No. 5: that the preamble to Bill No. 53 intituled An Act to Amend the Vancouver Charter has been proved and the Bill Ordered to be reported with amendments.

The report was read and received.

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

MR. PRICE: Report No. 6, that the preamble to Bill No. 54 intituled An Act to Amend the Seaboard Assurance Company Act, 1953 has been proved and the Bill Ordered to be reported with amendments.

The report was read and received.

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

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the thirty-second Annual Report of the Public Utilities Commission for the year ended December 31, 1970, and a Report of Activities pursuant to the Cemeteries Act and the Prearranged Funeral Services Act.

[ Page 732 ]

The House adjourned at 5:57 p.m.

The House met at 8: 00 p.m.

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

On the motion of Mr. W.K. Kiernan, Bill (No. 88) intitaled An Act to Amend the Regional Parks Act was introduced, read a first time, and Ordered to be placed on the Orders of the Day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

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

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

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

HON. W.K. KIERNAN (Chilliwack): Mr. Speaker, this is what might be termed enabling legislation. I think the bill is quite self-explanatory within itself. I would simply point out that the objective of this legislation is to provide legislative authority for registering, identifying and regulating those classes of vehicles that are not normally operated on the public highways and, therefore, are not subject to the existing motor-vehicle registration and licensing procedures.

While we know there are several thousand snowmobiles, or Skidoos, whichever you wish to call them, within the Province, and while we know these vehicles are here, we have no way of knowing how many there are, precisely. We have no way of identifying their ownership and, since there is a growing measure of concern being expressed, and rightly so, that these vehicles are, for example, invading wilderness areas that were previously fairly inviolate and are tending, on occasion, to get themselves into difficulties with private property owners, and for a variety of other very valid reasons, we believe it has now come to the time when we should provide the legislative vehicle to register them, and identify them by number in a manner comparable to that used for boats. In other words, a number issued for the life of the vehicle is to be painted or stencilled on the hull of the vehicle and be that vehicle's permanent registration number, regardless of who may own it, so that it can be identified at a distance and, of course, by reference to the registration documents which will be maintained by the Motor-vehicle Branch, since there is no necessity to set up a separate registration system. With that kind of identification of the vehicles, both as to ownership and as to the particular vehicle, we will be in a position, I think, to offer some reasonable measure of control, not only for the benefit of the people who might be offended by the use of these vehicles, not only for the protection of wildlife which is, unfortunately, on occasion, being harassed by these vehicles, but also for the protection of the operators of the vehicles themselves, and for the further necessity of separating skiers, snowmobilers and similar lines of activity, simply for the general public safety.

It is not proposed at this time that, under this Statute at least, they will be in any way licensed to operate on the public highways. If they are going to operate on the public highways, that becomes a matter for the Motor-vehicle Act and will, I believe, require full compliance with the Motor vehicle Act. We know there are thousands of these vehicles operating over all sorts of unoccupied Crown land and, in some cases, over private land, and we ought to be able to properly identify them.

You will notice, as you go through the bill, that the responsibility for what is done with one of these vehicles is placed, in the first instance, on the owner. We also have a requirement that those people who, as a business, lease or rent out these vehicles, shall be covered by public liability insurance. There is no requirement for general public liability insurance but the first onus of responsibility is placed upon the owner of the vehicle. There is no general limitation within the Statute on the age of the operator. The onus, in this case again comes back to the owner of the vehicle. I think that, basically, Mr. Speaker, the series of principles embodied in this bill are directed to bringing some necessary measure of regulation to this type of vehicle on the basis of not necessarily regulation, but regulation, if necessary. I move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kootenay.

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

Motion agreed to.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill 67, An Act to Amend the Wildlife Act. The Honourable the Minister of Recreation and Conservation.

MR. KIERNAN: Bill 67, Mr. Speaker, contains two or three new policy matters. The rest of it is fundamentally directed to what we might term housekeeping legislation or clarification of some of the terms in the existing Statute.

You will notice, throughout the bill, the term "game or big game" is eliminated and replaced by the term "wildlife" which has become the accepted method of identifying all of the wild animals of the Province. There is a provision in these amendments to provide for a firearms license for those people who carry firearms for purposes other than hunting. As you know, the recreational use of firearms, not only encompasses the field of hunting for game but, today, there is a substantial number of people who use firearms for trap-shooting or just going down to the gravel pit for an afternoon of target plunking and that sort of thing.

Prior to 1966, you were required to have a hunting license, if you were carrying a firearm. It was, at that time, described as a hunting and firearm license. When we brought in the Wildlife Act, in 1966, because we were completely out of line with any jurisdiction in Canada, we eliminated the requirement of having a hunting license in order to carry a firearm, if, in fact, you were not going hunting. Since 1966, because of general public demand and broad public support, we have developed a system of hunter safety training. While it is referred to as hunter safety, or firearms safety training, the training programme encompasses perhaps the whole range of necessary and desirable skills, if you are going to go out into the wilderness in search of game, or even if you were just

[ Page 733 ]

going out into the true wilderness. Emerging from this programme is the requirement that those people applying for their first hunting license in 1972, will not be issued a hunting license, until they have obtained a certificate of competency from one of our five or six hundred qualified examination officers throughout the Province. I say five or six hundred because the number of qualified examination officers is increasing every month and certainly by 1972, there will be virtually no comer in this Province where a person wishing to take the training for the safe handling of firearms and take his examination will have any difficulty in finding a person who has been qualified by our safety training officers and certified to give inspections and training for the safe handling of firearms.

I think if you examine the bill rather carefully, we have tried to exempt from the term "carry" those things relating to the transportation of firearms that could not be by themselves construed to be carrying a gun for the purposes of target shooting or any related matter. In other words, we have tried to avoid interference with people who are simply with their household goods in transit through the Province. We have tried to avoid any requirement for a person who simply keeps a firearm on his own property, or a person who has his dad's old 38.55 above the mantelpiece and never has any intention of going out and firing the thing, anyway. If the Member from Cowichan-Malahat's old mother….

MR. STRACHAN: Muzzle. (Laughter.)

MR. KIERNAN: Oh, I thought you said your old mother…Well, if his old mother has an old shooting iron that she keeps above the fireplace…Oh, that was his mother-in-law. That's another story, Mr. Speaker. I don't think we ought to get into that tonight. It would be unfair, especially to the Member from Cowichan-Malahat(interruption). Stop bragging, or we'll open the season on you. There is a further…(interruption). The trouble is I've never issued a game tag for you.

There is another basic provision in the amending bill in that we can declare a species to be an endangered species and, by having declared it, an endangered species…(interruption). No, I assure you that this amendment is not directed against either of the Opposition Parties. Having declared a species to be an endangered species, raptors…on Vancouver Island, for example, the wolverine is virtually extinct, we may have to declare it an endangered species…The basic idea is that many of the animals, such as the cougars, the wolves, the coyotes, if they are in any way suspected even of molesting livestock, they can be shot. If we declare a particular species in a particular area an endangered species and somebody shoots one the onus will be on them to prove that it was, in fact, a menace to livestock or people. In other words, if a person has shot a wolverine attacking some of his domestic animals, then, the evidence is fairly obvious, because the wolverine probably didn't wander into the chicken pen to ask the chickens the time of day. That's a reasonable assumption. It's a reasonable assumption of guilt when you catch the wolverine in the chicken pen. The simple fact of sighting and shooting an animal of an endangered species will not, in itself, relieve you of being charged with having shot the animal and you will have to prove that there was some necessary reason for you shooting. Now, this, of course, will apply only to a very limited number of species and only in limited areas. We did not have that provision in the previous act — the authority to declare a species an endangered species and give it special protection. So this amending bill also makes this provision.

Mr. Speaker, that covers the principles. There are some details but they are more details of administration. With that, I move that the bill be read a second time.

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

MR. W.L. HARTLEY (Yale-Lillooet): Mr. Speaker, on the principle of this bill, we will support it in principle. We would like to discuss certain sections more at that time.

I'm pleased to see the changes with regard to the carrying and licensing of firearms. This puts our conservation officers — the change in the legislation back in 1967 or 1968, whenever it was made, put the law enforcement officers in a very difficult position. They could go off into the hills and meet someone with a rifle, obviously hunting, but as long as he didn't have game and they could even hear him shooting, he could say he was target practising. I found, in chatting with different law enforcement agencies, that it put them in a very difficult position, when they couldn't give a man a ticket for carrying a rifle even in the woods. I believe that we should tighten up on the legislation so that, where firearms are found in cars, reasonable action can be taken to control situations like this.

I would like to commend the department for its hunter training programme. I think this is very worthwhile. I believe all too many of us grew up to take a rifle and possibly go out with a parent or an older hunter and we learned by doing and are fortunate that we didn't meet up with an accident. I believe the hunter training programme, that is being given full support by the various wildlife groups throughout the Province — I know the Hope wildlife group, the Princeton and Merritt have schools and many of the members have passed the exam and will be working with the department.

In the endangered species, I believe we have to watch very closely game birds. I was visiting with a friend in Clayburn over the weekend and he tells me that, now that the season has closed, the pheasants are staging a comeback — the first comeback in years. If there is an open season, I hope it will only be for cocks, cocks only and possibly for one weekend, so that a few of these cock birds maybe could be taken. I think we have to watch the pheasant, the partridge and the bobwhite — the partridge and the bobwhite are pretty well extinct in most parts of B.C. I would like to see a programme of restoration of pheasant, partridge, bobwhite and prairie chicken because, with our wide use of pesticides and the controlling of grasshoppers which the prairie chicken feed on, we've pretty well wiped out the prairie chicken in many parts of the Province. If they could be reintroduced…and with our programme of control of DDT, pesticides and insecticides…As we control these pesticides more and more, I believe both the game animals and the wildlife will have a better chance, particularly the game birds such as pheasants, prairie chicken, partridge, will have a better chance to come back. I hope there will be a very limited season on hen birds and doe animals.

As far as certain other species, I think probably we should consider putting a bounty…there is some talk of having a bounty on cougar. Other people feel there should be quite a large bounty on the roadrunners. We support this in principle. We'll have certain amendments in the sections.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kootenay.

[ Page 734 ]

MR. NIMSICK: There are quite a few good points in this bill. Some of them I'm not quite certain about. I think that the Honourable the Minister, when he dealt with firearms, in regards to carrying them without going hunting, I mean, not for hunting purposes, that it should have been taken out of the Firearms Act. I think we scatter these things through too many acts. The Firearms Act is dealing with this principle of carrying firearms, without using them for hunting purposes. I feel that this separate license should have been dealt with under the Firearms Act.

Another point in this act that I would like to see the Minister deal with and that is in regards to the trespassing. This is about the only act and the only group of people where they have got a separate trespass act, people who go hunting, or, in this act, anybody who trespasses. We've got a Trespass Act and when somebody puts up a sign, "No Trespassing,"…. I think this could be handled under the Trespass Act. I don't think it should come under the Wildlife Act, because in the Wildlife Act, we are dealing with a separate thing altogether. To say to the hunter, who has got a legal license, that he is a different type of a citizen to somebody else who trespasses, I don't think it's a proper way to look at it. This is one of the things I think the Minister should take under close consideration because I feel that, if a person is violating the Trespass Act, he knows what act to go to. But, in this case, we've got them on both points under two acts. I don't think that this is the proper place to deal with trespassing.

There are some points here that are very good. I don't know in regards to the hunter training. I say that this is good. I hope though that in the outlying areas that are far away from places that you don't put individuals and pioneers, people who have lived in an area for a long time, to a lot of expense having to go maybe 100 miles, or 200 miles, to get to some place where they can take an exam. If that is the case, then, you are going to put them to a lot of extra expense. I think maybe that a written exam sometimes for some of these people could be adopted. I mean by letter and have them fulfil…maybe appoint somebody in their area that could take the exam. I am certain that, in many areas in the Province, you are not going to have a qualified examiner right at your fingertips for that person to be able to get to him very quickly. I think that we've got to take all these things into consideration when we are dealing with the whole Province. We're not dealing with just one area. There are lots of areas where there is no problem at all but I think in some areas you will have problems in regards to this question. Most, of course, dealing with an act such as this, a Wildlife Act, most of the controls are done by regulation. We've got very little say in a bill like this. I intend to say more about that when your estimates come up because I don't think it really is involved in this bill — the regulations of governing the different animals.

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

MR. D. BARRETT (Coquitlam): Mr. Speaker, just about three brief comments on the bill…I don't feel that the gun registration procedures outlined in the bill go far enough. In my opinion, I would prefer to see all rifles registered. There are too many exceptions under the section, here, that the Minister has. I would also like to see the registration of firearms take place at the time of purchase and the exam take place at the time of purchase. If the exam cannot be given at the time of purchase, then the application for the purchase of a firearm should be made through the department and a supervised exam be given at an appropriate location and the exam be mailed in or marked by the Government agent. But there is a presumption, here, that I don't agree with, that the purchaser knows how to handle a gun and you wait until the exam time before you prove it. I think that some preliminary test should be made available. Also on the private sale of firearms, I think that all such transactions should be registered the same way as when an automobile is sold — a secondhand automobile is sold between two persons — that gun should be registered and the registration of sale should be kept.

The problem in the United States with firearms…I understand that almost every home, or every household, in the United States has firearms. They are for sale through magazine advertisements. I think that, if we are going to ban cigarette advertisements and liquor advertisements, it might not be a bad idea to ban the firearm advertisements. But, in terms of controlling firearms, there is a terribly powerful lobby in the United States by the National Rifle Association. We don't suffer from that kind of lobby here. The Minister is moving tenderly into areas where I think the public would accept far more stringent regulations than you are proposing in this bill. I hope that, during the committee stage, the Minister would consider far more aggressive administrative procedures of handling the very serious problem of controlling firearms.

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

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, I recall a number of years ago, when I was working in the State of Delaware, they opened up a hunting season for deer for the first time in many years. That year in Delaware, there were more hunters killed than there were deer. I think the record was 44 hunters killed and 42 deer. The reason I mention that, now, is that I think we cannot go too far in limiting firearms by making the regulations for their use at all as strict as we possibly can, to commence now a programme of public education aimed at eliminating hunting as a sport, and to try to make this world a safer and a pleasanter place in which to live. I can see nothing but harm coming from the promiscuous use of firearms and their general availability.

The Honourable Members may recall, as well as I do, the day not too long ago, when, just four blocks from my home in Vancouver, the family of a former Member of this House, was slaughtered in their backyard by a person of unsound mind who possessed unregistered firearms. He was a former CCF Member, Mr. Arnold Webster, with his son, and their four children, and his daughter-in-law. That's the kind of thing I think legislators in this House should be taking very seriously. If we don't take the first steps to try to limit the use of firearms, with the ultimate objective of eliminating them entirely and discouraging hunting, we are going to continue to invite the kind of senseless carnage that goes on, both in the woods and outside the woods, as a result of the private possession of dangerous weapons.

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

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

[ Page 735 ]

I might as well forget about using them. I used to use them a lot but…I might have to oil them up. I just want to say this. We don't own the earth. We're just sort of passengers on it and I agree with the Honourable the Minister, who is piloting this bill, who said that, at one time or another, about ecology.

I like the idea that wildlife — no one has any property rights in them. I think it's a tragedy — the older you get and the more you see of the world — to see the destruction of the habitat of wildlife and the destruction of game itself. The idea that it's game, of course, really goes back to our primeval ancestors, who seemed to think that game was theirs for food. We haven't got that excuse anymore, except for those people in the North who need it for food. The idea of killing an animal for sport just doesn't add up as sense. It really isn't sport to kill anything. You do it if it's necessary because it does harm to you, or harm to others. We talked about wild dogs running in packs and the need to destroy them but would you have a contest for people to go out and kill wild dogs for the fun of it? Would you have as a sport and a competition, people going out on icefloes with clubs to beat baby seals on the head as a sport? Yet people do that and some people do it as sport.

I think it's time we started to use the provisions of this bill — I see the start of it in the bill — to limit by regulation those species that can be termed as game. Mr. Speaker, how does a person, in their own mind, designate what is sport and what isn't sport? Killing baby seals for the fur, that's a business and you are not supposed to enjoy that — that's a business.

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

MR. DOWDING: I didn't think baby seals were before the House. I'm sorry. I used it as an example of using a business reason for killing life on this planet. Yet, on the other hand, there are people, without the excuse even of making a living out of it, who go out and kill for what they call sport. I don't know how they make this distinction, the more I think about it. I particularly think it's wrong for us to permit people to collect wild animals for furs by use of traps. Traps are very cruel. For years, we've had a lot of people in our society who have written us letters about the use of certain traps. We have never solved this problem. We let people go ahead trapping wild animals without regard to the torture that they go through for years. Year after year, animals are being tortured in traps, their legs broken. They often have to chew their legs off to get out of a trap and we seem to think nothing of this. Yet the more you take your children out in the wilds, the more you begin to appreciate the need of preserving the wonderful environment that we have in British Columbia. One of the things that disappoints me more than anything, as you travel around this Province, you are seeing fewer and fewer animals in their wild state. You used to be able to travel around…go down to Grand Forks, or up in the Kootenays or up in the Okanagan. There wasn't a time that you wouldn't see a deer crossing the road or wild animals beside the road. You could see practically every kind of wildlife along the road as you went. That's not true any longer in British Columbia. We are losing these rare sights that we used to enjoy.

I think it's time we took a different attitude on the whole question of the preservation of wildlife. I think the way we go about this is a gradual restriction of the area in which there is permission to take wildlife so that we can gradually wean these people with bloodlust out of it and educate them away from it. You know, the tiger is a dangerous beast, of course, in India, but it's nearly extinct. Wild elephants in Africa are becoming extinct. In many regions they have had to preserve them. There is going to come a time in this world when we'll only be looking in books to find out what wild animals were all about, if we don't watch what we're doing. When you consider the numbers of animals that are being destroyed by the flooding of the Peace River, the Peace River Dam, Williston Lake, or at Duncan Dam, the destruction of wild animals that results from that…When you realize the destruction of game birds that took place…

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

MR. DOWDING: Well, I am trying to talk about the extent of this bill and its effect on wildlife, but I wonder what this bill is really all about. Is it to preserve wildlife or is it just to make the rules for people to kill them? Well, you know, I can always oil that gun up, my friend.

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

MR. R.M. STRACHAN (Cowichan-Malahat): Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. This is a bill that affects every person in a different way. We're all human beings…(interruption). Well, I think we are. Yes, I would like to believe that. People go hunting for a variety of reasons. I have never been a hunter. I just don't happen to like firearms. I don't happen to like the whole process of violence but, nevertheless, man, in his early beginnings, was a hunter. He had to hunt to survive. This is why, still, today, many people still enjoy the feel of the hunt. As I say, I don't happen to enjoy it but there are a lot of young people today who want to return to nature, who are now looking for land where they can settle and enjoy the spirit of the pioneer. I think hunting was part of that and I would much rather that the many people in the Province, who have an attraction toward guns, who have an attraction toward hunting, would do it in a licensed, regulated way. If it releases some personal animosity or creates some personal satisfaction, that's fine. I would much rather they did it that way than have to have it closed off completely and find it used against some other area of society.

For that reason, I support the bill. We support the bill. Because of the fact that it is part of human society, that everybody is different, some people require this as an outlet to maintain their balance and, as long as it's properly regulated, I agree with the Minister that this is a step in the right direction. I agree with the Leader of the Opposition when he said that every gun should be registered. I want control of guns but I also agree with the right of the individual to walk out in the bush and pursue a wild animal as he sees fit. He's pitting his skill against that of the animal and, without the gun, he'd be about fourth best. The gun gives him the advantage but I think within our kind of society, it is a very necessary part of life. Even though I don't like it and I don't do it myself, I think we have to go along with the Minister and recognize the need for control, recognize the need to allow this sort of thing to continue in British Columbia, because we are that kind of Province, with wild game in abundance. Because we've interfered with

[ Page 736 ]

nature in other ways, by cutting trees and creating areas of feed for wild animals, then, we balance it somewhat by allowing the hunting to bring a balance to the wild game that's available. For that reason we support the bill.

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

MR. KIERNAN: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to clarify a couple of points. The one raised in relation to the fact that perhaps the recreational use of firearms belongs more adequately in the Firearms Act. I wouldn't dispute that too seriously, except that we are trying to deal, in a single Statute, with those things that relate to the management and harvesting of wildlife, the Wildlife Act, so that we have those matters relating to firearms for recreational use within the act. We have those matters relating to trespass and the special postings required if you are going to prohibit people hunting on your land, so that as near as possible we have it all within the one act. Now, I am not suggesting what, in the future, may happen to the Firearms Act but I think what you will find here in this Wildlife Act, as amended, is that we have those reasonable measures of control that we ought properly to have in the Department of Recreation and Conservation. What may or may not be done with the Firearms Act, per se, in the future is not for me to suggest at this time. I simply say that we have consolidated the recreational use of firearms within the Wildlife Act in the same manner that we consolidated those features specifically related to trespass in the harvesting of game that are pertinent simply to the management within the Wildlife Act. I think many of us share the concern about this business of hunting but I would point out to you that we harvest annually in this Province about 70,000 deer, which even at a dressed weight of only 100 lbs. a piece is what? — 7 million pounds of venison. We harvest 25,000 moose, at a dressed weight of 400 lbs., plus a few thousand elk and caribou, so it is a substantial amount of food that is harvested. Bear in mind that, if you didn't have a method of harvesting, if you didn't have a method of holding these herd sizes within the range capacity, you would have to, then, know that, at some point, they would die off at a very substantial rate as a result of starvation. As the member from Cowichan-Malahat mentioned, in many cases, we have reduced or eliminated the normal predators. We couldn't tolerate the kind of wolf population that would be needed even close into the settled areas to hold the deer and moose population under control now. So it would either be allow people to hunt under regulation or, alternately, send out Government hunters or set up traps and reduce those populations. What we are running into, in the Cariboo, right now, has simply been a case a combination of weather conditions and population numbers outstripping the available feed in those concentrated areas. So, in game management, you have to keep the population in line with the winter range carrying capacity.

I think this pretty well settles the points that were raised. I just want to reiterate there is nothing dealing with firearm registration in this legislation. It is not a part of the amendments before you. I move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

Motion agreed to.

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: The second reading of Bill 68, intituled An Act to Amend the Forest Act. The Honourable the Minister of Lands and Forests.

HON. R.G. WILLISTON (Fort George): Mr. Speaker, there are one or two main features in the amendments to the Forest Act and many of them are merely housekeeping amendments. The housekeeping amendments were occasioned by the fact that last year we amended the Land Act and made certain specific references. There are certain specific references in the Forest Act to the Land Act. With the changes in the Land Act last year, the references were no longer accurate and those references have been changed in this Statute. There actually are three of those.

In the payment of the forest protection tax, and this Statute makes no change in the tax rate…the actual tax that has been paid has been an occupation tax, based upon acreage. Now that we've moved to timber sale harvesting licenses, somewhat similar to tree-farm licenses, and because the people are cutting and the area of occupation is determined by their permit, it's been found more equitable and more advantageous to charge the forest protection tax on the basis of the annual allowable cut contained in the license. The actual rate hasn't been changed but it has been made the equivalent to the acreage cut that was there before and it's been made applicable to timber sale harvesting licenses, at the present time.

One or two other semi-major matters…as a matter of fact, the most important change in the Statute, Mr. Speaker, concerns the definition of refiner ground pulp, or mechanical pulp, as an item that comes under export permit. In other words, it differentiates between the mechanical pulps and the chemical pulps and it brings the mechanical pulp under export permit. As I indicated in speaking before in this House, it means that, once we have a volume of mechanical pulp being manufactured in British Columbia, we can force the rolling of a sheet from the mechanical pulp since it's the basic ingredient of newsprint. We are just bringing on line now, our first RGP, refiner ground pulp mill, at Mackenzie and it is anticipated that this will be a success in the future and that we'll have more of this material available for use.

During the closed fire season, each year, we have an automatic requirement that, if machines and operations have been carried on during the closed season, a watchman has to be retained at this equipment for two hours after the close-down, in case there has been any spark or that any fire might result from the activities. Now, this, even in a closed area, has been regardless of weather. The rain may have been pouring down and the watchman has had to be retained. We have changed this section to make it, by regulation, not mandatory by Statute, and the regulation will take into consideration weather conditions and, thus, make it a little more flexible in its operation.

The other section dealt with in the act has to do with clarifying an issue. As you know now, private roads are open for public use but the owner of the private road, if it is being damaged, may close its use for that period of time. When he closes it, of course, he has to close it to his own use as well as to anybody else's. What was going on was that we didn't mention "road." We just had the word "damaged" in the Statute and it has come to be interpreted that, with some people going down the road, damage took place to some of the equipment that was in the area, and the road was closed

[ Page 737 ]

accordingly, but not because of any damage to the actual road. To make sure what the change in the act means we have just added "to the road" in the Statute and not allowed them to interpret this as damage to anything besides the road which permits them to close the road that is there.

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

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

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

Motion agreed to.

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

MR. SPEAKER: The second reading of Bill 69, intituled An Act to Amend the Jury Act. The Honourable the Attorney — General.

HON. L.R. PETERSON (Vancouver–Little Mountain): Mr. Speaker, besides the amendments which are contained in this bill, which might be called housekeeping purposes, there are two particular provisions that perhaps should be singled out. One is to enable the sheriff, either before the trial or during the trial, to exempt people from jury duty. This is really a clarification. The other provision is to relax the requirement that the clerk of the Court call over the names of the jurors on each day of the trial, only doing this when the panel is required by the Court to attend. These amendments and the housekeeping amendments contained in the bill result from the year's experience we have had with the new Jury Act and the recommendations that have come forward from the sheriff in the day-to-day administration of the act. I move that the bill be now read a second time.

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

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

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

MR. DOWDING: I welcome a couple of changes in the bill, particularly what appears to have been an error the last time round — in the spelling. We endorse the bill in principle and will deal with it in sections when it comes to committee.

Motion agreed to.

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill 70, intituled An Act to Amend the Police and Prisons Regulations Act. The Honourable Attorney-General.

MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, the substance of this bill is to make sure that all policemen throughout the Province have the capacity to carry out their duties in any part of the Province, even though they may be members of a municipal force, such as the City of Vancouver Police Force. This particular amendment results from meetings that I've had with the chiefs of police throughout the Province and will give assistance in maintaining law and order in British Columbia. I move the bill be now read a second time.

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

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

Motion agreed to.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill 72, intituled An Act to Amend the Land Act. The Honourable Minister of Lands and Forests.

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

The first has to do with the width of a travelled roadway that has been over Crown land, has been used for public access purposes, has not been gazetted and has just been established through people use. When that land, over which the road runs, is leased or may be sold, the road itself is exempted in the title and does not pass with the land area. We've never spelled it out before and they have just exempted by Statute and exempted in the Crown grant or the lease provision, the travelled road. Last year, we got into a Court case on this where the travelled road was deemed to be the travelled road. Then a chap took the fellow who went over the travelled road to Court because beyond the wheelmarks on the road — he was moving a building down the road — he had to cut a couple of trees down to get the building past. It was a 14 to 15 ft. building going down the road and so he charged the man in Court with trespassing going down the road and charged him with cutting down his private trees. When it came to the Court case, the judge ruled that we should determine what the size of those roads should be. So, we've taken the standard allowance for such roads which are 66 ft. or 33 ft. on each side of a centre line, and, unless otherwise designated, in the Crown grant or in the lease document, for legal purposes, the travelled road has a width of 66 ft. (interruption). I'm not sure, but I know he cut some trees. Certainly he could have moved one way or the other way. It was a rather simple thing but he had to keep on the road or he was off the road completely.

However, another simple amendment just indicates that, where a seizure is ordered for a trespass on Crown land and it's determined to take action for a construction that has been placed there illegally, it just spells out that the sheriff of the county may be designated to make the seizure on behalf of the Crown, if action is to be taken. At the present time, it has become one of these questions — "After you, Alphonse." A seizure has to be made — who's going to make it? The police say it's not their job, somebody else says it's not their job — so, it was determined to spell it out that it shall be the sheriff of the county.

[ Page 738 ]

The only other matter of any importance is the form that is attached to the act and this makes provision for the fact that the same form can be used in making application for land, whether the land is being applied for and has previously been surveyed, or whether the land is being applied for on the basis of a metes and bonds description in the initial application. This is just an administrative matter in the number of forms — it lessens the number of forms that have to be kept on hand at any given time. That is all that is contained in these provisions, Mr. Speaker. I move second reading.

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

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I can understand the desirability of having our roads established to a determined width. That is a very wise move; however, I hope that the Minister, when he is closing the debate, will deal with the repeal of section 84. For him to say that the act just deals with the width of road and the establishment of sheriff as a person with a right to seize, is somewhat of an oversight of the appeal of the provision of the act we passed last year which established the Land Use Committee. Members on all sides of this House looked forward to having this Land Use Committee function and carry out its responsibilities in accordance with requests that have been made to the Government certainly for as long as I have been in this House. When this Session opened, Mr. Speaker, we were advised that the Land Use Committee was going to become extended by the inclusion of another Minister of the Crown.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think that the Member is aware of Bill 82 on the Order Paper, which deals with the matter to which he is referring. The Honourable Member for Kootenay.

MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, in listening to the Honourable the Minister outline this bill, we move rather slowly. I remember about ten years ago we had an Access Committee dealing with this very problem. The Minister, at that time, said that they were going to place in conveyance of land, Crown land and that if there were any roads that the roads would be left out. I want to congratulate him on it. Although it took ten years to come around to it, he's finally got it on the Statutes. In my area this means a great deal of…if I understood it in the proper way. Where there has been much logging in years gone by, there is quite a number of roads that are used as trespass roads quite frequently and especially by people going fishing, out to a lake, or hunting. They have used these roads year after year and, then, somebody comes along and purchases the land and the road is closed off to them.

I'd like to ask the Minister, when he is closing, if this would apply in those cases as well — where Crown land is sold in the interior that have former logging roads on them that are not gazetted.

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

MR. W.L. HARTLEY (Yale-Lillooet): Mr. Speaker, I have a similar question as the Member from Kootenay. Mt. Speaker, will this be an access road? Do there have to be two ruts or could it be a skid road trail, or a riding trail? What sort of definition do you use? Quite recently, a party who bought a sizable piece of land, I think something like 40 acres, found that he had no access and, yet, on some of the old maps you can see a trail marked across the neighbour's acreage and so on. He is having a very difficult time establishing and getting access to his property now. What is your definition of what would constitute a previous trail or road?

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

MR. WILLISTON: An ordinary forest road, in temporary use to open up a timber sale, and which became cancellable when the sale was cancelled, and did not require access to a given piece of property in which a person had ownership, is not declared to be a road which was determined for use, unless the Forest Service has determined that it shall be retained as a protection road, which they have done in many, many cases. Unless the specific road has been used, has a basic access to a holding, or to a specific lake, or something of this nature, that has been used for that purpose, and the public have used it as an access to that area, then, it has not official designation, because there are forest roads, as everyone knows, all over the country for every single timber sale. But, if it had a specific use, and the public was using it for a specific purpose, then, it's considered to have had, and should be retained for, continuing public use. I move second reading.

Motion agreed to.

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 73, intituled An Act to Amend the Wive's and Children s' Maintenance Act. The Honourable the Attorney-General.

MR. PETERSON: The amendments proposed in this bill, Mr. Speaker, are the result of some studies undertaken by my colleague, the Second Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain, and also incorporate particular recommendations that stem from a number of family division judges, who have specialized in adult work in the Wive's and Childrens' Maintenance Act.

One of the major new features involves a change in placing the responsibility for maintenance of children on both parents. In addition, a man, under the new provision, will be held responsible for those children of his wife born or conceived before his marriage to her. There are also provisions relating to the matters that should be taken into account in determining maintenance, such as the means of the wife as well as the other obligations of the husband. There is also a recognition in terms of maintenance of the common-law relationship, the details of which are spelled out in the bill.

An important provision is giving the Family Court the authority to determine matters of custody and access. This is one of the particular problems that has arisen in determining the amount of maintenance, as to whether maintenance will

[ Page 739 ]

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

The one important provision, of course, relates to the collection of maintenance and there are several provisions in the bill dealing with that. A number of the amendments repeal the garnishee provisions which obtained in this act heretofore, and bring them under the one act, The Attachment of Debts Act, which is the next bill we will be considering. I might mention, in this connection, that I am going to propose, following second reading, that this bill and the following two bills, which also relate to attachment of debts, No. 74 and No. 75, I am going to propose that all of these bills be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Welfare and Education for detailed consideration. That will apply to this bill, The Wive's and Children s'Maintenance Act, as well as The Attachment of Debts Act, and the…

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. PETERSON: Certainly at this Session. I would think it would be a relatively easy chore to handle these particular bills but it would be useful for the committee to go through them, section by section. I, therefore, now move, Mr. Speaker, that the bill be read a second time.

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

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, while I welcome the suggestion of the Attorney-General, I regret that the decision was not made earlier to bring the bills into the House and get them into committee. The problem is, with the committee at this late stage, and I am very much in favour of committees doing exactly what the Attorney-General says, but I would just make this one point that we are now sitting every night and it means the Members coming…(interruption). I know they are all meeting, if convened. If we sit until one o'clock or two o'clock, then, we can't go on.

This is just a general comment, Mr. Speaker, on the questions of custody and access, since I am no longer a member of that committee. The questions of custody and access are very, very difficult matters to decide on. It has always been my opinion that when a Court orders a study as to the custody and access to a child, I feel that all documents prepared by a social worker, or psychologist, or anyone else that the case was referred to, should be made available to everybody in the case. I don't believe that anything should be left out of the hands of either side. In a case disputing access to a child, or custody of a child, I believe that, if the social worker has something to say about one parent or the other, then, their opinions should be made right available to the parents. I feel that, in many instances, when a Court makes a decision about access and the party that has been refused access has not been bluntly confronted with the reasons why they haven't been given rights of access to that child, the parent, who has been denied access begins to use the Court as an excuse why he or she isn't a good parent, rather than being faced with the fact of their neglect or their lack of parental ability of that child. If there is a case to be made, if somebody is either a drunk or mentally incompetent, or any other reason why they shouldn't see their child, they must be confronted with those reasons. Otherwise, the child…(interruption). Not always, and, as a result, the child is sometimes used as a pawn by that parent and the child is used in a way that one parent or the other says, "Your mummy won't let me see you," or, "your daddy won't let me see you,"…because they have told the Court x, y or z. There is no substance in that and the child is used in a conflict. I think it's incumbent on the State, once it makes a responsible decision as you have to make, you have to decide — if one parent is not good enough for that child, you have to decide that that parent not see the child. But, for the protection of the child, you should tell that parent, bluntly, eyeball-to-eyeball, why you think he should not see that child, so that the parent is not given the opportunity to rationalize.

On the question of pursuit of nonpayment of maintenance, who has got the answer? I really don't know. You are really in a dilemma, and I have great sympathy with the Attorney-General. We were besieged, some years ago, by single mothers who wanted to pursue their husbands for the payment of maintenance orders and when you talk to them — terrific case — "Let's go get the husband." But, then, when you talk to the husband — he's got a terrific case, too. What frequently happens, in instances like this, is that the husband abandons wife number one with three children and the Court orders a maintenance order. Meanwhile the husband has selected wife number two, who has been abandoned by another husband, and he begins to make…(interruption). Mr. Speaker, when the king does it, you don't have the problem of a maintenance order. When the ordinary people do it, you've got problems there. Well, I hope that you and I never get involved in those kind of problems.

Here's a situation, where husband leaves wife number one, with three children. He goes and lives with wife number two, who may have been deserted herself and she has two or three children. She, maybe, is on welfare. He enters the situation, provides an income for the new family that he has picked up and that family goes off welfare. But family number one is on welfare waiting for the husband to pay the maintenance for his original family. Do you follow me? O.K. Then, if there is a maintenance order made, husband is confronted, while he is supporting family number two, with a maintenance order and he says, "I ain't gonna pay her a dime." Rather than pay wife number one, he quits the job. We end up with a situation of the maintenance order not being paid for family number one, and family number two goes on welfare (interruption). It doesn't happen very often! Oh, oh.

Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you, the Minister without Portfolio, the Second Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain, I want to tell the Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, that if you spend just five minutes with the Minister, the Second Member from Vancouver–Little Mountain, she'll straighten you out on that in a hurry. She's spent enough time in the Family Courts to know what a mess this is. She's probably got more information on this than any other Member in the House. Mr. Speaker, it happens very, very often. As a matter of fact, I'll take the Member aside and show him cases where husband number one, is the father to family number two, number three and number four, spread across different Provinces, through you, Mr. Speaker. It's the A plus B theorem. You can't blame it on Social Credit…(laughter). The problem, here, Mr. Speaker, is…(interruption). I'm not on a committee. I could go before the committee? All right. My last comment is that flexibility is the key. I just don't know how we are going to handle this…(interruption). I don't know. I said that, at the beginning.

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

[ Page 740 ]

MR. DOWDING: I am not on the committee either, so I would like one word on this. I think it is wrong to say that a Provincial Court judge, or a Family Court judge, should deal with the question of custody or access only when the matter of maintenance is before them. One of the great problems is that, if you leave it, as you are proposing here, for the committee to consider, it means under the present proposal, without any change, that the Family Court judge could only deal with the matter of custody when he is also dealing with this question of maintenance. That's not good enough. He should have that right even though maintenance may not be in question…(interruption).

It's not in here. Well, don't leave it at that. If you think it's a good start, endorse the proposal that these matters be taken out of Supreme Court when the parties wish to deal with them in Family Court, whether it be custody, access or maintenance, separately. Any one of them, separately, not the way you are proposing, here, in section 5. So I urge, when it comes to committee, that that be considered because the cost is terrible for most ordinary families. The ones that are usually fighting haven't got enough money to be fighting these things in Supreme Court anyway. I suggest that they should be resolved because, if you resolve the questions of custody and access, very often the problem of maintenance disappears. They are fighting over the maintenance because they are burning up with anger over custody matters or access matters and these get in the way and the child becomes the plaything or a pawn between the parties. The excuse of nonaccess, or noncustody, becomes the excuse for nonpayment and, then, you get the welfare to look after the children, or having to pay for the support of the mother, because the father is using the excuse that he doesn't get to see the kids. or the mother is being difficult about access, as his excuse for not paying. The taxpayers have to bear the load. So, if you are sensible, you'll add the complete freedom for the judge to deal with access and custody, as separate matters. It may eliminate the problem of maintenance in many cases.

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

MR. GARDOM: I equally would like to make just one comment on this bill, because I'm not going to be in the committee either. I think that the person who summed up the situation best of all was the Leader of the Opposition because this bill has a more dramatic shift and change in family law. In fact, this bill, I'd say, is "the" bill of the Session, insofar as changes in established law are concerned. The Attorney-General is nodding his head and I agree with him and, with every respect, Mr. Attorney-General, there is absolutely no way that this bill has just come into incubation today. You have spent an awful lot of time thinking about this bill, which you are agreeing with. My question to you is why didn't we have this bill coming in around Bill 3 or 4 instead, of Bill 73?

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

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

Now, I'll give you a couple of illustrations here, just a couple of illustrations. Under certain sections of this bill, you have a common-law relationship put into equal priority with a marital relationship. Now, this is a pretty marked departure from older and accepted standards. It may be a good move. It may not be a good move. I'm not too sure. It is the type of thing that I think should have a little more deliberation on it than about the two or three weeks remaining.

We also have the situation under this bill, wherein a man may be married, with a wife. They have five children. He leaves his wife, moves in with somebody else and has a common-law relationship, may have two or three children, as a result of that common-law relationship. According to this bill, wife number one and the five children and the common-law wife and the three children would have an equal claim to a man's income earning capacity. It's a devil of a problem. Then, again, you'd also have the…(interruption).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

MR. GARDOM: She's being quite pleasant, Mr. Speaker, I am sure. You could also have the situation, Mr. Speaker, where we have wife number one, with five children. There is a divorce. He is responsible, therefore, for the first wife and the five children. He marries wife number two. He, then, inherits three or four children by the next marriage so that he has got eight children. Then, he walks away from both of them. Then, again, you still find these twelve people claiming a portion of the thing. I'm afraid you are going to get the pie into so many pieces, it's going to be unable to be cut. That's my great concern about the legislation but I do say, Mr. Speaker, that it is extremely dramatic legislation. It's a terrific shift in the field of family law and there is no end to the provisions of this bill that I think are first class.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister without Portfolio.

HON. G. McCARTHY (Vancouver–Little Mountain): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Attorney-General has stated that this bill is the result of many consultations with people who have worked in Family Courts, judges, probation officers, lawyers, administrative staffs and I was very privileged, indeed, to ask questions of these people and to visit Family Courts in order to bring some of these suggested changes in.

I would like to thank the Attorney-General and members of his staff, as a matter of fact, for letting me become involved in this particular bill. I also was pleased to be able to talk to many single parents — the subject that has been raised by the two Members, the Honourable Leader of the Opposition and the Honourable Member for Point Grey. The points they raised are valid, very valid, indeed. But, the points they raised are situations that cannot be covered by any amount of legislation, Mr. Speaker.

This bill does not have the intent of covering those kinds of cases, which really are the result of a human development, within our human relationships, within this Province, and all throughout the world as far as that goes. I would like to just caution the Honourable Member from Point Grey that if you

[ Page 741 ]

think the gentlemen or the Courts are going to have any problem in forcing payment to several wives, common-law wives, could I just pose this question? Just imagine the difficulty the common-law wife deserted, or wife deserted, with the children, has. This is a far greater problem to these people and, having spoken to very many single parents, who are trying to raise children in this day and age, believe me, that is a far greater burden of responsibility. This bill is trying to recognize the children in that particular circumstance. It really gives more enforcement of payment to the results of these common-law unions, that is, the children.

I would like to say that, having had a very free reign in redrafting this act, I have been consulting with very many people, who have been in the position of being left and not being able to collect an account for the very reason that the Honourable Member of North Burnaby and also the Leader of the Opposition has suggested because the husband is denied access and rights to see the children and there is so much animosity between the two, the husband and the wife, that the husband is denied completely the right, which is his right, to see his own children. Only this morning, in speaking to members of the Family Court in Surrey, a Court which handles very many of these particular cases, one of the gentlemen who is responsible for enforcing maintenance orders said that two men had phoned, just this morning, to ask whether this new act meant that they could see their children, at long last. One said he hadn't seen his children for two and a half years because he had not been able to keep up his payments and his wife had made him stay away from the home and kept the children from him on every occasion — for two and a half years. This is repeated over and over and over again.

The new part, where a woman has the same responsibility to provide for the children as does the husband is something new and perhaps can be attributed to the Women's Lib movement. It is traditional that mothers share the moral responsibility but, up to now, it has not been traditional nor been expected that they bear the burden of the financial responsibility. However, there is such a change in our economic situation, where women are owners of businesses, executives in different industrial and business concerns that, in fact, they, sometimes, earn more than their husbands do. In one case, in Pennsylvania, just recently, a judge in the county court, there, noted that fathers bear the primary responsibility of child support but said that mothers also share the responsibility. He ruled that Mary Polk should help support their son and two daughters cared for by her husband, David. Mr. Polk has not worked since November and is receiving $60 per month unemployment compensation, on which he would not be able to, of course, care for one son and two daughters. However, the wife is fully employed and is making a good financial return to the household. Therefore, even though she has left her husband with the three children, she is now responsible for those children. I must say, Mr. Speaker, that, in the four years that I have been connected with the Government and with this kind of work, I have only found one case where, indeed, the wife left the husband with the children. It is very often the other way around. Very seldom does the woman…(interruption) but, it is not really a frequent case. You win have to admit to that (interruption).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Will the Honourable the Minister please proceed.

MRS. McCARTHY: However, Mr. Speaker, we should also legislate for the unique case, as are these cases, where the woman leaves the husband with the children. I think it's tremendously important that that is included in the bill. I think, too, that the act fully protects the child of the parents.

One significant change which hasn't been noticed, heretofore, in the debate, is that children over 19 years who are handicapped for life, or who are handicapped in any way for life, or a certain time after that age of majority, are protected. In other words, they cannot be deserted by the deserting parent. They will still be their responsibility. This was brought to our attention as a result of a mother…it was a plea, actually, on behalf of a brain-damaged child, where he will always be in care and, thankfully, through this act, if the husband, or the deserting husband, or the deserting wife, if you will, but, probably, the deserting husband, will not undertake the full responsibility for all the children, he will have to be responsible for this child, at least, until he is out of care. In this case, he will never be out of care.

It protects the common-law wife, which has been mentioned, and this was perhaps the result of a significant decision made in the Supreme Court, just this last year, of McKenzie v. McKenzie. Perhaps, the legal minds in the House will remember this. Judge McFarlane made this point, during the decision on this particular case. He says that, "If the legislators of this Province wish to impose my ability on a man in the position of the errant, they can readily enact clear legislation for the purpose. It seems to me anomalous that the Court should be asked to infer liability in a case involving maintenance of children from the rather obscure provisions of Statutes enacted in former times in England to meet entirely different social conditions from those which exist in British Columbia today." The decision was going to be made on the basis of the Poor Law Amendment Act, which was 1834, which is pretty far outdated for such a decision, when it is involving a decision to be made about children, and what maintenance and what support they will have in British Columbia today. This was a case where the husband was suggesting he would not be responsible for a child born from another union. He, then, is leaving the present wife and she wanted to make him responsible, since he had entered into an agreement with her. He, then, entered into the agreement to look after her children as well. It was set aside, but this particular act now covers…this particular legislation will cover that particular circumstance. I think it's a move in the right direction.

I would just like to say that the access and custody part of this bill is particularly significant because, heretofore, any of these orders for maintenance, custody and access have all been made by the Supreme Court. The Family Court has not had the jurisdiction and, now, they will have the authority to provide for just such decisions. Actually, it is the place in which those decisions can be more correctly made. It also provides that the wife and children in that Court can now issue a summons for the arrest of the errant parent who does not provide maintenance. Heretofore, there was a show-cause summons but any further enactment of that was not made. Now, they may issue a warrant for the arrest of the man, if he fails to pay for the wife's maintenance and/or the childrens' maintenance. If the husband, or the wife, is working out of town (interruption). Yes, I think it works both ways. Can you believe that I don't think its going to be needed in that regard?

I think too, that it is important to note that there is going to be a change in regard to if this bill is adopted in its

[ Page 742 ]

present form…that a man who is working in Prince George who does not maintain his family, say, in the city of Vancouver, will not have to be brought away from Prince George to the Court in Vancouver, where the order was made in order to dispute the maintenance in order to give his side of the story. The Court will be enacted in Prince George to take that evidence which, in turn, will be sent to Vancouver and the decision made without him having to lose his work, his time at work, or travel away from his home. This should speed up the process and it will put the least possible financial burden on an already strained budget, which most of these cases, which as the Honourable Leader of the Opposition has stated, is already very much strained.

I would just like to say that there are already a few minor things that I would like to see and I hope that we will have, in terms of discussion of the bill, in committee, other Members, other than the Social Welfare Committee called on, or can make some representations to the committee, in order to bring those points up. I certainly hope that the whole House will support the bill and the meaning behind the bill for the families within the Province that certainly have needed many changes in this act, up to now, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Surrey.

MR. E. HALL (Surrey): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. For some three years now I have made a point of discussing either in a formal debate or in the Attorney-General's estimates this problem. I think that it had got to the stage, Mr. Speaker, in my area, where almost any change was going to be better than what we've got at the moment. However, a cursory examination of Bill 73, right off the bat, indicates there is a change much better than we have perhaps anticipated, jaundiced though we may be after three years of speeches. As a Member of the committee to which this bill is being referred, I welcome its reference, although it means work. I will reserve my comments regarding the timing of the bill to debate in committee, where I think they may be more appropriately made.

I want to say that the principle in which the committee and myself and others should operate is fairly simply. It won't be sufficient just to have good legislation. What we are going to need, within our systems, is the kind of qualified people, the kind of advice, and the kind of restoration of dignity that, unfortunately, is so often lacking in the courtroom procedure that these people get locked into. I think that, if we can come out of that committee, Mr. Speaker, with this bill, with whatever wisdom is applied to it, so that deserted parents, either male or female, can really sense that they are going to get a fair deal, that justice is available to them and that their case will be heard in the most de-escalated situation possible, then, this Legislature will certainly have enacted something in this Session that it can be proud of. As I say, coming from Surrey which has certainly amongst the highest per capita rate of single-family parents, I can only welcome the legislation and anticipate enjoying the work of the committee and taking the lessons I have learned from meeting with literally dozens of both deserted wives and separated husbands over the last five years.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kootenay.

MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, I'm just going to say one thing. I think that the point in this bill, where a man has got to accept responsibility when he is with a common-law wife is good because, too long, have many of them evaded their responsibility with their legal wives and got a free ride with the common-law wife.

Motion agreed to.

Bill 73 was read a second time and Ordered referred to the Select Standing Committee on Social Welfare and Education.

Bill 47 intituled An Act to Amend the Public Schools Act was committed, reported complete with amendments. During the debate, a division occurred on section 48. The committee asked leave of the House to have the division recorded. Leave was not granted. Bill, as reported, to be considered at the next sitting after today.

The House adjourned at 11:04 p.m.