1985 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 33rd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 1985

Morning Sitting

[ Page

7133 ]

CONTENTS

Foreign Arbitral Awards Act (Bill 67). Second Reading

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 7133

Mr. Hanson –– 7133

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 7133

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No –– 4), 1985 (Bill 70). Second Reading

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 7133

Mr. Howard –– 7133

Mrs. Wallace –– 7135

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 7136

Charter of Rights Amendments Act, 1985 (Bill 33). Second Reading

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 7136

Mr. Lauk –– 7136

Ms. Brown –– 7137

Mr. Cocke –– 7139

Mr. Hanson –– 7141

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 7141

Society Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 48). Hon. Mr. Hewitt. Committee stage 7142

Mr. Cocke

Third reading

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 1985

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Prayers.

HON. MR. PELTON: Mr. Speaker, in the galleries this morning

are three gentlemen who serve our province through their involvement

with the Agricultural Land Commission, and I would like all hon.

members to make most welcome this morning: Mr. Ian Paton, Mr. Elli

Framst and Mr. Bob Murdoch.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 67, Mr. Speaker.

FOREIGN ARBITRAL AWARDS ACT

HON. MR. SMITH: In moving second reading of this bill — which

I know in my sleep — it really could be described as paving the way for

some good international business in British Columbia. Foreign

commercial arbitration, traditionally, has taken place in a number of

European capitals, and very little of it has come to North America.

There is some in New York and virtually none on the west coast of North

America. Since the patterns of world trade have been shifting toward

the Pacific Rim in the last four or five years, a number of new centres

for international commercial arbitration have opened in the last year;

there's one in Melbourne, Australia, another in Hong Kong and one in

Kuala Lumpur. These centres cannot meet the needs of international

commercial arbitration involving American companies and Pacific Rim

companies, or involving Common Market countries and Pacific Rim

countries. Those arbitrations are ideally suited for a neutral country

in North America like Canada.

Why hasn't this work come to Canada before? Well, one of the

principal reasons has been technical and legal — having to do with

international law — and that is that Canada has not recognized the New

York Convention of 1958 for the recognition of foreign arbitral awards.

The reason why it hasn't recognized it is dim and historic, but what is

encouraging is that the Canadian government now — Mr. Crosby — only

three weeks ago in Ottawa announced to an international trade seminar

that Canada would indeed recognize the convention. British Columbia

establishing, as it....

HON. MR. GARDOM: About time.

HON. MR. SMITH: About time, my colleague the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations so correctly observes.

Canada now has the support of all the provinces for bringing in companion legislation,

and the first province off the mark is British Columbia, which will also be

the first province in Canada to have an international commercial arbitration

centre. Ours is opening in May of next year and being highlighted with an international

conference on arbitration which will be held in Vancouver on May 12, to follow

a similar meeting in New York and to coincide with the second week of Expo.

So if this bill is passed, we will be able to recognize foreign

arbitral awards in this jurisdiction when the Canadian government

adopts the convention. That will mean that people will come in here and

have arbitration awards knowing that these awards and awards from other

jurisdictions can be enforced in Canada and in British Columbia.

It is very positive legislation, and I greatly welcome the support of the members on both sides of this House.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, we support this legislation. It

derives from a United Nations decision in 1958. It's almost 30 years

overdue. We have had discussions with people with respect to a similar

arrangement that exists in the great Labour Party government of

Australia, who recognized some time ago — and the Attorney-General

mentioned Melbourne — that they had to understand the legal system of

Japan and other Asian countries so they could protect the contracts

between the signatories — the principals — in the Australian industrial

community and their Asian customers.

So we certainly agree that this is a positive move. It's long overdue, and we'll support it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Further comment, hon. members?

Hearing none, the House is advised that the Attorney-General closes debate.

HON. MR. SMITH: I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 67, Foreign Arbitral Awards Act, read a second time and

referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the

next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 70, Mr. Speaker.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (No. 4), 1985

HON. MR. SMITH: I move second reading. According to the practice of the House, this matter is probably best addressed at committee stage.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I don't think what the

Attorney-General says is quite accurate, although it may be his opinion

— that is, that this bill is more suitable to examination in committee

because it contains or seeks to amend a number of statutes.

However, there is a very fundamental and important question involved

in the bill that needs to be examined in that light. In this segment of

the session so far, we have had perhaps a dozen bills on the agenda —

kind of a weak, insipid agenda, if I could pass that thought across to

the government. Not a single, solitary piece of legislation that we've

seen so far is designed to deal with the economy. Not a single,

solitary bill involves job creation — just a lot of leftovers or second

thoughts or accommodations to try to deal with housekeeping matters.

That's why I say it is a weak and insipid agenda that we have to

deal with. But this Bill 70 is an exception to that because it is a

bill that has, as a part of it in any event, a reference to jobs. That

I think is important. But it isn't a question of job creation; it

refers to job depletions. It refers to

[ Page 7134 ]

the potential loss of jobs in the forest industry in this province.

It will permit an arrangement to continue to exist and to be expanded

upon that will see fewer people employed in the forest industry than is

the case right now.

So the one piece of legislation that the government brings forward

in this

section of this session to deal with jobs is designed to reduce

jobs, is designed to put people out of work, is designed to increase

the rolls of the unemployed more than it is designed to create jobs.

That's why I say it is fundamentally important that we examine that

question in its second reading.

[10:15]

Mr. Speaker, in 1985, this year — and when it is over I'm sure the

statistics will not change measurably — the production of timber in the

forest industry has been as high or higher than it has been for quite a

number of years. Peak production of timber — productivity in many

companies has increased — but the number of people employed in the

industry has decreased. So while production and productivity of lumber

products is up, employment is down. The IWA tells us that they've got

10,000 fewer people working in the forest industry than was the case a

couple of years ago, and productivity continues to increase.

To give you just an example of round, broad figures about the

MacMillan Bloedel Ltd. mill at Chemainus, it was identified by Mac-Blo

as being old and obsolete and worthy of being shut down.

MR. REID: Run down.

MR. HOWARD: Oh, really?

MR. REID: Yes. Have you gone to have a look at it?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The second member for Surrey

will be given every opportunity to debate in second reading. The member

for Skeena continues.

MR. HOWARD: Well, let's hope he doesn't take advantage of it,

because he never makes anything sensible in the way of a contribution

to debate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. HOWARD: Well, there's an example of it right now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. REID: I've been up to that mill; you haven't even seen it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, perhaps if we can avoid the

heckling we can also then become relevant as we debate Bill 70. The

member for Skeena continues.

MR. HOWARD: So about MacMillan Bloedel Ltd., let me repeat this so that the…is it the third member for Surrey...?

MR. REID: First, second and third.

MR. HOWARD: Do you hear that, Rita? He's the first second and third member for Surrey.

The Chemainus mill was identified by Mac-Blo as being obsolete and

worthy of being razed to the ground and put you of business, People in

that area were upset about that, naturally, and justifiably brought the

right amount of pressure to Mac-Blo, who said, "Okay, we'll rebuild the

mill, " which they did. When the old mill was running, it had in its

employ something in the neighbourhood — and I use round figures — of

600 employees; it was somewhat less than that. Right now, with three

shifts operating at approximately 65 workers per shift, there are a

couple of hundred people employed. The production of the mill is about

the same as it was before.

MR. REID: It's higher.

MR. HOWARD: Now my friend tells me it's higher. Like you told

him, Mr. Speaker, he'll have every opportunity to impart this

information to the House in a very formal way.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Thank you.

MR. HOWARD: I do really need some protection from the irrelevant, inane interruptions from the second member for Surrey.

So he tells me that production is higher now than it was before.

Parts of sections 2, 3 and 4 of this bill deal precisely with that

question, and that's what I am getting to.

So the Chemainus mill says: fine, we'll have the same production;

we'll employ one-third fewer workers –– 400 people gone. The question

we have to address when we were dealing with amendments to the Forest

Act is: what is the purpose of public policy if it isn't to create a

legislative framework that will take account of those 400 workers who

lost jobs at Chemainus, plus the 10,000 others in the forest industry

who lost jobs as a result of alterations and restructuring of the

forest industry? This is the point I'm seeking to make. If there are

amendments to be made to the Forest Act, then they should not be these

kinds of amendments, because these kinds of amendments destroy job

creation possibilities in this province. This kind of amendment does

that.

The kinds of amendments the government should be bringing forward

are amendments that talk about the value of the small operator, the

small logger, the small sawmill operator. There should be a legislative

framework within which that person can feel comfortable and helpful.

You know that, Mr. Speaker, better than I, coming from the area you

come from. For those who might at some time or another read Hansard ,

perhaps I should indicate that it is the Deputy Speaker who is in the

chair, and he comes from Prince George; I'm not talking about the

constituency of Delta. He knows the forest industry as well as or

better than anybody else, and he knows that a small operator, small

logger, small sawmill operator will employ more workers per dollar of

capital investment than will a big corporation.

This bill and this proposed amendment to the Forest Act is designed

to assist the large corporation, not the small operator. He knows

that small loggers and small operators spend nearly all of their cash

flow, and all of their money in the community within which they work

and within which they function. Very little of that money goes outside

of the community within which they operate, which is not the case with

large corporations that have to maintain head offices or pay dividends

to foreign shareholders, like B.C. Forest has to do, like Mac and Blo

and Noranda would have to do if they ever start making any money. The

small operator spends that money locally, and this bill does not take

account of that. We

[ Page

7135 ]

know that the smaller logger and the smaller sawmill operator, when there is

some economic difficulty in the lumber industry — as there is from time to time

— tend to employ their workers for longer periods of time. It's more of

a familial operation. Because they are part of the social fabric of the community,

they tend to do a better job than does the large corporation.

Bill 70, and that provision of it which seeks to amend the Forest

Act, seeks to give a greater amount of control to large, integrated

forest companies, to the detriment of the small operator, the small

logger, the small sawmill operator, and to the detriment of the

potential for job creation in this province. It seeks to permit the

holder of a tree-farm licence — or more, if the company holds more than

one tree-farm licence — or the holder of a combination of timber-sale

licence or forest licence, or timber-sale harvesting licence, to apply

to the minister to restructure those holdings, those tenures; to

restructure the tree-farm licence boundaries and carve pieces out of it

that they don't want, that are not suitable to that company's

activities, and to include in a new tree-farm licence quota that

they'll have within a forest licence, a timber sale or a timber-sale

harvesting licence — all without public hearings, as is the case if it

was a straight tree-farm licence application, but all designed to

accommodate the desires of the large integrated forest companies. When

we do that, that does not necessarily and does not always — in most

cases does not — suit the public interest. It suits the private

corporate interest — and I don't knock them for pursuing a private

corporate interest; that's not my complaint.

I know that Westar has to have, as its prime motivation for what it

does, its balance sheet. It has its obligation to its shareholders.

That's the theory; that's the way the thing functions. Shareholders of

Westar are one only: BCRIC, the friendly company of the Premier. I

don't fault those companies for doing what their balance sheet demands

they do. One may express some thoughts about the fact that they

permitted themselves.... For instance, the large — I'm not talking

particularly about Westar — integrated forest companies over the last

few years permitted themselves to get into a very untenable debt-equity

ratio situation, in which all of the cash that they can generate goes

out to service an extraordinarily large debt compared with the amount

of equity that they have. That puts them in a very difficult position.

We know, partly as a result of that, that the large integrated forest

companies, just broadly and generally speaking, do not earn a

sufficient amount of money to be able to stay ahead of the game in

terms of paying that interest. We know that their interest rate

coverage earnings are out of whack. They're one-third what they should

be in order to have a healthy situation.

This bill, with the proposed amendments to the Forest Act, is accommodating

the large integrated forest companies. Public policy is now saying, as far

as this government is concerned: what you, the large integrated companies want,

we'll give to you; we'll let you have it. My complaint is not with the

Norandas, the Mac-Blos, the B.C. Forest Products, the Domans and that sort of

thing. They're functioning in the way they should be functioning. Maybe

the shareholders don't think it's that way, but they are functioning

as a corporation within our system.

My complaint is with this government that brings in a piece of legislation

that says: "We will now let you, as a holder of a TFL — and if you hold

these other tenures as well — simply make an application to restructure your holdings

so that you get the best economic advantage out of it. Not so the general public

gets the best economic advantage out of it, not so the general public benefits

as a result of potential job creation, but so that you the integrated corporation,

your interests, are served."

This is what I might loosely call a Westar amendment. It seems so

suitably designed to accommodate Westar. I read the

section in detail —

section 3 — and I could see Westar all over that particular section.

Knowing how they operate and what they have in the area: the

northwestern part of the province with TFL No. 1 and two forest

licences, one in each of two separate timber supply areas.... This is

designed to suit whatever that company may want to do. It's also

designed to assist other companies as to whatever they may want to do.

It will permit a continuation of what is now highgrading of the

forest industry. It will permit a continuation of holders of TFLs or

people with quotas under forest licences being able to go in, take out

what they consider to be the merch timber for their purposes — the best

trees, the best logs — long-butt it to suit themselves, buck it up to

suit themselves, and leave the rest of it in the bush as a fire hazard

and an impediment to future reforestation of those areas. For what

purpose? Not for the purpose of creating jobs, Mr. Speaker, but for the

purpose of accommodating their own balance sheet.

[10:30]

1 say it's wrong policy when a government, so blatantly and openly,

comes along and says: "Our purpose in life is to adjust government

policy to suit the conveniences of a particular segment of society." In

this case that segment is the large integrated forest companies, and

that's why I started off with the thoughts saying that this is a

job-reduction piece of legislation insofar as the Forest Act segment of

it is concerned. It is a shameful day when that is the only thing that

is on the plate during this portion of this session of the Legislature;

the only thing on the plate relating to jobs is one which will see that

jobs are lost in the forest industry, not created.

MRS. WALLACE: I just want to add a few words to what my

colleague from Skeena has said. I am concerned that the minister who is

really responsible for this bill is not in the House to hear these

remarks and perhaps consider the impact that they may have upon our

economy in British Columbia. In fact, the Attorney-General has become

the stand-in for the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland).

My colleague referred to the Chemainus situation, and certainly that

was one which caused a great many problems in the area I represent. I

am convinced that without the kind of pressure that was launched by the

community there, we would not have seen that new mill put in place in

Chemainus. It is a good mill; it turns out a specialized product. You

know, finally that company has recognized — and is somewhat surprised,

in fact — that by putting in that facility it has been able to turn a

profit right from the very first quarter of operation. I think that

speaks a lot for the possibilities. Now my colleague has pointed out

there are only a third of the people working there, but there is room

for expansion.

If we are going to make these kinds of changes to the Forest Act to

allow companies to concentrate all the best forest land into a

tree-farm licence and turn back to the public domain or under a forest

licence the land that has been desecrated by logging.... If we are

going to give them that kind of option, which I don't think we should

be doing, then there have to be companion requirements. There have to be

[ Page 7136 ]

requirements to build those other two mills in Chemainus — for which

they have plans on the drawing-board — for further processing. Each one

of those other two mills will put another 200 people to work, and we

will get up to the 600 that we had working there before.

To just give carte blanche to major companies to play around with

our land base, to take out of the TFLs — as we did before — the land

that they didn't want and put it under a forest licence, and now to put

into the TFL high-quality, productive land, which is what will happen,

and turn over under forest licence, which is a much looser tenure, the

land that has been desecrated, is certainly not in the best interests

of the people of British Columbia. To do that without any

requirements.... Believe me, I know that under those TFLs.... I learned

this very difficult and hard lesson during the Chemainus problems,

where we tried to persuade them that under their TFL they were obliged

to build that new mill in Chemainus. Those tree-farm licences are

simply a mishmash. They go back to the very first tree-farm licence,

and they amend and amend, and there is no way that you can insist that

that be done — because they have capacity somewhere else, they have

this, they have that. Those are very poorly drawn, and they continue to

be poorly drawn, and they have just been renewed in the matter of the

last five or six years for another 20 years. So we have that same

situation continuing.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

If we are going to bow to the forest companies and give them this

kind of carte blanche to do what they like with our forests, then

certainly we should be putting some provisions in there that will

ensure that they build the kind of mills and do the kind of further

processing that will bring jobs into this province instead of just

going in with a highly mechanized mill and establishing a production

facility that doesn't employ the number of people that should be

employed in that area. If they don't have a public conscience, which I

don't think large companies do.... I think they are there for one

thing, and that is to make profits. And that's probably their purpose;

I'm not knocking that. But we as a government, as the people's

representatives in this Legislature, have a responsibility to the

people of this province, not to those major corporations. To simply

give them carte blanche on our forests without providing anything else

is a sacrilege, in my opinion, Mr. Speaker.

We have a responsibility to the people of this province to ensure

that they have jobs, not simply to ensure that private corporations

have the best use of our forests for their own purposes, to do with

what they like. That's what is and has been happening. This is simply

going to make that happen much more, and bring greater control of our

forests and a much greater degree of the good land into private hands,

and we the people are going to be left with the costs of replenishing

the land that has been destroyed. We the people are going to be left

without the jobs that should be there if those companies are to have

these kinds of rights.

This is a shameful piece of legislation. To be the only piece of

legislation coming into this House which has anything to do with our

resource base and our basic industry indicates to me that this

government really does consider forestry a sunset industry, and is

doing the best it can to phase it out as quickly as possible, without

any regard for the people who work in that industry. In my constituency

it represents 90 percent of our economic base. This piece of

legislation is a disgrace, and certainly should not be on the order

paper.

HON. MR. SMITH: I move second reading.

Motion approved on division.

Bill 70, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No –– 4), 1985, read

a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for

consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. SMITH: As acting House Leader, I call Bill 33.

CHARTER OF RIGHTS AMENDMENTS ACT, 1985

HON. MR. SMITH: With my other hat on, I move second reading

of this bill, and I'm going to make some introductory remarks. I know

that my friend over there, the member for Burnaby, is going to join me

in saying some constructive things about what is a first step to bring

in legislation that amends a number of laws in this province which not

only need to conform with the Charter of Rights, but need to be brought

into the second half of the twentieth century.

The coming into force of

section 15 of the Canadian Charter of

Rights and Freedoms is going to have — indeed is having — a significant

impact on our courts and our Legislatures, and upon the citizens of

this province.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, Mr. Attorney. In looking under

the orders of the day, it appears that the second member for Vancouver

Centre adjourned debate on Bill 33. Should the Attorney speak on this

bill, it would be in closing the debate.

HON. MR. SMITH: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I must say

that that's correct, and I'm very pleased to see the second member for

Vancouver East here, and to acknowledge him and recognize him and see

him looking so shiny and bright and effervescent.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr. Attorney, that's not a proper point of order.

MR. LAUK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I really do ask the Speaker

not to interrupt anyone who's throwing bouquets over to this side of

the House. It happens so rarely that I don't think it's appropriate to

interrupt. At least let him get out the 10- or 15-minute flow of

encomium that he's been keeping to himself all this time.

What bill is this?

AN HON. MEMBER: It's in the white book.

MR. LAUK: As I was saying before, we most recently adjourned

this bill to this day. This is a series of charter amendments to

various provincial statutes, presumably to bring them in line with the

amendment to the Canadian Charter of Rights, with equality provisions.

There are many areas within provincial law that have not been addressed

by this bill, and they should be.

[ Page 7137 ]

If the purpose of the bill is to bring British Columbia law into

line with the new Charter, then we think the government has not looked

hard enough at other statutes, practices and regulations. For example,

I feel there is not sufficient positive legislation being brought about

as a result of the equality provisions to meet with the spirit and the

intention of the charter

section of equality rights. One of the

amendments — that's

section 104 — has to do with the Police Act, and

appropriately I want to bring up a serious situation that is causing a

number of citizens in British Columbia grave concern.

A few days ago an elderly woman was walking across Fourth Avenue, I

think it was, in the city of Vancouver, and she was struck down by a

speeding police vehicle. The Attorney-General purported some time ago

to provide guidelines to police forces in hot-pursuit chase situations.

I think the Attorney-General should be aware....

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Well, it's under

section 104 of the bill — the Police Act — and I bring it briefly....

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: I do not intend it to be amusing. I want the

Attorney-General to look carefully at whether or not his guidelines are

being followed, or whether his guidelines should be improved.

It seems the police were chasing a teenager in a stolen vehicle.

Surely it isn't worth the life and limb of citizens if the police

travel at 60 miles an hour down residential streets chasing a stolen

vehicle. That's hardly within the guidelines intended by the

Attorney-General, and if they were not within the intended guidelines,

the guidelines should be expanded to include situations like that. What

are the relative values that we have in these kinds of situations in

our society? Is it so important we catch a teenager who just went for a

joyride that we have to knock down an elderly woman on a crosswalk? It

doesn't make any sense at all. Our policemen are not being properly

trained in this regard. They've been watching too much of this American

television nonsense — The French Connection and all of that sort of

nonsense. Let the guy go; you'll get him again. It's not worth

endangering the lives and safety of our citizens. I ask the

Attorney-General to look at that.

[10:45]

Under the Vital Statistics Act, I was not given an opportunity

because I was out buying my Vicks cough drops when the argument took

place in this chamber with respect to naming of children and changing

of names. Has the debate been adjourned?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Committee stage.

MR. LAUK: Well, I'll tell you, talk about a dictatorial

government! I've never heard of such nonsense: telling people how they

can name their children. What utter nonsense! What arrogance! What…! I'll take it up in committee, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: I'll defer to the hon. member for Burnaby Edmonds.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, in 1879, when women were first

granted the vote, a suffragette, in commenting on that occasion, said:

"It is simply the opening of another door, the passage into a larger

freedom." I think that's really what we can say about

section 15 of the

Charter — that it is simply the opening of another door. It is another

small step we are taking toward realizing our full equality as full

citizens, not just in British Columbia but in Canada. It is not the

end, of course, and I think that when the minister introduced the

legislation, he made it clear that, in fact, he has just taken a quick

look at the legislation and seen a number of pieces of legislation that

need to be brought into line; and that we are going to see this as an

ongoing process, and in time more bills will be brought into line with

section 15 of the Charter.

I think we should say that we are pleased that the term

"illegitimacy" is finally being abolished. We've recognized for a

number of years that there has never been any such thing as an

illegitimate child and that it was an archaic ideology which had no

place in the twentieth — or twenty-first — century. We congratulate the

government on removing that whole concept from the law.

We are also pleased with the removal of interspousal immunity — that

it is now possible, as a result of this amendment, for battered women

to sue their husbands for assault and battery, something which was not

possible heretofore. Also, in the event of automobile accidents or

other forms of accident including both members of the family, husbands

can now sue their wives, wives can now sue their husbands and

insurances covering those kinds of things can be settled.

We are also pleased that all distinctions in property law and

property rights involving men and women are removed and that they are

in fact going to be treated equally. On the other side, we congratulate

the government for allowing widowers to gain the same benefits from

workers' compensation as widows, and allowing husbands to take the

surname of their wives if that is what they want to do.

We regret, however, that the very important area of pensions was not

touched upon in this piece of legislation. We have said on the floor of

this House a number of times that we are not going to be able to deal

with the poverty among older women which is so prevalent in this

country through welfare or income assistance. There are only two ways

in which we can really attack poverty: one is through equal pay for

work of equal value and the other is through being treated fairly under

pension legislation. The whole area dealing with pensions, whether it

is the Pension (College) Act, the Pension (Municipal) Act, the Pension

(Public Service) Act, or the Pension (Teachers) Act.... All of

those pieces of legislation needed to be dealt with in this

section 15

and were not, Mr. Speaker. Pensions still discriminate against women

because women have the good fortune to live longer than men do,

basically because we take better care of ourselves: we eat better; we

don't smoke; we go to bed at a reasonable hour at night; we eat our

crunchy granola and clean up the vegetables on our plate. We do all

those good things, and we live longer.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Yes, something orange, something green.

[ Page 7138 ]

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Yes, we do that too; and I'm glad that that was

not affected by this piece of legislation. But as a result we are

penalized under the existing pension laws. I think that that is

something the minister should have taken into account, and amended the

pension acts which I mentioned so that we do not have to contend with

different and differential actuarial tables, which establish different

pension classes.

The other area which was not dealt with was the whole concept of

equal pay for work of equal value. I certainly hope that this is one

area, Mr. Speaker, that the Attorney-General is looking at very

seriously, along with the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Segarty) and the

other ministers in the cabinet who have something to do with the whole

business of wages that women earn.

It is not possible for all women to be moved into non-traditional

jobs. If you were to do that, who would then do the traditional jobs?

Also, the traditional jobs which women do have great value. They are

essential and they are important, and the wages should reflect that

fact. At this point they do not. The whole concept of paying equal

wages for the equal value of the work which women do is something that

should have been dealt with under this particular charter.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I'm sorry that the Attorney-General

did not do a better job of looking at legislation which affects

disabled people; that in fact the whole area of the physically and

mentally handicapped hasn't been touched, except in one matter:

permitting, under the Employment Standards Act, that disabled people be

paid below the minimum wage, in sheltered workshops and in other

places, if an employer would like to do so. That is not the kind of

recognition that disabled people were looking for. They wanted to be

able to serve on the jury; they were hoping that the Jury Act would

have been amended. They were hoping that the Election Act would have

been amended. They were hoping that they would have the right to work

for the minimum wage, and to negotiate even wages above that, in terms

of employment. Instead of that, we find that it is now legislated, and

in law, that they can be paid less than the minimum wage. I want to

remind you, Mr. Speaker, that we have one of the lowest, if not the

lowest, minimum wages in all of Canada.

Disabled people were very disappointed that they were not included

in some of the positive changes introduced in this piece of

legislation. They would have liked to have been guaranteed equal access

to the education system and to some of the other protections which

women now enjoy underneath this act. I think it's unfortunate that

because they could not mount the kind of lobby and the kind of public

opinion support on their side that women did, the Attorney-General did

not treat them with the same amount of concern and respect which he

afforded to women under this piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the trade unions also have some concerns about this

legislation. What the act does, of course, is to throw everything into

the courts. Instead of politicians and the elected members now being

the ones to decide on vital issues, the judges are going to be making

those decisions. What the labour movement feels is that that is not

always the forum of best interest for them; that in fact courts and

judges have a long history of being unsympathetic to labour and to

labour's cause. So they have some concerns about how they are going to

be treated in the courts as a result of this.

Mr. Speaker, one of the Ontario public service employees'

unions.... Peter Warrien, one of their researchers, maintained that

section 15 can also be used as grounds for striking down restrictive

covenants, contracts denying basic collective bargaining rights to

groups like teachers, nurses and university professors. I am not sure

whether this is correct or not, so I'm putting it in the form of a

question to the Attorney-General. Can the Attorney-General, in closing

debate, assure us that

section 15 of this act cannot be used by the

courts as grounds for striking down restrictive contracts, denying

basic collective bargaining rights to groups like teachers, nurses and

university professors? Because that's one of the theories that has been

put forward.

Mr. Speaker, Professor Reuben Hasson of Osgoode Hall says that the

chances of women and minority rights being able to benefit from the

equality provisions of the act are limited by the fact that the Charter

only applies to situations involving government and public agencies.

That is the issue which I would like to raise. In fact, so many of the

discriminatory rules are enshrined in regulation rather than in

legislation that there should have been some indication from the

Attorney-General as to whether the regulations are being looked at.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I can think, for example, of the human resources legislation in

which the legislation sounds fair enough, but the regulations embody

discrimination based on age, marital status and a number of different

areas. They're not in the act; they're in the regulations. This piece

of legislation does not touch the regulations.

Again, I want to pose another question to the Attorney-General. Are

the sections of this act going to be broadened to include regulations?

Are regulations in the GAIN legislation and other pieces of legislation

being looked at? Will they come under the jurisdiction of this

particular act so that discrimination based on age in giving out income

assistance, discrimination based on place of residence, number of

months on income assistance — those kinds of discrimination — can be

dealt with under this piece of legislation?

When

section 15 of the Charter comes into effect, the ensuing court

battles will continue for many years, and we recognize that. The degree

to which a

section actually serves the interests of women as well as

other disadvantaged groups in our society will depend entirely on the

outcome of the judicial process. What we are hoping is that this bill

will be a signal to the courts, a signal to the judges, that the

government is on the side of equality rather than the other way around.

We realize that the government cannot control or influence the

decisions of the courts, but we feel that the Attorney-General, through

this piece of legislation, is signaling the commitment of the

government to equality, and hope that he will continue to send that

signal forth so that we shall have some decisions brought down

embodying the true spirit of equality, which is what the Charter is all

about.

Even when we look at

section 15(2) of the legislation, which we

welcome with enthusiasm because it protects the principle of

affirmative action, we are cautious about this. We recognize that it

can be used — as Paul Scott, a consultant with the federal government's

affirmative action directorate, explained to us — to more firmly

entrench the notion of systemic discrimination in the law. In other

words, what Mr. Scott has told us is that employers can now impose

arbitrary

[ Page 7139 ]

standards, such as height and weight or proficiency in a language,

as necessary qualifications, thereby effectively discriminating against

traditionally disadvantaged groups.

[11:00]

I am sure that the Attorney-General took that into account when he

put

section 15(2) into this piece of legislation. Maybe in closing

the debate he could tell us if he has also put into place some kind of

machinery to monitor

section 15(2) to ensure that Paul Scott's

predictions do not, in fact, become reality, that this

section is not

subverted to work against, rather than for, the front end aspirations

of women, that in fact it does not entrench systemic discrimination

into the law, but actually acts to open up and give access to the

mentally disabled, the physically disabled, younger people, older

people, ethnic and racial minorities and women, in terms of moving into

the labour force and moving up and through the system at a faster pace

than has been the case heretofore.

I just want to say that I recognize that despite all of its

shortcomings and despite the fact that it does not do for the disabled

nor for trade unions and for other groups the kind of job that we are

hoping it will do for women, I, on behalf of the constituency for which

I speak, nonetheless recognize

section 15, this piece of legislation,

as a victory for us in the efforts which started in 1879 — a

continuation of that kind of struggle. I also recognize that it is not

the end, and I want to serve notice to the Attorney-General that this

is not the last that he will be hearing from this side on this issue,

because we are not going to stop until all of the legislation and all

of the regulations have been brought into line and we find ourselves

firmly on track in terms of equal pay for work of equal value, pension

legislation and good solid affirmative action on behalf not just of

women but of all disadvantaged groups in our society.

I support this legislation.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, my colleague has somewhat more

enthusiasm than I have. I am particularly angry that the government

would use a piece of legislation such as this to subvert the rights of

people. For the most part, this legislation is straightforward and

fine, amending our statutes so that they conform with the new Charter

of Rights in

section 15. But when they did that, then they sneaked in

something that was going to be in another bill. I understand

that.... And I wish the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Segarty) were

here; I can't understand why he is not here when it is his ministry

which is doing in this way what they should have done

straightforwardly, if they had intended to subvert the rights of some.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation deletes

section 6(11) from the

Workers Compensation Act. Let me read to you what 6(11) says — and

that's of the act, not of this bill.

Section 6(11): "Where a deceased

worker was, at the date of his death, under the age of 70 years and

suffering from an industrial disease of a type that impairs the

capacity of function of the lungs, and where the death was caused by

some ailment or impairment of the lungs or heart of a non-traumatic

origin, it shall be conclusively presumed that the death resulted from

the industrial disease."

We have had this fight over silicosis and all the other industrially

brought about lung diseases over the years in this province, and now

what we've done is turn back the darned clock, because at least 50

percent of silicosis victims do not die of silicosis per se, nor do

victims of asbestosis die of asbestosis per se. Because of the strain

on their heart, they die of heart failure — at least 50 percent of them.

This government, under the guise of a bill of rights, is rescinding

the

section that had protected those people. Now it is up to the

Workers' Compensation Board, whose record is so dismal, so abysmal,

that there's a horror story a day on that board. Now we're leaving it

to the Workers' Compensation Board to decide whether or not that person

died of a compensable illness. They'll say: "Well, he died of heart

failure. What's that got to do with silicosis?" I'll read into the

record what some doctors — some outstanding authorities — say about it

in due course. But I am saying that to use Bill 33 to carry a reduction

in human rights into this House is an absolutely abysmal piece of work

on behalf of the government.

Mr. Speaker, who is the victim? I'll tell you who the victim is. The

person, having suffered over the years with a debilitating lung

disease, finally at age 69 dies of heart failure. The Compensation

Board turns around and they say, "Well, you're no longer one of ours.

Your wife can go straight plumb to you-know-where, because she is no

longer the widow of a person who has been industrially disabled. She is

now the widow of a person who died naturally and gets not a damn thing."

Mr. Speaker, to use this bill to perpetrate that act is beyond comprehension.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's wrong, as usual.

MR. COCKE: "He's wrong, as usual." There's the lawyer, the

consumer affairs person, going out. "He's wrong as usual." Not on your

life am I wrong. Every expert in the field says I'm right.

Mr. Speaker, this particular

section offends the whole bill, as far

as I'm concerned. I had heard rumours, when the new Minister of Labour

took over, that that

section would be deleted. I checked the order

paper as recently as half an hour ago. I see no amendment. I see

nothing that would delete the

section of the bill that offends me and

every just-thinking person in this province.

Section 120 of this

particular bill is offensive. The only protection that those widows and

families had.... We're not only talking about a person of 64 years;

there are a lot of relatively young people who come out of those mines

and those industries where one ruins one's lungs. Sometimes they have a

relatively young family. So the person dies at age 45, 38, or whatever,

of heart failure; but that person is a victim of silicosis, asbestosis

and all the other lung illnesses that have their genesis in industry.

They're left penniless.

The government is telling those victims to go on welfare. I'll tell

you right now, that's what the Workers' Compensation Board is doing in

this province. All MLAs sitting in this chamber at the moment have

enough horror stories on their desks to make what I'm saying in this

Legislative Assembly absolutely right in their minds. Whether or not

they get up and say it is another thing. I've seen more people in the

last few years rendered penniless by the handling of their just claims

by the Workers' Compensation Board. Everyone is viewed as a malingerer

in the eyes of the ministry, because they perpetuate the authority at

the Workers' Compensation Board.

Flesher and those doctors should have been fired a long time ago,

but they're there, and so they along with this

section are not only

rendering a disservice, they're handing

[ Page 7140 ]

them over — I'm talking about the government now — to the Workers'

Compensation Board, who will always take the tack of saving a buck on

behalf of the Workers' Compensation Board. Oh, dear no! Not always. I

can remember a very few short years ago when they refunded to Cominco

$800,000 of a fine that had been paid. Cominco still had not met the

standards, but this board refunded $800,000 and suspended that fine of

$24,000 a month. It is a scandal.

The whole thing around Workers' Compensation Board is a scandal, and

the Attorney-General has the unmitigated audacity to walk into this

House and tell us he's got a great bill before us, and in that bill

they've sneaked in what the Minister of Labour didn't dare do. They

were trying by installing this new minister to maybe improve the image

of the Workers' Compensation Board. So he's got nothing on his hands.

His hands are clean, Pontius Pilate–like. But, Mr. Speaker, this is not

an amendment that should appear in this bill.

Now the Attorney-General may say: "Well, you know, there's an age

thing here, and so we'd better address that age thing." I have talked

to other lawyers, and those other lawyers tell me that this

section

possibly, if viewed on its own and without all the implications, could

be a

section that deals with

section 15. But they go on to tell me it

offends

section 7 of the Charter. If you'll bear with me, Mr. Speaker,

I'm just trying to find the wording of

section 7 of the Charter, which

this particular bill offends.

Yes, the justification for repealing this

Section 1s not that it

mentions age — under the age of 70 — but that it contravenes

section 7

of the Charter, which reads in part as follows: "Everyone has the right

to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be

deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of

fundamental justice."

[11:15]

We see no fundamental justice, Mr. Speaker, in a

section of a bill

which is supposed to be dedicated to fundamental justice. It denies

that justice to those widows of people who died of a related illness as

the result of an industrial disease. Experts will tell that that's true.

Let me read a couple of excerpts from letters. This is to Mr.

Segarty, the Minister of Labour, and it's from Clyde Hertzman, MD MSC

FRCP, the university, faculty of medicine. I gather that he has some

idea about what he's writing. He says in this letter:

"It has been brought to my attention that your

government intends to eliminate the above-mentioned

section of the

Workers Compensation Act. I would like to pass on to you my concerns

about that decision. I am a physician-epidemiologist, who has spent the

last six years studying the principles of cause and effect and

conducting research in the occupational and environmental health

context. From my perspective, causation is a very difficult

relationship to demonstrate conclusively when a long-term, low-dose

exposure is suspected of leading to a chronic disease.

"While difficult to demonstrate in groups of people,

the exercise often becomes futile when applied to individuals. In the

case of heart disease following silicosis, which I presume is the most

common clinical context for invoking

section 6(11), the cause,

silicosis, may have a wide spectrum of severity, and the effect, heart

disease, may be influenced by many constitutional, environmental and

life-style factors.

"In broad terms, we know that lung damage from

silicosis will adversely affect both lung and cardiac function. But

there is no scientific way to determine the degree of responsibility

which a specific case of silicosis might have had in an individual case

of heart disease.

"In the face of such uncertainty, a procedure like

section 6(11) is both sensible and humane. It preempts unscientific

debates about cause and effect and gives a clear benefit of the doubt

to the worker's family. Removal of this

section would likely lead to an

expensive, traumatic, arbitrary and unfair process of adjudication of

individual claims.

"As an epidemiologist, I feel a responsibility to make

sure that our knowledge and expertise is not oversold. To delete

section 6(11) would effectively do just that. Please leave it intact."

Mr. Speaker, also from the University of British Columbia, Moira

Yeung, MB FRCP, professor of medicine, head of respiratory division,

VGH. She's at both the university and VGH. I'm not reading her whole

letter. This is in context out of her letter.

"I have reviewed the causes of death of 38 patients who received compensation for pneumoconiosis in British Columbia."

Incidentally, that is the wide definition of silicosis — you know, all the -osis.

"Of 38 patients, 16, or almost 50 percent, died of heart failure

secondary to pneumoconiosis; six, or 16 percent, died of lung cancer;

another six, or 16 percent, died of other types of cancer. Five died of

pneumonia. This finding, that 50 percent of the patients died of heart

failure, confirmed what is reported in the literature."

Mr. Speaker, given the track record of WCB — and it is abysmal —

those people are going to be denied access to this section. It will no

longer be there. I think it offends everything that the Charter of

Rights and Freedoms talks about. Mr. Speaker, heart failure, secondary

to silicosis or asbestosis, is a natural sequence of the disease

process. "In my opinion,

section 6(11) should not be removed from the

compensation act."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Attorney-General rises on a point of order.

HON. MR. SMITH: I am going to surprise the member by telling him I am quite happy to take a second look at that — review it, that section.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's not a point of order.

HON. MR. SMITH: No, no, I know. But I thought he'd like to know that, that I will review it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That normally would be covered, Mr. Attorney, in your closing comments.

HON. MR. SMITH: Normally his speech would be covered in committee too.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's true as well. You'll appreciate that it is difficult in an omnibus bill to rule.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I decided to use the latitude of

second reading on this particular bill because of the depth of my

feeling around this particular issue. The fact that he has

[ Page 7141 ]

decided to review it, and I hope rescind it.... I will wait for

further comment until we look at this in committee. I will be watching

the order paper with a tremendous amount of bated breath, yes, and all

sorts of apprehension as well, I'm afraid.

I hope that the minister will repeal or at least just take this

section out of the bill and delete it, and we will be all happy. I'll

go and then say what my colleague the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms.

Brown) says: yes, it's a step forward. I cannot say it is a step

forward with this piece of work in it.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, while we have the Attorney-General's

attention and his inclination to consider changes, I would like him to

seriously consider the inequity that is still in place with respect to

voting that you have not addressed in the Charter.

It is unacceptable that at the national level in federal elections

18-year-olds are full Canadians, but within the boundaries of the

province of British Columbia, an 18-year old is a second-class citizen

when it comes to voting for the provincial government.

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: The Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon.

Mr. Gardom) makes spurious comments about 17, 16, 15. Nationally a

person is a Canadian at the full age of majority of 18 years of age.

They have the right to exercise their franchise as full citizens. Yet

what is the justification for, within the boundaries of British

Columbia, not being able to vote at 18? Here is an opportunity to bring

the voting age into line with the federal government. I ask the

minister to take into account that inequity, which he could address

very simply in these Charter amendments.

Access to education, which has not been dealt with as well, for

disabled people or for anybody else, for that matter.... I draw to the

minister's attention something that exists in the country of Australia,

within the state of Victoria, just to give us an idea how far behind we

are in guaranteeing rights for people. In the state of Victoria they

have what is called a youth guarantee. When you are between the ages of

18 and 21, you are guaranteed education or training or employment. How

do you like them apples? You're entitled by right to have education,

training or employment.

AN HON. MEMBER: Join the twentieth century.

MR. HANSON: That's how far we are behind, Mr. Speaker. Yet

does this Charter address at all rights to access to education or

access to employment? Not at all, and these are fundamental things.

These are just sort of amendments to the Hairdressers Act or something

like that. There are serious gut issues that affect the young people of

this province.

So when we have a provincial government that won't allow young

people to vote when they should be allowed to, and to have access to

proper education, as they are being denied in this province.... We

do have the poorest participation rate, next to Newfoundland, of any

province in the country in access to post-secondary education. I mean,

we're a wealthy province. We have tremendous resources. Our economy is

in bad shape at the moment, but we do have the equity of bountiful

natural resources that could be utilized to guarantee people training,

education and employment.

So I would like to ask the minister, when he takes a second look at

the matter presented to him by the member for New Westminster (Mr.

Cocke) with respect to WCB coverage, to also consider the voting age

and to consider bringing in an amendment that individuals will have the

right to vote in provincial elections at the same age they can vote in

the national elections in Canada.

HON. MR. SMITH: There have been a number of specific

suggestions made on matters that were either in the bill or not in the

bill. Where it deals with matters that are in the bill, I think I will

probably comment on them in committee. But I heard the good speech by

the member for Burnaby, who noted that we have not dealt with some

issues — such as pensions, an issue which does present, I think, grave

difficulties under the Charter. It's fair to say that the most

difficult issues under the Charter are issues like mandatory retirement

and pension entitlement, and whether you ignore statistical facts and

mortality tables because of the language of the Charter, or whether you

treat it as a restriction in

Section 1, that would be justified in a

free and democratic society. How the courts are going to deal with this

of course remains to be seen.

I notice also that she seemed to believe that I or this government

had passed

section 15(2) of the Charter. The Charter legislation is

legislation that was prepared by Canada and assented to by the United

Kingdom, and by the provinces through the accord; but we could not

change unilaterally, nor could the Canadian government,

section 15 of

the Charter, nor can I give any assurance to that member as to how the

courts will deal with it. I took her plea particularly to try to ensure

that there were not decisions under

section 15 or other sections of the

Charter, particularly those that deal with freedom of association and

some of the other rights…that she was looking for some assurance

that those sections would not be employed by the courts to strike down

some of the clauses involving closed shop and other familiar

long-standing provisions in collective agreements. There's absolutely

no way that any Attorney-General of a province, or an Attorney-General

of Canada, can give that member that assurance. I rather took it,

though, that I have — at least from her — an invitation to use the

override. If she were here.... Maybe when we get into committee, I

will get her response that would urge the use of the override in some

particular areas if she doesn't like the judicial decisions that are

going to flow.

[11:30]

I can tell her as well that we not only have examined legislative

discrimination and noncompliance with Charter principles over the past

two years, but also regulations. A number of regulations have already

been altered and more will be altered. Our position is that as

legislation is modified to accommodate the Charter, so must the

regulations.

I also note that she made some comments about disabled persons. The

amendment in here which deals with disabled persons is to permit the

very affirmative action that she expressed an interest in under

section

15(2). It may be that it is desirable affirmative action to permit

some classes of handicapped persons to be employed in sheltered

workshops below the minimum wage, if the alternative to that is always

going to be that they won't be employed. I know that many of them

prefer that employment, the minimum wage really being another matter.

But that change is designed to help handicapped persons, not to try to

keep them below the

[ Page 7142 ]

minimum wage, because you cannot equate the allowances that they

receive for work that they do — and useful work that they do — with the

minimum wage.

With regard to the comments of the member for Victoria on voting

rights for people in British Columbia who are 18 and would be entitled

to vote in Canadian elections but are not in this province, I would

simply point out that British Columbia was one of the first

jurisdictions in Canada to lower its age of majority from 21 to 19. I

might also point out that much of that was due to the initiative of my

colleague the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom)

when he was in another capacity. I would also point out that we are

frequently asked by citizens' groups in this province — representatives

of the medical community and the insurance community — to raise the

legal age for doing certain things in this province, including the age

for driving and particularly the age for drinking. The thrust, it seems

to me, is to increase the age. But in British Columbia we have kept the

age for all things at 19. If Canada wishes to have a different age, so

be it. Why do we have to be all the same in this country? Does the

Charter of Rights mean that…?

Interjection.

HON. MR. SMITH: No, it doesn't mean that at all. You have a

totally simplistic, mechanistic view of the Charter and the

constitution, hon. member, with due respect. You think that it means

everybody is to be the same, that equality means sameness. In a pig's

ear it does.

I also notice that we're having quoted to us some of these wonderful

guarantees that are thought to reside in legislation from Down Under. A

very hasty trip down there by the Leader of the Opposition has imbued

him with all wisdom and knowledge of the legislation from Australia and

New Zealand — the marvellous stories that we've received of social

compacts and accord — and now we have a suggestion that a guaranteed

piece of youth legislation from Victoria state should be adopted here.

Well, I would have the member know that, yes, Victoria does have some

progressive legislation. It also has legislation which restricts the

right of people to have a driver's licence until they're 17, which

requires them to have them on probation, and which means that their

probationary driver's licence doesn't even exist if they have one drop

of liquor in their system. Those are measures that I'm looking at now

for possible introduction into this province. They are moving in a

positive way to try to make youth more responsible, not to give them

more guaranteed handouts.

I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 33, Charter of Rights Amendments Act, 1985, read a second time

and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the

next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 48.

SOCIETY AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

The House in committee on Bill 48; Mr. Ree in the chair.

section 1.

MR. COCKE: I want to ask the minister a question, really. Is

there a possibility that they are overdoing this whole idea about

protecting the rights of societies — initials, names, and so on and so

forth — making, sort of, those societies sacrosanct? I'd just like to

know the motivation behind the whole thing. I realize that an MD or a

member of the College of Dental Surgeons, and so on and so forth, is

very proud of their association. How far is this going to go, however?

What kinds of societies are we dealing with here?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, the member's point is well

taken. He mentions the overprotecting of societies by giving them an

occupational title and providing a designation behind the name of a

member of that society. We looked at that. It was, I must admit, of

some concern to us. However, if I was to look at the opposite to the

overprotection of society, could I suggest that it does give protection

to the consumer. In many cases people hold themselves out to be a

certified person, a qualified person, and yet have no training, no

affiliation with an association or a society that has put its members

through certain requirements to achieve a standard of qualification for

the job.

So the intent of this

section of the Society Act is to allow a

society to have an occupational title. The rationale is to identify the

standard of that society or a member of that society, so that when the

consumer is looking for a.... Let me try to give you some examples:

possibly a therapist; it could be an acupuncturist; many others. I

guess there could be a proliferation of them. For example, if a travel

agent had achieved a standard of education and taken certain

examinations and completed studies, there would be some assurance to

the consumer that this person was well versed in their particular skill.

That is why I think this particular

section of the Society Act

dealing with occupational titles will provide the consumer a greater

benefit, as opposed to your first concern, which was overprotecting the

individual society.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Possibly the bill should be considered by subsection.

MR. COCKE: I haven't got that much to do in the bill. I'm just dealing with this whole

section and I want clarification.

May I ask the minister what the safeguards will be within this

structure to see to it that fly-by-night societies do not transgress

the motivation or the standards of this thing.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, in

section 1, the particular

section we're dealing with, on registration, you'll note that a society

may apply to the registrar, and in doing that must have bylaws dealing

with qualifications of admission to membership in that particular

society. There are certain standards, examinations and studies that the

membership must complete to get the designation, and then of course

there must be bylaws to deal with the conduct of members and the ethics

and standards of their practice. So those are levels of protection

within the society itself, of which they must advise the registrar.

But I think the key comments in the legislation deal with....

I'm quoting, Mr. Chairman: "Where the registrar is satisfied that

subsection (1) has been complied with," which is all the bylaws of the

society, "and he considers that it is in the public interest," then he

may register the society

[ Page 7143 ]

under this particular part of the Society Act. I think that is the

key. If they meet the criteria, then they can be registered; if they

don't, they will not be given the protection of

part 9(

l) of the

Society Act, which gives them protection of the title and the

designation behind members' names.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, under

section 2 we're talking about

a decision of the registrar, and we're saying that it is not subject to

appeal. Does that mean that there is no recourse whatsoever? That there

is no recourse within the courts? Can it be appealed to cabinet

committee? How far are we going with this business of no recourse to

appeal?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, under

section 2 the decision

of the registrar is not subject to appeal. Again, I refer the member

back to the criteria that are set out for this society and the

application and the consideration as to whether or not the registration

is in the public interest. If we proceed beyond that, then we've taken

away from the registrar his role. But I would suggest, Mr. Member, that

if it was denied, the registrar would be giving an indication as to

why, and of course there is the opportunity of reapplication if they so

desire.

We felt that this should be dealt with under the Societies Act by

the registrar, and any denial of occupational title protection would be

a final say of the registrar. But after complete and full discussion

with the society.... As I said before, if the society was denied

the first time, it could change the bylaws and could further expand and

reapply if desired.

MR. COCKE: I would like to preface my remarks by saying that

I feel that our present registrar is eminently fair. I have seen a lot

of the work that he has done, and it would strike me that we could

expect the public good to be the prime motivating factor.

The problem is, though, that we're dealing here with a value

judgment. It is a value judgment, and you could get another registrar

who might come along with a hard line against this accounting group or

that blah-blah, or whatever. The member for Willingdon shakes his head.

Don't shake it too hard; it might fall off.

[11:45]

The fact of the matter is, it is a value judgment, and I do concern myself

about the fact that there is no recourse whatsoever to appeal it. Sometimes

a second opinion is necessary — either way, whether you are denying a group

access to this particular legislation or whether you're accepting their

application.

So it's just a bit of a concern. I rather wish that there would be

some level of appeal, and I don't think it necessarily should go to the

courts. It might go to a cabinet committee, you know. Now at least

there you may have, as we presently do have, I think, a number of

people who are quite preoccupied with politics and other things. But at

the same time it is a trust that people put in them to take a look at

what has been done by one of the senior officials. We have that

particular appeal process in the motor transport, and it strikes me

that it should be here. Or some access. I'm not suggesting an expensive

court procedure; I'm suggesting that there should be some access to

appeal, whichever way this particular value judgment is made.

HON. MR. HEWITT: In response, Mr. Chairman, again referring

to 86(2): where all the bylaws of the society indicate that they

qualify, then the question is in the public interest. That's the value

judgment. But I think the member would agree that if the registrar, in

making that value judgment, used a specious argument or is biased in

his approach, he of course subjects himself to some criticism and as a

result is not carrying out his job in the proper manner. However, Mr.

Chairman, we felt that in most cases it's a matter of meeting the

criteria of the Society Act by registering; if you wish to go this one

step further, you may apply for it, and in very few instances would

there be a denial — unless of course the name conflicted with another

name, or if it was just some, as you put it earlier, fly-by-night

organization that made application, and it would not be in the public

interest to grant it.

Sections 2 and 3 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Bill 48, Society Amendment Act, 1985, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:49 a.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1986,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada