1990 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 34th 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)

THURSDAY, MAY 17, 1990

Morning Sitting

[ Page

9699 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

First Peoples' Heritage, Language and Culture Act (Bill 23).

Hon. Mr. Weisgerber

Introduction and first reading –– 9699

Private Members' Statements

Globe '90. Mr. Serwa –– 9699

Mr. Cashore

American Sign Language. Mr. Jones –– 9702

Hon. J. Jansen

Health care costs. Mr. Rabbitt –– 9703

Mr. Perry

Adult-only apartments. Mr. Barnes –– 9706

Hon. Mr. Jacobsen

Provincial Court Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill 4). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Smith) –– 9708

Mr. Sihota

Mr. Blencoe

Mr. Lovick

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. VEITCH :

In the members' gallery today we have a very distinguished group. It's

a group study exchange through Rotary International from Manchester,

England. The team leader is Mr. Peter Batten, Rotary Club of

Altrincham; Mr. Andrew Field, whose designation is food-processing; Mr.

Nick Price, systems analyst; Mr. Richard Morgan-Wynne, a lawyer; Mr.

Kieran Nolan, fire service; Mr. Colin Hewar, mining engineer. They are

brought to Victoria by Mr. Edward Kisling from the Rotary Club of

Vancouver-Chinatown. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

MR. JONES :

Joining us in the House today are a very special group of British

Columbians. They are members of the deaf community in B.C. With them is

their translator, who is explaining what is transpiring in the

Legislature today. Their translator is from Douglas College, and her

name is Dottie Rundle. Could I ask the House to give this group of very

special British Columbians an extra-special warm welcome.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER :

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to introduce to you and members of the House

several members of the Native Advisory Committee on Heritage, Language

and Culture who are in the gallery today. There's Dr. Thelma Sharp Cook

from Vancouver, Miss Joanne Yovanovich representing Chief Tom Green

from Skidegate, Chief Manny Jules from Kamloops, Dr. George Louie from

Victoria, Mr. Ken Peeters representing Chief Joe Michell from Prince

George and Miss Sophie Pierre from Cranbrook.

I will be

introducing legislation later this morning that will enable the

implementation of recommendations made to the government by this

advisory committee.

Would the House please make them welcome.

MR. SPEAKER : In this case the Chair will extend a personal special welcome as well.

Introduction of Bills

FIRST PEOPLES' HERITAGE,

LANGUAGE AND CULTURE ACT

Hon. Mr. Weisgerber presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled First Peoples' Heritage, Language and Culture Act.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER : I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Across this province native elders have told us of the deep and urgent concern

felt by native people at the ongoing loss of their language and culture. It

is a loss that has had and continues to have profound implications for all first

citizens and their sense of wholeness, heritage and community. Native people

have repeatedly demonstrated that a return to their language and culture brings

with it a renewed sense of self-worth, self-confidence and dignity.

The

government of British Columbia has pledged to support the native people

of this province in their efforts to preserve their language and

culture. As part of that commitment, I am very pleased today to tell

the hon. members of this House about a new five year $10.7 million

initiative being introduced by this government to help preserve and

strengthen the culture and language of B.C.'s first people.

is an initiative that is based on the report of the Native Advisory

Committee on Heritage, Language and Culture, chaired by my colleague,

the first member for Okanagan South (Mr. Serwa).

Bill 23

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the

day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

Mr. Speaker, just before we go to private members' statements, I would

remind the members of the House that the Select Standing Committee on

Labour, justice and Intergovernmental Relations is sitting at 10:30

this morning in the Douglas Fir Room.

Private Members' Statements

GLOBE '90

MR. SERWA :

My statement this morning is on Globe '90. I had the pleasure at the

end of March, just before the House sat, of attending Globe '90, an

international environmental conference sponsored by the government of

Canada and co-hosted by British Columbia. This conference attracted

over 3,500 delegates from around the world and included an

environmental products trade fair, which saw more than 20,000 visitors

view 600 exhibits from many companies and countries. It was an

important event marking the beginnings of a coordinated world effort to

do something about the health of our planet in this crucial decade.

The

1990s will have been marked as a turning point for this planet. We will

either ensure a healthy future for it, or we will condemn the next

generation to even greater problems than we have today. This point was

emphasized at the conference by Madam Gro Brundtland, who reiterated

many of the main themes from Our Common Future .

What

I found particularly valuable about Globe '90 was that it was not just

a conference of the converted preaching to the converted; it was not

simply one group making demands of another group. It was a coming

together of many groups to recognize that although different people

might approach the environmental question with different histories,

backgrounds and opinions, we are all in this world together, and we

must include everyone in the process of arriving at a solution.

[ Page 9700 ]

Globe

'90 included a broad spectrum of individuals from a diversity of

backgrounds, all offering their differing skills and perspectives to

solve our common problem. Students, academics, practitioners,

environmental leaders, local, regional, national and international

politicians and civil servants all participated in the discussions and

presentations surrounding the conference. Even more important, however,

than the broad array of individuals who attended the conference was the

variety of activities which took place at Globe '90.

Globe

'90 was not just a conference; it was not simply a place for people to

come and talk about the environment. It was an event with many forums

in which people had meaningful and constructive dialogues. It also

included a highly successful trade show, which provided some marketing

assistance to the environmental industry. Globe '90 also allowed

participants full access to a spectrum of environmental products that

will help governments and companies in countries all over the world to

clean up our planet and reduce pollution.

Over 20,000

people attended the trade fair at British Columbia Place Stadium. This

fair attracted over 600 exhibitors, who displayed environmentally

friendly consumer goods, new technologies for cleaning up the

environment, and new methods for monitoring pollution and analyzing

solutions for our spaceship earth. The theme of the British Columbia

pavilion at the trade fair was "Handle With Care," and visitors,

including thousands of interested members of the general public, were

able not only to see exhibits but also to enjoy themselves and learn

about the issues surrounding the environment in a variety of

informative and interesting ways.

Visitors were able to

watch a short video showing the environment through the eyes of

children, and they saw some of the technological innovations that have

been developed to monitor and clean occurrences of pollution, and

engage in discussions with knowledgeable individuals from institutions,

private companies and government agents about their environmental

concerns. The trade fair at Globe '90 was truly a great success and a

major step forward for achieving practical solutions to environmental

problems in Vancouver, British Columbia and the world.

[10:15]

We also saw recyclable mugs, garden gloves, pamphlets and calendars

emblazoned with the logo "Handle With Care." These were taken home by

those attending the fair, in the hopes that they would be reminded of

what they learned at Globe '90, and that it would encourage them to act

locally— in their gardens, their kitchens, their neighborhoods — to reduce pollution and clean up the environment around them.

From

the point of view of companies struggling to introduce necessary

environmental products into the market, from the point of view of

companies wishing to clean up their industries and reduce pollution

emissions to comply with current standards, from the point of view of

governments around the world, governments which are eager for

information and agencies who need to acquire the ability to effectively

monitor and clean up environmental catastrophes, from the point of

view, Mr. Speaker, of the citizens of British Columbia who need

exposure to balanced information and to practical solutions for

reducing waste in our province, from all of these points of view, Globe

'90 was a great success.

Because of this immediate and

apparent success, this government has announced its intent to work with

Vancouver, a secretariat which will establish British Columbia as a

permanent international centre for action on the environment. The

government also announced its intent to support and assist the Canadian

Environmental Industries Association with setting up their head office

in Vancouver, further strengthening our province as a centre for what

is sure to become one of the fastest growing industries in the 1990s,

and a very important industry for the survival of our planet, an

industry which we should all encourage and support.

This

comprehensive initiative has been aided by the fact that the Hon. Kim

Campbell and our Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Reynolds) announced

that Globe '92, which will follow up with the success of Globe '90,

will be held again in Vancouver, with federal government support.

All

of this can only lead to good things for British Columbians and the

people of our whole planet. I was proud to attend Globe '90 and see all

of the wonderful things that British Columbians can do if we work

together. Globe '90, and other similarly important conferences and

events, have all come to our province as a result of the great

reputation as hosts which our province gained during Expo 86. These

events are the result of a coordinated government effort to promote

British Columbia and to have our province associated with positive and

progressive events around the world.

Globe '90 was an

excellent example of this government's continuing success in achieving

this goal and attracting the favour of the world. Its legacy to British

Columbians, environmentally and economically, will be felt into the

next century. Our challenge is to ensure that Globe '90, Globe '92 and

all of their successors become a permanent part of British Columbia and

become associated with our province around the world and lead us to a

better future for all mankind.

MR. SPEAKER : Thank you, hon. member.

MR. CASHORE :

I'd like to thank the member for raising this topic. I'd also like to

thank the minister for making it possible for me to be a delegate to

Globe '90. I found it a very worthwhile experience. I think it's

appropriate that we reflect on that experience and see how we might

improve on it, given that there are plans to have another Globe

conference in the near future.

It's my opinion that it was

a limited success and that we must learn from our experience.

Originally the concept was that it be a trade fair, and it was on

[ Page

9701 ]

the insistence of the federal government, because

it put in a major portion of the financial assistance, that it should

also be a conference on sustainable development. It's my understanding

that the total cost to taxpayers for Globe '90, between the federal and

provincial governments, was $6 million.

As we look at Globe

'90, we have to recognize that all of us still don't truly understand

the original concept of sustainable development. Perhaps the best way

to put it is that we have to turn our thinking from sustainable

development to developing sustainability. We must have that priority in

place, because if we don't, we may make some serious errors.

For

instance, if we look at this from a global perspective, I think the

conference failed to come to grips with the global problem. The fact is

that the world economy is structured to benefit the rich and to drain

resources from the poorer nations. This means that the total flow of

wealth is actually from the Third World countries to the wealthy

countries. This constitutes a global environmental disaster if we are

not able to work together to turn that around.

Looking at

the at-home aspects of this, we have to realize that we are in danger

of looking upon the techno fix as the solution to environmental

problems. So much concentration is on the technological solutions that

are available. As important as those are, I believe we have our

priorities upside down in British Columbia. We have to start with the

wider community. We have to start with the grass-roots people and truly

enlist their participation in developing a plan that is going to work.

We have to recognize that we can't really have a comprehensive approach

to reducing, reusing and recycling our waste stream if we don't start

with community involvement. We can't look to the boardrooms for the

solutions if we are not looking first to the people. We can't pay

lip-service to the grass-roots community that is essential to making it

work if we are not truly enabling them by having the procedures in

place that enable a closed-loop system in dealing with environmental

problems.

It's ironic that Globe '90 takes place in British

Columbia, a jurisdiction that has one of the poorest records on

environmental enforcement and protection in the industrial world. We

have to realize that we have to look for ways to truly make a

difference in the days to come.

I would like to refer to the writing of Andy Barham, who says:

"In order for the conference to realize its potential, it should form

the genesis of a new era in which we treat ourselves and our planet

with concern and tolerance rather than the mutual suspicion and

exploitation that has dogged our footsteps on the long climb upward to

civilization. This long-suffering earth is, after all, the only home we

have, and probably the only island of life in a sea of infinite

desolation. We owe it to ourselves, as the stewards of the planet, to

make Globe '90 work."

Mr. Speaker, if Globe '90 is going to work, we must start by recognizing

that there has to be much more involvement of world aboriginal people in the

planning of the event. There has to be much more involvement of third-world

people — especially third-world women — in the planning of the event, so that

it's not only the people who have connections with the technological community

who are doing the planning, and that planning is reflective of the grassroots

nature of the community from which we come. This is not to denigrate the role

of technology.

MR. SPEAKER : Thank you, hon. member.

MR. SERWA : I appreciate the comments of the hon. member of the opposition. Just for his information — and I know that he indicated appreciation for the ability to attend Globe '90 —

there were 3,500 delegates from over 60 nations all over the world.

Third-world countries were represented, and many of the delegates were,

in fact, women from all over those countries and third-world countries.

When you attend functions like that, you should be really aware of who

the delegates are and where they come from.

Globe '90 was a

giant step forward in every sense of the word. It tied the concept of

our common future together, which is the environment and the economy.

It ensures that the environmental concerns of the moment are not just a

passing fancy in time.

This government recognizes with a

great deal of sincerity and commitment the importance of maintaining

the environmental profile and environmental issues at the very top

level of awareness through government and through the people of the

province of British Columbia.

The member spoke about

priorities, and I would like to remind that member, because he appears

to have forgotten, that some time ago this government established a

Task Force on the Environment and the Economy, because of the

government's awareness of the necessity for cooperation and

coordination by all of the people in the province. In British Columbia,

sustainable development has become the focus for planning of our common

environmental and economic future.

This task force that was

established for the purpose of consulting with the public sparked a new

way of thinking about how we integrate environmental and economic

policy-making. A legacy of that particular task force is, of course,

the round table, which has been established and which is up and

running. British Columbians told us clearly that they wanted government

to anticipate and prevent environmental problems rather than always

having to react and repair them.

Mr. Speaker, we have taken

an enormous number of measures recently and over the past years. Some

of them relate to dioxins and the standards in pulp mills, and those

standards will be among the toughest in Canada. The Ministry of

Regional and Economic Development actively promotes sustainable

development in our communities throughout British Columbia. Our cabinet

committees have been restructured and coordinated to ensure that

economic and environmental issues are discussed at the same table.

Education programs for our young people and for all people to pursue

the principles of sustainable devel-

[ Page 9702 ]

opment

have been implemented. The Environmental Youth Corps provides young

adults with experience in environmental conservation and research

activities related to sustainable development.

MR. SPEAKER : Thank you, hon. member.

Before

recognizing the next member who has an opportunity to speak on private

members' statements, the Chair would like to remind all members of the

House of the purpose of private members' statements. They were

originally conceived as a way of allowing matters which could not be

brought up under standing order 35 to be vented in the House. It is

specifically laid out in our standing orders that items which have

already been canvassed in this particular legislative session are not

to be canvassed now.

The reason I bring it up now is that

the next item is one I have never seen before in the House. I think it

will be entirely in order, and it will be a very pleasant change from

what we normally have.

Members must try and remember that

the statements they make are to be items not normally canvassed at

another time in the House. That's the whole purpose of private members'

statements on Friday. If you'd like, I can circulate a copy of the

original rules conceived by your House Leader and I believe the House

Leader on the government side, and agreed to by all sides.

AMERICAN SIGN LANGUAGE

MR. JONES :

Mr. Speaker, if there is a motto that represents the New Democratic

Party, it is the words of J.S. Woodsworth, who said: "What we desire

for ourselves we wish for all." It is in that spirit of sharing, caring

and, in particular, non-partisanship that I bring this item before the

Legislature today. I want to share with members of this House a very

worthwhile and enjoyable opportunity that I've had — one of the

best that I've had in my three and a half years as a Member of the

Legislative Assembly. It was the opportunity to get a small glimpse

into a culture that lives in our midst, a culture that I was not really

aware of before and a culture that is very misunderstood and has been

ignored too long in this country and in this province. That

misunderstanding and ignorance of the deaf community, which I speak of,

must stop.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

I'd like

to illustrate that ignorance and misunderstanding with a small point. I

had the privilege recently of attending the National Deaf Education Day

rally in Vancouver, and part of that rally was a march up Robson

Street. The members of the deaf community were wearing T-shirts and had

placards advertising their belief in American Sign Language and their

concern for increased educational opportunities. As we marched up the

street, many drivers wanted to show their support for the people who

were marching up the street. The method by which they did that was to

honk their horns. That was a genuine show of support on the part of

those drivers for the deaf community, but it was not a signal that the

deaf could understand. I think that is symbolic of the attitude and the

ignorance in British Columbia towards the deaf community.

The

decision-making about the deaf that takes place in this House, in

school boards and by officials and administrators is primarily by

hearing people. As a result, those decisions are not always in the best

interests of the deaf community. As a result, we have tremendous

underachievement in terms of the academic levels that the deaf are able

to reach. They are going to overcome those difficulties. They know that

those impediments are unacceptable. They are going to change the way

they are treated, and they are going to improve their educational

level. They want education to improve their strengths as individuals

and their confidence as individuals. They want more deaf teachers and

deaf administrators, they want their own school and, most importantly,

they want American Sign Language to be recognized as their language.

[10:30]

Mr. Speaker, just as the native Indian community knows best what is

required for native learners, the deaf community knows best what is

required for the deaf culture and deaf education in this province. They

see American Sign Language as the key to that education. It is a unique

language of Italian in my community; it represents the culture, the

heritage and the background in a unique and distinct way — distinct

improving their educational progress, to achieving better

education — not just better hearing and speech — so that they

can develop further pride in who they are as individuals and as members

of the deaf community, and to assisting them in furthering their

culture and in taking a greater degree of control of their lives.

Tuesday,

December 6, 1988, was a very important day for the deaf community in

Canada. In the Manitoba Legislature, in a spirit of cooperation between

all parties, they approved a resolution drafted by a member of deaf

community. It was presented by a member of the opposition and seconded

by the Minister of Culture, Heritage and Recreation. The resolution

that American Sign Language be the language of the deaf In Manitoba was

unanimously endorsed. I'm hoping that the cooperation we saw in the

Manitoba Legislature can be achieved in this Legislature as well.

would like to quote from the Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson, Minister of

Culture, Heritage and Recreation, in her seconding of the motion:

"American

Sign Language was established as a living language in 1817 by Thomas

Gallaudet. Dr. Gallaudet knew then, as we do now, that every language

has a special relationship with the group of people who use that

language. The language reflects who those people are, what they value

and how they think about themselves and the world around them. Some

scholars even refer to a language as the soul of

[ Page 9703 ]

the community of people who live and use that language."

Mr.

Speaker, we need such a resolution in this House. I hope to bring such

a resolution to this House and to see its unanimous endorsement, as we

saw in Manitoba.

HON. J. JANSEN : The member's

comments are indeed shared by both sides of the House regarding the

deaf community. As do those with other handicaps, they face many

challenges in our society. Many times the misunderstandings they face

are the result of those handicaps.

I listened to the

comments about the distinction between American Sign Language and

distinction. Perhaps there is a confusion about that.

The

responsibility for Jericho Hill, as you know, is the Ministry of

Education's. We have in the province a terrific facility in Surrey,

sponsored by the B.C. Elks. I was surprised that the member didn't

refer to that excellent facility, which takes a leading role in the

province in dealing with preschool children and their hearing

handicaps. We assist B.C. Elks. They have an outstanding program. We

have received countless letters of support and endorsement for that

organization's efforts. They have a number of speech pathologists,

teachers for the hearing-impaired, early-childhood educators and

language. They feel that the older children use American Sign Language.

So I'm not sure what the distinction is in terms of why the younger

favoured at both Jericho Hill and the B.C. Elks facility, which has, as

I said before, a national reputation for their initiative on teaching

the deaf.

We certainly commend their efforts and sympathize

with the concerns that many parents of deaf children have. We agree,

generally speaking, with the comments just made by the member.

MR. JONES :

I would just like to correct one small comment of the minister's with

respect to the deaf community, which was describing them as

handicapped. Mr. Speaker, they are not handicapped; they speak a

different language, and that language should be American Sign Language.

The

difficulty that the deaf community faces is not unlike ones I've talked

about before in this House, such as the problem of literacy in the

province and their struggle to improve their standards of education.

It's not unlike the women's issue — which members in this House understand —

and their struggle for equality. It's not unlike what the native Indian

community faces with their struggle for recognition of longstanding

grievances and recognition as a distinct culture — as is the case

with the struggle in Quebec and their desire for autonomy and

recognition of their distinctiveness. It is not unlike the situation

that faces tenants in the west side of Vancouver, because that's what

the deaf community faces as well in their eviction from Jericho Hill

School.

The resolution that I mentioned from the Manitoba

Legislature is going ahead in other provinces: Ontario and Alberta. It

has been approved in other states and other countries in Europe and

even in China. That is just the beginning of addressing the concerns of

the deaf community. It goes far beyond that to where we should

recognize that any agency in this province which receives government

funding should provide complete access to the deaf community as well as

interpreter-referral services, particularly in the medical area. I'm

sure you can appreciate, Mr. Speaker, the difficult situation in

medical emergencies when communication breakdowns occur.

The

time has come for the deaf community to be represented to improve their

education and develop their culture in their own way through the use of

American Sign Language. Something must be done to provide that

community and that culture with the opportunities and equality that we

all recognize and appreciate in this province,

MR. PETERSON : I wonder if I could have the indulgence of the House to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. PETERSON :

On behalf of the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mr. Bruce), I would like

to introduce to the House some students from Chemainus Secondary

School, who are in attendance with their teacher Mr. G. Foster. Will

the House please join me in making them very welcome.

HEALTH CARE COSTS

MR. RABBITT :

Society today is offering us many complex concerns which require a lot

of complex decisions. It is perceived that government's role is to

offer leadership and direction to resolve these concerns. The public's

concerns may vary according to what level of income they have, how they

can get an education, how they can spend a weekend, how long they can

live and what their quality of life will actually be.

Regardless

of race, colour, creed, sex or age, we all have one common concern, and

that is our personal health and that of those around us. This concern

is worldwide. In many parts of the world, as we well know, we've had a

health crisis for years. In Canada and in British Columbia, we're also

on the verge of a health crisis. I'll admit that we in British Columbia

have one of the best health care systems in the world. I believe that

our role as legislators in this Legislative Assembly is to see that it

remains so.

I've been reviewing some statistics from

Statistics Canada lately, going back to 1960, to try to get a snapshot

of where we've been with a commitment from government to our health

care. I would like to make the members aware of some of the stats that

were of concern to me. In 1960 the per capita health care cost was

$28.33. In today's dollars, that was a

[ Page 9704 ]

little

over $124. That represented about 14.8 percent of the budget for that

year. In 1965 the actual cost had risen to $33.50. In 1970 it had

jumped to $120. In 1975 it was up to $235 or, in today's dollars, just

about $580. In 1980 it was just under $500. In 1985 It was just under

$900, and today it is over $1500 per capita for every man, woman and

child. That represents about one-third of our provincial budget.

you can see, I believe that the governments of the past have made a

major commitment to health care. Our job here is to see that that

commitment goes forward. As you can also see, the delivery of good

health care requires a substantial number of dollars. Today in British

Columbia we are delivering health care to 3.1 million people. Out of

those 3.1 million people, 1.5 million are working. Out of that 1.5

million, we have 100,000 who work in the health care field. That means

one out of every 15 workers in British Columbia today works in health

care. The breakdown is roughly as follows: just under 8,000 as

physicians and practitioners; 21,000 as registered nurses; 6,600 as

practical nurses; 30,000 general hospital workers; and over 35,000 as

professional or non-professional health care support workers. The cost

of health care in British Columbia in the 1990-91 budget will be in the

order of $4.8 billion, and that's approximately, as I said before,

$1,500 for every man, woman and child.

I want to just focus for a moment on one segment of our society, our seniors. Eventually — with good luck and the good Lord willing —

we're all going to get there and be one. Seniors represent

approximately 13 percent of our population today. It's estimated that

by the year 2015 — in 25 years — they will represent 50

percent of our population. When we consider that today, at 13 percent

of our population, they are consuming 50 percent of our health care

dollars. If we extend those population figures to 2015, at today's

dollars, we would see that expenditure increase to in excess of $18

billion.

Another important factor is that we are told that

in the last two years of our life we use up half the health care

dollars that are expended on us. I think we have a major challenge in

front of us. I don't want to see what has happened in other parts of

the world happen here in British Columbia. An example is the Oregon

State rationing system. I can't imagine rationing health care. The

United Kingdom has a two-tier system. Every doctor I've met from the

U.K. has told me: "Please, do your best to see that you don't come to

that type of system." We've seen the system in Sweden that was held up

to be Utopia and is now on the verge of bankruptcy. We don't need that,

either.

It won't be easy. We're going to need cooperation

within this chamber, we're going to need cooperation at the federal

level, we are going to need cooperation at the local government level,

we're going to need the cooperation of the entire medical profession,

and most of all, we're going to need the cooperation of the public —

those that are using the system. We will have values and priorities

that will be debated, and they'll be debated at length. There's going

to be a need for political will, but most of all, there's going to be a

need for public will.

[10:45]

MR. PERRY :

Health is a very broad subject, and under the accepted World Health

Organization definition of the term.... I beg your indulgence to refer

very briefly to what my colleague the member for Burnaby North (Mr.

Jones) said a moment ago about deaf culture, because promotion of

people's individual cultures and their self-respect is an important

part of health in the sense that the World Health Organization has

defined it.

I found the member's statement very insightful

and thoughtful. I want to reinforce, from my observation of students at

the Jericho Hill School and the Greater Vancouver Association of the

Deaf, how different and exciting I have found their culture from my own

experience. In particular, their questions to a politician speaking to

them have been among the most insightful and honest questions I've ever

encountered from anyone, be it medical students that I've taught or

other university students or people in this assembly. Sometimes I wish

we saw in this House more of the absolute frankness I have seen in

their questions.

Let me turn to the sheer and utter

hypocrisy I've just heard from the member for Yale-Lillooet, who

described our system as "on the verge of a crisis" and then went on to

suggest that he opposes rationing of health care. I find that

remarkably hypocritical, coming from the member for a riding from which

a citizen in Merritt recently died. He was in the Calgary Hospital,

after he was denied adequate health services in this province, after he

waited 30 hours in a Kamloops hospital for an urgent, emergency

operation for which no person should ever have to wait 30 hours. That

was a disgrace to our health care system. I do not know the detailed

reasons behind what happened. I have seen no evidence that the Ministry

of Health has investigated that case. I reiterate it in the House today

because I find it shockingly hypocritical that that member,

representing the town of Merritt from which that man came, would dare

to say there is no rationing of health care in this province.

I challenge any member to speak to patients in their own riding, speak to the health care providers — the nurses, the physicians —

and anyone involved in the waiting-lists and find out for themselves

whether or not there is rationing. Right now there is rationing by

means of waiting-lists. People requiring critical health services, such

as hip replacements, eye operations to prevent the decrease of their

vision, knee replacements or even heart surgery or emergency

life-saving surgery, like the case I just referred to, are experiencing

rationing.

I find it frightening to think the member

suggests there is a crisis in funding, when in fact we have extremely

good value for our health care system. He referred, disparagingly it

seemed, to the numbers of people employed in the health care industry.

I remind him that there will soon be three million British

[ Page 9705 ]

Columbians

in this province, each of whom will at some time call upon the health

care system, often for urgent requirements, and if not that, for

critical care.

What does this government propose, Mr.

Minister? What is it going to do about the sick? Sometimes in the

government statements I hear the feeling that somehow it is wrong to

have a sickness care system. The sickness care system, Mr. Speaker, is

the very foundation of our medicare system and the reason we

established it in the first place: so that people with serious illness

could be treated equally in this country, as they are in advanced

countries around the world.

Would the government prefer

that we didn't look after patients with Alzheimer's disease, or people

with severe strokes, or perhaps leukemics, like the brother of one of

our members who was rescued from certain death through an extremely

expensive, highly technological and highly successful procedure of bone

marrow transplantation? Would they prefer that we did not look after

the cystic fibrosis patients who used to die early in childhood?

Perhaps we should save money on premature babies like my colleague's

baby at the University Hospital, who was born at 26 weeks and formerly

would have certainly died and cost us nothing, but now is a joy to both

of her parents.

Mr. Speaker, I have heard so much hypocrisy

on this subject.... I see the Attorney-General smiling there. He has no

knowledge of what goes on in the Royal Inland Hospital in his own

riding, or of the parents of children with severe disabilities

requiring child development facilities in his own riding. I find it

shocking that he sits there smiling smugly when he has done nothing to

represent people from his own constituency.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the day when we will have a serious, healthy public policy in this province.

HON. MR. SMITH :

Point of order. The second member for Point Grey is trying to

facilitate a deceit on the House by making comments about my body

language that are false.

MR. JONES : Mr. Speaker, the

Attorney-General was impugning the motives of my colleague the second

member for Point Grey, and I would ask him to withdraw that remark.

DEPUTY SPEAKER :

There have been points made by both sides of the House, and I will take

them under advisement at this point in time. I would like to ask the

member to conclude his statement.

MR. JONES : Mr. Speaker, I find it totally offensive that the Attorney-General would accuse this member of being deceitful....

DEPUTY SPEAKER : Order, please. Hon. member, I ask you to please take your seat.

MR. PERRY :

Mr. Speaker, if we are serious about controlling health care costs in

this province, we will not engage in constant confrontation with the

health care workers. If we're serious about controlling costs, we will

not deny effective sex education or anti-AIDS education to our

students. If we're serious, we will take seriously the Royal Society of

Canada's recommendation that an AIDS patient will require at least

$100,000 in health care costs, and we will prevent AIDS when we can,

rather than denying the problem and smugly insisting....

DEPUTY SPEAKER :

Order, please. Before I recognize the member for Yale-Lillooet to make

his final comments on this statement, there has been a statement made

by the last speaker, the second member for Vancouver-Point Grey, that

is unparliamentary. He used the term "hypocritical" of the member who

had spoken previously, and I would ask him to withdraw that statement

at this time.

MR. PERRY : Mr. Speaker, if the remark

"hypocritical" is unparliamentary, I withdraw the remark; so be it. But

I think the record of this provincial government speaks for itself.

MR. RABBITT :

Mr. Speaker, it's obvious that if the legislators in this assembly

cannot work together to find a solution and simply harp on identifying

problems, it's going to be very difficult to find any answers outside

this assembly, either.

I would like to comment on one

remark which the Health critic did mention, and I think it's very

unfortunate that a member of this assembly would prey upon a very

unfortunate incident without knowing the details, solely for political

gain.

It's apparent that the incident the member spoke of....

MR. PERRY :

On a point of order, the member for Yale-Lillooet is treading

perilously close to insulting remarks. If he is impugning my motives or

suggesting that I raised comments purely for political gain, I would....

Interjection.

MR. PERRY : Mr. Speaker, do I still have the microphone?

DEPUTY SPEAKER : The member for Vancouver-Point Grey has the floor at the present time.

MR. PERRY :

If the member for Yale-Lillooet is impugning my motives or suggesting

that my response was made for political gain, may I ask him to please

withdraw that remark.

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER : I would like to ask the member for Yale-Lillooet whether he was in fact impugning your motives.

[ Page 9706 ]

MR. RABBITT : I believe I'll let the record stand for itself.

DEPUTY SPEAKER . I would like to rephrase the question to the member

for Yale-Lillooet: is the member imputing an improper motive to any member of

this House by the statements made?

MR. RABBITT : No.

DEPUTY SPEAKER : Please proceed, hon. member.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER :

To set the record straight, the member said that he was not imputing an

improper motive, and therefore I accept that as his answer.

Please proceed, hon. member for Yale-Lillooet.

MR. RABBITT : Before I proceed, Mr. Speaker, these points of order have

consumed two minutes and 50 seconds of my time, and I would like the Chair to

add that to my time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER : May I ask that the clock be reset for two minutes' additional time.

MR. RABBITT : It's very unfortunate that we heard the member make

remarks in this House without — from his own admission — knowing the details.

The

investigation which I understand has taken place has shown that in all

the 30 hours that member speaks of, there was a bed available in Royal

Jubilee Hospital. Yet you stand In this House and make scurrilous

allegations. A professional doctor — and you use that to gain headlines. Shame on you!

[11:00]

There is a need for the royal commission, but that commission will

not solve all our problems. We recognize that. There is a need for the

public and this chamber to pull together to find solutions. I can tell

you that with the attitude displayed on that side of the House by that

member, we sure won't be able to count on that critic or that party to

help us solve any of the health care problems in British Columbia.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER :

Before I recognize the next speaker, I would just like to note that

some members have spoken while they were not in their chairs. It's

improper in this House, whether you've got the floor or not, and I

think that should be curtailed.

ADULT-ONLY APARTMENTS

MR. BARNES :

I want to read to the House a

summary of a recommendation presented to

the Vancouver city council by a social planning director. I'm sure that

the minister responsible for the Residential Tenancy Act has a copy of

these minutes, because for years they have been circulated throughout

the province as part of a campaign by the city of Vancouver to get

British Columbia to do either one of two things, or perhaps both:

(1) amend the Human Rights Act with respect to discrimination against

children; or (2) permit the city of Vancouver, through its charter, to

make sufficient amendments in order to ensure that families and

children are not discriminated against.

I'm sure that the

minister when responding will give us some enlightenment as to why the

government has for so many years failed to recognize this serious

condition in the province.

The

summary states:

"Many

families with children are experiencing difficulty in securing rental

accommodation in the city of Vancouver. Discrimination against these

families because of the age and/or number of children or the source of

income of the parent is a significant contributing factor.

"This

discrimination is currently allowable under the B.C. Human Rights Act,

which does not include family status, age or source of income as

prohibited grounds of discrimination in tenancy. Other provinces have

legislation which prohibits discrimination on all or some of these

grounds.

Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

provides protection on the basis of age. The impact on the provincial

legislation of this superior act is not yet fully clear, and

contradictory rulings have been made. A previous attempt to amend the

Vancouver Charter to provide protection in tenancy on the basis of age,

sexual orientation and family status was not successful, as these

protections are not included in the Human Rights Act.

"The

continuation of this situation is one factor making it increasingly

difficult for families with children to live in the city."

The

gist of that statement suggests that all that is required is for the

province of British Columbia, through a simple amendment to the Human

Rights Act or the Residential Tenancy Act, to include the categories of

age, source of income, family status and sexual orientation in order to

ensure that no one, because of those conditions, will be denied the

right to a place to live.

In British Columbia recently a

tenant by the name of Audrey Cope was served notice that because she

had become pregnant and was expecting a child within a short period of

time, she would have to vacate her condominium. She was renting a

facility that was considered adult only.

This is something that has been going on and accepted by society as a normal and fair way of doing business —

that the landlord should have the right to determine who he wishes to

rent to. But in recent years, it is becoming very apparent that this is

not just an isolated practice by landlords who have apartments for

rent; it is more than just sometimes. I understand that in the Victoria

area about 80 percent of the apartments for rent have a clause that

does not permit families with children. When you stop and think about

what that is saying to those families and to the youth, what a

provocative idea that is in terms of what we say all the time in this

House about youth being our most valuable resource.... It strikes me as

something far more sinister than even hypocrisy.

[ Page 9707 ]

know that cabinet ministers.... The Premier, in particular, has on many

occasions expressed his support for the family, extolled the virtues of

child-rearing and even talked about the unborn being a valuable

resource in society. Yet here we have the Premier's government being

taken to court because of this violation of fundamental human rights. I

know this may come as a shock to members of this Legislature, but at

this very moment your government has to defend its policies in the

Supreme Court with respect to the Audrey Cope case, because contrary to

the

section of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which prohibits

discrimination because of age specifically, the B.C. Human Rights Act

does not have such a provision, and the B.C. government is a defendant

in the Audrey Cope case.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

MR. SPEAKER : Thank you very much, hon. member. Is there a reply?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN :

May I say that I recognize the comments that have been made by the

member for Vancouver Centre. I also want to say that I appreciate his

sincerity. One of the things that I've learned in this House in the

time that I've been here and in my evaluation of the people who sit

around this chamber is that that member, whenever he gets up to speak,

speaks with a great deal of sincerity, speaks from the heart and means

what he says. It's a pleasure for me to stand up and respond to him,

because I know that what he says is said in sincerity and in good faith.

The

concern he has expressed about children being denied a place to live

within our society is an issue that is certainly felt as strongly by me

as it is by that member, and I think it's felt by most, if not all, of

the people inside this chamber. We are concerned about the implications

that families have experienced in the last while trying to find rental

accommodation. For my part, I have grown up and maintained in my

lifetime that children were a blessing on society, that families with

children were the strength of society, and that they were something we

should protect and do all we could to nurture — and really be

pleased with the opportunity of having young children among us. So the

question of children and the proper accommodation for them is something

of real concern to the government.

We have talked about

amendments to the act in the throne speech, and we will have to wait

until the legislation comes forward to see precisely what those

amendments may be, Mr. Member. Maybe some of your concerns will be

looked at then.

You mention two issues. One issue is where

a child is born into a family of someone who is living within

accommodations already and is required to move because of the birth of

a child. That's one issue that I'm very concerned about, and one that

we are looking at.

The other issue is the right to

designate buildings as being adult buildings. It's very easy, and

certainly where there's a great deal of sympathy for the concern of the

family.... I don't want to minimize that in any way. But I have to tell

you that I receive a tremendous amount of mail from senior citizens who

live in accommodations that were constructed for seniors — they're

adult accommodations. It becomes very, very difficult to write

legislation in such a way that you will give full access to families

for accommodations in the market and not deny the seniors the right to

be able to have the peace and quiet that they seek in the remaining

years of their lives.

I know that there's a great concern

for the family, and I share that with you. But we are also very

concerned about how to deal with the problem so that we don't take away

legitimate rights from seniors who are in buildings that were not

designed for family use in the first place, and so that seniors are not

losers in any legislation change. That's an issue that we're very

concerned about, and we're trying to deal with it. But it's extremely

hard to find a solution that accomplishes both of those purposes. It

may seem easy, but in practice it is very difficult.

The buildings that I have some real concern about — and I know that they do exist —

are buildings that were originally designed for families. At one time

they used to accommodate families, but landlords have chosen, because

it's in their interest, to limit those buildings to adults only. I find

that a very unfortunate decision on their part; I'm concerned about

that. But dealing with that without affecting the others is not easily

achieved.

MR. BARNES : I very quickly want to respond

to the minister that it's not only myself who is sincere. I appreciate

him paying me that respect. It's also the people without the homes, the

families with children who have no place to go, the street kids —

they're the ones who are sincerely looking for a place. The Audrey Cope

case is sincerely hoping to fight on their behalf, and your government

is the defendant. Although you didn't address that issue, the point I'm

making is that we wouldn't be talking about this today if the

government had responded to the request of both Victoria and Vancouver

councils with respect to amendments to the charter or to two provincial

acts, the Human Rights Act and the Residential Tenancy Act.

should inject a little of politics into this, because the reality is,

notwithstanding the minister's not that bad of a response — although he made no commitments — they

are more promises. The fact is that when the New Democrats were

defeated in 1975, this government immediately began to dismantle all of

the protection that was in place with respect to tenants in this

province. The rentalsman was removed. Rent review processes were

denied. Construction of affordable housing was curtailed or eliminated.

You would get the impression that we're talking again about the rights

of the landlord and of adults who want to live without children in

their facility.

But there's something far more fundamental than this; we're talking about a basic right: an access and

[ Page 9708 ]

equality system that allows everybody equal access regardless of not only race, national origin and sex — and these other things —

but age. We're talking about a system where young people, the ones that

we're concerned about, our most valuable resource, are treated equally.

That's the fundamental concern, and that's being eliminated.

[11:15]

We're saying that adults have the right to get rid of the youngsters

if they don't want to live with them! That's fine; they may have that

right. I've read some of those arguments, but that is not the first

concern. The first concern is the rights of young people. If adults

want to have the separate facilities, or live someplace like the

seniors, we can deal with that as well. But we have to sit down and

negotiate; we have to sit down and deal with those issues case by case.

I think it is unfair to tell a husband and wife, because the wife

becomes pregnant, that they're going to have to move out of their

apartment where they've lived for eight years because these are

adult-only premises — without any opportunity to prove that they

could live there quite well, and get along with everyone else. It's a

prejudice attitude. It's basically contrary to the democratic process;

it's contrary to fairness. It is just unprincipled.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. RICHMOND : I call committee on Bill 4, Mr. Speaker.

PROVINCIAL COURT AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

The House in committee on Bill 4; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

MR. BLENCOE :

As deputy House Leader for the opposition this morning, I would like to

make some comment that unfortunately this side of the House was not

given the courtesy of being told the business for the day. I was

prepared to assume that it was an oversight on behalf of the government

House Leader. We have witnessed in past years what happens when we have

lack of communication over such House business; it creates all sorts of

problems. I can only conclude on seeing the attitude of the

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) this morning that a somewhat petulant

attitude has forced the estimates on us today. I hope that we can have

the communication that we've had in the past and that we don't get back

to the old bad days we used to have.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

I would just like to point out that we had indeed intimated that we

would be going to the Attorney's estimates. However, he pointed out to

me the urgency and the time requirements surrounding this bill, which

there didn't seem to be a lot of opposition to. Under standing order 25

it is urgent because of the time limitations. That's why we've chosen

to go to committee on this bill. I don't think there should be any

problem.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Did the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew say he had a point of order?

MR. SIHOTA : Yes, Mr. Chairman, unless you were about to say something.

MR. CHAIRMAN :

I was just going to say that I thank both hon. members for their

comments. I understand completely what's been said. I'd just like to

remind all members of the House, though — and I'm sure that those of you who have been here for some time are well aware —

that even though there is a vehicle available through which these

communications can take place so that both sides can get together to

agree on the business which is going to come forward on any given day,

after orders of the day are called by the Clerk it still remains the

prerogative of the government House Leader to conduct the business of

the House in the way that he sees fit. I just remind members of that.

Perhaps rather than getting into a debate over this, which would be

highly irregular, we could proceed. The second member for Victoria said

estimates, but I understand we're doing Bill 4.

MR. BLENCOE :

On a further point of order, Mr. Chairman, I take your points well. We

don't want to extend this debate, but I should add that I did

communicate with the minister's office this morning and asked for the

courtesy of some response. I received none. We assumed that we were

going to do estimates, and he communicated that to me at the start of

the session this morning. Then we find — I can only conclude it is because the Attorney-General seems to be calling some shots over there —

that the bill is to be called. It makes it very difficult for us on

this side of the House, Mr. Chairman. I just want to put that on the

record.

Be that as it may, Mr. Chairman, your points are

well taken. I hope the communication lines will be opened as they have

been in the last few years.

MR. SIHOTA : On the

comments by the government House Leader, I wouldn't want it to be

suggested on the record that in any way we're holding up a bill that

the government considers to be urgent and necessary. As I heard his

comments, he was saying that there was some urgency to this matter. The

government has never communicated that to us; it has never indicated

that there is some urgency to this matter. The Attorney-General, in his

comments when the bill was read for a second time....

MR. CHAIRMAN :

Hon. member, first of all I must point out to you, and I know you are

well aware, that that is not a point of order. You have made your point

and it's on the record, but now we're getting into a matter of debate.

We should proceed with the business that's been brought before us by

the government House Leader, and that is committee stage of Bill 4.

section 1.

[ Page 9709 ]

MR. SIHOTA :

As a matter of procedure, I take it we're going to be dealing with 11.1

and 11.2 separately, and finally

section 2. It that the way?

MR. CHAIRMAN :

We can deal with them separately, but not by way of vote. We'll vote on

the section, but we can deal with the two parts separately. Is that

satisfactory?

MR. SIHOTA : I was wondering if the

Attorney-General can advise me on this matter with respect to this

bill. Does this bill embrace the recommendations made by the

legislative committee with respect to the retirement plans for judges?

HON. MR. SMITH :

As I said in second reading, this bill reflects a consultation with the

judiciary and with the government's program of a year ago that had

provided opportunity for senior people to take advantage of retirement.

It would have been inappropriate at that time to combine the two, so

this is a separate bill.

MR. SIHOTA : I think the

process of going to committees is a laudable process, and I've often

said in this House that we ought to do more of that than has been the

case in the past. It seems to me that when a report comes down from a

committee, particularly as it has in this instance, where it has the

unanimous endorsation of a committee, it would make a lot of sense for

the government to embrace in totality the recommendations of the

committee.

That's not to suggest that a committee is

perfect in its deliberations and its conclusions, and there may be

occasions in which a committee may come to an erroneous conclusion or

an unwise recommendation when examining a matter. In my mind, that

would justify the government making changes to legislation that don't

reflect the recommendations of the committee.

It's obvious

that there were consultations in this case between the Attorney-General

and members of the judiciary. I must say I think that's a healthy thing

to happen, because I think it's imperative there be ongoing

consultations between the members of the judiciary and the

Attorney-General in all matters including these matters of pensions and

early retirement for judges. Again, that's the kind of thing I think

should be encouraged.

Having said all of that, however, I'm

just wondering if the Attorney-General could then tell us what

representations he received that convinced him to deviate from the

recommendations of the committee.

HON. MR. SMITH :

The member is confused, I guess. I'll refer to the committee's

recommendations with your indulgence, Mr. Chairman. I know it's

improper to do so, but the member seems to insist. The committee's

recommendations have been reported to the House. Some of them have been

implemented by the executive council, others are in the process, and

still others are subject to further consultation and advice from the

people they affect.

MR. SIHOTA : I know the Attorney-General was chatting with his officials; and therefore, I may not have had full opportunity....

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA : Would you like to make an introduction? Excuse me, I think my colleague for Nanaimo has a point to make.

MR. LOVICK : Thank you for your indulgence. I'm wondering if I might be allowed the indulgence of the House also to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. LOVICK :

Thank you, very kindly, Mr. Chairman. I certainly wouldn't do this at

this time except that the people have just arrived, and I know they

would like to be acknowledged.

Sitting in the gallery today

are three people: first, my constituency assistant, Miss Susan Baker;

next to her is our star volunteer in my constituency office, Miss

Jacquie Coates; and next to her is another volunteer in our office,

whose name is well known to this chamber, Ms. Diana Pullinger, who is

also, coincidentally, the mother of my colleague the second member for

Nanaimo. I would ask the House to please join me in making them all

very welcome.

Oh, there's one more. I am indeed culpable. I

see my eyesight must be failing. There is yet another person, another

dear friend, Ms. Betty Baker, who happens to be the mother of Susan

Baker and is also an active, hard-working volunteer in our

constituency. Please make her welcome too.

MR. SIHOTA :

Boy, my colleague the first member for Nanaimo is beginning to top the

member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mr. Bruce) with respect to his

introductions. He is doing a wonderful job, I must say, in the House

and doing a fantastic job of representing his constituents and speaking

out for the concerns of ordinary people in Nanaimo. Of course, the

second member for Nanaimo is doing just as good a job, and I know her

mother....

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA : The

Attorney-General is getting a little testy, and would like to see us

return to the debate. He seems to be upset that we take some time to

introduce people.

The Attorney-General was saying, during

his comments on this legislation and in the introduction of the early

retirement provisions of the bill, that he felt that it was on the

basis of advice he received from members of the judiciary, with respect

to their views and comments on the recommendations that flowed from the

committee.

If I recollect correctly — I was on that committee, of course, and so was the former Attorney-General; I think he was still on it after he stepped down as

[ Page 9710 ]

Attorney-General — we debated this matter as a committee at length.

must say, since I'm on my feet, that the former Attorney-General

actually deserves a fair bit of credit for bringing this matter up in

front of the legislative committee and asking us to look at this very

important issue for judges and dealing with the need to make sure that

there is an early retirement provision for judges at the Provincial

Court level. I must commend the former Attorney-General for his work,

and I must say he is a very fair and evenhanded gentleman who

recognized the need to look at the early retirement provisions for

judges. I'm sure....

Interjections.

MR. SIHOTA :

My colleagues are asking for comparisons to and contrasts with the

current state of affairs with the current Attorney-General. I would

think that the behaviour this morning is telling right then and there

about the differences between the two gentlemen.

As I was

saying, the former Attorney-General in his wisdom saw the need to deal

with this very important issue of early retirement for judges. I see

the Attorney-General doesn't want to listen. I guess it must hurt a

little bit to hear about his predecessor and some of the....

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA :

My colleagues are suggesting that the comparison is not particularly

flattering, and maybe that's the concern. But now that I see the

Attorney-General is seated again in his chair, let me continue with the

comments I was making.

I was commending the former

Attorney-General for the work he had.... I see the Attorney-General is

seated again, so we will continue.

The former Attorney-General should be commended for the work he did, because he recognized that it was important — now that the Attorney-General is listening again —

to make sure that we had early retirement provisions for judges in

British Columbia, particularly those who had served on the bench for

quite some time.

I must say that it's quite a job to be a

judge in British Columbia at the Provincial Court level, because one

deals with a variety of cases.

I have often commented on

this, and I guess I'm going to have to comment on it again. As I watch

the debate here, it seems that every time I have an opportunity to

raise judicial matters in this House and the Attorney-General's in the

Legislature, he has taken it upon himself to engage in the kind of

posturing that he's doing right now. He prefers to turn his back to the

opposition, engage in conversations with members of his cabinet and not

listen at all to the debate going on in the House. That type of

arrogance I find to be quite offensive and really unbecoming of the

conduct and behaviour that one would expect from the chief law

enforcement officer in the province of British Columbia.

I may add, I was talking about his predecessor earlier on. If I might

digress for just a minute on this issue, the former Attorney-General is

a fair and evenhanded gentleman, and we would have a lot of debate in

this House, and needless to say — given the different political philosophies of the two parties —

it would be good debate. I'm not being generous when I say this, but

the former Attorney-General would always listen, and we would have a

healthy debate in this House around critical issues. If we disagreed,

we disagreed, but we agreed to disagree, and it was done in a very

gentlemanly way. But the type of posturing we're seeing right now in

the House is an indication of how far we've departed from that which

was once the norm.

I was talking about early retirement of judges....

[11:30]

MR. CHAIRMAN : I was just going to mention the word "relevancy."

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA :

The Minister Responsible for Women's Programs (Hon. Mrs. Gran) says

that one doesn't have to do that, and I suspect that if she's saying

that, when we get into her estimates, she's going to do the same kind

of stuff. I would hope not.

Interjections.

MR. SIHOTA : Well, the Attorney-General won't get a medal for his behaviour this morning.

The

need for an opportunity for judges to leave the bench is what I was

talking about, and in my mind, there is a compelling argument as to why

we should provide early retirement for the judges. As I was saying

before I digressed here, we have judges at the provincial level who are

really at the front lines. They deal with the kind of disputes that are

unfortunately all too common in our society and in many ways point to

some of the gaps we have in society. The kind of human drama that

judges see every day as Provincial Court judges is something that I

think is deserving of comment as we debate this section.

Provincial

Court judges deal with a variety of matters. They deal with family

matters, if I may say so, and with a lot of people who don't have the

means to engage counsel, particularly on family matters. As a

Provincial Court judge at the family level, you're not required just to

deal with the law and its application but to be in many ways a social

worker and enforcer and sensitive to people's needs, particularly when

it comes to matters of custody and maintenance. Often these judges see

the results of poverty in our society. They see the consequences of an

inadequate social net. They see the consequences of family

disintegration, alcoholism and drug addiction at both the family court

level and the criminal level.

It is tragic, Mr. Chairman,

to see that so many of our problems as they relate to poverty come

before the Provincial Court bench, be it at the family level or

[ Page 9711 ]

the

criminal level. As I go around and talk to judges and those involved in

the justice system in the province, they comment on the absence of

social policy and a social net to deal with the dilemmas that people

are often faced with. The justice system, particularly at the

Provincial Court level, is in some ways a very crude instrument by

which one can resolve these problems — I see the Minister of Social Services and Housing (Hon. Mr. Dueck) in the House — that are caused by the enormous cutbacks and elimination of services by the Ministry of Social Services.

know that the young people in the gallery today would be interested in

knowing that the number of adolescent and youth cases that come before

the provincial judiciary is enormous. Really, a lot of the work being

done by these judges ought to be done by....

MR. DAVIDSON :

Point of order, Mr. Chairman. With the greatest of respect, I've been

listening to the ramblings of the member for some time, and while he

may have another forum for his comments, certainly this is not the

time, under this particular section, to deal with the various matters

he is canvassing. The bill before us is very clear, and I think that

only with the greatest stretch of the imagination could any relevance

be found in the member's remarks.

MR. BLENCOE : To

the member's point of order, my colleague the critic for

Attorney-General is, I think, showing his depth of knowledge of this

issue. He's trying to get the attention of the Attorney-General, the

chief law enforcement officer in the province. We're dealing with the

background to this issue, and he's providing information which I think

Is very useful. I don't see anything wrong with that.

It's

most unfortunate, Mr. Chairman, that the Attorney-General has his back

to us. He talks to everybody else. I think this is an important bill.

He should pay attention to what our critic is saying on this issue.

MR. LOVICK :

On the same point of order, I know that the Chair recognizes very

clearly that the statements by the second member for Delta are entirely

frivolous. All he did was point out very clearly to the world that he

doesn't understand the subtlety of the debate. Let me remind him of

what Blake once said: "The sun's light when he unfolds it depends on

the organ that beholds it." Sadly, that gentleman can't see the

reality; thus he raises a frivolous point of order. Mr. Chairman, let's

get back to the learned discourse by my colleague from....

MR. DAVIDSON : It is offensive to this member that when a valid point of order is raised, the member last speaking — who

continually attacks every other member in this chamber not living up to

his personal intelligence level, as he imagines — should be subject to that kind of comment on a point of order that the member has asked the Chair to raise.

Mr.

Chairman, maybe I'm under the misapprehension that we're here to debate

Bill 4, when obviously we're here to eat up the clock because of some

inability of the opposition to come to terms. If that is the case,

certainly the members could just say so, and we'll accept the debate

for the frivolous waste of time which obviously it is.

MR. CHAIRMAN :

On this point of order, I would suggest that unless the second member

for Vancouver-Point Grey (Mr. Perry) has something to add, it certainly

has been well covered.

The original point of order was

valid. All members are well aware of the requirement in any debate for

relevancy to the subject which is being debated. The Chair does allow a

certain amount of latitude in these things with respect to the comments

made about the postures of various members within the House, and it

does not really fall within the purview of the Chair to judge whether

these are good, bad or indifferent.

The second member for Vancouver-Point Grey.

MR. PERRY :

I will be very brief. I would just like the record to show that the

first member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick) is widely regarded by members on

this side not only for his accomplishments, but also for his modesty.

MR. CHAIRMAN : You can't win. I think we should proceed with

section 1 of this bill.

MR. SIHOTA : I agree.

Let

me just say this. We have some young people in the gallery, and I think

it would be too bad if they leave with the impression that all we do is

debate points of order.

This is a very important section,

and I want to make it clear. The

section deals with early retirement of

judges. I will indicate to the Chair exactly where I'm headed in making

my points. I think there are good and compelling reasons as to why one

ought to support a provision for early retirement for judges, and

that's based — in part, but not in totality — upon the kind

of life experiences these judges have in the type of work that they do.

I think it would be sad if this Legislature, in debating this bill, did

not take a few minutes to point out and pay respect to the work that

these judges do at the Provincial Court level.

As I said,

there are some young people here, and we wouldn't want them to leave

with a cynical attitude, saying that all we do is debate points of

order. I think it's a very important issue and that the judiciary is

very essential to our democratic process.

The cases that come before a lot of these judges — be they family or criminal — are

a reflection of the failings we have as a society. We have in British

Columbia a problem with poverty. I would submit that many of the

problems that come before the courts in British Columbia today,

particularly at the Provincial Court level, are a consequence of the

poverty that we see in British Columbia and the absence of resources to

deal with it....

[ Page 9712 ]

MR. DAVIDSON :

Point of order, Mr. Chairman. With the greatest of respect, clearly the

member is now digressing dramatically from the intent of the first

section. Covering the remarks that he is at this time is clearly well

out of order and beyond the reason of any individual to stretch

section

1 of the bill to cover the Social Services estimates.

MR. CHAIRMAN :

Section 1 of the bill does deal with early retirement of judges. There

is a requirement for relevancy when dealing with

section 1.

would also say to hon. members that the debate is drifting back to

points which would normally be debated in second reading. It seems to

me that some of the points were covered, although I do recall the hon.

member who has been speaking saying during second reading that he

wanted to address some of these points when the bill came before

committee.

But perhaps we could proceed, keeping in mind

the requirement for relevancy at all times. We're dealing with

section

1, which deals with early retirement of judges.

[11:45]

MR. SIHOTA :

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Maybe those who are watching will leave with a

cynical impression of the Social Credit Party and the member for Delta,

but they sure as heck aren't going to leave with a cynical impression

about what this party stands for and the issues that we'll debate.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA : And perhaps a cynical attitude about the chief law enforcement officer who'd rather read than listen.

There

are compelling reasons for the early retirement of Provincial Court

judges. The experience of these judges is that they see the failings of

society in dealing with problems of alcohol, drugs and poverty, and the

absence of a social scheme to provide an appropriate way of dealing

with these matters. Consequently, judges find themselves working as

much like social workers and family counsellors as they do people who

impose the law and make determinations of law as it relates to a case

that's before them.

So it is my wish that this government

would recognize the need to make sure that those resources are

allocated, and perhaps we wouldn't have a problem with so many judges

wanting to leave the bench because of the stress imposed upon them.

must say that in my conversations with Provincial Court judges, in

particular, they question why we do not have adequate resources to deal

with the problems that come before the courts. Let me just give you one

example, because the second member for Delta (Mr. Davidson) said:

"Well, come on; that's not a problem." Let me give you one very simple

example, because it's public as opposed to any private discussions I

may have had.

I'm sure that the House is very well aware

that.... I think it was Judge Loretta Chaperon who made a number of

comments last year with respect to the availability of services for

young people who found themselves before the courts and requiring

psychiatric treatment. She commented on the fact that the Ministry of

Social Services and Housing, for example, was remiss in not fulfilling

its obligations to the young people who come before the courts. By not

attending to their needs in terms of psychiatric treatment, alcohol

treatment and drug treatment for young people, she was frustrated that

more and more of these matters were coming before the courts.

If I'm not mistaken, there was another case in Saltspring last year where a court commented — I think came it very close to, if not indeed saying — that

that ministry was being negligent in terms of the work it was doing,

because it wasn't maintaining the standard of expectation that is laid

out for it in its statutes.

Therefore it seems to me that

judges may want to retire early from that type of experience. As much

as this provision may allow for them to do that, it does not attend to

the problem that many of them see from day to day. I'm sure that many

of those people who will be leaving the bench will be putting time into

working at the community level — perhaps not politically — to make sure that services are provided to fill those gaps. I think that should indeed be the case.

I see that my time is running out.

MR. BLENCOE :

Mr. Chairman, I think what my colleague is covering is critical to the

bill. I think, if I may add, that it's unfortunate that the

Attorney-General continues to turn his back to the opposition,

indicating his petulance in this issue. I think it would be very useful

for the Attorney-General to pay attention and listen. He might indeed

learn something from the debate.

It's unfortunate that the chief law enforcement officer, Mr. Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN :

Hon. member, this point has been covered a number of times. If you're

just interceding on behalf of the other member so that his time can be

renewed, we'll turn back to the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew.

MR. SIHOTA :

Mr. Chairman, it might be appropriate to encourage the involvement of

the Attorney-General in this debate. Maybe I'll do it by putting a

question to him. The question is straightforward.

This

provision of early retirement differs somewhat from the recommendations

made by the legislative committee. Could the Attorney-General advise

the House what representations he received from the judges that

warranted a departure from the recommendations of that committee?

HON. MR. SMITH :

As I said some 40 minutes ago to the same question, the recommendations

that came from the committee are indeed different — separate — and are being dealt with by a separate process.

This

recommendation was not dealt with by the committee; it had nothing to

do with the committee. It is one that was, after consultation with the

judi-

[ Page 9713 ]

ciary,

felt to be appropriate. It has been for a couple of years. It was felt

that it would be more appropriate to deal with it separately than when

the similar provision went through for senior civil servants.

MR. SIHOTA :

The Attorney-General made some interesting comments with respect to the

need for a separate process to look at this provision, as opposed to

the general process that was utilized in earlier legislation. That's an

interesting comment from the Attorney-General, because it seems to me

that the government ought to provide some explanation as to why it

chose to engage in a separate process. That is a consideration in my

mind, and I'm sure that other members of the House would be interested

in knowing.

Perhaps the Attorney-General is hoping to get

into this debate. He has put down the notes he's reading. Perhaps he

could advise the House what that separate process was, and why he felt

that this provision should be presented in this legislation in the

fashion that it is.

HON. MR. SMITH : Mr. Chairman, as

I said in answer in second reading to the very intelligent questions

that came from the member for Atlin (Mr. Guno), there is a long,

several-hundred-year history in our system of separation of the

executive in the judicial branches. It's simply a matter, in my view,

that it was more appropriate that it be done separately, rather than at

the same time.

It's a matter on which I have had the

benefit of wide consultation with the judiciary, for which I am greatly

thankful. We discussed the matter at their conference last year at

which Justice Sopinka and I were the guest speakers.

MR. SIHOTA :

The Attorney-General, if I heard him correctly, says that it was in his

own head. Could he tell us what considerations darted through his mind?

the way, let me thank him on behalf of the member from Atlin for his

compliment to that very learned member in this House. What were those

considerations, Mr. Attorney?

HON. MR. SMITH : Mr.

Speaker, for the third and final time on this issue, I have informed

the member that the primary consideration is the separation of the

judiciary and the executive branch of government, and the notion of

independence that flows from one, that notion to which I subscribe

deeply and thoroughly.

MR. SIHOTA : As I understood

the Attorney-General earlier on in his comments, he said that he wanted

this provision to be dealt with by way of a separate process, and he

said a general process had been applied to other matters. The answer

that he's provided doesn't address that question. I put that question

to him again.

HON. MR. SMITH : It's becoming

increasingly apparent why the Leader of the Opposition is so carefully

and diligently seeking lawyers to run for him in the next general

election. I can understand his problem. The provisions are separate,

and one was recommended by a committee of the House. This one was not

dealt with by the committee of the House. The House made no

recommendations or comments on It. It was discussed by me and the chief

judge and members of the judiciary. After the consultations took place,

it was deemed to be appropriate, and it is coming through by way of a

separate bill.

MR. LOVICK : I would like to pick up

on a point that the Attorney-General just made in answer to a question

from my colleague. First, I'd like to establish whether I heard him

correctly. Is he telling this House that part of the reason for setting

up a separate approach, if you will, to dealing with pensions for

judges as opposed to other civil servants has something to do with the

necessary separation between legislative and judicial functions of

government? Is that what he said?

HON. MR. SMITH : In

part, Mr. Member. As you will see from this bill, there are two notions

flowing here. There's the general pension provision that applies to the

judiciary. That was the subject of the matter of the committee that

reported to this House last year. From to time to time in government

there are provisions made for augmented pension programs — early retirement, whatever you wish to call them —

so to that extent that's what this bill deals with. As you see it has a

time-line on it for its availability. The answer to that is yes. I

think it appropriate that they should be dealt with separately. If you

reflect on the debates that were in this chamber with respect to the

pension programs for senior civil servants and the like, I think it

would not have been appropriate to have wound that kind of debate and

those kinds of suggestions into something that would impact on the

judiciary. I think it's very important, and indeed is a fundamental

role of the Attorney-General, to ensure that that separation does

indeed exist and very much so.

MR. LOVICK : I

appreciate the answer, and I accept entirely that there may well be a

case to have those two separate mechanisms. But surely you're not going

to try and confuse the issue by suggesting some kind of

constitutionality is at stake, where we talk about necessary

separations between executive, judicial and legislative branches of

government. That's clearly a red herring. What we're talking about is

an administrative mechanism that you apparently find convenient and

apparently you have justification for. But surely you're not going to

suggest that this is an appeal to Montesquieu or some such thing.

HON. MR. SMITH : It is most clearly not a red herring. While there isn't a constitutional separation in writing in our system — and it's one of the issues that are being dealt with by the Meech Lake accord —

[ Page 9714 ]

is in fact the convention of our constitution, and has been for a long

time.... Conventions in our system are perhaps more important than what

is in writing in a parliamentary system; it is the convention that

there is a separation, and it is one that I will honour. It is not a

red herring; it is anything but a red herring. It is extremely

important, and I think it's important that all parliamentarians

recognize it.

MR. LOVICK : Mr. Chairman, I have no

desire to belabour the point, but we can't let that pass. As somebody

who has a little background in constitutions and knows something about

the classic debates of division of powers, never in all the literature

that I have seen on this subject has anybody talked about division of

powers in terms of mechanisms to pay pensions to people from the

various spheres of influence within governments. When we talk about

divisions of power, what we're discussing is to prevent and preclude

the blurring of distinctions of legitimate functions of government:

three functions of government, three roles and duties to be performed

by various servants of the state, servants of the society. To connect

that somehow with how we remunerate those individuals for services

performed, quite frankly, is beyond me. I think, with all due respect

to the Attorney-General, his answer to my question hasn't allayed that

concern at all, and I would ask him again to please explain. Perhaps

I'm missing something. I'd be the first to admit it if I were.

[12:00]

HON. MR. SMITH :

Let me try it this way then. I don't presume to be talking about

division of powers as that phrase would be understood by anyone. I am

simply saying that there is, by convention of our system, a separation.

There should be, and it should be respected.

I think that to wind pension legislation for early retirement together, given — and reflect on —

the kinds of debate that took place in this chamber about that early

retirement scheme for senior civil servants and administrators of Crown

corporations and the like.... If judges were lumped into that debate at

that time, I think it would not have been a wise thing to do.

Interjection.

HON. MR. SMITH :

Because of the notion of separation, and because I think the issues

that were canvassed in that debate did not relate frequently to the

question of pension. They related to government philosophy; they

related to goodness knows what. I would have to go back and look at Hansard .

But in view of some of the things that were said, the accusations that

were made and the motives that were attributed, I am thankful that the

judiciary was not in any way wound into that discussion. I think it was

a good move not to do it, and I am pleased it didn't happen.

MR. LOVICK : The Attorney-General's answer — again with the greatest possible deference and respect — doesn't advance us any further along the road to enlightenment, I fear. Separation of powers — we

know the doctrine, and we understand it. Is the Attorney-General

telling us that because we have somehow put judges into a separate act,

therefore there will not be any possibility of questions about motives

of government or about possible reasons for establishing pension funds?

he suggesting that because these folks are judges, they will of

necessity then be immune from that kind of questioning? That seems to

be the logical conclusion to the point you just made.

HON. MR. SMITH :

No, not at all. I fully expect the opposition to question the motives

of government and to do whatever they can to impugn government. What I

don't want to have happen is to have the judges wound into that. I

would expect to do it on both counts. I would expect you to do it when

we introduce any legislation, but I think that the subject matter, if

you recall, related to reduction of the number of civil servants and

all sorts of other things in terms of the other issue.

This

has got absolutely nothing to do with those kinds of issues, so the

kinds of questions you may have about motives here and impugning the

desire of governments.... Whatever you wish to do and however you wish

to do it is quite open for you to do. I don't, by any stretch of the

imagination, expect that that would limit you in any way. Obviously it

hasn't today, so not at all.

I think it's important that

those issues be separated. Quite frankly, in the experience I have had

over the last couple of years and in recognition of the kinds of

debates that took place in the legislation we had with respect to the

public service, it is obvious to me that that was a wise decision to

take, and I'm glad I took it.

MR. LOVICK : I didn't

think this subject was terribly contentious or significant, but the

more I listen to the Attorney-General, the more concerned I'm becoming.

the Attorney-General suggesting that somehow the debate that took place

on the early retirement initiatives program focused on individual civil

servants who were retiring and suggested something untoward or

dishonourable on behalf of those individuals who were retiring? What's

the point being made? Why this separation? Why are we suggesting that a

discussion about pension and early retirement for judges must

necessarily be different from a discussion about pension and retirement

for other senior civil servants? Explain that, please.

HON. MR. SMITH :

The member is being silly to use up time again, but that's fair enough.

I will accept that the purpose of the opposition today is to use up the

clock, as happened the other day when I asked for leave to put this

bill in, and it was denied by the opposition. Of course, the people who

will have

[ Page 9715 ]

trouble with this are the judges who are waiting for this to pass.

MR. SIHOTA :

On a point of order, the Attorney-General was trying to bully his way

in the other day. I want to put this matter on the record on a point of

order, and I want him to clarify or withdraw the comment that he just

made.

The fact of the matter is that the other day he came

into this House and, without consultation with his House Leader and our

House Leader, asked that leave be given for a committee stage hearing

on it. If there had been consultation, there might have been a

different outcome.

But for the Attorney-General to suggest

a motivation on the part of the opposition to delay this is a

calculated cheap shot on the part of the Attorney-General.

MR. CHAIRMAN :

Hon. member, that is not a point of order, and I am sure the hon.

member knows it. That was an expression of opinion made from this side

of the House, and it is just not a point of order. So perhaps the

Attorney-General would like to continue.

HON. MR. SMITH :

Mr. Chairman, because those words are on the record, let me say for the

record what is the case. In fact, there was consultation between the

House Leaders. In fact, when I talked to the opposition House Leader

thereafter in this chamber, he said that one of the problems he has is

that he can't keep some members on the other side to the agreements

that he makes. I want that to be on the record.

MR. SIHOTA :

This is the same Attorney-General who threw a temper tantrum at his

House Leader yesterday and insisted that this legislation and his

estimates come forward. I just find it despicable that the

Attorney-General....

MR. CHAIRMAN : Hon. members, take your seats please. We're here to

debate the committee stage of Bill 4, Provincial Court Amendment Act, 1990.

We're not doing that, so we're not serving the people of this province

in the manner that they should be able to expect. Let us continue our debate

on the bill before us.

MR. SIHOTA : I thought the Attorney-General was in the middle of answering a question.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN : We'd do well to have less interjecting from both sides.

MR. LOVICK : As my colleague pointed out, before the debate was interrupted,

the Attorney-General was ostensibly in the process of answering a question before

he got carried away with his own rhetoric and proved to be insulting. I give

him every opportunity to answer the question this time perhaps trying for a little

more civility.

HON. MR. SMITH :

The interruption occurred as a result of the specious point of order

raised by the member for Esquimalt — this House's resident legal

pinhead.

Mr. Chairman, the only thing I can tell the first

member for Nanaimo is that the bills were introduced with a timing

difference simply so that any debate that members wished to have on any

matter relating to the motivation of either of them would not be wound

together. I am absolutely not suggesting that any members of the House

impugn the integrity of any civil servants or otherwise during debate

on the early retirement that came through before.

MR. SIHOTA : Continuing the debate on this matter, let me just say — I'll take only 30 seconds —

that shortly after the 1986 provincial election, there was an

understanding around here that the people would try to improve the

atmosphere in this House. Things were going quite well until the...

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Order, please. The member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew has the floor.

MR. SIHOTA : ...current Attorney-General....

MR. PETERSON :

On a point of order, it is my understanding that we are in committee

stage of Bill 4. I've been in and out, listening here and in my office.

In the interests of the taxpayers of British Columbia, I would

certainly appreciate it if members of the opposition would get on to

the business of the House as we should be and deal with this bill as we

should be, not play games at the expense of the taxpayers. Please take

that to heart, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN : The Chair

appreciates the information and the guidance that come from all members

of both sides of this House, but the point made by the hon. member just

preceding has already been made by the Chair on a number of occasions.

The fractiousness of this debate is certainly not serving the people of

this province well, and I would suggest we get back to what we're here

for: debating the committee stage of Bill 4. We're on

section 1.

MR. SIHOTA :

It seems to me that there's a cause-and-effect relationship between the

Attorney-General of British Columbia and the fractious nature of debate

in the Legislature.

The legislative committee looking at early retirement of judges made a number of points, some of

[ Page 9716 ]

which

have been incorporated in this legislation and some of which have not.

I want to ask the Attorney-General a number of things that flow from

the recommendations of that committee which, as I said earlier, was

struck by the former Attorney-General.

I'm just waiting for the Attorney-General.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Order, please.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Hon. members, I've called order four times.

MR. SIHOTA :

Last year it was "baa"; this year it's "aye, aye." The thing is, those

guys over there just want to heckle and get out for the weekend.

The

recommendations of the legislative committee taking a look at pensions

included a number of matters. I thought it would be appropriate at this

stage to go through those and see whether they're incorporated in this

section.

Recommendation No. 6 of that committee was that

the contribution level to the pension plan by Provincial Court judges

remain at 7 percent of earned salary. Does this

section allow for that

recommendation to be in place?

HON. MR. SMITH : Mr. Chairman, as I have said — this will be the fourth time — to the member, this bill is not part of the recommendations that came out of the committee's work.

MR. SIHOTA : That may be the point. I think that we were saying at the opening of this debate, which I thought the Attorney-General....

MR. RABBITT : Get your hands out of your pockets.

MR. SIHOTA :

If the member for Yale-Lillooet wants to enter the debate, he can put

up his mike and enter the debate, Mr. Chairman. But right now I've got

the floor.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN :

If hon. members insist on interjecting and speaking across the House, I

would suggest that perhaps they might step out into the hall and do

their talking out there. That comment applies to the first member for

Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick) as well.

MR. SIHOTA : I think the Attorney-General's response gets to the

very point that I was trying to make: namely, that the recommendations of the

legislative committee.... It's a laudable process to refer these matters

to a legislative committee. It would seem to me that what one would want to

do is reflect those recommendations, and of course that doesn't seem to

have happened in that case.

Recommendation

No. 7 was that pension benefit calculations for Provincial Court judges

be based on the best three years of earnings rather than the current

five-year average. I take it that this

section here deals with

different matters....

[12:15]

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Please continue, hon. member.

Interjections.

MR. LOVICK : Mr. Chairman, on — I think —

a point of order, there have been half a dozen occasions in the last

week when the member for Yale-Lillooet (Mr. Rabbitt) has risen with the

brilliantly insightful comment: "Get your hands out of your pockets."

Would you advise members of this chamber whether that comment is as

lunatic and silly and frivolous as we think, or whether there actually

is a point of order embedded therein?

MR. CHAIRMAN :

Let me start by saying that the only time that these things occur is

when we have interjections during the course of a debate when someone

is standing and talking. It comes from different places within the House — maybe

from some places more than others, but it's difficult to pinpoint any

one place where it might come from. It's completely uncalled for. It

adds nothing to the debate and just delays the proceedings of the House.

might I ask once more, in my usual mild, nice kind of way, that the

members attending the House at this particular point in time refrain

from making interjections, which interfere with the debate. Then we

will accomplish, perhaps by the middle of next week, the completion of

Bill 4,

section 1, Provincial Court Amendment Act, 1990.

MR. LOVICK :

Mr. Chairman, in your usual mild, nice, quiet-mannered and certainly

well-respected way, would you be good enough to give us guidance. I

asked a very direct question that I think is in order. Is the point

that has been made consistently, which does indeed interrupt the flow

of debate and the progress of this House...? Is that point in order, or

is it as frivolous and foolish as we think?

MR. CHAIRMAN :

Let me say this. There are a lot of comments made in here that are

probably on the very edge of being unparliamentary, but it is sometimes

difficult to deliberate quickly in one's mind what is and what isn't.

You can refer to Sir Erskine May and to other sources of information,

and you

[ Page 9717 ]

will

find a list of unparliamentary words three times as long as your arm. I

can't really see that removing one's hands from one's pockets or

putting one's hands in one's pockets should even have the dignity of

being placed among words that are unparliamentary.

MR. SIHOTA :

I find it frustrating that the member for Yale-Lillooet doesn't have

the wherewithal to get into this debate, but somehow thinks it's a

reflection of his manliness if he can sit there and make those kinds of

comments.

MR. RABBITT : Mr. Chairman, I've been

following the debate in the House, and if the members are going to

debate within the rules of parliamentary procedure, which are supposed

to be known to all the members of the House, then I would love to sit

here and learn something from it. But I've heard the member for

Esquimalt-Port Renfrew talk about just about everything else but Bill

4. I ask you to call that member to order and make him discuss the

matter that's before the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN : The member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew will continue and will be relevant to

section 1 of the bill.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA : Have you settled down now?

The

recommendation I was talking about was a recommendation flowing from

the legislative committee on labour and justice. I hope the member for

Yale-Lillooet, as I speak slowly, will now start to learn something

about early retirement, about judges.

MR. BLENCOE : He will soon know about early retirement.

MR. SIHOTA : He will become an expert on early retirement soon.

The

members of the House should understand that the legislative committee

took a look at matters of pensions and early retirement as it relates

to Provincial Court judges. It made a number of recommendations.

Recommendation No. 5 was that the administration of pension benefits

for Provincial Court judges remain under the Pension (Public Service)

Act, Revised Statutes of British Columbia, as modified by the

provisions of the Provincial Court Act, Revised Statutes of British

Columbia. Perhaps the member for Yale-Lillooet should revise his

understanding of that provision.

Recommendation No. 6 was

that the contribution level to the pension plan by Provincial Court

judges remain at 7 percent of earned salary.

Recommendation

No. 7 said that pension benefit calculations for Provincial Court

judges should be based on the best three years of earnings rather than

the current five-year average.

Could the Attorney-General,

now that it's quiet in here...? I'll wait for the other members to pay

attention, because I will be asking the Attorney-General the following

question. It's very straightforward. I want the member for

Yale-Lillooet to take notes.

The pension benefit calculation was laid out as recommendation No. 7. Is that reflected in the legislation, and if not, why not?

HON. MR. SMITH :

As I said earlier, it's very easy to understand why the Leader of the

Opposition feels constrained to be recruiting lawyers to be candidates

for the NDP, because he's been getting his advice from this legal

pinhead from Esquimalt for about three years.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Attorney, that remark is completely unacceptable, and I would ask you to withdraw it, please.

HON. MR. SMITH : I'll withdraw "legal."

MR. CHAIRMAN : No, Attorney, that's not good enough.

HON. MR. SMITH : Then I'll withdraw whatever offends the House.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN : The comment.... Please take your seats. It seems to me I heard the word "pinhead." I would like that withdrawn.

HON. MR. SMITH : As I said, whatever offends the House I do without hesitation withdraw.

Again,

I know the opposition's purpose is to waste the time of the House this

morning. I also know that the judiciary is awaiting the passage of this

bill, because it is time-limited and they have to make their plans. Of

course, they should know that the reason for its not being able to get

through committee a second time is the efforts of the member for

Esquimalt-Port Renfrew, the first time being through the breach of

agreement between House Leaders and the denial of leave in the House.

The

answer to the member's question is, generally no. This particular

matter has a one-year period rather than a three-year period as is

recommended. It's an augmentation of the provisions that are being

canvassed as a result of the committee's report to the House.

MR. SIHOTA :

The Attorney-General made some comments about the Leader of the

Opposition. I must say that I feel for the Premier, who had to make a

choice between the member from North Vancouver and the member from

Kamloops in terms of who he should select as Attorney-General. I know

it was a

[ Page 9718 ]

tough choice for him. In some ways, I'm sure, he has his regrets.

Secondly,

let me say that the Attorney-General has argued that this is a matter

of urgency. Let's not forget, it was this government that chose not to

call back the House until April 6. You could have called us back in

February; you could have called us back in March. You know, the old

days in the back rooms encouraged some to make sure that the House was

called back in April.

MR. RABBITT : Point of order,

Mr. Chairman. I regret to have to rise constantly to ask you to bring

that member back to order. Whether or not this session was brought back

has nothing to do with Bill 4, and I would ask you to bring the member

for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew to order and to ask him to speak to Bill 4.

MR. CHAIRMAN :

Hon. member, you know full well that a comment from one side of the

House is going to elicit a response from the other. If we on both sides

of the House could bring ourselves to restrict those comments we make

to matters that are completely pertinent to the business before the

House, it would not be necessary for anyone to rise to their feet and

bring points of order to the attention of the Chair. It seems that this

morning, particularly, we're having this problem.

I should

remind hon. members that I am just a servant of this House; I'm here to

serve you. You write the rules, and I try to keep you within the bounds

of the rules that have been written. If you want to turn this House

into some kind of circus, I suppose that's entirely up to you. We're

making a very good attempt at it this morning, I might say.

We're

not doing the business of this House any good at all by constantly

rising to our feet and finding points of order. I don't say this just

for the benefit of the member for Yale-Lillooet; I say it for the

benefit of all those who have risen on points of order this morning.

One or two of them have been good points of order, but the majority of

them have been specious. I would just remind you of this and say that

we should continue this debate in a calm, cool and quiet way, so that

we may do the business of the people of British Columbia in the most

efficient way possible.

Having said that, we'll go back to

section 1 of Bill 4.

MR. SIHOTA :

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In light of those comments, I will not respond

to the member for Yale-Lillooet. I won't even say what I've been

advised to say; I will stick to the point here.

The point

is very simple, and I will again put it to the Attorney-General who

will now, I'm sure, be mindful of the comments of the Chair. Could he

advise the House of the reasons that in the introduction of this

legislation, the government chose to bypass recommendation No. 7 of the

committee, which the former Attorney-General had set up and

participated in, and instead place a provision in this

section that

deviates from that recommendation?

HON. MR. SMITH :

Mr. Chairman, let me say it really slowly, so that the member can

understand it. Recommendation No. 7, to which he refers, from the

committee, I have now said six times is before the executive council

and is being dealt with. Part of the recommendations have been dealt

with; part have not.

Recommendation 7, to which he

referred, says the following: "Pension benefit calculations for

Provincial Court judges should be based on the best three years of

earnings rather than the current five-year average." Had the member

troubled himself to read the bill that is before him, he would find

that it deals with the best single year's earnings. It is a separate

matter; it is an augmentation of the recommendations of the committee.

It is time-limited between February and October.

[12:30]

A number of members of the judiciary are awaiting passage of this

bill so they can make decisions for themselves and their families. This

special arrangement was entered into following consultation between the

Attorney-General and a convention of the judiciary, as well as the

senior judicial officers, the chief judge of the province of British

Columbia and others.

To reiterate the point for the member

for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew for the seventh time, the committee, of

which he was a member, reported to the House and made a number of

recommendations related to compensation of the Provincial Court

judiciary. As well, those recommendations, in the usual course of

events, are now going through the process. Further, some of them have

already been implemented and others are in the process of being

implemented.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, in Bill 4 we have

brought before the House an augmented pension plan for members of the

judiciary. They are awaiting the indulgence of the House to have it

passed. Neither I nor they expected that they would be used in quite

the way that they have been, in terms of time. Nevertheless, when

dealing with the opposition, it is difficult sometimes to predict the

direction they will go.

MR. SIHOTA : We have a

situation here that allows for some provisions to have been dealt with

already, some provisions to be dealt with now, some provisions to be

dealt with in the future. I say to the Attorney-General that I'm at a

loss to understand why he was not able to direct his ministry to get

their act together and do the whole bundle in one shot — so that

we knew whether or not the government intended to enact the

recommendations in their totality or in part. I think that's a

legitimate question.

We have three different processes in

place. The question still remains as to why the government did not,

from an administrative point of view, deal with the whole bundle at one

shot. Maybe the Attorney-

[ Page 9719 ]

General can provide us with an explanation as to that question.

HON. MR. SMITH :

I provided the explanation to that question to the extremely succinct

and intelligent question that was put to me in second reading by the

member for Atlin (Mr. Guno) and in answer to the questions today from

the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick). I know the member for

Esquimalt-Port Renfrew does have difficulty grasping concepts. I really

don't think I should waste the time of the House further by answering

the same question I don't know how many times. I know the member is on

a day off from his full-time law practice to be here with us, but I

don't think I should waste the House's time in that regard.

MR. SIHOTA :

Mr. Chairman, obviously the Attorney-General is not mindful of the

comments that the Chair made earlier. He knows that if he wants to get

into that kind of game, then I can retort just as easily. He knows full

well, Mr. Chairman — before the member for Yale-Lillooet springs to his feet —

that I do not maintain a full-time law practice; that I do not practise

at all except for one trial a year, and that's it. He knows that, so

his standing up in this House to suggest that somehow I'm taking time

away from a full-time law practice and appearing here in the

Legislature to ask him some questions is just another example of the

mischievous mentality that we see in the Attorney-General. It's another

reflection of just how far we've come from the behaviour of his

predecessor — the contemptible behaviour of this Attorney-General.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Hon. member, I will have to ask you to withdraw the word "contemptible."

MR. SIHOTA :

Fine, Mr. Chairman; I withdraw the word "contemptible." The point

remains that we've come a long way, because this Attorney-General has a

different way of operating than his predecessors, and pays a lot less

respect to this chamber than those who came before him.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA :

Oh, he says he just pays a lot less respect to me than others have.

That again is telling in terms of the extent to which the

Attorney-General sees issues along personality and finds it so

difficult to do what his predecessor did, who could separate

personality from policy. You know, it's typical of the type of

personal-attack orientation that we see from him and his Premier, and

we saw it yesterday from the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Dirks).

Could

the Attorney-General advise the House, then, as to why it was that the

time-period that they've chosen was chosen? I ask that in reference to

the date of October 31, 1990, which appears in the section.

HON. MR. SMITH :

The member said earlier that he doesn't practise at all. I must say

that, from my discussions with practitioners around Victoria, he'll get

a lot of agreement.

The time was chosen after consultation with the judiciary.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

MR. SIHOTA :

The Attorney-General cannot resist the temptation to sweep his hand

down into the gutter, find whatever residue he can come up with and

chuck it across the floor. Again, it's in keeping with the type of

juvenile approach he takes to debate.

A number of other

issues arise from this legislation. I want to canvass them with the

Attorney-General as well. He says that it was at the advice of the

judiciary that the date of October 31, 1990, was arrived at. That's

fine. Maybe he could tell us, then, what the expectation is under the

provision for early retirement: namely, what is the expectation of the

ministry with respect to the number of appointments that would become

available by implementing this time-limited provision?

HON. MR. SMITH :

The member asked if it was done at the advice of the judiciary. The

answer is no. As I said earlier, it was done in consultation with....

MR. BLENCOE :

My understanding is that there was an agreement that we would adjourn

the House today at 12:40. I move that the committee rise, report great

progress and ask leave to sit again.

MR. REID : Mr.

Chairman, if I might, before you adjourn the committee, I'd like to

make an announcement in recognition of a special day and in recognition

of the Punjab-Sikh-Indo-Canadian community of British Columbia. In June

1989, the lottery funds provided $20,000 in consideration — outside of existing guidelines — of providing an historic and educational video to commemorate the seventy-sixth anniversary of the Komagata Maru .

I'd

like to announce to those members present and to those who may be

listening on their boxes that the Komagata Maru Foundation of Canada

cordially invites you and all your members to a video presentation of Komagata Maru: A Voyage of Shattered Dreams ,

in commemoration of the seventy-sixth anniversary of the Komagata Maru

incident, on Friday, May 18, from 5:30 to 7:30 at the Biltmore Hotel in

Vancouver on Kingsway, at the invitation of Ms. Raminder Dosanjh and

Ms. Balinder Johal.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Thank you, hon. member.

You've all heard a motion made by...

HON. MR. SMITH :

Point of order. There's no provision in our rules for a response other

than by leave, but before the Chair there is a motion, in any event,

about whether the House should rise. There

[ Page 9720 ]

was an earlier agreement that this bill would be completed before the House rose today.

MR. BLENCOE :

Point of order. The member for Surrey clearly made a statement, and I

think it appropriate that this side of the House be allowed a

response — particularly the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr.

Sihota). I think it's most unfortunate that the government side would

deny that.

MR. CHAIRMAN : This is sort of an

unprecedented situation, and I would ask leave for the member for

Esquimalt-Port Renfrew to give a response.

Leave granted.

MR. SIHOTA : Thank you for that, Mr. Chairman, and I would like to thank members of the House for granting leave.

am well aware of the showing that will be occurring, and I know members

of our caucus will be in attendance as well as members of the Social

Credit caucus. I would hope that many members, particularly from that

other caucus, will be in attendance, given the nature of the debate

that took place in this House last year around that issue. It may be a

reflection of the extent to which others have had an opportunity to

look back on that debate and recognize the errors that were made then

in terms of their handling of the matter and to show appropriate

respect to the community by attending the function and demonstrating

that indeed all members have come a long way in their understanding of

the Komagata Maru and its historical significance.

[12:45]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 39

Brummet

Strachan

Gran

Reynolds

Dueck

Parker

Weisgerber

Messmer

Michael

Ree

Vant

Chalmers

Dirks

Veitch

Richmond

Vander Zalm

Smith

Fraser

Davis

Jansen, J.

Jacobsen

McCarthy

Mowat

Boone

D'Arcy

Blencoe

Cashore

Pullinger

Serwa

Bruce

Peterson

Lovick

Sihota

Miller

Cull

Perry

Jones

Zirnhelt

Mercier

NAYS - 3

Rabbitt

Reid

Davidson

The House resumed; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : Mr. Speaker, I would like to wish everyone a very pleasant long weekend, whatever it is they're about to do.

Hon. Mr. Richmond moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:50 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright 1990, 2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada