1993 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 35th 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)

MONDAY, JULY 12, 1993

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 12, Number 3

[ Page 8483 ]

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I would like the House to welcome some relatives of mine from Michigan: Peter Zirnhelt, Eric Zirnhelt and Dianne Teck from the wonderful state of Michigan. Please make them welcome.

L. Reid: With the indulgence of the House, I would like to introduce a young man who was born Thursday evening. He weighs 10 pounds 6 ounces, and I believe that he too can be the next leader of the Liberal Party. His name is Joshua John Gordon Main.

H. De Jong: From the city of Kamloops, where all the action will be and where competition will be at its strongest next month, it gives me great pleasure to introduce Keith Haughton, who is accompanied by his mother Janice Haughton. They are certainly strong Social Credit supporters, and therefore the competition is always strong. I ask the House to give them a hearty welcome.

Hon. A. Charbonneau: I would like to introduce to the House His Worship Mayor Cliff Branchflower of Kamloops, as we celebrate our 100th centennial, and as well, the chairman of the Thompson-Nicola Regional District, Bob Ellis. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

Hon. P. Priddy: It's a privilege to introduce to the House today four people who are here with us: Donna and Chuck Cadman and Linda and Gerald Hartwig. Donna and Chuck are the parents of a son, Jesse, who was stolen from them by murder, and Gerald and Linda are parents of a son who was a victim of senseless violence. These four people are part of the energy of a growing provincewide organization called CRY. Through the courage of telling their stories and through their strength in standing beside other families and friends, they are working to make our communities safer places, and it's with honour that I introduce them today.

F. Jackson: I guess this is Kamloops's day in the sun in the Legislature. Mr. Eric Shishido is visiting from my part of the city. Mr. Shishido is the administrator for the regional district. I would just like to do my little commercial thing on behalf of Mr. Shishido, the mayor and all of us -- and thanks to the member for Abbotsford. One month from now, Kamloops is Canada Summer Games city. Come on down.

S. O'Neill: It's a pleasure for me to welcome to Victoria today Mr. Chuck Marshall, who is visiting us from Chase. He is the mayor of Chase and is here today. Would you please make him welcome.

H. Lali: I too would like to take this opportunity and join my fellow members from Shuswap, Kamloops and Kamloops-North Thompson in welcoming Eric Shishido, Mr. Ellis, Mr. Marshall and Mayor Branchflower, representatives from the Thompson-Nicola Regional District.

Introduction of Bills

ENGINEERS AND GEOSCIENTISTS AMENDMENT ACT, 1993

Hon. T. Perry presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Engineers and Geoscientists Amendment Act, 1993.

Hon. T. Perry: Bill 77 contains amendments to the Engineers and Geoscientists Act which will increase the number of lay members of the Council of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of the Province of British Columbia; provide for the issuance of a limited licence to practising professional engineers or professional geoscientists, engineering technologists and specialists in other related fields; and address some of the concerns raised as a result of the roof collapse of Save-On-Foods in Burnaby in 1988 and the subsequent public inquiry by the Closkey commission.

These latter amendments will allow for the registration of corporations, partnerships and similar legal entities; enlarge the scope of professional supervision by the association; allow for the disclosure of errors and omissions liability insurance coverage; and strengthen disciplinary provisions.

Bill 77 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

CULTURAL FOUNDATION OF BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT

Hon. D. Marzari presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Cultural Foundation of British Columbia Act.

Hon. D. Marzari: The purpose of this bill is to establish the British Columbia Cultural Foundation, an agency designed to encourage private sector donations in support of cultural activities and facilities. The legislation sets out the direction, the terms of reference and the authority for the foundation's activities.

The support and advancement of cultural activities and facilities depend to a great degree on the generosity of private citizens as well as on government. The British Columbia Cultural Foundation will attract contributions by providing full tax deductibility for donations. The activities of the foundation will also help forge public and private sector partnerships and will increase overall support for cultural organizations. The legislation provides for the establishment of local cultural boards to carry out the work of the foundation at the municipal and regional levels.

This will give a local focus for the foundation, allowing donors to contribute to cultural activity within their community.

[ Page 8484 ]

Bill 76 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

PENSION STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1993

Hon. L. Boone presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Pension Statutes Amendment Act, 1993.

[2:15]

Hon. L. Boone: I'm pleased to introduce today Bill 60 to amend certain public sector pension plans. The acts affected are the Pension (College) Act, the Pension (Municipal) Act, the Pension (Public Service) Act and the Pension (Teachers) Act. This bill has three main purposes, Madam Speaker. The first purpose is to make permanent certain temporary amendments that were introduced by regulation in December 1992. These amendments are needed so that the four main public sector plans continue to comply with the requirements of the Pension Benefits Standards Act.

The second purpose of the bill is to implement administrative changes that are needed to meet the federal government's requirements for the registration of pension plans under the Income Tax Act. The third purpose of the bill is to make a small number of miscellaneous housekeeping changes.

Bill 60 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

LIBRARY FOUNDATION OF BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT

Hon. R. Blencoe presented a message from his Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Library Foundation of British Columbia Act.

Hon. R. Blencoe: This bill establishes the Library Foundation of British Columbia. We are introducing this legislation in response to a request from the library community and the city of Vancouver, who are seeking new funds to support the expansion of the Vancouver Public Library, one of the province's most venerable cultural institutions. Furthermore, the creation of a foundation for libraries was recommended by the 1988 ministerial task force on public libraries, but was not acted upon.

The Library Foundation of British Columbia will facilitate and encourage donations, bequests of money and other assets from the private sector and from individuals on behalf of the province's public libraries. This bill will create an important new source of revenue for libraries and stimulate private sector giving. The foundation will manage the donations and bequests, and direct them where they will be of greatest benefit, to assist in development, maintenance and improvement of public libraries and public library services for all British Columbians.

As an agent of the Crown, the foundation can provide 100 percent tax deductibility for donations.

All communities in British Columbia will benefit from the advantages offered by the foundation, as local libraries look for the funds needed to keep pace with changing technology and growing populations.

Bill 75 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

ENVIRONMENT MINISTRY MEMO REGARDING FISH AND WILDLIFE MEETING

W. Hurd: A question for the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks. Can the minister confirm the contents of a memo from Richard Krehbiel, the ministry's northern interior director, in which he describes a fish and wildlife meeting organized by the hon. member for Cariboo North as a "Klan rally"?

Hon. J. Cashore: Yes, I can confirm that, and I would add that I am deeply concerned about the contents of that memo. The issue is being dealt with among senior officials within the ministry, and I will be reporting in due course with regard to the results of that review.

W. Hurd: This senior ministry bureaucrat has stated that the hunters who oppose the government's interim guidelines in aboriginal fishing and hunting are racist. His memo contains references to "Custer" and "Bosnia in British Columbia." What specific steps is the minister going to take today to disavow this memo and apologize to the hunters and fishermen of Williams Lake?

Hon. J. Cashore: I stated very clearly that I have taken steps to deal with this. At present I think it's best not to exacerbate the ill will that can only deepen the conflict that we are trying to deal with in an appropriate manner. I think all members of the House will recognize how serious the situation is and how important it is that we not be making statements that create a volatile situation when clearly the future should be in the hands of those who use moderate language and seek solutions. In this case I have stated that I am gravely concerned about the comment that was made in an internal memo, and we are seeking to deal with it.

The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.

W. Hurd: The member for Cariboo North has suggested that the northern regional director has blown his credibility in anything related to aboriginal hunting and fishing guidelines. Is the minister prepared to ask that staff person to step aside while this matter is being investigated?

Hon. J. Cashore: I believe that all parties, whether they are from the wildlife community, the aboriginal community, the government community or the communities who depend on the healthy economy

[ Page 8485 ]

in those areas, would recognize that it's important that we never accept the concept that something has been blown, as such, and that we seek to find solutions, to find a moderate voice and to address these issues together -- not on partisan lines, but on appropriate lines that look to the sustainable future that we all desire.

U.S. SENATE BILL ON SEATTLE AS CRUISE LINE HOME BASE

C. Tanner: A question this afternoon for the Minister of Tourism. Recently in the U.S. Senate, an Alaskan Senator introduced a bill asking that the port of Seattle be made the home base for cruise lines. What steps has this minister or her government taken to defeat that bill in the Senate?

Hon. D. Marzari: Seattle is a home base for many cruise lines in the United States. If the member is talking about a possible revocation of the Jones Act, I would be pleased to report back to the House on our

interpretation and our policy on that.

The Speaker: The minister has not actually taken that question on notice, and therefore I will recognize a supplemental.

C. Tanner: Supplemental to the Premier. Has the Premier talked to the federal government, the Canadian Embassy in Washington or any lobbyists to help in the process of defeating this bill before it gets too far and takes the cruise business out of Vancouver?

Hon. M. Harcourt: If the member would like to send over the details of that particular bill, we could certainly get back in touch with him.

The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.

C. Tanner: To the Premier again. Has the Premier contacted the new Prime Minister of Canada in relation to this federal Senate act? What concrete action has the government taken to date? It has already been introduced into the Senate.

Hon. M. Harcourt: You can either create economic doom or gloom where it's not necessary, or you can look at the facts. The facts are that we're going to have over 500 cruise ship sailings from the trade and conference centre in Vancouver harbour, which is way up over last year -- which is way up over the year before. This is one of the great cruise ship routes in the world, from the finest trade, conference and cruise ship facility in the world.

PUBLIC SECTOR WAGE COSTS

J. Weisgerber: My question is to the Premier as well. For over a year now, Judi Korbin has been paid the outrageous contract rate of $1,200 a day to conduct her study of public sector wage costs. Can the Premier tell us, to the nearest $10,000, how much Judi Korbin has been paid to date?

Hon. G. Clark: I would be delighted to get the information for the member. Of course, that information is a matter of public record; it would be published in Public Accounts.

It's no secret that the work done by the Korbin commission is very important work which has resulted in two acts designed to control costs in the public sector. Just to give an example, a 1 percent public sector wage increase costs the taxpayers $120 million. Any savings we can make there is more than enough to pay Judi Korbin for the excellent work of that commission of inquiry.

J. Weisgerber: Again to the Premier. The province of Ontario has passed legislation that will cut over $2 billion from their annual public sector wage costs. Bob Rae has introduced legislation to impose a three-year wage freeze and oblige most public servants to take a 12-day unpaid leave. Why has the Premier consistently refused to take any action to reduce public sector wage costs here in British Columbia?

Hon. M. Harcourt: This is the first government that finally decided to do something about the public sector. The hon. Leader of the Third Party was a member of a government that was giving 7, 7 and 7 percent increases to the teachers in this province -- unsustainable. He was part of a government that was giving 10, 12, 13 percent increases in the budget every year -- unsustainable. Now he stands up and asks what we're doing about the mess that the previous government created for the people of B.C. We are cleaning up that mess.

We are getting the expenditures under control for the services the people of British Columbia pay taxes for, and we are finally bringing some order to the public sector that the previous government had running in an anarchic state for far too many years.

The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.

J. Weisgerber: In the five years the Premier was Leader of the Opposition, I don't recall once hearing that public sector wages for teachers, BCGEU workers or any other public servants in this province were too high. Where was the Premier over the last five years, if he didn't like public sector wage increases?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. I call the House to order. Continue with your question, hon. member.

J. Weisgerber: The Korbin report recommends absolutely nothing that will do anything to control public sector wage costs this year. Doesn't the Premier get it? People want government restraint. Doesn't the Premier understand that people want his government to take action today to reduce the size of government and its cost to taxpayers?

[ Page 8486 ]

Hon. M. Harcourt: I can tell the member that I wasn't sitting in a Social Credit cabinet making those expensive decisions like the Leader of the Third Party -- and rightly so, the people of British Columbia decided in the last election.

[2:30]

We have been bringing the expenditures down considerably from last March to this March -- from 10, 12, 13 percent a year to 5.7 percent -- and they are coming down further as we get the finances of this province in line. Secondly, immediately upon the issuing of the Korbin commission report, we are bringing in a public sector act which will finally get some order and control, and some way of dealing with the anarchy of hundreds of bargaining units in this province leapfrogging, whipsawing and setting precedents that ripple all the way through the public sector.

As a government, we are finally bringing the people's business into order.

WELFARE FRAUD

A. Cowie: Ms. Korbin should now come over and work on the problems of social welfare fraud. Maybe we'd get something done.

To the Minister of Social Services. Vancouver Provincial Court Judge E.J. Cronin has stated that there is obviously a need for change by the provincial government in order to combat the millions of dollars lost to social welfare fraud. He suggested a system of fingerprinting. While that might be extreme, has the minister decided to implement a program -- either fingerprinting or photo identity?

Hon. J. Smallwood: First of all, I would like to agree with the judge that there is a problem with abuse in the system. This government is the first government that is acting. Over the last 18 months we have initiated more changes and enhancements than the previous administration did in ten years. We are not only accounting for taxpayers' dollars in the system but also ensuring that the money is going to those most in need. I can assure the member that we are taking the task seriously; we are acting, we have been acting and we will continue to act.

A. Cowie: The minister knows that her budget went up some $800 million this year. Judge Cronin also said that the temptation to prey on the system is irresistible. When is this government going to do something more positive and get this expenditure under control?

Hon. J. Smallwood: With regard to the member's earlier question about photo ID, I'd like to bring to his attention that we have a list of eligible ID. The majority -- indeed, all but one -- are photo ID. We require three pieces of identification from people on income assistance. We are ensuring that people who are providing identification do so in a responsible way, and we support our front-line workers if they have concern in seeking further ID.

I would encourage the member to get his numbers correct. The numbers that he offered on the cost increase to the system are incorrect. The growth in our system is less than we are seeing anywhere else in Canada, because of our proactive stance, the employment and training programs and the support that we've giving people to get them back into the workplace.

FAMILY MAINTENANCE ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM

A. Warnke: My question is to the Attorney General. The Attorney General in the past has acknowledged that there are problems with the family maintenance enforcement program. Would the Attorney General indicate whether he supports the recommendations in the two government studies that put more emphasis on mediation and non-court solutions?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: At the present time we're reviewing the recommendations of a number of reports and doing further analytical work. We have some problems that I intend to address when we're properly able to address the issues.

Presenting Petitions

S. Hammell: I ask leave to table a petition.

Leave granted.

S. Hammell: I rise to present a petition of 10,445 names, presented by CRY or Crime, Responsibility and Youth, calling for the Attorney General of British Columbia to direct the youth courts to apply the rise provisions of the Young Offenders Act so that all those accused of serious violent crimes are tried in ordinary court.

Hon. G. Clark tabled the 1991-92 annual report of the Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1992, in accordance with

section 5(3) of the Financial Administration Act; the 1992-93 annual report and financial statements of the B.C. Transit Corporation for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1993, in accordance with

section 16 of the British Columbia Transit Act; and the statement of unclaimed money deposits for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1993, in accordance with

section 3 of the Unclaimed Money Act.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt tabled the Job Protection Commission annual report for 1992.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Sihota: I wish to advise hon. members that Committee A will be meeting to continue its discussion of the estimates of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs in the Douglas Fir Room.

Hon. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 37.

[ Page 8487 ]

TEACHING PROFESSION AMENDMENT ACT, 1993

Hon. A. Hagen: Bill 37, the Teaching Profession Amendment Act, 1993, makes a number of changes to that act of a miscellaneous and housekeeping nature. All of these changes have been recommended by the College of Teachers of B.C.

These amendments will make changes to the dates for the election of members to the council of the College of Teachers in order to provide continuity on the council and to better enable members to adjust their teaching assignments in advance of assuming office. In addition, the amendments clarify that it is the incoming council that elects the chair of the college council and that the chair is eligible for re-election. The amendments will move the election period of the college council from the fall of each year to the late spring of each year.

This will allow time for those members who are elected to the council to make the necessary adjustments to their teaching assignments before the start of the new school year. In addition, council members' terms will be staggered, providing continuity for members who sit on ongoing committees dealing with discipline, qualifications and teacher education programs. To remedy the confusion respecting the election of a new chairperson, an amendment is proposed requiring that the election of the new chair take place before the newly elected council takes office on August 1.

By way of an amendment to the act, the references to an executive committee will be removed, permitting the council greater flexibility in delegating powers and duties when appointing committees not otherwise provided for in the act. The bill also ends areas of overlap between the roles of the College of Teachers and the B.C. Teachers' Federation. Other amendments repeal transitional provisions that are no longer required, rename certain committees established by the act to more accurately reflect or describe their functions, and change the spelling of School District 92 to Nisga'a, in keeping with the aboriginal name of the district.

With those remarks, I conclude my comments on second reading. I look forward to the remarks of other members of the Legislature.

J. Dalton: I'll comment first on some remarks by the hon. minister when she introduced this bill to the House, which was some time ago now, comparatively speaking -- in fact, it was June 14 -- when you consider the flood of bills that we've been looking at lately. The minister made what I guess is a typical remark when she said that the bill made a number of housekeeping amendments to clarify aspects of the legislation. I'm pleased to tell the House that most of these provisions actually are housekeeping.

This will probably be a surprise to many in the opposition when you consider, as I've already indicated, the volume and complexity of recent legislation -- not that we're going to be looking under every rock and hiding-place, because I think I can assure the House that this bill is relatively harmless. I've consulted with the College of Teachers, which asked for many of these amendments, some of them long overdue. With some safety -- not complete safety, perhaps, but some -- we can describe this as a housekeeping bill. It would be nice if all of the bills from now on were in that housekeeping role.

As one member commented the other day, these aren't housekeeping bills; these are keeping-us-in-the-House bills.

There's perhaps a bit of irony in the last amendment.

Section 91, the last

section of the Teaching Profession Act, is being repealed by this bill.

Section 91 reads that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may make regulations considered necessary "to avoid disruption of education...." I draw the House's attention to that, because not too long ago we were here on a Sunday to finally deal with a very serious disruption in the education system, specifically the Vancouver strike but indirectly other strikes as well, some of which are still pending. I think all hon. members are aware that there are still some unresolved issues in the education system. Unfortunately, many districts may face potential and further disruption to the education process in the fall, and this bill eliminates a reference to avoiding disruption in education.

As the House will recall from last fall when we argued at length the new Labour Relations Code, we in the opposition asked that education be declared an essential service. Unfortunately, as we know, that was never acceded to by the government. Today we find ourselves still in this rather doubtful and very grey area as to the possibility of further disruptions.

I think, as well, that I should draw the House's attention to another bill that I presume we will be dealing with fairly soon in this session -- unless it's placed on the order paper for future consideration -- and that is Bill 78, the new public service act that was introduced just last Friday. The reason I make comment on this is that there's a potential in that bill for the whole public service, including the school districts and the question of local versus provincial bargaining, to be addressed.

[2:45]

However, I perhaps could be accused of straying a bit from the intent of this bill, so I just wish to come back in on the theme that we in the opposition truly feel that education is essential. It is somewhat ironic that one provision in this bill before us is eliminating a reference to a method whereby disruption in education may not have taken place. We'll have to see in future dealings whether subsequent disruptions can hopefully be avoided. But again, we are happy to support the housekeeping features of Bill 37, and I do not feel that there will be any terrible controversy that we can generate from this bill in committee stage. With that I will take my place.

C. Serwa: I don't know if I'm looking at the same bill that the hon. opposition critic is looking at -- Bill 37 -- but if I am, I have a great deal of difficulty with this particular act. It is certainly not housekeeping in any sense of the word. There are a number of things that we will have a great deal of difficulty with in the philosophy and principles. One of them certainly is the staggering of election dates. It seems apparent that the

[ Page 8488 ]

best policy is to have a set date for elections and to stick with that date, rather than spreading it over a bigger field of time. I don't think it's efficient, effective or responsible on the part of government to do this.

Fundamentally, Bill 37 is a knuckling under to the demands of the BCTF. The Minister of Education clearly has a greater interest in representing the BCTF than in the opportunities, rights and responsibilities required of her ministry, which is for the education of our young children so they can become full-fledged citizens, competent in the world tomorrow. The minister has knuckled under once again to the BCTF -- no apologies, not a shred of embarrassment, but doing the right thing for the BCTF.

What we've got here is a major stripping of powers from the College of Teachers. That's what this act does and highlights. It strips powers from a body that was legislated to work on the professionalism of teachers in the system. The minister has no qualms in yielding to the insatiable demands of the BCTF for the complete control of education. I'm actually surprised that we have a Minister of Education, that the government of the day doesn't simply automatically put a BCTF delegate in her seat and carry on in the duties.... That's how strongly I feel that the minister is abdicating her responsibility.

Interjection.

C. Serwa: I'm speaking about the philosophy and principles of Bill 37. I'm appalled both at the actions of the minister in this case and that the official opposition critic hasn't gone through the bill and read it, but simply gives his support to the stripping of the powers from the College of Teachers.

What powers does it strip from the College of Teachers, the body charged to ensure the professionalism and the competence of teachers in British Columbia? It takes away the power to carry out, cooperate in or facilitate professional development programs, whose objectives are to improve the quality of educational services.

It takes that away and gives it to the BCTF -- a body not concerned about public welfare, the interests of education or about children; a body concerned only with the aspect of unionization, focusing completely on that with the strength of its budget, which is $25 million or $30 million; a body which, it is abundantly clear, has worked so hard and paid so much to get this government elected. I suppose this is just another of the broken promises to the people of the province that this government would care and make educational policies in a responsible fashion. They make nothing.

They get their orders and they carry them out.

It also removes the power to carry out, cooperate in or facilitate in-service programs designed to ensure general teacher competence. It takes that away and gives it to the union body. It strips important powers from the College of Teachers and gives them to the union body -- not housekeeping, by any stretch of the imagination.

It also removes the establishment of provincial specialist associations to provide advice on professional development in specific fields or curricula. So that is gone from the College of Teachers. The minister's reasoning on this is that it is only appropriate to take these powers away because, after all, there is some duplication with the B.C. Teachers' Federation.

There may be, but I would suggest that it's becoming abundantly apparent to the general population in British Columbia that this uncaring government is not concerned about the quality of education -- that the words of the minister and the deeds of the minister are in fact two very different things. If I were the Minister of Education, I would be very ashamed of the shallowness in the level of performance, and I believe that the minister must have some concern about compromising the opportunities for our young children in education.

The solution is to side with the BCTF instead of with the professional college responsible to the public. The minister knows full well that the majority of members of the College of Teachers are really appointed by the BCTF, but fundamentally they are charged with a specific mandate, to encourage professionalism.

The nurses have a professional as well as a union organization. They are completely separate entities, both with specific responsibilities: one within the union sector and one with a professional aspect to it. I think it works exceedingly well. Otherwise, there are two issues in close conflict. I think that the nurses are very wise to keep them separate. In this instance, the minister has no hesitation in compromising professionalism for the trade unionism that the government encourages in all sectors of the economy of the province.

By statute, the College of Teachers is responsible to protect the public interest. The BCTF is not charged in any way, shape or form with that mandate of responsibility. Hon. Speaker, you are well aware of it, as is the Minister of Education. They are only charged with one responsibility: the working environment and wages of teachers in the system. I have no quarrel with that whatsoever. I think it does its job very well indeed. But I have a great deal of difficulty when they are writing legislation, dictating to government what happens, and want to have every aspect of education in the province under their direct jurisdiction and control.

For example, we have seen the erosion of the level of funding to independent schools, even though it's costing only half of the block funding we're putting out, and that is because of pressure from the BCTF. We have found that level 3 has no funding whatsoever, and they were at the 10 or 20 percent level, a very low level of the block funding throughout the province. But under pressure from the BCTF, which wants to control everything, the minister has yielded. When will the minister stop yielding? When will the Minister of Education start picking up her responsibility in education and represent the public interest, and protect the interests of students and the future of British Columbia?

The BCTF is a private labour union, which is only responsible for advancing the cause of its members -- that is its singular and primary purpose; there are no other purposes. When we talk about the concern about

[ Page 8489 ]

education and the funding of education, they are only talking about one thing: increasing the wages to the members of their organization. They are not concerned about productivity; they are not concerned about the quality of teachers in the system; and they are not concerned about professionalism. The government is cosying up to them by continuing to encourage them, rather than picking up the mandate of their responsibility and acting in the public interest. They have simply compromised their principles to the BCTF. This government chooses to side with the BCTF, even though they know the mandate of the B.C.

College of Teachers and the BCTF.... They have sided with the BCTF over the college on matters of jurisdiction over teacher standards and competency programs.

This bill, like other bits of legislation that have come before this House, shows clearly where the government's misplaced priorities lie. I think that's very wrong; and I think the public and members of the teaching profession judge it to be very wrong. What we have is the tyranny of a minority over the majority. There are lots of good-quality, professional teachers working under a system that doesn't encourage professionalism. As with other trade union organizations, a group of radicals controls the BCTF.

This government continues to listen to the minority simply because they are vocal, rather than imposing what anyone should see is the right thing to do, which is to encourage professionalism in the teaching profession. They are failing to do that. They are failing to maintain the faith, trust and confidence that they should have acquired with respect to their mandate to represent the public interest and, in this specific case, the minister's mandate to protect the interests of students in the school system.

I was appalled to listen to the hon. opposition critic say he had no problem with the amendments and talk of them as housekeeping ones. The amendments are not housekeeping amendments, because they fly in the face of the mandate and objective of the college.

Section 4 of the college's enabling legislation says that their mandate is to encourage the professionalism of its members. As I said earlier, this bill strips away all of the important tools that they had in maintaining that objective. Is this a big problem? No, certainly not as far as the Minister of Education or this government is concerned, and it's most definitely not a problem as far as the B.C. Teachers' Federation is concerned.

But I assure you that the philosophy and principles of this bill are eroding the professionalism of teachers, and are giving more powers to the BCTF to the point where the Ministry of Education will have no power other than perhaps being consulted as part of the process. The BCTF might as well run the Ministry of Education and we could save ourselves a lot of overhead dollars, because if there's any duplication, the orders from the BCTF to the Ministry of Education are direct and then imposed on the system.

While we talk about teachers' competence and the very high standard among most teachers, it's unrealistic to expect that only 69 out of 35,042 teachers in the province would be fired with cause in 1992-93. This is only 0.019 percent of the total number of teachers in the province. Low as it may seem, it is almost twice the termination rate in 1986-87, before the College of Teachers was created. In spite of being controlled by the BCTF, the College of Teachers has accepted its responsibility, and a higher percentage of teachers have been fired with cause.

It was supportable, and it went through the College of Teachers. The minister is gleefully eroding that opportunity from the College of Teachers. We find it very difficult to accept that no teachers in 66 districts were judged to have failed the system. The ordinary individual in society would find it difficult to believe that there was 100 percent competency. In those districts the teachers have 100 percent job security, apparently, no matter what their conduct in the classroom.

There are a number of problems in education, and this is not going to mitigate any of them. Perhaps there has to be a program that encourages early retirement. A number of teachers in the system have been marking time for the last five or perhaps ten years of their lives, and the children....

Interjection.

C. Serwa: The minister obviously thinks that's funny, but the children are paying the price. The minister should certainly be aware, if she's not, of the incompetency of some teachers at certain points. Trade unionism is doing absolutely nothing to encourage professionalism among teachers. The minister knows that full well. Out of her own self-interest and perhaps the self-interest of government she is bringing nineteenth-century tactics back into the education system.

We were recently confronted with an enormous number of problems in the province when grade 12 students were held hostage by teachers seeking higher wages. I listen to the government talk sustainability when we talk about the environment. In the philosophy and principles exhibited here there is no sustainability, not when the government so readily yields its power, and the power of the College of Teachers, to the trade union. We all recognize that the finite capacity of this world cannot continue to accommodate the infinite demands of any segment of society, be it the teachers or some other segment.

[3:00]

If we're talking sustainability, we jointly and severally have to bear complete responsibility for the recognition that any impact without an increase in productivity diminishes the opportunity for sustainability in a finite world. I'm afraid that this is what the philosophy and principles exhibited in the bill are going to do. I don't believe that this is the time to disempower the one organization in the province that is supposed to examine and maintain teacher professionalism. The victims will once again be the taxpayers and learners of the province.

The final victim will be the teachers themselves, because this act will not be sustainable. The sense of professional pride in their chosen profession will be lessened under the velvet glove, if you wish, of trade unionism.

There are a lot of really excellent and dedicated people in the teaching profession. I know many, and I'm

[ Page 8490 ]

proud to say that a lot of my ability comes from those who have touched me. Those people are invariably teachers in the system, so I owe a great deal to the teaching profession.

Interjection.

C. Serwa: The member for Kamloops-North Thompson feels that the system has somewhat failed me, but I'm very grateful for the teachers and their professionalism.

I think that a responsible government would encourage the mandate and strengthen the role of the College of Teachers. Although the members came out of the BCTF, they were able to change hats and maintain a standard of professionalism. Even that has been somewhat harsh and uncalled for, apparently, to the B.C. Teachers' Federation, who want all of those powers back in their quarter. When I look at the amendments in this particular bill, I can only presume that the next big move will probably be the removal of the College of Teachers as being not required.

The union will look after the professionalism of the teachers as well as the wage structure and continue willy-nilly on its conflict-of-interest enterprise. As I say, it will be the learners in the province who suffer.

If I were the Minister of Education, I would be ashamed of bringing this bill forward. I have no difficulty in saying that these are not housekeeping amendments. The philosophy and principle of this bill are very wrong indeed. All we're seeing is a subservient Minister of Education yielding to the demands of the BCTF. I think that the anger in the province will only increase because of the actions of the minister and the government in continuing to focus on union demands and not caring about the public welfare or public interest.

D. Symons: I have found it interesting listening to the two previous speakers, because we seem to have a different

interpretation of the effect that this bill will have on the Teaching Profession Act. I happen to fall between the two of them on this, because I don't see all the sinister things in Bill 37 that the previous speaker saw. Indeed, I have a little difficulty in following his arguments, because it would seem that he's faulting this government a great deal for the changes that they're bringing to the Teaching Profession Act. I do remember that not that many years ago most of the discipline and certification of the teaching profession were within the purview of the government through the Ministry of Education.

But with the advent of Bill 19 -- again, not that many years ago -- the Social Credit government of the day did indeed change the whole system of certifying and disciplining teachers and all the rest. So I find it rather ironic that this member is mentioning so many of the faults of this particular bill, when all of the ills that we now are seeing, as brought up in this bill and in the original Teaching Profession Act, were caused by the previous government.

C. Serwa: What was your profession?

D. Symons: My profession indeed was a teacher, so I have a perception from the inside. As the member for Okanagan West asked, I have no hesitation in mentioning to this government that I have for many years served -- and I hope, well -- as a teacher in this province. I have not always agreed with my professional organization, which at that time was an association of teachers called the BCTF, but which through the action of this member's government became the teachers' union that he has referred to.

And I was rather surprised at the government members opposite making jokes when the member was referring to this as a teachers' union, because indeed, whether or not they recognize the fact, that is what the BCTF is now -- thanks to Bill 19. They seem to be deriding the fact that it is union. I can't imagine government members, who seem to be very strong pro-union people, deriding the comments this member is making about the teachers' profession being a union. I'm not quite sure which side of the House those members are sitting on.

But I was curious to hear their remarks, because they seemed to be deriding the fact that it is a union. There is no hiding the fact that it is. Whether that was a good move or a bad move depends, I suppose, upon where one sits. I personally think it wasn't a good move, but there are those in the teaching profession who think it was, and that's a moot point that I suppose will be decided by the profession itself over the years to come.

Just as an aside, by the way in which this government has been moving, they seem to be taking the crown from the previous government for teacher-bashing. I suspect that maybe the teachers might decide that the moves made by the previous administration were not so good, and they may want to get out of the union and go back to the way they had it before as a professional association.

But that's beside the point. I have some concerns with this, but by and large, I would say.... I agree with the member for Okanagan West that these amendments were brought in because of requests made by the College of Teachers of B.C. They did have some concerns that they brought to the government, and by and large, the feedback I get from that organization is that these amendments are pretty well what they asked for. It seems to irk the member for Okanagan West that you are, as he would refer to it, giving in to their request, hon. minister.

Looking over these changes that are brought into the act, however, I don't see sinister things in what they're requesting. I would question maybe whether some of them are going to be effective or not. I suspect the reason for going to the yearly voting for half the members of the college board and then the other half in the next year.... Whether that will accomplish what is intended here or at least what they said was intended -- sort of a continuation within the college....

It would seem to me that if you want to do that, you want to leave somebody in office for at least two years so that they can get the hang of what the job is. So maybe they should have it that every two years you elect half of the board and have them in for four years. It might be better than changing them every year. But what they're doing here seems to be rolling them

[ Page 8491 ]

over faster. At least you're only rolling over half of them. So I don't know if that's a good move or not.

I would think that's true of many of the other changes within the act. It depends upon your viewpoint. I don't think most of the changes are as drastic or sinister as the previous member makes out. I find that the ability to discipline teachers who step out of line is still within the College of Teachers; it does not revert to the BCTF. So we do have the independent body. Granted, many of them are elected from members of the BCTF, but nevertheless, it is an independent body that will make decisions dealing with issues.

I think this is the main part of the teachers' college -- that they can deal with the issue of discipline of their members. That is left in their hands; it's still there. With that, I would say that I have some misgivings, but certainly not nearly as strong as the previous member's. And I would hope that they are, to a great extent, housekeeping matters -- which I feel I can approve of.

The Speaker: The minister upon rising closes debate.

Hon. A. Hagen: There are some consistencies in this Legislature. One is that the member for Okanagan West is on every occasion very ready to take the opportunity to attack the professionalism of teachers. I find it very disturbing indeed. This member stood in the House and for 20 minutes fundamentally disparaged the work of thousands of teachers who work in and through their professional specialist associations to improve the quality of education for our children in British Columbia. If it was the first time that member had made such comments, I might have moved to close debate on this matter, hon.

Speaker; but because it is such a consistent and strongly worded attack, I feel I must call attention to two or three factors that speak to anything but the sinisterness that this member seems to find in this amendment bill.

First of all, and noting that other members have recognized their origin, these amendments come from the College of Teachers, whose elected members are teachers and administrators throughout the province. In fact, anyone who is certified as a teacher may run in their region for the College of Teachers. A representative of the independent schools, representatives of the teaching education institutions of the province and people from the public interest sit on that college. The college, in terms of the balance, was established by members of the third party.

The college retains its responsibility for teacher education and for discipline and certification of teachers -- very important aspects. As I noted in my introductory comments, the areas of overlap, which have never been developed by the college, are now removed. There is a recognition that everyone who is teaching in the province is a professional and is responsible for the highest standards of pedagogy, of teaching skills and strategies and of developing that profession in the province. Both of those organizations have roles to fill -- and do so.

Let me note, too, in respect of the hon. opposition spokesperson on the matter of the transitional change and the repealing of

section 91, those clauses were related to Bills 19 and 20 when they were passed. Bill 19, the Industrial Relations Act, no longer exists; it has been replaced by the Labour Relations Code. They were entirely transitional and had nothing to do with anything other than the implementation of those two bills at that time. That's very characteristic of legislation; as we amend bills, such things are often dealt with.

Finally, let me just note that as we look at this particular legislation, we are looking at legislation that has come forward, as members have noted, out of a cooperative approach, where government has worked with the college to improve its operation. I want to clarify that the amendments provide a continuity in the membership of the college by staggering the elections.

Each member of the college will be elected for two years, but instead of of having all the college elected at one election, a two-year period when they serve and then a new election, this set of amendments allows for continuity, which, given the important work of the college -- particularly around certification, discipline and the maintenance of their committee structure -- will serve very well.

Also, electing members after a transitional year in the spring allows those teachers who are elected and the school districts for whom they work to make the necessary arrangements, because the teachers and administrators who serve on the college perform a duty above and beyond their regular duties, which requires them to be away from their classrooms for a period each month. Those arrangements, in the interests of children, can best be made when the elections are held in the spring and the planning can be done for the coming two years.

[3:15]

This is good government legislation that deals with the sustainability and the responsibilities of the profession. I accord to both the B.C. College of Teachers and the B.C. Teachers' Federation the highest marks for the work that they do in professional development training and in dealing with discipline.

Let me make one final observation. Under the previous administration, virtually no teachers in British Columbia lost their jobs for cause. Since the introduction of the college, there has been a change in that, which says that the college is operating to ensure that the highest standards of service are maintained, something that was not necessarily the case with the previous administration, which didn't necessarily deal with those issues.

With that, I move second reading of the bill.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS -- 50

Perry

Marzari

Boone

Priddy

Edwards

Cashore

Barlee

Charbonneau

Jackson

Pement

Beattie

Schreck

Hammell

Lali

Miller

Smallwood

Hagen

Harcourt

Gabelmann

Clark

Zirnhelt

Blencoe

[ Page 8492 ]

Barnes

B. Jones

Copping

Lovick

Ramsey

Pullinger

Farnworth

Dosanjh

O'Neill

Doyle

Hartley

Lord

Stephens

Dalton

Reid

Cowie

Chisholm

K. Jones

Anderson

Warnke

Tanner

Symons

Janssen

Brewin

Simpson

Kasper

Garden

Randall

NAYS -- 5

Serwa

Weisgerber

De Jong

Neufeld

Fox

Bill 37, Teaching Profession Amendment Act, 1993, 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. A. Hagen: Hon. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 39.

MULTICULTURALISM ACT

Hon. A. Hagen: It's an honour and a pleasure for me to rise today to speak on the Multiculturalism Act. Bill 39 places in legislation this government's commitment to recognizing the cultural and racial diversity of British Columbia. It also speaks to the values and principles we associate with multiculturalism.

Multiculturalism is a concept that means different things to different people, and I would like to take a few minutes this afternoon to discuss the benefits our society derives from multiculturalism, and to dispel some of the myths that have come to surround it. What is multiculturalism? Some say that multiculturalism is designed to provide preferential treatment to certain groups within society. Let's be clear: multiculturalism stands for equal treatment, not special treatment. In fact, the government's multicultural program supports community efforts that work to increase cross-cultural understanding.

By promoting equality, fairness and good citizenship, and by building a community free from discrimination and racism, we all benefit from a society that is productive, prosperous and united.

Multiculturalism also works to build mutual respect and trust between people; it doesn't divide people. It acknowledges the inherent right of all individuals to be treated with dignity. This is the essential ingredient for the well-being of any community. Multiculturalism brings people together by building bridges to connect them, not walls to separate them. Multiculturalism promotes good citizenship and aims to provide all citizens with a sense of Canadian identity.

Multiculturalism doesn't hyphenate Canadians, as some people assert, nor does it encourage ethnic nationalism. It says that we are Canadians first, while respecting and valuing the heritage of the many people who have helped, and continue to help, build our nation. Pride in one's cultural heritage and respect for others foster a sense of self-worth and mutual respect.

Multiculturalism promotes the full participation of people in the mainstream life of the community, as well as equality of opportunity and freedom from discrimination. If people are denied opportunity and subjected to discrimination, they will often group together for mutual support and identification. Multiculturalism is designed to open closed doors and promote full participation, thereby preventing ethnic ghettoization.

Some people believe that we should assimilate citizens of different cultural backgrounds, but rather than uniting a nation, these efforts can result in permanent alienation. In Canada, experience has shown that minorities do not wish to be marginalized, they want to be fully participating citizens. The breadth and depth of the vibrant cultures, which have come together to build Canada, have made it the great nation that's recognized throughout our universe. We all benefit from a diverse and dynamic society founded upon such diversity.

Bill 39 incorporates these principles and sets out this government's policy on multiculturalism, a policy which recognizes the many benefits British Columbia reaps from its cultural diversity.

The policy of this government recognizes and promotes the understanding that multiculturalism reflects the racial and cultural diversity of British Columbians; promotes cross-cultural understanding and respect; encourages attitudes and perceptions that lead to harmony among British Columbians of every race, cultural heritage, religion, ethnicity, ancestry and place of origin; fosters the ability of each British Columbian to share in the economic, social, political and cultural life of the province in a manner that's consistent with the rights and responsibilities of that individual as a member of society; reaffirms that violence, hatred and discrimination have no place in our society; works towards building a society free from all forms of racism and from conflict based on race, cultural heritage, religion, ethnicity, ancestry and place of origin; and finally, recognizes the right of each British Columbian to be treated with dignity.

These, then, are the fundamental characteristics or attributes of the policy of the government as expressed in this bill.

[3:30]

This bill also requires the government generally to carry out its services and programs in a manner sensitive and responsive to the multicultural reality of British Columbia. It's extremely important for government to be aware of the needs of clients for its services and of the various perspectives they bring to their dealings with government. Every effort must be made to ensure that clients are receiving the services they need in an appropriate and culturally sensitive manner. Our system must be inclusive, not exclusive, for all British Columbians.

I'm very pleased that the bill before us also formally enshrines the Multicultural Advisory Council and sets out the role for this council. I had the great privilege of being designated Minister Responsible for Multiculturalism in November 1991. Since then it has been my pleasure to work with the current Advisory Council on Multiculturalism, a group of 24 very hard-working individuals representing the multicultural diversity of

[ Page 8493 ]

British Columbia. It's hard to characterize, but because this is where people come from specifically, I thought I could say "from Kitimat to the Kootenays" to show that our council represents a broad range of communities and groups within the province. These council members provide advice to me on issues relating to multiculturalism, and they have made an invaluable contribution to efforts to promote understanding and to look at the issues around multiculturalism that we as a government need to examine.

I have done it on a number of occasions, but I particularly want to take this opportunity in the House to commend the council for its superb advice, commitment and hard work. They have indeed been a very dedicated and creative group in developing the advice they have brought to government's table this year, including assisting us in review of our policy and looking at some of the issues we needed to have in place as we developed this particular statute.

I think it is particularly important that government be accountable for its actions in support of the policies I have just outlined as expressed in this bill. It's my role as an advocate within government to ensure that policies, programs and services reflect a sensitivity to our multicultural heritage in action. Most importantly, however, it's the responsibility of each ministry and each Crown corporation to ensure that the policies set out in this bill are reflected throughout their organizations and the work that they do.

To that end, this bill requires that every government ministry and Crown corporation submit an annual report to the minister responsible, setting out in specific terms the initiatives undertaken to promote the policies established by this bill. It also requires that these annual reports be reflected in the report that the minister responsible tables in the Legislature each year.

Among a number of initiatives that have occurred over the past year and a half, I'd like to note another method of ensuring a coordinated, consistent and accountable approach to multiculturalism within government. We have created an interministry committee on multiculturalism made up of representatives from each ministry. They meet regularly to coordinate efforts, exchange information and initiate collaborative programs supportive of the goals of multiculturalism.

I would like to point out that many government ministries and Crown corporations have over the past year and a half taken the initiative and developed multicultural programs and policies that not only benefit their clients but also improve their own working environment. I might draw attention to just one: the committee in the Social Services ministry that is looking specifically at culturally sensitive services to clients, and consulting widely to bring about changes in how that ministry can most appropriately serve its clientele.

The bill also formally establishes funding for grants to not-for-profit organizations that develop projects promoting cross-cultural understanding and positive race relations. The grants are disbursed through the community and race relations program, which is administered by the multicultural branch of my ministry. I'll take this opportunity to note that this year we have doubled our budget for these grants, and we will be undertaking projects that particularly promote positive race relations.

I want to emphasize that the method we use to develop these programs is itself an opportunity for us to consult with the multicultural community to develop a better understanding of the issues and to then develop the criteria and guidelines for the most effective use of taxpayers' dollars in this grant program.

Our Multiculturalism B.C. branch works very closely with agencies of government, the business community, labour organizations, volunteer groups and other private organizations to promote respect and appreciation for our cultural diversity. This cooperative and collaborative approach to working towards the goal of multiculturalism benefits all British Columbians.

When we think about the role that government plays, it's important at this time to pay tribute to the many municipalities that have cooperated with us at the local level, to work with the communities around positive race relations and multicultural understanding, whether it be Kamloops, Castlegar, Richmond or Surrey.

One of the tasks we will be undertaking next year is a major conference to coordinate and share information about how municipalities are developing the kinds of understanding and working relations that bring all people into a positive community environment to promote our political, social, economic and cultural life.

This government is very proud to formally recognize the cultural and racial diversity of B.C. through the introduction of this bill. I'm very appreciative of the opportunity to introduce it to the Legislature, knowing that it has come out of extensive discussions with that community. I urge our attention to second reading, and I look forward to the support of members in bringing this bill into law and continuing our work. I believe we all share in this work to support the broader community of B.C. and the diverse and rich cultural communities that make up our province.

V. Anderson: For some 20 years I've had the privilege of being associated with many members of the multicultural community, going back to the time of Dr. Bill Black, who was the judge of the citizenship court in earlier days. Formerly a professor at the University of British Columbia, on his own initiative he spent a great deal of time with many of the multicultural people in our community, and he worked to build up understanding and appreciation between them. I'm also aware of the many groups that came together to form the multicultural association of B.C.

Over the years that association has undertaken to coordinate, support, interrelate, educate, promote and develop a whole awareness of our many multicultural backgrounds.

I am very much aware that our first citizens here, the aboriginal people, are the basis of Canadian society and that all the rest of us are immigrants and descendants of immigrants who have come from all parts of the world to become part of this Canadian community. I want to stress this, because it seems to me that whatever we do in this regard within this legislation and in this government, we must respond to the magnitude of the

[ Page 8494 ]

activities and work going on within the community itself, sometimes in spite of government awareness, government decision and government action. These communities have been promoting, encouraging and supporting the major work of multiculturalism and the understanding that takes place within this province. There have been times when government actions have hindered their work and prevented them from undertaking the approaches that they most desired. Out of their work and concerns, the original Advisory Council on Multiculturalism came into being in the time of the Socred government.

There was an opportunity for these people to come together by their own desire to find a means to invite and encourage the government to become more understanding and aware. That process has continued with the encouragement and pressure from the community. I am pleased to say that the government is attempting to respond at this time. Bringing forth this legislation simply puts what is already the approach and undertaking of the community in which we live into legal framework.

It's an undertaking which I liken to the relationships which develop within any family. Members of the family agree and disagree with each other. They have similar and different perspectives with the change of circumstances, and as the years go by and times change, they have to continue to learn to live within those changing circumstances. It seems to me that there never will come a time when we will always be in total agreement, because if we were always in total agreement we would have lost our individual perspectives and concerns.

I hear us trying to focus on the realization that each individual person is distinct and unique. Each individual person needs to be recognized and respected for their multitude of backgrounds, experiences which have made them the particular person they are and relationships in which they find particular significance and importance. None of us live only in one cultural relationship circumstance. We all have multicultural natures within ourselves and in the community in which we live. Somehow we're trying to encapsulate this in this Multicultural Advisory Council.

[3:45]

At the moment, the best representation that we have of multiculturalism in our province is all those agencies that came together of their own accord and formed their own multicultural agency across the province. That's the best representative voice that we have, and that we will have, in the province. So in forming the Multicultural Advisory Council, we have an arm of government to attempt to relate to the broader community in its multicultural activities. That has very great strength and it also can have very great weaknesses, because that very council can become a limited rather than an open channel if its development is not undertaken properly.

We commend the government for recognizing the multicultural nature of our community, and for putting forth a philosophical statement on the importance of recognizing that we all have multicultural backgrounds. But as we go through the committee stage, we will also express some concerns. One concern is that, according to the act, this particular multicultural council is primarily dependent upon the minister. The minister selects the members of that council, which can have inherent weaknesses. The council is also dependent upon the minister for its advisory directions and for the functions it is to undertake, which again can be a limitation.

We raise the question not only of the purpose and intent, but also of the actual structure of the organization and the ongoing credibility of the council, because if this council is not responsible to the people of the community, it will lose its credibility in reflecting the people of the community to the government. It can become a block rather than a channel of communication. So there are some real concerns about this particular act.

We're very aware that the awareness of all government members and of all those who work on behalf of the government, as well all of us here in this Legislature, needs to be continually growing and expanding as we understand the relationships in which we live with one another. The greatest danger is when we come to the point where we think we fully understand, because the point where we think we fully understand is the very point at which we have ceased to listen, to learn and to grow.

I liken each of the cultures, with their heritage and their roots within the countries from which they come, to a tree that has a basic root structure. As that tree grows and responds to the community in which it lives, to the climate of which it is a part and to the other trees in the forest and elements that are round about it, it takes on a different shape and a different format according to the circumstances.

That's the kind of growing and living vitality we are trying to talk about, and it's difficult to encompass that in a legal document, as we are trying to do here. Though we commend the government for moving in this direction, we are also very concerned that it does not become a limitation or a wall to prevent the very concerns that it purports to undertake. We are concerned that the channels needed for the growing awareness in all aspects of our community need to be there, and we are very much aware that you cannot legislate understanding and respect.

You can only do that as you share a common lifestyle with each other, common experiences, and learn to depend upon each other in the common community in which we live. I commend the minister for bringing this forward. The multiculturalism policy reflected here is a starting point, and I trust it is not an ending point of the future that is before us.

C. Serwa: On the philosophy and principles of Bill 39, the Multiculturalism Act, frankly I am very pleased that the current government is carrying on with the work that was started by the Vander Zalm administration quite a number of years ago. It's always a pleasure to hear the minister speak in such glowing terms about the merits of this legislation, and I'm not certain whether it was in order to take ownership of the concept or not. Nevertheless, through an extended process and the Cabinet Committee on Multiculturalism, this particular initiative was addressed and initiated at that time. What we see here is one of the end

[ Page 8495 ]

results of that process of consultation with the multicultural community, the Multiculturalism Act, which was one of the responsibilities they were charged with.

Multiculturalism, whether it's in British Columbia or elsewhere in Canada, is a reality. The rich tapestry is woven from the threads of many ethnic groups from all parts of the world. I think all races, all colours and all religious denominations are represented in Canada, and I often say in reference to multiculturalism that Canada is probably the world's first truly international country. The heritage, the richness of Canadian life, the work ethic, the innovativeness, the understanding and the tolerance are part and parcel of the concept of multiculturalism.

I listened with interest while the minister stated a number of points that she considers relate or refer directly to multiculturalism. The one thing that I didn't hear is that multiculturalism is not ethnicism. When the advisory council was initially set up, one of the real concerns was the interest and awareness that the individuals who would serve on the advisory committee had to be familiar with the concept of multiculturalism, because while they are seemingly related, they are two very different issues.

It's not clear to me, by the minister's comments, that she really understands that they are fundamentally two different issues. When we talk about multicultural policies within the various ministries, I'm not certain if she's referring to hiring policies and practices, and if multiculturalism is in fact being downgraded into ethnicism. I would have concerns with that, because one of the rich heritages and legacies that we have in British Columbia, as in the rest of Canada, is the awareness that multiculturalism plays a very important facet in our everyday life.

The minister talked about racism. In Canada, we have to be aware that racism is not often addressed simply on the basis of race or nationality. Racism often occurs when one group of individuals does not understand the cultural proprieties of another group. Our situation in Canada is different from that of the United States, where the United States has fundamentally followed the melting-pot concept. In Canada we have done something quite dramatically different.

There was a period of time -- and we certainly recognize it with the aboriginal community -- where former administrations, believing that it was in their best interest, tried to erase the very essence of that group of people's culture, heritage and traditions. It was very wrong. We took most of the foundation away. When we look at how things are being addressed today, we are trying to rebuild that foundation. Canada is their mother country, and being their mother country it is important that every effort be made to preserve the heritage, language and culture of the aboriginal people.

In recognizing that, we also have to ensure that the very foundation of the ethnic background and identity of the various peoples that make up this great nation of Canada -- especially this province of British Columbia -- is known and respected.

In my community, going back to the 1950s, we had a number of occasions.... There was a series of years where we had United Nations-type programs, where the song, music, dance and the ethnic food of various members of our communities were represented in stage presentations. On Canada Day this year we celebrated the twentieth anniversary of Folkfest, which is a continuation of that. A large segment of the community in the central Okanagan attends, literally hundreds of participants from various countries: some from Mexico, some from the Old World, India and China.

Virtually every element of the ethnic community is represented in the stage performances. Many take the opportunity to have little kiosks, where they serve ethnic food. My background is Ukrainian, and the Ukrainian community serves holopchies and perogies. We have all of these opportunities, because we are part and parcel of each other.

The diversity in Canada is probably one of our greatest strengths. There are a variety of different perspectives, and in that, we develop what has become more evident as a Canadian culture. I recognize that there are a number of challenges you simply can't accommodate with legislation. There was a tremendous immigration to this land throughout the early days in the growth of Canada. Throughout many areas of Canada, most especially in the prairie provinces, we developed ethnic communities. They may have been Icelandic, German, Ukrainian, Polish or some of the other peoples that came.

In Manitoba, Scandinavian communities were very strong. Over the years, some limitations were imposed on individuals from those communities. It was more difficult for the first generation, who made a very courageous step, perhaps in the face of hopeless conditions in a number of countries in Europe. Nevertheless, it was a courageous step made by those individuals to seize the opportunity and come to Canada, where there was the potential of opportunity, often not so much for the individuals who came as adults, but looking forward to their children and their descendants moving to this land of opportunity.

[4:00]

I think I can truthfully say that in Canada the limitations on individuals are self-imposed. I believe that. A long time ago when I was still going to school, I listened to a professor from the University of Manitoba, who happened to be of Ukrainian descent, lament for quite a long time about the lack of people of Ukrainian extraction involved in the civil service, government or elected offices. But all of those things happen in time, and they happen on a merit basis. Familiarizing yourself with Canadian culture, and recognizing that

[ Page 8496 ]

we have no limitations other than those that are self-imposed, is the legitimate basis for cross-cultural understanding. We have no differences. We all laugh, we all hurt and we all cry. I honestly believe that there is a public will that encourages this without legislation.

One of the requirements that the Advisory Council on Multiculturalism was charged with was to bring in legislation. I'm pleased to see that their work has been recognized by the Minister Responsible for Multiculturalism and that the legislation has come forward. Clearly, the multicultural community wanted their concerns enshrined in legislation so that they were up front and recognized by government. That recognition was ensured perhaps because there will always be pressures from those who would like to see the melting-pot concept. So I applaud the minister and the government for bringing in this particular piece of legislation.

The objectives were drafted some time ago and, again, it was the multiculturalism task force that was set up to do this. Within the framework of the policy there were a number of key and important points, not dissimilar to the points that the minister has elaborated on. They were to "encourage groups and individuals of all backgrounds to fully participate in the mainstream of society." That was one of the objectives that was picked up by the Cabinet Committee on Multiculturalism. This is where, in the Vander Zalm government, the policy that we're seeing the fruits of fundamentally evolved from.

The policy also sought to "encourage all groups and individuals to share their heritage." That's really important. While we now have students in many schools and universities in B.C. learning Mandarin Chinese, Japanese, and other Asian languages, we recognize that language itself is not the only element in communication; the cultural understanding and awareness of those societies is incredibly important. The non-verbal language is just as important as the verbal language. When we understand the differences, then we can understand each other more ably and not take something as being inappropriate. So we're making good progress, but that, again, is part and parcel of the Canadian people.

Another objective was to "foster a spirit of acceptance, tolerance and cross-cultural understanding." The minister has clearly enunciated on that. It was one of the earliest determinations of the objectives of the framework of the multicultural committee. It was also determined to "promote cross-cultural harmony while working towards the elimination of racism, discrimination and prejudice in our province." I think we stand as an example of that. When we look at ourselves we are perhaps unduly critical of ourselves.

But if you look in any jurisdiction around the world you see the differences that occur in homelands. Perhaps it's the strife in Ireland, which has continued for 700 years or so. Look at what's happening in Bosnia. You can look at what has happened in many other jurisdictions in the world. So when we have differences, maybe we point out the obvious differences in ourselves. Maybe that's just a characteristic of identification; we grab onto an identification. But in my experience it has not been aimed or directed specifically in the cause of racism.

The recognition of actual cultural differences seems to me very significant in what we take as racism. Nevertheless, it was clearly one of the strong objectives of the philosophy and principles of this package of legislation, certainly in the previous objectives, to endeavour to mitigate and hopefully eliminate -- which is a noble goal -- discrimination, racism and prejudice in B.C.

To support the principle of equitable access to public services and opportunities by all British Columbians. This is very important, but as I said, from my perspective our limitations are self-imposed. I really believe that if there is a need and an opportunity, people will rise to accommodate that need and fill the opportunity that is made available. Fundamentally, we want to appreciate people for what they are and also encourage them by creating the opportunity for advancement.

When people come from other lands, initially it's done through the opportunity to gain good employment and make savings, then to acquire their own homes and perhaps small businesses to build up into large businesses, creating employment opportunities for other Canadians. This has happened time and time again throughout B.C. and Canada.

But I don't think these things are to be legislated. We recognize them as goals, but when we mandate them or impose some sort of a quota system, we actually provide crutches, reasons for people to fail rather than achieve. Part of the danger of providing crutches is that individuals will not try their very best. Success in any field, be it art, music, politics or anything else, depends on an individual's capacity to compete. The way to fully address the needs of society is by being able to stand up to the competition and be the best that you can possibly be.

Merit has to be the final arbiter on whether a person does or does not get a position. Some may remember the "Wayne and Shuster Show" when it was still on radio many years ago. The Canadian government decided that Canadian content was really important, and they had specified a certain percentage. When interviewed for a CBC program, Johnny Wayne and Frank Shuster were asked, "What is your talent?" They replied, "What do you mean, talent? We're Canadian," as if that gave them the right to appear.

I wouldn't want to see anything like this on the basis of ethnic origin or background, because everyone, from the aboriginal peoples to the newest migrants to Canada, has the capacity to serve and be challenged on the basis of merit.

Finally, to recognize and encourage volunteers and voluntary community organizations working to promote racial harmony. Again, we have a tremendous example of this in Kelowna, where our multiculturalism society does an enormous amount of work with new Canadians before they become citizens to counsel them and to tutor them to a degree to assist them in making the accommodation from their country of origin to their new chosen home of Canada. That probably exists in all communities, because the memory of our roots is within all of us. A sense of pride is the very foundation of our essence. On that basis, I heartily support the Multiculturalism Act. I pay a great deal of

[ Page 8497 ]

respect to former Premier Vander Zalm, under whose administration this initiative was brought forward. I compliment the current government and the Minister Responsible for Multiculturalism for bringing this act forward, formal legislation to ensure that it is a policy of the provincial government that multiculturalism is recognized and will continue to be recognized and is the very essence of all British Columbians.

J. Pullinger: I ask leave of the House to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

J. Pullinger: C'est avec plaisir que j'accueille dans cette assembl�e, et au Canada et� la ville de Victoria, un ami de Nice, France. Would you help me welcome a young gentlemen from Nice, France, who is with us today. His name is Romain Viennois. With him are some constituents and friends, Wanda Hop Wo and her sons, John and Jason Hop Wo. Please help me welcome them.

K. Jones: It was a pleasure to step down in order to have an opportunity to show true multiculturalism in the introduction of guests in the House. I think that's a fine example of what we all have to try to do: to extend our hand in a gesture of friendship and understanding to people who have brought their various cultures to our country. They make up this country. My background is from different parts of Europe, and on that basis I have a multicultural background. The fact that I am white does not make me a non-multicultural person.

We have to remember that for those people who fear multiculturalism, it is not different cultural backgrounds, colours or religious beliefs that make them any different from those who have what is considered to be a Caucasian background. We all bring contributions of multiculturalism to this beautiful province and to this beautiful country.

The only persons who can really claim they are the original are the first peoples, and even they bring with them a changing multiculturalism that is so beautiful and so rich that we are very honoured to be able to share it with them at each opportunity they present to us.

Last Saturday I had the honour of being at the opening of the Colour It Surrey Festival, in which a large segment of the Surrey community and the adjoining lower mainland communities brought together a friendly relationship of various multicultural and ethnic foods, dance, music and a general gathering of peoples. I think this was the fourth or fifth year of this festival. It was a beautiful experience, one that I am sure will continue to occur, because the people in our various communities have a desire to make it work. I don't think they need a bill like this to make it work. This bill is really a direction to government to do its

part in making this whole atmosphere work together.

One aspect in the bill talks about respect for the multicultural heritage of British Columbia. I'd like to see that changed to British Columbians, because it is the people's multicultural heritage, not British Columbia's heritage, and so just adding that extra "ns" to that description is very important.

There are some other areas where we think there can be some improvements to this bill, just to give it greater strength and to take away a bit of the tokenism or the jingoism and the clich�s that are in this. Some aspects of this bill tend to overdo the attempt to get onside with multiculturalism, so to speak. The real concept of this is something that has to come from people's hearts, and laws don't come from people's hearts. It really comes from reaching out and being generous to others, being willing to try new things and to learn about our fellow British Columbians so that we can increase our knowledge and our experience of life.

[4:15]

There's one aspect that really bothers me among the list of the purposes of multiculturalism policy, and that's where it talks about "building a society in British Columbia free from all forms of racism and from conflict and discrimination based on race, cultural heritage, religion, ethnicity, ancestry and place of origin." There's one very important item left out of this bill, and that's gender. It fails to recognize that there are discriminations and conflicts within our multicultural community that put roadblocks before the women of our community who are not being fairly treated in some cases.

Therefore I think it's important that we make sure that in this bill we build a society that is free from these impediments, including gender. I hope that the minister will take that into consideration and bring in the appropriate changes.

I am very concerned about the makeup of the Multicultural Advisory Council in that it is all focused in the hands of the minister. It's like a private little club that works with the minister to hand out $1 million at the present time, but it could be a larger sum in future. I think it is really important for its credibility that this advisory council to the minister be totally independent of cabinet, that its members be appointed from the community and that they be free to advise the minister without question of political background or interest.

They would be looking at the very basis of the community as a whole to ensure that it would be representative of all segments of the multicultural community and that it would be appropriately geographically representative. The minister has described the existing advisory council as fairly similar to that. Why is it a requirement that the council and its chair be appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council? I would recommend that the chair be chosen by council members. Then they would have an effective chair, one with the full support of the council.

I think there is a need for some changes in this area and a need to limit the size of the council to a manageable size so that it can be effective as an advisory body.

The council's role will be "to advise the minister on issues respecting multiculturalism...." I'm very concerned about the next part, where it goes on to say: "...and to perform any other duties or functions specified by the minister." That's something we'll want to talk about in committee. Something that's missing is advising the minister with regard to race relations. Perhaps that needs to be in there in the place of

[ Page 8498 ]

performing any duties that the minister wants them to do. Performing any duties is rather general, and it could mean that the council becomes just a front for the minister to go out and do the political aspects of this job, which I really don't think should be the intention of this bill. The bill has a great deal of strength in supporting and being responsible to our multicultural community as a whole, not to any one political interest. No political interest should be exclusive in this area.

With regard to the reporting process of ministries and other government corporations, which I read to mean Crown corporations, I hope this will extend to the public sector at the local level as well. There has to be some means of doing a measurement if they're going to report something, but it's very difficult at the present time to determine what you have as a means of measurement. In the employment process you are not allowed to identify the backgrounds of employees, and if the representation cannot be measured, there is no way of keeping a record to see whether you're changing the makeup of the organization.

Some vehicle has to be set up to measure that. The company that I formerly worked for did set up a measurement program, but I don't see any provision in this bill for that type of measurement. I think that's a serious shortfall, and it needs to be addressed.

I would also like to look at one aspect of the press release that the minister has put out. It states that there's $1 million to be spent on a grants program. I wonder where the $1 million came from. Was it just a nice round figure taken out of midair or is there a justifiable program that can be identified for the expenditure of this money? Are we just throwing out $1 million without a true justification of where it's going to be spent? I think that most of our multicultural communities are fully capable of funding their own programs and are proud to do that.

They're proud of the part they play in supporting their teaching, music and dance programs. They do that without funding from government and, I'm sure, are quite happy to continue doing that.

With the deficit the way it is in the province today, we have to seriously look at this. I'm sure that the people in our multicultural communities are saying the same thing. The ones that I've been talking to have certainly been saying: "We don't want any more taxes. We are prepared to stand on our own. We are very capable people. We do our job and pay our way." This type of a grant program is almost demeaning to them. To be justified to the people of B.C. as a proper expenditure, we need to look seriously at where this money could be productively spent to the benefit of B.C.

I just hope this isn't a crude attempt to buy votes at the next election. I assure you that this type of method to buy votes will fail. The multicultural people of B.C. are not so naive as to be able to be bought. There is a great opportunity here, but you don't have to have money out there to do the job that's set out in this bill.

H. De Jong: It gives me pleasure to rise and speak on Bill 39, the Multiculturalism Act. It's quite appropriate for the minister to follow through with the program that was started some years ago under the previous administration. If the intent of this bill is to draw British Columbians together, then it's certainly a good one. However, having witnessed for a number of years what has been happening in Canada, particularly from the federal end of things.... I guess it was some 25 or 30 years ago when we heard the first rumours about minority groups in Canada.

Prior to the 1970s we heard little about minority groups. I don't think at that time, at least when we came here in the late forties, that any thought was given to minority groups as such, whether they were good or bad. Having come here as a new immigrant from Dutch background, in certain communities we had a fairly substantial number of people, but as a whole, I suppose the Dutch people could be considered a minority group as well.

When we talk about minority groups, in the end there can be only one majority group; the rest of them would appear to all be minority groups. What are we trying to pull together? Within minority groups there may collectively be a larger number than the majority group. During the years of Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau we heard all about the assistance that minority groups needed and the moneys that were poured out of the public purse to assist those minority groups. What did it accomplish? Did it accomplish a certain amount of jealousy between one minority group and another?

I know that in this bill the minister has some jurisdiction -- or perhaps all of the jurisdiction -- on how to distribute funds, which are currently set at $1 million.

[4:30]

Many people came to this country over many years. Some came for economic opportunities and others came

[ Page 8499 ]

because Canada was a country with a reputation for fairness. Our country has offered that type of thing to society worldwide. Others came for religious freedom. But on the whole, many people have come here and experienced that Canada is a place of freedom of speech and provides the ability to go ahead in economic terms and to raise a family in a society which was acceptable to many people. In reality, many people came here to escape some other things. In fact, my parents were strongly considering coming to Canada before the Second World War.

My mother often said: "I will not leave until my mother has passed on." She passed on in March 1940. We had sold just about everything and were ready to go to Canada in May 1940, but it was too late. My father had several brothers here, and they did very well economically. They spoke about the economic freedom that was here and also the cultural and spiritual things, because those things were very important to them. Those freedoms were being somewhat challenged in Europe, particularly as we experienced them in the years from 1940 to 1945. Religious freedoms were really challenged.

I suppose it's coincidental, hon. Speaker, that the minister who brings in this multiculturalism bill is the same minister who brought in Bill 33, which I have spoken of as a gag bill. I suppose the minister has a certain job to do, but the two don't really match. They certainly don't match in terms of freedom, and this country has always stood for freedom. I hope that this bill will enhance that freedom, not make it more difficult, so that there are strings attached and conditions imposed on those multicultural groups within our province.

If we want a rich, cultural mosaic in British Columbia, it's very important that we allow that cultural atmosphere to flourish. At the same time, all of those culture groups need that kind of guidance to become Canadians.

[E. Barnes in the chair.]

It's really great when people of all different ethnic backgrounds come together, such as we experienced in Centennial Park in Abbotsford, where we gathered for a Canada Day celebration. A number of cultural groups conducted dances and other activities, but they also sang "O Canada," and that's the way it ought to be. We have come here not simply to flee from the things we didn't like about another country but to make a contribution in all aspects of society.

I would like to comment on a couple of concerns that I have with certain trends that are developing in Canada. I was really concerned the other day after the new Prime Minister asked for a meeting with the first ministers in Canada to discuss certain things pertaining to a conference that was to be held in Japan. The first reaction to that was from the leader of the natives, Mr. Mercredi, who said -- at least, that's what the media reported -- that he was not very happy at not being invited to that first ministers' conference.

Are we perhaps going in a direction where aboriginal people think they are a nation within a nation? Yes, certain rights may be negotiated so that they have some self-government, or whatever limit it might be, but surely we are still all Canadians. I hope that natives include themselves and know and understand that even though we are of a different political stripe, we appreciate that our Premier went to that conference. I think the aboriginal people of the other provinces should also be appreciative that their Premiers went to those conferences.

The other thing that concerns me is that while all provincial legislatures across the land call themselves the legislative assembly of whatever province, the Quebec National Assembly is different. Why is Quebec a national assembly and not a provincial legislature? Those are some of the main things in the bigger picture that we ought to take note of. Surely we must address those. They have perhaps been addressed in various sections, but it appears to me that in the past actions have been taken and things have been said that have not so much pulled Canadians together as had the result toward separation.

That's sad for such a great country and such a great nation, one that's so rich in its heritage and culture.

I commend the minister on this bill. I simply want to say that if the government really intends to fund certain minority groups or cultural groups -- whatever they want to call them -- out of that $1 million, the funding should be based on a multicultural event or the multicultural celebration of a community. If we continue here in B.C. what was started by the federal government many years ago, which is the funding of specific cultural groups, I believe it will lead to further division. It will not create what we like to see, which is a united British Columbia within a united Canada.

Hon. A. Hagen: As in any debate when we're dealing with something as fundamental as multiculturalism, we've had a very wide-ranging discussion. I've listened with great interest to the statements of support for the initiative of this bill, which enshrines our multicultural policy and our Multicultural Advisory Council and commitments to accountability and to support for multiculturalism on behalf of our government.

Once again I want to say that in developing this bill we have in fact been able to use the evolution of the multicultural community and its awareness of what our policies should best say to most fundamentally recognize the value, dignity, worth and importance of every person in our society, whether they come from our first citizens or, as all of the rest of us have done, come from the arrival of immigrants at some time, either ourselves or our families.

There are some nuances in what people have said that I think lie within those statements, and I won't make a comment about them. We could enter into quite a lot of debate and discussion as a result of what people have had to say. I don't necessarily agree with a number of the views that have been expressed. But I do want to deal with a couple of issues.

First of all, it is important to state that this is a bill that deals with multiculturalism. Our work, in fact, is around cross-cultural understanding and knowledge, recognizing that we start from our own individual cultural heritage and move from there to understand and be involved with other people who bring the

[ Page 8500 ]

richness of their heritage to our society, politics and economic life.

The second thing I want to note is that it's obvious that we still need to inform people a great deal about our multicultural grants and our Multicultural Advisory Council and how it works. People today have been making suggestions about how it should work, and I want to say that that's how it is in fact working. Our Multicultural Advisory Council involves people who have been nominated from their communities all over the province. They are the people who have the trust and support of the communities who have chosen them. They do represent a wide range, and they recognize that they are speaking for the cross-cultural understanding and race relations to which we are all committed.

Finally, I want to note that since we became government, we have multiplied by eight the amount of money that is available in grants not only for multiculturalism but also for immigrant settlements. We started with multicultural grants in the amount of about $500,000; this year we've doubled those to $1 million. We will broadly consult with the community to establish criteria and the best programs that we can fund with those dollars in cooperation with communities who bring their volunteer effort, their money and their vision to the work that we do.

In addition, for the first time this government has introduced immigrant settlement grants which support people as they first arrive in Canada and as they continue to learn and have their needs met, so that they can participate fully with dignity and with the opportunity that we all believe should be there. We're very proud of those initiatives, and they have not come by increasing budgets. This is not new money, but money that has come from a re-allocation of our government priorities.

[4:45]

This legislation is an important landmark for us. It is a distillation of our work in terms of policy direction, accountability and support for the multicultural community, which I believe is the hallmark of our government. I'm delighted to learn that it appears that all members of the House will be supportive of this legislation. With that, I would like to move second reading of this bill.

Motion approved on division.

Bill 39, Multiculturalism 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. J. Cashore: I call committee on Bill 52.

BEAVER LODGE TRUST LANDS RENEWAL ACT

The House in committee on Bill 52; E. Barnes in the chair.

section 1.

W. Hurd: I have a question of clarification on the

definitions portion of

section 1. When we refer to the core lands, can the minister tell us approximately how many acres have been alienated from the original 1931 trust?

Hon. J. Cashore: Two hundred and seven acres.

W. Hurd: Just one further point of clarification then. In percentage terms of the total lands of the trust, the 207 acres represents an alienation of how much from the existing 1931 trust?

Hon. J. Cashore: We'll calculate that and answer it in a few minutes.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

W. Hurd: Just a point of clarification on

section 2. We understand from this

section that the minister is now able to dispose of some of the lands in question and to acquire additional lands as required. In the minister's view, does this

section have any timetable attached to it? Is there a time frame in which these land acquisitions and dispersals are to take place?

Hon. J. Cashore: The answer to the question is yes, July 1, 1994. It is covered in

section 3(4).

The answer to the question that I reserved from

section 1 is 24 percent.

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

W. Hurd: I'm not absolutely certain if this is the appropriate

section in which to raise the concern addressed by the Friends of Beaver Lodge Lands. They were particularly interested in any changes to land use that might occur in the new sections that will be acquired and added to the trust. They had specifically questioned the presence of access roads on lands that were being added that of course wouldn't have been in the original 1931 trust. I welcome comment from the minister on that specific issue raised by the Friends of Beaver Lodge Lands. Perhaps

section 3 might not be the appropriate area to raise it. I'm just looking at

section 3(4), which seems to indicate that in fact the definition of the trust would call into question whether or not there were additional easements or encumbrances on the land which would have to be added through acquisition. I think they had specifically mentioned a

section of land owned by Fletcher Challenge Canada Ltd., the forest company, in which specific provision was made for access roads that would have to be included in the additional acquisition.

Hon. J. Cashore: The arrangement with Fletcher Challenge would be that we would allow them to use the roads to carry on their business. That would be part of the exchange arrangement that would be made.

[ Page 8501 ]

W. Hurd: Can the minister or his staff advise as to whether we're dealing with rights-of-way or roads that are already in place in the land that has to be acquired by the trust?

Hon. J. Cashore: It's called the Elk River Timber mainline. It's already in place. It's owned in fee simple by Fletcher Challenge.

W. Hurd: So the minister and his staff are confident that there are no other easements in the land to be acquired, where roads might be pushed through or be required to be pushed through at a future date to service forest lands or other types of environment and land use activities outside the boundaries of the trust? I raise these questions for a reason, Mr. Chairman. They were raised by the Friends of Beaver Lodge Lands, who are concerned not only about existing roads but also about the potential for easements. They want to feel confident that they have identified this as being potentially an alienation of the land that has to be acquired, or at least some portion of the land.

Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Chair, if the hon. member is referring to

section 3(3)(b), it deals with the minister, in accordance with the act, being empowered to deal with land for right-of-way in the future.

W. Hurd: That was the reason I questioned whether

section 3 was the appropriate

section to raise this. I think the point being made by the Friends of Beaver Lodge Lands was that there were existing easements or rights-of-way within the areas to be acquired that in fact would mean that the right would exist to put the roads in, and therefore the original trust really couldn't be reconstituted because of these easements or rights-of-way that existed. My question related not only to existing roads but also to any areas of the lands to be acquired, which the minister would have no control over in terms of additional roads or rights-of-way.

Hon. J. Cashore: There is the possibility that this could result in the need to exercise

section 3(3)(

b) with regard to Hilchey Road and/or Petersen Road. Therefore we need to retain the power within the act to enable that, but there is certainly no intention to do this other than in keeping with the government's plan announced at the news conference in Campbell River.

W. Hurd: Could the minister clarify whether these are municipal roads, logging roads or recreation access roads?

Hon. J. Cashore: The ERT mainline would be a logging road which, according to the plan, would become a forestry road. The other roads in question would be district of Campbell River roads.

W. Hurd: Could the minister clarify what control the Crown would have over the building of those district roads? Are these easements that provide guaranteed access by the district, or is it something that could be negotiated at a future date?

Hon. J. Cashore: It would be subject to negotiation.

W. Hurd: The minister is satisfied then that these do not represent legal easements or legal rights of ways that the district may possess; they are on the map as potential rights of ways. Are there no encumbrances that the minister is aware of that would allow the district to push these roads through without the approval of the Crown?

Hon. J. Cashore: The purpose of this is to enable the government to go into these lands at some future date if it is required. This is an enabling clause to enable the government to make that decision if necessary.

[5:00]

W. Hurd: I'm not getting very far in trying to determine exactly what.... Is there an encumbrance on the land that the Crown has to acquire, or is there not? That's a pretty basic question. As I say, I raise these questions for a reason. The Friends of Beaver Lodge Lands are under the impression, erroneous or otherwise, that these roads occupy an additional encumbrance on the land to be acquired which could not be controlled by the trust in the event that the district opted to exercise whatever rights it might have to push these roads through.

I would certainly welcome a clarification from the minister as to whether the trust would have the ability to block these roads if that was the choice they wanted to make.

Hon. J. Cashore: The answer is no, the district would not be able to do anything about creating these roads unless it was the action of the provincial government to do so.

W. Hurd: Just one further question, then, on

section 3(5). I'm aware of the existence of the task force that is negotiating the addition to the trust, Fletcher Challenge Canada Ltd. being one of the participants. The name of the other company slips my mind, but I understand there are two forest companies involved. In the event that these negotiations are not successful, can the minister provide assurances that the matter would be dealt with under the existing expropriation act?

Hon. J. Cashore: Yes, that is the intent.

Sections 3 and 4 approved.

section 5.

W. Hurd: Just one brief point of clarification under

section 5(1). I'm assuming that the designation of the trust lands would occur simultaneous with their acquisition by the Crown, or would additional legislation be required to transfer title from the Crown to the trust? It's just a legal question.

Hon. J. Cashore: It would be simultaneous.

[ Page 8502 ]

D. Symons: I'm concerned with

section 5(1)(a), where it says: "...purchase or otherwise acquire land." I understand purchase where you pay for the land that you're getting, but would the minister clarify for my sake what this "otherwise acquire land" might imply.

Hon. J. Cashore: That allows for the possibility of gifting.

D. Symons: I hope by choice, because that brings me to a question on

section 5(1)(

b) that says: "...transfer Crown land to any person in exchange for land which may be designated as trust lands." I am assuming that an exchange of land here would be with mutual agreement. There's nothing here that indicates it might be an exchange forced upon someone. Is this a mutual agreement?

Hon. J. Cashore: The answer is yes. As a matter of fact, that kind of discussion is presently under way.

Section 5 approved.

section 6.

W. Hurd: Just a brief question under

section 6. The ongoing management of the Beaver Lodge forest lands will be an expense item under the budget of the Ministry of Forests. Can the minister assure us that the planned use of that forest will be subject to consultation with the local community? At this time, is there anything envisioned in the way of a planning or local resource group which might participate with the Ministry of Forests in developing this demonstration forest? Would that be the subject of a future decision by the Crown to foster the development of such a group at the local level?

Hon. J. Cashore: I may have missed the second part of the question because I was trying to find the clause that deals with the first part of the question. If the hon. member would refer to

section 4(5): "The Minister of Forests must, before July 1, 1994, establish a resource use plan for the trust lands and in establishing the plan must consult with the public." It is required in the legislation that consultation with the public take place.

Section 6 approved.

Schedules 1 and 2 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Chair, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; E. Barnes in the chair.

Bill 52, Beaver Lodge Trust Lands Renewal Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

F. Garden: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave Granted.

F. Garden: In the gallery we have some distinguished, longstanding members of the Cariboo Regional District, part of which I represent as MLA for Cariboo North: Ted Armstrong, who is the chair of the Cariboo Regional District; Darlene Brecknock, the vice-chair and a longstanding activist on the board; and with them is Bob Long, the administrator. Will the House please make them welcome.

SPECIAL ACCOUNTS APPROPRIATION AND CONTROL AMENDMENT ACT, 1993

The House in committee on Bill 47; E. Barnes in the chair.

section 1.

A. Warnke: This

section defines proceeds of crime, and I want to pursue a few questions. First of all, what type of check will be in place on the Attorney General in terms of this disposition of money?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The parameters of the expenditure are defined by the legislation. The check that the member refers to will be contained in the protocol agreement between the Ministry of Attorney General and the Ministry of Finance.

A. Warnke: What type of guidelines is the Attorney General considering for the disposition of money?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The members will understand that no discussions have been held yet in respect of developing a protocol, and arrangements with the Ministry of Finance pending passage of the legislation in the House. There is a general set of rules now that governs the existing spending. I will just tell the members what that is, because it will give some indication as to the kinds of issues that would be covered by a protocol agreement.

Currently the disposition of funds: (1) shall be made only for the purposes set out in the legislation; (2) shall be for exceptional expenditures not funded in the Ministry's budgets or by any other appropriation; (3) shall not create a demand or expectation for future year funding -- in other words, it doesn't get built in and then it has to carry on forever; (4) shall not be directly returned to agencies responsible for specific investigations or prosecution -- what we want there is to avoid efforts in trying to generate revenue from a particular agency -- and I would be quite insistent on that; and finally (5) shall not be available for disposition until the Attorney General certifies that all related litigation has been finalized and that no further claims are anticipated.

[ Page 8503 ]

Those are the current guidelines. We haven't, as I said, negotiated a protocol with Finance, but these would be the kinds of issues that would be in a protocol arrangement.

A. Warnke: I think there was some comment made at second reading in well on how an arrangement should be made with the federal government. There was some uncertainty over how to define whether there are funds going to the provincial government and then to the federal government. And how should municipal governments not so much benefit, I suppose, since they receive a benefit from this.... What is the criterion upon which moneys would go to the different levels of government?

[5:15]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: We still haven't reached an agreement with the federal government in respect of these issues. We have put our position to them that the moneys should come to the Crown provincial, but that hasn't been concluded at this stage. I don't know whether we'll get an agreement prior to the election or not, and that's obviously getting in the way at the present time.

W. Hurd: I wonder if the Attorney General could just clarify what "fines" means in connection with this particular section. Would those be fines assessed by the courts for criminal incidents that involved profit by the accused? Would they be fines of a more general nature? I note that "fines" is contained in explanatory notes to

section 1 but doesn't appear to show up directly in the

section itself.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: These fines will be assessed by the court in situations where there is no possibility of gaining the property that might have been forfeited, if it is no longer in hands that are available to the courts to seize. In that case a fine may be levied instead, and where that happens the fine would be part of this program.

L. Stephens:

Section 1,

section 9.1(7) says: "The Attorney General may...make payments out of the special account in any way the Attorney General considers appropriate." Would you let the House know what some of those expenditures may be?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The only way I can really answer that is by referring back to my earlier answer about the nature of a protocol that will exist between the Attorney General and Finance, and a reading of

section 9.1(7): "...the purpose of facilitating the administration of criminal justice and law enforcement...." These would be special projects where it may be deemed advisable to try to get more effective law enforcement programs or projects underway.

It's hard to speculate without getting this program and the protocol in place and then assessing what might be an appropriate expenditure at that point. Suffice it to say that these would be -- as they say in the jargon -- one-off projects; they would be specific and would meet very specifically the purpose of facilitating the administration of criminal justice and law enforcement. If there is a particular problem identified in our society that could require a special effort, then moneys could be directed at that.

L. Stephens: I'm sure the Attorney General has given more thought to what this may entail and that he hasn't come forward with this bill without some knowledge or idea of what he would like to accomplish by it. Given that there are new initiatives in the Attorney General's ministry around a number of issues, particularly social issues around family law, violence against women and children and those kinds of things, does the minister feel that that may be an area under consideration for this money?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: It's possible. I suspect, however, that the areas the member refers to -- which she and I share a priority anxiety in doing something about -- would be programs that would have some continuity to them and therefore would not be eligible under this particular program. But if we were able to find ways of making programs in that social area doable under this particular program, then I would be interested in looking at that.

I suspect that in a more likely scenario what we'll end up doing is having a particular effort on a drug problem that may exist in a community or in a particular part of the province where if we were able to devote special resources to that particular problem, we might be able to clean it up. Having cleaned it up, it wouldn't be a continuing issue, and therefore it would qualify under this program. That's the kind of initiative that I think is more likely to come forward. But I'm not ruling out any matters that fall into the definition as laid out in subsection (7).

Section 1 approved.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Earlier today I circulated to the critics an amendment that adds

section 1.1. It's not an amendment to either

section 1 or

section 2 but is the addition of a new

section 1.1, which adds a consequential amendment repealing

section 5 of