1991 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, MARCH 21, 1991

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

11877 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

British Columbia Retirement Savings Plan Act (Bill 86). Hon. Mrs. Gran

Introduction and first reading –– 11877

Tabling Documents –– 11877

Pension Benefits Standards Act (Bill 89). Hon. Mr. Rabbitt

Introduction and first reading –– 11878

Pension Benefits Standards Act (Bill 44). Hon. Mr. Rabbitt

Withdrawal –– 11878

Range Amendment Act, 1991 (Bill 95). Hon. Mr. Richmond

Introduction and first reading –– 11878

Oral Questions

Special prosecutor's involvement in Fantasy Gardens investigation.

Mr. Sihota –– 11878

Mr. Harcourt

Premier and Fantasy Gardens investigation. Mr. Harcourt –– 11879

Gang violence in Vancouver. Mrs. McCarthy –– 11879

Premier and Fantasy Gardens investigation. Mr. Harcourt –– 11880

Sewage treatment in Victoria. Mr. Peterson –– 11880

Ms. Cull

Opinion polling by government. Mr. D'Arcy –– 11880

Ministerial Statements

International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.

Hon. Mr. Dirks –– 11881

Mr. D'Arcy

Export of Water. Hon. Mr. Serwa –– 11881

Mr. Cashore

Sale of radioisotope reactor. Hon. S. Hagen –– 11882

Mr. Jones

Property Rights Act (Bill 90). Second reading

Mr. Sihota –– 11883

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 11885

Mr. Lovick –– 11888

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 11889

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 11891

Land Title Amendment Act, 1991 (Bill 91). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 11891

Mr. Sihota –– 11891

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 11892

Employment Standards Amendment Act, 1991 (Bill 85). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Rabbitt) –– 11892

Mr. Sihota

Ms. Rdwards

Hon. Mr. Fraser

Ms. Smallwood

Mr. G. Janssen

Third reading

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

HON. MR. DIRKS : In the visitors' gallery today is Roy Gardner, the

vice-president of programming for BCTV, and his wife Vikki. Mr. Gardner is here

today in his role as the president of the British Columbia Association of Broadcasters

for a presentation recognizing the great success of the broadcasters' racial

harmony public service ad campaign. I would ask the members to show their appreciation

to the broadcasters of this province and to make Mr. and Mrs. Gardner welcome.

MS. MARZARI :

In the gallery today is a very special person for all of us in this

province. She has played a very important role in the development of

social policy and advocacy for the poor, especially in Vancouver. Her

outspokenness on food banks and poverty in this province is

unparalleled. Mr. Speaker, I want to introduce to this House Miss

Sylvia Russell.

MRS. McCARTHY : In the gallery today

I have a visitor from Vancouver-Little Mountain who is an executive

member of our constituency association, Everyone in our gallery will be

very keenly interested in today's proceedings, but I don't think

anybody will be more interested than Michael Blusson, a student at

Hamber Secondary School and probably one of the most politically minded

students of that school. Will the House please welcome him.

MR. CASHORE : Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today are 50 grade 11 students

from Centennial School in my constituency, along with their teacher Ms. Nancy

Lutke. Would the House join me in making them welcome.

MR. LOENEN . We're privileged to have two constituents with us this

afternoon who are great supporters of our party. They are spending the day in

Victoria, and I would ask the House to please welcome Yvonne Hawley and Frieda

Giesler.

MS. A. HAGEN :

Visiting in the buildings today are a number of people from the End

Legislated Poverty group. I'd particularly like to introduce members of

the forced employment committee: Theresa Tressider, Maureen Ahearn and

Joan Shultz. Also present are members from the school food program

committee: Anita Gingrich, Karen Shillington and Dorothy Livingstone. I

welcome board members and staff of the End Legislated Poverty group to

our buildings for meetings today. Would you join me in welcoming all

those people.

HON. MR. SMITH : In the gallery today

are two individuals: Paul Morgan, who works in Victoria, and his father

George Morgan, who is visiting us from London, England. Would the House

please join me in welcoming them both.

MR. ROSE : Mr.

Speaker, this handsome dog sitting on the floor behind me is a former

seatmate of mine, going back to 1968 when my hair was black and his was

short, in the House of Commons. He's Lorne Nystrom, MP, longtime member

for Yorkton-Melville. He's here in town today with the Senate-Commons

committee studying ways to amend the constitution. We're pleased to see

Lorne here; would the House welcome him as well.

HON. MR. FRASER :

In the precincts today are two people who are very important in my

life. With that short introduction, I'd like to introduce my mother,

Mrs. W. Russell S. Fraser, who is celebrating her eighty-eighth

birthday, and my wife Jone. Would the House please join me in making

them welcome.

MS. MARZARI : Mr. Speaker, Mr. Oscar

Alleuva is here visiting this House from the School of Social Work at

UBC. He was here with his class yesterday and remains behind. Please

welcome Oscar as a student watching how our system works.

Hon. Mr. Messmer tabled the annual report of the British Columbia Police Commission for the year 1989-90.

Hon. Mr. Michael tabled the annual report of the Pacific National Exhibition for the year ended March 31, 1990.

Introduction of Bills

BRITISH COLUMBIA

RETIREMENT SAVINGS PLAN ACT

Hon. Mrs. Gran presented a message a from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled British Columbia Retirement Savings Plan Act.

HON. MRS. GRAN :

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce Bill 86, the British Columbia

Retirement Savings Plan Act. This legislation will establish a

retirement savings plan that gives all British Columbians the

opportunity to plan for retirement. I am tabling this bill in the form

of an exposure bill so that all British Columbians will have an

opportunity to review the proposal in detail and provide suggestions

for the government's consideration.

The need for retirement

protection was identified by many women during my provincial tour last

year. This plan responds to that need and, in addition, reflects

government's commitment to protect the future of British Columbia

families. It's a voluntary plan available to every British Columbian

from age 18 to 65.

This act speaks particularly to low-income parents — the majority women — who

stay home to care for and raise young children, including foster

children. These individuals will be able to join the plan with the help

of an annual contribution grant from the government. We are able to

introduce and implement this plan without increasing taxes by

dedicating the

[ Page 11878 ]

investment

income from the privatization benefits fund to cover the start-up costs

and contribution grants for qualifying parents.

While the

legislation contemplates voluntary participation in the plan, the

government is also interested in obtaining the views of the public on

the introduction of a compulsory retirement plan. I will consult with

individuals, women's groups, the business community, labour and any

other interested groups throughout the province on this important

initiative.

In conclusion, this plan means small business,

women and families will now be able to access and look forward to

secure retirement benefits.

Bill 86 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.

PENSION BENEFITS STANDARDS ACT

Hon. Mr. Rabbitt presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor; a bill intituled Pension Benefits Standards Act.

[2:15]

HON. MR. RABBITT :

Bill 89 is a follow-up to the exposure Bill 44 which received first

reading last June. I will be asking the House shortly for leave to

withdraw the earlier exposure bill.

The exposure bill was

modelled on Alberta's pension standards legislation. Many provisions of

the bill are equal or similar to provisions in most other

jurisdictions. Thanks to the thoughtful and constructive suggestions

received from the community, we have made both wording and substance

improvements to the exposure bill.

The new legislation will

require employees to have five years' continuous service before they

acquire vesting rights. In 1998, plan members will receive vesting

rights in two years, based on plan membership. Bill 89 improves

survivor benefits, makes pensions more portable and improves the

supervision of pension plans.

The bill imposes a moratorium

on contribution holidays or withdrawal of surplus from B.C. plans until

a new arbitration provision comes into force. That moratorium is

effective today. Draft regulations will be released for public comment

at a later date.

Bill 89 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. RABBITT :

Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the House to withdraw Bill 44, Pension

Benefits Standards Act, standing on the order paper in the name of the

Minister of Labour and Consumer Services.

Leave granted.

RANGE AMENDMENT ACT, 1991

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

a bill intituled Range Amendment Act, 1991.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

Bill 95 amends the Range Act to enable the government to better

administer the Crown range resource. It clarifies the rights of

tenure-holders to compensation for use of their tenure area, and in

cases where their tenure boundaries are changed. Specifically, the bill

clarifies the provisions in the Range Act regarding the compensation

payable in respect of a past use by the government of Crown range

subject to a grazing or hay-cutting tenure. It enables the tenure to

remain with the base ranch property in the event of a lease or sale of

the property expiring, or not completing, or where the property is

foreclosed on. It vests the power to change a tenure boundary in the

regional manager and clarifies the procedure by which notice of a

boundary change is given. It provides for an appeal of the regional

manager's decision to change a boundary to the minister or a person

designated in writing by the minister. It increases the compensation

payable to a tenure-holder for an improvement lost because of a

boundary change, and it compensates a tenure-holder for improvements

the holder must construct because of a boundary change.

Bill

95 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.

Oral Questions

SPECIAL PROSECUTOR'S INVOLVEMENT

IN FANTASY GARDENS INVESTIGATION

MR. SIHOTA :

Will the Attorney-General confirm to this House that a special

prosecutor has been appointed to investigate the matter of the Premier

and others in relation to the sale of Fantasy Gardens?

HON. MR. FRASER :

As the member knows, Mr. Speaker, in harmony with the recommendations

of the Owen report, we have made public the fact that there is a

special prosecutor in this investigation, that there is an

investigation and that it is being handled by the RCMP. The reasons for

this are quite simple. The idea of being absolutely clear about whether

there was political interference had to be settled, and consequently

was taken out of the investigative hands of the Financial Institutions

Commission and moved laterally to the RCMP, because the Financial

Institutions Commission is a branch of government. It's a horizontal

move, as far as I'm concerned. In fact, I regret that it has been made

public, for one of the things you want to avoid in any investigation is

that it could be compromised by public knowledge, and this one I hope

has not been. The other thing is that you do not want to impair or

necessarily harm the reputation of innocent people. For those two

[ Page

11879 ]

compelling reasons, most investigations are not a

matter of public knowledge. However, as I said, in light of the Owen

report and the fact that it is widely known, we have confirmed that

that is the case.

MR. SIHOTA : I would like to thank

the minister for that confirmation. In his comments the minister

referred to the provisions of the Owen report. Will the minister

confirm to the House that a special prosecutor has been appointed

pursuant to recommendation 9 of the ombudsman's report?

HON. MR. FRASER :

Mr. Speaker, I've already done that, but in case you didn't hear, I

will confirm that it has been done and that it was done on March 8.

MR. SIHOTA : I think the minister is confirming that it was done pursuant to recommendation 9.

Mr.

Speaker, recommendation 9 says "...that a special prosecutor be

appointed in all cases where there is a significant potential for real

or perceived improper influence in the administration of criminal

justice " Given that recommendation 9 is seemingly triggered in cases

involving criminal justice, does the scope of this investigation

include a criminal investigation?

HON. MR. FRASER :

Mr. Speaker, what worries me about the line of questioning we seem to

be following all of a sudden is that there's a move into the area that

there's something untoward about an investigation.

The thrust of the Owen report, as I read it, was that in the event that some person of high profile — be that any person, a member of this House or somebody else of high profile —

was involved, it was important to make sure that everything was done

fairly, that the results were presented fairly and that the consequence

of anything done was fair.

It strikes me that the questions

going down the line are somewhat different than that. As a consequence,

I'm not going to make any comment about that particular question. What

I want to make clear is that we are confirming there is an

investigation, we're confirming why the RCMP are involved and we are

confirming that there is a special prosecutor — and that's it.

MR. HARCOURT :

Given that the special prosecutor has been appointed to investigate

real estate transactions involving the Premier, has the Premier now

decided to step aside pending the outcome of the investigation?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Mr. Speaker, as I've previously said publicly, even if all of the allegations that have been out there — some of which we've heard in the House indirectly or otherwise — were true, which they're not, there's nothing criminal.

I'm

perhaps not surprised, but disappointed, that this line of questioning

continues from the Leader of the Opposition and others, because I think

it's purely for political gain. I frankly despise those who would use

this House to put the impression out there or to have some believe that

there was some guilt before anything was done by the line of questioning

MR. SPEAKER :

Order, please. This is very difficult for the Chair. Under normal

circumstances, question period is relatively easy for the Chair to

handle, because if there's a debate, we can hold it over, or if there's

a question where I need a ruling.... But I've got to be very clear

about imputing any motives on either side of this matter. I would ask

that questions be direct and that answers directly respond to

questions, rather than having it broadened from that. While this issue

is the subject of investigation by a number of other people, certainly

the Speaker doesn't wish to be involved in doing it during question

period.

I'll accept the next question.

PREMIER AND FANTASY

GARDENS INVESTIGATION

MR. HARCOURT :

Seven of the 11 ministers who have left the cabinet have done so in the

context of such investigations. The Premier and his government must

understand that they are not above the law. I have a question to the

Attorney-General. Has the Attorney-General advised the Premier of his

obligation to step aside pending the outcome of these investigations?

GANG VIOLENCE IN VANCOUVER

MRS. McCARTHY :

My question is for the Attorney-General. Last evening, a resident of

Vancouver Little Mountain was gunned down outside his home. The press

reports indicate it was a drug-related murder and possibly a gangland

slaying. The people of Vancouver are very concerned about the growing

incidence of street gangs and violence in the city of Vancouver. Will

the Attorney-General undertake to meet with the mayor of Vancouver and

the chief of police of Vancouver to explore ways in which our

government and his ministry can assure the city of Vancouver's

citizens, our constituency and this House that the ultimate is being

done in coordination by this government and his ministry to absolutely

ensure that we address this problem on behalf of the people of this

province?

MR. SPEAKER : Ministerial statements and members' statements are on Friday. The Attorney-General may wish to answer.

HON. MR. FRASER :

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the assembly and as one who also comes from

the city of Vancouver, I am well aware of some of the problems and am

as deeply concerned about it as you are, Madam Member. I'm sure every

member in the House is, including members of the opposition who happen

to come from the city of Vancouver.

[ Page 11880 ]

While

we know that crime is not related to any one specific region in the

province, we are concerned about the possible rising level of crime in

the city and the level of violence as well. Because of that concern,

other governments before this one moved to resolve some of the issues

at hand.

As a consequence of your question, and certainly

in the spirit that we want to make sure that law and order is the order

of the day in British Columbia, I'd be happy to give the assurance that

I will meet with the mayor of the city of Vancouver, and with the chief

of police as well, to ensure that we are doing whatever we can to

ensure that our streets are safe.

PREMIER AND FANTASY

GARDENS INVESTIGATION

MR. HARCOURT :

In regard to the special prosecutor and the investigation, it's a

matter that goes beyond the integrity of the office of Premier?

SEWAGE TREATMENT IN VICTORIA

MR. PETERSON :

I have a question for the Minister of Environment. In view of the

Washington State senate's resolution to pursue the impact of Victoria's

municipal sewage-dumping on their coast and waters, and in view of the

great importance of cleaning up our waters and safeguarding the

enormous value of B.C.'s reputation as a tourist destination, has the

minister decided to meet with Washington State officials to ensure that

the resolution of this issue is satisfactory to all — both here and in Washington State — who express concern?

HON. MR. SERWA :

It's really a pleasure to get a question on an environmental issue,

which is a prime-time topic. I deplore the lack of interest from the

members opposite, but I compliment the member for the question. I was

feeling like the Maytag repairman over here.

[2:30]

The question is a very valid one. It's a very important one, and

it's very high-profile and topical, certainly here and internationally.

We have had letters from the state legislature in Washington and the

Governor. I have met with representatives of the Capital Regional

District on this matter, and I will be meeting later on this afternoon

with the consul-general of the United States, Mr. David Johnson, and we

will be discussing a multitude of environmental issues. Certainly the

sewage issue is one that we will be discussing. We will be discussing

oil spills as well, which is terribly important to the strait of Juan

de Fuca and to us here....

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please. The answer is beyond the scope of the question.

MS. CULL :

To the Minister of Environment. In the light of his new-found concern

for the sewage problem in the Victoria area, I wonder if he could

confirm to the House that he is going back on the commitment the former

Minister of Environment made to provide 75 percent funding for sewage

treatment in Victoria.

HON. MR. SERWA : The research

that the members opposite seem to delve into is rumour and hearsay, and

perhaps the odd newspaper article. The member for Esquimalt asked a

similar question the other day. There are realities, and one of the

realities in the province is that all British Columbians are treated

equally.

There are funding assistance opportunities under

the Ministry of Municipal Affairs which will provide different levels

of funding assistance for sewage projects — 25 percent, 50 percent. The

Ministry of Environment has a special fund with the sum of some $3

million at the present time for either high-cost or innovative sewage

projects.

At the present time we have increased — hon. members opposite, if you'd care to pay attention — in

conjunction with the recent announcement of the Minister of Municipal

Affairs.... Two years ago there was some $35 million in the

revenue-sharing fund for such capital projects as sewer and water. We

increased that to $65 million last year and, in a recent announcement

on March 19, that was increased to....

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please. Once again, the question and the answer have to be related a little more distinctly than they are there.

OPINION POLLING BY GOVERNMENT

MR. D'ARCY : Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thought we had a tag-team match going there for a moment.

my friend the Provincial Secretary. The government has stated many

times over the past four years that it didn't believe in making policy

as a result of polls, and yet the public accounts show that over half a

million dollars of taxpayers' funds a year in the first three fiscal

years of the government was spent on polling. Rough estimates of this

current fiscal year would seem to indicate that considerably more money

has been spent. Can the minister give some indication to the public of

British Columbia how many of their tax dollars — either a general estimate or something more specific — have been spent on public opinion sampling during the fiscal year which will end in a few days' time?

MR. SPEAKER : It's a perfect question for the order paper.

HON. MR. DIRKS : In keeping with your admonition a few minutes ago, Mr. Speaker, I'll keep my answer very short.

One

of the things that this government has believed in is open government,

and certainly in order to sample how our programs are affecting the

public

[ Page

11881 ]

it is necessary to get that input. But as to the

specific amount spent in the last fiscal year, I'll certainly bring

back art accurate answer in due time.

MR. D'ARCY :

Now that the minister has conceded that the government has been doing

quite a bit of polling, in the interests of freedom of information

would he be prepared to let the people of British Columbia know what

information has been bought with their tax dollars to provide all of

this information to government?

HON. MR. DIRKS :

Again, Mr. Speaker, in keeping with your admonition a little earlier, I

believe a written report or a written statement to the member would be

the best way to answer that question.

Ministerial Statements

INTERNATIONAL DAY FOR THE

ELIMINATION OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION

HON. MR. DIRKS :

Our government has proclaimed today International Day for the

Elimination of Racial Discrimination. We all know that environmental

issues — the quality of our air, the water that we drink and the land resources —

are of great concern to British Columbians, and with very good reason.

But there's an element to our environment of special importance today,

and that element is the human environment.

We in British

Columbia live in a multicultural society. We have always had a mix of

nationalities. But now that diversity is increasing. With that cultural

mix comes a responsibility for all of us to respect the traditions and

heritage brought to British Columbia by newcomers over the years. It is

important that we understand and appreciate this racial and cultural

diversity and work to eliminate the negative side — racism and racial discrimination.

This

process of mutual recognition and respect enriches our society and

makes British Columbia a better place to live. Proclaiming a special day — International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination — gives us an opportunity to renew our commitment to achieving that goal and creating a healthy human environment.

hope all British Columbians will reflect on this matter today and

recommit themselves to the open and accepting values we all want to

share with our children.

MR. D'ARCY : Mr. Speaker, in keeping with the remarks of the Provincial

Secretary, I would like to note that while overt and obvious discrimination — racial or any other — can be addressed through legislation, attitudes about

discrimination take a lot more effort. It's something we really, as a society

and as individuals, can never give up on. The only way you eliminate discriminatory

attitudes is through understanding, through knowledge and through getting people

together so that instead of fearing or resenting racial or cultural differences,

all of us realize just how well we can be enriched by and how much pleasure

we can take in the tremendous diversity and interests we. have out there and

the many facets of our society.

join with the government in recognizing this day and in knowing that

there are no plateaus here. Discrimination of all sorts has to be

fought attitudinally on a continuous basis all through our lives.

EXPORT OF WATER

HON. MR. SERWA :

Mr. Speaker, in the past few weeks considerable interest has been

generated around the subject of the export of bulk water from the

province of British Columbia. In light of that concern, our government

is determined that the full implications of bulk water exports should

be examined thoroughly and objectively.

Accordingly, I

announced publicly yesterday morning that no further water export

licences will be issued until after June 30, 1991. During this period,

a review of British Columbia's bulk water export policy will be carried

out to ensure it adequately protects our province's interests now and

in the future.

The implementation of this policy review,

which will look carefully at all of the options with respect to the

bulk export of water, was a principal recommendation of the

interministry task force that has met over the past two months. The

review will be carried out by a panel chaired by Mr. Jim Carter, a

well-respected consultant to government. Mr. Carter's comprehensive

background and qualifications will ensure that this review is handled

in a timely, thoughtful and professional manner. The policy review

committee will consist of representatives from the Ministries of

Environment, International Business and lmmigration, Native Affairs,

Crown Lands, and Agriculture and Fisheries.

The terms of

reference for the policy review will include issues such as: the

effects, if any, of the GATT and the free trade agreement; royalty and

other revenue issues; the sources of water supply; environmental

impacts, including any possible cumulative effects; and the necessary

terms or conditions required for future water export licences.

The

review process will include a workshop with water experts and

stakeholders from across the province. In addition to this process, the

public will also have ample opportunity to provide input to the policy

review. I believe that this policy review will provide us with the

information needed to ensure that any allocations of bulk water for

export purposes are carried out in full consideration of the interests

of British Columbians and, most importantly, the environment.

MR. CASHORE : I want to thank the minister for this initiative, which is long overdue. I'm very glad that it's taking place.

wish to affirm the appointment of Mr. Jim Carter. I expect that he will

do a good job. I regret, though, that Mr. Carter will not have a very

long time in which to conduct a very thorough review, because for the

review to be thorough, it should involve a full

[ Page 11882 ]

public

process with opportunity for public hearings. The public needs an

opportunity to debate both the issues of water export and the

environmental aspects. There should be intervener funding, and I

commend that concern to the minister.

Further, Mr. Speaker,

native people are a very important part of this, as is acknowledged.

But I would suggest that there should be contact with the native

community in person, not just through people who work within that

ministry. To that end, I would suggest, as a start, Chief Arlene Hope

of the Klahoose Indian band. Along with her council, she did an

excellent job of researching this issue with regard to Toba Inlet. They

have tremendous information which can be made available and can be very

helpful to this process, and I think it would be very worthwhile to

have a thorough consultation with these people.

Further,

Mr. Speaker, we're concerned about such things as upstream resource

users and forest practices. Just imagine the use of pesticides in a

forest that's adjacent to a water export area, Also, we're concerned

about the possibility of daily tanker traffic going into pristine

inlets. For instance, the ballast water coming from other parts of the

world and being pumped into those inlets makes us think that perhaps

the zebra mussel concern on the east coast is mild. This would be a

biodiversity that we would not want on our coast.

Finally,

in fairness, there is an issue that I would like to raise regarding

this. We have a concern with regard to the ability of Western Canada

Water to export 43,000 acre-feet of water every year from Link Lake

near Ocean Falls. The Ministry of Crown Lands holds the water licence

and has a contractual arrangement with Western Canada Water. We think

that those export licences would give this company a tremendous

commercial advantage over all the other companies exploring this

industry in the province. In addition, since the company gained access

to the initial 43,000 acre-feet without any significant environmental

impact studies, there are serious questions about whether Western

Canada should be allowed to export that large amount of water at this

time.

In conclusion, Western Canada Water should be

included with all of the other companies affected by this review. They

should not be given favourable treatment just because they were lucky

enough to get in under the wire and get their application for 43,000

acre-feet approved in 1989.

SALE OF RADIOISOTOPE REACTOR

HON. S. HAGEN : Mr. Speaker, I rise today to give a ministerial statement,

as the minister responsible for the TRIUMF kaon project on the campus of the

University of British Columbia, I wish to call the attention of the Legislature

to a very important event which has just taken place. Yesterday we received

word that Ebco Technologies of Richmond has been successful in securing the

sale of a new TR30 radioisotope accelerator to the Institute of Nuclear Energy

Research of Taipei, Taiwan. All members of this House, and indeed all British

Columbians, can take pride in the fact that Ebco was victorious over companies

from Belgium and Sweden.

Members

will be aware that the TR30 cyclotron, pioneered in conjunction with

the scientists at the TRIUMF research facility at UBC, last year won

the award as B.C.'s innovation of the year. The TR30 accelerator

produces medical isotopes that are used in diagnosing various illnesses

such as cancer. Like TRIUMF's remarkable pion cancer therapy and other

leading innovations, the TR30 is Canadian science and technology

excellence in action.

[2:45]

As minister responsible for the project, I want to congratulate both

TRIUMF and Ebco on this important milestone. It is proof of the

technology-transfer capabilities of the new TRIUMF kaon ventures

office, which has been opened to drive TRIUMFs innovations from the

laboratory to the global marketplace. Following the provincial

government's financial guarantee for the development of the prototype

accelerator, the first TR30 was purchased by Nordion International Inc.

of Canada last year. This marks the first overseas sale of this

exciting new technology. It's further proof of British Columbia's

growing success in winning important new high-tech customers,

especially in the competitive markets of the Pacific Rim. This $4

million project will be built in Richmond and will require the

expertise of 100 Ebco employees. The global market for this technology

is estimated at $100 million.

I share the confidence of

those at TRIUMF and Ebco who believe we can use this success as a

stepping-stone to winning a lion's share of this business for British

Columbia.

All of this underlines the urgency of Canada's

approval of the TRIUMF kaon project, which will build on innovations

such as the TR30, giving British Columbia and Canada an important new

competitive edge in science and technology. The TRIUMF kaon ventures

office has been active in promoting the transfer of this and 50 other

technologies to the private sector. Partnerships like these are

essential for building the Canada of the twenty-first century. .

urge all members of this House to call on Prime Minister Mulroney to

required to make the TRIUMF kaon project a reality.

MR. JONES :

We on this side of the House certainly welcome the good news brought by

the Minister of Education today, because we recognize that this

province is certainly behind the times in developing the science and

technology we need in the future for British Columbia and Canada.

Interjections,

MR. JONES :

The members opposite clearly are not interested in sharing in the good

news and treating it in the spirit of goodwill that it warrants.

are behind, and this announcement today moves us marginally ahead. We

know that science and technology in this country is behind other OECD

[ Page

11883 ]

countries. Any step that moves it forward is a good-news announcement, and we appreciate that.

recognize, too, that we have to move beyond a reliance upon the natural

resources and move towards human resources and environmentally clean

resources. We must become more than hewers of wood and drawers of

water. We have to move from a resource-based industry to a

knowledge-based industry, and this announcement today, I think, assists

in that.

We join the government in welcoming this news. We

long-overdue announcement in terms of the funding for the kaon project,

and we hope that is a positive announcement too.

Hon. Mr.

Rabbitt tabled the annual report of the Ministry of Labour and Consumer

Services for the year ended March 31, 1990, and the annual report and

financial statement of the liquor distribution branch for the year

ended March 31, 1990.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. RICHMOND : I call second reading of Bill 90, Mr. Speaker.

PROPERTY RIGHTS ACT

(continued)

MR. SIHOTA :

I just want to continue from where I left off at the luncheon break

today. I was pointing out to the House that this topic deserves serious

debate in terms of due process and its application to the denial of

various rights. I was putting forward the proposition that this

legislation before the House, apart from the fact that it is designed

for a political purpose, does not have any substantive effect on the

law. I laid out at the time the fact that the provisions of the Bill of

Rights, the provisions of the Land Title Act and other statutory

provisions and the common law provide significant protection to

individuals who are denied the rights of property.

The

theory there is the fact that the bill before the House will have no

substantive effect on the law, given the state of the law in British

Columbia today. On the other side of the coin, I may be wrong. It may

have significant substantive effect. It may be interpreted by the

courts to be more than I suggested at the outset it would be. I want to

deal with that hypothesis as well and for the record make some comments

with respect to the potential impact of this legislation and express my

wish that the government has thought through the implications of this

legislation, should the courts in this province decide to give — if I can put this way — a substantive spin to the legislation.

Other ministries should be aware of the implications of this legislation on

their operations. For example, I see the Minister of Environment in the House

today. If this law were to have a substantive reading to it by the courts, then

it could have significant impact on a variety of activities and legislation

governed and administered by the Ministry of Environment.

For

example, the Ministry of Environment has significant powers in terms of

water management, flood control, the power to set aside certain lands

for wetlands and environmental protection, the power to deem that

certain lands are necessary for flood control and other lands are

necessary for erosions or that certain changes be made to land in order

to prevent erosion before the land can be bought. Those are laws we've

understood in this country and in this province as being good laws that

are necessary for the common good and to enhance the environment.

It's

interesting to note, Mr. Speaker, that in the jurisdiction immediately

to the south of us, where the courts have given a substantive spin or

interpretation to this power, they have struck down laws governing

wetlands, flood control and erosion. In the research of this matter, I

could not help but be struck by Connecticut's Supreme Court decision in

1964, which reviewed the application of flood and erosion control

legislation in that state. The court, in striking down that law, said:

"Where most of the value of a person's property has to be sacrificed so

that community welfare may be served, and where the owner does not

directly benefit from the evil avoided, the occasion is appropriate for

the exercise of eminent domain." In other words, it was quite proper

for the courts to strike down that legislation,

I would

hope that the Ministry of Environment has given some thought to the

application of this legislation, in the event that the court would give

it a substantive

interpretation. I see the Minister of Environment is

not listening; therefore I suspect he probably hasn't given much

thought to this problem. Hopefully there will be some consideration

with respect to his ministry's

interpretation of this matter.

Mr.

Speaker, I don't see the Minister of Highways here. Earlier on and

through the course of this debate, I talked about the needed and

appropriate due process provisions that are found in the Expropriation

Act. But dealing with matters of highways and energy and with matters

under the provisions of the Water Act, which deal with hydroelectric

power in this province, there are no due process provisions allowed

under the Expropriation Act with respect to expropriation under that

legislation. There's a general clause that exempts various pieces of

legislation from the provisions of the Expropriation Act, which sets

out due process.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Should the courts interpret

this legislation in a substantive way, then of course that legislation

will be under attack. Again, I would hope those ministries — Highways and Energy — have

given adequate thought to the application of this legislation and to

the impact it will have on the administration of those pieces of

legislation that are exempt under the provisions of the Expropriation

Act. The need now with this legislation — the Property Rights Act — is to ensure there is due process with respect to loss of any

[ Page 11884 ]

rights

of property that may flow from actions of the Ministry of Highways and

Ministry of Environment that are not covered by the provisions of the

Expropriation Act. There is a very important and very significant

impact. Given the reasons behind the introduction of this legislation,

perhaps adequate thought has not been given in that regard.

I don't see the Minister of Municipal Affairs....

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : You don't like that; you changed your mind.

MR. SIHOTA : The Premier asks if I have changed my mind. No, I have not changed my mind in terms of support for the legislation.

was pointing out that I hope this government has given adequate thought

to the implications of the legislation it is bringing forward. I am

serving notice to those ministers and to the Attorney-General that they

can expect questions from this side of the House during committee stage

on the implications.

In one obvious area — because, as the

Premier wants to know, I have given thought.... That's reflected in the

comments I am making during the course of this speech. The provisions

to the Municipal Affairs ministry, the application of this law to

zoning regulations and the experience to the south of us in the way in

which the rights enumerated under the provisions of this act should

have been interpreted in a substantive way have had an effect on zoning

regulations in the United States. I don't need to cite all of the

cases, but there are several cases in the United States beginning with

a series of cases in Long Island that deal with the matter of municipal

regulations and zoning: for example, saying that single-family zoning

is not appropriate, that it is, in itself, a denial of the utilization

of property and that it cannot be eliminated without due process.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA :

The Premier heckles that this is Canada, not the United States. That

was precisely the point I was making this morning, had he been

listening to what I was saying. The point I made this morning is that

in Canada we have chosen a different path. In Canada the courts have

chosen not to interfere in these matters, because we as legislators in

this country — in legislatures across the country — have incorporated due process provisions in specific statutes. I would hope that point will remain fixed in the Premier's mind.

Mr. Speaker, I hope the Ministry of Parks has thought through the implications

of this legislation. For example, we see today a dispute between the Capital

Regional District and the people putting in the Vancouver Island gas pipeline

with respect to the pipeline's decision to intrude upon provisions of the

Galloping Goose park in the CRD and to place the pipeline therein without any

due process. Again, there has to be due process essential to making sure that

the interests and, the sanctity of those parks are protected, and that there

is a resolution of the conflict that arises as a consequence of those actions.

Perhaps

nowhere in any other area of the law may there end up being quite such

a significant testing of this legislation than in the area of native

law, where this legislation speaks about the right to use and enjoy

property without the loss thereof and without the provisions of due

process being in place.

Surely the native community of this

province can make a compelling case that they have been denied the use

of their property, and that due process has not been accorded to them

with respect to the loss of that use, enjoyment and right. I hope that

the Attorney General and the Minister of Native Affairs have consulted

on this matter.

As I talked this morning about due process

and about the Ministry of Attorney-General, I think it's important that

the ministry give — indeed, I would hope it has given — consideration

to the meaning of the due process provisions under this legislation and

the way in which they may impact on that ministry.

For example, may I ask: who does due process apply to — only

those who can afford to go to the courts? Surely it should apply to all

British Columbians who see a loss of potential rights, be it personal

or property rights. If that is the case — if that argument is correct.... It has been embraced by jurisdictions here in Canada — not at the national level — and

certainly in the United States in the landmark case of Goldberg and

Kelly, which said that poor people have the right to participate Iin

the public process. That is the gist of that decision.

Has

the Attorney-General's ministry considered the implications of this

legislation on the legal aid programs that are offered in this

province, or is it going to face the kind of situation it found with

respect to immigration law, and the court demanding that the ministry

make sure that funding is available to those who seek to protect their

due process rights under immigration statute? It has significant impact

on the programs operated by the Ministry of Attorney-General in the

event that the courts say that due process rights should exist.

This

government should be particularly sensitive to those arguments of the

working poor in this province and the denial of access to the courts to

assert their due process rights. This government has trampled on those

rights in the past. I need to cite only one example: namely, the

decision of this government to reduce welfare rates to single mothers

by $50 per month — an arbitrary action taken without due process.

we have in this province a history of ignoring the impact and the

necessity for due process and denial of human and property rights, it

seems to me that this government ought to be cognizant of the fact that

it, by proceeding in this direction, may have significant implications

with respect to the Ministry of Attorney-General and its legal aid

funding.

[3:00]

I've touched on the

substantive aspects rather quickly because I wanted to reserve some

time for a far more important component of this debate, and

[ Page

11885 ]

that is the whole matter of judicial adventurism.

There has been a lot of debate in this House as to the role of the

courts vis--vis the roles of politicians and the ability of the

courts, because of the provisions of the Charter of Rights, to intrude

upon territory that has generally been reserved as a prerogative of

politicians.

I think there is a healthy tension in

this country with respect to that matter, and we have seen the courts

in some instances intrude upon the powers of politicians. We see most

recently the decision of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench with

respect to the electoral map decision. In the past, the argument has

been that the courts have no right to intrude upon these matters which

are the prerogative of the Legislature, and that the Legislature is

supreme.

We have also seen, on the other side of the coin,

the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada with respect to mandatory

retirement, and its decision not to interfere with the decisions made

by the Legislature — by the elected officials of this province and of this nation.

This

government, in terms of Brian Smith, the former member for Oak

Bay-Gordon Head and the former Attorney-General, has been quick to

criticize the courts for their involvement in these types of matters

and have been quick to criticize the whole matter of judicial

adventurism. By introducing this legislation, if the legislation is

interpreted in a substantive way, you are going to increase judicial

adventurism.

Is that something that the government — soon to be opposition — wants

to see? Is that a result that they favour? Surely this legislation

stands in stark contrast and contradiction to the arguments that former

Attorneys-General have made with respect to the need to limit judicial

adventurism. This legislation increases judicial adventurism.

conclusion, let me say that what we're talking about here is rights. I

think there should be a serious debate with respect to rights, not

debate full of rhetoric, as I think the government had hoped to trigger

in this case. That's why I've presented my case in the fashion that I

have. We should have a broad discussion on rights.

After

all, this is a government that has shown little homage, little

attention and little concern to the rights of individuals. When a

Highways worker in this province criticized the privatization program,

he was fired. Whatever happened to freedom of speech in this province?

When young people were protesting....

DEPUTY SPEAKER : Sorry, hon. member, but time has expired under standing orders.

MR. SIHOTA : Thank you, Mr. Speaker. May I then conclude....

DEPUTY SPEAKER : Are you designated speaker?

MR. SIHOTA : Yes, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER : Please proceed.

MR. SIHOTA :

With respect to the articulation of these rights, I point out that this

government has paid little attention and attached little value to the

rights of individuals in this province. As I said, when a Highways

worker in this province criticized the privatization program, he was

fired. Whatever happened to freedom of speech in this province? Mr.

Speaker, when young people protested on the steps of this Legislature

and engaged in certain activity, they were removed from the steps in a

very ugly incident. That happened in April 1987, shortly after we were

elected. Whatever happened to freedom of assembly in a free and

democratic society?

This government is always critical of

the role of the media and wishes the media would articulate only the

line that the government advocates. But you have to respect freedom of

the press in a society. In a similar fashion, we have to deal properly

and sensibly with the matter of the rights of property and the freedom

to use and enjoy property and not to be denied use thereof without

being accorded due process.

I think we should have a

serious and rational debate about that kind of stuff. We should have a

very open debate about rights and judicial adventurism and the

substantive and non-substantive effect of this legislation. I dare say,

Mr. Speaker, that we won't see that from the members opposite, because

I dare say there are other intentions behind their bringing this piece

of legislation before the House.

Let me finally say this. It is my view — and this is why this legislation is being supported on this side — that (1) one cannot argue with the need for due process — we

support that and we'll continue to support it; (2) these provisions

will be read in a non-substantive way, and therefore we will continue

to enjoy the rights that we already have in British Columbia,

notwithstanding this legislation; (3) it seems to me impossible that

the Attorney-General of this province did not get advice that was

consistent with the

interpretation that I've just advanced. He knows

full well that this law will have very little substantive effect on the

interpretation of statutes in this province — which of course again exposes the intentions of the government in bringing forward this legislation.

DEPUTY SPEAKER :

I would just like to bring to the attention of hon. members once again

practice recommendation No. 9, which is in the back of our Standing

Orders and which reads: "A member who wishes to speak as designated

member should advise the Chair as early as possible after the

commencement of his or her speech." Just for everyone's edification.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this legislation, which I believe to be

the best in the country and certainly a forerunner for what I'm sure

we'll see in other provinces soon.

[ Page 11886 ]

I'd

like to talk about the legislation and why the need for it, but I'm

reminded of this somewhat when I hear the member for Esquimalt-Port

Renfrew. He stood up and said this legislation is part of some

political agenda. Then he went on to talk about rights and due process.

He was really dwelling on rights and due process. I'm wondering if the

member really considered such, and how seriously we can take those

words, when we all recall what happened in this House when he took

tapes and made them available publicly, and as a result of these tapes

there was a recommendation from the police that criminal charges be

laid against that member. Mr. Speaker, it makes one wonder when we

listen to words about rights and due process from someone like the

member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew, and we consider what he thought to

be due process and how he viewed the rights of others.

DEPUTY SPEAKER : Mr. Premier...

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

But we can talk about rights and we can talk about this legislation,

because the member talked about rights and due process, and I simply

wanted to elaborate on that some.

Let's just consider why

such legislation is much required. I was reminded recently, when I

heard from those who are still awaiting a settlement with respect to

their property rights with the taking of South Moresby for a national

park. It was

an act in good faith, we believed, between the federal

government and the province after pressure from all over the country

and beyond to see this area established as a park. I'm sure all members

could argue the desirability of such a beautiful park in our country.

But in the process — the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew made no

mention of this, and I'm sure that for reasons that are reasonably

obvious to me, he must be well aware of it — the rights of people were really trampled upon, and nothing has been done yet to rectify that situation.

am reminded of a statement made by the Leader of the Opposition not so

long ago when all of us were seriously discussing what we in government

should do with respect to settling the outstanding issues between,

native people, the province and the country. In no time, of course, the

Leader of the Opposition stood up and said: "We, the NDP, will

recognize aboriginal title." Then he pursued it a little further by

suggesting that if, as some were suggesting, there was a cost of $8

billion to $12 billion involved — if the NDP were to somehow have a say In that issue — they

would commit to picking up at least 25 percent of that cost, when we

all knew it to be a federal responsibility, because the federal

government had dealt with it in that way elsewhere. He said that the

provincial taxpayer would pick up a huge chunk of that cost. That was

before any negotiation took place with the federal government; he was

already committed to giving away billions of dollars.

I take you back to the statement that the NDP would recognize aboriginal title.

The question as to what was meant by aboriginal title was asked by many, me

included. No one really had an answer. The Leader of the Opposition said something

like; "We'll find out in due time." He didn't know exactly

what it was, but he didn't think it was anything like what was being suggested

by Saul Terry and some others, who said. "Lock, stock and barrel — all of

the land. We'll simply negotiate what will remain for the rest of the B.C.

population."

Mr. Speaker, I'm sure all of the people in this province who have held their own land, home, lot, property, farm or tenure — wherever, whatever — were

very concerned at that time as to how their rights might be protected

as well. This bill recognizes that. This bill recognizes that all of

the people, whether they live in the city of Vancouver, the Fraser

Valley, the Cariboo, the Kootenays, the Okanagan or the Peace River,

have a right to see their property protected. They can have some

confidence, I'm convinced, in the knowledge that a government has at

least moved to bring in legislation which will afford them that

protection.

I can quote some of the statements that are

perhaps of similar concern to many people throughout this province when

they consider the meaning of property rights and how they might be

understood by some — particularly the NDP I remind everyone of a

statement made by the member for North Island when he was a member of

government some time back. His statement was: "Maybe we have to say

that land can no longer be owned privately. No one ever suggested air

should be owned privately."

[3:15]

Perhaps we can all be reminded as well that the NDP voted against

entrenching property rights in the constitution. The quote from the

member for Nanaimo in 1988 — I remind the member opposite of this — was:

"We did so primarily because entrenchment would seriously impair

governments ability to govern." Again, the member for Esquimalt-Port

Renfrew made reference to that.

MR. LOVICK : Do you deny that? Do you understand the principle?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

The member for Nanaimo is now getting very upset, because he recognizes

that he has been caught by his own statement from 1988, when he

obviously was of the view — and continues to be, I gather, from the reaction I'm getting — that

government is much more important than the individual; "Heaven forbid

that government should somehow be inconvenienced! Heaven forbid that we

as a government — particularly if we the NDP should somehow be government — should

be denied the opportunity to move in on somebody's property right now!"

Whether it be tenure, personal property, their lot, their farm or their

acreage — wherever it might be — the NDP, according to the member for

Nanaimo, would always recognize that governments should not be

inconvenienced in dealing with those rights of individuals that

potentially...or perhaps the ability to govern, the ability of

government to do what it would like to do

[ Page

11887 ]

might somehow be impaired. That's why, in 1988, the

member was against anything that would somehow entrench the rights of

property.

Now it's 1991, and we've seen it in this House

for the last several weeks. They agree with all that the government is

doing. They get up and support every piece of legislation. They provide

the odd qualification here and there, but, you see, they see an

election in the offing, and they would like to camouflage their true

colours, camouflage what they stand for. But we'll remind the people,

and again this is an opportunity, because the second member for Cariboo

knows that if they could take away tenure or take away that which the

people of the Cariboo treasure and hold dear — their land, their rights — the NDP would recall what was said by the NDP member for Nanaimo: "Do not inconvenience government."

That's

what this bill is all about. It says that the individual and the

individual's right to property are more important than a government's

desire to do whatever it wishes as big government.

Let me remind the House as well, Mr. Speaker, of a statement in The Democrat ,

the paper put out by the NDP. It was a writing by Crawford Kilian, who

also writes for one of the newspapers. He said: "We are loudly and

eloquently against things. Maybe all we really wanted was a safe job, a

boat in the carport, a big TV, a house with a manageable mortgage, and

a good opinion of ourselves as right-thinking, upstanding social

democrats." There's a statement which most could agree with, but it's

so contradictory to what we've heard said by the members in the House.

The Leader of the Opposition said in 1976: "The single-family house is

as dead as a dodo." I wonder who's the dodo. Single-family dwellings, I

would remind the members opposite, are extremely important to those who

have them. It's the most important thing, and that's what this bill is

protecting.

Then the member for Victoria — who's shouting across the floor — brought

down some legislation which, fortunately for the people of this

province, did not see the light of day and hopefully will never see it.

It again is a good example of what the NDP would like to see done in

this province and of how much respect that member and those members

opposite have for the rights of property.

His attack in the

act was that he would tell owners.... I will refer to the act:

An Act

to Provide for Rent Stabilization. I would suggest that all of those

viewing this program today on their television — and I'm hoping there are many....

AN HON. MEMBER : All five of them.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

No, there are more than five, hon. member. Have some respect for the

people and their desire to know what is taking place in this House.

If you read this act — and I've referred to its name so that all can find

it and refer to it — it says that what they would control might be what a person

could charge regardless of true costs and market conditions. According to the

member for Victoria and the NDP, they should have the power to control what

anyone might charge. Talk about big government and its rights over those of

the individual. There's an example spelled out in a bill presented by the

member for Victoria. How much respect do you have, hon. member, for the rights

of those people who have those properties? The bill went so far as to suggest

that the government should even have control over when and what they could repair,

and who they might or might not rent to. That's how they view property rights.

I guess

we're reminded as well by the first member for Vancouver East, who in

1972 bought six rental units for $77,000, renovated them, and then

flipped them a few months later for $127,000 — a price hike of 65

percent. When he was asked why it was or what it was, his answer was:

"Well, they can buy a better house or get out." Now I know why that

member for Vancouver East is getting out. Now we know why he's getting

out.

You see, Mr. Speaker, I say this because it so clearly

shows what we've been hearing in this House from the members opposite.

They're trying to cover up, trying to put on their different colours — their

camouflage. But they've not changed a bit. The statements and the

evidence, from as recently as when the member for Victoria introduced

this legislation, are all evidence of that.

The Leader of

the Opposition said some years back: "If elected, the NDP would pursue

changes to the capital gains tax formula. The federal government has

jurisdiction on the capital gains. It's 50 percent now, and I'm saying

it should be 100 percent." That's what they view to be property rights.

Take 100 percent of whatever it is that a person might have gained

through their efforts, through their investment, through their holding

of a property, through their maintaining their right. "Ah, " says the

NDP Leader of the Opposition, "now I view it as that they do have a

right to hold the property." But he hasn't made reference to, nor have

we heard any members opposite make any mention of, the fact that if

they had the opportunity they would take that person's right to hold

property and turn it into a government grab the moment they had the

opportunity if that person wished to somehow dispose of that property.

Mr.

Speaker, they speak with forked tongues. They have different messages

at different times depending on the audience. Now, of course, we know

the message is because of the times. If they can somehow not only put

on the powder as we see it every time the TV cameras are turned on

them, not only dress up as we see it now, but if they can at the same

time camouflage what they really believe, and what they would really

intend to do, that's their objective for now. That's what they're

trying to do. I'm saying the people of this province will not be fooled

by that. They know the actions of the member for Esquimalt-Port

Renfrew. They know his reputation when he talks about rights and due

process. They know how he views rights, and what he thinks due process

ought to be.

[ Page 11888 ]

Mr.

Speaker, this bill provides a degree of protection we've not seen

before in the country. It's highly overdue and necessary. I'm proud

that this government today is introducing this legislation, as we've

continually introduced positive and progressive legislation in this

province. We don't want for the people in our province what we see

happening in Ontario, where they introduced the sort of legislation

that the member for Victoria had suggested might be introduced in this

Legislature, dealing with people's rights and properties. They moved in

Ontario, very quickly after their election, to bring in that same

legislation that was then suggested by the member for Victoria. And you

see what's happening in Ontario. Apartment buildings in Toronto that

were going up to 50 storeys were capped at the thirteenth floor because

they couldn't continue on. People are moving out in droves. There's no

opportunity and no future in that province, because socialism has set

in, and socialism is negative and will destroy absolutely. We've seen

it throughout the whole of the world — anywhere and everywhere it's been tried.

Mr.

Speaker, this legislation is good free enterprise. It's in keeping with

the philosophy of our government, where we believe in the rights of the

individual; where we believe in their rights to hold property of all

sorts, and not to have big government move in and somehow take the

attitude or position — as the member for Nanaimo would — that if

perhaps anything legislatively or otherwise would interfere with how a

government might operate, then obviously the government comes first. We

say the people come first. The individual comes first; whether he lives

in Nanaimo, Esquimalt, the Cariboo, the Okanagan, Vancouver East or

Victoria — now I've named all the NDP members present — it doesn't

matter. They're all entitled to those same rights, and no government

should be afraid to spell it out as we've done. Again, as we've seen it

every time in the past, British Columbia has taken the lead. We're the

number one province in this country, not only when it comes to fiscal

management, good economic management, openness and involving the

people, but also when it comes to introducing good, progressive,

positive legislation. We're the first. We'll continue to be the first.

Members

opposite, I do invite your support of this bill. People may see through

what you are doing and recognize that you are simply camouflaging and

attempting to create some other perception. But it isn't going to work.

This legislation will again be number one, as all the things we've done

have led the country. I'm proud to support it.

[3:30]

MR. LOVICK : Mr. Speaker, I'm delighted the Premier finally had an

opportunity to give the political stump speech he's wanted to give all this

time, However, when he enters on the theme of camouflage and changing one's

message as the need arises, let me remind the House what the Premier had to

say a short while ago. In an essay written in a book called The Housing Crisis:

Causes, Effects and Solutions , guess what our Premier, this self-same speaker,

had to say. He said:

"I am a rare bird when it comes to political philosophy,

because I do not" — it gets better, friends — "consider myself a socialist.

I am a free-enterpriser, but I am very socialist-minded when it comes to land

use or services to people or to health care or to any other basic human need."

Fair'enough.

But you'll never guess what else he had to say. He had to say something

about land use and private property. Mr. Speaker, this same man — this zealot of the free enterprise faction — had something else to say. He said: "It would be difficult to introduce into Canada the 'ideal' system" — guess what the ideal system would be, friends — "under

which most land would be owned by the government and leased to the

people." The ideal system. The reason that we can't do this, of course,

has nothing to do with economics or logic. It's rather because: "This

is still a pioneering country, and most people want to own their own

piece of land."

Here the Premier, I grant you, showed a little wisdom and a little foresight, and he said: "If any government — even a socialist one — were

to propose it, at least at present, there would be a tremendous

uproar." Mr. Premier, how dare you then tell us about camouflaging

one's true colours.

We have one more sentence, but I don't

want to prolong this. I can tell the Premier's blushing, and so far be

it for me to continue his embarrassment. But he also goes on to say:

"However, I am convinced that this" — i.e., the reference to land being owned by the government — "the 'ideal' state" — in my colleague's words, in the Premier's original words — "will

come about gradually in my lifetime, not only In British Columbia but

also throughout the western world." What can we say, Mr. Speaker,

except that we are shocked?

What a reversal! If I can use a

line I've used before, this makes Debble Brill's leaps look amateur by

comparison. This is a leap.

We on this side are not about

to engage in some elaborate and inflated rhetoric about a threat to

one's property standing just outside the doorway and people about to

break down doors. We support this measure, because all it does, despite

all the rhetoric surrounding it, is talk about providing due process.

The point made effectively by my colleague was that we wonder about the

need for the legislation. However, insofar as we have a Bill of Rights,

insofar as we have hundreds of years of common law, insofar as we have

statute law to protect people's property....

Let me give

just one brief example of our reason for being surprised when we hear

the Attorney-General talk about the need for this legislation, echoed

by the Premier's comments about the need for the legislation. I would

refer them to the Expropriation Act that this Legislature passed only

three years ago. That legislation makes very clear that people do

indeed have rights. In fact, this government even produced a document

called "Your Rights Under Expropriation." Now the obvious question is:

were you misleading us three years ago? Are these rights

[ Page

11889 ]

you're now about to confer brand-new, or is it the case rather that we've always had the rights?

Mr.

Speaker, we'll support the legislation. It's good legislation. We

wonder, however, whether it needs to be stated in specific form as it

is now.

DEPUTY SPEAKER : The member for Surrey White Rock-Cloverdale asks leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. REID :

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of both members for Langley, the Hon. Carol Gran

and Dan Peterson, MLA, would the House make a special welcome. In the

precincts is Mr. Pete Luongo, the teacher, and his grade 7 class from

Langley Meadows Elementary School. There are 54 of them here today.

Would the House bid them a special welcome.

HON. MR. SMITH ; I'm particularly pleased to have a chance to rise

in this Legislative Assembly on the question of providing some greater security

for our citizens with respect to property rights.

Mr.

Speaker, it was interesting for me to note that the Member of

Parliament for Yorkton-Melville, Mr. Nystrom, was introduced into our

Legislature this afternoon, because today I was at a hearing of a

Senate-House of Commons committee of which he is a member. One of the

things being discussed there was the question of the amending formula

to the constitution of Canada. That question relates directly to

property rights and why we have this bill before us today.

You

see, the constitution of Canada has been deficient since 1982, when

embedded into it was our Charter of Rights, because it did not include

within that Charter the question of property rights. Today we were

talking about the amending formula and how we could go about amending

it to ensure that Canadians could put into the constitution the kinds

of things about which they are interested, rather than the kinds of

things about which only politicians and members of government are

interested. We were talking about the fact that Canada has too much

government and Canadians have too little power.

That is the essence of this bill. It flows from the notion that in Canada there

is too much government and Canadians as a result have too little real power.

We were speaking at that committee as well about referenda and property rights,

citizen initiatives — the kinds of things that we would want to put to a referendum

ourselves in terms of enhancing rights for citizens. Should we put to them the

issue of property rights? Should we put to them the question of whether they

want to have more direct citizen-sponsored initiatives that are decided upon

by the people? Should we put to them at the time of the next election the question

of whether we have direct recall of MLAs by citizens of this province? Of course,

those are issues which we are in fact contemplating now, which indeed are most

likely to be put to the citizens of the province of British Columbia, and we're

doing that for the same reasons we have introduced this bill: because it is

the case that Canada has too much government and Canadians have too little power.

is the case that the Charter of Rights is deficient, and it is

instructive to know why the Charter of Rights is deficient. The Charter

of Rights is deficient because it does not have the fundamental right

of them all. The precursor of all other rights, all other freedoms, is

the freedom and the right to own your own property. In Britain, where

those rights arose, the right to free speech arose because you had

property that you needed to defend and to talk about. The right to

assemble arose out of the right to own property in its broadest sense.

All other rights flow from the right to own and protect that which is

yours. Yet in Canada, one of the few countries in the entire world that

has chosen to go to a system of written rights.... Canada, together

with the Soviet Union and Argentina, is one of the only countries that

denies its citizens the right to own property in its constitution.

The

reason that denial occurred in 1981 and 1982 is that the NDP refused to

allow it to be put in. Not just that, but the leader of the NDP in

Saskatchewan, Roy Romanow, was the individual in the kitchen debate who

was the strongest advocate of preventing the right to own property from

being embedded in the constitution. The stated reason of the government

of Saskatchewan was that they wanted to take over some properties and

they didn't want the inconvenience of having citizens' protection

embedded in the law, standing in the way of their desire to use the

power of government to take over property. That, of course, is why the

Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Canada is deficient and will remain

deficient, even in the face of this legislation. Until we have those

rights embedded in our constitution, they will not be as secure for

citizens as they should be.

It is for that reason, when I

hear people raising the question that perhaps the courts are going to

hypothetically interpret this in a way that is going to be difficult

for government, using the American model.... That, of course, is why

that is a specious argument, because in the United States the right to

own property is entrenched in their Bill of Rights and therefore has

impact on everything in that country.

We are taking the

steps that we can here with this bill, in the face of a deficient

Charter of Rights, to ensure that to the extent that we can, we can

accord to people due process of the law. We can accord to people the

knowledge that every law passed in this chamber henceforth and every

agreement entered into by the province of British Columbia, be it with

jurisdiction of any kind, will be subject to the notion that the right

of an individual to own their own property — real property, intellectual property, all the possible

definitions of property — will be preserved.

[3:45]

I am very pleased to be able to be part of a government that is prepared to

do that. The fact that

[ Page 11890 ]

have defined property so broadly means that it will grow as the notion

of property itself grows. It means that people will continue to be

protected against the caprice and the ever-grasping hand of government,

trying to take from them something that is theirs.

It won't

prevent government from doing what it wants to do; it won't prevent

government from being able to introduce legislation for the common

good. But it will say to government that if they're going to do that,

then they have to be mindful of the rights of individuals to own their

property and to be protected from what they're about to do. That's not

such a bad thing, because governments — every government — can always

rationalize, justify and find a reason why somehow the collective good

and the common interest, as they define them, are greater than the

needs of the little individual out there over whose rights they're

going to trample.

That individual needs the protection of

law; that individual needs the protection of the Charter, in fact. That

individual is not going to have the protection of the Charter, so the

next best thing we can do is to ensure that at least to the extent that

the laws of British Columbia impact on citizens, they will be dealt

with properly, they will be dealt with in a way that is mindful of the

rights of the individual, and they can know that every time the

province of British Columbia enters into an agreement — because

constitutionally, British Columbia, after all, has primacy over

property and civil rights.... So they will know that every time the

province enters into agreements, it will be mindful of the right to own

property as it is broadly defined — far beyond real property; property in its broadest definition.

it is encompassing legislation, and it will be inconvenient from time

to time for people in the Highways department, the Municipal Affairs

department, B.C. Hydro or any number of departments of government. It

will make it more difficult for them to do what they want to do and

what they have ordained is in the public interest. Of course it will do

that; that is its intention. It is, after all, philosophically a

contest that pits the power of government and bureaucracy against the

rights of the individual. That is what it is for.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

It is designed to ensure primacy for the individual, and when you ensure primacy

for the individual, you necessarily make it inconvenient for the collective

entity. That is the contest, and it's a simple philosophical contest. It's

not complicated; it's not difficult to understand. It's a matter of

fundamental philosophy. Do you accept the notion that the rights of an individual

have primacy over the collective good when there's a contest between those

two things? Not that the individual is going to be able to prevent the collective

from doing its job; that's not what this does. What it does is ensure that

when the collective entity wants to move forward, it must by law take into account

the rights of individuals. When it's going to take something away from them, it must compensate them in the broadest sense.

we haven't given enough thought to the indirect impact that could flow

to the rights of individuals, whatever they may be, those individuals

will be able to ensure that their rights are given support, because

they will be able to rely on this law to say to big government: "While

you were looking at some other problem over there that you think is

more important, you forgot about me, the little individual." Today when

we do that, the individual does not have recourse. With this kind of

law, the individual will have recourse — not to prevent, but to ensure

that their rights are given support and that, where they are going to

be taken away, there is absolute assurance that they will have to be

compensated for that which they have given up.

Yes, Mr.

Speaker, it is the case that that determination will be made by judges,

by the courts. We made that decision as a nation in 1982, when we

created the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We made the decision at

that time to give up our parliamentary supremacy in this chamber and to

give ultimate authority to appointed judges. When we did that, we did

not ensure that the most fundamental right of them all, the right that

preordains all other liberties and freedoms in our society, was

protected. That serves and will continue to serve for Canada as a point

of great deficiency.

As government gets more pervasive, as

intellectual rights increase, as the information society advances, as

the notions of privacy — because of computerization — become a greater

and more predominant issue, more and more will it become apparent that

the deficiencies in our Charter of Rights are real. More and more will

the need for this kind of legislation grow in importance. More and more

will people be pleased by and reliant upon the meagre bit of help that

we are giving to them by providing this legislative framework to ensure

that when governments make their moves, they cannot do so. by avoiding

their responsibility to individuals, and by ensuring that the little

person in Birch Island, in Kwinitsa, in Skookumchuck, in Gitwinksihlkw,

in Jordan River or on the Queen Charlotte Islands, does not have their

rights removed or trampled and does not have their livelihood destroyed

without government having to be accountable — even where government has not done it directly, but where they may have done it indirectly through agreement.

should be vigilant about these issues because some of them are

profoundly important. Some of these issues are treated terribly lightly

and with guffaws in this chamber, but they go to the heart of the

values that our forefathers fought and gave their lives for, and which

go to the soul of what it is to be a Canadian.

We see

creeping into our society in all manner of ways a trammelling of those

rights. Even in our municipal governments today, in their zoning where

we have always protected them from actions against zoning being

considered to be an expropria-

[ Page

11891 ]

tion — we see where changes are going to have to be made. Some zonings and rezonings are being undertaken in bad faith — not

to deal with land-use issues, but to remove property rights from people

who have acquired them, kept them, honoured them and paid the taxes on

them.

We can always find a way in a chamber like this to

rationalize the collective good of creating another open space or park,

perhaps preventing some noise or, in the case of a farming community,

to move in after the farmers have been there for all those years and

say: "Well, now that I've moved in, that old manure pile isn't quite

what I thought it was when I came here in the first place." We can

always find ways to rationalize that and say to the individual citizen

that the might of those who can draw together collectively and use the

system or get government on their side will end whatever it was that

individual had worked for, grown used to, developed and cherished.

If,

by bringing this legislation in, we prevent any of that from happening

or, if it is happening, we ensure that the individual is protected

somehow from the caprice, inadvertence or non-caring of government when

it does those kinds of things, we will have served ourselves well. We

will have served the citizens well, and we will have done it in a way

that makes up for a little bit of the deficiency that is the Canadian

Charter of Rights and Freedoms with respect to the rights of

individuals to own their own property and not have it removed without

being accorded the due process of our laws.

MR. SPEAKER : Pursuant.to standing orders, the House is advised that the Attorney-General will close debate.

HON. MR. FRASER :

I don't think it could have been put more eloquently than by my

colleague the Minister of Regional and Economic Development, when he

made the point that it is important to protect the individual — rich or poor, of any colour you might describe, located in any part of the province — with the right guaranteeing that no property shall be taken from an individual except by due process of law — a right that no one should minimize, because it's so significant.

do not minimize the impact of this, and while we did recognize the fact

that there is a Canadian Bill of Rights.... In fact, it's superseded by

the Charter of Rights. Indeed, the federal legislation some spoke of

earlier this morning really applies just to federal legislation, not

particularly that of British Columbia.

With that, I close

debate and state how proud I am that the bill has been brought forward

by this government at this time. I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill

90, Property Rights Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee

of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House

after today.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : I call second reading of Bill 91, Mr. Speaker.

LAND TITLE AMENDMENT ACT, 1991

HON. MR. FRASER :

I alluded to this legislation earlier today when I was giving second

reading on the previous bill, saying that this bill, the Land Title

Amendment Act — referring to the previous act of 1989 — was meant to

ensure easy transmission of property and mortgage documents. That

particular bill, as I've said before, was making it easier for other

conveyancing documents, such as lease, easement, right to purchase and

restrictive covenant.

This bill provides for a compulsory one-page conveyance document or — flexibility — another

page can be added if necessary, in order to deal with the fine print

normally associated with leases, agreements for sale and similar

documents.

Mr. Speaker, the bill also refines some of the

language of the 1989 reform that came into force last year. The

refinements were based on recommendations from the legal and business

community.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the bill completes the

legislative work that is necessary to support the application of new

technologies in the land title office. This, coupled with the

standardization and plain-language elements of the reforms, will

produce a significantly better conveyance system for the province and

its citizens.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

[4:00]

MR. SIHOTA : I want to make a

couple of comments with respect to this legislation. First of all, Mr.

Speaker, this is in furtherance of the objectives that were recommended

in the Hughes report — "Access to Justice" — suggesting that we should

have more plain language with respect to our documents. In that regard,

I think it's pleasing to see the government is moving on the very

sensible recommendations of Mr. Hughes.

Secondly, they are

a furtherance of the provisions that were found in Bill 61, introduced

earlier on. That started the process of requiring plain language and

standardization of conveyance forms.

Having just looked at

some of those forms over the past year, and as we've seen the

implementation of the new program, I'm not too sure if we're any

further ahead. It is clear that the forms by themselves are actually

quite simple — easy to read, easy to follow, and anybody could understand them. But over the past year — and I don't practise a lot anymore, but during the odd time I have been in a law office — I

have noticed that always attached to all the documents is the legal

mumbo-jumbo that we were trying to get rid of in the first place.

They're not filed, but they are read, and you swear to the fact that

you have read them and understood them. So I'm not too sure if we've

advanced any further on the first go-round. Hopefully we will on the

second go-round. This takes it to a different level.

[ Page 11892 ]

May

I also say, Mr. Speaker, with respect to some of the changes proposed

here, that I know the industry had some concerns about the

computerization proposed for the land title office, and the way in

which it may impact on the employment of those people who are engaged

in the job of actually doing title searches in the province. To the

credit of some people in the ministry, a lot of that has been resolved

over the past few months, and I'm glad to see that. In some ways the

delay between the two bills has actually served the province quite well.

This

is welcome legislation in what, I think, has been generally a session

that could have the potential for being highly partisan and

confrontational. This legislation is overdue, and the sooner we get

through with this the better.

HON. MR. FRASER : Mr. Speaker, it's obvious that this bill is going to receive unanimous consent. It's good legislation. I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill

91, Land Title Amendment Act, 1991, read a second time and referred to

a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of

the House after today.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : Committee on Bill 85, Mr. Speaker.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

AMENDMENT ACT, 1991

The House in committee on Bill 85; Mr. Pelton in chair.

section 1.

MR. SIHOTA :

Could the minister confirm for me that

section 2(2) of the Employment

Standards Act, which is referred to in this change, is the provision in

the Employment Standards Act that says that if a collective agreement

is in place and has provisions different from the Employment Standards

Act, then the provisions of the collective agreement will apply?

HON. MR. RABBITT : The intent of the act is to cover those workers who

are not covered under union agreement and does not cause the effect of limiting

a union agreement. A union agreement is over and above.

MR, SIHOTA : Is the minister saying — and I want to make sure I'm clear on this point — that this

section says that no employee will be deprived of the rights that flow as a result of Bill 85?

HON. MR. RABBITT : Mr. Chairman, no, that's not what the bill says.

The bill allows for unions and management to amend provisions within the contractual

arrangement of a collective agreement, which can allow for something different.

MR. SIHOTA :

That's right, Mr. Chairman, and that was my original question. So the

minister would agree with me that an individual, by virtue of a

collective agreement, can have rights less than that what's enumerated

in this legislation. Would you agree with that?

HON. MR. RABBITT . If provisions are negotiated lower than the standards

set, that would be possible.

MR. SIHOTA : I want to thank the minister for confirming that because

that, of course, highlights the very concern I have with this provision. Surely,

when the ministry brought forward this amendment to the Employment Standards

Act. It must have put its mind to the fact of whether the Employment Standards

Act should be the floor — if I can put it that way — or

whether they would allow holes in the floor and allow certain

individuals to have rights less than the provisions of the Employment

Standards Act. Part and parcel of this amendment inevitably has to be a

revisiting of that philosophy.

The original

section —

section

13 if memory serves me right; I don't have the act here, because we

ended up getting to this a lot sooner than I thought we would — in the

1960 legislation had indicated that an employee not be deprived of the

rights contained in this statute. Again, going from memory, that

provision was repealed during the restraint era in the 1980s. It seems

to me that the amendment we're proposing here is not simply a

housekeeping matter. It goes beyond that, and it obviously meant that

the government had to revisit the issue of minimum standards and make a

determination as to whether or not the provisions under

section 1 of

Bill 85 ought to be minimum standards or whether or not people should

be allowed to be exempt from those standards.

Could the

minister therefore explain to the House why he came to the conclusion

that the status quo should prevail: namely, that certain individuals in

British Columbia would have less rights than those which are sought and

provided for in the legislation?

HON, MR. RABBITT :

Mr. Chairman, it's the government's position that unionized workers

should be able to rely on their certified bargaining unit to establish

at least the base line that we are establishing here as a basic

standard for society.

MR. SIHOTA : Mr. Chairman,

fine. If you're saying you have that much faith in the collective

bargaining process, that's great. That gets us off into another debate

in terms of another piece of legislation that came before this House,

where obviously the government, in the belief that certain groups would

be able to extract benefits and agreements in excess of the minimum,

felt it did not have particular faith in the free collective bargaining

process.

Again, to the minister. for what policy reason are

you saying that certain British Columbians should have less rights than

others? I think it's somewhat paradoxical that this comes right after

the debate

[ Page

11893 ]

we've had about rights being accorded to all

British Columbians under the Property Rights Act, and yet here you're

saying that it's cool for certain British Columbians to have less.

HON. MR. RABBITT :

Mr. Chairman, I have the utmost confidence that the bargaining agents

for the workers who are organized under collective agreements will be

able to bargain and include these minimum standards within their

collective agreements, and I do not see a major problem.

MR. SIHOTA :

I don't see how the minister can say that. I'm glad to see that you

have confidence. Again, that seems to be in stark contrast to what your

party said earlier on with respect to other legislation in the House.

Whether

or not you've got that confidence is not the point. The point is that

certain British Columbians have less rights than others. Do you think,

Mr. Minister, that some British Columbians should have less rights than

others, in terms of these types of maternity and paternity leave

benefits? Do you find it acceptable that certain British Columbians

have less rights than those which are accorded in statute?

HON, MR. RABBITT :

Mr. Chairman, the members of a union do not have less rights. Their

rights are defined in legislation other than this. They certainly have

the right to negotiate benefits which are either greater or lesser than

these standards.

MR. SIHOTA : That's a fascinating comment from the minister — that

other workers don't have less rights. The Ministry of Labour has on

file all of the collective agreements. Could the minister assure this

House that all of those collective agreements provide for 18 weeks of

maternity leave?

HON. MR. RABBITT : No, I cannot confirm that.

MR. SIHOTA :

May I humbly suggest to the minister opposite that the reason he can't

confirm that is that he and I know full well that not all collective

agreements make reference to the maternity leave provisions provided in

the Employment Standards Act. They don't employ that language.

seems to me, since you've got the information on file.... Can you tell

us how many of the ones you've got on file make reference specifically

to the provisions provided under the Employment Standards Act? Can you

tell us that much?

HON. MR. RABBITT : To the learned member across the floor, I would like

to reiterate that the basic intent of this act is to provide protection to the

unorganized workers of this province.

MR. SIHOTA : Fair enough, Mr. Minister. If that is your view, could you

then explain why you don't think that the same rights, at least on a minimum

basis, should apply to organized workers in the province?

HON. MR. RABBITT :

The collective bargaining process is one that allows the bargaining

agent to bargain whichever level of right, whichever sector he wishes

to place in emphasis. He can bargain that higher than these standards

at any time.

MR. SIHOTA : You keep on talking about

higher standards, Would you agree with me that, pursuant to some of the

collective agreements you've got on file, individuals have maternity

leave benefits of less than 18 weeks?

HON. MR. RABBITT :

I'm sure the member, with his knowledge of labour-management relations,

knows that is quite true. There are contracts out there that do have

lesser provisions.

MR. SIHOTA : That begs the obvious

question I've been trying to ask the minister all along. If you know

that certain British Columbians have less rights than what is provided

in law, why do you allow that situation to occur? Why do you say that

all British Columbians must have at least an equal playing-field or

minimum rights, whether they are covered by collective agreements or

not?

HON. MR. RABBITT : Mr. Chairman, the member

should understand that the reason some of these contracts have lesser

standards is that the bargaining process has put them at that specific

spot. I certainly have confidence that the individuals who are

bargaining for the labour movement today will be able to bargain

provisions such as these, or ones that may even be greater, into the

agreement.

There's no difficulty in setting standards for

the unorganized. We could have also set standards for the unions, but I

believe in letting free collective bargaining take place. I believe in

free collective bargaining setting standards where collective

agreements are in place.

MR. SIHOTA : That's a

fascinating statement from the minister. If he believes that

legislation should not intrude into the collective bargaining process,

how can he justify his government introducing all sorts of other

legislation, which we talked about earlier this week, that intrudes

into the collective bargaining process? Mr. Minister, you can't have it

both ways. If you are prepared to intrude at one stage in one fashion,

why aren't you prepared to provide British Columbians with basic rights

on the other side?

MR. CHAIRMAN : I'll just remind the hon. member that we aren't

allowed to deal with a....

[4:15]

MR. SIHOTA : Mr. Chairman, the

purpose of my question is not to get into a debate about other

legislation but to point out to the Minister of Labour that there is an

inconsistency in the view of the government. It seems to me that he is

obviously disagreeing with the view of his own party on the matter of

intrusion and is certainly not prepared to

[ Page 11894 ]

provide all British Columbians with the same minimum level of rights.

HON. MR. RABBITT : Mr. Chairman, this is very fascinating, but if the

member wants to talk about his philosophy, my philosophy, the government's

philosophy or the NDPs philosophy, he should have done it in second reading.

We're going through this bill clause by clause, and this member is wandering

all over the map, abusing the rules. I suggest that we try to work our way through

this bill, using the rules of this House in a proper way.

MS. EDWARDS :

I find it interesting that all of a sudden the minister doesn't want to

talk philosophy at all. When he was asked, "What's the purpose of this

clause?" I believe he first said that the purpose of this clause was to

see that we have equal rights for everyone. Then, of course, he changed

it. I find it amazing that the minister says that he has great faith

that the union movement is going to bargain right up to wherever he

decides it's going to be — I assume. That's exactly what he seemed to say: "Wherever we put it, we have great faith that the union movement will get there."

That's

very nice, Mr. Minister, but even if we were to ignore the fact that

that is a matter of inequality for the people who are not at that point

and that this law, which should apply to all the people in British

Columbia, does not — because there are certain people very specifically excluded — you

are excluding a certain number of people even for the term of the

agreements. So does the minister not agree that it is a direct

discrimination against people who currently have agreements which are

less than what he puts out in the bill and that right now this is a

direct discrimination?

HON. MR. RABBITT : The short answer is no. The unions have the ability to negotiate over and above.

MS. EDWARDS : The unions have the ability to negotiate, but some don't

have the ability to negotiate an agreement for two or even up to three years

from the time that this hill will be proclaimed. So it acts very clearly as

a discriminatory clause against people who already have agreements that do not

live up to the limit in this clause.

HON. MR. RABBITT : The ability of the parties is always there for them

to re-open a collective agreement. With the changes in federal unemployment

insurance benefits and the changes we're bringing forward here, it's

very probable that you'll see many of the unions, prior to the term of their

agreement expiring, renegotiating terms that meet or better these terms.

MS. EDWARDS : If, for example, a union were unable to bargain as good

a clause as this into their agreement for the next two years.... Perhaps they've

just signed a two-year agreement; they've got another two years. Is the

minister willing to then extend that right to those people?

HON. MR. RABBITT : The answer is no, the reason being that the collective

agreement between an employer and an employee is a collective package. It is

made up of many things, and this is one of them.

MS. EDWARDS :

It's very clear that this clause was put in here not for the rights of

all British Columbians, but for a very specific group. It's a

discriminatory clause.

MR. SIHOTA : If I may just

continue with debate for a few minutes longer, I think the points are

obvious in terms of the two parties. It's important that this

section

seeks to give certain rights to individuals. That's fine. Individuals

should have those rights — there's no denying that. But when the

ministry decided to amend this section, it automatically revisited the

section. At that point it must have debated whether all British

Columbians should at least enjoy the same minimum of rights. Surely

they must have discussed whether it would have left certain loopholes

in the legislation that allow for some individuals in the province to

end up in a situation where they have less rights than those enumerated

in law.

The government at that point should have addressed

the fundamental issue in this section: the need to make sure that all

British Columbians are treated at least equally or that they have at

least the same minimum amount of rights. If the collective bargaining

process failed in the provision of these rights for maternity or

parental leave, then surely the government should have said, as a

matter of principle: "We think that even though there are collective

agreements out there that are less than what we have here in statute,

all British Columbians should have the same minimum right." In other

words, define the floor and allow the collective bargaining process to

move to the ceiling.

At that point it ought to have

revisited the whole thing in terms of all the other rights enumerated

in the Employment Standards Act. On the one hand, what's happening here

is good in that finally we are beginning to get in British Columbia

some decent rights for maternity and parental leave — no two ways about

it. But what's bad about it is that the government did not have the jam

to plug up the loopholes to make sure everybody got the same minimal

amount of rights. That's unfortunate.

The point's been

made. it's clear that we think there should be a floor; but it's clear

that the Minister of Labour doesn't think there should be a floor in

terms of these rights.

Let me also say, with respect to

this section, that part and parcel of the rights here are rights that

exist. British Columbians need to know that they have these

protections. I talked during second reading debate about the way in

which that can be done, and I appreciate that the minister said certain

steps would be taken to do that. That's good.

[ Page

11895 ]

Third, there will inevitably be situations where employers will not

agree to the provision of these rights, where they will argue with an

employee as to whether or not they should be entitled to the rights

enumerated in this act and in this section. There will be disputes.

That's obvious. There will be complaints.

Mr. Chairman, if

I may digress only for 30 seconds, it is unfortunate that currently the

Ministry of Labour does not have the capacity to look into the

complaints that are coming into their offices under the existing

provisions of the act, let alone the complaints that will come in under

these provisions. If I can make a plea to the minister: as part and

parcel of what he had to say the other day about promoting to British

Columbians that they have these rights in terms of maternity and

paternal leave, he must also make sure that staff is provided in the

front lines to make sure that when people phone up to inquire about

their rights or to complain about the denial of these maternity and

paternal leave rights, there is a system in place to address and handle

that. That's currently not there. The minister knows that; I know that.

The minister has conceded that irk some of the public comments he's

made, and the problem will get worse.

The only plea I can

make to the minister is: (1) give consideration to these being the

minimum rights British Columbians have; (2) give consideration to the

promotion of these rights; and (3) make sure you have the ability to

enforce these rights, or individuals who find themselves in a situation

where an employer is not willing to provide these rights...that

resources are available to make sure an employer complies with sections

of the act. If you do all three of those, you'll do well. My concern is

that you've done (1), but you haven't done (2) and (3), and most

importantly, you've shown an incredible unwillingness to resolve the

third problem.

HON. MR. RABBITT : Most members should know that this

section was introduced in 1983. In conferring with my senior staff — I should introduce them: Deputy Minister Claude Heywood and the ADM of Labour, Ron Buchhorn — I

have confirmed that we have not had any significant problems reported

under

section 2(2). That's the point you've raised. We've got no

history of having a problem in that area.

You talked about

the rights and public awareness, I agree with you. I committed to you,

in second reading, that the ministry will make every effort to see that

the public and employees are informed of their rights and will keep you

abreast of the program.

On the third point you made, with

regard to disputes and complaints, I will also give you the undertaking

that every effort will be made to see that staff is allocated as

necessary to see that the needs of this particular act are met.

I thank you for your remarks,

MR. SIHOTA : I'll end it on this note. Anytime you'd like to

talk about collective agreements that fall below the provisions of the Employment

Standards Act, come down to my office. You know, Mr. Minister, as I do, in

the construction trades there are examples right here in Victoria of collective

agreements that fall below the provisions of the Employment Standards Act.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

section 3.

MR. SIHOTA :

Section 3 requires four weeks' notice when requesting

maternity leave. This new

section 51.1 reiterates requirements for

certificates from a medical practitioner stating that the worker is

pregnant and the probable due date. This of course brought forward

certain comments from my colleague from Surrey earlier on. The whole

matter of a certificate from a medical practitioner stating that the

employee is pregnant and estimating the probable date of childbirth....

Usually it's fairly easy to figure out whether someone is pregnant. I'm

not too sure why this

section is required. Perhaps the minister could

offer an explanation first, and then I have some additional questions

with respect to this section.

HON. MR. RABBITT : The

four weeks' notice is being added to be consistent with notice of the

same length of time that is required for parental leave. It is believed

that the employer is entitled to receive some advance notice of the

employee's intent to take leave in order to hire or reschedule

replacement workers for the position that will be vacated.

MR. SIHOTA : Why do you need a certificate from your doctor saying that you are pregnant?

HON. MR. RABBITT :

It is felt, member, that the requirement of the prospective mother to

provide a medical certificate to claim maternity leave is one which is

reasonably accepted in the community. Other jurisdictions require it.

It's felt it has been reasonable in other jurisdictions. The wording is

simply a carry-over from the existing provision, and we have not

experienced problems with that or received any complaints in the past.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

MR. SIHOTA :

When someone is pregnant, it's fairly obvious. I can't put it in the

same way my colleague for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley put it. No one is

going to be guffing her employer by suggesting she's pregnant when

she's not. They can certainly tell that they're pregnant and can

certainly tell when their probable due date is.

I'll tell you where I'm concerned. You say it has to come from a doctor. You know and I know — or you don't know and I don't know, I guess — whether

this is going to be something they're going to have to pay for in terms

of a letter from the doctor. Is there a provision in the legislation

that says this has to be provided for free?

[4:30]

[ Page 11896 ]

HON. MR. RABBITT : Mr. Chairman, this is an existing provision; this

is not new. There had been no evidence that we should come forward with a change

in the legislation. There is nothing that has been complaint-driven to warrant

a change.

MR. SIHOTA :

Hardly a week goes by without a complaint coming into my office about

the provisions of the Employment Standards Act. I will confess that

those complaints have increased in the last year since the Victoria

Labour Council started to do its work with respect to the inadequacies

of the Employment Standards Act. They probably weren't coming in as

frequently then as they are now. But certainly over the past year, it's

hard to think of a week when we didn't get a complaint under the

Employment Standards Act. Often those complaints come from someone who

has been denied rights under the legislation. I don't want to get into

all the various rights that people are denied.

There will be a cost for the provision of this service. Either the taxpayer is going to pick it up — because

the doctor is going to bill the system, and I'm not convinced that you

need to have that cost built into the system for a letter saying that

someone is pregnant; it's pretty easy to tell whether or not someone's

pregnant — or, alternatively, the worker is going to be asked to pay

the $35 fee, which I think is now the minimum when you go into

health clinics, with respect to this service.

For some

people $35 is not a big deal. But I look at the kinds of cases that we

get coming into our constituency office. They are inevitably young,

working for $5 or $6 an hour, a single mother trying to makes ends meet

on that kind of an income with a subsidy from the Ministry of Social

Services and Housing for day care, a single mother trying to get some

work. Or it's someone who is young, who has an apartment costing $400,

$500 or $600 a month. When we look at all their costs, there are very

few discretionary dollars there after the groceries, food and

transportation are paid for. To a lot of people, a $35 fee is an

impediment to securing a statement from a doctor. These are real

problems, real people, coming into our office who really find

themselves in situations of some poverty. Every dollar out of the

$5-an-hour wage makes it that much tougher, and it has to be made up

somewhere else.

Quite frankly, I don't care if you've had complaints or not. I think

there has to be some sensitivity, and with respect to this kind of situation,

I think logic drives you to the conclusion that you really don't need someone

to either take up the doctor's time to get a certificate or, alternatively,

to have it come out of their limited resources to get a certificate. It's

obvious when someone is pregnant. I think you should rescind this

section of

the legislation. If you're going to do it now, that's great. Some ministers

have shown that kind of courtesy on the floor. But if you're not, then I

want to say that somewhere along the line — and I'll end on this note — your ministry has to have a full and comprehensive review of the provisions

of the Employment Standards Act. This type of piecemeal approach to the Employment

Standards Act, as it's reflected through this legislation and other legislation — although some of the programs that are proposed may be good, some may be bad,

some may be questionable — has resulted in us having a relatively rag-tag act.

There are all sorts of inadequacies and all sorts of shortcomings within the

Employment Standards Act.

What

is really needed in this province is a total review of the provisions

of the Employment Standards Act so that they're made relevant to the

state of the workforce today. I don't think that the minister would

disagree with me on that point. I would hope that the minister would

acknowledge with me that one of the priorities of his ministry has to

be the matter of updating, revamping and putting before the people of

this province, through this Legislature, a new Employment Standards Act

which is contemporary in its approach and far more rational. If you're

not to remove this

section now, I would hope that you will do it during

that kind of a review. It is unnecessary,

I can think of

other situations where a certificate from a medical practitioner is

necessary and should be required and is a valid request. In the case

where you can in no way objectively tell whether someone is pregnant — there's

a big difference between pregnancy and a back injury.... In situations

like this it's unnecessary. For that small portion of the population

hindered by that $35 fee for the report from the doctor, you would be

doing them a service and making it easier for them to exercise their

rights that you've sought to provide under the provisions of this

legislation.

Those are my comments, Mr. Chairman, with

respect to this. I notice my colleague for Surrey Guildford-Whalley is

in the House, and we are dealing with the notice provisions in terms of

a certificate. I don't know if she's got any comments, but I've put our

concerns on the record.

HON. MR. FRASER : That this

particular provision has been in the act for some 11 years without very

much comment about it would lead one to think it hasn't caused an undue

amount of harm or pain. If it has, I'm sure my colleague will do

something about it. I commend him for bringing in this act, which

updates the Employment Standards Act for the benefit of all the

employees and employers in British Columbia.

I suspect that this particular

section has quite a bit to do with the time that the baby is to be born — so

that the employee will have a set day or as close as possible a set day

when the baby might be expected to be born and so that the employer can

have the same kind of notice. As the member said, it's usually pretty

obvious when a woman is pregnant, but it's not always obvious when the

baby's going to be born. It's critical to the flow of business and

industry — for employer and employee — to have some kind of

reconciliation about when that employee will be taking maternity leave.

So I see nothing wrong with having some attempt to determine when

babies are

[ Page

11897 ]

going born so that the two parties — the employer and the employee — can

say: "The baby's expected on this day, according to a medical doctor."

That seems to me to make some sense, unless there is a compelling

reason not to have that information transmitted for the benefit of

those parties. The ministry has made some sense leaving it in.

MR. SIHOTA :

The Attorney-General misses the point. Women will regularly go to their

physician for checkups after it's been determined they are pregnant,

and they'll receive the usual set of tests and scans. Very early on,

these days, you're told when your due date is. I won't get into that

kind of stuff, but usually you know when the due date is and usually it

is not that far off. I just went through it in terms of our own family

situation and the birth of our son. You can predict with some accuracy

as to when — a doctor will tell you when. You can tell your employer when so the employer can plan.

What I don't understand — and this is the point — is

why you've got to pay $35 to have your doctor write a letter saying the

due date is X when you can just verbally tell your employer. That's the

whole point. Why have somebody put out the cash or why have the medical

system billed for this service when you really don't need it, when it's

a lot easier just for someone to walk in and say: "I just went in for

my second checkup and the doctor says such and such a date?"

HON. MR. RABBITT :

My colleague the Attorney General did mention that this particular

piece of legislation has been in effect since 1980. I would hope that

most pregnant women would be under the care of a doctor, and hopefully

this would not be a hardship on all pregnant women. I imagine right now

that many doctors out there do not charge $35 for a certificate for a

woman to bring forward.

The member for Esquimalt-Port

Renfrew did mention, though, that he didn't care about whether there

were complaints. I do care, because when I'm looking at this

objectively, I'm trying to look at where the problems are. We're trying

to look at how we can harmonize it with the federal legislation so that

women can get maximum benefits. So I do care. But I'm looking at where

the problems are. I'm not going to start making changes in this

particular act because of my own personal philosophy.

would like to say that the member was told in the House, when I brought

the bill in, that I would have a review of the Employment Standards

Act. So his reference to wishing I would.... If he'd been listening

that day he would have heard me stand right in this spot and tell the

House that there are areas that we do want to look at and that we're

going to review the entire Employment Standards Act. So it is going to

happen, and we will be doing it later this year.

MS. EDWARDS : Mr. Chairman, I just want to put a simple scenario to the

minister. If the minister were at a social gathering where he met a friend of

his — a couple, perhaps; two friends of his — and the woman was obviously pregnant,

and at that same gathering war, the couple's doctor, to whom would the minister

go first to ask, if he could see that the woman was pregnant? She could be within

four weeks of the delivery date. Suppose he wanted to know when that baby was

due. Is he going to go first to the doctor and say, "When is that baby

due?" or is he going to go first to the woman and say: "When is the

baby due?" It seems to me that this act puts the onus on someone who probably

doesn't know considerably more than the woman. She is the one you would

normally ask. Why does the act not follow that practice?

MS. SMALLWOOD :

I have a question for the minister. The minister has said that this

provision has been in place for some 11 years an