1985 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 33rd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

FRIDAY, JUNE 14, 1985

Morning Sitting

[ Page

6637 ]

CONTENTS

The Sewerage Assistance For Environmentally Sensitive Terrain Act (Bill M218). Mr.

MacWilliam

Introduction and first reading –– 6637

Oral Questions

Salmon fishery. Mr. Hanson –– 6637

Old-age security de-indexing. Mr. Skelly –– 6638

Family allowance benefits. Mr. Skelly –– 6638

Rental rates for seniors. Mr. Blencoe –– 6638

Sewage dumpage. Mr. Lauk –– 6639

Private Members' Statements

Export of water. Mr. Davis –– 6639

Hon. Mr. Pelton

Mrs. Wallace

Erosion of government services. Ms. Brown –– 6641

Mr. Barnes

Mr. Stupich

Victoria, our capital city. Mr. Reynolds –– 6643

Mr. Blencoe

Foreign students. Mr. Williams –– 6645

Mr. Davis

Mr. Barnes

Critical Industries Act (Bill 31). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 6647

Mr. Stupich –– 6648

Mr. Davis –– 6648

Mr. Williams –– 6649

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 6650

Notaries Amendment Act (Bill 47). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 6650

Mr. Lauk –– 6650

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 6650

Charter Of Rights Amendments Act, 1985 (Bill 33). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 6651

Mr. Lauk –– 6651

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1985 (Bill 42). Committee stage

Mr. Lauk

Ms. Brown

Mrs. Wallace

Mr. Cocke

Tabling Documents –– 6656

FRIDAY, JUNE 4, 1985

The House met at 10:07 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I rise, Mr. Speaker, to advise the House of

the passing of a former Speaker of the Assembly. Norman Whittaker was

elected as an MLA for Saanich in 1933 and became Speaker of the House

in 1937, where he served for a decade until 1947. Mr. Whittaker then

went on to continue his career in the B.C. Supreme Court, and then to

the Appeal Court of British Columbia, where he retired in 1964. Mr.

Whittaker had a long and very successful career in life and recently

died in Ottawa at the age of 92. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if you would

send suitable condolences and a message to his family from the members

of the Assembly.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the Chair will undertake that.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, I would like the members of the

House to join me in welcoming Mrs. Win Bowman, a native of Singapore

and a recent immigrant to Canada. She is visiting in her capacity as

constituency secretary for Vancouver South.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, on Thursday last the member for

Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) sought to raise a matter of privilege with

respect to answers given by the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr.

Pelton) to oral questions. In his remarks the member made reference to

a letter from the manager of land administration, Ministry of Lands,

Parks and Housing, a copy of which was tabled. The member did not table

a proposed motion to be moved in the case of my finding a prima facie

case of breach of privilege, nor did he allege that the minister had

deliberately misled the House.

I have now obtained and examined the Hansard

transcript, and note that in the member's earlier questions and his

statement of the matter it is clear there is a dispute as to facts

between the two hon. members. The letter tabled by the member involved

the issuance of a licence of occupation by the Ministry of Lands, Parks

and Housing, while his question, and those of other members, involve

the issuance of a licence by the Ministry of Environment. As stated in

citation 113 of Beauchesne's fourth edition: "A dispute arising between

two members as to allegations of fact does not fulfill the conditions

of parliamentary privilege." For the above reason I find that a prima

facie case of breach of privilege has not been made.

Introduction of Bills

THE SEWERAGE ASSISTANCE FOR

ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE TERRAIN ACT

Mr. MacWilliam presented a bill intituled The Sewerage Assistance for Environmentally Sensitive Terrain Act.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Speaker, this bill addresses a critical need to

establish a means of assistance to environmentally sensitive areas where present

sewage disposal systems are inadequate and have a harmful impact on the environment

and the economy.

The bill would enable restoration of 75 percent provincial funding

for sewage treatment and disposal in identified areas where an existing

treatment process and disposal system is inadequate, where the present

disposal systems employed present harmful environmental and economic

impacts, and where a new method of disposal has been developed which

offers environmental and economic benefits to the community.

Mr. Speaker, such legislation is, I feel, critical in addressing the

needs of areas such as the north Okanagan. By way of example, as a

result of an overloaded spray irrigation system the city of Vernon is

running into problems with seepage, erosion and groundwater

contamination from its spray effluent. To relieve the excess storage

problems, the city has had to dump sewage into Okanagan Lake. The

result, of course, is excessive milfoil growth, accelerated

eutrophication of the lakes and, as a result, the decreasing

environmental stability of the Okanagan Lake system.

I think, Mr. Speaker, it's time that this government must realize it

has to act now to save such environmentally sensitive areas.

I might point out that the phase 3 waste management report prepared

jointly by both the city of Vernon and the Ministry of Environment has

very recently recommended that the success of any plan of action is in

fact incumbent upon the restitution of 75 percent provincial funding,

which is exactly what this bill addresses.

The problem, I think, is one of funding rather than one of

technology. The solutions are there. What we lack at this point is a

means to implement them. Either we pay now to develop adequate and safe

disposal methods for our sewage, or we're going to have to pay later

through the degradation of our lakes and rivers and the loss of tourist

dollars.

Bill M218 introduced, read a first time and placed on orders of the

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

Oral Questions

SALMON FISHERY

MR. HANSON: I have a question for the Minister of Environment

in his provincial responsibility for B.C. fisheries. Officials of the

U.S. State Department are meeting with their Japanese counterparts

today in Tokyo to discuss a voluntary reduction of the interception of

North American salmon by the Japanese high-seas drift-net fishery. My

question: what steps has the minister taken to protect B.C. salmon

stocks by encouraging Canadian participation in these talks? [10:15]

HON. MR. PELTON: Mr. Speaker, I wasn't even aware that the talks were going on. So therefore I haven't taken any steps in this regard.

MR. HANSON: A new question, Mr. Speaker. The United States

government is pursuing this reduction because new evidence suggests as

much as 10 percent of chinook salmon originating in southeast Alaska

and British Columbia are intercepted by the salmon drift-net fleets.

Canadian officials indicate that 10,000 B.C. steelhead trout are

intercepted by this Japanese fishery. Is the minister now prepared to

answer my question taken on notice on his behalf by the

[ Page 6638 ]

Premier prior to his tour to Asia, and tell us what

steps the provincial government has taken to pressure Ottawa to amend

the North Pacific treaty with Japan and the U.S. to protect our

chinook, chum and steelhead trout?

HON. MR. PELTON: Mr. Speaker, I'll take that question as notice and bring that answer forward in the very near future.

MR. HANSON: A new question, Mr. Speaker. High-seas drift-net

fishing has been called the curtain of death because of the disastrous

effect on many marine species. What steps has the minister responsible

for environmental protection taken to eliminate this practice?

HON. MR. PELTON: I might suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the hon.

members opposite should perhaps be doing something in Ottawa

themselves. However, as I stated for the last question, I will also

take that question as notice.

OLD-AGE SECURITY DE-INDEXING

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the acting

Premier and member for Cariboo. In the weeks since the federal budget

has been introduced there's been a growing public protest involving

senior citizens, business leaders and elected officials across the

country. Will the acting Premier join with me in condemning the federal

action to de-index old age security pensions?

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I think, in view of the fact

that you're talking about high government policy, you'd better wait for

the Premier of British Columbia, who will be back shortly. I'll advise

him of your question.

MR. SKELLY: If I wait until the Premier gets back, I'll be a

senior citizen, and I'll have a vested interest. [Laughter.] And I'd

like to take this opportunity to apologize to motorcycle gangs for

comparing them with this group over here.

Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that this is such an important

issue.... It's a serious issue for thousands of people across Canada

and for thousands of senior citizens in the province of British

Columbia, among which the acting Premier is numbered. I wonder if the

acting Premier will agree to second my Motion 59 on the order paper...

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member.

MR. SKELLY: ... communicating our concern to the federal House of Commons.

MR. SPEAKER: As the Leader of the Opposition is well aware,

questions of that nature are out of order at this particular time on

the order paper.

Another question, hon. member.

MR. SKELLY: Has the acting Premier decided to sponsor a joint

motion recommending to the House of Commons that this Legislature call

for a withdrawal of de-indexing?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. We cannot do by one means what

we cannot do by another.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, we're asking if the acting Premier

has made a decision which affects policy and the lives of the senior

citizens in this province. I'm sure that that question is in order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. A question taken on notice.... The member may ask a new question.

MR. SKELLY: This was a new question.

MR. SPEAKER: The member may have considered it a new question; the Chair did not.

FAMILY ALLOWANCE BENEFITS

MR. SKELLY: Okay, Mr. Speaker. I have another question for

the acting Premier. The federal budget also provides for reduced family

allowance benefits combined with tax increases which severely harm

low-income working families. What action has the government taken in

defence of these families who have already paid the burden of Social

Credit income tax and sales tax increases?

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, to the Leader of the Opposition, the spokesman on these items is the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis).

AN. HON. MEMBER: The federal Minister of Finance?

HON. A. FRASER: No, the spokesman on behalf of our government is the provincial Minister of Finance.

RENTAL RATES FOR SENIORS

MR. BLENCOE: I have a question for the Minister of Lands,

Parks and Housing. At the same time that pensioners are facing a 3

percent drop in pension income through de-indexing, the B.C. Housing

Management Commission is increasing seniors' rents from 25 to 30

percent of their income. At the same time that the federal government

is de-indexing their pensions, you are reducing their incomes as well.

In view of the hardship faced by our senior citizens, has the minister

decided to suspend this action of increasing rents in the province of

British Columbia for senior citizens?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The member is unfortunately about two years

late. The policy was announced.... It was phased in in three steps, and

it is standard practice across the nation for the 30 percent.

MR. BLENCOE: If you cannot change practice, given what other jurisdictions are doing...

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BLENCOE: …and you cannot help senior citizens because you are inflexible, that's the state of this government.

Interjections.

[ Page 6639 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. Will the second

member for Victoria please be seated. Hon. members, this is question

period, not statement period or argument period. The Chair has been

very reasonable in allowing a certain latitude in questions, but hon.

members, you stretch that to the limit when you proceed to make

outright argument. Please bear in mind the rules that guide us during

this very brief period.

MR. BLENCOE: The federal government is withdrawing 3 percent

of pension income next year. The provincial government is withdrawing 5

percent of their pension income this year through the B.C. Housing

Management Commission. What studies does the minister have supporting

his contention that seniors can afford to lose 8 percent of their

income in the space of a year? This government is joining with their

allies in Ottawa to hurt seniors in the province of British Columbia.

What studies does he have to support that?

MR. SPEAKER: Further questions, hon. members?

SEWAGE DUMPAGE

MR. LAUK: To the Minister of Environment. What action has the

minister decided upon to prevent the major discharge of raw sewage —

the second one planned in the lower mainland, this one from North

Vancouver involving some 118 million litres of raw sewage?

HON. MR. PELTON: Certainly I'm aware that the news media have

given quite a significant coverage to the fact that the GVRD might once

again have a requirement to discharge some sewage during the process of

repairing some valves in the sewage system. But I hasten to assure this

House that at this point in time, to the very best of my knowledge,

neither have they made any application for any permit to do this nor

have they indicated that they are about to make any application in this

regard.

I think hon. members know.... Mr. Speaker, I'm not trying to talk my

way through question period, but this is an important question. I think

all hon. members know that before such application would be considered,

there are many factors which have to be taken into account. To

enumerate maybe one or two of them: we would have to have some

authorization from the federal Ministry of Fisheries and Oceans; the

federal Health ministry becomes involved; the medical health officer of

the city of Vancouver would become involved; GVRD would become

involved; I would expect that the Vancouver city council, along with

the mayor, would have to become involved. I'd be looking for full

support from all of these people, and would assume that in the course

of any decision they might make in the city of Vancouver they would

consult with the citizens of that city. All these things would be taken

into account during the consideration of any application for any permit

to dump any sewage either into the Fraser River or into the sea.

MR. LAUK: I read from that that the minister wants to become

consultative, as opposed to the previous permit which was granted in

relative secrecy. With that cooperative view in mind, has the minister

decided that the government will restore the 75 percent provincial

funding for sewage treatment which was chopped by the government during

its restraint program?

HON. MR. PELTON: That particular matter doesn't fall within the purview of the Ministry of Environment, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LAUK: To the Minister of Finance. Has the minister, in

light of the controversy involving raw sewage dumped on city beaches,

decided to reinstitute the 75 percent provincial funding for sewage

treatment which was chopped during his restraint program?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, the second member for Vancouver

offered a few observations before he got around to the question, but he

should direct that to the appropriate minister.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. [Applause.] This is like a game show.

Has the minister requested that the government restore 75 percent

provincial funding for sewage treatment, which many municipalities have

been requesting and fighting for since the restraint chopped it?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I am delighted that you at long last got to

me. Revenue-sharing is exactly revenue-sharing, and, as you know, there

are various component parts to it. However, at this moment there is no

consideration given whatsoever to changing the formula as far as sewer

and water are concerned. No doubt, as the revenue of the province

increases, we do review all of those programs, such as the

unconditional portion, the road works, etc. But at this moment the

answer is no.

Private Members' Statements

EXPORT OF WATER

MR. DAVIS: I favour the export of water. I am for the sale of

fresh water to the United States and elsewhere provided that there is

no significant environmental damage involved in the project, provided

that there is significant financial benefit to British Columbians and

provided, of course, that there's no jurisdictional consequences in the

form of a diminution of Canada or British Columbia's authority to

manage their own resources. This is a Canada-first policy. It's a

British Columbia-first policy.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

We must gain financially and lose nothing from an ecological or

jurisdictional point of view. In other words, it must be all gain and

no loss. It must be a benefit both to ourselves and to others; it must

be up front, out in the open and subject to public hearings before it

proceeds.

[10:30]

We have lots of water — fresh water, surplus water — which others in

other parts of the world sorely need. Canada has 8 percent of the

world's fresh water supply. It has more than 10 percent of the world's

fresh surface water in its innumerable lakes, rivers and streams. We

have less than 0.5 percent of the world's population. In other words,

Mr. Speaker, we're at least 20 times better off as far as fresh water

is concerned than the average individual worldwide.

We're a have nation, in other words, Mr. Speaker, insofar as fresh water is concerned. British Columbia, and especially

[ Page 6640 ]

coastal British Columbia, is more fortunate still.

On a per capita basis, coastal British Columbians are at least 100

times better off than the average world citizen. Wisely managed, in

other words, we have lots of water to spare. We have rain when we don't

really need it; we have runoffs which wreak havoc from time to time in

coastal areas; we have incredible quantities of fresh water flowing

into the Pacific Ocean year round — unwanted volumes, especially in the

spring and summertime, flowing into the sea.

Why not take a little of this water just as it enters the sea — a

few feet before it drops into the ocean — and pump it into water

tankers headed south? One or 2 percent of these flows otherwise

entering the saItchuck, otherwise debased, would mean an export

business running into many tens of millions of dollars a year. Sharing

the net benefits with the transporting company and our provincial

treasury would mean a considerable income to the people of British

Columbia.

Please note, I am talking about fresh water about to enter the

ocean, within a few feet of entering salt water — fresh water about to

be swallowed up in our saltwater fiords, bays, inlets and estuaries,

Another few inches and it's saline, undrinkable, unusable for most

purposes. Catch it at the last minute, pump it into clean transport,

move it by the least-cost method by surface water to thirsty

communities elsewhere. Sell it for human consumption — the

highest-price use for fresh water anywhere. Sell it when there is

little or no energy left in it — in other words, fight at the ocean

level itself. Take something which is wasting and turn it into

something of value, turn a surplus into a benefit. Turn fresh water

entering the Pacific Ocean into an asset both from an income-producing

and a tax-revenue point of view.

I'm not talking about diverting rivers in whole or in part, moving

headwaters from watershed to watershed or otherwise impacting on living

resources — animal and vegetable — in entire river basins. I'm not

talking about large movements of water by canal or by pipeline from

British Columbia to another province or from Canada to the United

States. I'm not raising questions of a broad geographical nature or

difficult questions from a jurisdictional point of view. This would not

be a utility-to-utility type of transaction. These exchanges, this

trade, would be of the nature of spot sales, continuing perhaps for

many years but nevertheless interruptible at relatively short notice.

In other words, we're not about to be tied to other jurisdictions and

not about to make commitments to another nation or another part of the

world which cannot be terminated with reasonable notice.

I support a particular venture here in British Columbia. I support

Coast Mountain Aquasources's plan to export high purity potable water —

drinkable water — to the United States. I endorse the Fred Lake

project, which has been advanced for several years by a young man in

West Vancouver, Colin Beach. I applaud the provincial government for

its courage in stating policy on water exports and clearly defining the

just as it enters the ocean and sold abroad.

Coast Mountain Aquasources Ltd. has a conditional permit now. The

works it constructs must be approved by government engineers. The local

environment must be protected. Local interests otherwise affected must

be compensated. And Coast Mountain Aquasources must pay an application

fee and one full year's water rental assessment in advance of getting

its licence. Hearings, continuous supervision by government engineers,

all costs defrayed, new-found revenue for the provincial treasury: all

these are good news items, not bad. Given the location and topography

around Fred Lake I cannot understand why the member from the Sunshine

Coast, for example, is against it and why the Sunshine Coast Regional

District is opposed to a project of this kind.

HON. MR. PELTON: There's not a great deal to say, other than

to thank the hon. member for the support he has given the program and

to reiterate, as he stated, that the program as it currently stands

does not see the export of excessive amounts of water, but rather it's

restricted at this point to water which would otherwise flow into the

oceans. I also mention the requirement for an upfront payment of up to

one year. That is to avoid an applicant's tying up water without really

having a deep financial interest in what he's doing.

Once again, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for the support he has shown to this program.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, from what the proponent of the

statement has said, he has a lot more information about what has

happened or is happening there than has been made public. All the

public knows is that fees have been set for water licences. We do know,

publicly, that the regional board is concerned about the environmental

impact. We have heard the proponent say that it will be subject to

environmental concerns. We have no commitment from the minister or the

government that there will be any kind of environmental studies done

there; we just hear that it will be subject to environmental concerns.

I have not been able to get any information relative to what effect

the kind of enterprise proposed to go into that particular sound will

have on the marine life there. I have not been able to get any

information on the tidal patterns and the flow of water in and out of

that sound in Jervis Inlet. We have no information, and we have no

commitment from the government — certainly not a public commitment —

that those concerns will be reviewed before a decision is made. What we

seem to have is a quick grab for some upfront money without any real

concern as to whether or not it is going to affect that area. It seems

that the whole concept of that government and the proponent of this

particular statement is "if you can't dam it, sell it, " and that

that's the whole purpose of rivers. I suggest that nature has a much

stronger and broader purpose. I am certainly concerned if this sale

goes ahead without any firm commitments relative to whether or not it

can be cancelled — the duration. That member seems to know what the

duration is. Certainly the public doesn't know; in fact, the contract

has not even been filed. The member has indicated that there is no firm

commitment and that it can be cancelled without any difficulties, I

suggest that once you're supplying drinking water for an area — potable

water — you're in a situation where it's going to be very difficult to

cancel it.

I would suggest, particularly in view of the fact that all the

residents in that area are extremely concerned about what's happening,

that to go ahead with this measure without public input, without

environmental studies and some in-depth review of the patterns of flow

in that inlet and the sound and the sea life.... If we go ahead and

change nature's pattern.... That's what we're doing: changing nature's

pattern. There's no flood control in this; there's nothing like that.

He talks about this unwanted water. Certainly you're not

[ Page

6641 ]

going to have a flood as a result of this water

going down there, and it's been going in there for many years. We're

talking about something like 9,000 acre-feet, which is equivalent to

nine feet of water on Stanley Park. I am extremely concerned.

MR. DAVIS: I can understand members opposite being concerned

about a project of this kind. After all, we're about to establish a

principle, and I think the principle has to be examined very carefully.

There is some information available publicly. The order-in-council

establishing rates was published some months ago.

Quantities. In the case of the Aquasources applications the

quantities are minute; at least they're minute compared to the volumes

of water in the sound. I gather we're talking about a tanker, a water

carrier of the scale of one of the B.C. Ferries, filing up once every

two weeks. We're not talking about major works — at most a

million-dollar investment in works. Some members opposite might be

concerned about the fact that there's very little employment in British

Columbia in projects of this kind.

I think a tax formula which saw the province sharing in the net

benefits of a project of this kind would make sense; in other words,

there would be an incentive for the project to be more economic, and

the people of B.C. would share handsomely in what I'll call the

profitability of the venture. But it's possible for a development of

this kind on a larger scale, at Ocean Falls and elsewhere, where the

province can in fact obtain in revenue literally tens if not hundreds

of millions of dollars a year.

It's a matter first, I think, of principle, and it should be examined carefully.

Certainly the environment has to be protected, and we all have to know more

about projects of this kind But, I think, in principle it's sound. It's

a resource that's going to waste. It's not going to tie us to other

markets, because the alternative available there is simply reprocessing waste

waters — and I'm talking about, say, southern California — which is now

being done. It's expensive. We can supply better water much more cheaply;

and here is an opportunity, and I think we should take advantage of it.

EROSION OF GOVERNMENT SERVICES

MS. BROWN: First I would like to express my regret that none

of the ministers responsible for the delivery of human services in the

province — neither the Ministers of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs.

McCarthy) nor Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) — are present. I notice the

Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) is here, and I appreciate

that, because all of these ministers contribute to the safety net which

we all need as a society.

The welfare state, as we call it, is under heavy fire, and therefore what has

been described as the safety net is starting to disintegrate. Maybe we should

look at a definition of the welfare state; and the one I think meets that best

of all is the one of the former Prime Minister of the Netherlands, Joop den

Uyl, who said that the welfare state is a constitutional system which follows

four basic principles. First is the protection of the individual against the

risks of modem industrial society, such as accidents at work, unemployment,

illness and disability; that's the social security component. Second is

the provision of facilities which every individual needs to be able to function

in society, such as education, health care, housing and food; and that's

the social provision of the state. Third is the promotion of individual well-being,

to enable people to pursue their aspirations and take

part in the politics,

culture and sports of a society. Fourth and finally is the equality and promotion

of a fair, equal and righteous distribution of income.

Mr. Speaker, when we look at the history of the development of the

safety net and the welfare state in Canada as a whole, we find that

from Confederation to World War I the basic provisions of relief, of

care of the insane, the disabled and neglected children, and of the

incarceration of lawbreakers took place. Any further social services

were provided to the community through the church and through private

charities. Under the BNA Act all state social services were supposed to

be the responsibility of the provinces, although in practice local

private agencies and individuals administered these programs.

From 1914 to 1940 the first pieces of compulsory social insurance,

such as the Ontario workers' compensation act of 1914, took place, and

we saw the true development of the safety net. This was in no small

part due to the involvement of the so-called Ginger Group of the CCF,

led by Woodsworth, who participated in no small measure in this,

[10:45]

Two important events which pushed forward the development of this

were World War II, with the pensions and rehabilitation for widows,

families and injured services, and the Depression with its unemployment

insurance, which became a necessary solution to social and political

pressures. Between 1941 and 1945 the development of the safety net and

the welfare state to provide economic and social stability in a

post-war world continued. This included medicare, the Canada Pension

Plan, the Canada Assistance Plan, family allowance, old age pension and

hospitalization.

Then, Mr. Speaker, from 1975 we began to notice the disintegration

of this net, which had been put together so carefully over the years

since the beginning of Confederation.

Whereas the period from

Confederation to 1975 witnessed the gradual development of the welfare

state and government's increasing commitment to providing social

services to the people, in the last ten years we have seen this safety

net start to shred. Holes begin to appear and individuals are now

falling through them, even though churches, food banks, charities,

unemployment action centres and individuals are desperately trying to

keep the strands of the net together.

Anthony Tobin, in a speech to the Privatization and the Public Trust

conference a year ago, said that we were actually entering the era of

the farewell state, a deliberate turning around of the welfare state.

He went on to say that the new wave of conservatism reflected in Mrs.

Thatcher's Britain and Mr. Bennett's B.C. said goodbye and farewell to

state responsibility for the well-being of the individuals that

comprise it.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the budget of Prime Minister Mulroney continues

the fundamental shift in our priorities and makes significant changes

in the notion of the democratic state. We're experiencing cutbacks in

social services, and the disintegration of the safety net must be

understood both in the means and in the ends.

The end, Mr. Speaker, of the disintegration is to restore high

levels of profit to private industry by cutting corporate taxes and

moving money out of social programs into grants and incentives for

business and the private sector. It is the

[ Page 6642 ]

creation of unemployment and the reducing of and

moderating of the demands of workers. The elimination of services as

seen within the government…should not intervene and should not begin to

bolster up and support the needs of workers.

The disappearance of the family support workers, the attack on

education, the erosion of health care, the family and children's

services coordinator, mental retardation coordinators, child abuse

teams, child care counsellors, post-partum counselling — on and on it

goes in the social service field, as well as the move to privatize

everything, including the services for families who experience violence

in their midst.

Mr. Speaker, I notice that my green light is on, so I will have an

opportunity to carry on with this after there is some response from the

government.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to make a few

brief remarks in response to the hon. member's very enlightening

comments about the safety net respecting the welfare of our citizens.

She speaks, of course, of a fundamental problem. Unfortunately it is

too often the case that politicians and governments lack the moral

commitment and will to act decisively for the protection of human

dignity.

That unfortunately is a condition that no one can be blamed for.

It's just a state of affairs, particularly in a society where

materialism has been made to be the god rather than fundamental

principles of human dignity. Because of the motivation to maintain

one's own status quo or protect oneself, politicians have found that by

campaigning and appealing to these sentiments within the electorate,

they can successfully maintain power without delivering on these

fundamental things that the member is speaking of.

I think there are parallels to her concerns in all fields of life.

We have had more and more people demonstrating for peace; 50,000 to

100,000 people will show up on a particular day in order to demonstrate

their desire to see fundamental changes in our way of doing things. All

of these point to the safety net of the future of our future

generations, the safety net that will protect our heritage and our

right to live peaceful, harmonious lives with our neighbours. But that

is the challenge that I hope politicians will begin to take a lead in,

and not simply play on the shortcomings that we've had to endure for

the past hundreds of years.

While I don't propose to have a solution, I do believe that where

there is a will, there is a way. I would just hope that we can take as

good advice the remarks made by the member with respect to the problem.

The safety net definitely is eroding, and as hard times are emphasized

with respect to failing economies, less and less attention is paid to

the more fundamental opportunities that we do have, the resources that

we do have and the achievements that we could make with respect to

enhancing the human situation. I'm afraid that we will continue to have

this inequitability with respect to services available to people that

they certainly should have a right to in this contemporary society of

ours.

MR. STUPICH: The measure of a society should be the way in which it

protects and builds up the safety net that the members have been speaking about.

It's not a question of how many and how large the nuclear weapons that we

build up, but rather of the way in which we collectively look after those people

in our community who, for whatever reason — whether it's unemployment created

by government, sickness, any problem at all — are unable to look after themselves.

Each one of us is making a contribution; each one of us will leave

something behind; each one of us will draw something out of the common

pool. But none of us is making anything more than an infinitesimal

contribution to human knowledge, to the capital that has been built up

over thousands of generations of people: capital goods, capital in

services, capital by way of education, culture, arts; the total

contribution that has been developed by thousands of generations of

people. Each one of us, by virtue of being human, has a right to claim

his or her share of that capital. They shouldn't have to fight for it.

They shouldn't have to starve in our community. We should be prepared

to share. It's theirs as much as ours. We're letting all those people

down. Each one of us contributes to letting down those people when we

let the safety nets that have recently been built up fall apart through

lack of care, lack of attention, lack of determination. We owe every

human being the right to a decent standard of living in our community.

MS. BROWN: I want to thank my colleagues who participated in

this debate, and express my sorrow and disappointment that in the

absence of the minister, the parliamentary secretary responsible for

the Ministry of Human Resources was not concerned enough, or did not

care enough about this topic to participate in this discussion, one

which is of such great importance to us. We need a national discussion

and debate on what is happening to the safety net in our country today.

We find the federal government behind closed doors discussing the

Canada Assistance Plan, with no input from the bishops; no input from

the Anglican Church, which has just tabled its report; no input from

the food banks, the unemployment centres, this government, the

parliamentary secretary, the opposition, the people. Nobody is involved

in this very important discussion that is taking place.

Privatization is a keystone of the new trend in politics, and an

integral part of the disintegration of the safety net. We need to talk

about that. Are we as a society moving away from public responsibility

for our members into private responsibility for them? We need to be

talking about that. Certainly the parliamentary secretary on behalf of

the minister should have had something to say about that. Today, the

people who fall through the safety net of our social services are not

the wealthy or even the middle class, who can take care of themselves.

They are the poor, the disabled, the unemployed, the abused and

neglected children — people who cannot take care of themselves and who

depend on people like the parliamentary secretary for the Minister of

Human Resources to do so. Yet he sits in silence, with absolutely

nothing but contempt for the group he is supposed to represent.

Have we as a society forgotten our pledge to provide for people in

need? Are we no longer concerned with the prevention and removal of the

causes of poverty? The more we continue to eliminate social services

and the greater the disintegration of the safety net, the poorer all of

us as a society become. That's why it is so important that this message

should go forth, not just to the Minister of Human Resources, not just

to the parliamentary secretary, not just to the Minister of Health and

the Minister of Education and the other ministers involved in the

development and design of a safety net for us; it should be a national

discussion and a national debate. If we want to see how poor a society

we can

[ Page

6643 ]

become, all we have to do is look at those societies and nations that are trying to survive without a safety net.

In conclusion, I would once more like to say that if there is

anything at all that the opposition can do to get the parliamentary

secretary and the Minister of Human Resources to take this issue

seriously, we would very much be willing to do so.

VICTORIA, OUR CAPITAL CITY

MR. REYNOLDS: The city is one of man's greatest creations. It

binds together in common purpose the aspirations and efforts of its

citizens. A crucial part of civic strength has always been civic pride.

It takes many forms: a quickening of the heart when one is away from

home and hears that familiar name, a willingness to defend its good

reputation and an open appreciation of the success of fellow residents.

Today in Victoria, Mr. Speaker, we find all around us strong

evidence of the civic pride Victorians hold in their city. Victoria has

witnessed progress and growth in ways unique to our province, and in

harmony with the special character of one of our most distinctive

cities. The true spirit of Victoria recently broke through with an

intensity that surprised even the most optimistic of citizens when Canada I sailed

through the sun and spray into the Inner Harbour. Ten thousand

supporters, at least, were there to greet that beautiful ship. That day

was dramatic proof of the pride and confidence Victorians hold in their

city. Having Canada I based

in Victoria, Mr. Speaker, will pump $5 million into the local economy.

An additional $1 million will be spent by another syndicate as a result

of training in the area.

[11:00]

Also on the waters off Victoria, Mr. Speaker, we have the Island

Jetfoil. Rapid travel between Victoria, Vancouver and Seattle is now

available on this remarkable hydrofoil. The Spirit of Friendship

and its sister ships will provide the most exciting and scenic rides in

all of North America. Next summer, Victorians and Seattle residents can

truly say that their Expo 86 experience began on a high-speed voyage

aboard the jetfoil.

The jetfoil service complements our existing excellent ferry system.

The ferry system has grown in strength ever since W.A.C. Bennett began

the ferry system in 1958 with two ships, thus defying all the

predictions of failure made at that time. The continued excellence of

the ferry system has been further assured through capable management,

which in 1984 was able to cut the system's deficit in half. Many of the

people who will travel to Victoria by jetfoil, ferry and airplane, such

as Air B.C.'s floatplanes, will be attracted by B.C.'s many natural and

man-made attractions. This will especially be true as we enter the year

of Expo 86.

Expo 86 will attract many thousands of visitors to see, on display,

the latest advances in transportation and communications, our expertise

in forestry, mining and fishing, our sophisticated service industries,

our native heritage and our natural beauty. For our out-of-province

guests, Mr. Speaker, no trip to Expo could be truly complete without an

excursion to Vancouver Island and to Victoria.

For Victorians, tourism is not only a livelihood but a stimulating part of

their city's cultural and social life. Victorians welcome the opportunity

to host the thousands who come to share briefly in the area's bounty. They

are super hosts, Mr. Speaker, who take pride in showing visitors the many charms

of their city. Statistics bear out Victorians' pride: Victoria was visited

by over two million people in 1984. That was up 7 percent from 1983. One-fifth

of all the tourists to British Columbia stop at some time in Victoria. For the

first ten months of 1984, Victoria had a hotel occupancy rate 6.7 percent higher

than in a comparable period in 1983. That increase was almost 3 percent higher

than that of hotels throughout the rest of the province.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

Much of Victoria's success is a result of expert salesmanship, both

in and out of the summer season. Indeed, significant efforts have been

made to boost off-season visits. One example was the Victoria Doubles

your Pleasure campaign, which ran from February I to April 28 of this

year. Hotels offered two nights for the price of one, and San Juan

Airlines, Air B.C. and Island Jetfoil all offered discount rates. The

discount packages boosted the value of the American visitors' dollars

to $1.80, a clear incentive to visit the Island and visit Victoria.

The promotion of the campaign stands as a good example of private

and public cooperation. The program organizers approached the Ministry

of Tourism for matching funds for the program. The ministry agreed and

matched the $37,500, which had been raised by local businesses in less

than a month.

Local area businessmen have also cooperated in bringing together

money and volunteers on the Islands 86 project. This is exactly the

kind of private initiative which best showcased the confidence

residents have in their region. Interesting events associated with the

Islands 86 project include a sail around the island, races for all

kinds of water and aircraft, and a special Pacific Opera festival in

June 1986. The Islands 86 project hopes to attract an additional

400,000 tourists to the island, thus adding $50 million to the cash

registers of local businesses.

It is this kind of forethought that creates the jobs and maintains

the existing ones. Many other projects to attract tourism to the area

have been initiated by the greater Victoria Chamber of Commerce. Mr.

Speaker, we all should applaud the efforts of Mr. Brian Small, the

general manager of the Chamber, for the great job he does in boosting

Victoria. You won't find an individual who does a better job in any

chamber in all of Canada.

The Greater Victoria Visitors and Convention Bureau, the Tourism

Association of Vancouver Island and the new Expo 86 committee, headed

by Robyn Johl — virtually all of the organizations and the agencies

concerned with tourism in Victoria — have agreed to pool their efforts

to establish a single agency which will coordinate tourist and

convention promotion. This important development will allow for more

efficient and productive use of the city's promotion dollar.

What does sometimes distress me, Mr. Speaker, is that many

Victorians, who are proud of their city, occasionally hesitate to

express themselves. Every day they have foisted upon them the

pessimistic ramblings of a few nay-sayers.

Victoria has a great deal to look forward to, Mr. Speaker, as it

emerges as a prominent city in Canada and on the Pacific Rim. In many

ways Victoria has prospered because the provincial government has taken

as great an interest in its capital as it does in all the cities in

British Columbia. The measures forthcoming in this year's legislation

are evidence of the provincial government's concern. I support these

initiatives, Mr. Speaker, because I know they will help to foster

[ Page 6644 ]

the pride every Victorian feels in the city.

Furthermore, I am sure Victorians would join me in supporting the

creative development of their city and our capital.

Mr. Speaker, when I talk about Victoria I can't help but mention the

announcement by the federal government of the $8 million to $9 million

expansion of the Victoria airport which is certainly going to benefit

all Victorians and all Canadians as we approach the Expo 86 year.

In closing, I would just like to mention that last evening a number

of MLAs from both sides of the House, the second member for Victoria

(Mr. Blencoe), the member for Surrey, the member for Vancouver South

and I were knocking on doors in Victoria for Oxfam. I couldn't help, as

I knocked on all those doors, but see that spirit of Victoria. The

great support that they gave to that very worthwhile cause was shown in

the support they have for their city.

MR. BLENCOE: I'm glad I've got the opportunity to respond in general terms to what's happening in Victoria and how we see it.

Mr. Speaker, over the last two or three years this community has

been ravaged by the policies of this provincial government. There's no

other community quite like Victoria in terms of the effect of the

incredible, ridiculous austerity program that the government has dumped

on the province of British Columbia.

This community has been ravaged, and we see no positive alternatives

coming forth from this government. We have had studies done on

industries that have closed; and I refer to the Oakland fish plant, a

plant that was deemed viable by the government study itself, which

indicated that it could open as a cooperative in Victoria to produce

300 to 400 jobs. It needs leadership; it needs goals and objectives set

by this government for the city of Victoria. That study has sat on the

shelf and nothing has happened.

The harbour, Mr. Speaker, is a real asset to this community, and we

need, in conjunction with the city council and some leadership from the

provincial government, some objectives for industry on that harbour and

in Victoria in general. The Oakland fish plant is failing apart.

Nothing is happening. This government isn't putting any pressure on the

Japanese company that refused to participate or negotiate in the

selling of that plant to fishermen to form a cooperative. This

government lacks leadership.

We need a convention centre in the city of Victoria. City council is

unanimous on the situation. City council has asked over and over again

for this provincial government to participate in a convention centre

and provide the funds. The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis),

unfortunately, has left. It's been proven that a convention centre will

work here. It will bring many jobs here, and it will be a boon to this

economy in British Columbia. Thus far we have had no commitment from

this provincial government to bring this important new addition to our

economy to support it. Nothing has happened at all. Benign neglect.

We hear nothing being said by this provincial government, and I will

say it today. We have seen such things as Dynatek come and give all

sorts of false hopes to the citizens of Victoria. Many leading friends

of this government were involved in that particular aspect, and indeed

are involved in the IEC controversy and fiasco in this city. We see

nothing happening there. Basically, all they are is tax dodges and no

real jobs in Victoria. The IEC thing is an absolute scandal. I want to

know if this provincial government.... In particular I am glad to see

the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) sitting here. Is he taking a look

to see what is going on with the IEC scandal? We read again this

morning that VMD equipment is being confiscated. You can't find these

so-called leaders of industry who are supposed to be bringing all these

jobs to Victoria. We can't find them to talk to them. We don't know

what they've done with the millions and millions of public tax dollars.

These are supposedly the very things that the member for West

Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Reynolds) and his associates are going to do

for Victoria. All they do is give false hopes in this city: turkeys

that won't fly, if you will.

We've got plants like the Oakland fish plant that can operate and

provide jobs, and this government won't do it but associates itself

with some of these other kind of operations that come to town which

really are just tax dodges and real estate scandals. That's what they

are, and that's what is happening. This is what this member talks about

in terms of his friends and his associates and what they back. There's

a well-known realtor in this town, Cedric Steele, who associated

himself — a well-known Socred — with IEC. He promised this town.... He

said: "Oh, this is upfront. This is an honest operation. It's going to

provide hundreds of jobs." There was no.... It wasn't like Dynatek.

These are the kind of people this member wishes to associate with — a

well-known Social Credit member in this riding. Where is he today? We

know what we have now. We have a situation with IEC that needs

investigating. These are the things that this member wishes to bring to

the city of Victoria. I've given you alternatives like Oaklands that

can provide jobs, but nothing is happening.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, I'm not surprised at the reply

from the second member for Victoria. Instead of talking about the

positive things that are happening in British Columbia and Victoria, he

stands up and uses his privileges as an MLA to slander some good

members of our community. He wouldn't dare walk outside the doors and

use some of that language, but inside here he's got a big chest and a

big voice. He doesn't want to talk about the Victoria Plywood co-op

that workers in this community got together and reopened — a positive

happening. He wants to talk about a fish plant....

I mentioned to him before in this House, Mr. Speaker: why can't he

get the union workers together, get a cooperative going, and get that

fish plant going again, if it's that good a business? The workers in

the Victoria Plywood plant, working in cooperation with this government

in British Columbia and other people, got that plant going. But no, no,

not this member. He only wants to knock everything. Nothing positive

ever comes out of his mouth.

MR. BLENCOE: Convention centre.

MR. REYNOLDS: He wants to talk about a convention centre.

Well, he should know, Mr. Speaker, if he's the member for Victoria,

that there are people looking at the Songhees for a convention centre

with private enterprise. But, no, no, he wants to put a government one

in. Let the government put the convention centres in; let the

government put up dollars. Maybe private enterprise can do it, and

maybe there will be a convention centre before the next little while.

Knock it, knock it, knock it. Don't talk about anything positive; talk

[ Page

6645 ]

about all the things that are happening that are bad — no positive alternatives at all.

I think it's just a shame. At least when I was talking about

Chemainus, the member who represents it got up and said positive things

and agreed. One of the reasons I've taken this approach in this private

member's statement is to get some of the positive things that are

happening. Unfortunately the member, in his own constituency, can't

stand up and talk about any positive things that he's done.

Interjection.

MR. REYNOLDS: He wants to talk about convention centres. Well, when the convention centre's time comes, it will be there, Mr. Member.

You want to stand up here and attack individuals. It's so typical of

the New Democrats — not all of them, but some of them — to attack

individual people who have no defence. People out there in the business

community are trying very, very hard to make things go and aren't

always successful. But they don't deserve those kinds of personal

attacks in this Legislature from any member from any side. It's

embarrassing for me, as a member of this Legislature, to have to go out

and apologize to those people for the conduct of some members of this

House when they take that personal approach and attack individuals who

have Victoria and Canada and British Columbia at heart, who are trying

to create jobs for people but who have to put up with this kind of

nonsense and this kind of attack from this member.

[11:15]

Mr. Speaker, the money that's being spent by the federal government

on the airport in Victoria, millions of dollars to upgrade it....

Heaven knows it needs it, and it's finally being done, because we've

got a federal government that makes decisions. It's not a Liberal-NDP

marriage like in Ontario or other areas of this country, Mr. Speaker,

or in the federal government; it's good free enterprise working.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Pursuant to orders of the day, the fourth item — the second member for Vancouver East.

FOREIGN STUDENTS

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to talk today about the

question of foreign students at our universities and how I see them as

an asset to the other students who are there, to the nation and to the

world, and how disturbed I am by the campaign by the member for North

Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) against these students. I would argue

that not only is member taking too narrow a view on this matter, but

worse than that, he's reverting to some of the disturbing views of an

earlier era with respect to Orientals that's still a blot on our

history here in British Columbia.

When I went to the university at UBC, one of the special things

about that place was the opportunity to meet with other students from

around the world, particularly from the Commonwealth in those days. We

were all able to learn together; we were all able to socialize and to

understand the different cultures that we came from. I believe we came

out of that a more thoughtful people, a more understanding people and

more tolerant citizens.

I perused the statements from the member from North Vancouver's speeches

and his letters to the editor in the recent past, and I don't get that kind

of impression from him at all. He mainly talks about the numbers of these students

in our society. He mainly talks about the fees and the dollars, and he shows

a concern about people with a different skin colour.

What is the number of visa students on our campuses? At UBC it's

about 1,019; at Simon Fraser about 2,400; at UVic about 300. The range

is from 3 percent to about 9 percent, depending on the campus — hardly

a takeover of the campuses. Beyond that, Simon Fraser set a quota of 7

percent and a 10 percent limit in a couple of faculties. Foreign

students now pay, on a couple of campuses, two or two and a half times

the fees that Canadians pay.

In tougher times there's always a tendency to go after those who are

less able to defend themselves, and it's usually shortsighted. In a

letter to the editor of the Province on May 10, 1985, the member for

North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) said: "Have you visited our

campuses lately? One of every three students is of Asiatic origin." And

then he said: "Soon, if the school enrolment trend is any indication,

it will be 50 percent." What he doesn't seem to understand is that most

of those students he sees on our campuses are Canadians. They are

Canadian citizens. That betrays something else, I think — the concern

about people of oriental background being on campus. That's not the

question. These are, primarily, our fellow citizens. Those kinds of

statements I've been reading have a smack about them of an earlier era

in this province, when along the west coast there was talk about fear

of the so-called Yellow Peril. I see that as a blot on our history, and

I see these statements having some similarity.

I note that in a letter to the Times-Colonist in March of

this year the member said: "Some academics argue that 'foreign

students' enrich the learning experience of Canadians. Maybe, but most

don't mix well, and we have tens of thousands of landed immigrants.

Their cultural impact is significant." That takes it even further and

betrays an attitude of mind that is disturbing indeed.

I believe that we're enriched by these many cultures that now make

up our country of Canada. I think we're especially enriched in British

Columbia where the diversity of cultures and colours is greater than in

the rest of Canada, and the riding I come from is probably the most

diverse in the nation. I enjoy that; it's part of my life and my

community.

I think we should go one step further with foreign students in

British Columbia — the visa students. I think we should be offering

scholarships for them. We should be bringing the brightest and best

here from around the Pacific Rim. We would all benefit from that. I

think we'd benefit far more than sending the trade missions we've just

sent abroad to the Pacific Rim. We would be building linkages for

generations which would benefit us all.

MR. DAVIS: I welcome this opportunity to talk about foreign

students. I would differentiate between foreign students and landed

immigrants. I would distinguish between students who are properly

called visa students and the rest of our school and college community.

My concern has been about foreign students — visa students.

Statistics Canada tells us that 95 percent of those properly

identified foreign students come from well-to-do circumstances. They

are able to pay. They are able to pay in other countries; and, indeed,

in most countries — certainly in most universities in the United States

— they pay average costs and are not subsidized. I don't believe that

people who come of their own volition from other parts of the world

should be subsidized by British Columbians.

[ Page 6646 ]

1 agree with the second member for Vancouver East when he says we

should have a system of scholarships. I think we should have a policy;

we should be upfront; we should decide whether we want or, more likely,

how many foreign students we want here on a subsidized basis and then

bring them here using scholarships which pay average costs. Then we

know we're getting students here on the basis of their ability, not on

the basis of the wealth their parents have. Many people are coming here

in an opportunistic way to get an education on our campuses largely at

the expense of the B.C. taxpayer. I think that would put the whole

issue up front. It would deal with it properly and deal with it,

hopefully, on a non-racial basis, but it would certainly benefit those

who had proven they were capable or best able to benefit from the kind

of education they can get from our institutions of higher learning.

The hon. member has made reference to Asian students. I was careful

in my earlier letters not to make any reference to race or area of

origin whatsoever, but I was responding to Mr. Crawford Kilian, who had

proposed a massive program to bring students from Asia to British

Columbia, and I was drawn into the debate which he generated.

I'll stress again that I'm not talking about landed immigrants. I'm

talking, certainly, about foreign students who are brought here to get

grade 12, the last year of high school education, often exploited by

some newly created.... Call them private schools. They are selling,

really, a low-cost university education. They're charging full cost for

grade 12 and then doing their utmost to get those students into our

university and college system.

The essence of my concern is that we're subsidizing foreign

students, and I'm underlining the word "foreign." I don't want to refer

to any country or area of origin. We're subsidizing foreign students.

We are intent on helping foreign students. Let's have a scholarship

program. Let them earn their way, prove their worth and be here at our

expense, but with a policy, a program, that everyone understands and

everyone can defend.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The first member for Vancouver Centre, for 40 seconds.

MR. BARNES: That leaves me very little time, other than to

say it's ironic that the member who just took his seat speaks about the

foreign student complement in the universities. If I may, I would like

to read a letter to the editor that this member wrote recently about

multiculturalism. It's entitled "Multi Mess":

"Multiculturalism is a mess. Inevitably. Backward-looking

and divisive, it ignores the fact that culture is high-minded, sensitive and

all-embracing. There is nothing cultural about racism or religious bigotry whatsoever.

"So why are politicians promoting multiculturalism? Simply

to buy votes. They are misguided. For any society to be healthy, its leadership

must stress what its citizens have in common — their hopes, their dreams and

their future. Governments should not ask us to pay taxes to promote our differences.

There are enough social, racial and religious biases in Canada already."

The point is, the member....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr. Member. Time is up under standing orders of the House, as the member is well aware.

The Chair recognizes the proponent, the second member for Vancouver East.

MR. WILLIAMS: I would just reinforce the argument that the

nation and the community is better off because these people have come

here: that is, the foreign students, the visa students and, of course,

the Canadian citizens from very mixed backgrounds and cultures around

the world. The reason I raise this is that citizens from my riding came

to me because they were offended. They saw in those letters the kind of

stuff their forefathers had seen in the past in this area. They read it

that way. They saw it as the old yellow peril argument, and that is

disturbing. That's the way they saw it. So I think that in the future

these things should be thought about very carefully.

The statements in the letters talked about people with Asiatic

origins. The other letter said immigrants don't mix. I find that

offensive, and I think the bulk of our citizens would find that

offensive. We are enriched by these people. We are fortunate that they

come and spend some time with us. In terms of the Canadian citizens, we

are fortunate that their fathers came here and have contributed.

It's very clear, in this community, that they value education very

highly indeed — far more highly than some other groups from different

backgrounds. That explains why the member maybe sees the faces that he

does on campus. That's something else to address. But the way it has

been addressed in these letters indicates to me that it has links with

an unhappy past in this province.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce some very distinguished visitors.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. McGEER: It's our pleasure to have visiting British

Columbia and Canada the Hon. Dr. Damrong, Minister of Science,

Technology and Energy of Thailand. He's the MP for Bangkok and deputy

leader of the Democracy Party of Thailand. He's here with his wife,

Mrs. Damrong; Dr. Vichitvong, director of the Thai Institute of

Science, Technology and Research; Mr. Khun Somdee, the deputy permanent

secretary of that organization; Dr. Wiwat, foreign affairs adviser to

the minister and director of the Canadian studies program at

Chulalongkom University; Mr. Khun Sakol, director of the mosquito

research centre; Mr. Thweewat, the MP for Sakol Nakorn and

parliamentary secretary to Minister Darmong; and Mr. Metee, who is

secretary to the minister.

This delegation has been visiting across Canada, and we're very

honoured to have them in British Columbia and in Victoria as their last

stay before returning to Thailand. I would ask the members to make them

welcome, and to be on their best behaviour today.

[11:30]

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Second reading of Bill 31, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page

6647 ]

CRITICAL INDUSTRIES ACT

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I rise to move second reading

of Bill 31, the Critical Industries Act. May I say that I am pleased

with the quite widespread approval of the critical industries proposal

as it has been announced and as it is dealt with in the legislation

before this House.

I am also pleased with the favorable response to the appointment of

the former mayor of Vancouver, Art Phillips, as commissioner. I believe

I noted at some point soon after the appointment that even the Leader

of the Opposition was generally satisfied.

Mr. Speaker, such consensus as we've had since the bill was

introduced quite some time ago is encouraging, as we put together our

plans for economic renewal and implement our long-term economic plan

for the province, much of which was enunciated in the budget and in

associated measures. The creation of the office of commissioner of

critical industries demonstrates this government's commitment to the

concept of partnership for economic renewal. That's also been

enunciated in a number of ways not associated with this legislation,

but, in this instance, particularly in those sectors of the economy

which have had a very difficult time in the last few years, mining and

forestry.

Both industries, as we know, Mr. Speaker, have been subject to

extraordinary cost-price pressures in the past few years and continue

to be squeezed today despite a firmer demand which is noted in both

sectors. These pressures, we believe, require a unique response by all

parties.

[Mrs. Johnston in the chair.]

Although B.C.'s economy is becoming increasingly diversified and will continue

to be so in the development of new industries in the years ahead, we must also

take steps to restore the health of our existing economic base and the industries

that are its foundation. Madame Speaker, during the past three difficult years

we've seen that foundation eroded by a number of factors: weak commodity

prices in international markets and increasingly intense competition from third

world producers have taken their toll; mining and forestry operations have shut

down; jobs have been lost. And our communities across the province, particularly

where they are one-industry towns, have home the difficulty to a very serious

extent.

As one province in the nation, we are powerless to control

international commodity prices, but what we can do and what I believe

many are now willing to do is adjust our production costs and become

more competitive.

The Critical Industries Act and the appointment of the commissioner

of critical industries is intended to assist resource operations which

are, on examination, fundamentally viable but which are threatened or

have shut down due to financial pressures. The commissioner's task and

mandate is to bring together interested parties in our resource

operations which are found to be in difficulty. He and his small office

will seek means through which they can forge voluntary partnerships to

renew and rejuvenate those operations.

It is the responsibility under this legislation of the commissioner to examine

all of the costs related to production including taxes, financing costs, labor

costs, energy costs and transportation charges. The commissioner will, as he

has already started to do, sit down with the parties and with individuals concerned

to determine whether in common cause they can reach a consensus on how those

costs — all of them or individual costs — can be reduced to keep and restore

jobs. The process is one of cooperation and of giving and of taking advantage

of the kinds of commitments needed to restore production.

I stress again that the critical industries process will be

voluntary. The process must be initiated by the parties themselves. If

the commissioner determines that an operation has the potential to be

competitive, that a strong enough commitment exists and that all the

parties concerned are serious and sincere in their quest, then he can

and will work with them to develop an economic plan for maintaining or

renewing their operations.

The commissioner's role is to examine all of the elements and

ingredients necessary to make an operation financially viable and to

bring together conflicting interests for the common good. Everyone will

be brought to the table and everyone will be asked to play their part,

because only if everyone is willing to give and to cooperate can we

take advantage of opportunities for renewal in this particular area.

Once the commissioner agrees to an economic plan for enhanced viability

of the operation in question, he will seek the formal agreement of all

concerned, including governments for the concessions required to

implement the plan.

The concept is quite new. It is bold. I am convinced, Madame

Speaker, it is one that can work. It's a vehicle to bring labour,

management, creditors and government and others together for the first

time in a process designed in these industries to maintain and restore

jobs. A critical business may find itself in trouble for a variety of

reasons: it may have a very heavy debt load; its machinery may be

outdated; its contract with employees may restrict productivity; or its

tax burden, whether provincial or municipal, may be too onerous in

light of current market conditions. Faced with such problems, and with

the stress of conflicting interests, such operations find themselves

locked into situations where their ability to compete is eventually

lost, and then jobs are lost.

Until now there has been no mechanism or means through which a

neutral and independent third party could bring these interests

together for that common purpose. The concept will not and cannot be

one where government will simply give handouts on request to operations

experiencing difficulty. In some instances it may well be that the

commissioner — and he will have the authority to engage financial

experts to help him in his evaluation — will determine that some

operations are indeed beyond help; if so, then that will be the

recommendation that will be the decision taken. But more often, where

the parties come to the table and demonstrate a commitment to make

tangible and meaningful concessions to make an operation competitive,

then the chances of survival are enhanced.

Madam Speaker, while the legislation before us is drafted to cover

all industry in British Columbia, no industry will be subject to it

until it is designated by the Executive Council. In this way, the

commissioner will be able to concentrate on those truly critical

sectors. Initially, as has been indicated, the government will

designate mining and forestry, industries which have long been

extremely important to our economy. Firms in these sectors will now be

able to seek the assistance of the commissioner in reviewing and

working out their problems.

This initiative, Madam Speaker, is another major step in our program of partnership for economic renewal; and I

[ Page 6648 ]

commend it to the Legislative Assembly. I move second reading of Bill 31.

MR. STUPICH: The opposition will be supporting this

legislation — in the division that the minister will be calling — but

with something less than unbridled enthusiasm.

The legislation is dealing with one of the symptoms of our economic

malaise, without giving any consideration at all to a real economic

plan for the future or to dealing with the real problems that have led

us into the economic situation we're now in. There's no long-range

planning economically and no long-range planning for industrial

development; it's simply dealing with two particular industries that

have a problem.

The legislation purports to help those forest industries and those

mining industries that have shut down because they have failed. It will

help by attempting to reduce the costs of production for certain

individual industries, without giving any thought at all as to what

helping one industry is going to do to another plant that has been able

to carry on to this point.

The minister says the critical industries commissioner will be able

to engage expert assistance to help him in his determination as to how

he can help certain plants. The total budget for the critical

industries commissioner is $600,000 for one year. One wonders how many

experts, and how expert will be those experts, if the commissioner is

limited to a spending plan of $600,000. We note also that the term of

life of this particular program is two years. There's nothing in the

economic forecast of the budget speech, or the papers attending it, or

of any of the economists of any reputation at all that would suggest

that anything is going to turn around in B.C. In the next two years. So

why the two-year life, why the two-year limitation, other than, Madam

Speaker, the general agreement…? Everyone who has had anything at all

to say about it, except the Premier, has forecast that there will be an

election well within two years. One would suspect that the program has

been designed for political purposes, rather than to try to help

maintain employment. It is shameful, if that's the case. I agree with

the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. Michael).

Also, Madam Speaker, there is nothing in this legislation — the

minister admitted this in his remarks — that will create employment.

It's simply an attempt to maintain or restore existing employment in a

couple of industries that depend for their survival upon their ability

to export resources in their raw or barely manufactured form. What are

we really contributing to our economy if we're helping those industries

that are in a hurry to export our resources — not with a view to

creating employment here, but of creating it somewhere else,

unfortunately?

What about concern about high-grading? I'm not sure what the

Minister of Finance's attitude is, but I can recall a former minister

in a Social Credit administration, Minister of Highways at the time,

saying that we had to hurry up and get this ore out of the ground — he

was talking about the Western Mines development at Buttle Lake — before

it went rotten. Is that the attitude of the government now, that we

have to export this copper lest it deteriorate if we leave it in the

ground? If that ore can not be mined economically in 1985, it will

still be there in 1986, in 1987 and in 1997. Why are we putting our

energies into trying to maintain or preserve or restore employment,

into those industries that depend on exporting jobs to other countries,

rather than doing it for those industries that can create employment

here in the province of British Columbia? The emphasis is on export

rather than on trying to cure our problems here in our own province.

Madam Speaker, what about the concern about highgrading? No doubt

there are companies that could make a go of it right now, with

government assistance, in the event that all the rules were abandoned

as to how they handled a forest resource. What about high-grading in

mining developments? There are ore deposits where, with sufficient help

for a limited period, they could extract that ore and get out of B.C.

and then go out of the business at the end of this program.

Madam Speaker, unless the critical industries commissioner has the

experts available to control the program very carefully, we may find

that we are all being taken advantage of to the detriment of our

economy rather than to its long-range help. It is a short-range

program. It seems to be designed for political rather than economic

purposes. There is no economic or industrial planning that would say

that this program is going to be worthwhile over a long period of time.

It's geared, apparently, for a period to cover the election, whenever

that might be.

What about the effect on existing industries? The minister didn't

mention that at all — the concern that others, who are barely hanging

on, may be put out of business in competition with organizations that

have been helped to revive themselves, at least for a temporary period.

Madam Speaker, I said that we support it, because anything that in

today's climate will maintain any employment at all temporarily, while

we hope the government looks at the long-range problems.... Anything

that will restore any measure of employment in some of the communities

in the province that have suffered so much, we have to try to help. But

as I say, we support this legislation with something less than

unbridled enthusiasm.

[11:45]

MR. DAVIS: I will be brief. My concern is twofold. One is

that we're going to selectively help certain firms — admittedly firms

in difficulties, firms in a few industries — and not offer the same

help or advice to others. It's the opposite, of course, to the free

market approach. But more important, being selective in this way and

offering support to certain export industries is to invite retaliation

from abroad. If we are unwise enough to offer appreciable support to a

number of forest products industries, you can be sure that the

Americans arc going to be looking with considerable interest at the

nature of that support and its duration. They are going to be saying

that this is a definite indication that forest products firms in Canada

exporting to the United States enjoy an unfair advantage over similar

firms in the United States.

Interjection.

MR. DAVIS: The hon. member asks: "Are they saying that now?"

They will be saying it when they have tangible cases, and I assume

there may be tangible cases. Obviously without the legislation there

aren't examples currently. But I assume that if this program is to

work, certain firms which are in difficulties currently — and as the

minister says, have some prospect of recovery — will receive help:

reduced Hydro rates; reduced property taxes locally; conceivably some

renegotiation of labour rates; perhaps some government assistance in

respect to carrying a very large interest burden.

[ Page

6649 ]

Every one of those assists will be looked at very critically by our

friends and competitors, particularly in the United States. I

understand that the government, broadly speaking, endorses freer trade

with other countries. It must, I think, also endorse adjustment

assistance. Firms exposed to new competition as a result of reduced

trade and other barriers, I think, can legitimately under GATT, and

otherwise, receive help to adjust. But unless tariff barriers are being

changed — quotas are being eliminated, and so on.... Unless that is the

cause of the assistance, I'm afraid we're exposing ourselves to some

liability.

So I hope that in the administration of this legislation, about

which I obviously have mixed feelings, we are very careful indeed not

to help firms which are engaged substantially in export of, say, lumber

products to the United States, or, under future circumstances, the

export of certain mineral products to the United States. In a period,

especially a downward adjustment period, in which protectionism is

tending to rise worldwide, which is being resisted fortunately by the

President of the United States in the U.S. but is ever-present there,

we're running a risk; and this risk must be weighed very carefully

indeed in the administration of this legislation.

MR. WILLIAMS: The lack of a genuine industrial strategy in

this province almost overwhelms you. The policy this government has

currently in terms of industrial strategy could be summed up as a two-f

strategy: they will reward the failures — that's what this bill is

talking about — and we have another bill, which I won't talk about,

which is rewarding the foreigner. That's your industrial strategy. Not

very smart stuff.

You're here with a band-aid, when in British Columbia we need a

tourniquet in some areas. The problems that this brings along.... The

member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) says: "This is exactly

the opposite to the free market system." Indeed it is. And this is an

administration that says it supports that system. The whole idea of

that system is to have the goal posts firmly in place. What you're

doing here is providing a whole bunch of people that will pack the goal

posts anywhere.

I'm saying that if this were a competent administration, we wouldn't

be facing this kind of legislation. What we've got here is a little bit

of patchwork to try to get you through the next electoral period;

that's all it is. It's like everything you've been doing over this last

year. Everything is geared to this coming year and the whole business

of getting re-elected. Never a minute is given to the whole question of

a sound, longer term industrial strategy — something that goes beyond

the next election.

I don't know how you can talk to the people that have succeeded in

industry in this province, and say "carry on, boys; all's well, " and

then, in your other pocket, be willing to help foreigners that come in

here, claiming that they wouldn't be here unless you gave them tax

concessions, providing loopholes there big enough for a Mack Truck; and

here, saying, "Yes, we can reduce hydro rates for one but not for

another." It doesn't really fit, in terms of any kind of sound system.

What we're really saying is: if these people don't pay, somebody

else is going to pay, which means the industries out there that may be

marginal now. You push marginal industries closer to the brink by this

policy, and you squeeze everybody else that is a successful player in

the economic system. In that sense, it just leaves a great deal to be

desired.

The forest industry of this province is crying out for a longer-term

strategy; I've made that point again and again in this House, in this

session. We need a longer-term strategy in terms of creating jobs

through value-added. It's very straightforward. The Scandinavians and

others have had programs underway for a generation now. You're not

doing that by this legislation. You're patching up in these two basic

industries of the province. Well, it's not even that.

The member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) raises the question of

high-grading. We already have a problem of high-grading in these core

industries now. This might just encourage it some more.

You know, think about this. This whole idea came out of the Premier

reading a book while he was in Maui. He read Lee Iacocca's

autobiography, and came up with this grand idea while sitting on the

beach in blue Hawaii. It just shows you that a little knowledge is a

dangerous thing. It flies in the face of all the stuff you guys are

supposed to stand for, and here we go.

I wonder if northeast coal might be one of the next candidates in

the lineup. There they are. They're not paying their bankers right now.

They're not paying the interest. Is this a system that can help bail

out the banks? Do we really want that kind of system in place? I think

the banks should take the bath when it's necessary. They've had a lot

of help from governments of various kinds over the years. They don't

need any more help now; they don't need other industries squeezed in

British Columbia. The banks should take their bath when it's due, and

this legislation shouldn't be used to help the banks out. I think most

everybody in British Columbia would agree with that.

The point made again by the member for North Vancouver–Seymour is, I

think, well taken. We're currently facing a very serious risk with

respect to trade with the Americans. There is a protectionist climate

that's very serious indeed. Meetings are going on now in Washington,

D.C. Our old transnational corporate friends have abandoned us. What

has Weyerhaeuser said when it comes to Canadian lumber? They said:

"Sure, we want protectionism, and bye-bye to Weyerhaeuser, Kamloops."

That's the first time we've seen that kind of abandonment in British

Columbia. What about Champion, who are involved in ownership of

Weldwood in the Cariboo? They too, in Washington, D.C., have said:

"Bye-bye Canadian subsidiary. We're looking after number one." The game

is America first. We've never seen that before in British Columbia,

where the transnational companies that operate in British Columbia have

said: "Hey, hey, America first, goodbye Canuck." That's happening now.

We are vulnerable in countless ways with respect to that

protectionist tie. We are vulnerable in terms of our stumpage system.

We are vulnerable in terms of the new system that that foolish Minister

of Forests is still going to put in place in October which invites

retaliation by the Americans. We clearly have before us now a bill that

will spell it out upfront that we're willing to subsidize operations

within British Columbia to keep them producing and supplying people

south of the line. That's just the sort of thing the American

protectionists want to hear, and it will add to that fire south of the

border which could engulf us.

It's a very serious problem indeed, and yet this government — from

the Minister of Forests to the Minister of Finance — does countless

things that fly in the face of it, leaving us totally open and

vulnerable to the charges that are circulating today across the

American south, the American

[ Page 6650 ]

northwest and in Washington, D.C. Those are serious

concerns indeed, and this bill is not going to help us in that regard

at all. I guess a band-aid is better than nothing relative to the

problems we face, but if this administration had not been asleep at the

switch throughout this decade in terms of developing a genuine

long-term industrial strategy for the province, we wouldn't have to

entertain this particular legislation today.

HON. MR. CURTIS: The comments that have been made by the

members for Nanaimo and North Vancouver–Seymour, and by the second

member for Vancouver East, make me wonder if the opposition really....

With respect to the member for Nanaimo and Vancouver East, if they feel

that doubtful about this, why don't they vote against it? If you don't

like it, if it's that poor, if it's that contrary to your view of

British Columbia, then vote against it. Don't damn it with faint praise

— and that word is not used in the wrong way. We hear the member for

Nanaimo say: "Well, we're going to support this, but...." That's but,

but, but, however, notwithstanding, however again, it's wrong, it fails

here, they say. I'm paraphrasing the doubletalk that I've heard in the

last few minutes from the other side of the House.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, we cannot speak about other legislation which is before

us or which has been dealt with. I don't want to be found reflecting on

a vote, but for the second member for Vancouver East to look at this

bill, as he's done with other bills, when he knows as well as we do the

limitations of debate....

[12:00]

This is Bill 31. This is not the budget debate, Mr. Member. For that

member to then say, "There's no plan; there's nothing there," when he

knows that in the budget, in a host of documents and legislation

brought before this chamber this session, there is indeed an economic

plan.... Mr. Member, you've been in this House much longer than I.

Please, when you're restricted to debating one particular bill, don't

say that other aspects of an economic plan are missing because they're

not dealt with in this bill.

This is the Critical Industries Act. It is nothing more; it is

nothing less. With respect to the two-year limitation, the members in

this House will know that a number of initiatives which have been

introduced have a three-year limitation. I refer to tax measures which

were introduced on March 14. It is seen by the government that a

two-year period for this particular effort, this initiative, is

appropriate. Let us see how well it works over two years. That's

reasonable.

I have had contact with a number of individuals associated with the

mining and forestry industries since the introduction of this bill some

weeks ago. I don't hear on the basis of my canvass the concerns which

have been expressed by one or two members opposite regarding this

giving an unfair advantage. Now it may be that some will feel that way;

I admit that. It may be that some firms who are managing well, who are

in a profit situation at the present time, might feel some resentment

towards this particular legislation. I simply say to the House that I

have not heard that criticism. I think that indeed on the contrary, Mr.

Speaker, there are those in the mining and forestry industries who say:

"You know, this kind of approach is worth trying. This kind of approach

has merit." Indeed, what I have heard indicates that they support it.

I note the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis), regarding

protectionism, and also the second member for Vancouver East (Mr.

Williams), the possibility of unfair advantage.... I can assure the

House that indeed the commissioner, Mr. Phillips, and the government

are very much aware of that potential danger in terms of this

legislation. We have discussed it at length. I have spoken about it at

length. I am satisfied that we can avoid that which none of us would

not want to experience in that regard.

I think it is appropriate legislation for this particular time as we

move into recovery. At the risk of being ruled out of order by the

Chair, having given him a little bit of advance notice, I do think that

to the extent that the people of British Columbia can view the broad

picture —

whereas the people opposite cannot — they see this as another

key part of a very impressive and promising industrial strategy for the

province of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 31.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

Bill 31, Critical Industries 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. NIELSEN: Second reading of Bill 47, Mr. Speaker.

NOTARIES AMENDMENT ACT

HON. MR. SMITH: In introducing this bill for second reading I

would add that I did discuss having this one today with my opposite

number. I'm sorry if it surprised you. I understood it was all right.

Interjection.

HON. MR. SMITH: No, I'm not. I'm just trying to facilitate

the business in this field that he and I share. I assure you we weren't

trying to sandbag any arrangement.

The Notaries Amendment Act is mostly to set up the Notary Foundation

so that the money earned on general clients' trust accounts for

notaries will be able to be used for public purposes of legal aid and

research. I spoke on this quite thoroughly in the introductory remarks,

and I'm not going to go over them here today. There are some other

amendments under that act which have to do with custodian of a notary's

practice, some regulation-making powers, the transfers of notaries'

practices to other notarial districts without the application and

waiting-period that used to be required and giving the society the

ability to suspend a notary and to move quickly in extreme cases of

gross misconduct.

I rest my remarks and will speak in response.

MR. LAUK: The opposition has gone through the notaries bill, and we're of the view that it's supportable and will take that position.

HON. MR. SMITH: I close debate on the bill.

[ Page 6651 ]

Bill 47, Notaries Amendment Act, read a second time and referred to

Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of

the House after today.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Second reading of Bill 33, Mr. Speaker.

CHARTER OF RIGHTS AMENDMENTS ACT, 1985

HON. MR. SMITH: This is a very important bill, and in moving

second reading I appreciate the supportive comments I've heard from

members on both sides of this House for bringing in what we think is a

good first set of amendments to our laws to allow them to conform to

the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I think it's vital in our

parliamentary system of government, where we have a new constitution

which has very much changed our way of doing things, that the

Legislature play a key role in defining and protecting the rights and

freedoms of our citizens, and that we don't just leave this to the

courts. The continuing review of our legislation, which will be the

joint responsibility of my cabinet colleagues and me, will, I am sure,

result in further legislative amendments.

[12:15]

The first package in Bill 33 contains more substantive reforms to

the statute base of the province than any other charter series of

amendments that I've seen to date in the country. The bill, of course,

focuses on the most obvious areas where reform is primarily necessary

in the light of

section 15. More than 50 provincial enactments are

amended. I think all of those amendments are justifiable on policy

grounds. I don't feel that in passing them we're just slavishly doing

things to meet the charter. I think that they all can stand on their

own two feet from a policy point of view.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

There are, of course, major areas of disagreement and uncertainty

left with respect to the ultimate impact of

section 15 and of the whole

of the charter. There do exist differences of points of view on

subjects such as mandatory retirement. It seems that the charter will

he raised time and time again in the area of our driving legislation.

But we are addressing some very important areas of inequality before

the law in the charter amendments here.

I'll just summarize them; I'm not going to deal with them in great

detail, but I'll summarize them. First of all there are those that

remove discrimination on the basis of sex: the removal of obsolete

barriers to the adoption of a surname of a husband or wife for either

partner and their children which we've done in this act in conjunction

with amendments, that are also before the House, to the Vital

Statistics Act; the removal of distinctions in law between property

rights of men and women; and the removal of less obvious forms of

discrimination — the restriction on the right of hairdressers to cut

men's hair, the extension of benefits under the Workers Compensation

Act to widowers as well as widows and the limitation on the rights of

the sexes based on residency alone.

A second important area of reform, Mr. Speaker, in the bill removes

any distinction in law between children born to married persons and

those born to unmarried persons. So I think that we have hopefully

eliminated now not only the concept of illegitimacy but the language

which continued to linger around, enshrouded by an era in the past.

The bill also removes discrimination in various statutes on the

basis of residency status and restrictions on the right of residents to

pursue work of their choice and to receive certain benefits. In

addition, certain rights of Canadians granted to British subjects are

removed but are extended to all permanent residents of Canada.

Bill 33, I might also point out, restores the 24-hour roadside

suspension provision for impaired drivers. That very important power of

police officers to remove impaired drivers from the road was struck

down several months ago by the British Columbia Court of Appeal on a

charter argument. We have moved, then, to re-establish the authority of

police to deal with the less serious cases of drinking and driving

without resorting to expensive and time-consuming criminal proceedings.

I will be moving some minor amendments to Bill 33 as well, but the

purpose of these is to ensure that the intent of the bill is achieved.

I would like to point out the reasons for the amendment to

section 126

of the bill, the commencement section. That amendment is proposed as a

result of representations made by members of the public and the private

bar. It was not initially our intention to make the amendments

retroactive to April 17 because the sections being amended, in our

opinion, were no longer effective after the coming into force of

section 15 of the charter. For example, child status discrimination was

unlawful in this country on April 17 under the Canadian constitution.

However, a person affected by the anachronistic provisions after April

17 and before the amendments were brought into force would have to

litigate the issue to achieve the desired result. I do not want to

force this cost and difficulty on people when we have already made

clear our intent to amend the law. The proposed amendment, then, to the

commencement

section will allow us to avoid this problem for particular

sections, while still preserving our ability to bring some sections

into force, prospectively only.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, with respect to this bill, we have

some problems with certain sections of it. Overall, we commend the

government for its effort to bring as much of the provincial

legislation as it sees fit at this time into line with the new

constitution. We have some general comments to make on second reading,

and I therefore move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting

of the House.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. SMITH: Committee on Bill 42, Mr. Speaker.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (NO. 2), 1985

The House in committee on Bill 42; Mrs. Johnston in the chair.

Sections 1 to 11 inclusive approved.

section 12.

MR. LAUK: Madam Chairman, I just wanted to ask whether or not

the Attorney-General had thoroughly canvassed this new provision for

interlocutory appeals. On the face of it it's agreeable to us and looks

like an improvement with respect to interlocutory appeals, where a full

quorum had to hear these things from chambers, but I was wondering

[ Page 6652 ]

whether the actual amendment has been canvassed

with the bar and their lordships so that the transition is understood

and the system of the administration of justice is ready for this.

The last point is that I don't.... When will this be proclaimed?

When do you effectively see this being in place for interlocutory

appeals, and will it affect appeals from orders made between the time

of…?

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: This is the court of appeal, yes. Will it affect

interlocutory appeals that may be underway, such as the Meares Island

appeal launched in the last few days, which I take it — the

interlocutory appeal file on Meares Island, and there are other

examples — may not be heard for some time, depending upon the intention

of the parties? Would this new provision apply?

HON. MR. SMITH: The answer to the second question, Madam

Chairman, is no. It won't affect any appeals that are underway. It

certainly wouldn't affect Meares Island, which is now at the stage of a

leave application at the Supreme Court of Canada. It would affect new

interlocutory appeals where leave would be required.

The request for these changes came from the court of appeal, but was

vetted by the court of appeal rules committee. The court of appeal

rules committee consists of the chief justice; Mr. Justices Seaton,

Hinkson and Craig; Mr. Jack Giles, QC; Mr. Don Farquhar, QC; Mr. R.B.

Harvey, QC; and Mr. A.M. Stewart, QC. So it's one of those amendments

that they've requested. It should allow a little regulation of process

in the sense that sometimes interlocutory appeals are delaying actions

and without merit. I guess if you have a lot of resources on your side

— you have a well-heeled client — you can use the appeal procedure to

delay.

Section 12 approved.

Sections 13 to 15 inclusive approved.

section 16.

MS. BROWN: This is the

section dealing with employment

standards. The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Segarty) isn't in, but does

the Attorney-General know anything about this? Okay.

First of all, I just want to say I think that in view of the

technological revolution which is taking place, and more and more we're

hearing about people being able to stay at home with their own little

terminals and work from there, this kind of amendment is certainly

necessary to cover people in that category. We know that it is a trend

that more and more women in particular are going to be called upon to

work in the home with their own computers or with government's

computers. So employment standards coverage for them is very important.

What I wanted to ask, though, is whether this also covers other

workers in the home such as domestic workers, because I know that it

would cover, as it says here, contractors or someone's performance of

work in their own home. That's an independent person working for a

company, as I said, on a computer terminal or something. But would it

also cover domestic workers?

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

HON. MR. SMITH: It wouldn't be within the ambit of a dependent contractor in the Labour Code. It wouldn't be included, no.

MS. BROWN: Would the minister like to consult with one of his

deputies who was trying to say something to him while he was not quite

listening? Because it sounds as though it should. I just want a

confirmation that it does.

HON. MR. SMITH: The advice I gave earlier is confirmed for

the member, because domestic workers wouldn't be doing work in their

own home. They wouldn't be caught by that, so that

section wouldn't

apply to a domestic worker. This is to extend wage protection or other

provisions of the act to home workers, and it's to do so under the

Employment Standards Act. It doesn't have any of the other more

farreaching implications that the member asked me about.

I'm sorry that the Minister of Labour is not here. The home workers,

under this definition, are definitely not domestics, but they are

people who work for an employer or a contractor in their own home. That

is, they typically do piecework.

This provision was previously regulated in the Factory Act, which is

an ancient piece of legislation that has nothing to do with factories.

It has been repealed with its substantive provisions going into the

Workplace Act, except for home workers. So the home workers, as such,

were left in limbo. They've now been put under the Employment Standards

Act, which seemed to be the place to protect them. That's all this

amendment means. I'm sorry I wasn't able to better clarify it for you

earlier.

[12:30]

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Burnaby-Willingdon — Burnaby-Edmonds.

MS. BROWN: As I said yesterday, I'm willing to take on Burnaby-Willingdon, Mr. Chairman, if you think it needs a good MLA.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No reflection on either member, hon.member.

MS. BROWN: As far as it goes, this is an amendment which

certainly is welcome. The people who do piecework in the home need the

kind of protection of the Employment Standards Act, and as the trend

seems to be that there are going to be more people working out of their

homes, this amendment is welcome. However, as the minister says, it

doesn't go far enough. I would certainly like to recommend to the

minister that he suggest to the Minister of Labour that it should cover

domestics, who also work in the home.

Sections 16 and 17 approved.

section 18.

MR. LAUK: Could the Attorney-General explain what kind of mischief this amendment resolves?

HON. MR. SMITH: The mischief is this: that....

[ Page 6653 ]

MR. LAUK: Didn't you read it?

HON. MR. SMITH: I did read it; it's a question of understanding it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you need a lawyer?

HON. MR. SMITH: There isn't one.

What the amendment does is to change the mandatory audit requirement

section 50(

l) to a discretionary one. Apparently the practice now is

that the audit is often being ignored, and we did not wish to order an

audit if it appeared that a question of law was involved and that the

beneficiaries should proceed under the Trustee Act to compel the

official administrator to pass his accounts before the courts. If we

were to do that, this statutory audit would still be buzzing away. We

wanted to be in a position so that we could go the....

Interjection.

HON. MR. SMITH: Yes, absolutely. The Ministry of Finance has

had three audit requests in the last ten years. The costs of audits

will be borne by the ministry.

MR. LAUK: Can't you bring this to the attention of the bar?

HON. MR. SMITH: Well, here it is.

Sections 18 to 20 inclusive approved.

section 21.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, this is another example of the

government taking unto itself the power of patronage appointments. As

we saw last spring, the Attorney-General scooped up the power of

approving the appointment of legal counsel that do work for such Crown

corporations as the Insurance Corporation of B.C. My colleague the

member for Burnaby-Edmonds raised that issue in the House at that time.

Since then we have seen that the power of the Attorney-General has been

exercised.

We have heard rumours to the effect that fund-raising efforts have

been made among those lawyers who are doing legal work for the Crown.

It must be seen that the Crown is clearly not in a place to provide

this kind of lucrative patronage to either members of the bar, or, in

this case, the auditors of Crown corporations and bodies, as in

section

21, adding

section 6.1 to the Financial Administration Act.

This government is trying to maintain itself in office, it seems to

me, rather than to legitimately amend statutes for the better

administration of the public's business. Why is it necessary, as last

spring, for the Attorney-General to have the power of approval of who

is appointed to do legal work for Crown corporations and Crown…? What

possible administrative remedy is that? What kind of improvement is

there to the administration of the public's business? Here again we see

another little amendment under the miscellaneous statutes act that

gives the power to the Minister of Finance to appoint auditors or

approve the appointment of auditors. "Notwithstanding any other Act…no

public body designated by the Minister of Finance shall retain,

contract with, or employ an auditor in that capacity without the prior

approval of the Minister of Finance…." What is he going to do? Has he

got a list of approved auditors, as we suspect that the Ministry of the

Attorney-General has a list of approved lawyers? What does that

approval mean? Does it mean political stripe? It's open to the very

serious criticism that unless these professionals cough up to the

Social Credit slush funds, they're not going to get any government work.

The government, it seems to me, in these times, when it's regarded

by the public with such low esteem on a political basis, should be

making every effort to avoid such criticisms. Instead we see

section

21, which, to me, is a deliberate attempt to blackmail professionals in

the field that would do auditors' work. Last spring, it seems to me, it

was a power ascribed to the Attorney-General to blackmail lawyers who

were of a particular political stripe or contributed in such amounts to

Social Credit slush funds. There are lawyers doing ICBC work, for

example, who have received letters.... Perhaps the Attorney-General has

an explanation of why this has happened. It may be a perfectly

legitimate explanation; I don't know. But lawyers who are doing ICBC

defence work, paid by the Crown corporation, have received letters in

recent months from the Social Credit Party asking for a contribution.

This is as wrong as asking your deputy ministers, as asking your civil

servants or as sending letters out to welfare workers requesting funds

for a private party, the party that happens to be in power. This is a

very serious mischief. The government must answer for ascribing this

power to itself.

There is no administrative explanation. I have done my best to try

to find out what help it will be to the public's business to have

either the Attorney-General appoint legal counsel or the Minister of

Finance approve auditors. Why is this interference there? Why is not

the Crown corporation or public body allowed to make its own

independent professional decision about who should be representing it

or who should be doing its auditing? This, to me, is a serious pall of,

I would consider, malfeasance in public office to have on the one hand

the apparent power of approval of appointment in the political hands of

the minister — like the Attorney-General or the Minister of Finance —

and have, coincidentally a few months ago, these letters go out, in

some cases involving legal counsel for ICBC.

I think that the Attorney-General should withdraw this

section and,

indeed, withdraw the previous

section giving him the power to approve

legal counsel.

HON. MR. SMITH: The remarks of the member in relation to a previous miscellaneous statute amendment are largely opéra bouffe .

The designation power, under the Financial Administration Act, which

the Finance minister is seeking is to permit the rationalization of

auditor services, which in existing legislation is absolutely all over

the lot. The appointment of auditors now in some cases, by statute, is

made by the public body itself, in some cases by the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, and in some cases by Treasury Board.

There are a number of public bodies where direction regarding the

appointment of auditors has not been provided for in the enabling

statute, such as B.C. Place, or where public bodies have been

established without a specific enabling statute, such as the Knowledge

Network of the West Communications Authority. They're done in a

multitude of different ways, without any rationale. If government is

going to acknowledge and assume the responsibility that it has for

Crown corporations, instead of maintaining the sort of fiction

[ Page 6654 ]

that they are a kind of solitary creature which

exists outside of the public domain to do its own thing with a group of

a board of directors absolutely unaccountable to no one but themselves,

but with a licence to spend public money or commit public funds, I just

don't think that's the direction we're going to take in this province

any more. I'm sure that in the unlikely event that the gentlemen

opposite find themselves catapulted into the treasury benches, they

would take an identical approach on this.

As for fund-raising letters, I thought the champion expert of that

was their own leader, who writes billets-doux to the teachers of this

province asking them for contributory lolly and does so with lists that

are obtained for him and his party by the BCTF and are not available to

other members of this House except by using bottle-openers. I'm really

quite amused that somebody got a letter asking for a political

donation. I daresay we all get those. I can remember getting such a

letter from the New Democratic Party. That didn't mean to say that

somebody was putting pressure on me when I was getting government legal

work, which, incidentally, I used to get from the NDP. We have a very

cruel patronage system for legal work in this province. That's why the

firm of Brewin and Morley gets most of the family law work in Victoria.

MR. LAUK: I'm not suggesting the Attorney-General's advanced years would make him a lollipop.

Apart from the pleasantries and witticisms, this letter went out,

and it seemed to be specifically designed to go out to legal

representatives in ICBC. I'm going to ask the Attorney-General to look

into this matter, and if it is happening.... There have been complaints

of some people receiving these letters. They feel pressured; they feel

almost blackmailed into making a contribution to the Social Credit

Party. I want the Attorney-General to investigate this matter and

advise the House, in the fullness of time, whether or not he's

contacted the Social Credit Party and asked them to refrain from doing

this kind of thing — and also examine whether or not this is a form of

blackmail that is offensive. Could the Attorney-General do that?

HON. MR. SMITH: If I were provided with a specific complaint

from a specific individual who received such a letter and was in the

category that the member referred to, then I would most certainly look

into it. But let us just say that the complaint to date that I have

heard is non-specific, to be charitable.

MR. LAUK: Well, the Attorney-General can maintain his

relative comfort. He knows full well that major law firms doing work

for ICBC are not going to authorize me to bring their names to the

floor of the House. I think that the slight smile on the

Attorney-General's face is in accord with what I've just said.

AN HON. MEMBER: Smirk.

MS. SANFORD: Smug.

MR. LAUK: It's a smug smirk from Oak Bay.

I would like the Attorney-General to investigate the Social Credit

Party, not the legal firms that have received such blackmailing

letters, and relieve them of this unsavoury practice that seems to be

only participated in by the Social Credit Party, because the

Attorney-General has admitted that when we were in office, we had the

bad judgment to provide legal work to his firm. We did so simply so it

could never be said that we were discriminating against....

MR. WILLIAMS: He shovelled money off the back of a truck.

MR. LAUK: That's right. I think that the Attorney-General

should at least take his responsibility seriously enough to investigate

this matter and not worry.... All he has to do is go to the Social

Credit Party and ask them for the letters they've been sending out and

to whom, and he'd have his answer. But I'm sure that he has some

contacts in the Social Credit Party of whom he could make these

inquiries.

[12:45]

Section 21 approved on division.

section 22.

MRS. WALLACE: I wonder if the minister would tell us just why

he is changing this definition as he is doing here. Certainly it's a

more detailed definition, but the part that makes me wonder is that

apparently you cannot voluntarily now practise professional forestry.

You are only practising professional forestry under this amendment if

you are getting a fee or remuneration for it. If you're doing it

voluntarily, you are not practising professional forestry.

HON. MR. SMITH: Well, it's an attempt to really be more

precise in the definition, allowing for in technology. An

interpretation of the current definition, hon. member, could conclude,

I guess, that a biologist, an ecologist or an hydrologist advising on

the management of forests, as they frequently do, is engaging in the

practice of professional forestry and therefore would have to be

registered as such. The same, I guess, could apply to a highly trained

forestry technician supervising the regeneration of forests…that have

become rather routine and eminently suited to his qualifications. So

it's an attempt, really, to more closely define what a forester, for

the purposes of registration, does.

Sections 22 and 23 approved.

section 24.

MRS. WALLACE: The rationale for deleting "partnership."

HON. MR. SMITH: It removes a reference to partnership, which

is an unnecessary reference because the

Interpretation Act defines

"person" to include both a partnership and a corporation.

Sections 24 to 27 inclusive approved.

section 28.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, this is a consequential amendment

necessitated by the first

section of this bill, which is the repeal of

the Ambulance Act.

I have some difficulty with this and I'd like to ask a couple of questions, but I don't want to ask the Attorney-

[ Page

6655 ]

General, who really hasn't given very many answers

today at all. So I'd like to ask a question of the Minister of Health,

or two.... As a matter of fact, this is 28, 29 and then there's another

amendment later in this act that I'd like to talk about.

First and foremost, Mr. Chairman, it strikes me in this

section that

this addition may or may not be adequate to make up for rescinding the

Ambulance Act. Can the minister give me some rationale for this number

28?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, the Ambulance Act, as

previously mentioned, is really no longer effective, with the Health

Emergency Act, but

section 28 will empower the commission to provide

certain services appropriate to ambulance work exclusively. It will

also provide the opportunity of allowing, as subsection (3) says,

industrial first aid with respect to the Workers Compensation Act. But

it will provide that the ambulance service of the province will be

responsible for a category of services to citizens. It will prohibit a

person with a private ambulance from advertising or attempting to

suggest that they can perform certain emergency services.

We have a problem in the province today where certain companies have

been licensed to provide a limited service, such as transportation from

hospital to hospital, or home to hospital, but they have been called

upon to respond to emergency situations. We believe it is necessary

that only those services under our ambulance organization should

respond to such, and we find that we have an inadequacy in law to

insist that this occur. So we are simply saying that unless the consent

is received from the commission, they will not have that capacity to

either advertise or offer such se