[ Page 2221 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

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

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 2221

Mr. Richter — 2221

Mr. Williams — 2221

Mr. Gardom — 2222

Mr. Lewis — 2222

Mr. McGeer — 2222

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 2223

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

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2224

Mr. Smith — 2224

Mr. Morrison — 2224

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2224

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

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2225

Mr. Wallace — 2225

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 2226

Mr. Gardom — 2226

Mrs. Jordan — 2226

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2228

Mr. Morrison — 2228

Mr. Smith — 2229

Mr. Lauk — 2229

Mr. McGeer — 2230

Mr. Williams — 2231

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2232

An Act to Amend the Equal Guardianship of Infants Act. (Bill No. 41). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2232

Mr. Smith — 2233

Mr. Williams — 2233

Mr. Gardom — 2233

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

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2233

Mr. Gardom — 2234

Mr. Wallace — 2234

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2234

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

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2234

Mr. Smith — 2235

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

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2235

Mr. Smith — 2236

Mr. Gardom — 2236

Mr. Williams — 2236

Mrs. Jordan — 2236

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2238

THURSDAY, APRIL 5, 1973

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

Orders of the day.

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

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, as the Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) is not here I would ask the House to go to second reading of Bill 32.

CATTLE INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT ACT

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Agriculture.

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, this is legislation change that was asked for by the Beef Cattlemen's Association. I believe there was some explanation of it previously.

If this is passed, there will be a cattle industry development board established which will be composed of beef and dairy cattlemen and one ex officio member from the B.C. Department of Agriculture. This board will have the authority to collect a levy. The amount of the levy may be set from time to time by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. It will be transferred from one owner to another by a cattle sale.

At the present time it's anticipated that the levy will be 55 cents per animal, which would go into the Cattle Development Fund, to provide financing for the B.C. Cattlemen's Association to operate. It would also provide an allocation to the dairy cattleman, which would be handled through the B.C. Federation of Agriculture.

Under the present Beef Cattle Producers Assistance Act, approximately $50,000 is collected by the brands division each year at 30 cents per head consigned for slaughter or out of the province. Under the Cattle Industry Development Act, it is anticipated that the board will collect about $90,000 per year. They've found that $50,000 has not been adequate for the work they've been doing. They do want an increase but this changes more than that.

The board that will be established will administer this Act. They'll release the B.C. Department of Agriculture from the responsibility that they have had in the past of collecting the levy. They've had to collect it and administer the fund. Under the proposal, the board would be responsible for all of that. Of course, the board will be required to provide the Minister of Agriculture with an annual report.

I now move second reading of Bill 32.

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

MR. FX RICHTER (Boundary-Similkameen): Mr. Speaker, in speaking to second reading of this bill, as the Minister has stated, this will eventually be handled by the cattle industry themselves.

I've wondered about the fact of collections or the agencies that will do the collecting. Previously, under the Beef Cattle Producers Assistance Act, the brand inspectors did the collecting, which proved to be very efficient. Along with that, brand inspection had to take place anyway. This proved to be a saving to the producers. Also, the administration was done by the department.

I'm not disposed to oppose the bill in any way. I thoroughly understand that this is something that the industry has asked for. In my experience in administering the Department of Agriculture, I sometimes found that the association got carried away on expenditures. It appeared that they were running very, very close and sometimes exceeding their income. To the Minister, I would hope that under this new bill, a very close scrutiny will be made of the organization's expenditures and some attempt will be made to control them.

While the association represents the growers of cattle, whether they're dairy cattle or beef cattle, the fact remains that sometimes a restraining hand has to be evident so that the individual producers don't find themselves with a continuing spiral of deductions. This is where the previous Act gave a considerable amount of discretion to the Minister. I think it was appreciated by the growers themselves, even though their executive sometimes got carried away on questionable areas of expenditure.

I would hope that with the operation, collection, administration and eventual handing over to the growers themselves, the Minister will watch this area very closely. The official Opposition will be supporting the bill in the interests of the cattle industry.

I particularly want to say that while there may not have been equitable distribution before, this bill does provide for it. In particular, those areas in the lower mainland where a great number of cattle are traded through the various markets should certainly receive their fair share of this sort of collection. The trend today is that more and more people are going into the raising of beef cattle, also on the lower mainland. I think that this piece of legislation was very necessary years ago and is equally necessary today.

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

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

[ Page 2222 ]

Sound): Mr. Speaker, I'm sure that the intention of this legislation is a very laudable one, as the Member for Boundary-Similkameen has pointed out. However, I would hope that when the Hon. Minister closes the debate he would deal with the matter of whether or not this legislation is constitutional.

Some question has been raised that the levy referred to in the legislation constitutes an indirect tax and therefore is beyond the legislative competence of this Legislature. This question having been raised, I think that this problem, if there is a problem, should be resolved with the federal government before we deal much further with this bill and certainly before we establish the board and begin to collect any moneys. It would be unfortunate to embark upon the programme only to find that somehow or other it had to be seriously altered or perhaps that the moneys had to be directed to some other purpose.

There is one other matter. I appreciate that we are not entitled to deal specifically with sections of the bill. But there is that opportunity in the legislation for a person having paid the levy to have it refunded to him or her. The designation of such a person seems to be a little obscure. It speaks of a member being entitled to have moneys refunded and yet in no place is there any definition of what a member might be. The levy is paid by a purchaser of cattle and I assume it must be the purchaser who's entitled to be refunded. It is perhaps because in earlier drafts of this legislation some other scheme was in mind.

There is no question that the improvement and promotion of all segments of the agricultural industry in this province must be of concern to us — the cattle association no less than the others.

I would also like to have the Minister indicate whether he contemplates that there could be more than one cattlemen's association involved in the administration of any fund. Certainly we have these associations falling into two classes — beef growers and dairy cattlemen. I wonder whether the Minister has something specific in mind in this regard.

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

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, I just wonder whether or not we are going to hear at all this morning from the Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) concerning this particular bill, because last night he made a great point when he was introducing his Bill No. 1 of the fact that formerly people could be jailed as a result of a violation. He was somewhat running headlong into the legal principle that ignorance of the law is no excuse and that everyone is presumed to know the law.

We do have to find, Mr. Speaker, consistency in legislation and, more specifically, we have to find some kind of consistency and general yardstick concerning penalties.

One of the items that troubles me in this bill, and I do hope the Minister will be prepared to introduce an amendment to cure it, is one section on which I'll be speaking now rather than when I get to the section. Under section 8, Mr. Speaker, we find that if there happens to be a breach a corporation can face a penalty up to $500, but an individual can face a penalty of up to $200 or imprisonment for 90 days. Well, I really and truly think that this is a pretty disproportionate kind of a situation. I note that I'm receiving at least a nod of acquiescence from my good friend the Member for Vancouver Centre, and he's in accord, too.

You've got something here that's just a little too tough — fining a company $500 and sending a poor fellow to jail for 90 days. Maybe we'd better take another look at that because you fellows are for open government and you want to make sure that the little man has his day in court but not necessarily his 90 days in jail.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Shuswap.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): Well, I'd like to ask the Minister a question or two in regard to this, Mr. Speaker.

Often, especially in the dairy industry, calves are turned over at a day to three days old, and this levy is to apply to the young calves. This calf is then fed heavily for a period of nine weeks and then is turned over again as veal. Would this levy be charged again on the second turnover of this calf?

I, for one, am in favour of promoting the cattle industry but I think that we must be careful that there is something left for the cattleman at the time that the sale has handled his animal. We have levies in regard to horned animals, there's inspection fees and this type of thing, and I think we have to be very careful that the farmer has something left at the end of the day when the sale is over. It concerns me if the levy is to be on animal first as a small calf and again at the time it goes back as a vealer.

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

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, in reading over this Act, we notice that in one section it says that the Minister under this Act is required to prescribe anything and he may prescribe it by order. But nowhere do we have in the Act any definition of the purposes and objectives of this board that's to be established or of the fund which is to be established.

What we have been given is a piece of rather vague legislation. We don't know how large the board is to

[ Page 2223 ]

be; we don't know what its purposes are; we don't know what kind of funds it's to have. But we do have one section under regulations and orders suggesting that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may do virtually anything to carry out the purposes and intent of the Act.

I would think, Mr. Speaker, in the interests of good legislation, that if we are going to give those kinds of sweeping powers to the Lieutenant Governor-in-Council, the very least we should have somewhere in the Act is an indication of what the purposes of the board are to be, and therefore what the confines of the Minister might be under the Act.

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

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the rather detailed questions in second reading, it is true, as the House Leader of the official Opposition (Mr. Richter) said, that this has formerly been collected by the brand inspectors and there has been this ever-watchful eye of the Department of Agriculture on what they have been doing.

However, when we look at the figures, the amount they have been raising, as I said, has been in the neighbourhood of $50,000 and it's been at that level for quite a number of years. They've had to come sort of cap-in-hand to the Department of Agriculture every time they wanted to spend anything for the purposes of developing the industry as they saw it. And they've had to make explanations. They've made representations, of course, and we agree that it is their own money that they're spending. However, we also have in mind what the Member said, and for that reason there will be someone from the Department of Agriculture on that board keeping a watchful eye on what is going on. And, of course, the Cattlemen's Association itself will be subject to the pressures from its own membership.

But in moving from $50,000 up to $90,000 in view of the tremendous growth in this industry, we feel that this is not out of line at all. As long as it doesn't start escalating rapidly we'll not be concerned. So I think it is a good move. It's making them responsible for collecting the money themselves as opposed to having us collect it, and it is giving them the responsibility and the authority to spend their own money, at the same time saying that we are going to keep a watch on it.

The question of constitutionality raised by the Hon. Member from West Vancouver–Howe Sound. I think he knows the answer himself. It is an indirect tax — that is true. It's one that has been accepted by the members of the Cattlemen's Association and the Dairymen's Association. I think he knew this when he asked the question.

However, it's a thing that has been accepted in the past. The previous Act itself was just as unconstitutional as the present one. Now, we know that if anybody wanted to take this to court they could upset it and get their levy back, but on the other hand, as you say, section 6 allows for them to simply ask for it in any case. So it seems to be the only way of collecting a levy of some kind from this particular group of people, based on production.

We don't know of any constitutional way of doing this. The Cattlemen's Association itself has got its members to accept this idea with very few exceptions — a few individuals annually ask for the return of their levy, and the Cattlemen's Association lives with this. So it is something that could be challenged in court; the cheaper way is simply to ask for it and it works. Now if there were another way of doing it I would prefer to do it the other way, but personally I don't know the other way. This situation has been going on for decades.

The other question, more than one association: the beef association and the dairy association have worked this out and are in agreement on it. I hope there would never be more than the one association, but they are in agreement on this. Of course, the dairyman himself, if he chose, could ask for the levy back. I don't know whether any dairymen are asking. I know the occasional beef producer does ask for the return of the levy.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well, they might organize, but because it's this easy for each individual to get it back, I think the risk of that developing is not very great. Now they might feel that the association or, if you like, the board might start spending too widely. In that case there might be a rebellion in the ranks against the Cattlemen's Association. That's something they would have to deal with at that time. But the membership on the board will be chosen by the beef producers and by the dairy producers, and there will be a member from the Department of Agriculture. It has worked, we think.

MR. SMITH: How large a board?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Three, but they might decide that they want more representation than that. But at the present time we are thinking in that range.

Section 8 — I know its details, and it's something that we should talk about now. When the Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) was talking about it being too severe, I just wasn't sure which he meant was being treated too roughly. But as he got to the end of his remarks I realized that he was thinking about the poor individual. Of course, the situation we're dealing with is that most of the

[ Page 2224 ]

corporations involved are family corporations, so really there isn't all that much difference except the difference in organization. However, maybe we should look at that. Maybe there should be a different way.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. STUPICH: How would you send a corporation to jail? I just don't know. Maybe that should be removed altogether. But there is this difference and I don't know how to make it equitable.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well, as I say, that might be the way. To remove the jail term, yes. That's O.K. Yes, I did get that remark.

The levy at every stage of the sale: the levy is on mature animals, this particular levy, going to slaughterhouses or going out of the province for that purpose, so I think that's no problem.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

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

Motion approved; second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 32 ordered to be placed on the orders of the day for committal at the next sitting of the House after today.

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

AN ACT TO AMEND
THE SECURITIES ACT, 1967.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): This is An Act to Amend the Securities Act, 1967, but it is not of course the widespread revision of the Securities Act that we envisaged, which is of course going to take some time. It is basically changing the definitions throughout the Securities Act to bring them into conformity with the new Companies Act which was discussed yesterday. The only matter of substance in Bill 18, apart from those changes, is the provision that the Attorney General must now consent to prosecutions for a number of things from insider trading against the Securities Act, to takeover bids that are not made in compliance with the Act, and offences of that kind.

This bill provides that henceforth, the written consent of the Attorney General will not be necessary for such prosecutions. They'll be treated as ordinary infractions of the law and they'll be left within the jurisdiction of the local prosecutor subject, of course, to such consultation as they may wish with the office in Victoria. I move second reading of the bill.

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

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Speaker, any time we get a bill with a very short explanation, such as this one has, indicating it's a companion bill to a previous bill known as No. 16, the Companies Act I almost have a feeling that something is going by us that I should be watching very closely. In looking over the definition, it would appear that while the definitions have been changed, they've been changed not only to accommodate the Companies Act, which we debated last evening, but also definitions to accommodate another bill which will be debated at some future date in this House, regarding the matter of disclosure of assets by public employees, or employees in public life. I would suppose that that was one of the intents of the bill when…

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. SMITH: No?

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

MR. SMITH: Well you have a provision in the bill regarding the definition of a spouse, a son, a daughter or some other person living within the same household. Does that not in any way have any reference to another bill that's going to come before us at some time during the session?

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

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to refer to this bill concerning insider trading. It is my understanding that the department of the Attorney General has employed 12 additional people in his staff and I'd like to ask one or two questions concerning this bill which I think might be reflected in that piece of information.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, possibly if the Member asks at the committee stage, but really this is not the principle of the bill, which is merely a change in definitions plus the one thing about prosecutions that I mentioned. Question on the motion, Mr. Speaker.

Motion approved; second reading of the bill.

[ Page 2225 ]

Bill No. 18 ordered to be placed on orders of the day for committal at the next sitting of the House after today.

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

AN ACT TO AMEND
THE INFANTS ACT

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, this is a short bill which will enable young people who are without parents and often without guardians, and many of whom are wandering throughout the country and suffer illnesses, diseases, accidents and require medical or dental treatment. Under the law as it stands, of course, they are under the age of 19 — the age of majority — and the doctor or the dentist may very well say, and does say, "I cannot treat this child, because that child cannot give his consent to the treatment, and I am therefore committing assault."

That may sound a rather strange thing in an emergency situation, that anyone should take that point of view, but that is the law. We provide therefore, that in circumstances where the child needs care and has no parents or guardians, or in the other case where the child has parents or guardians, but because of the nature of the disease or something of that kind or because narcotics are involved, the child will not reveal who and where his parents or guardians may be. So in these circumstances, the proposal is that the child should be able to consent to the necessary treatment to himself or herself from the age of 16 years on. I move second reading of the bill.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, that's right because there are many cases where the youngster won't say where they are.

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

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, this is a very far-ranging bill, perhaps going a way beyond what might appear on the surface. I'm thinking particularly in terms of the permissive society that we live in. In particular in young people, I'm considering the whole question of the responsibility of a doctor in prescribing such things as birth control pills to a teenage girl, where the doctor is well aware of the total family situation.

Mr. Speaker, I'm not trying to in any way moralize, I just want to have some debate on the degree to which this bill intends to throw the whole issue wide open to any doctor to treat or advise any person 16 and over to any degree that he considers necessary in a medical or surgical sense.

There's a tremendous increase, even in the years that I've been in practice, in such problems as venereal disease, drug abuse, and as I say, the whole field of contraception. It is a very frequent occasion where the physician who knows the whole family is confronted with the daughter in the family seeking birth control pills. When the physician asks the patient whether or not she's discussed it with her parents, quite frequently the answer is no. When you ask the daughter does she think it would not be a reasonable thing to discuss this with her parents, again the answer is usually no.

As I say, I'm not taking sides on whether this is a moral issue or not; I'm asking the questions from a purely legal point of view from the practicing physician.

A physician in England was recently put through a great deal of distress. He was temporarily suspended and the whole thing went to court and went to appeal court. I can't remember just how long it all took. I think he was finally vindicated or forgiven his offence. But, it was based exactly on this point; he had prescribed contraceptive measures for this young lady without the consent of her parents. Her parents found out and were very angry and took the doctor to court, or at least had him brought before the college or the medical council in the United Kingdom. It caused a tremendous furore.

Now if this Legislature feels that this bill is well worth while and fulfilling a purpose which is in keeping with our modern society, then this is fine. I certainly wouldn't for a moment even question the bill in terms of emergency treatment such as the Attorney General mentioned. It makes obvious sense that if there is a measure of emergency, the medical person has to put the need of the patient first. If you can't find the parents or there is a real pressure of time to get the treatment carried out, then I think society recognizes that.

But in my reading of the principle of the bill, Mr. Speaker, this really opens the door wide open to a doctor to treat or advise any person over 16 without in any way consulting the parents.

One could talk at great length on this but I do feel that in the particular areas that I've mentioned of drug abuse and venereal disease and contraception…is this — and when the Attorney General winds up the debate — is this in fact the intent of this bill? Is it to open the situation wide open so that for any purpose with which a teenager comes to the doctor the doctor is not legally open to civil or criminal action by parents if he in his judgment advises, prescribes or treats that over-16- years-old patient as he sees fit?

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

[ Page 2226 ]

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance): Mr. Speaker, I certainly recognize the feelings of the Hon. Member across the way with respect to this bill. This bill has been suggested for a number of years and has been really called for by the College of Physicians and Surgeons. The fact of the matter is that whether we like it or not — and we have to live in today and this is reality — that there are any number of young people on their own under the age of 18.

Now I think that the responsible doctor naturally is going to be in touch with those parents where there's a normal family connection with the doctor's office; But the doctors today are working in a position — and the hospitals…and I've been around the province a good deal since this bill has been on the order paper and I've heard nothing but praise for the Attorney General for bringing forward this bill, because of the fact that now they can deal with problems as they're confronted with problems.

I can remember a case not long ago in the Okanagan Valley where a hospital was confronted with a situation of a child — that is under the age of majority — where they couldn't treat this person and there was no family within miles. We're living in very dangerous times — it's dangerous for the doctors if they treat them and it's dangerous for the patient if they don't.

I think that this is the age when we must make these kinds of decisions and not become reactionary about them. I'm not indicating that anybody here would, but I am indicating that it's much-needed legislation, endorsed by every responsible medical health group in the province that I know of, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, concerning the remarks of the last speaker on the danger to the doctors, we haven't had any illustration in front of the House today of what dangers the doctors have experienced. The thing that troubles me about this bill is that it's a total elimination of parental consent. That may not be the intent of the bill but that's what it says. There could indeed be parental refusal to a particular measure taking place, and the 16-year-old infant's consent would completely override the parental refusal. We're not dealing with a situation of emergency, because in situations of emergency the doctors and the hospitals act in any event.

There's another item that I note within the bill. There's not even any requirement upon the medical people and the dental people to even seek parental consent to deal with any infant between the ages of 16 and 18. I just wonder why that's not in there. At least that would be some kind of check and balance.

If the parental consent could not be obtained, fine and dandy. Maybe you could even have a safeguard of perhaps going to the public trustee. We're not dealing with emergency situations here. That's no stumbling block. This was carried on quite successfully over the years by the very, very effective job and the most conscientious job that has been done by the professions.

Within here there's one other item that similarly may be disturbing, maybe not. I'd like to hear the views of the Minister when he closes the debate on it.

We find under section 4 that there's not even a responsibility to furnish the parents with responsibility to do that. He — i.e., the doctors — "may" do it if he wishes to. It's totally discretionary.

Well, it's not discretionary under the laws as it stands today. I think this is an "Open Sesame" bill. I think that it's not a question of being reactionary at all; it's a question of maintaining some of the checks and balances instead of throwing them all out.

What is this great, great emergency and this terrible, terrible problem that the medical people are experiencing? We've not been informed at all about about that.

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

MRS. JORDAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) I think has said very eloquently, as he always does, some of the points that I would have liked to have made.

I am speaking for myself, Mr. Speaker, on this bill: not the views of the caucus, Because I in principle agree with the objectives that the Attorney General is trying to get at in many instances; but what isn't laid before this House is that there are two kickers in this bill, one of which I personally cannot support.

The first kicker is this whole matter of a physician having the right to save a life of a young person, a juvenile, when in fact that action is not compatible with the views of the parents for religious reasons and, perhaps in this modern day society, for trendy reasons.

I think that the Attorney General would have been more worthy of support in this bill if he had made this very clear: that this will allow a physician to use his own discretion in trying to save the life of a child whose parents would not agree to that type of medical practice such as blood transfusions, when this is opposed to the religious view of the family.

I think this can be accepted, because this is a matter of saving a life. All medicine is dedicated and predicated on the concept of saving life to all extent. But in this instance this section is in conflict with the other kicker that's in the bill; and that is that the bill

[ Page 2227 ]

will allow a 16-year-old girl to seek an abortion without her parents' consent as I understand it and, as the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey said, without any effort on the part of the doctor to discuss this matter with the parents.

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

MRS. JORDAN: Yes, Mr. Minister, I know it's left up to the doctor. But I suggest that the Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance is not correct in giving the impression that the medical society and the doctors of this province approve of this practice in whole. There's a great division within the medical profession itself about this.

What is in danger of happening is that a young girl, for her own reasons, may well pressure doctors into performing or try to pressure doctors into performing a medical treatment that they do not agree with. There's much controversy today, medically and morally, as to whether or not an abortion after a certain period of time is in fact beneficial to the mother and society or, in fact, destroying life. This, Mr. Minister, is where the kicker comes in.

In your presentation and in your thoughts about this bill you suggest that it's to improve health — and to a large degree this can't be argued with — and that it is compatible with the medical dedication of saving life. But included in this, intentionally or unintentionally, Mr. Minister, is the potential of destroying life. I suggest that if this is a matter of which the Attorney General is aware, then he must make a statement about this in the House.

Mr. Minister, through Mr. Speaker, there is still much controversy on a scientific basis as to whether abortions, even though done under the most modern medical techniques and under the most proper medical conditions, do not leave residual medical problems. Certainly on a repetitive basis there is much evidence to suggest it does; such things as cervical incompetency at later years when a woman is married and wants to have children and is then, because of cervical incompetency, subject to repeated miscarriages, as they are then delicately called.

I think, Mr. Minister, this is a medical opinion that must be weighed very carefully. Is a 16-year-old girl — regardless of why she's pregnant, this is not the point — in discussion with a doctor capable of making this decision: (1) the destruction of life, and (2) the possibility of involving herself in future medical complications which would bring her great tragedy?

One of the things that's never discussed on the subject of abortion or miscarriages is the psychological effect on the mother. At 16 they're pretty resilient. Probably up to 18 and 20 they're very resilient. But when one gets older and wants children and has lost children through miscarriage, has anybody ever talked to those mothers and seen how they feel?

I suggest that there is a very strong psychological trauma and that this can be enhanced if the child or fetus is lost through abortion. It may well not show up until the later years of their life.

Anyone who has dealt in the field of mental health knows that many problems appear in a woman's life when she's in her late 30's and 40's and 50's. Some tend to revert back to feelings of guilt because of activities they involved themselves in when they were teenagers. Some tend to reflect back to incidents that happened in their life.

As a society today we are moving very strongly towards a problem that has existed for years in the life of a woman in her mid-forties, in the so-called menopausal years. When the family is gone and when by nature men become more attractive and women perhaps don't age as gracefully, there's a tremendous human reaction of a feeling of not being needed and the ensuing complications.

Mr. Minister, through you Mr. Speaker, psychiatric review will make you aware that this is not something that has come and gone with the ages. It's an inherent human reaction. It's a stress reaction and we're in an age of increasing stress. With reasonable review of the situation, Mr. Minister, I suggest that the danger of an older woman — today's teenager — suffering in her late 40's and 50's a severe emotional reaction over abortion, is very much a thing to be contended with in the future. It's very much a matter to be dealt with by medicine and by society.

I think that if you look at this, Mr. Speaker, you'll recognize that where there has been consultation with the parents and perhaps with other people, even though it was painful at the time, and if the abortion were performed under sound medical conditions and a reasonable, emotionally mature approach, if there are guilt reactions in later life, these would be less of a problem on the basis of the circumstances of the abortion.

But that emotional problem later in life may be compounded with the guilt feelings that may well come if this were done without the parents' consent and knowledge and without — as the Hon. Member said — any other checks and balances. To pass this type of legislation in this particular instance would leave us abdicating our responsibilities as legislators.

Mr. Speaker, I would say that in trying to present a bill for which there is much need in many instances and which I would support, he has brought in a bill with a general emphasis on saving life. But it's too wide open. There's a real conflict. I don't consider myself a radical person and I don't think many doctors consider themselves radical people. But you've brought in a very serious emotional conflict and a moral question. That is, is this bill so wide open

[ Page 2228 ]

that it leads to taking of a life at the discretion of a 16-year-old, without the proper checks and balances?

And, Mr. Minister, through you Mr. Speaker, I think you must have some type of a review board within the medical profession when some of the more extreme treatments allowed under this bill are undertaken. That goes back to the Hon. Member's views on checks and balances.

While I would like to support 90 per cent of this bill, I regret to say that I personally cannot support the section which refers to the matter that I've just discussed.

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

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Thank you, Mr. Speaker, both Ministers who have spoken in this debate have referred to young people travelling. One used the words "young people on the road." The other used the words "youngsters travelling." The fact is that the bill will apply not only to the small proportion of people in that age group who are travelling at any one time but to all young people, whether it is at the height of summer when they are travelling, or whether it is at other times of the year when most of them will be at home or at least within some distance of their parents or guardian.

We feel that while the government may be definitely trying to do something for the young people travelling but in the process we're also doing a great deal for the others who are not on the road. Therefore it appears that in going after this one specific group of travelers, we are taking in a very large class of citizens indeed.

The bill worries me in that on the one hand it seems to completely override at any stage and any place the question of parental control or consent. The explanatory note which says, "The purpose of this bill is to amend the Infants Act to allow an infant…. ." should really read "any infant." That's essentially what is being done. Any infant, any person between 16 and 19, can take advantage of it.

The principles of this are complicated by section 3. Of course we're not in the detailed reading. But it gives me the impression that there could be a situation where, if the parent were nearby and parental consent were given, the Act might become completely meaningless. There is this confusion with the wording of that section which could, I think, make ineffective any provision whatsoever of the Act.

The question comes up of what would happen if the parent gave consent and the child refused it? I don't know and I don't think that it's very clear in this Act. Perhaps it might reverse the situation. I'm simply not sure.

There's another aspect which again is a question of principle with some fairly substantial implications. That relates to the child outside a province, the travelling child to whom this Act was specifically meant to apply. What happens then, in the case of British Columbia children out of the province? I'm not exactly sure of this. Or, as my Hon. friend on my left mentions, what happens to Alberta youngsters who are in British Columbia? Presumably, the British Columbia law would apply but there seems to be some complication here.

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

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: There is a question, though, of extra-provincial effects of the legislation.

In any event, we know that there have been calls for the bill. At the same time we know that it's quite possible for medical practitioners to insure themselves against the possibilities which the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) spoke about. I believe the premium is a very small one on an annual basis. It's something around $1 a week for such protection. It doesn't appear to be the major problem that some have mentioned.

We think that there are enough problems of principle in dealing with the question of age of consent and the question of permission which young people could give for treatment that we would move at this time that this second reading debate be adjourned until the next sitting.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SPEAKER: There's a motion that must be dealt with first, a motion to adjourn the debate made by the Hon. Second Member for Victoria.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Highways): This bill has been before the House for enough time.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

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

Motion negatived.

MR. MORRISON: I'd like to speak about parents whose children are still at home and who are struggling with parental responsibility and who want to know what their family health is.

I do agree that there should be some arrangement for those children who have left home, who are no longer in any way under the care and control of the parents, so they can have medical treatment if they need it. But I strongly believe that the parents who do have their children at home and who are still trying to do the best thing they can for them should not have this taken away from them.

[ Page 2229 ]

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

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just a few brief comments because I think a number of Members have already canvassed some of the real problems that beset parents and members of the medical profession today.

It would seem to me that in presenting this bill we have overreacted to what is really a frustrating problem to the medical profession. That is the matter of rendering treatment to minors between the ages of 16 and 19.

I know it must be frustrating to people who are practicing medicine to have young people come in to them for what the young person might suggest is emergency treatment. They canvassed the problem very carefully, but if that young person says that they cannot reach their guardians or they refuse to give the names of their guardians, it's pretty difficult for a member of the medical profession to really know whether in fact a guardian was available or not. It could very well be that the child being treated lives no more than 10 blocks from the doctor, because in a large city how are you to know.

It seems to me that in an attempt to relieve the medical profession from taking upon their shoulders some very serious responsibility for making decisions in the treatment of young people, that we have gone overboard with this bill. There's no question that people will object to it on moral and religious grounds. There's no question that we get involved in young people the age of 16 seeking advice from doctors concerning matters they do not wish to discuss with their parents and will not reveal their parents' name for that reason.

In bringing this bill before the House, I must say that I believe the Attorney General has attempted to be guided by the wishes of the medical profession and their association. But I would also suspect that even within the profession itself there are strongly held views, both for this type of legislation and against it. It may be that the majority of people who made their views known have spoken in favour of it at a meeting of the association and therefore that resolution, in one form or another, came before the Attorney General, as it has in past years, and he was asked to act upon it.

I feel that because of the wide-scale ramifications of a bill of this type we will probably become inundated by youngsters from other parts of Canada who realize what this type of legislation can mean. That's true. It can happen and it will happen, Mr. Attorney General. Rather than reveal to their parents a particular condition, especially a condition of pregnancy, they'll soon migrate to the west coast for treatment — and you and I know the type of treatment that they'll be looking for.

Certainly it's a matter that has deep psychological ramifications. I believe that in preparing this bill we have brought before this House one that over-reacts to a situation and therefore it is not good legislation and should not be passed.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just responding briefly to some of the comments made on the other side of the House, I just wanted to say that in my view, in answer to the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) the civil responsibility will be largely the same, but that civil responsibility on the part of the doctor must be viewed by a court taking this new section 23 into consideration. That does not mean, however, that doctors are to abdicate any responsibility with respect to consulting parents or with respect to responsibility to investigate fully what the child — 16 years or over — wishes in the way of medical treatment and is advisable vis-à-vis that person's health, having in mind what comments the Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) made about the future effect this may have.

In dealing with the Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson), Mr. Speaker, I can say that there's no complication involved in section 23 as proposed under Bill 37. British Columbia law applies to any person in this province. I think that I've dealt with the civil responsibility, He raises an interesting point with respect to consent or refusal by parents. What if the child refuses? That is one of the most unlikely situations that probably wasn't foreseen at the time of the drafting of this Act. I don't know of a situation that would arise that would be similar.

Dealing substantively with the bill, Mr. Speaker, there was the issue raised by the Member for Oak Bay with respect to birth control. This can be linked up with what was mentioned by the Member for North Okanagan with respect to abortion.

Yes, there are situations where persons who receive abortions at a young age suffer far-reaching effects emotionally that demonstrate themselves in later years. However, what we are talking about here is the consent of a child.

There are other aspects which go into abortion, under the Criminal Code and there is the Code of Ethics by the College of Physicians and Surgeons and so on. We cannot talk in a vacuum and this section does not appear in a vacuum. There is a responsibility of physicians to consult with one another, to consult with parents, according to their own ethics.

Secondly, there is a board of review, a panel which permits or does not permit abortions in this country. Under those circumstances this board, I take it — and I must understand this to be the case — will review

[ Page 2230 ]

clearly those matters which the Hon. Member for North Okanagan raised.

You see what I am worried about, and what this section solves, is that in the past I have seen many situations where parents are imposing their will upon a child to the physical and mental detriment of that child — not necessarily for religious reasons. In modern times I would suggest that that's one of the minor reasons that this damage to the child of 16 years of age and older is done.

I am thinking, for example, of a parent and child who are not so close as to — I'll rephrase that. You see, if there is a parent, or two parents and a child, who are close and have an understanding between them, then we can expect that there will be consultation before any medical treatment goes on and that the parents will in fact act within the interests of the better health, both mental and physical, of that child.

Where the damage is done is where the parents who are irresponsible or who are ignorant impose their will upon the child to that child's detriment. And this is why section 23 is as wide as it is and as essential as it is.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I recognize what the Minister of Health said in speaking to this bill, and I am sure that he's correct, that the majority of medical practitioners would prefer to see an Act of this kind. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, the Attorney General did not make a very strong case in favour of the Act at the time he introduced it. I dare say that the Act itself would not be accepted by the more conservative members of the medical profession.

The reason being, of course, that the current law requires the practitioner to make some effort to contact the parents — except in instances of dire emergency where they're going to go ahead and give medical treatment if somebody's injured in an accident. They're not going to try and get to eastern Canada before they give a pint of blood. If somebody walks in with an acute abdomen, they're going to go up to surgery and they'll get hold of the parent later. So that in emergency situations the individual is going to receive treatment regardless.

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

MR. McGEER: Of course. But, Mr. Speaker, we have dealt with this for centuries. The Attorney General may say it's assault, but he knows perfectly well that neither he nor any other lawyer could hope to win a case in court of that kind. I think that's why you don't have cases of that kind going to court.

Mr. Speaker, you have to see the other side of the coin. The other side of the coin is that it relieves the physician of one of his important responsibilities, which is to look after things that go beyond the immediate complaint of the patient. He has to consider the family situation of every patient who comes in, even if it's only for a hangnail. Because that is part of his responsibility as a physician.

This Act relieves the medical practitioner of that responsibility and makes it east for the underlying cause of a person to become a wanderer, to go completely unattended. It is time-consuming. It is inconvenient. But at the same time, Mr. Speaker, it does constitute the best medical treatment.

What this bill is inclined to do, I'm afraid, is to encourage second-rate medical treatment.

I quite understand the points which the Member for North Okanagan raised, and there's little doubt that abortion will be one of the major questions that will come up as a result of this bill. Many physicians feel that the current requirement for parental consent leads to reluctance on the part of a teenager to seek an abortion, making what is a fairly simple procedure during the earliest stages of pregnancy into one that's considerably more complicated the stage of a hysterectomy.

So, Mr. Speaker, there are two sides to this bill: one where early and easy intervention on the part of a physician may be helpful, but some, other situations where the removal of responsibility on the part of the physician will act against the best interests of the patient.

I really think this subject should be canvassed more thoroughly, Mr. Speaker. I was astonished that the Government would not consider an adjournment on this particular bill so that some of the Members could supply data for themselves that the Attorney General should have presented at the time of the discussion of the bill.

I didn't think…

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

MR. McGEER: Well, Mr. Speaker, the bill may have been on the order paper for weeks, but I think the Attorney General and the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan) and all those people who objected to ramrod legislation, should consider that one of the important responsibilities of the Minister in bringing in a bill is to explain his case for the need.

And, Mr. Speaker, the Attorney General in this particular case has not done a good job. He hasn't built the case for the bill. While the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) did manage to convey to us the general support of the medical profession, it is not unanimous as the Minister of Health suggested.

[ Page 2231 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: It never is.

MR. McGEER: Of course it never is. But I nevertheless think that there are many facets to this particular legislation that have not been adequately canvassed by the Members. This is not an important measure of Government policy. It is a mistake to rush the bill through under these circumstances. For these reasons I would move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Is there any further debate on the question? There has already been one motion of adjournment in this debate and there's been no intervening proceedings, so I must call on the next Member who wishes to debate.

The Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I don't intend to be long. I had hoped that the Second Member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) might have continued a little longer. The direction in which he was going would have taken him into a position of direct opposition to this bill. I'm sure that that's why he very quickly took his seat.

Mr. Speaker, I don't think there is any Member of the House who doesn't understand the concern that the Attorney General raised in opening this debate. There are many occasions, quite properly, when young people away from home, unable to obtain parental consent, do require medical treatment, and there is a difficulty for the medical practitioner in affording that treatment in those circumstances.

Now the medical practitioner can always refuse but he may not wish to. Under the law as it presently stands he may be obliged to refuse in order to protect himself from some liability. The comments the Attorney General has made across the floor indicate quite clearly that his concern is with regard to the trespass and the assault that there is to the infant if these services…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WILLIAMS: You said you'd explain yourself when you closed the debate, Mr. Attorney General. It really is not An Act to Amend the Infants Act. It is an Act for the protection of the medical and dental practitioners. Mr. Speaker, I have no objection if the Minister wishes to bring in legislation for that purpose because there are many ways in which it can be obtained.

If you want to protect the medical and dental practitioner in circumstances such as this, spell out quite clearly that where the consent of the parent cannot be obtained due to the absence of the child from his home, then upon the confirming opinion of one additional medical practitioner — or maybe two if you want to make it — a doctor can proceed to render the treatment without constituting a trespass and being liable for a charge of assault or any other civil consequences that there may be.

If that's the aim of the Attorney General, that's fine; we have no objection. But the legislation should say so. It is not good enough to bring in An Act to Amend the Infants Act and say that the purpose of it is this, when the words in the amendment go much, much further than what the Hon. Attorney General has said. When we pass legislation in this House we must fully recognize that the subsequent interpretation will depend upon the clear meaning of the words, and the clear meaning of the words do not restrict in any way the implication of this amendment in the way that the Attorney General indicated when he opened this debate.

I would think in those circumstances that the Hon. Attorney General would have seen fit to accept the adjournment. It may be that he will see fit to make some significant amendments, but these matters obviously have not been clearly considered.

Now I don't want to get into the question of birth control pills and abortions and so on, but I do want to say one thing, and that's the extra-provincial effect of this legislation.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WILLIAMS: That's right. There'll be children travelling from Alberta, Saskatchewan and Ontario to British Columbia. Those children will come from homes where the parents are entitled to believe that no medical services will be rendered for their child without their consent. And suddenly they arrive in the Province of British Columbia on a summer tour of some kind, and then something takes place that that parent in Alberta or Saskatchewan or wherever would never have consented to.

Yet the child at the age of 16 or 17, not recognizing the implications of the treatment which is to be rendered, allows it to go ahead and the doctor is free of any obligation — even free of the obligation to try to get the consent, to pick up the phone, to send a telegram, whatever the case may be, and ask the parents. There is not this responsibility except as the conscience or the ethics of the profession may dictate.

The Attorney General says "of course." Is the Hon. Attorney General suggesting that there have never been medical practitioners in this province who have not seen fit to go beyond their oath?

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

[ Page 2232 ]

MR. WILLIAMS: A third of a million a year running some abortion clinic against the law.

MR. LAUK: They would do this against the law anyway. What are you talking about?

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. WILLIAMS: Have you never heard of situations that have existed in the dental fraternity?

Mr. Speaker, I say to the Attorney General: bring in legislation which will clearly protect the medical practitioner if that is your wish…

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

MR. WILLIAMS: It is the intent of the bill and you said so when you opened the debate. It's exactly what you said: Children who are travelling around and need medical attention and can't get the consent. That's right. And it's to protect the doctor, not the child.

MR. SPEAKER: Is there any other debate before the Hon. Attorney General closes the debate?

The Hon. Attorney General.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, let me just deal with that last point. I think that the Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound, in trying to construe this and entitle this bill an Act for the protection of the medical and dental profession, is doing a grave disservice to the medical and dental profession and to the obvious intent of this bill. It is a most unworthy interpretation to put upon it. It's the Infants Act and it shouldn't be twisted from that purpose by that Member or any other Member. It's to protect children in the circumstances I mentioned.

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

HON. MR. MACDONALD: …where there may be no parents at all. That's point one. Where the parents cannot be found, that's point two. Where there's no guardian, that's point three. Where the child…

After all, we're dealing with a child who might be 16 years of age in a fairly emergency situation. That's today… If that party would get out of the past and live in the modern world, they would understand what this bill is all about. You're living in the past. Asking for adjournments — the Hon. First Member for Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) can't make up his mind about this bill after six or seven months and wants another adjournment. Really.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: This bill is intended to enable children in the kind of case I've described, subject to the ethics of the doctor or dentist or psychiatrist, to receive care in circumstances which may mean life or death for that child.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, that's an extreme. But in another case it might mean the mental welfare and health of that child.

The Liberal Party of British Columbia says, "Put it off. Rely on the old common law." Let the doctor be frightened by the old common law, which says that if he lays a hand on that child of 16, it's battery and trespass. The Liberal Party says, "Let's retain that old law." Don't let the healing physician reach out to help a child in need, but let the law of battery and assault prevail. That's what they're saying.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: In simple terms, the Act is merely saying that it shall not be necessary for the doctor to obtain the consent. In most cases, I would expect that there will be not only consent but consultation and anxious consultation. I would think that the ethics of both the dental and medical professions would provide, as a matter of course, that there would be parental consultation wherever possible. That's already part of the ethics of the professions concerned and it doesn't have to be a part in this bill.

All this bill is doing is saying that there are other cases out there where young people need help and that the old common law of England should not stand in the way of those emergency case. I move second reading.

Motion approved; second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 37 ordered to be placed on orders of the day for committal at the next sitting of the House after today.

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

AN ACT TO AMEND THE EQUAL
GUARDIANSHIP OF INFANTS ACT

HON. MR. MACDONALD: In moving second reading of Bill No. 41, this is a simple Act and one which I hope the Liberal Party has read. (Laughter).

At the present time, upon the death of a father and mother, where no guardian is appointed by will

[ Page 2233 ]

or something of that kind, an infant is made the guardian of the Public Trustee. The bill proposes that in respect of the guardianship of the infant as a person, the guardian should be the Superintendent of Child Welfare, who deals with children and people. But if the child happened to be left assets by the deceased parents, that should be handled by the Public Trustee.

So it's a simple thing in those terms. I think it allots the proper functions to the two functions of government: children to the Superintendent of Child Welfare; property and estate matters to the Public Trustee. I move second reading.

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

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I believe that the intent of this bill is good and will provide a means by which the courts can deal effectively with children left without parents.

Certainly the person in the province most qualified to look after them physically is the Superintendent of Child Welfare or someone within his department, where they become involved in that unfortunate situation. In the matter of estate property to which they may eventually become entitled, the Public Trustee will act on their behalf.

There is, though, one thing that I think the legal profession should do through their association in the Province of British Columbia. This is to somehow get across to parents the importance of having a will and providing a guardian for infant children. They should try to impress the importance of this upon people generally, regardless of how large or small the estate might be.

Too often today there are cases of a man and his wife being wiped out unexpectedly in accidents involving cars or some means of public conveyance. In those situations, it's surprising the number of times we become involved with people with minor children, dying in-testate. There is no proper provision or will for the courts to refer to.

So I believe the Bar association and perhaps even the Attorney General's department would be doing a great service if they were to prepare a brief or some sort of release that would go out periodically to advise people of the position in which their minor children might be placed if they don't take the time to draft even a simple will. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is a positive improvement to the Equal Guardianship of Infants Act. We'll support it.

It's interesting that we should be debating Bill 41 immediately following the Infants Act amendment. It's quite obvious that in the case of the death of both father and mother, where there's no guardian at all, the Government feels it important that the person of the infant be under the protection of the Superintendent of Child Welfare, and that the infants estate — all that money and property — should be looked after by the Public Trustee. There's all kinds of checks and balances there.

But under the previous legislation, the consent of the infant is good enough. Why don't you let the infant run his or her own affairs if they happen to be over the age of 16? This is schizophrenic legislation that we have from this Government.

I would have thought that the draftsman of this bill would have talked with the draftsman of the other bill. Maybe they could have gotten together and seen how much the Superintendent of Child Welfare or any of the superintendent's officers or officials might have been able to assist in the other legislation.

The Government seems to understand the propriety of this in some circumstances, certainly insofar as estates are concerned. This party has so much concern about property, but not with respect to anything like medical attention.

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

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, this is a logical bill. It's clear, concise and certain. It fills a need and it's a very useful measure. I'd like to know how it came about. Maybe the Attorney General should defend his position. (Laughter).

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Attorney General.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker…

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

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

Motion approved; second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 41 ordered to be placed on orders of the day for committal at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, with all dispatch, second reading of Bill 46.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE CORONER'S ACT

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, Bill 46, An Act to Amend the Coroner's Act, does three things in terms of its principles.

[ Page 2234 ]

It first takes the fees, charges and allowances that can be made under the Coroner's Act out of the statutory schedule and makes them subject to regulation.

In the second place, it proposes the deletion of certain provisions of the old Coroner's Act which now deal with charges of murder and manslaughter arising out of impositions. The provisions conflict with two sections of the Criminal Code of Canada. It is proposed that they be deleted.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, there are areas of the province, for example New Westminster, where coroners' services are supplied by the City of New Westminster partly on behalf of other municipalities. It becomes necessary, therefore, where use is made of the services by outside municipalities, that there should be some sharing of the costs. This bill, under section 6, provides that there can be set up coroners' districts to provide for equitable cost sharing in the situation where deaths may take place in considerable numbers in other municipalities but the coroner's court in one municipality is involved in most of the expense. It will provide for equitable sharing of that cost.

I move second reading.

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

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I've been hounding governments in this province for six years to see that there be some adequate compensation for coroners' jurors. Jury duty is exactly what it means, Mr. Speaker. It is a duty and it's one of the responsibilities emanating from the privileges of citizenship. People are expected to perform that responsibility of citizenship but I say, Mr. Speaker, that they should certainly perform it on the same basis as do all other jurors in B.C. The job is not pleasant, it's often onerous and it's often time-consuming. Coroners' jurors should be entitled to just the same remuneration as all other jurors in the province. Today they are entitled to absolutely nothing.

I have been introducing bills along this point for years. I see under section 2, if you take a very liberal and broad. attitude to its terminology there, it would be within the competence of the Attorney General to see that coroners jurors do get paid. But I believe that he was of the impression before that they were being paid and it came to him somewhat of a surprise that they are not. But they are continuing not to be paid. These people should be entitled to just the same jury pay as other people.

Secondly, I think that the return that is given to a juryman in the Province of B.C. today is just abysmally low. It is $10 per day for the first 10 days and $20 thereafter. In many cases it can constitute a very, very severe economic hardship upon the juror — even more so upon coroners' jurors, who are not entitled at the present time under the laws of the Province of British Columbia to a thin red cent.

I'd like the Attorney General to say when he closes the debate that yes, he will agree that coroners' jurors shall receive jury pay.

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

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I would simply support that concept already stated by the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) that coroners' jurors are serving a very important public function. It does often involve loss of time from work and dislocation of their daily lives. I think it's only fair that they should have some remuneration.

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

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, it's quite true that this does not deal with a per diem rate for a coroners' jury as such. What the Hon. Members have said should be borne in mind. I am not saying that I disagree with it. It's a matter of Government policy but not contained within the four corners of this bill.

The bill does allow far more flexibility in terms of expenses with respect to coroners' juries than we've had in the past. Expenses are important, too. Although the other point I recognize is something that still remains to be considered — coroners' jury pay as such. I move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

Motion approved; second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 46 ordered to be placed on orders of the day for committal at the next sitting after today.

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

DEBT COLLECTION ACT

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I want to pay tribute to the work of the Law Reform Commission, which in this case brought in a very good report, particularly in the area of harassment of debtors by collection agencies and by different kinds of businesses which pursue their debtors with most unscrupulous means in some cases.

The modern credit system is involving far more people than used to be the case. The old law of England was placed upon fairly simple relationships between business and individuals and the vast majority of the people of the country had no credit. The result was that this kind of law simply didn't apply to them.

[ Page 2235 ]

Even the people in Charles Dickens' novels who were in somewhat comfortable circumstances but were nevertheless sent to jail for debt were not really England's working class poor, who really did not run into that kind of debt situation because they never had any credit.

Today all of society is involved in the receiving of credit and they therefore have to be concerned with the means whereby credit is collected.

This bill re-enacts some of the existing portions of the old Collection Agents Act, 1967. But it goes on and legislates to curb some of the more objectionable and hurtful practices and methods employed by collection agents. These practices, as I have said, Mr. Speaker, now affect very large segments of the public and are used against people who are often quite unfamiliar about their rights and with business practices.

In proposing this legislation I am not attempting to place unnecessary obstacles in the way of creditors collecting their debts. But we are providing a code of conduct whereby the harassment of debtors that has continued and unethical practices that have occasionally crept into the debt-collection business will be abolished. The Act, therefore, sets out in detail a number of prohibited, unreasonable tactics and unfair pressures and influences that are brought to bear upon debtors.

It will, for example, make unlawful a practice which has been very common: the creditor or his debt collection agency calls up an employee and threatens that man with loss of his job, or he calls the man and says, "I'm going to be in touch with your employer and you're going to lose your job unless you pay this debt." That's a very common kind of unfair harassment of debtors that has been going on in the Province of British Columbia.

It will be unlawful, therefore, to communicate with the debtor's employer, except for the purpose of verifying his employment. And all of that without the consent of the debtor.

There are other things in terms of harassment that are set out in the bill and which will be referred to no doubt in detail, particularly in committee. But I would say also that the bill has other sections which prohibit any person, whether he is a licensed bailiff or not, from removing chattels claimed under seizure, distress or repossession from the home of the debtor in the absence of the debtor or his spouse. It will prohibit the seizing of a chattel that is not specifically charged or mortgaged. Finally, it will prohibit the removal of chattels during a day or during the hours of a day when the removal is prohibited by regulations. And it will be the intention of this Government to propose that regulations be made so that this will effectively stop seizures and repossessions taking place at unreasonable times of the day or night.

There are other provisions in the bill which may be considered more matters of detail and preferable for a later stage, Mr. Speaker. I take pleasure in moving second reading.

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

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I don't think that we disagree with the principle of the bill but I have prepared some information myself. I am also in the process of receiving some more information, hopefully in the next day or two, from some other sources which have wanted to make comments pertinent to the Debt Collection Act. I would therefore ask if the Attorney General would accept an adjournment on second reading to the next sitting of the House.

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

Motion approved.

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

AN ACT TO AMEND
THE SMALL CLAIMS ACT

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, this is An Act to Amend the Small Claims Act. The small claims courts are the people's courts, where 90 per cent of the legal business of the province is really transacted, in terms of the people who ever have any court experience.

We want to upgrade those courts. We're doing it first in a monetary way by increasing their jurisdiction at this time from $500 to $1,000. Secondly, we're taking some steps to simplify the procedure in the small claims court.

In particular, we're providing that where a warrant is out for the arrest of a person — and it may be for breach of a judge's order in that court or it may be for failure to pay a sum of money following a judgment summons proceeding — the person under the warrant will not be taken to jail, but will be taken forthwith back to the court. If he has some explanation, he can give it to the judge. Perhaps there'll be no jail involved at all.

The main thing is that at this time we're increasing the jurisdiction of the courts. We're also looking for a thorough review of the small claims courts to make them as simple and expeditious and inexpensive as we possibly can, in view of the vast number of disputes out there in the community, many of which should be settled in an informal and inexpensive way, if we can possibly work out the means, I move second reading.

[ Page 2236 ]

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

MR. SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We agree with the principle of the bill and the idea that the jurisdiction of the small debts court should be increased from $500 to $ 1,000. We would hope that this is the first step in a direction that will eventually see that limit increased even further, after the Attorney General has had the benefit of watching the process within the courts.

We do feel that there is a problem with regard to the payment of fees by people involved in actions before the small debts court. Some people are reluctant to become involved in any type of action because of the requirement of a solicitor. Although they could go in themselves, they don't feel competent to appear before the court without a solicitor.

It seems to us that the Attorney General might proceed in this direction, in conjunction with the other provisions contained in this bill — that every person should have equal rights before the courts, regardless of their financial means, and that nothing should impede them from presenting their side of the case.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SMITH: Yes, they can go to legal aid if this is a requirement. But the situation is that quite often, rather than get involved in court, people will reluctantly allow a debt to go unchallenged or unpaid and as a result they are the losers from that process.

We would, though, support the principle of the bill. We think it is a step in the right direction.

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

MR. GARDOM: This is a measure that has been proposed in this side of the House for years, Mr. Speaker, and we are delighted to see that the Government is bringing in the amendment to the Act. We would hope that they would similarly view the jurisdiction of the county court and increase its jurisdiction from $3,000 to $5,000 which would cut down in the great period of time that litigants have to wait to get into the supreme court, and would certainly fill the desires and needs of society in that regard.

Dealing with this bill, though, and I've been seeing some statements in the Press — and I've forgotten, to tell you the truth, whether they are attributable to the Attorney General or not — but it's a mighty good thing in conjunction with this kind of assistance that maybe we should have a roaming ombudsman in the hall. In many cases if you can break down the frost-line between litigants and get them just to have a little chat together before they get into court, no end of trials could be avoided. Rather than find people sitting in a small debts court for the better part of three or four or five hours before they can get on for their hearing, if there could just be a court liaison approach to the thing whereby the individuals could have, say a 'without prejudice' discussion out in the hall as to their respective points of view and the merits of their cases, and thus I think you would find an infinitely large number of cases settled. It would certainly cut down on the load of the court.

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

MR. WILLIAMS: I've just got a word, Mr. Speaker. I agree with what the Second Member for Point Grey has just said. It would seem to me that if a court officer could see whether the parties had even taken the first step towards settlement discussion, much of the time used up in the courts could be overcome. If he could just make that simple inquiry, and out of that simple inquiry he might be able to recommend to the parties that there was a simpler solution than by going before the judge.

The judges in the small claims division work pretty hard and I'm sure that they receive before them many, many people who are contesting claims who just haven't taken that first approach towards settlement which might have resolved a lot of the difficulties.

I was pleased to hear what the Attorney General had to say about the matter of exercising warrants of committal. I think that this is a positive step. This legislation following upon the bill just adjourned indicates that the government is moving farther and farther away from the historic approach to debt when debtors' prison was the way in which everything was handled. I think we should even move more quickly in that direction and that other legislation dealing with the powers of execution and so on should be amended.

I think that surely we have come in this day and age far enough that we don't throw someone in jail because he hasn't paid his debt, or can't. There may be those people who will be trying to abuse the credit opportunities which are created in our society today. Well, that's one of the risks that the people who extend credit must take. But I just don't believe that we should be putting delinquent debtors into jail for any circumstances.

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

MRS. JORDAN: I'm not a lawyer, as the Attorney General obviously knows, but he mentioned in his

[ Page 2237 ]

statements reviewing the whole structure contained in this bill and the legal system…and this bill confines things very definitely, as I understand it, to debts…

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Not just debts any case up to $ 1,000.

MRS. JORDAN: Oh, yes. Well, I was just trying to figure out if I was going to be in order. As a lay person, Mr. Speaker, I think one of the problems we have in society today is where you get simple neighbourhood disputes over property lines or a roof hanging over a fence; or a new property line is discovered when a new road goes in, and feelings run very high in the beginning.

This is quite natural in human reaction. So the next thing you know — I have nothing against lawyers — you have two lawyers involved. One runs to a lawyer and then the other has to get a lawyer. Then you get two people in a situation where two or three months later they sort of calm down and they feel well, you know, what did we start all of this about, but they can't discuss it because the two lawyers are involved and one lawyer says, "Well, you mustn't meet. If you want something, I'll talk to his lawyer."

The next thing you know you've got everybody embroiled; two neighbours aren't speaking; the lawyers are speaking through letters; the costs are rising, and eventually there is a settlement in which the two lawyers are battling it out, or else it goes to court. You may only be involved in a simple amount of money, $1,000, $2,000, $3,000 and yet you end up with costs to the winner and certainly a prohibitive cost to the loser.

It seems to me, Mr. Attorney General, that there should be an avenue whereby people can go before a responsible person, whether it's a judge or not, and he can look at it very objectively and say, "Well, you know you could go to court. It looks as if A has a slight edge, but then the court may say this or that. Or you could settle now, and this would be a realistic approach." If the two parties don't choose to accept it then they have the right to go to their lawyers or go to court, but too many people in British Columbia…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, that's just the point, Mr. Member. I don't think you understand and I'm probably not saying it… Too many people in British Columbia or anywhere get into a dispute, Mr. Speaker, through a quick emotional reaction and then — I hate to say it — they get into the hands…

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member address the Chair and not get into a dispute.

MRS. JORDAN:…get into the hands of the lawyers and the lawyers are practicing law. There's no question about it. That is their right. But it is a person they are supposed to be serving who unintentionally becomes an innocent victim in the process of law, and in the cost of that process of law.

I'm sure there isn't an MLA in this House who hasn't been involved in cases when everybody sits down and says, "you know, if only Abe Lincoln had been here there would have been no costs, or very low costs; there wouldn't have been the months of bad feeling, years of anxiety. Some of these simple little cases go on for two or three years. I know, Mr. Speaker. All we would have to do…I don't want to upset the process of law, but it's a democratic society and sometimes just a little common sense and a rational approach is much more effective than adhering to the whole legal process.

I would ask, Mr. Speaker, the Attorney General in his review — whether this is the place for it, the small claims court, I don't know — but go back, make an avenue for, for want of a better name, for the "Abe Lincoln" approach to some of these smaller problems that evolve.

You're going to save the crown money. You're going to save the individual money. You're going to save the lawyers a lot of harassment. You'll save them money because they won't make as much income from handling all these little cases, and they won't have to pay such high taxes.

You're going to save, Mr. Speaker, an awful lot of people an awful lot of ulcerating, anxiety — creating time, because there's no question today, as with teachers, there is still an emotional block against lawyers. If they've got to go to a lawyer's office, people get uptight, or they don't realize what fine gentlemen and gentle ladies they are. Mr. Speaker, everybody's laughing but I couldn't be more serious. Bring in an avenue for a common sense, rational, unemotional, Abe Lincoln approach.

AN HON. MEMBER: More rights for the experienced…

MRS. JORDAN: The Attorney General and all the lawyers, and I think most people, are pleased about a legal aid system. But, Mr. Speaker, that legal aid system will falter if the demands on it are too great; and it should be used where it's needed. Every taxpayer will support it if it's used where it's needed. But it shouldn't be used for areas where common sense can prevail or before you've given an opportunity for common sense to prevail. So on with Abe Lincoln, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Attorney General

[ Page 2238 ]

closes the debate.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, there have been some valuable suggestions that had nothing to do with the principle of the bill. Nevertheless, they were valuable suggestions, including the interesting one that the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams) has mentioned — and it's of great concern to me — whether or not at the door of the small claims court there can't be some informal procedure by way of conciliation, advice, refereeing, umpiring, so that a litigant could know whether or not to push that case through and save a lot of time. That's the kind of thing we are working on. I move second reading.

Motion approved; second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 49 ordered to be placed on orders of the day for committal at the next sitting of the House after today.

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

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might have leave of the House at this time to introduce a group of students who are in the gallery from Irwin Park School in West Vancouver together with their chaperon.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon will be private Member's day from 2 p.m. to 6 p.m., and we expect great progress.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I think they'll be in order, some of them.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved, The House adjourned at 12:03 p.m.